Friday, 17 October 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I declare that the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill is an urgent Bill. Mr Hodgman —Shame on you! Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Denison has made it urgent because he will not stop talking. He is killing all his colleagues. Mr Hodgman —Stop telling lies. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member is killing all his colleagues. Mr Hodgman —Stop telling lies. Mr YOUNG —They just have to tell him: The honourable member for Denison must shut up. Question put: That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, 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 Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Duncan, P. Morris, AllanFatin, W. F. Mountford, J. G. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Free, R. V. O'Neil, L. R. T. Gear, G. Price, L. R. S. Gorman, R. N. J. Punch, G. F. Grace, E. L. Saunderson, J. Griffiths, A. G. Scott, J. L. Hand, G. L. Simmons, D. W. Hayden, W. G. Snow, J. H. Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B. Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S. Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J. Blunt, C. W. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W. Hodges, J. C. Watson, D. J. Hodgman, W. M. Webster, A. P. Jull, D. F. White, P. N. D. Katter, R. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Dubois, S. G. Hawker, D. P. M. Brown, John MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(9.10) —I move: That the time allotted in connection with the Bill be as follows: (a) For the second reading, until 12.20 p.m. this day. (b) For the committee stage, until 12.30 p.m. this day. (c) For the remaining stages, until 12.40 p.m. this day. The Government, in its normal fashion, has been generous to the Opposition in the time it has allocated for debates on the major matters before the House. When we laid down the program for this week we aimed not only to complete the debate on the appropriations for specific departments but also to complete the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. However, because of the enthusiasm of members who want to speak on the appropriations for the departments we have now agreed to allow that debate to run over to Monday. So the time allocated this year for debate on departments will be much longer than the time allocated in 1985 or any time allocated by the Fraser Government. This Bill is of some urgency. It must be in the Senate this afternoon for debate in that chamber next week. We can no longer afford the luxury of taking the risk that the Bill will not pass this House on time. I might add, looking at the list of speakers on the Bill, that there should be no problem with all honourable members, both Opposition and Government, who have their names on the speakers list having the opportunity to speak today. In fact, more Government than Opposition members have submitted their names to speak on the Bill. I have talked to a couple of our members and I think I can persuade them to cut short their speeches in order that everybody listed will get the opportunity to speak. So it is more a safeguard than a guillotine to see that the Bill gets up to the Senate this afternoon. It has been done in the same very generous way as I do all these things-to give the chamber the maximum opportunity to debate these important pieces of legislation. This procedure will ensure that the legislation passes into the Senate this afternoon for debate and passage through that chamber next week. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(9.12) —If the Leader of the House (Mr Young) is being generous I would hate to see him being stingy. His parsimony is quite remarkable. He suggests that because the war widows are to lose $50m the debate should be foreshortened, that because this debate covers social welfare and the less advantaged members of our society, because the Minister who administer this area is incompetent, there is no point in there being adequate debate. I find that an incredible argument. Whatever measures come before this House which might be subject to parliamentary restraint, one of the traditions of this place is that when we deal with our war widows, our veterans or the deserving of our society there should be adequate opportunity to talk about them. I am sure all those honourable members opposite who are about to lose their seats at the next Federal election will be only too prepared this weekend when they return to their electorates-I include the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), for example, who will be going back to Townsville-to say to all the war veterans there: `On Friday morning we were extraordinarily proud; we made sure nobody talked about you. It does not matter that the Government is about to prune your entitlements and is about to delay the consumer price index adjustments to your benefits; we decided nobody could talk about it'. The Leader of the House, as we have all seen him do before, has guaranteed that there will be an extended debate in the Senate, but within the Senate there will be no easy passage for this legislation. We already know that within the community there is increasing ire at the behaviour of the Government, at its arrogance and its inability to comprehend the rights of individual citizens, and its difficulty in understanding that ordinary men and women do not enjoy the lifestyle that men like the Leader of the House and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) enjoy. They have two-income families-- Mr Young —Hey! Mr SINCLAIR —I am sorry; the Minister for Social Security has a two-income family. He has no comprehension of how ordinary pensioners, ordinary war veterans, are forced to live. Of course, with interest rates as they are, with the problems that beset their families in wanting to give their children a reasonable education, it is no wonder that the Leader of the House wants to cut short this debate. Indeed, the time that he has given provides for barely adequate scrutiny at the second reading stage of the Bill. All honourable members know, as sadly those in the pensioner community do not, that, when we have a guillotine, there is no opportunity to look at the Bill clause by clause. The Bill covers social welfare and veterans' entitlements provisions. There is no more deserving sector of the community, no government responsibility at the Federal level, which deserves fuller debate than does this measure. It is on that basis that members on this side of the House do not accept the need for the foreshortening of debating opportunity. We do not accept that the guillotine is desirable. We believe the Minister ought to think again and recognise that, even if it took until next week or the week after for adequate consideration of this measure in the Parliament, that would barely do justice to those very deserving members of the community who are the beneficiaries of this legislation. Unfortunately, as we all know, they will not be the beneficiaries; they will be the losers. It is because they are to be the losers that the Leader of the House has moved this motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 10 October, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —I present a corrigendum to the explanatory memorandum to the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(9.17) —The Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986 is an omnibus Bill which amends the Social Security Act and various pieces of legislation affecting veterans' entitlements. It not only represents changes to social welfare and veterans legislation in Australia but also gives the people of Australia and the members of this House an insight into the attitude of this Government to welfare. It also gives them an insight into this Government's lack of economic policy. That lack of economic policy-the Government's failure in that area-is illuminated in its failure in social welfare policy. It is interesting to note that in the Budget social security expenditure went up by $1.1 billion. But, instead of that being greeted with support from the welfare lobby in the community, it was attacked. The measures introduced by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) were attacked, were criticised, were analysed in detail by the Australian Council of Social Service and found to be wanting. It is no wonder that they were found to be wanting-they are totally inadequate. They are totally inadequate not only in the way that they will operate but also in terms of the promises and expectations that were raised by this Government, before it was elected, in its dealings with those people in the community who are perhaps less fortunate and in need of greater help. It is instructive to look at the attitudes of this Government and the expectations that it raised before coming to office. It is important to understand the betrayal that this legislation represents to understand why this Government will be tossed out at the next election and why we will be able to count on one hand the number of pensioners who will vote for the Government. In 1983 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in a policy speech: I am not in the business, and the Labor Party is not in the business, of making promises that cannot be fulfilled. Some of the promises made bear directly on social security legislation. Perhaps the most important promise he made in the context of this Bill was that his Government would eliminate the lag in consumer price index adjustments for pensions. He said that his Government would decrease the lag from four weeks to one week. He also said: `I am not in the business of taking money out of pensioners' cheques'. In 1983 he made a firm promise that he would eliminate the lag in CPI adjustments. We had the 1983 Budget, the 1984 Budget and the 1985 Budget, and the lag still exists. What happened with the 1986 Budget? This Government moved to increase the lag in consumer price index adjustments for pensions-after the Prime Minister said in 1983: `I'm not in the business of making promises that won't be fulfilled' and `I won't take money out of pensioners' cheques'. No wonder the pensioners of this country have had enough of this Government. They began to be disillusioned when the Government introduced the assets test and introduced the means test for pensioners over 70 years of age, when it robbed their pocket money by withdrawing the income concessions, sneakily reducing it last year. The Minister must be embarrassed. He knows the significance of knocking off the incentive effect for people on limited incomes. He ran around like a chook without a head-or, perhaps, a Minister without a policy-saying: `We will do something about it; we are looking at a new scheme'. In February of this year he said: `We are consulting widely and we will have a new scheme'. The Budget has been and gone; we still do not have a new scheme. We are still taking the pocket money of pensioners; we are still making it hard for them to earn a few dollars extra, to have a bar of chocolate or maybe a bit of fruit for the sideboard. We still have a massive disincentive effect. What that really represents for the pensioners of Australia is a massive betrayal. It also indicates the priorities of the Australian Labor Party. It feels that it has the welfare vote locked up. Let me tell the Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, and all the other members of the Australian Labor Party, particularly those back bench members in marginal seats, that the welfare vote is not locked up. Welfare recipients are not stupid. They know the real priorities of the Labor Party-power at any price. The Government says: `Tell them anything and hope they forget about it, but make sure that the Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the rest of us on the front bench are comfortable, make sure that our political priorities are in place and that we maintain power at any price, and make all the promises in the world and hope that no one writes them down and quotes them to us'. Unfortunately, that does not work. It might have worked when the present Prime Minister was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, when he could go into a Press conference and bully people and perhaps no one would question what he said. But unfortunately in this place it is all written down. Also, when someone makes a policy speech, some people accept that and believe that what someone says he will do he will do. When he does not deliver they become disenchanted. Madam Speaker, you will notice that precious few members of the Government are in the chamber today. It is no wonder; they are embarrassed at the duplicity of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Security, because this Bill we are considering today represents an abject failure on the part of the Minister. It represents tangible evidence of his lack of effective policy and his lack of clout within Cabinet. Quite frankly, contrary to the public relations which says that there will be equality of sacrifice, there is not equality of sacrifice in this legislation. The people in our society who can least afford to make sacrifices are being called upon to make great sacrifices. The cost of this CPI deferral, which was not going to happen-in fact, the lag was to be reduced-according to the Australian Council of Social Service for a single pensioner is $49.80 in a full year and $83 for a married couple. That is a fairly significant cost for people on limited incomes, people who are suffering as a result of high rates of inflation. It is also a very significant cost, considering that this very same Government-this Government that does not make promises that cannot be fulfilled and is not going to take money out of the cheques of pensioners-also promised to increase the age pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Of course, it is nowhere near that. Not only was it nowhere near that a couple of months after the promise was made; it is nowhere near it 3 1/2 years down the track. The Australian pensioners have been waiting 3 1/2 years for the Prime Minister of Australia, the Minister for Social Security and the Australian Labor Party to deliver on their promises. Let me tell those pensioners who are listening to this debate today that they will be waiting for a long time yet, because this Government has no intention of honouring those promises or any of the other promises that it makes. The Government scatters promises around this country like confetti, knowing full well that it cannot meet them and that it has no intention of meeting them, and hoping that people will forget them. I mentioned that social security expenditure in this Budget had gone up by $1.1 billion. Many people believe that we are in fact spending more now and doing less good. Despite the Government's rhetoric about expenditure restraint and a determination by its publicists to create the impression in the community that social security expenditure had been reduced by $500m, it has gone up, and people still do not believe that there is an effective social security policy, because the money is not being spent effectively. The Bill also changes the provisions relating to family allowances. There is now an income test on family allowances for children over 16. Family allowances and the allocation for the double orphans pensions are the only benefit categories within the Department of Social Security that have suffered a reduction in expenditure. That again evidences the Government's priorities. Family allowances and double orphans pensions have dropped and other benefit categories have gone up ever so slightly, some more than others. But the Government does not appreciate that the cost of raising children continues right through the period in which they are dependent. Once they reach the mid and late teens the cost of looking after them increases. This Government, with its great commitment to the youth of Australia that we have seen through the failed Priority One: Young Australia program, introduces an incomes test for student children or children 16 years and over-the very time in a family's development when there is a need for help to ensure that young people can remain at school and in training. The Government must recognise the significant costs involved in raising teenage children. The Government needs a much better policy on family allowances and support, but is devoid of policy. We are told that in the next couple of weeks we shall see a statement on family support and assistance, but that is all we shall see-a statement. This Government has been in office since March 1983 and there has been no significant reform of the social security system. There has not been a significant policy statement. All that has happened is the appointment of a number of consultants to work out a policy for the Australian Labor Party, which has based part of its political credibility on having an effective social welfare policy. We have seen a continuation of ad hoc measures, trimming and tucking here and there to save a couple of hundred million dollars, without concern for the consequences or any understanding of the flow-on effects, the incentive and disincentive effects or the social consequences of changing the benefit trail. It does the Minister no credit to come into this House from time to time and to challenge me to policy debates when he knows that he has no policy to debate. He relies on outside consultants and appoints them only because probably somebody has said to him: `You have been in office for some two years and Labor still does not have a policy. We may have an election and somebody may ask what our policy is and what we have done in social security in our 3 1/2 years of office'. The answer is that nothing has been done. There is no effective policy. That is why there is immense pressure on the social security review to come up with discussion papers. The first draft was received and people looked at it and said: `No, we cannot bring this out. Go back and rewrite it'. That is why there are so many delays. I expect the Minister for Social Security and the Government to lay down firm directions and to set guidelines for the review to let the people know what are the Government's intentions in that regard. Frankly, we do not know the Government's intentions or priorities. We have seen a few ideological statements, a bit of rhetoric, but no firm statement of objectives. One of the other statements made by the Prime Minister in his 1983 policy speech was that his Government would eliminate poverty traps. It is interesting to examine the history of legislation designed to that end. After the National Taxation Summit, the ill-starred fiasco that took place in this chamber, there were proposals to change the tax laws. Consequent upon those proposals was a need to change the interaction of the social security legislation and the Income Tax Assessment Act. So in October 1985 the Minister brought in legislation known as the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill. Although it was not perfect, that legislation had support from both sides of the chamber. We said that it was a step in the right direction and we invited the Government to bring it in more promptly than it proposed. The Government introduced the legislation in October 1985 and it passed through the Parliament in November 1985, but the Government said from the very beginning that it had no intention of implementing it until November 1986. With the benefit of hindsight, one wonders what the Government was planning. It brought in the legislation, waved it around the place but said that it would not do anything about it until November 1986. That was very convenient because we now find that that legislation has been deferred. Had it been brought into effect, it would have been much harder to defer. It has now been deferred, not until November 1986, but until July 1987. I wonder whether we will ever see that legislation implemented. Perhaps the worst and most hypocritical aspect of this, which evidences the double standards of the Australian Labor Party, is that this Government proposes to continue with the changes to the income tax scales of this country. The changes to those scales were part and parcel of the package which brought about the poverty traps reduction legislation. Thus those Australians in work, earning an income, with a standard of living higher than that of people on welfare, will receive some sort of tax cuts-albeit it token cuts that will be eroded by fiscal drag and the rate of inflation. But what happens to those clients of the Department of Social Security? Nothing. Their relief, their incentive measure, has been deferred until July 1987. This is the Government that claims to look after those people in need in our community. The Government thinks that it has the welfare vote wrapped up. Let me tell it: It cannot fool all the people all the time. The pensioners of Australia have woken up to the Government and the other clients of the Department of Social Security are waking up rapidly. They know about the double standard; they are aware of the consequences of providing tax cuts for one group in the community and no help for anybody else. They are aware of that double standard and they know what it will mean for their living standards. We see this all the time. By the way, the cost of this deferral will be up to $320 for a single pensioner and $640 for a married couple. It is blatant discrimination. We see this again in the confused response that the Minister has given to the consequences of the Treasurer's economic policies. In this Bill we see a proposal to increase the rental assistance threshold from $10 to $15. Under the economic policies of the Treasurer we have seen the greatest increase in rents in Australia's history. As a consequence of the Treasurer's ban on negative gearing, his capital gains tax and his absolutely total reliance on a tight monetary policy giving us record high real interest rates, rent values in Australia have been forced to unprecedented levels and the vacancy rate has been reduced to an historic low. When it costs the earth to rent a flat, to put a roof over one's family's head, when it is difficult to get a flat anyway because there are not many vacant ones available, this Government increases the threshold for the payment of rental assistance. Quite frankly, I do not think that many people who are eligible for that assistance or many people who understand social welfare policy in this country will think that that is a very consistent approach. It would do the Minister much more credit to argue against some of the Treasurer's policies-to suggest that he do away with negative gearing and the capital gains tax and get away from the reliance on high interest rates policy-just like his left wing colleague in the New South Wales Parliament, the Hon. Frank Walker. It would be far more appropriate for the Minister for Social Security to be a bit realistic in his approach to economic policy and publicly support the statements made by the New South Wales left wing Labor Minister on this issue. Frank Walker is no fool-he knows what the problems are and he knows the changes that have to be made. This Bill also makes certain changes to the administrative arrangements for the payment of unemployment benefits and supporting parent benefits. Of course, this Government has an appalling record on fraud and overpayment. It is absolutely appalling. Mr Howe —Ha, ha! Mr BLUNT —It does the Minister no credit at all to laugh. It is to his eternal shame that he has brought the social security system into complete disrepute and affected the status of those genuine clients of the Department. Let me talk about what this Government is purporting to do. It is classic tokenism and another example of treating the Australian people as complete fools. The Government is talking about imposing in this legislation a requirement for people claiming unemployment benefits to be registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service. I have no argument with that at all. I firmly support the view that those people on unemployment benefits should be available for work and actively seeking work. Unlike the Minister, I believe that people on unemployment benefits should return some service to the community in return for that benefit. What the Minister does not really appreciate is that the people of Australia understand that in the operating manual of the Department of Social Security there has always been a requirement for those people on unemployment benefits to be registered with the CES. The only problem was that the requirement could never be enforced because this Minister allowed the Department's administrative procedures to run down, because there was a continuing brawl between the Department of Social Security and the CES and because the CES has totally inadequate records. Instead of having computer records, all its records are on cards. How it can match, on a fortnightly basis, 600,000 people from a card records system against a sophisticated computer records system in the Department I do not know. We now have a legislative requirement. That is fine-the Opposition does not oppose that at all. We just doubt that the Minister and his Department will be able to enforce that requirement any more effectively than the previous administrative arrangements. Yet the people of Australia are told that because it is legislative it will work. In the same Press statement in which the Minister talked about anti-avoidance measures, he announced changes for the reporting requirements for supporting parent benefits. I remind honourable members that the big initiative for unemployment beneficiaries was a legislative requirement. In the same statement the Minister said `We are going to do something to make sure that the reporting requirements for supporting parent beneficiaries are changed and tightened'; but that is not a legislative change, it is an administrative change. Administrative requirements for unemployment beneficiaries do not work, but the Government thinks that they are fine for supporting parent beneficiaries. This is just another example of this Government's double standards; another example of the Government trying to pull the wool over the people's eyes. Quite frankly, it will not work. The Government is either fair dinkum or it is not. It really does not have much chance of succeeding when it brings in such contradictory measures in the one Bill. The measures are juxta-posed and anyone who can read can see the difference in standards. If the Government were serious about returning credibility to the system, and if it were serious about doing something for the community's attitudes towards clients of the Department of Social Security, it would be a lot more frank in its approach to fraud and overpayment measures. It would not rely on the techniques of the right wing of the Australian Labor Party and it would not indulge in public relations. Mr Howe —What is your personal view on the ID card? Mr BLUNT —It would make a frank statement about what it is going to do-a statement which says: `We have a problem and we will fix it'. Mr Howe —The ID card? Mr BLUNT —`Quite frankly, if we do not succeed the first time, we will continue to try.' The Minister is taunting me about my views on the identity card. The Minister knows, because he does not support the ID card, that it will not work. The Minister approved the submission of the Department of Social Security which said that no financial benefit would be anticipated to the Department from the introduction of the ID card. Mr Howe —I thought you were opposed to fraud? Mr BLUNT —I am opposed to fraud, but I know, like the Minister, that the ID card will not do anything about fraud in the Department of Social Security. I am prepared to stand here and say that, and I challenge the Minister to stand up and say that he knows also that ID fraud is not the major problem with the Department of Social Security and recognises also that the proposals for the ID system, or the Australia Card, will do nothing to help solve the problems of his Department. The Minister has been taken along in the current by the rest of his colleagues, again as part of the right wing push to be seen to be doing something. The Minister should be a lot more frank about these attitudes. I think it is appropriate for him to state on the record what his attitude is, as Minister for Social Security, to the proposed ID card and to clarify exactly what it will do for fraud and overpayment in his Department. It is in the submissions-the Minister has given his approval to it in the submissions-and it is about time that he said it personally. This legislation also makes further changes to the assets test. We have had about five versions of the assets test-I guess that the changes contained in this Bill represent about the sixth version-and it still does not work. Of course, the thing that has to be noted about these changes is that there is an alignment between the definition of `curtilage' under the assets test and the definition of `curtilage' under the capital gains tax legislation. I say no more than that. It is just an alignment of definitions of `curtilage' and `assets' between the Social Security Act and the tax legislation of this country. In passing, it is also appropriate to note that this Government has collected a massive file on the assets and incomes of Australia's retired people. When the Government introduced the assets test, part and parcel of its statements was a guarantee that this information would never be used for tax purposes and that it would be kept secure. In recent weeks we have seen that it has never been kept secure. We have seen an alignment of definitions between tax legislation and the assets test legislation. We know that the Minister for Social Security and some of his advisers are dead keen on having a wealth study done in this country as the basis of a proposal for the introduction of wealth taxes. Given the Prime Minister's record on promises and given the flagrant disregard of any obligations that the Government may have incurred to the people of Australia along its political road, quite frankly, I wonder whether we can believe that this Government will never use the information that it has collected under the assets test legislation for tax purposes. Mr Howe —Are you in favour of equity of sacrifice? Mr BLUNT —The Minister seems to think that he has a monopoly on compassion. Quite frankly, he does not have a true understanding of the needs of people in less fortunate circumstances than perhaps him. If he had he would have fought a lot harder for the necessary changes within the Department of Social Security. The greatest betrayal that has taken place in recent years of clients of the Department of Social Security was the failure to adhere to the timetable for introducing poverty trap reduction measures, and the Minister knows it. It was an abject failure. He has allowed this Government to provide tax reductions for those Australians with a relatively high income and a relatively high standard of living and he has caved in on poverty trap reductions. He has allowed the Prime Minister to go back on a firm committment. One would think that, in Cabinet, a statement by the Prime Minister in a policy speech that the Government would do away with the lag on the consumer price index adjustment and that it would increase pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings would give this Minister the ammunition he needs to win. But of course it has not. That says something, first of all, about his commitment and, secondly, about his effectiveness. Quite frankly, those two issues, which are fundamental to the well-being of many Australians and to which there is ample evidence of an initial commitment on the part of the Government-unless we believe that the Prime Minister had no intention at any time of introducing these measures and he was simply mouthing the words-should have allowed a Minister with a genuine commitment, a Minister who was committed to looking after his constituency, to achieve the right result. But of course that did not happen. He will pay the price for it, just as this Government will pay the price for it. Not only the marginal seat holders on the back bench of the Australian Labor Party will go, because, quite frankly, the Australian people have had enough. We will not see swings of 2, 3, 4 or 5 per cent; we will see swings like those we have seen in New South Wales recently-swings of up to 25 per cent. Mr Gear —Ha! Mr BLUNT —The honourable member should not scoff about it because he knows that it has happened. Mr Gear —Dream time. Mr BLUNT —What does the honourable member need to lose his seat-5, 6 or 7 per cent? Not as much as that. Mr Gear —I will not lose it. I will be here next time. Mr BLUNT —That will be the day. The honourable member will not be here next time. He will not be sitting over there. About the only person who will be sitting over here will be the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), as shadow Treasurer. As I have said, the Opposition is appalled at the duplicity contained in this Bill. We are appalled at the betrayal of those Australians in need. We are appalled that this Government does not have an effective social security policy. We are appalled at the ineffectiveness of the Minister. We are appalled that he is not prepared to fight privately and publicly for his constituency. We are appalled that he is not prepared to stand up and be counted on significant issues such as the identification card. We are appalled that he sold out to the techniques of the right wing by adopting public relations in place of policy. For those reasons, Mr Deputy Speaker, we seek to amend the motion for the second reading. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the House- (1) condemns the Government for- (a) its action in deferring all automatic pension increases due on 1 November 1986; (b) its uncaring further eight month deferral of the poverty traps relief measures; (c) its illogical means testing of family allowances for 16 and 17 year olds, and (d) its lifting of the rent threshold before a person paying private rent can qualify for rent assistance; (2) condemns the Government for persisting with its inequitable assets test on pensioners; (3) lodges a strong protest over the Government's continued assault on veterans and war widows through further restricting access to the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and freezing the maximum level of social security component where a war widow is also eligible for an aged pension; (4) calls on the Government to ensure a voluntary clearance is obtained from the veteran before proceeding with a claim on the veteran's private health insurance and points out that this aspect of the Bill seeking recompense for veterans' hospital and medical costs constituted a breach of the fundamental obligation to look after those who served this country in the time of war, and (5) condemns the Government for taking three and a half years to do anything about social security fraud and yet do nothing new or positive but relying merely on window dressing and public relations'. The amendment will be seconded by my gallant and honourable friend the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). This Government has sought to guillotine the debate on this Bill today. It has sought to do so because it knows that it cannot handle a public debate on its social security policy. It is a wonder it did not seek to bring on the legislation on a non-broadcast day to keep it completely under covers because it is under attack from all sides. The Australian Pensioners Federation has announced a campaign of action. I have had representatives of the Australian Council of Social Service ring me to talk about what we can do to stop the Government going ahead with its intentions in this legislation. I would like to be able to table in this House the many hundreds of letters I am getting from concerned pensioners and other clients of the Department about the consequences of this Government's policy. I would also like to be able to table some of the letters I get about fraud and overpayment and the blatant abuse of the system which has been allowed to go on under this Government's administration. Unfortunately, that is not possible. It is not necessary to do that because every Australian understands the problems that have developed within the Department of Social Security under this Government's administration. They understand the Government's priority. Its priority is simply the retention of power at any price, without a genuine concern for the welfare of people in need. It seems to think that people's living standards can be lifted by glib statements and slick advertising programs. We are about to see between $2m and $5m spent promoting the fringe benefits tax. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we have not heard the end of that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tim Fischer —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr GEAR(Canning)(9.48) —The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), asked why we brought on the Bill on a Friday, a broadcast day. I can say to him that we did that intentionally. Mr Blunt —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. I did not ask that question. Mr GEAR —There is no point of order. But, of course, it is a very touchy point with him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There was a point of order if the honourable member claimed to be misrepresented. I call the honourable member for Canning. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the contribution of the honourable member he mentioned that we are debating this Bill on a broadcast day. I can tell him that one of the reasons for that is so that the people of Australia who listen to this broadcast can hear just what he said. If they listened to what he said, I can tell them what they did not hear; they did not hear anything about what the Opposition would do. I will cover some of the points he raised. He talked about double standards. In recent times we have seen a classic example of double standards in this House. Just this week we brought in a tax avoidance measure to get back $900m. The tax avoiders of this country have been ripping off the system for years. In Question Time recently the Treasurer (Mr Keating) told how the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) when he was Treasurer, received 28 memos from the Commissioner of Taxation pleading with him to do something about tax avoidance, but he did nothing in five years. When one matches tax avoidance with the effect that it has on pensions one can see some double standards. That piece of legislation I was talking about was opposed by honourable members opposite. As far as they were concerned, the $900m that was ripped off could stay with the rip-off merchants. Another recent example was the stand that was taken by the Opposition in relation to the fringe benefits legislation. It was alluded to once again by the honourable member for Richmond in his contribution this morning. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said in the House the other day that the $700m that we would get from cutting out fringe benefits would pay for 140,000 pensions. That puts in perspective the arguments of those opposite when they talk about double standards. They will oppose everything that raises revenue from the people who can afford to pay that may be used to underwrite the social security provisions of this country. Not only that, but, in the context of double standards, the Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition spokesmen have made promises to the Australian public amounting to $5,900m. The Leader of the Opposition has also said he will have a zero deficit; that is, he will cut out the $3,500m. That amounts to $10,000m. But when we ask him where the money will come from, he does not know. He just says: `Oh, trust me'. When he goes on television and is asked questions about tax policy and a number of other things, he sits there like Marcel Marceau; he cannot say anything, he is like a mime. What is the use of going on television if he cannot tell people anything? The same thing occurred here this morning. We did not hear anything about the Opposition's policy on social security. I remind the House of what the Liberals did when they were in government. Mr Humphreys —They have a disgraceful record. Mr GEAR —The honourable member has said that they have a disgraceful record, and he is right. It is absolutely appalling. But the worst part about it from my point of view is the fact they used the welfare dollar as a massive pork barrelling exercise. We saw this again at the last election. I will remind the House of some of the things that the Liberals did when they were in power. I will not mention election dates, but if honourable members look at the changes the Liberals have made to the social security provisions, they can pick up those dates. In September 1969 the tapered means test was introduced. This resulted in 160,000 existing pensioners receiving an increased pension. Some 33,000 pensioners became newly eligible for the pension and the pension was claimed by an additional 14,000 who were previously entitled to it. This was just in time for the 1969 election. In September 1972 there was an increase in the free area. This increased pension entitlements to all reduced rate pensioners and brought another 30,000 persons into pension eligibility for the first time, and another 20,000 persons who were entitled to a pension claimed it. Because it promised to be a close election there were also superannuation and annuity concessions in September 1972. The effect of this move was to increase the pension for 45,000 existing pensioners and to make an additional 5,000 eligible for a pension. We all know that the Liberals did not win that election. I think that was a bit of poetic justice. Between 1973 and 1975 the Whitlam Government started to abolish the means test for pensioners over 75 years of age and then for the over-70s. It is apparent to those who follow election timings that these measures were not timed to coincide with the anticipated election dates. The 1973 and 1975 concessions were both two years away from elections had they been held on time. Of course, the Senate, not the Government of that era, determined the election dates. The abolition of the means test was compatible with the intent of that Government to introduce a national superannuation scheme, a feature of which was that it had no means test. The mistake of that Government was to abolish the means test before it had introduced the national superannuation scheme and not after. The events of 1975 meant that the Whitlam Government would never have that chance. The next change occurred in November 1976. It altered the criterion from an assets test to an income only test. This was the most significant change and, as I will show later, it opened up a loophole that negated the original purpose of the pension system. Some 200,000 pensioners gained from the measure while 67,000 had their incomes, which should have been reduced, protected from any fall. Again, this was just in time for the 1977 election. In November 1978 a special income test on over-70s clawed back about $22m and affected 266,000 pensioners. But that take-back measure was two years away from the election. This approach was again evident in November 1982, when the family Budget-the honourable member for Richmond spoke about advertising campaigns to promote government initiatives, but we always remember the famous slick campaign to sell the family Budget just before the 1983 election-increased the free area and thereby increased the pensions of 420,000 people just before the Federal election. It happened again in 1984 when the Opposition ran its most scurrilous and gutless campaign on the assets test. The Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Treasury spokesman, did not speak out against the assets test, but those who knew his private views knew that he agreed with it because at least he had some economic literacy and could see the reason for an assets test. Of course, once he became Leader of the Opposition he embraced the assets test, and in fact it is the only promise the Opposition has kept in its proposed outlays. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) in his former capacity also spoke out in favour of the assets test, but when he came to this Parliament as a Liberal member he did a U-turn and started speaking out against it. I have said before and I will say again that the honourable member for Mayo has real leadership potential in the Liberal Party. Anybody who can do a U-turn in less than a year has to be pretty good. Morals go straight out the door; nothing is saved. John Elliott, Secretary of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party, warmly embraces the assets test. We all remember that cynical television interview with Mr John Valder, who spoke of the necessary things that had to be done in government-the hard things, the things that the Labour Party has done in government. We introduced the assets test and got rid of pensions for millionaires. When we talk about the welfare budget we should consider not only its size but also where the funds are going. We thought there was some obscenity in a situation where millionaires could get the pension while those people who relied on the pension as their only means of income were being denied an adequate amount. I have stated in the House before and I think it is worth stating again that when the coalition Government, following its election in November 1975, removed the assets test in November 1976, the single pension stood at 24.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. When the coalition Government was kicked out in March 1983, it had fallen to 22.7 per cent. That was the effect on pensioners of not having an assets test. Without an assets test there was a massive drop in the pension. This Government had the guts to put the assets test back, and it wore all the flak for it, in its first Budget. Since then, the pension has climbed from 22.7 per cent of average earnings up to 24 per cent, and it will reach 25 per cent before the next election. Of that there is no doubt. Let us look at some of the views of the Opposition and the New Right on social security. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) is reported to have said in the Sun of 14 August 1986: The Opposition would simply abolish benefits for the long-term unemployed if they got into power. It would simply abolish them with nothing to replace them-no policy. The report continued: In a weird twist of logic he said the Opposition's approach would be doing far more for the unemployed. I agree with the Sun; it is a weird twist of logic. I just cannot see what he is getting at by saying that taking away the unemployment benefit is somehow helping the unemployed. I refer once again to John Elliott, the Federal Liberal Party Treasurer, who is trying to buy the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. He has not succeeded but he has got his British brewery. He called for the slashing of welfare expenditure in a speech to a Liberal Party luncheon in Brisbane. No specific areas were nominated. That fits in well with the sort of plan that the Opposition is running. It will not tell us about anything. John Elliott was reported by the Business Review Weekly to be earning $350,000 per year in 1984. On 30 July this year Elliott said that a Liberal Government would have to `get rid of some of the social programs.' I have spoken before about the massive credibility gap of the Liberal Party. It has put forward an amount of $10,000m for which it has to produce answers. The Opposition spokesman on social security spoke about the fact that the Government takes the pensioner vote for granted. We have never done that. I ask how the pensioners of this country and anybody who receives social security think a coalition Government will maintain-not increase, but maintain-social security provisions with a massive credibility gap of $10,000m. It is just not possible. The social welfare area would be one of the hardest hit areas under a coalition Government. There is absolutely no question about that. I turn to mention Andrew Hay, who is an interesting character. He is the bloke who races around the country with his high principles about the fringe benefits tax. Let us remember that the fringe benefits tax relates to free lunches, the hostess allowance, being able to run cars at company expense, overseas travel-- Mr Brumby —Golf clubs. Mr GEAR —Yes, I hear that down in Melbourne it is now easier to get into golf clubs since we brought in the fringe benefits tax because companies are no longer paying golf club fees for their executives. All of those things are taken for granted by affluent people and supported by Andrew Hay. But what does he say about people at the other end? I am told that he is President of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce. By God! He wants to dismantle our social security system. He has called for the abolition of family allowances, the slashing of youth employment training schemes, sharp cuts in payments to deserted spouses and limiting the payment of the unemployment benefit to those prepared to work for it. He does not mention how we differentiate between people who are prepared to work and those who do not. Let us look at what he is proposing, at the utter hypocrisy of what he is saying when he says: `We should keep the fringe benefits. We should keep all the rorts and ramps, the free business lunches'. Let us take an example of following Mr Hay's philosophy of life. A pensioner who may go to a restaurant once a year, say with his wife on their anniversary, may sit next to Mr Andrew Hay and may even have the same meal. One thing about that is that the pensioner would pay 100c in the dollar for his bill but Mr Hay, under his scheme, would pay zero; the bill would go back to the company and the company would claim a tax deduction on it. In some ways we can see that the pensioner, if he were paying any tax, would in fact be subsidising Mr Hay. I think there is something obscene about that. The Labor Government has introduced measures, by the introduction of the assets test, the fringe benefits legislation and in stopping tax avoidance schemes, which will help the pensioners. In the contribution from the honourable member for Richmond this morning not only did he not tell us what the Opposition would do; he did not tell us how the Opposition would overcome its massive credibility gap. He did not speak about these sorts of things. He did not talk about free lunches for people such at Andrew Hay. Mr Brumby —Mr Hay is a member of the Liberal Party, is he? Mr GEAR —I think Mr Andrew Hay would be a member of the Liberal Party; he would fit in well. It would not be long before he came up here, I imagine, and joined that august collection of gentlemen on the other side. What about another Liberal Party person, Katharine West? There is a ray of light for you. She really comes up with some lulus. A headline in the Canberra Times was `Dole system ``out within a year'' '. The article stated: The present system of dole payments will be abolished within a year, political commentator Katharine West predicts. She could not pick her nose. She is absolutely hopeless. Anybody who listens to Katharine West must be soft in the head. Let us look at another member of the Liberal Party-a disgraced Liberal this time, Mr Fraser. Here we have an article headed `Fraser's vision for the future'. It is good stuff. It is quite appropriate that this refers to his inaugural Downer lecture in Adelaide. I have spoken previously about the honourable member for Mayo, about his double standards and about how his acceleration through the Liberal Party should be enhanced by his moral manoeuvrability. Among other things, the article reports Mr Fraser as saying: He proposed attacking wage costs by scrapping the 17.5 per cent holiday loading, reducing annual leave to three weeks and returning to the 40-hour week. That is what we are supposed to need to get this country out of its mess. Let us remember that Mr Fraser was the gentleman who visited upon this country many of the economic ills that we face today because when he was in government he sat on his hands and did nothing. Mr Brumby —Bring back the lash, too. Mr GEAR —Yes, bring back the lash; he was into everything. But it was not enough that he got stuck into and started blaming the workers for all the ills of this country; he also got stuck into the pensioners. He also said: The single parent's pension could be effectively abolished and that would save well over $1 billion. He says that, yet he was in government for seven years and he did not abolish it. Now that he is an international statesman and he thinks that some people will listen to him, he says: `We will get rid of it. I never had the guts to do it when I was in government but the Labor Party can'. He is also reported as saying: Unemployment benefits for 16 and 17-year olds should also be abolished. What an absolute hypocrite he is to say those things now but never to have done them when he was in government. What did he do? If I have time, I will cite some figures from his last year in government. The fact is that his Government did nothing. All of our young people have a limited future because of the things that the coalition Government did not do when it was in government. I also have an article headed `Libs want worker levy to pay welfare', with reference to the honourable member for Richmond. It would be bad enough if the Opposition were advocating that the cost of welfare be shared amongst the fringe benefits recipients. But now it wants the workers to pay for welfare. This Government does not like what it has had to do. It does not like asking the pensioners of this country to take a deferral in their pension increase. But the pensioners recognise that the economy has suffered a severe blow because of the narrow range of our exports and the effect on them of international prices. The pensioners of this country are willing to make a sacrifice. It is a very small one. We have not asked the pensioners of this country to take a discount in the way that we have asked the workers to do. We have kept our promise to the pensioners and we will continue to keep it. But the pensioners of this country are smarter than the Opposition thinks they are. We do not like doing these things but we know that the pensioners understand that. Let us look at the record of the Liberal Party under Mr Fraser, who now advocates getting rid of some of the social security provisions. Under the Fraser Government the additional pension for children went down by 34.7 per cent, as did the mother's-guardian's allowance. Rent assistance went down by 2.1 per cent. The single adult unemployment benefit went down by 18.6 per cent and the junior unemployment benefit by 45.6 per cent. I know that other speakers on this side of the House will point out more of the hypocrisy and humbug that we have come to expect from the Opposition. All I can say in conclusion is that Moody's Investor Services Inc. got it right the other day. It gave this Government a AAA rating for its performance in government but it gave the Opposition a ZZZ rating for its non-performance in opposition. All I can say is that this Government will continue to look after those people in need-something that the Labor Party has always done when it has been in government-and we will not accept any of the hypocrisy that is thrown at us from the other side. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.07) —The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), who has just concluded his speech, certainly strayed outside the ambit of the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill and focused on a number of matters particularly relating to the fringe benefits tax. Let me make it very clear that on this day a meeting is taking place here in Canberra to review that fringe benefits tax, forced by the strong opposition of the coalition to it. Our commitment on the fringe benefits tax is clear cut: We will abolish it lock, stock and barrel, as indeed we will abolish the assets test lock, stock and barrel. I support the amendment that has been moved most comprehensively by my colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). I support the remarks he made on this Bill. I point out that a number of my colleagues will be speaking in support of the amendment until the gag applies. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) will focus, amongst other things, on the discounting and deferment of increases in various entitlements for veterans. Also, the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) will speak on the deferment of the poverty trap aspect of the legislation. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) will focus on the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme cutbacks. Mr Brumby —Is he well today? Mr TIM FISCHER —All of those measures amount to the assault on veterans, war widows and social security recipients embraced by this legislation. It ill becomes the honourable member for the very marginal seat of Bendigo to interject because he tried to mount a campaign saying that he had in some way succeeded in altering aspects of this Bill as it relates to war widows. But I have also been to Bendigo. I have met with the Returned Services League and war widow representatives from that centre and have had very comprehensive discussions with them. I will spell out, in the course of my communication, exactly what this Bill does to war widows and to veterans. Let us look at some of the figures in relation to this legislation. The deferment of the consumer price index adjustment will take $4.8m from disability pension recipients in Bendigo and right around Australia. That will result from the failure to pass on that adjustment when it was due in early November and its deferment to much later in December. This measure will take $17.8m from service pension recipients in Bendigo and right around Australia. It will also take $3.7m from war widows right around Australia. That is the treatment this Government is meting out to those three categories of veterans' affairs recipients-a total of $26m from that one measure embraced by this Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The removal of war widows from the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme will also effectively remove some $3.81m that otherwise would have been paid to help war widows with their treatment under that scheme. I will not dwell on that. I move on to point out that the deferment of the poverty traps legislation will effectively mean $21m less for various categories of recipients in the veterans' affairs and social security areas. The freezing of the social security component of the pensions in cases where a war widow receives both a widow's pension and a social security age pension at $60.05 a week will bring a saving, according to the speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), of some $7.2m. In a Senate Estimates committee hearing I heard that this figure was put at $4.1m for the veterans' affairs area. I do not dwell on that except to ask that the exact saving in relation to that be clarified, because there seems to be a discrepancy between what the Minister said in Parliament when introducing the Bill and what was said by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) when he spoke before Senate Estimates Committee F and tabled certain information before it. As the honourable member for Richmond correctly pointed out, this legislation brings about a wide range of cutbacks in relation to both social security and veterans' affairs. The mere fact that the veterans' affairs aspects have been bundled together with the social security legislation does not augur well. We have had the Government and now the Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, trying to conjure up a scare campaign about the future of the portfolio and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Here is the Government bundling into this Bill a series of amendments, including amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act, under the banner of social security. The reports in the media last week that somehow the Minister for Veterans' Affairs was to be demoted to a junior Minister by the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) under a proposal he was considering which would create an inner super-17 and an outer junior 10-with Veterans' Affairs falling in the outer junior 10-do not augur well in terms of what the Government has in mind for veterans. In our consideration of this legislation, I could do no better than quote from someone at the grass roots level, a war widow who happens to live in north Rockhampton in Queensland. In a communication dated 9 October she said: I wish to strongly voice my opposition as a War Widow that we have been taken from under the umbrella of the Veterans' Affairs and placed under the National Health Scheme in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This is a gross injustice. Our husbands were promised the World when they joined up and as to be expected from heartless governments `kicked in the guts' on return and then when they are taken prematurely in death the boot is transferred to their widows. I also voice my opposition to the dropping of the part aged pension to a pegged $60.05. This we feel is an imposition as we count our War Widows pension not as a pension but as a compensation for our husband's death and therefore we are entitled to an aged pension without this infamous pegging. I ask you Sir, as a member of the Opposition in Federal Parliament that you strongly put my views . . . I can do no better than put those views right here in this debate. I point out that that war widow comes from the very marginal seat of Capricornia. No doubt she will exercise her decision at the next Federal elections, because she has quite properly reacted to some of the provisions of the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. Turning to the specifics of the legislation, I now focus on the recoupment of costs from private health insurance where a veteran has elected to take out that private health insurance. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond includes the following statement: The House . . . calls on the Government to ensure a voluntary clearance is obtained from the veteran before proceeding with a claim on a veteran's private health insurance and points out that this aspect of the Bill seeking recompense for veterans' hospital and medical costs constituted a breach of the fundamental obligation to look after those who have served this country in time of war. I would like to read to the House a quotation which I have used on other occasions. It is from a former great Prime Minister of this nation, Prime Minister Ben Chifley. He told the House in respect of repatriation: The careers of hundreds of thousands of young men have been interrupted and in some cases partially ruined. There is a break of education training and opportunity which cannot be repaired. It is perfectly true that experience is gained, but that is not material to an ordinary civil vocation. On this Parliament rests the responsibility of seeing that the right thing shall be done. Today the Government is about to breach a fundamental obligation to the veterans by going into their health insurance. The Government of the same party as Prime Minister Ben Chifley will wind back on that fundamental obligation by deciding that, where a veteran has taken out health insurance voluntarily, it will not honour its obligation to meet the veteran's hospital and medical costs; it will go to HCF, MBF or whatever fund might be applicable and seek a recoupment of funds, which the Government should have supplied in the first place. I believe that is a very disgraceful aspect of this legislation. I believe also that it ought to be clarified in the course of the debate. I ask the Minister, in the course of his summing up, to place in Hansard very specific detail in relation to the voluntary aspects of this measure. I accept that the measure is voluntary in terms of a veteran's decision to take out private health insurance. That is one level, but my question relates particularly to the degree of voluntarism that will apply in the execution of this measure and whether every veteran will in fact be asked to sign an individual clearance on each occasion that a recoupment is being sought before the Government proceeds with collecting the funds through the very complex mechanism which has to be laid out because of problems with the Veterans' Entitlements Act and other legislation. I ask the Minister to clarify in exact terms the voluntary aspect at both of those levels: The first level, taking out the health insurance; and, the second level, the individual execution administratively of that recoupment procedure. I also add that many veterans are very concerned because under their private health insurance they have only a certain number of physiotherapy treatments available in the course of 12 months. If the Government knocks off their entitlements in an early stage of the year they could be caught short and find themselves in a very embarrassing and financially desperate situation as an unintended consequence of this recoupment measure. So again I ask the Minister to explain to the House in detail the voluntary aspects of utilising this private health insurance recoupment provision measure under the provisions of this Bill. Turning to the question of freezing at $60.05 the social security or aged pension component when a war widow receives both a war widow's pension and an age pension, I am advised this day that, as of August this year, the number of war widows in Australia was 67,860, and the number of war widows receiving also a social security pension was in fact 47,000. That is a very high percentage-well over half of all war widows-who will be affected by this freezing mechanism. Let us look at that freezing mechanism. I remind the House, the nation and the war widows of Bendigo that this Government originally proposed in its Budget a devilish manoeuvre which would have seen the level frozen at $60.05, a permanent reduction wherever a war widow receives some outside income. It would be reduced in such a way that they would never have been able to get back up to the $60.05. It was unjust, unfair and would have restricted them to the lower level for the rest of their lives. It shows the thinking of this Government when it was able to get this measure right through the Caucus, the Cabinet, the Budget drafting processes and into this House, and to announce it clearly in the detail of the Budget Papers. It was only after a concerted campaign at various levels that there was a second Budget backdown. The first backdown was in respect of those sometimes mollycoddled mandarins of Canberra who have concessional housing interest loans. I was pleased about that because there were onward ramifications for defence service home loans in that Budget decision. The Government backed down on concessional interest rates for certain public servants here in Canberra, and let us remember that the whole of this nation does not focus on Canberra and the realities of the nation are to be found far from Canberra. Mr Lloyd —In places like Boree Creek. Mr TIM FISCHER —Yes, in places like Balranald, Berrigan, Boree Creek, Burraga and Buronga and elsewhere, including the River Murray in my electorate. The decision to freeze this provision is bitterly resented by war widows throughout Australia. It is resented notwithstanding the second Budget backdown whereby the permanent reducing maximum level has now been taken out of the legislation. I pay tribute to the War Widows Guild and many other veterans organisations on this outcome, and to one only Labor member, the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), who showed great courage in respect of this matter. I believe the campaign which was conducted by the Liberal and National parties helped bring about this reversal. It ill becomes the Government that it was drafted into the provisions in the first place. I move on to deal with the assets test aspect of this legislation. Again, the Government has changed the definitions of the test, which the coalition is committed to abolish lock, stock and barrel. It is time for us to examine the detail of the impact of the assets test in respect of veterans' service pensioners. The total of such pensioners a year ago exceeded 13,000, and the Government cannot produce figures later than 30 June 1985, due in part to industrial disputation. Twice I had the matter raised before a Senate Estimates committee and the best figures we have as to total number of veterans' service pensioners affected by the assets test is 13,381. I have a detailed State by State breakdown which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Subject to the usual ruling as to its suitability for incorporation, leave is granted. Leave granted. The table read as follows- VETERANS SERVICE PENSIONERS No. PENSIONERS AFFECTED BY THE ASSET TEST AT 28.6.85 Total Pensioners No. Cancelled No. Reduced Total No. Affected % Affected of Total Pensioners N.S.W. ... 132,382 2,058 2,603 4,661 3.5 VIC. ... 95,942 1,789 1,943 3,732 3.9 QLD ... 72,614 1,034 1,361 2,395 3.3 S.A. ... 40,809 677 704 1,381 3.4 W.A. ... 34,551 433 397 830 2.4 TAS. ... 15,472 184 198 382 2.5 TOTAL ... 391,770 6,175 7,206 13,381 3.4 Mr TIM FISCHER —I thank the House. The table shows the State of Victoria as having the highest percentage of veterans affected by the application of the assets test. I know that Mr Bruce Ruxton and many others realise the impact of the assets test and the hardship that it has created for many veterans, particularly in country areas such as Bendigo and Ballarat, where the curtilage factor has caused real difficulties for many veterans. We will not solve the problems associated with the assets test until it is abolished-abolished in respect of social security as well as veterans' affairs. In respect of criticisms from the Government and the member for Canning (Mr Gear) as to a balanced budget, I remind the House that evidence given on veterans' affairs matters to the Senate Estimates Committee indicated that disability pension expenditure will plateau in real terms this financial year, and that service pension expenditure will peak in 1987-88 and show a decline after that. However, war widows expenditure does not appear to be expected to plateau in the next three years. Clearly and sadly, through natural attrition, we are starting to see the peak period for veterans, after which a continual reduction will set in, with a contraction of veterans expenditure. By the turn of the century, not all that far away, expenditure in this portfolio, without any alteration to any program, will be greatly reduced. One is looking at a finite commitment, barring any unfortunate wars or conflicts, which should genuinely be taken into account in dealing with veterans' affairs policy. It is another reason why the Government should not be pushing down the path of introducing even further cutbacks in respect of war widows and veterans. Mr McGauran —Heartless. Mr TIM FISCHER —It is heartless but, above all, it breaches the commitment given by governments of all political persuasions to look after those who served their country in time of war. It is that breach of commitment that is so bitterly resented by veterans and war widows. I shall continue to highlight that commitment at every opportunity as I move around as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Finally, I draw attention to the fact that this legislation includes the first lot of amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act since it was introduced and passed through Parliament-a long saga throughout the latter part of 1985 and the early part of 1986. Those amendments are largely technical and clarify the meanings intended in the principal legislation. They seek to ensure, for example, that members of philanthropic organisations such as the Salvation Army and the Red Cross receive repatriation cover where appropriate and desired. I mention that point particularly because in the other place we have obtained a commitment from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) that the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the guide to assessment of rates of veterans' pensions, which are causing a great deal of concern, will be referred to an independent monitoring committee to be set up in 1987 to ensure that the right thing is done by veterans. I strongly support the amendment moved by the coalition in respect of this important legislation-legislation which mounts a further assault on veterans, war widows, social security recipients. The Government should be ashamed of its action. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.28) —I have pleasure in supporting the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The Bill arises from the Federal Budget of 19 August and is a wide-ranging Bill which makes many changes in our social security and veterans' affairs system. I could talk for some time on many aspects of the legislation, but it is important, as previous speakers have done to a degree, to put this Bill in the context of the Budget and to put the Budget in context of the economic environment in which this Government has found itself over the last year or so. Basically it is an economic environment in which the prices Australia receives for its export products have fallen dramatically in the last 12 months and indeed overall over the past five years, many by as much as 20 to 30 per cent. In that context the Government brought down a responsible Budget which has kept spending to the minimum in seeking to reduce the Budget deficit and government demands for finance in the market, and to provide scope for the private sector to benefit from the new value of the dollar and improve employment and export opportunities. It is a responsible Budget which, because of the dramatic fall in the prices we have been receiving for our traditional exports-wheat, wool, iron ore, alumina and so on-has had to be tough, with a deficit of under $4 billion, and to keep real spending to zero. That is the background to the Budget and this Bill. In that setting it was incumbent on the Government to keep spending increases to a minimum in every area of government activity and to show the necessary fiscal discipline. In the area of social security and veterans' affairs, it is fair to say that the Government took every opportunity to provide assistance to those most in need. This Bill contains several examples of that attitude, but the Government also had to make clear that some of the sacrifices had to be shared by other members of the community. The deferment of the six-monthly indexation of pensions by six weeks is part of this legislation. It is important to emphasise that this Government is not discounting pension increases. We would not do that because a discount to a pension increase tends to become locked into the system. Pensioners would always be struggling to catch up to their previous relative spending position. In this legislation we are simply deferring the normal six-monthly consumer price index increase. Pensioners will still get the full CPI increase; it is just that they will receive it a little later than they might have expected. As the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) said, in circumstances where this Government has been asking ordinary wage earners to accept discounts of 2 per cent or more in their pay packets-and many wage earners in Australia are only on moderate incomes; some 80 per cent are below average weekly earnings and that is a statistic that we should always keep in mind-it is only fair that other people in the community should also be asked to accept some of the burdens that have been necessary in the introduction of this Budget and in this legislation. This legislation provides also for a major crackdown on social security fraud. That is fundamental to the whole philosophy of this Budget. If economic conditions are tight, if there is not a bottomless pit of money from which to give handouts to community groups, it is absolutely crucial that the Budget revenue that is available is directed to the people who need it most and that money is not wasted on people who are able to cheat, defraud or in other ways manipulate the social security system. During the period of this Government, particularly since 1984, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has made very positive efforts to weed out those blatant cases of fraud in the system. This Budget continues that approach. It is not an approach which will in any way affect ordinary honest people who make up the bulk of beneficiaries in the social security area. However, in this legislation we want to ensure that people who are wrongfully manipulating the system for their own ends are no longer able to do so. For that reason, this legislation provides a series of measures which will limit the possibilities for abuse of the social security system. When one puts the pretty well thought out program embodied in this legislation in the context of what we have already done and what we envisage and have announced we will do in the future in terms of the Australia Card, one sees a very widespread Government program to eliminate social security fraud. It is probably worth saying that, for every $100m that can be saved from those who have been cheating the system, on average another 20,000 pensioners will be able to receive a full pension. That is the sort of dimension of the changes we are discussing. This Budget is not all about cutbacks in the social security area. That is certainly part of it because this is a tough Budget and we believe that everyone in the community should contribute to the sacrifices that are necessary. We have gone to enormous lengths in this Budget to ensure that those most in need in our community are best protected from the reductions that have had to occur in Government spending. There are also some very positive social security expenditure aspects in this Budget. It provides assistance to the most needy in our community, particularly low income families with children and handicapped people. Some of the increases that will take effect from November this year include an increase of $1 a week to $17 a week in the allowance paid for children of pensioners and beneficiaries. That is not an enormous increase, but it means that in the 3 1/2 years we have been in government we have been able to increase that benefit by a massive 70 per cent-from $10 to $17. When inflation has been only of the order of 25 per cent over that period, that is a considerable real increase. Mr Blanchard —An excellent result. Mr BRUMBY —Yes, it is an excellent result. We are also increasing the handicapped child's allowance by $7 a month to $92 a month. Again, that is a very commendable achievement in a difficult Budget. We are increasing the orphan's pension by $4.30 to $60 a month. We are also increasing the rate of family income supplement by $1 a week to $17 a week. All those measures build on the considerable achievements of this Government in the social security area. By Christmas this year the standard weekly pension or benefit will be 37 1/2 per cent higher than it was when we came to office in March 1983. That is considerably more than the rate of inflation and it compares with the real decline in social security spending and benefits which occurred in the Fraser-Howard years. By Christmas this year the benefit to single adult unemployed people will have increased by 54 per cent. The additional pension or benefit for each child and the family income supplement will have increased by 70 per cent over the past 3 1/2 years. More importantly perhaps, the mothers and guardians allowance will have doubled. Those are enormous achievements against a background of seven years of savage cutbacks by the Fraser Government. We have increased spending and allowances in the area of rent assistance by 50 per cent during the past 3 1/2 years, and again that is well above the rate of inflation. When the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the shadow Minister for Social Security, suggested in this debate that this Government had been reducing its commitment to those in need in the community and cutting back on social security and welfare, he really was talking nonsense. If he wants to say that we have cut back on social security fraud, that we have taken pensions away from people who have been claiming them dishonestly, he is right. But if he says we are reducing the income levels of the people who are most in need in this community, he is totally wrong and he knows it. The fact is that we have acted in areas of need in our community, particularly for low income families with children which depend on the family income supplement. Not only did we put the family income supplement into place in 1983, but we have also increased it by a massive 70 per cent in 3 1/2 years. That means that someone in my electorate who is working in a textile factory for $14,000 a year and supporting three children can now receive $51 a week tax free assistance from the Government because of programs that we have introduced. That is not because of anything that Opposition members did when they were in government. They were hell-bent on screwing down poor people; that was their policy. We have provided genuine assistance to people in need, and that has been the hallmark of our Government. I turn to a few of the points that have been raised in this debate by the Opposition. Let us look at what the Opposition promises for the future and particularly at what it did in the past-the Fraser-Howard legacy. It muddled its way through seven years of government. There is no question that it bungled the economy, botched the job market and systematically destroyed any income support mechanisms available for Australian families. In a sense that is what this legislation is all about-it is about trying to improve the living standards of Australians in need. Let us look at some of the things that the Fraser-Howard Government left us with when we came to office. It destroyed job opportunities. When the Fraser Government came to power in 1975 there were 300,000 registered unemployed. When it handed over to us in March 1983 there were 635,000 Australians without jobs. What a remarkable achievement, in seven years. It doubled the number of people on benefits. If there is one way to alleviate poverty in our community it is to provide job opportunities for people. This Government has a record second to none in this area, not only historically in this country, but also in any international comparison that the Opposition cares to make. We have created 707,000 new jobs in 3 1/2 years-the best performance of any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It stands in pretty stark contrast to the pathetic performance of the Opposition. It threw 635,000 people on to the dole. What did the Opposition do for families in the health system? Opposition members always say in this House that they support families. I have never heard such much claptrap. The Opposition had a health scheme which made a family with an income of $15,000 pay $700 a year for health insurance. Under our Government that same family pays nothing and has guaranteed access to public hospital and medical care. That was the Opposition's health system, and if it gets back into government it will do the same thing again. It will let the wealthy people off the hook and screw the poor people. What were the Opposition's tax achievements? Members of the Opposition have talked today about fringe benefits tax, tax cuts and that sort of rubbish. The greatest achievement of the Opposition was the $4 billion worth of tax avoidance and the 28 memos that went to the Opposition's then Treasurer, who is now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). There were 28 memos from the Commissioner of Taxation saying: `For goodness sake, crack down on tax avoidance. This is the biggest rort that has ever been around. Ordinary honest taxpayers are picking up the bill for people cheating the system'. What did the Opposition do in the seven years it was in government? Did it take one single step? It did take one step, just before the 1983 election, but it was a little too late, because $3.5 billion had slipped through the system, never to be recovered. There was a massive transfer of wealth, and it was the poor old pay as you earn taxpayers who picked up the bill. That is what happened when the Opposition was in government. Opposition members have stood up proudly today and made some comments about social security. When we look at what the Opposition did for families and children, its record was absolutely deplorable. It slashed the additional pension for children in needy families by 34.7 per cent in its seven years in government. If we look at the record of the Opposition's commitment to mothers looking after their families, the Opposition cut funding to them by 34.7 per cent in real terms. The fact is that when the Opposition came to government pensions were at nearly 25 per cent of average weekly earnings and the Opposition let them drop to 22 per cent. Mr White —What have you done about it? Mr BRUMBY —What have we done? We have increased pensions to nearly 24 per cent, and by the time of the next election they will be at 25 per cent. When Whitlam left office in 1975 pensions were at 24.7 per cent; when he came to government they were 21 per cent. Only one party in Australia looks after the needs of people on social security and those in need-the Australian Labor Party. That is the sort of legacy that was left to this Government when we won the election so overwhelmingly in 1983. It is worth looking at what this Opposition might do in the social security area, because that is what this legislation is all about, if it ever had the opportunity to get back into government. The key to what the Opposition would do is its commitment to the redistribution of wealth. I am not talking about weirdly radical programs; I am talking about a fair deal, a fair go, for ordinary Australians. The Opposition's concept of a fair go-the only solid commitments it has made if it is ever re-elected to government-is to abolish the fringe benefits tax lock, stock and barrel, at a cost of $700m; abolish the capital gains tax; and abolish taxation on lump sum superannuation. Members of the Opposition have made some references today to the fact that they would like to see deductibility for free lunches brought back. If we threw that in, that would cost about $1.2 billion. Where would the money come from to finance that? It would come from the ordinary PAYE taxpayers or through lower government outlays. The Opposition has made this commitment-I do not know whether it intends to keep it-to freeze real spending, but it knows that it will have ongoing commitments to fund these tax rorts which it has said it will reintroduce and commitments to education, roads funding and defence spending. If the Opposition wanted to keep real spending to zero, the people who would pay are the people on social security benefits. They are the facts of the matter and the Opposition knows it. Opposition members have talked about needy families. I have never heard so much hypocritical claptrap. Let us see what a few prominent Liberals have said about the cuts they would make in social security spending. In the middle of last year the President of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Valder, advocated huge cuts on the Westpac video which he distributed so well around Australia. The same John Valder thinks that politicians on $45,000 a year ought to get massive pay rises. The shadow Minister for Social Security, who spoke in this debate, has come out strongly in the Press in favour of some type of compulsory work for single parents. Let me put on the record that there is no way I will support any scheme, as he apparently does, where mothers with four- or six-week-old children can be put out into the work force to work for 40 or 50 hours a week for an income below the poverty line. If mothers with children of that age want an option, they ought to be able to have the option of looking after their children. The shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown), said on the public record that if the Opposition ever gets back into power he will simply abolish unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed. That is a marvellous policy, is it not? What would he do with people who have worked their backsides off for 18 months trying to get a job but cannot get one-people who have families, houses and mortgages? He simply says that he will cut their income support. For goodness sake, what will they live on? What a stupid policy. Another prominent Liberal, Andrew Hay of the New Right, has called for the total abolition of family allowances. If anyone listening to this broadcast today depends upon the $1.4 billion of family allowances this Government pays out, I hope they will realise how strong the push is in the Liberal Party to totally eliminate family allowances. That is what Andrew Hay wants. To top it off, the Leader of the Opposition was reported in the Melbourne Herald in November 1985 as confirming that if the Liberal Party got into power he would cut the dole and cut benefits to supporting parents. He said that the Liberal-National Party would not shirk the opportunity to reduce both benefits. That is a bit different from the approach we have taken. Mr Howard has said that he will make real cuts, money cuts, to unemployment benefits and supporting parents' benefits. I totally reject that line. We have done the right thing in a difficult Budget setting. This legislation is fair. I must say, from going around to pensioners and senior citizens centres, that this legislation is well supported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(11.47) —Before referring to the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, I must take up some of the comments of the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby)-a member from a very marginal seat making impassioned pleas to his electorate. I wonder what all the social security beneficiaries in his electorate think of this delay in their pension increases. Mr Brumby —They think it is fair enough. Why don't you go out and talk to them? Mr WHITE —Do they? When the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is ripping off the system for $17,000 a year and at the same time imposing an $80 per week cut on married pensioners who are trying desperately to survive, I wonder how many of those pensioners will vote for the honourable member-not that it will matter much because the honourable member will be out any- way. One of the things we are talking about here is the delay in pension increases to thousands of pensioners. Before I address that question, I refer to two or three other matters mentioned by the honourable member for Bendigo. He talked about the Opposition's tax record. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has gone on record time and time again saying that when this Government came to power tax avoidance was dead. That it is dead is because of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The Leader of the Opposition did more in his term as Treasurer to put tax avoidance to rest than any other single man in the history of this Parliament. It has been admitted time and time again by people on the other side. Let us have no more claptrap about what people did about tax avoidance. Tax avoidance was dead when this Government came to power, and it is a great tribute to the Leader of the Opposition that he achieved that. Mr Howe —Ha, ha! Mr WHITE —The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) obviously is saying that what the Minister for Trade and all these other people have been saying is wrong. The fact is that when this Government came to office tax avoidance was finished, and it has done nothing to improve on the situation since it came to power. I turn to the question of the Government's promises to pensioners. In 1983, when this Government came to power, it promised that it would increase the pension level to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Mr Howe —We are nearly there, too. Mr WHITE —The Minister is not there. He has not done it and it is another broken promise. Mr Howe —It is 24 per cent now. Mr WHITE —The Minister has not done it and it is another broken promise. I turn now to the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill which is before us. As it is a social security and a veterans' affairs Bill, I take this opportunity of bringing to the notice of the House and Australian people generally that it is the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Royal Military College. That might be a bit of a long bow to draw so I will not dwell on it. But we are dealing with a veterans' affairs Bill and most of the graduates from that college are now veterans. I take this opportunity-I am sure that I speak on behalf of most people in this-to wish the college well in the future and to congratulate the college and its graduates on its proud history and the place that it has carved out in the Australian nation. Basically, we see in this Bill reductions and delays in benefits to social security and veterans' affairs recipients. It seems to me and to a lot of other people that it is a continuing assault on those who are least able to look after themselves. The Minister, in introducing this Bill-I find this somewhat ironic-said that one of the purposes of the Bill was: . . . to ensure that the burden of change is spread as fairly as possible across the community, while maintaining the Labor Party's traditional commitment to the needy. I ask the House and the Minister: Who is more needy in the community than the pensioner element of our society? This Government talks about spreading the changes, about everyone pulling in his or her belt and about everyone taking his or her share, but at the same time the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has his hand in the till for $17,000 a year. He is getting that money in a very marginal way-- Mr Brumby —Say that outside the House. Mr WHITE —The honourable member should not worry; enough people are saying it outside the House. Mr Brumby —Say that outside the House and see how well you go. Mr WHITE —If the honourable member thinks that the pensioners will forget that as just another bit of political rhetoric, he should wait until he sees the results at the next election or he should go and talk to some of the pensioners in his own electorate and see what they think about it. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I think it is really somewhat unparliamentary for the honourable member to use the expression that he has just used and I think he certainly ought to withdraw. I ask him to withdraw what he had to say about another honourable member. Mr White —Mr Deputy Speaker, I see nothing unparliamentary about it. Yesterday a Deputy Speaker ruled in this Parliament against the word `ruddy'. What I have said is not unparliamentary in the terms that I have come to expect-- Mr Howe —I think that is an accusation that should be made by way of a substantive motion. It is not something to raise in this debate. Mr White —Let me rephrase it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! Let me rule on the matter of relevance. I think the honourable member is trying to create analogies. I think he has extended the analogy too far. I regard the material as irrelevant to the debate. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order was that what was said was unparliamentary, that it represented an accusation against another honourable member of this House. Certainly it is extraneous, but if the honourable member opposite has the guts to make that kind of accusation he should do it by way of a substantive motion or he should withdraw. I ask him to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister has asked for the remarks to be withdrawn. There is a practice-- Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, in order to allow the debate to proceed I will withdraw, but I will not withdraw the matter-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —When an honourable member withdraws it should be done in an unqualified way. Mr WHITE —I withdrew the comments that I made, but I make the point, which I think is entirely relevant to this debate, that this Government is delaying the increases in pensions at the very time when the Treasurer, in what is seen by the electorate at large to be a very marginal operation, has helped himself to $17,000 worth of public funds. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The honourable member, having withdrawn, is simply repeating the allegations in similar terms. He has withdrawn once but he has repeated the allegation. I think he should withdraw it again or he should have the guts to come in here and take up the matter by way of a substantive motion. I ask him to withdraw again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not believe that the honourable member has used unparliamentary language. I ruled earlier in relation to the question of relevance. It is my view that arguments can be advanced by way of analogy during the debate, but the debate is not about the Treasurer, it is about social security. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the honourable member should withdraw the comments that he has made about the Treasurer. It is not as though he were just talking generally; he is talking very specifically about another honourable member. He is making accusations which are serious and which I believe he should withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —When I first spoke I ruled on the question of what I regarded as the nature of the expressions. They were not unparliamentary. I ask the honourable member to return to the subject of the debate. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr Brumby —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. With great respect, as I recall it, the expression that was used was that an individual had been helping himself to public money. The clear understanding that I have is just the connotation of the expression `helping oneself to public money' is that something has been gained wrongfully or illegally. That is the clear connotation in the common Australian usage of that phrase. If the honourable member has used that expression in that way, clearly that is unparliamentary language. No wrongful claim has been made at all against any source of public moneys by the individual against whom he has made the claim. As you would be aware, everything has been according to the book, under the guidelines of the Remuneration Tribunal. I ask for your reconsideration, as the expression `helping himself to public moneys' is simply a way of saying `dishonestly taking money'. That is the Australian understanding of such an expression. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I have just heard the honourable member for Bendigo referring to an allegation against the Treasurer. I have just heard the Minister protesting about reference to the Minister helping himself. There is no allegation that the Treasurer has got $17,000 improperly. He has got the money and he has kept it-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member-- Mr Tuckey —He has got his hands right in the till and you and all other Australians know it. That other house is uninhabitable. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr Howe —I think this is contempt of a Speaker's ruling. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have just made a ruling along those lines. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I call for order and I do not appreciate the honourable member remaining on his feet making allegations in the form of a point of order. Mr Howe —You need a lot of help, don't you? Mr Tuckey —What's that? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is on its feet. The House will return to order. The conduct of members is quite unparliamentary and the conversation is quite unparliamentary. I ask honourable members to restrain themselves. The debate will resume when we have order. A point of order has been taken by the honourable member for Bendigo. I do not recall the precise remarks. If the honourable member for McPherson made a suggestion that another honourable member was conducting himself improperly in relation to the matter of allowances, I ask for that to be withdrawn. I believe that such matters need to be dealt with by the moving of a substantive motion. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I again withdraw. The fact is that-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! As I have said, matters of analogy are quite appropriate during debate but this is not a debate about the Treasurer; it is about the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. Mr WHITE —But it has relevance, of course. This year, the Treasurer-- Mr Kerin —Mr Deputy Speaker, I also seek your indulgence. I would like your ruling on the intervention by the honourable member for O'Connor. He reinforced and simply restated what was said that prompted the Minister for Social Security to take a point of order. I believe that his behaviour is most unparliamentary. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I would rather the honourable member for O'Connor not leave the chamber until the matter is resolved. I must say that I regarded the remarks of the honourable member for O'Connor, in the form of a point of order, as disorderly in the way in which they were made. While I do not recall the entirety of them, if the point has been taken that there was a reflection upon another honourable member in the remarks, I ask for them to be withdrawn. Mr Tuckey —I will withdraw, in your interest. Mr WHITE —The points having been made, let us return to the Bill. I believe the arguments put forward that the pensioners are not being discriminated against through the delay in their pension increases are unsustainable. It is interesting to look at who these pensioners are, at an average age of between 65 and 70, and to see what sort of life they have had. Most of them would have been born between 1916 and 1920, shortly after World War I. They had to battle through the economic depression of the 1920s while the country was seeking to re-establish itself. They then had to cope with the Depression of the 1930s. Then the country was launched into the 1939-45 war. It is a bone of contention with many of them, as the Minister would know, that in 1946 an income tax levy was imposed for social security pensions. Most of them remember that very well, and they believe quite strongly that they contributed then and subsequently through the tax system to the pension that they are now getting. Mr Howe —I thought you were going to make them pay for the pension through a levy. Mr WHITE —We are talking about this Government's system. So they have not had it easy in their lifetime; it has been difficult for most pensioners. The Government, it seems to me quite unjustifiably, is delaying the increase in their pensions. I must ask again: When will the promise of the Government of November 1983, relating to the indexation of pensions at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, be forthcoming? I turn to the question of veterans' affairs. At the outset I remind the House and the people of Australia that this Government or any government in power owes a great debt to not only the people who served their country in time of war but also, more particularly in relation to this Bill, those who have been widowed as a result of war. That the Defence Force retirement and death benefits contract has been broken in recent weeks by this Government, with the 2 per cent discounting of pensions to people in receipt of DFRDB, is an absolute disgrace. Such a benefit is not to be likened to a social security pension. It is a contract between those people and government, established over many years. Many of the people who have paid into the DFRDB did so at considerable personal expense, going without many things in the latter years of their service to ensure that they would get that pension. It is a contract between the Government and those people. They are seeing 2 per cent of it being taken away. It is not a delay. They will never recover the 2 per cent which is being taken away because future consumer price index increases will be worked out on a smaller base. It is a disgrace that the Government seeks to pick on those people. In this legislation we are seeing the freezing of social security pensions for war widows at $60 a week. Also a disgrace was that proposal, which has since been reversed, that if the pension were reduced below $60 a week it would never get back to the upper limit. One is hard pressed to find out why, if the income were subsequently reduced, the pension could not go back to the maximum limit. Certainly when I made inquiries of the Department in relation to that matter it was at a loss to understand why. I am very pleased to see that the situation has been restored. One may wonder why war widows are in a special category. We have war widows because their husbands died either in war or because of war. They are the ones who battled through those lonely years, raised families and worked for a living. It is the country that asked for the sacrifice of their husbands; they are the ones who have been left behind. We pay them the same sorts of benefits that we would have paid to their husbands if they had been disabled in a time of war. They are a special category. This prospect of taking them from the responsibility of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and away from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and putting them with the general population is a mean and despicable trick. As the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) has quite rightly pointed out, the benefits that are going to our veterans and their widows will decrease in the coming years. In this country we can afford to be generous to those people who have served their country and to the dependants whom they have left behind. The amount is not escalating; it is decreasing. Whatever government is in power we should be seen to be generous to those people. They are some aspects of this Bill which are to be welcomed. It is a pity that I do not have time to cover the tightening up in some of the social security areas because they are very important. Generally speaking, it is an anti- pensioner Bill, an anti-veteran Bill and an anti-war widow Bill. We have to try to get some balance into the economic sacrifices that are being made in this country and not let some people take enormous benefits while others, such as pensioners and war widows, are being seen by everyone, not least the people concerned, as being highly discriminated against. I warmly support the amendment put forward by the honourable member for Richmond. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(11.07) —I support the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill which is before the House. This Bill gives effect to the decisions in the Budget relating to the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs portfolios. I digress from my prepared speech to refer to the comments made by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) in which he stated that tax evasion was dead when this Government came to office in 1983. All I can say to the honourable member is that that is a joke. Unfortunately, it is a very sick joke because the economy of this country was in a very bad state due to the tax evasion practices that were manifold when we came to office. Unfortunately, the Opposition's contribution to this debate illustrates the poverty of its present policies-policies of negativism, policies which would give to the haves and take away from the have-nots. If Opposition members want to regain the treasury bench-and it will certainly take them a long time-they will have to improve their game and be more honest with the elector- ate in respect of the assets test, the fringe benefits tax and tax evasion generally. The public remembers the lack of consistent policies of the Opposition when it was in power between 1975 and 1983. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) indicated in his second reading speech, many of these amendments have been brought in as a consequence of the current international economic conditions which have led to significant reductions in Australia's national income. A government is elected to govern. This means that from time to time hard decisions have to be made. This Government has had to face the challenge created by 30 years of mismanagement of the country's economy by those sitting opposite. Cutting $500m in the forward estimates of social security is neither an easy nor an enviable task, yet this restraint has been achieved with no discounting of index rises in pensions and benefits, as was mentioned in the excellent speech by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). Future six-monthly indexation increases to pensioners and beneficiaries will continue to be paid in full, but there will be a deferral for six weeks. Additionally, the measures implemented last year to reduce poverty traps in the social security system will be delayed until July 1987. These are the only changes to the general pensions and benefits area. Whilst no pensioner or beneficiary likes having his or her indexation increase deferred for six weeks, most recognise that this is preferable to the other options of cutting out or discounting the indexation increases. There is genuine concern in the community about the delay. I do not deny that. Recently a senior citizen said to me: `We have all been through a depression and the Second World War and know that there are times when we have to tighten our belts. We are prepared to do this if other sections of the community are prepared to do the same'. I hope those opposite who are so keen to throw out the fringe benefits tax will mark the words of the senior citizen, for his words reflect the feeling of many people in the community towards the fringe benefits tax. As a further cost saving measure, family allowances in respect of student children between 16 and 18 years of age will be income tested. Families with household incomes over $39,000 will not be eligible for family allowances for such children. This measure is in line with the Government's commitment to target welfare payments to the most needy in society. Family allowances currently provide between $5.25 and $10.50 a week per child. It is estimated that family allowances will increase by 1.6 per cent the disposable income of a single income family with one child receiving average weekly earnings in 1985-86. In other words, single income married couples with one child receiving average weekly earnings have 1.6 per cent more income to spend than similar couples without children. I make this point because this increase in disposable income illustrates the benefits of family allowance for those on average and low incomes. In a situation where financial restraint has to be exercised, the Government's decision to target welfare payments to the most needy is most understandable. Yet there is no doubt that the amount of assistance provided to families with children has declined in Australia. The real value of the family allowance has declined by almost 30 per cent since its introduction in 1976-77. Unfortunately, the decline in the real value of family allowances has led to a situation where the proportion of gross income paid in income tax by families with children has increased by much more than that paid by families without children. This makes very timely the decision of the Minister for Social Security in December 1985 to commission the social security review. One of the three major subject areas of that review is assistance to families with children. I, like many members from both sides of this House, look forward to seeing the final report of that review. I understand that the review will address, among other matters, the issue as to whether family assistance is best delivered on the outlay side of the Budget through cash transfers, or on the revenue side, through tax forgone. There are a number of positive steps taken in this Bill which should be recorded. The additional pension or benefit applicable in respect of a dependent child of a pensioner or beneficiary will be increased by $1 per week to $17 per week as from 1 November 1987. This will mean a corresponding increase in the rate of family income supplement in respect of an eligible child to $17 per week as from 1 November 1987. The rate of double orphan's pension will be increased by $4.30 per month to $60 per month as from November 1986. Additionally, the rate of handicapped child's allowance will be increased by $7 per month to $92 per month as from November 1986. The rent threshold applicable before a person paying private rent can qualify for rent assistance will be increased from $10 per week to $15 per week as from 13 December 1986. Clause 34 of the Bill, which amends section 107 of the principal Act, provides the qualification criteria for unemployment benefit. In effect, the amendments seek to tighten up eligibility for the benefit. It is interesting to turn to the 1983-84 annual report of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich. On page 57 he showed that he understood the dilemma facing the Department of Social Security. He stated: Generally the needs of the client beneficiary are such that the benefit or pension should be paid speedily. The primary function of the Department is that of a welfare organisation administering benefits as expeditiously as possible to its many client beneficiaries. This task requires sensitivity and understanding and cannot easily be reconciled with the Department's concurrent function of monitoring and investigating the payment of benefits and pensions so as to minimise the overall incidence of overpayment. It is amazing, in view of the millions of cheques issued by the Department to the large number of beneficiaries, that the number of social security frauds is so small. I will give some figures a bit later. The Department has taken a number of actions since the Redlich report, taking note of the criticisms contained in that report. Numerous steps have been taken to deal with the detection and recovery of overpayments. The Minister for Social Security announced a number of them in the House in February this year. They include increased effectiveness in dealing with existing debt, measures designed to prevent future overpayments, and declaration of the three- month amnesty which occurred between March and May 1986. Pensioner clients are now being contacted twice yearly to remind them of their responsibility to advise the Department of changes in their circumstances. This addresses concern about the incidence of overpayments which arise in this area. The recent Budget initiative requiring sole parent clients personally and regularly to lodge a statement of circumstances will also reduce the number of cases in this category. Direct credit is now the main means of payment of pensions, benefits or allowances. There is thus a greatly reduced scope for clients to claim improperly replacement cheques, as they were doing, or for third parties to steal and negotiate social security cheques. Cases of improper payment requiring police investigation, particularly involving schemes to defraud the Commonwealth, are referred to the Australian Federal Police as soon as it becomes apparent that such action is required. The work done on overpayments includes the drawing up of principles for the recovery of amounts outstanding in cases prosecuted for offences under the Social Security Act. It is good to see that there is now a full flow of information between the Department of Social Security and law enforcement agencies. I mentioned earlier the millions of cheques issued by the Department. I am informed that, in 1985-86, 10.4 million cheques were issued. Of these, 19,825, with a total value of $3.3m, were fraudulently negotiated and were referred to the Australian Federal Police. As a result there were a number of prosecutions. As most honourable members know, prosecutions can be instituted under either the Social Security Act or the Crimes Act. There were 1,903 prosecutions under the Social Security Act, leading to 1,885 convictions, and 245 prosecutions under the Crimes Act, leading to 241 convictions. There were also 115 prosecutions under the Crimes Act for imposition-that is, where the client improperly negotiated both an original cheque and one which was issued to replace it after the client asserted that the original was never received. Convictions were obtained in 103 cases. I mention those figures because Mr Redlich in his earlier report expressed concern at what he alleged was the inactivity of the Department in those early days in recovering payment. All honourable members would agree that no one can condone such fraud, and anything that can be done to reduce the number of frauds should be done. Three-quarters of social security frauds seem to come within the category of failure to notify change of circumstances. Two measures in this Bill aim to reduce such frauds. The first is that as from 1 November 1986 unemployment beneficiaries will have to be registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service in order to qualify for benefit, and the second is that as from that same date unemployment beneficiaries will have to lodge a current income statement and application for the continuation of benefit in person. This Bill recognises that there are occasions when a person fails to register because of circumstances beyond that person's control. A new sub-section in the Act will provide a power to disregard a person's failure to register. I realise time is moving on but I do want to repeat what I said earlier: This Bill will cut some $500m from the social security budget. It is not a Bill that any Minister for Social Security would willingly introduce, but this is a time when tough decisions have to be made. This Government is prepared to make those tough decisions, unlike the present Opposition which when it was in government baulked all the time at such tough decisions. I therefore support the Bill before the House. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(11.25) —I wish to say just one word of reply to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard). He said that the Fraser Government baulked at taking tough decisions. If he meant by that that it baulked at yielding to the temptation to get tough on pensioners and the people to whom this Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill refers, I am proud of its decisions. This Bill encapsulates the most miserable aspects of the 1986 Budget and shows just how miserable a Labor government can be. The burden being placed on pensioners and social welfare beneficiaries through the measures contained in this legislation, and as outlined in the Budget, is disgraceful. Much pre-Budget publicity was given to the fact that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) was outraged that cuts of half a billion dollars had to be made in an area involving people in greatest need. So he should have been. I am pleased to see that there are some back bench members of the Government who have made their views known over time. Notwithstanding party loyalty, there comes a time when an honourable member must say: `Enough. Why am I here if it is not to give voice to the weak and the virtually voiceless?'. Age pensioners have some voice and war widows have some voice, but there are others who are treated disgracefully through the actions of this Government and who are voiceless. It is our responsibility to ensure that their position is made clear. The actions of this Government in the veterans' affairs area has been a matter of some controversy for some time. In relation to war widows, the actions of the Government in this Budget should, I think, give justification to the alarm that veterans' organisations have been expressing for some time about the end intentions of this Government towards veterans. Our World War II veterans are of course now reaching the age of retirement and death-probably, I think it is fair to say, premature death in many cases. Anybody who is involved in the Returned Services League will tell us that its numbers are declining rapidly and significantly due to the death of veterans. Many men are dying in their late 50s and early 60s, well below the average life expectancy of men in the Australian community. When the Government made its decision to reduce payments to war widows, I suppose it thought it was only taking on the war widows, but I am sure there are many members of the Government who have had the experience of members of the RSL expressing concern to them about direction in this area on account of their wives. They expect to die before their wives and they are extremely anxious that their widows be properly looked after. Their alarm is well justified. The decision, as the Minister euphemistically put it in his second reading speech, to restructure benefits and eligibilities is a mean one indeed. Of course, the Government has made it in the knowledge that the number of war widows will grow considerably in the next few years. The Minister is a master of euphemism. He uses words which sound mild and on occasions even kind. The policies that those words describe are anything but mild or kind. The Minister said in his second reading speech, referring to the Budget restraint that was necessary: This restraint was achieved with no discounting of indexed rises in pensions and benefits. That is not absolutely true because there are some payments presented as increases that are not equal to the level of inflation. I hope time will permit me to come to that. The deferral of the indexed increase for pensioners is not an indexation, it is just not paying. This six-week deferral will cost pensioners very dearly. The document from the Australian Council of Social Service community sector briefing notes contains this statement including the figures that are accepted: When Labor came to office in 1983 it promised to reduce the time taken to provide the indexation increase in pensions from five months or more to one month. Three years later, no progress has been made and now the delay is to be increased by a further six weeks. I think the Minister would probably refer to that as reverse progress. That is as euphemistic as one can get about it. It also stated: Because of the Government's failure to fulfil this promise, pensioners on average have lost $400 since 1983. This financial year a single pensioner will lose a further $50 when the November and May indexation increases are delayed by six weeks and a pensioner couple will lose a further $80. Happy Christmas pensioners of Australia, from the Hawke Government! Mr Hodgman —Shame on them. Mrs SULLIVAN —Indeed, it is shameful, as the honourable member for Denison says. At the time of year when pensioners most need a few extra bob in their pockets, this Government will make sure that they do not get it. Of course, this compounds a previous miserable decision of this Government about the amount of extra income that a pensioner may receive without losing any benefits. I welcome the fact that a pensioner can now receive $40 a week extra income without losing the pension. It was ridiculous that the amount was $20 for so long. I freely admit that that happened under a Liberal government and that it was nonsensical. Of course, other benefits were increased at the same time. Nevertheless, it is a bit of a mockery when this Government has taken away the ability of pensioners to average their income over the year. No Liberal government required that they earn $20 every week of the year; they were allowed to average their income. Now, a pensioner who wants to be entitled to that amount of $40 without loss of benefits will not be allowed to earn more than $40 a week if he wants to keep all of those benefits. Why on earth should it matter to a government whether they earn that extra money for two months or 12 months, if that is all they earn? I will tell honourable members why it matters. The reality is that fewer pensioners have been able to take advantage of this and therefore have a reduced income because they cannot earn money in ways that they previously did without loss of benefit. Of course, the real reason, the benefit to the Government, is that it reduces the amount of benefits over periods when pensioners are earning at a rate greater than $40 a week but the total does not exceed the allowable amount. The record of this Government as it relates to pensioners is a disgrace. The Government has now taken action to allow sportsmen and women and people involved in the arts to average their income. I agree with that; their earning capacity fluctuates. Why does it not allow that for the least advantaged people in our society? Why can it not be consistent? The only motive can be cost cutting. Another issue on which I wish to spend a little time-time is limited for all of us today because of the guillotine-is the issue of poverty traps. I said in a speech earlier this week that I am one of those people who welcomed the poverty trap measures announced by the Minister for Social Security some time ago. I refer to his words in the second reading speech on the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill 1985 in October 1985: The Government has been concerned for some time that Commonwealth programs can interact in a way that disadvantages the people they should help, by trapping them in poverty. It has been recognised that the most savage of these poverty traps occurs when tax and social security interact. There is something a little more savage; it is the savagery of this Budget as it affects the most disadvantaged, most poverty stricken members of the Australian community. It is universally recognised that the poorest people in Australia are those families with dependent children whose income is social security. Social security recipients who have dependent children are the most disadvantaged, those most caught in poverty in our community. Not only has the Government deferred implementation of the poverty trap measures that it talked about 12 months ago and on which it brought in some legislation not only has it extended the wait to 20 months after announcement it has compounded the poverty trap by several measures in this wretched Bill. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said: Additional pension or benefit applicable for a dependent child of a pensioner or beneficiary will be increased by $1 to $17 per week, in November 1986 . . . That is an increase nearly 2 per cent below the anticipated inflation rate contained in the Budget. This measure comes from the Minister who said that there would be no discounting for pensioners. That sounds to me like discounting. The benefit linked to dependent children will not even keep pace with inflation. The Australian Council of Social Service had something to say about that too. In general terms in relation to the poverty trap it said: The poverty trap initiatives that were to be introduced in November would have helped nearly half a million pensioners who are trying to provide for themselves and reduce their reliance on Government assistance. The loss for pensioners in this financial year will be much larger than the amount taxpayers will lose because of the delays in tax cuts. A sole parent pensioner with two children and who is paying high private rent will lose $26 per week or nearly $900 this year. The poverty trap measures were introduced as part of last year's tax reform package, along with the cuts in income tax rates. Taxpayers will suffer only a three months delay in their tax cuts, but pensioners are expected to wait eight months. That is for those who are least able to afford it. It also states: The so-called increases in additional payment for children of pensioners and beneficiaries, and in FIS- that is, the family income supplement- are not real increases at all, since they are less than the increase in inflation. As a consequence of these real cuts in payments for children, plus the other delays in pension increases and income test changes, it is pensioner and beneficiary families with children-the neediest group in the community-who will suffer the most in this Budget. Now where are the fine words of Government speakers who say how proud they are of the Government for facing tough choices? Every time they are tempted to say that, I would like them to look at the increase in the appropriations this year for the Australian Bicentennial Authority. It runs to tens of millions of dollars. That may be rationalised on the ground that this financial year 1986-87 is close to the Bicentenary. I am one of those who have supported the fact that we should be proud of and celebrate the Bicentenary that 1988 represents. However, I am also one of those who are disquieted by the enormous role that government will play. If this is a genuine celebration by Australians, it should not be necessary for us to spend tens of millions of dollars on this show. If the Government were really serious about the need to pull in its belt, it would have looked a little more closely at that. One program that I had an interest in-I do not want to divert too far off the track-involved migrant groups. The Government has cancelled that and the money has been put into some sort of bureaucratic thing, some foundation here in Canberra. Yet migrant groups in the community were raising money in order to have a structured and good participation. That has been the Government's attitude on that. The Government could look at it as something to trim back. But to cut back on a spectacular that the Government has created for itself for 1988 is apparently out of the question. The Government instead looks at how it can trim back on pensioners and how it can take money out of their pockets prior to Christmas. The Government trims back on the poorest; it trims back on social security recipients desperately trying to rear their children in a decent way. This attitude is further demonstrated by the Government's decisions in relation to educational allowances. ACOSS said: 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 a $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. Pensioners will be that amount worse off on top of all the other amounts that they are worse off. Bear in mind that these people are not going into education for entertainment or edification; their motivation, honourable members can be sure, is to qualify themselves so that they can get out of their poverty traps, get off the pension, get into salaried employment and give their children a decent fighting chance for the future. It is very clear that when this Government made its decisions it did not put these people at a very high priority. As I said at the beginning of my speech, there are some people and organisations which can speak for them. There is ACOSS; there are such organisations as the Returned Services League of Australia, the War Widows Guild and the Association of Civilian Widows. But there are many who are voiceless and therefore, they feel, powerless. It is a particular disgrace to this Minister that he can continue in the Cabinet knowing the effects of this Budget on these people and having that on his conscience. Mr Hodgman —He should resign. Mrs SULLIVAN —He should resign, as the honourable member for Denison said-and I wonder how long it will be before he does. On the other hand, given that this has happened, perhaps it is just as well that he is still there. Clearly there are a lot of unsympathetic people in Cabinet and in the Government and maybe his voice is needed. In the couple of minutes left to me I want to refer to another matter that I have raised a couple of times in debate and compare it with the things I have just said. I have raised twice in debate on the appropriations the matter of widows and supporting parent's benefit recipients having to front up to bureaucrats for interviews and explain themselves shortly after bereavement or loss of their spouse. I will not at this stage take up the point that the Minister made in his reply a day or so ago in relation to de jure widows. I say, however, that his explanation does not satisfy me. I think it is callous, heartless and inhumane. I just put it to the House that we have a very large number of people receiving widows' pensions or supporting parent's benefit. We will have a policy that requires new ones to report monthly for a period, and quarterly thereafter. I ask the Minister the cost of that. Mr Howe —It is minor compared with the savings. Mrs SULLIVAN —The Government has another system whereby it sends out letters to pensioners asking whether their circumstances have changed. Why, in the name of humanity, can that not be the system for these people? In the name of economy, if the Government is really going to do this, and give the counselling it is talking about-counselling is another euphemism-how many public servants will it tie up? The Minister said that the cost was minor in terms of the savings. If the measure forces people off the pension, that is a saving. If it saves on fraud, that is good; that is a saving. It would be more to the point if the Government got a move on on this subject of child maintenance. Reports of inquiries have been hanging around for years. We will not get any action until next year on the real issue and it will not be these interviews that achieve any savings in that area. I doubt very much whether, if the Government does this, there will be any benefit in it other than for the additional members of the Public Service that the measure will require. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(11.45) —I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate today on the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. This Bill provides the opportunity for Australians as a whole to gauge in the clearest, starkest terms the fundamentally different approach in the areas of veterans' affairs and social security between this Australian Labor Party Government and the conservative Opposition. It is true that this Bill, unfortunately, contains a number of harsh measures-measures that, if the Australian economy were not so severely afflicted by the international trading circumstances of today, we on this side of the House would never contemplate. But the circumstance in which this Bill comes before the House is such that this Government has repeatedly called for restraint with equity. This Government believes that in these harsh times, while our economy undergoes the fundamental changes that honourable members opposite for 30 of the last 34 years failed to bring about, every Australian must share some of the burden of that reformation of the Australian economy. We have seen that right across the board in Government policy. There is now a broader tax net on business. Income that previously has gone untaxed can no longer go untaxed in harsh times. Business is being asked to pay more. Wage and salary earners are being asked to accept less, and further real wage cuts are built into the system. Social security recipients, as a result of these circumstances, are also being asked to shoulder some of the burden of the national reconstruction. But this Government believes that people such as pensioners should bear less of that burden than the rest of the community. This Government believes that those least able should have the least call on them for sacrifice in the national interest. We can see that belief epitomised in this Bill, because one of the major changes to the Social Security Act contained in this Bill is the six weeks delay, or three-pay period delay, in the indexation of pensions. I want the House, and indeed the nation, to focus very clearly on this instance because it provides the contrast that I spoke of a few moments ago. It shows the contrast with the standard that we are asking of the rest of the community, those more able to afford the sacrifice we are asking of them. For the rest of the community, for wage and salary earners, we are seeking a 2 per cent real reduction in income through the wages system. We are not asking that of pensioners. Pensioners instead are being asked for a delay, a deferment of six weeks on each of the two indexation periods. The Government is not seeking to reduce their full entitlement in terms of the cost of living. Pensioners are not being asked what this Government is asking of the rest of Australia. I place on record in this House that I believe that is absolutely and thoroughly the most correct position to adopt. This instance provides a second contrast; that is, a contrast with the record of those opposite when they were in government. It seems that this country, and particularly pensioners, have forgotten the 1979 pension freeze, when there was no six-week delay of pensioner benefits, no three-pay period delay of cost of living increases for the aged, the disabled and other pensioners; there was a 12-month pension freeze by honourable members opposite when they were in government. In 1979 the international trading circumstances which Australia faced were nowhere near as onerous, in that sense not nearly as tough, as they now are. Yet in that period the coalition asked pensioners to take a greater rather than a lesser burden compared to the rest of the community. I notice a few heads among the Opposition suddenly slumping downwards as I make that point. Opposition members have forgotten the pension freeze which they forced on the aged. Opposition members forget their dark, dismal record. We on this side will take every opportunity to remind the aged between now and 1988 of those facts. If that is not enough, what is the current rhetoric of Opposition members on social security matters? They want more cuts. They come into this House, led by the wets such as the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), and bleed all over the chamber saying how terrible it all is, but what is the Opposition leadership saying? The truth is that when the Liberal and National parties were in government they treated the aged like lepers and now in Opposition they are calling on the Labor Government to kick the aged and other pensioners like the proverbial cat. Let us not forget what best encapsulates the Opposition's philosophy. I take, for instance, the President of the Liberal Party, Mr John Valder, and his immortal words on the Westpac tape when he said what a wonderful thing it was that the Government was cutting back social security and that he would rush to watch our Government take those steps to save the Liberals having to do those things in government. Extracts from the Carleton-Walsh Report on 1 August 1985 are even more stark. I quote from that program when Mr Valder said: If you want to have smaller government you're going to have to reduce, you know, the biggest burden or certainly the fastest increasing component of Government spending by far has been social welfare over the last decade. So if you're really talking about reducing Government spending, it's all very well to say we'll privatise this and we'll do that and fiddle with that. That's all fiddling with the edges. If you're really going to make any big reduction in Government spending, I've got to say there is one area it's going to be done in and it would have to be done in and that's social welfare, and pity the Minister for Social Welfare who has to do that. I wonder whether the shadow Treasurer and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who are now at the table, who rushed around during the last election campaign telling pensioners that their gold fillings were to be counted in the assets test, scaring them in a shameless manner, would like me to read that sentence again from Mr Valder's remarks: If you're really going to make any big reduction in Government spending, I've got to say there is one area it's going to be done in and it would have to be done in and that's social welfare, and pity the Minister for Social Welfare who has to do that. That is the President of the Party whose supporters sit opposite, come into this House and bleed about this Bill but slink around the community calling for more. There is a clear philosophical difference between us on this side and those opposite. It is black and white; it is stark. Opposition members want further reductions in social welfare spending; they want smaller government. They want these things at a time when we on this side have pulled the Budget deficit down as a percentage of gross domestic product from 5 per cent to 1.5 per cent this year, and they call for more! What this must inevitably mean is that those opposite have in their drawers a secret agenda, which will mean more cuts for pensioners and veterans' entitlements and which will mean that every social security recipient across the country would not be able to sleep peacefully at night in the unlikely event that the Opposition should gain government. Where is the brave New Right rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the shadow Treasurer on this subject? They do not have the courage to spell out where these cuts will be; they do not have the integrity to table their policies on where these cuts will be or what will be the bottom line expenditure. Instead, there is mock indignation and mock amendments. Pensioners and veterans should be very wary because those on the New Right whom the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer rush not to repudiate but to embrace-people like Brian Buckley and Andrew Hay, who set the agenda for those opposite, who pull the strings of the Leader of the Opposition-have done the talking on this topic. It is interesting to note that, in the recently published alternative budget by Brian Buckley, veterans' disability allowances were advocated for taxation. The agenda of the New Right that now controls those opposite advocates the taxing of veterans' disability allowance; it advocates a devaluation discount of the pension sector-a move that we on this side rejected. I am proud to say that I played my part in that. The pensioners in my area came to me and said: `We do not mind sharing some of the burden of the economic reconstruction, but we object to a discount, a pension freeze like the Liberals gave us'. That was rejected by us on this side. Despite these cuts and what is advocated by those opposite, the 1986 Budget was not devoid of help for those less well off in our society and this social security legislation contains a number of favourable provisions: The level of rent assistance for a person eligible will increase by $5 to $15 a week; the additional pension or benefit applicable for a dependent child of a pensioner will increase to $17 per week; the rate of double orphan's pension will be increased by $4.30 to $60 per month; the handicapped child allowance will increase by $7 to $92 per month; and the mobility allowance will increase by $1 to $11 a week. That can be set against a record, of which this Government can be rightfully proud, in social security and veterans' affairs. It is this Government, not those opposite, which has not retreated from its commitment to raise pensions to a decent level. During the coalition's period of office pensions fell from 24 per cent of average weekly earnings to 22.7 per cent in March 1983. In May 1986 pension increases lifted that figure to 24 per cent of average weekly earnings, and the December increase will take the pension further along the path to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Most significantly, the Australian Labor Party has an excellent record in community services for the aged, which is a noteworthy contribution to the welfare of the aged. Since March 1983 in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio under this Government spending has risen by 65 per cent, yet the honourable member for Moncrieff and the rest of the wets in the Opposition bleed all over the green leather benches in this chamber and say what terrible things the Government has done to veterans. I remind them that since that date we have increased expenditure on veterans' affairs by 65 per cent. The veterans' community has not forgotten that, either. In amending the Veterans' Entitlements Act the Bill seeks to correct machinery problems that have arisen since the inception of the Act four months ago. One of my constituents, a Mrs Doyle, had a problem in that she was awarded a settlement but, because of technical problems in the legislation, was unable to claim it. One of the amendments in this Bill will correct that problem. Amendments to the Act will now mean that the sum that was awarded and is owed to Mrs Doyle will now be able to be paid to her. I highlight that case to show that when this Government sees a problem in legislation, it will make changes that benefit those in need. The Government is not afraid to introduce amendments where these are necessary. In Mrs Doyle's case, I am very pleased that a favourable outcome has been reached. In conclusion, I make this point: Under the influence of the heady wine of the gallup polls of recent days, Opposition members are flushed with the thoughts of victory. But by 1988 that heady wine will bring about a gross hangover. The inhumane, harsh, Thatcher-like policies advocated by those opposite, which are in stark contrast to our own, will be flushed out by this Government and brought to the attention of every pensioner organisation and every Returned Services League sub-branch across this nation. At the next election the issues of veterans affairs and social security will be in black and white. The choice will be a government of compassion and realistic concern or an alternative government that believes in cutting for cutting's sake. I am pleased to support this Bill. I am pleased to support the record of this Government in the area of pensions, social security and veterans affairs. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.02) —The people of Australia have just been listening to the voice of the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), a member of a government which has shamefully betrayed one and a half million pensioners and beneficiaries and 650,000 ex-service men and women, widows and their dependants. This Government, more than any government since Federation, has broken almost every promise it made to the poor and elderly of Australia, and in this shameful Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill it betrays them once again. This Government, which promised justice and equity to the pensioners, has decided that it will rob the pensioners of Australia of some very valuable dollars in the six weeks running up to Christmas. Mr Burr —That is disgraceful. Mr HODGMAN —How mean, miserable and, as the honourable member for Lyons says, disgraceful. This Government, already well known as a granny-bashing, grave-robbing government, is now to become Scrooge-like. It will steal $129m from the pensioners of Australia in the six weeks running up to Christmas. Do honourable members remember the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) standing up at the Sydney Opera House in that award winning cameo performance when he announced the Australian Labor Party's Federal election policy for 1983? Mr Blunt —What did he say? Mr HODGMAN —My very good friend, the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), who is a genuine friend of the pensioners of Australia, asks what the Prime Minister said. He said: My Government will not take money out of the pensioners' cheques. What about the $83 which will be taken from married pensioner couples in the six weeks running up to Christmas? That is straight out stealing. What about the $53 that will be taken from the single pensioners in the six weeks running up to Christmas? That again is straight out stealing. Merry Christmas, pensioners of Australia, with the compliments of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Security. This Government makes Scrooge look like Father Christmas. That is how mean and miserable it is. That $83 robbed from the pensioners will mean smaller Christmas presents for pensioners' grandchildren and less Christmas fare on the table on Christmas day. There will be no turkey for the pensioners under this Hawke socialist Government and no chicken either. Sausages, hamburgers and dry bread will be the menu, like it or lump it. Mr Howe —Ha, ha! Mr HODGMAN —The Minister laughs- Mr Miles —Probably rabbit! Mr HODGMAN —My colleague the honourable member for Braddon has hit the nail right on the head. My colleagues the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), the honourable member for Bass (Mr Miles) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who is chairman of the newly formed Opposition task force on the elderly, and I do not laugh; we cry. We cry that a government could be so mean and miserable and-as I will prove in a moment-unconstitutional as to rob the pensioners, the veterans, the war widows and even the little 16-year-old grandchildren. I do not think that the honourable member for Barton will talk very much to the pensioners in his electorate between now and the next election-- Mr Burr —No, he is going to lose his seat. Mr HODGMAN —Well, they will not be talking to him, that is for sure. They will not be listening to him either. While I am dealing with the honourable member for Barton, who is also a member of the New South Wales Right, I must say that for all my criticism of the Minister-he knows that I regard him as a granny basher, a grave robber and the worst Minister for Social Security that we have ever seen-I will give him one point. It might surprise some people to hear me say this, but I have far more respect for the integrity and sincerity of the Left, including the Victorian Left, than I have for the unprincipled pragmatism, opportunism and sheer Tammany Hall tactics of the New South Wales Labor Right. Mr Blunt —They have sold out. Mr HODGMAN —The shadow Minister is right. They have sold out, but I must say in fairness to this Minister that he was probably-- Mr Blunt —He did his best, but it was not enough. Mr HODGMAN —Certainly, he did his best, but it was not good enough. He was rolled by a cruel, heartless, authoritarian and economic-dominated, uncaring Cabinet, led by a Treasurer who does not have any blood in his veins. Cold ice runs through the veins of the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). What should the pensioners of Australia do about this dishonourable Government which promised them it would reduce the time lapse for their consumer price index increases from five months to one month? That was the election promise. The Government said that pensioners would get their CPI increases more quickly under Prime Minister Hawke than they did under Prime Minister Fraser. I acknowledge the distinguished presence in the chamber of two former senior Ministers in the Fraser Government-the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee). One thing about former Prime Minister Fraser which must be said-and I believe that both the honourable member for Kooyong and the honourable member for Goldstein would confirm this-is that whilst he promised little, he always delivered. It is a tribute to him that in one area he is regarded as having been the most honourable Prime Minister-and that is in his dealings with questions of Aboriginal affairs. He did not promise a lot, but he delivered. This Prime Minister promises the world and delivers nothing. My advice to the pensioners of Australia is to fight this rotten, despicable, miserable Government and to fight it in the High Court of Australia. There is great wisdom in the pensioners of Australia having a very close look at the case of Green v. Daniels, which they will find reported in 51 Australian Law Journals Report at page 463. That was an action brought by a young Tasmanian lass who was refused unemployment benefit because the Government of the day took the view that school leavers would not get unemployment benefit until the end of the school holidays. That was the official government policy and the directive issued by the Department of Social Security. The head of the Department, the Director-General, was a very great Australian, Mr L. J. Daniels. He was obliged to carry out the Government's directive. Karen Green, by her next friend Patricia Ann Truman, brought an action in the High Court of Australia. which was heard in Melbourne on 4, 7 and 9 March 1977 and on 15 April 1977. I know that the honourable member for Kooyong and the honourable member for Goldstein will recall, as will my Tasmanian colleagues the honourable members for Lyons and Braddon, that that was heard by a single justice of the High Court of Australia-Mr Justice Stephen, better known to most Australians today as Sir Ninian Stephen, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. One of the points taken by the Commonwealth in that case was that Karen Green had no right to come to the court and seek justice. It told her that her unemployment benefit was not a right or a privilege; it was a gratuity, it was something that the Commonwealth could give her or take away from her. If one looks at page 469 of the report, one will see that the argument put was that this was a gratuity which could be cancelled or suspended by the Director-General in his uncontrolled discretion. What did His Honour Mr Justice Stephen, now Governor-General of Australia, say about that? He rejected the proposition that unemployment benefit is no more than a gratuity, to payment of which the plaintiff, Karen Green, could have no rights enforceable at law. His Honour Mr Justice Stephen said that Karen Green had `a substantial interest recognised by the law'. He went further: if . . . she lacks a cause of action in the strict sense of that term- that is a legal way of saying that a person has no right to come to the court- that will not debar her from declaratory relief. The honourable member for Kooyong and the honourable member for Goldstein, who are members of the legal profession, will know that I am not misleading the House when I say that, even if technically she did not have a cause of action, as His Honour said, that would not debar her from declaratory relief. In fact he made two declarations in her favour. I say to the pensioners of Australia: You should fight this rotten Government on every front, including the High Court. I contend that one and a half million pension beneficiaries, plus their dependants, have a vested right and a legal entitlement to the increase due on 1 November. I believe-to quote the words of Sir Ninian Stephen, one of the greatest judges ever on the High Court of Australia-that they have a substantial interest recognised by the law. Mr Peacock —Would you appear for them in the High Court? Mr HODGMAN —If I were honoured by being invited, I would. This Government is caught in a time trap. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young)-the pensioners of Australia should know this-came into the House this morning and declared this legislation to be urgent. Urgent for whom? Does the Government think that the pensioners of Australia want their increases deferred? Of course not. It is urgent for this miserable Government. It has to get this legislation through the Parliament before 1 November, otherwise the automatic increases will apply and the Government will not be able to rob the pensioners of the $129m that Treasurer Keating is already counting in the middle of the night. The Government will not be able to rob the veterans, ex-service men and women, widows and their dependants of $26.3m. This is how mean the Government is: The disability pension is for ex-service men and women who have had legs amputated, or are blind or dying of cancer. This Government is taking $4.8m away from them by this deferment. Service pensioners have had $17.8m robbed from them and the Government has picked out the war widows to steal $3.7m from. Is that not miserable-$26.3m. How does that action tie in with the words of one of the greatest people ever in the Australian Labor Party? The late Rt Hon. J. B. Chifley, Prime Minister of this country and a very great man, in his concluding speech in this Parliament before his death advised this Parliament that it was the duty of this Parliament to protect the rights of ex-service men and women and their dependants. I read his words. Ben Chifley said: On this Parliament rests the responsibility of seeing that the right thing shall be done. From the other side of the chamber a former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Sir Arthur Fadden, had this to say: A grateful nation must see that those who are privileged to return from battle areas shall be properly cared for, and that their reinstatement in civil life shall be wisely and expeditiously carried out. Dr H. V. Evatt fought for the ex-service men and women, and we know what happened to his amendments to the Repatriation Amendment Act. It was torn to shreds last year. What sort of conscience does this Government have when it is going to steal from one and a half million pensioners and rip off the veterans, ex-service men and women, war widows and their dependants? The Government will not even let the war widows retain the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. That has gone. Pensioners should understand this. To every Labor member and senator they see between now and the next election, when they come to them for votes they should say: `Why didn't you complain when the Minister curtailed the debate?' The second reading of this vital legislation will be chopped, guillotined, executed at 12.20 p.m. Mr Howe —You haven't got any more speakers. Mr HODGMAN —We have hundreds of speakers ready to go and the Government is chopping us off. The Government will guillotine this legislation, as it did the repatriation legislation in the middle of the night. It was a foul, foul deed the Government did. Today the Government has allowed this chamber just three hours and 20 minutes to debate the rights and wrongs of its wrong judgment, its immorality and its unprincipled robbery. The Government is allowing 10 minutes for the Committee stage. It is allowing 10 minutes for this Parliament to debate the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986, and guess how many clauses there are in the Bill? One hundred and seventeen. Does the Government think we will be able to debate 117 clauses in 10 miserable minutes? Is that a fair go for the pensioners of Australia? Is it a fair go for the war widows and their children and grandchildren? I say to the Minister at the table that he will have something coming in the Senate, because senators will not be structured to the Government's rigid rotten time-table to get this miserable law through by 1 November. The Government will have the fight of its life in the Senate. I say in advance that I will commend every senator who will delay, drag out and hold up this rotten legislation until we get past 1 November. Does the Government know what will happen? It will have to decide whether it has the guts to take away retrospectively an automatic increase. In view of what happened to the Cabinet in relation to the freezing of the pension component for the poor war widows of Australia, I say `hooray' that the Caucus for once stood up and did the right thing and rolled the Cabinet, of which the Minister is a member-although, in fairness, I would like to believe that the Minister would have been one of the people cheering with Senator Gietzelt at the Caucus decision to roll the Government on this rotten decision. The Minister did the right thing on that. I appeal to him today to think again before deferring the pensioners' increases. He should think whether he will sleep well at night in the six weeks running up to Christmas, knowing that he has aided and abetted theft, robbery and fraudulent misappropriation of $129m from the pockets of the pensioners of this country. I hope that young honourable members with light in their eyes, hope in their hearts, and a real spirit about a great Australia will walk away from something as shabby as that. I would like to think that they will agree with the Opposition amendment that the Government stands condemned for deferring all automatic pension increases due on 1 November 1986 and further stands condemned for deferring for eight months the poverty trap relief measures which are supported by many on this side of the House, including the honourable member for Kooyong and the honourable member for Goldstein. The Government is further condemned for its illogical means testing of family allowances for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. It is only a matter of time before the ice water veined Treasurer will be taking on the seven-year-olds. The Government is condemned for its failure to act with justice and equity in respect of lifting the rent threshold before a person paying rent for private accommodation can qualify for rent assistance. In one minute's time this debate will be guillotined by order of the Hawke socialist Government. Mr Peacock —You won't have finished. Mr HODGMAN —I will not have finished. The honourable member sitting opposite who will follow me speaks with warmth and sincerity. He will be chopped. It is his colleague the honourable member for Barton who took up his time. This Government is the most miserable, mean, despicable, Scrooge-like, bushranging Government. The message I give to it is: Why does it not pick on somebody its own age? Why does it attack the 70-year-old, the 80-year-old, the 90-year-old and the 93-year-old pensioners? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The time allotted for the second reading stage of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Blunt's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— 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. Klugman, R. E. Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. A. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher,M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann,, A. E. Katter, R. C. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Jull, D. F. Dubois, S. G. Hawker, D. P. M. Brown, John MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.30) —Before the-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The time allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill has expired. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Howe)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.31) —A moment ago the Opposition called for a Committee, and I endeavoured to speak in the Committee stage to demonstrate to the entire Australian public the way in which the Government is ramming this legislation through the Parliament, crushing the rights-- Mr Howe —I rise on a point of order. What we are getting again is a recanvassing of a debate that occurred earlier this day rather than a discussion about this Bill. It seems to me quite outrageous that the honourable member for Denison should continue to return to questions of procedure when everyone in this House knows that there were not sufficient speakers on the Opposition side to extend the debate any longer than the time allotted. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to direct the honourable member to direct his remarks to the Bill rather than to procedures in relation to the debate that took place earlier today. Mr Ruddock —On the point of order: I would like to have spoken in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —There is no point of order. On the point of order that was taken by the Minister for Social Security, I ask the honourable member for Denison to obey the rules governing third reading debates. Certainly there is nothing to prevent him from making some opening remarks. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Following a recent ruling, Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice was checked. I am obliged to the Deputy Speaker who is in the chamber; he was quite correct. On a third reading one cannot recanvass the second reading debate, but one can speak to the contents of the Bill as it now comes to the third reading, including such comments as to how it has been shaped in the Committee stage. That was the short point that I wanted to make. The people of Australia know that this miserable Government allowed one minute to debate in Committee a Bill containing 117 clauses, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum of 113 pages. This is scandalous and disgraceful. Mr Howe —I rise on a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I understood your direction to the honourable member for Denison following the last point of order that I took, it was that he ought to apply his mind and also perhaps his speech to the issues that are contained within this Bill. In an earlier speech, if I may so, we heard from the honourable member a lot of garbage in terms of what is in the Bill and its effect. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the Minister has made his point of order. Mr Howe —Frankly, I think the House would be better occupied with that than with-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the Minister has made his point of order. The honourable member for Denison may continue his comments. I know that they will be limited to the Bill as reported by the Committee. Mr HODGMAN —Yes, they will. I want to invite every pensioner in Australia listening to this broadcast to get a pencil and a piece of paper and write down `clause 13' and `clause 37' because these clauses are the ones-- Mr Keogh —I rise on a point of order. I invite you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rule on the defiance of the Chair by the honourable member for Denison. In a third reading speech he must stick strictly to the contents of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —In relation to the point of order, I would rather have waited until the honourable member for Denison had finished his sentence because I find it difficult to rule. Mr HODGMAN —That is an incredible remark from the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), who is a Deputy Speaker. Either he is deaf or he does not understand the Standing Orders. I am inviting the pensioners of Australia to study the contents of this Bill, particularly clauses 13 and 37. I invite them to ask every Australian Labor Party member and senator whom they see between now and the next election why they voted for clauses 13 and 37 because those are the clauses under which one and a half million Australian pensioners will be robbed of $129m and 650,000 veterans, ex-service men and women, widows, dependent children and dependent grandchildren will be robbed of $50m. I hate robbery at any time, but robbery in the six weeks before Christmas-- Mr Keogh —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr HODGMAN —Robbery of which you are an accomplice, an aider and an abettor-- Mr Keogh —On a point of order: Accepting your previous advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened to not only one sentence but more than one sentence of the speech of the honourable member for Denison. He is quite clearly defying the Chair in that he is endeavouring to make a second reading debate speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his point of order. The honourable member for Bowman will resume his seat. Mr Keogh —It should be made clear to him that he must-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Bowman will resume his seat. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Bowman keeps trying to knock me out by hitting me with his chin on my fist. Extraordinary! Honourable members opposite can try as hard as they like, but the Minister for the guillotine, the Madame Defarge of the Australian Parliament, Moscow Mick, determined that we would not be allowed to debate this matter past 12.40 p.m. today. He thinks that means we will get the Bill rammed through here, and that will be it. I send a signal to the Senate, and the Senate will send a signal back to the Government. The Senate will not sit by and watch it murder, rape and rob the pensioners of Australia. It is granny robbing, grave robbing-- Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order relating to the language which has been used and which has been directed at honourable members on this side of the House. I draw your attention to particular words such as `rob', `pillage' and `murder'. Mr Young —No wonder he got the sack. Mr Howe —They are unparliamentary. But, even within the broad lexicon of unparliamentary language, these words that are being used must represent the most extreme forms of language that I can recall in my time-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has made his point. I ask the honourable member for Denison to withdraw the remarks. Mr HODGMAN —I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, sir. During that exchange the Special Minister of State had the effrontery to accuse me of being sacked. I remind the people of Australia that he has been sacked twice. Mr Scholes —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw the attention of the House to the rulings that you have made on a number of occasions. The dismissal or otherwise of the Special Minister of State does not, to my knowledge, appear in any clause of this Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Denison will address this Bill. Mr HODGMAN —There are one and a half minutes left to debate what this Government-- Mr Brumby —The listeners. Mr HODGMAN —Aided and abetted by the honourable member for Bendigo, is doing. I owe the unemployed and those on sickness benefits an apology. In the 19 minutes in which I had to speak before I was gagged I had been talking about old age pensioners, the grandparents of Australia, the war widows and the veterans and their dependants, but the shadow Minister reminded me that I had not mentioned those on unemployment benefits and those on sickness benefits-the amputees, the blind, the crippled and the cancer-ridden will all be robbed of their increases by this heartless government. (Quorum formed) Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The time allotted for discussion of the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.43 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a matter of courtesy, I mention to the House that the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) will be absent from Question Time today. Mr HODGES —I refer the Treasurer to his refusal yesterday to answer any questions concerning the taxation laws he has introduced, and to his statement that any questions seeking policy information on new tax laws introduced by the Government should be placed on the Notice Paper. In view of the dramatic change in tax assessment which shifts responsibility to interpret the tax law on to the taxpayer by means of self-assessment and the need for members of parliament to obtain for their constituents urgent and accurate interpretations of tax laws, why has the Treasurer failed to answer 13 questions on notice concerning tax, many seeking policy information, submitted between March and November 1985, and a further 34 questions on tax placed on the Notice Paper between February and June 1986? Does the Treasurer's answer yesterday mean that he expects Australian taxpayers to wait for over a year to find out crucial details concerning the fringe benefits and capital gains taxes this Government has introduced? Mr KEATING —The system in relation to questions on notice has never changed. It is the same as it has always been. In fact, this Government has been much more punctual in answering questions than the former Government. I remember when there used to be hundreds of questions on notice that had not been answered by the former Government. The notion that in some way I should be for the benefit of the Opposition an extemporaneous walking, talking legislative research service, investment adviser and tax adviser is not a valid one. That is simply not a role which any former Treasurer took upon himself, nor should he have. Mr TICKNER —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the outcome of the visit to Australia by the Prime Minister of India? Mr HAWKE —I preface my reply by indicating my pleasure at the way in which the Opposition, through the Leader of the Opposition, was associated with the very warm welcome given to Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. I believe that the visit by the Prime Minister has set the stage for the injection of a dramatic new vitality into the relations between our two countries. Of course, the opportunity for that has been established by a considerable amount of good work done on both sides, not least by the visits that have been paid to India by my two colleagues the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade. I think I can establish three or four major themes which emerged and which will be of benefit to us all. The first major theme on which we reached total agreement was that the Government of each country could act as a catalyst for mutually beneficial economic co-operation. This will have concrete expression over the next few months in these ways: Firstly, in trade talks designed to identify commercial opportunities; secondly, in official and industry discussions on possible collaboration in coal development; thirdly, in the implementation of the science agreement signed during the visit; fourthly, in resumed negotiations on a tax treaty; and fifthly, by high level official talks early next year covering the whole breadth of our economic relations. In all those specific ways the first major theme of increased economic co-operation should bear considerable fruit. Secondly-in a sense this is complementary to the first point-I believe the visit by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi brought home to the business sectors of both countries that the significant economic growth and restructuring in Australia, together with the huge Indian market, provides in the view of both sides considerable potential to move beyond what tends to characterise our two-way trade-that is, basically raw materials and a few consumer goods. It is quite clear that Australian prospects in India, ranging from projects in telecommunications to shipbuilding and civil engineering, are very promising. The interest of the private sectors in both countries came through clearly at the very productive meeting held under the auspices of the Economic Planning Advisory Council in Sydney yesterday, where we witnessed the signing by Australian and Indian business representatives of an agreement to establish a joint business council. I understand that Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi has agreed to chair the first meeting of that joint business council in New Delhi. Thirdly, I inform the honourable member that I assured Mr Gandhi that we recognise that trade is a two-way street. The current balance is very much in Australia's favour-about 2 1/2 : 1-and we undertook to do the things we can within Australia to identify more opportunities for Indian trade into Australia. The fourth area is also of outstanding importance. The Prime Minister and I had very friendly, candid, direct and constructive discussions on many international political issues. I think all members of the House would realise that that is important, given the considerable importance and status of India as a power in southern Asia and the Indian Ocean region, and its important position in the United Nations, the non-aligned movement and the Commonwealth. It is clear, as the honourable member will appreciate, that we do not on every specific issue see exactly eye to eye with India. Nevertheless, there are many issues on which we do and on which we will continue to co-operate, particularly the vital question of southern Africa. All in all, I am pleased to say to the House that I am confident that the visit to this country of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, short as it was, was extremely productive and will set the stage for a new, deeper and much more constructive relationship in all the areas I have mentioned. Mr BLUNT —My question is directed to the Treasurer and relates to the Government's forthcoming advertising extravaganza on the fringe benefits tax. When the Treasurer was trying yesterday to rescue his floundering colleague he said that advertising agencies had been asked to submit ideas to promote the fringe benefits tax `in conformity with established procedures'. Why, then, did the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, who chairs the ministerial committee on government advertising, tell the House last Friday, when agencies were bidding for this job, that my question about this $2m campaign was `an unbelievable flight of fancy'? Was the Information Co-ordination Branch of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism consulted? Why did the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs say the same day that the only consideration of the campaign had been by him and `others in the Treasurer's office'. Will the Treasurer deny that Magnus Nankervis and Curl/DDB has won the account and is preparing a campaign to run before the end of the year? Mr KEATING —I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday. When my colleague gave his answer this issue was at a very preliminary stage of discussion, and of course the normal processes within the Government take place from the time there is a firm decision to do something about it. Mr CLEELAND —Will the Special Minister of State inform the House on the latest enrolment figures in each division and the deviation from the average in each State? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for his question because the figures are a source of pride for everybody who serves in the Federal Parliament, unlike the Parliament of Queensland. Our system stands in sharp contrast to the electoral system up there. Honourable members may not have noticed but the Australian Electoral Commission believes that the statistics released in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 2 October show that the redistribution before the last election is coming together very well, with only a couple of electorates changing enrolments in a way that was not anticipated by the Commission. The divisions of Cunningham and Throsby on the south coast of New South Wales have considerably fewer enrolments than expected by the Commission and the divisions of Werriwa and Prospect in the western suburbs of Sydney have grown at a greater rate than anticipated. Only 13 per cent of electorates deviated from the State average divisional enrolments by more than 5 per cent as at the end of August. The division of Scullin has the largest deviation from the average and the Commission believes this may be related to the by-election held earlier. The habitation reviews currently being carried out by the Australian Electoral Commission at a cost of $3.6m this financial year will improve the accuracy of the rolls and further demonstrate the good work done by the Commission. That information is in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 2 October, which I will table for honourable members. I add that there are various States which have enrolments below the 5 per cent deviation. In New South Wales there are 41 below and 10 above. In Victoria there are 36 below and three above. In Queensland there are 20 below and four above. The remainder of the States are below the 5 per cent deviation. We had the extraordinary event in South Australia, in the seat of Boothby, that, on the day that the figures were taken, the seat of Boothby had exactly the State average. I contrast this with what is being supported in Queensland by the National Party of Australia. I noticed an advertisement yesterday in the Queensland Press by the Liberal Party of Queensland which was headed `One man half a vote?'. It demonstrates and exposes the system that exists in Queensland under the National Party. The advertisement stated: The electorate of Roma needs only 7,672 votes to return a member of parliament. By contrast, the Brisbane seat of Manly needs more than 22,000. Mr Hodges —Why don't you come to Queensland? Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Petrie asks: `Why not come to Queensland?'. He is a member of the Liberal Party. The President of the Queensland Liberal Party, the honourable member for Ryan who sits in this House, has called the Queensland Government a corrupt government-not only for its electoral laws but in many other ways. The President of the Queensland Liberal Party sits in this Parliament and says to the people of the National Party who run the Queensland Government: `You are a corrupt Government'. Now the Queensland Premier, not happy with just having an electoral redistribution that allows him to be elected on 36 per cent of the vote, says: `If I don't get the result I want, there will be another election'. We have another General Pinochet in Queensland. The Premier will declare martial law. He says: `You can have the right to vote but only if I get the result I want'. Where does the honourable member for Petrie stand? Does he stand with the honourable member for Ryan or with Joh Bjelke-Petersen? Let us take four people out of those seats on the National Party side and shift him over there. Perhaps he should be in a National Party seat; that is where he belongs. There is plenty of room over there. There is a bit of honour in being on the side of the honourable member for Ryan, who exposes what the Nationals are up to in Queensland. The honourable member for Petrie should be supporting him. That is the honour- able role that should be being played by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party should put their heads together in Queensland and bring about a decent electoral system for all Queenslanders for all time, in the same way as we have imposed on Australia the most democratic electoral system that we have ever had, in spite of the attempts of the Nationals over the years to give weighting to people in country areas as against those people who live in the cities. There have to be democratic systems in all of the States and at national elections. The Labor Party has had the decency to establish them in those States where it has governed, and now in the national theatre. All that remains is for us to bring about a decent electoral system in Queensland and do away, as the honourable member for Ryan says, with the corruption in Queensland that so embellishes the life of all Queenslanders. Mr Everingham having addressed a question to the Prime Minister- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The question is out of order. Mr Sinclair-I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the campaign that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade have launched, which, as I understand it, is a Government sponsored campaign, the Prime Minister has been instrumental in promoting the use of Australian goods and the production of Australian goods. I would have thought it very relevant to the Prime Minister's and the Government's responsibilities that they set an example. Does your ruling mean that the example does not matter and that the Prime Minister in fact is not wearing Australian made goods, or does it mean that there is something within the Standing Orders-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member will not put words into my mouth. The question is out of order. Where the Prime Minister buys his suits is hardly a matter that falls within his ministerial portfolio. I call the honourable member for Leichhardt. Mr Everingham-I prefaced my question-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory will resume his seat. I have called the honourable member for Leichhardt. Mr Everingham-In relation to the Prime Minister claiming that-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Everingham-This is a travesty of-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for the Northern Territory. I call the honourable member for Leichhardt. Mr Everingham-This is a kangaroo court. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I name the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member for the Northern Territory be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P.Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Free, R. V. O'Neil, L. R. T.Gayler, J. Price, L. R. S.Gear, G. Punch, G. F.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.Hawke, R. J. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Miles, C. G.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I, McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Dubois, S. G. Hawker, D. P. M.Brown, John MacKellar, M. J. R.Jacobi, R. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —This being the honourable member's second suspension during this year, the suspension is for the remainder of this day and the next seven consecutive days. The honourable member for the Northern Territory thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr GAYLER —Now that we have lost my irresponsible Queensland colleague, I ask whether the Minister for Health can inform the House of the Government's new plans for the recurrent funding of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, taking into account particularly the situation in the remote parts of Queensland. Dr BLEWETT —I am happy to explain the proposed new funding arrangements for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. I am particularly happy to dwell on the shabby treatment of the Royal Flying Doctor Service-one of the great institutions of this country-by the Queensland Government. As the honourable member for Leichhardt knows, because he is very interested in the provision of flying doctor services, at the moment the Flying Doctor Service is funded by the Commonwealth for between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of its operating costs in each State. The States then meet part of those operating costs, and the amounts contributed vary from State to State. The remainder of the operating costs have to be picked up by the Royal Flying Doctor Service itself. Some States are particularly generous. For instance, South Australia contributes almost 50 per cent for its share of costs. Western Australia contributes 40 per cent. The most miserly proportional contribution of any State is that of the State of Queensland, which in 1985-86 provided as a proportion of the cost only 23 per cent. No other State in this country provided a more niggardly amount for operating costs than the Queensland Government. The result, of course, is that in Queensland the Flying Doctor Service has a very big bill to pick up itself-nearly $1 1/4m last year. The result is that it is now $183,000 in arrears in its operating costs. The Commonwealth and the States have a joint working party which has come up with a proposal that the Commonwealth increase its funding to 45 per cent operating costs to all States on condition that the States meet that to the same extent-that is, that they provide 45 per cent, leaving the Royal Flying Doctor Service to find the remaining 10 per cent of the operating costs. At a meeting of the Australian Health Ministers advisory council earlier this month every State but Queensland accepted that new funding arrangement. The Federal Government is prepared to increase its contribution to 45 per cent of operating costs if the States meet that on a dollar for dollar basis, and the only State which has refused that offer is Queensland. I would point out that the Royal Flying Doctor Service provides, particularly for Queensland, an essential and excellent service. Last year some 23,000 patients in the outback areas of Queensland, people living in remote towns, cattle stations, mining camps, or Aboriginal and Islander reserves, benefited from the services provided in Queensland by the Royal Flying Doctor Service. If Queensland will not come to the party and will not, like the other States, match the Commonwealth's contribution, it is clear that services may well have to be cut in Queensland because of the problems facing the Royal Flying Doctor Service in that State. I am not surprised that the Queensland Minister for Health has forgotten the country origins of the National Party. He quickly forgot the Party under whose banner he was elected at the last election. But I have written to Mr Austin reminding him of his duties to the country people of Queensland and asking the Queensland Government to reconsider its refusal to participate in the new arrangements. Mr MACPHEE —Is the Minister for Communications aware that Wollongong television station WIN-4 no longer supports the Caucus compromise on regional television? Have the Government members for WIN-4's viewing area discussed with the Minister the reasons for the reversal of this attitude? Is the Minister aware that Mr Rupert Murdoch has claimed publicly that in 1979 he sold WIN-4 to his fellow New Yorker, Mr Bruce Gordon, for `a gift price'? Finally, as Mr Gordon was a director of TCN9 in Sydney and has a long business association with Mr Kerry Packer as well as being a friend of Mr Murdoch, does the Minister see the hand of mateship in a regional proprietor taking action which furthers the cause of the Sydney-based networks? Mr DUFFY —I assume that the member for Goldstein is referring to the fact that WIN-4 in Wollongong has determined that it now favours aggregation rather than going via MCS-multi-channel services. It made that announcement, as did Albury and Wagga, probably last week. It takes the view that aggregation is a better way to bring about equalisation of television services in regional Australia. Of the statement that the honourable member alleged was made by Mr Rupert Murdoch I have no knowledge whatever. As to whether the proprietors of the Wollongong station have a personal or business relationship with Mr Murdoch or with Mr Packer, that is a matter for them. I do not know anything about it and, candidly, I am not particularly interested. Mr CHYNOWETH —Has the attention of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment been drawn to the outrageous moves by the Opposition to disallow the plan of management for Kakadu National Park? Does the Minister intend to proceed with the Kakadu plan of management? Mr COHEN —Today Senator Stan Collard, the Opposition spokesman on the environment- Honourable members-Who? Mr COHEN —Silent Stan Collard from Queensland. He has moved to disallow the Kakadu plan of management. Quite clearly the object of the exercise is for one reason only, that is, to allow mining in stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park. Let us also understand very clearly, despite protestations to the contrary, that this issue is about uranium mining. The Bureau of Mineral Resources has indicated that 90 per cent of prospectivity for minerals in stages 1 and 2 is for uranium and only 10 per cent for gold and platinum. The reverse is true in proposed stage 3. Over recent weeks Australians have been subjected to a massive media and political campaign to create a climate to permit mining in Kakadu National Park. We have seen articles in the Bulletin and in other papers, letters to the editors of the major dailies, statements by mining magnates such as Geopeko and the ranting statements of the honourable member for the Northern Territory. This softening up process is to prepare Australians for the Swiss-cheesing of Kakadu National Park. In a bizarre article in the Bulletin John Stackhouse commenced by stating `Kakadu is undoubtedly a national treasure. Its beauty is beyond compare' and proceeded to urge that it be mined. Two specious arguments are being pushed by those who wish to see mining in Kakadu National Park. The first is that billions of dollars are being lost to Australia's export income by being locked up. Nothing can be further from the truth. First of all, let me remind members of what I said earlier: 90 per cent of prospectivity in stages 1 and 2 is for uranium. Judging by the way the pro-miners describe it, one would believe that the world was beating down our door to get uranium. There are two major sources of uranium in Australia, Ranger and Nabarlek, and one of the world's largest uranium mines, Roxby Downs, is still to come on stream. If supplies are required they can easily be acquired from those sources. Let us not forget that the Fraser Government did not permit the mining of the Jabiluka and Koongarra in the same region to come on stream because they feared the flooding of the world market with uranium. It planned sequential development to ensure that this would not occur. No attempt was made until 1983 to allow either mine to proceed. So let us have no more of this nonsense that billions of dollars are being locked up and that this is stopping Australia from solving its balance of payments problems. The second argument is that massive mining of Kakadu is compatible with preserving the environment. All one has to do, we are told, is to put guards around the wetlands, the rock art, the flora and fauna and let the bulldozers have their heads. That shows a total ignorance of how ecosystems work. The simple fact is that there are very delicate wetlands in that area-and almost all the uranium prospectivity is in the wetlands. One would have to build a damn great dam around the area and mine in the middle of the wetlands. It is an outrageous proposal. Make no mistake, if the miners have their way-and they get support from the Liberal and National parties-Australia can gird itself for one of the biggest environmental battles in its history. It will make the Franklin saga look like a tea party. This Government will use every weapon in its power to ensure that Kakadu remains one of the world's great treasures. Mr HICKS —I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. Because of the land blight now impinging on landowners in the Cobar area whose livelihoods are affected by a possible Army takeover of their properties, and understanding that the Senate Estimates Committee revealed that no money is available for the purpose of land acquisition in that region, will the Minister for Defence make a statement on the matter so that people affected can end three years of government-imposed trauma? Mr BEAZLEY —I have taken a similar question from the honourable gentleman in the past. The matter of Cobar is currently under examination in several different areas-one by an environmental impact study and the other by the Army, in the light of the changes in Army structure as a result of the Dibb report. I am expecting to hear some views on those matters in the not too distant future. When I do, I shall be able to give the honourable gentleman an answer. The honourable member has communicated with me recently, seeking to see me with a delegation of people from the area who want to put their points of view. I might just wait another few weeks in order to see the reports on those matters. If necessary after that I will be happy to talk to the honourable member's delegation about this matter. Mr BILNEY —Can the Minister for Social Security confirm that a delegation from his Department has recently visited the United Kingdom for discussions with the United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Security? Was one important element of those discussions the refusal by the United Kingdom Government to pay cost of living increases to United Kingdom pensioners who reside in Australia, in contrast with the procedure that it adopts for United Kingdom pensioners in the United Kingdom and in some other countries? Does the Government agree that United Kingdom pensioners in Australia are entitled to such indexation increases? What progress has been made in persuading the United Kingdom Government to live up to its responsibilities? Mr HOWE —As I announced in the Budget context, it has been decided to preclude United Kingdom working holiday makers from eligibility for Australian unemployment benefit. This matter was raised in September by officials from my Department with officials from the United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Security. Agreement was reached at that level to preclude from payment of either country's unemployment benefit working holiday makers from the other country. It was also agreed that this should be done as quickly as possible by amending the reciprocal agreement with the United Kingdom. The officials are now considering a final form for a suitable amendment to that agreement, and I will advise the House further when that matter is finalised. On the question of non-indexation of United Kingdom pensions, this matter has long been a cause of serious concern for this and previous Australian Governments. The British Government has acknowledged the situation as inequitable, but says that it cannot afford to remedy it due to financial restraints. This response is certainly no longer satisfactory to the Australian Government, and all possible pressure is being brought to bear on Britain to accept full responsibility for its pensioners abroad. In this context the Prime Minister wrote to Mrs Thatcher in September expressing Australia's concern at the continuing imbalance in the present social security agreement. I have written in similar terms to the Minister of State for Social Security. Commonwealth and State Ministers have also been approached and asked to raise the matter of frozen British pensions in Australia with their United Kingdom counterparts at every possible opportunity. The matter was, of course, raised during last month's talks with the United Kingdom officials and the suggestion was put forward of possible retaliatory action by Australia should Britain not unfreeze its pensions. As a similar situation applies to United Kingdom pensioners in Canada and New Zealand, we have had discussions with those countries also. This is an important issue of bilateral contention with the United Kingdom which the Government wishes to see resolved positively and urgently. In terms of the current negotiations for the renegotiation of the agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom, from our point of view this is a quite fundamental issue. Dr WATSON —I ask the Treasurer whether he stands by his statement of 19 September 1985 concerning the capital gains tax when he made the following comment: . . . it has been decided that the tax will be in every way prospective. I refer the Treasurer to his request in the House yesterday that all questions relating to specific cases of possible tax anomalies be placed on the Notice Paper. If these questions demonstrate conclusively that his capital gains tax legislation actually taxes assets held by taxpayers prior to 19 September 1985, will he amend the Act to comply with his original statement? Mr KEATING —That is the issue of principle which the Government has enshrined in the legislation and I know of no example of it being otherwise. If the honourable member wishes to tender such an example we will look at it. That is why the Australian Taxation Office has always been so willing to deal with these issues why many members have not only placed questions on the Notice Paper, but also written about these matters. In the capital gains tax legislation there are provisions against abuse of the tax. We had some reference yesterday to blocks of land and people building homes and living on them. The obvious point in relation to the design of the law at present is that this provision operates in such a way as to prevent a person from having a stack or, if you like, a bank of blocks of land, building homes on them, living in them for a week or so and then selling them off free of capital gains tax. It is a normal anti-avoidance measure. Mr Reith —There are thousands of people in my electorate who have bought blocks of land. Tax rorters, are they? Mr KEATING —Yes, I know. The honour- able member is a real estate agent and we understand his interest in some of these issues. The fact of the matter is that some of these design features are anti-avoidance. Opposition members seek to imply in their views expressed publicly and here that in some way these anti-avoidance provisions should not be there. Of course they should. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-proposed: That this House- (1) congratulates the Royal Military College, Duntroon, on the seventy-fifth anniversary of its foundation, noting with deep appreciation that: (a) It has played a vital role in educating and training officer cadets for service in the Australian Army; (b) the product of its efforts has performed with fine distinction in two World Wars and in Korea, Malaya and Vietnam; and (c) Its reputation for developing officers-respected by all Australians and by defence forces overseas-is well known, and (2) wishes the Commandant and all former and present cadets, staff and all those associated with the college best wishes for its 75th anniversary celebrations. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(2.47) —I have great pleasure in seconding the motion and am very pleased to associate the Opposition with it, particularly as I am a former graduate of the Royal Military College, Duntroon. The Royal Military College is very much part of the history of this nation, founded as it was in 1911, some 10 years after the founding of the Commonwealth. Its graduates have served in World War I, World War II, Korea, Malaysia, Borneo and Vietnam. To the end of last year it had 3,000-odd graduates-3,006 to be precise. The college in its 75 years has gone through various courses and phases, including one change of location at one point when it went to Sydney. In 1986 the Royal Military College took on a different role in that it is now purely a military training college for men and women, as distinct from the academic nature of its courses in years gone by. The Royal Military College has a very proud history. It is very much a part of Australia's military history and of Australia. The Opposition joins with the Government in wishing the college all the best for its seventy-fifth anniversary, which will take place this weekend. It is a time to look back and congratulate the college on its past achievements and to wish it all the best for the future. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(2.49) —I merely wish to join with both the previous speakers in congratulating the Royal Military College, Duntroon on its seventy-fifth birthday. I had the dubious honour of being the last ever Minister for the Army and one of the great highlights of my short career was seeing the way in which that college operated. Recently I have had the opportunity of talking to people overseas who are associated with the general spectrum of defence and it was quite remarkable to note the great and distinct respect which they had for the graduates of Duntroon. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members I present guidelines for provision of video and audio entertainment and information services, together with the text of a statement relating to the guidelines. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MILTON —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr MILTON —On 30 September 1986 in the letters column of the Australian Financial Review I was misrepresented by a Mr Grant Watt, who stated: What, in fact, Peter Milton did say at a meeting in Darwin this year was `I would have no objections if the Ranger mine was a gold mine'. That statement was completely untrue because I did not make such a remark. Let me make it clear that I have a total objection to any mine in the Kakadu National Park, whether it be gold, uranium or any other mineral. Mr Watt also made a number of other indirect and offensive remarks and misrepresentations, which I refuted in a letter published in the Australian Financial Review on 14 October. However, yesterday I found another misrepresentation in the letters column of the Australian Financial Review, this time from Mr G. H. Sherrington, a member of the Council of the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines. Mr Sherrington misrepresented me by stating that I said in discussions on 7 August 1986 with council members in Darwin that `I would have no objection if the Ranger uranium mine was a gold mine'. I would like to point out that the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) and the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), who were present at the discussion and whose names were mentioned in Mr Sherrington's letter, have no recollection of my making such a statement. I wish to state quite categorically that I did not make that statement; that I am opposed to all mining in national parks; and that the dishonesty and maliciousness which members of the Chamber of Mines have displayed in their letters does the organisation no credit. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mrs DARLING —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mrs DARLING —In today's edition of the Australian newspaper John Moses reports: In her role as Deputy Chairperson of Committees, Mrs Elaine Darling . . . ruled that the Deputy Leader of the National Party, Mr Hunt, should withdraw the offending adjective after he talked about ``ruddy farmers''. The honourable member may wish to take up the noun `farmers', but for my part, much as I hesitate to mar a perfectly good illustration of light comic writing by the intrusion of fact, in the interests of accuracy I must point out that, as Hansard records, I did not ask the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) to withdraw the word, which ruling I would reserve for more grossly offensive language. Rather, I ruled it as unparliamentary in the context of past rulings, such as that an honourable member should not sit on the arm of a seat, which action, while not being disorderly in the general acceptance of the word, was deemed to be so in the parliamentary context. Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member, having made the personal explanation, should now wind up. Mrs DARLING —I have another point of misrepresentation. I am keeping it as brief as pos- sible. Under the heading `Darling delivers ruddy strange ruling', the misrepresentation is extended in the article when the equality of the ruling is questioned further. I wish to state that, as shown by past rulings, while actions such as an honourable member keeping his hands in his pockets while speaking, distributing books in the chamber, climbing over seats, kicking desks or addressing the House in the second person are disorderly, I acted in accordance with the Chair's discretionary powers of interpretation to ensure the high standards of debate required by you, Madam Speaker. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —In Question Time today the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) sought to imply that I had given inaccurate answers to a question last Friday about the possible publicising by the Government of the fringe benefits tax. I totally reject his assertion. He questioned, first of all, my statement that consideration was in the early stages. It was and still is. Mr Spender —I raise a point of order. This is not a personal explanation. The Minister has made it perfectly plain from what he last said that he is getting into a factual exercise. He is in fact entering into argument on matters of fact. Madam SPEAKER —I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying. The Minister will not debate the matter. He will show the House clearly where he has been misrepresented. Mr HURFORD —I will show that I was misrepresented by it being asserted that my answer was inaccurate last week when I said that the consideration of publicising the fringe benefits tax was in the early stages. Indeed, the answers of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to questions in the Parliament today and yesterday show that the matters are still at the early stages. Mr Spender —I raise the same point of order. The Minister is debating-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has finished. He has had the opportunity to point out where he has been misrepresented. Mr HURFORD —I have been twice misrepresented in that question. Madam SPEAKER —You are going again? Mr HURFORD —I want to-- Mr Spender —If he had answered the question in the first place, he would not be facing this difficulty. Mr HURFORD —The question was fully answered last Friday, and accurately, in another respect as well. Madam SPEAKER —Would the Minister get to the second part? Mr HURFORD —Yes. The honourable member for Richmond asserted that the consideration had been beyond my office and the office of the Treasurer. That is not so. The consideration was only in my office and the office of the Treasurer within government. It had not gone to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and still has not gone to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I was totally accurate in what I said. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Does the honourable member for Richmond wish to make a personal explanation? Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Richmond should approach the Chair if he wishes to make a personal explanation. Mr BLUNT —I apologise and I seek your indulgence. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Richmond. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr Hand —Absolute arrogance. Why don't you do it like everybody else has to do it? Mr BLUNT —I might say at the outset that the Minister-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. The House will be aware that this matter has just come up, and I accept that. Mr BLUNT —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence. I assure the honourable member for Melbourne that had the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) adopted the normal courteous procedure of telling me that he was going to make a statement that had some relevance to me-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member get to his personal explanation. Mr BLUNT —I would have also adopted the normal procedure. From what I heard on the broadcast system, the Minister suggested today that I sought to misrepresent him. In the question I posed to his colleague the Treasurer (Mr Keating) I quoted his exact words from Hansard. There can be no suggestion, in quoting directly from Hansard-since the Minister has had the opportunity to read and correct that Hansard if necessary-that there is any misrepresentation. For the benefit of the House, I quote directly from the Minister's answer-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his point. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I have requested the opportunity to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —I did speak to you about that. You can start it. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do, and I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —May I point out that if the honourable member is attempting to bring up in the House today the matter that he attempted to bring up yesterday and that he read into the Hansard the day before, the Chair has no indulgence for a personal explanation. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, I take your advice and I draw your attention to the fact that I wish to correct the mistake in the Sydney Morning Herald. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I will not entertain a personal explanation in regard to that article on the front page today, yesterday and the day before. There is no indulgence left for it. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —by leave-The Government has recently completed a review of counter-terrorism capabilities in Australia and of the administrative and financial arrangements which support them. The Government initiated this review in December 1985. It was then some six years after the report of Mr Justice Hope had established the current arrangements and in the light of the upsurge of terrorism in Europe and the Middle East during 1984 and 1985 it was timely to review Australia's arrangements. The events of 1986 have confirmed the timeliness of the review. The review was carried out by my Department in consultation with other appropriate departments. As part of the review, I made a visit in June to Italy, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Japan, where I had discussions on counter-terrorism with relevant Ministers, and with police and security agencies. I was also briefed in detail on airport security arrangements in those countries. The Terrorist Threat to Australia Australia is fortunate in not having disaffected domestic political or separatist groups who resort to terrorism, such as have many countries in western Europe. We are also geographically distant from the main centres of international terrorism. We have not entirely escaped terrorism. Major incidents in the past include: The murder of the Turkish Consul-General and his bodyguard; The bombings of the Israeli Consulate- General and the Hakoah Club; The wounding of the Indian Defence Attache and the kidnapping of the Attache and his wife. Nor should we be complacent about the future. It is important, however, that we not lose a sense of proportion and base our arrangements for counter-terrorism on worst-case scenarios; rather we need to make a sober and rational assessment of the threat. It is here that Australia's intelligence agencies and our links to international agencies play a vital role. Even though Australians have been the innocent victims of incidents overseas and in this country, the present assessment is that there is currently no evidence to indicate that Australia is a chosen target of any international terrorist group. It needs to be borne in mind that Australia has close historical and political ties with a number of nations which are under high terrorist threat and which have substantial interests in this country. These interests may well be seen as attractive targets by terrorist groups. The threat of terrorist attacks against targets in Australia is assessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation as low now and in the foreseeable future. This low threat is international in character, although we must face the possibility that some overseas terrorist groups may have a very few supporters in this country. Bombings and assassinations are the methods of attack currently preferred by terrorists and I am advised that this is likely to apply to any attacks which may be carried out in Australia. The Government recognises that the source and the nature of the threat can change rapidly, but it accepts the advice that the current low level of threat against targets in Australia and the likely international emphasis on bombings and assassinations can generally be expected to persist for a period. The Government will therefore ensure that preventive and contingency measures against terrorism give the highest priority to these most likely forms of threat. Conclusions of the Review I now wish to inform the House of the findings of the review and the Government response. Acting on advice from the Secretaries' Committee on Intelligence and Security, the Government will not be publishing the report of the review. A complete copy has been made available to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and a version with only minor editing will be made available to the States. In general terms, the review concludes that an effective national counter-terrorist capability has been established in Australia. This follows the creation of the Standing Advisory Committee for Commonwealth-State Co-operation on Protection Against Violence known as SAC-PAV, in 1979. The picture today is vastly different from 1979. There is an atmosphere of co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States that could not have been foreseen seven years ago. Through SAC-PAV, the Commonwealth has provided the States with compatible equipment and helped to develop among them similar levels of expertise. The relevant Commonwealth authorities can now interact with each State more easily, and are more likely to be invited to do so. The State Governments and police forces can also more readily interact. Extensive crisis management machinery has been developed that can be activated in response to a terrorist incident anywhere in Australia. A highly skilled and well-equipped counter-terrorism force has been established within the Australian Defence Force to respond, as a measure of last resort, to request to resolve terrorist incidents by force. Every State now possesses a capability to cope with siege-hostage incidents, at least those of relatively short-duration. All States have a raised capacity to deal with bombings. Preventive Measures The review emphasised that the single most important preventive measure against terrorism is the capability to produce timely and accurate intelligence. The Commonwealth's principal agency for gathering and evaluating security intelligence is ASIO. That organisation's particular role was, of course, thoroughly examined by the Recent Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies conducted by Mr Justice Hope. Co-operation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, both in Australia and internationally, is vital in the area of counter-terrorism. This was a point strongly emphasised to me by all concerned during my overseas visit. The review reported general satisfaction with co-operation between the agencies in Australia. Relative to many other nations, Australia has a greater capacity to prevent known or suspected foreign terrorists from entering this country. The review emphasised the importance of the security-checking mechanisms now in place with several foreign security services which could provide information on the movement of terrorists in time to prevent their entry into this country. The Government accepts the importance of these mechanisms. The review further recommended that current entry control procedures be maintained, including the necessity for visitors to Australia to obtain visas. These recommendations will be taken into account by the Government in any future examination of this issue. The review drew attention to the need to enhance the protection of Commonwealth explosives and weapons and to make a careful assessment of the threat posed by other sources of dangerous materials of potential use to terrorists. As a result of the review, action is being taken to upgrade our performance in this area. Protective Measures The protection of potential targets is a vital measure in any country's fight against terrorism. This is an area of change in the Commonwealth as a number of the former protective roles of the Australian Federal Police have passed to the Australian Protective Service. The Government sees the advantage to both the development of the AFP and to the performance of protective functions in this change. There are Commonwealth-State arrangements for the protection of holders of high office in Australia or dignitaries who may be visiting Australia. The very considerable resources and the degree of co-ordination required have been recently demonstrated in the visit by the Indian Prime Minister. The forthcoming visit of the Pope will also be a major exercise. While this task must remain primarily the function of the particular state police forces, the review has pointed to the need for agreement on minimum standards of protection in response to different levels of threat. This will be pursued in the SAC-PAV forum. Reactive Measures Australia needs to be prepared to respond if preventive measures fail and a terrorist incident takes place. A major element of Australia's response to incidents of terrorism is a policy of no concessions, other than tactical ones, to terrorist demands. That policy has been considered and re-endorsed by the Government as a result of the review. The review pointed to the need for some improvement in the information flow to Commonwealth Ministers during a terrorist incident to enable them to make any necessary policy decisions. This need has emerged during a number of Commonwealth-State joint exercises. The review also pointed to the need to plan and train for post-incident investigations and other actions which would form a major part of the response to a `hit and run' incident, such as an assassination or a bombing. If we are to improve the chance of apprehending offenders and hence reduce terrorism. The Commonwealth will be looking to the SAC-PAV to extend its exercise program to test arrangements for Australia's response to this wider range of incidents. There may be terrorist incidents arising overseas in which Australian interests would be heavily involved and in which Australia could be called upon to assist. The Government is examining the complex issues raised by such situations. Aviation Security It is clear from international experience that airports and aviation, particularly international aviation, are prime targets for terrorist attack. On my visit to Europe I was struck by the very particular attention being paid to high risk flights at major European airports. The flights of certain airlines and flights to and from certain destinations are given very special attention; otherwise more routine precautions prevail. Fortunately, the terrorist threat to aviation in Australia is assessed as low. Our aviation security arrangements fully meet all of the International Civil Aviation Organisation standards. Nonetheless, it is important that we keep the security needs of our airports under constant review so that we can ensure that we are prepared to face any problem which may arise. In the light of the review's recommendations, bomb and weapon search procedures are being reviewed to ensure that these continue to be adequate for the prevailing circumstances. The current system of issuing passes to people for access to security areas of airports is also being looked at to see what strengthening might be desirable. The Government is also concerned with the broader aspects of physical security measures at airports and is taking action to improve current arrangements. My Department and the Department of Aviation have established a joint task force on proposals to improve aviation security at all Australian airports. The difficult question of policing of airports was addressed in the review. At present, uniformed Australian Federal police are present at Australian airports. Their role in a terrorist incident would be one of containment until the arrival of State police. Inevitably, as a visible presence, they are called upon to undertake something of a community policing role, which properly belongs to State forces. There has been criticism of the numbers of AFP members at airports for counter-terrorism purposes. This criticism is not supported by the AFP on the basis of the present threat and current national planning for a counter-terrorist response. It is also worth mentioning that the AFP has other roles and often considerable resources at airports working in intelligence, drugs and other operations. The review canvassed the options of a special airport branch of the AFP but favoured rather the transfer of the counter-terrorism protective function to the States. This was seen as better meeting any possible problems of two forces in one incident and offering greater flexibility should the threat increase. I will be discussing this possibility with the AFP, the Australian Federal Police Association and the States and will then bring forward a further submission to the Government. Bombing Incidents Bombings have been the most common type of terrorist incident in Australia and are expected to be the most likely form of such incidents in the future. While bombings are assessed as the major threat from terrorists, the Government is concerned that this should be reflected in the attention given to the subject by the SAC-PAV and in the allocation of money to the SAC-PAV by the Commonwealth. Provision has been made in 1986-87 to expend $350,000 on bomb disposal and related equipment. We are planning next year, 1987-88, to spend the entire SAC-PAV plant and equipment vote on equipment that will further enhance our anti-bombing capacity. The review highlighted, among other things, the absence of SAC-PAV exercises aimed at testing bomb response capabilities. As a direct consequence of this finding, a bomb response seminar is to be held in Canberra on 5 November 1986. The seminar, to be attended by Australian and overseas experts in forensic science, counter-terrorism and explosives, will examine Australia's preparedness to respond to worldwide trends in the use of explosives by terrorists. In addition, the SAC-PAV has been asked to develop a bomb response strategy for the next three to five years with the emphasis on equipment, training and personnel requirements. This proposal will be discussed further by the bomb response seminar at the sixteenth meeting of the SAC-PAV in November 1986. Financial Arrangements Finally, there was an examination of the financial arrangements as between the Com- monwealth and States. Since 1980-81 the Commonwealth has spent about $10m on equipment, ammunition and training through SAC-PAV. Annual costs for counter-terrorism aspects of ASIO, the Defence Force, the AFP and my Department amount to about $30m. A variety of alternative options was considered, including a user pays principle, a fixed Commonwealth-State contribution ratio and a Commonwealth-only option. The mechanisms necessary to control the financial contributions made by the Commonwealth through the SAC-PAV towards the national capability was canvassed. The review concluded that the present financial guidelines, with some minor administrative adjustments, should be maintained. The Government accepts that recommendation and will continue to provide financial support through SAC-PAV within modified guidelines. Conclusion The Commonwealth will seek the continued co-operation of the States and the Northern Territory in putting into effect measures arising out of the review. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is writing to the Premiers and the Chief Minister following the review. The Government acknowledges the excellent level of co-operation which has already been achieved. Terrorism, by its very nature, recognises neither geographic nor political boundaries. Although the threat is currently assessed as low, there will be no reduction in our vigilance nor in the maintenance of the national capability. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —by leave-Terrorism is here to stay. The review which is now before the House, in the terms of the statement which has been made by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), is an important one. The Minister has pointed out that the present arrangements grew out of a review by Mr Justice Hope in 1979, and it was during the office of the Fraser Government that the present arrangements were established for State and Commonwealth co-operation on protection against violence. Terrorism is a grave and growing problem for democracies. As the Special Minister has pointed out, terrorism by its very nature recognises neither geographical nor political boundaries. The democracies and their citizens are the most frequent targets for terrorism, and they are the most vulnerable. In large part, this is due to the nature and the openness of democratic systems. It is a very different matter when one has to deal with terrorists in a closed authoritarian system. That is very much easier; for us it is very much harder. The Minister has called for a sober and rational assessment of the threat. I quite agree with that approach, but I believe we should not underestimate the threat nor should we underestimate the potential for the threat to develop quickly. It is not one of those matters that can be nicely evaluated. It can, and does, sometimes arise, as overseas experience demonstrates, very quickly and very wildly. Terrorism is, of course, a direct challenge to the democratic societies. It attacks our values. Terrorists refuse to recognise the rights of innocent people, such as the very simple right to life. State sponsored terrorism, such as that of Libya and other states, is used as a political tool and is designed to undermine other countries, particularly the democracies. Terrorism at all levels can provoke fear in political leaders and in others. As events in countries such as Italy all too tragically show, it causes men and women to live in everyday fear of their lives. Combating organised terrorism represents a great challenge. The activities of terrorist groups are highly organised. Indeed, mobility and the openness of democratic societies facilitate their work. There is evidence of increased co-operation between terrorist groups of diverse political, ethnic and geographical backgrounds and intelligence exchanges between those groups. Another feature of political terrorism which has become all too obvious is the use of organised crime. It has been said that modern terrorists need plenty of money. Major international groups need budgets rivalling those of major business corporations. Money is the fuel of international terrorism. The high cost of terrorism has led to the direct involvement of terrorist groups in bank robbery, extortion, kidnapping and the drug trade-what the Drug Enforcement Agency of the United States of America calls `narco-terrorism'. Some picture of the involvement of terrorists in organised crime may be given briefly by a quote from one of the current parliamentary paper issues, `Briefings on International Terrorism', in which this instance is given: In mid 1985 it was alleged that an Australian drug syndicate had purchased up to 10 tonnes of cannabis resin, worth an estimated A$40 million, from an unnamed terrorist organisation in the Middle East and imported it into Australia in March 1984. This allegation was followed by the arrest of over thirty members of the syndicate by the Australian Federal Police in mid August 1985. According to Dr Grant Wardlaw the terrorist group involved is probably a PLO splinter group operating out of the Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebanon, where such groups are involved in growing and exporting hashish under Syrian protection. At the same time it was reported that five members of just such a PLO splinter group had been convicted by a British court on charges of smuggling drugs and buying guns with the proceeds. The forging of such links between narcotics traffickers and terrorists carries serious implications for the attempts by Western governments to achieve effective international controls over drug smuggling. The report was provided to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in confidence. That confidence will be maintained without any qualification. As far as possible in this area bipartisanship should be observed. The very fact that the report is provided in confidence prevents the possibility of commenting on it. I raise with the Special Minister of State, as I raised informally with him before the House sat this afternoon, the possibility, as in the case of the report of Mr Justice Hope of 1979, of issuing an unclassified version of the report. I acknowledge there are difficulties in that course. It is a matter of judgment as to whether or not an unclassified version could be issued. I should like to say something about preventive measures. The Special Minister has pointed out that timely and accurate intelligence is a single most important preventive measure. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is the agency on which we rely so greatly for information concerning possible terrorist activities. The Opposition fully supports ASIO. I say in passing that it is a matter of concern that there should be such continued deep animosity to ASIO from sections of the Left in the Labour Party. This has led, unfortunately, to the surrender by the Government and the establishment of a parliamentary review, a sort of ambulatory body, to review ASIO, under certain rules of course, but opening the prospect of leaking vital information of an intelligence nature. One can only hope that ASIO's operations can continue with undiminished force and with undiminished efficiency. It is an essential organisation. The Special Minister referred to bombing and assassination as the current preferred methods of attack. I agree that experience demonstrates that that is right. He will know that firearms and explosives are all too easily available in this country and that the legislation varies from State to State in respect of firearms. I think the same is the case in respect of explosives. I believe that the Australian Capital Territory is lagging behind New South Wales and Victoria in this field. The need for a co-operative and common approach between the States and the Commonwealth to control over firearms and explosives is all too obvious. I ask the Special Minister to take this matter up and to let us know as soon as he can what progress can be made in securing co-operation on the controls, on the sale and availability of explosives and firearms. The Minister spoke in his statement of point of entry controls. These days point of entry controls are to be found predominantly at air services. Of course, our geographical isolation helps, but the security checking methods at airports are by no means what we need. Let us take, for example, the information retrieval systems which are available when one goes through Customs and Immigration controls. There is a problem. It looks very efficient, but it is public knowledge that there is a time lag of some three months or so between information on suspected terrorists, criminals or other undesirables being available and that information being programmed into the computer. Effectively, the Customs services are dealing with out of date information. That would be known all to well to those who might seek to evade those controls. We have visa controls in this country, and so we should. There is a 72-hour transit visa. I simply raise with the Minister the query as to whether or not there is any need to review that transit visa and as to what kinds of abuses may have taken place in respect of transit visas. As we know, we have as well the entry of delegations to this country, such as the representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. We all know the history of that organisation and, in particular, of some of the groups under the PLO umbrella which engage in terrorist actions of the most outrageous kind. I should be glad if the Minister would inform us at some stage, I know he cannot do so this afternoon, of the difficulties to be found in screening the kind of intelligence coming out of the Middle East that is available-I believe it is not good-and what we can do to improve our screening of individuals who may be members of so-called political or non-aligned delegations of organisations such as the PLO. The Minister has spoken of aviation and airport security. A number of airlines, which have been the subject of terrorist attacks and hijacking fly into this country, such as British Airways, Trans World Airlines Pty Ltd and Air India. The potential danger should not be exaggerated, but there is obviously a need for strict security controls, far stricter than those that presently exist. The Minister in his statement has acknowledged this need. The present systems are too lax and too haphazard. The Auditor-General in his recent half-yearly report has said that passengers ordered to have passage checks could avoid them, that computer alerts identifying potentially dangerous passengers could be ignored and that the identity of aircraft crews was never checked. That is a hazardously sloppy state of affairs. What is to be done? Perhaps the Minister can come back at another time and tell us what has been done to overcome that kind of situation. Everyone knows the hit and miss nature of internal checks on internal flights. On the face of it they seem pointless since a terrorist would simply catch the next flight. Is further action necessary? Has the Minister got that matter under consideration? Will he come back to the House and tell us what needs to be done in that area? If he thinks nothing needs to be done, he can tell us that. The Minister has referred to protective measures. He points out that the review favoured the transfer of counter-terrorism protective functions to the States. If that takes place it is essential for State forces to have the right calibre of personnel and high levels of training. Anti-terrorist actions, for example, the storming of an aircraft-the ultimate worst case seen-are high risk ventures. The highest level of training and aptitude is necessary. The difficulties of achieving such levels of training and aptitude outside of a specialised force, such as the Special Air Service are, it seems to me, all too obvious. I understand that certain problems have been experienced with State police forces and the use that is made of State police forces of a counter-terrorist character or those who have counter-terrorist training for actions which have nothing to do with counter-terrorism. I cite a reported instance of the tactical squad of New South Wales being used for the purposes of recovering a 15- or 16-year-old boy whom the police were seeking. In the course of being pursued he was shot in the leg. Using that tactical squad seems somewhat of an over reaction. I ask: Can we get the levels of expertise, dedication and aptitude that are necessary from the police forces? Mr Justice Hope in his 1979 report made some recommendations which are relevant to the use of the military forces. The military forces are the last recourse. He recommended the enactment of legislation amending the Defence Act in relation to the use of the Defence Force in civilian security operations. I believe that has not taken place and that action-that is, the explicit acceptance or rejection of Mr Justice Hope's recommendation-is long overdue. Perhaps again the Minister can come back to the House and tell us what the Government intends to do about Mr Justice Hope's recommendation on that matter. I make one or two brief points in conclusion. First, let me quote from the public report of the United States Vice-President's Task Force on Terrorism of February 1986. The Vice-President said: International co-operation is crucial to long-term deterrence to terrorism. It can be achieved through multi-lateral and bilateral agreements. In fact, international agreement and co-operation is both crucial and difficult to achieve. It is essential that the democracies agree upon common measures and common approaches to dealing with international terrorism. For example, as a consequence of the hijacking of an Italian cruise ship there was an argument between the United States and Italy as to where the hijackers should be tried-whether they should be tried in Italy under one set of laws or in the United States under a different set of laws. The democracies ought to be able to organise these matters better. It seems to us perfectly absurd and dangerous that the democracies cannot agree on such fundamentally important questions. Lastly, I pay tribute to all those in this country involved in counter-terrorism. The work is basic, it is demanding and it is sometimes highly dangerous, and we all know that if an event arises which requires people to risk their lives then they have to risk their lives. We look to them to do that as part of their everyday work. It is hard work, and all those involved should have the fullest support of every member of this House. 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 Cadman,Mr Cobb,Mr Coleman,Mr Cowan,Mr Dobie,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Free,Mr Fife,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Gorman,Mr Hicks,Mr Hunt,Mr Punch,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Ruddock,Mr Sinclair,Mr Snow and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Cadman,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Maher,Mr Nehl,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton,Mr Smith and Mr Wright. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefits Tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned plead that the Parliament implement pro-family policies. In particular we appeal for: 1. the retention of the present graduated assessment system for payment of the Family Allowance; 2. indexation of the Family Allowance in order to keep pace with inflation; 3. an increase of 3.7% in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5% of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5% of the Basic Wage when Child Endowment was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1941). 4. retention of the Dependent Spouse Rebate and the amount of the Dependent Spouse Rebate adjusted so that it is equal in value to the tax-free threshold allowed when calculating taxable income. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. 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 that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits 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. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation, to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December 1984, as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material, (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and other related tests in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beazley. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Bill of Rights is not supported by the people of Australia, and calls on the Government to: Delay proclamation of the Bill until all matters of contention are settled by national referenda, and that: (1) Matters of States rights, property rights, rights of the newborn, the right not to belong to unions, among other issues, have not been submitted to the people of Australia to decide, and that; (2) No Australian Bill of Rights should depend on any foreign convention for its basis in Australian law. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: that we the citizens of the Illawarra Region condemn the decision to close the Wollongong office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and that we respectfully request that this decision be reversed immediately. An your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia, do respectfully show our opposition to the introduction of a Fringe Benefits Tax and related legislation. Such a tax will be an additional burden upon small businesses, and lead to increased bureaucracy. Your petitioners do humbly call for the repeal of this legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is a vicious, punitive tax that unjustly affects employers, will have a major impact on small business and farm profitability, and will result in increased unemployment. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Repeal the legislation establishing the Fringe Benefits tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Fringe Benefits Tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The Fringe Benefits Tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it, and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this legislation, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers including Local, State and Federal government departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. The FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. Your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Snow. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Mr Coleman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners are gravely concerned about recent changes in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act of 1966 which deny basic rights which have been a cornerstone ot the English and Australian law for over seven hundred years. We are speaking of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right of an individual to defend himself against his accusers. This concern has come to light during recent extradition proceedings against Mssrs. Hempel and Etheredge in Western Australia. We are concerned that because judicial protection of these basic rights has been excluded from the Act refugees, migrants, Australian overseas travellers, and visitors are at risk when they have been to (or come from) countries where the norms and practices of human rights and civil liberties are below traditionally accepted Australian standards. We the undersigned petitioners, therefore urge the government to re-examine the Extradition (Foreign States) Act as amended in 1983, and amend the current Act so that the rights of the accused are once again judicially protected in Australia. In addition, we urge the government to refrain from entering into any further extradition treaties or proceedings under the current Act until the process of re-examination and amendment of the Act has occurred. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government should cancel the Fringe Benefits Tax they intend to impose on businesses throughout Australia because: 1. The tax discriminates against charitable organisations, sports clubs, private schools and religious organisations; 2. The tax will mean employees around Australia will suffer reductions in their 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 assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Page electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, not 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 Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of 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. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap can be terminated from 19 October 1986. (2) In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. (3) Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. (4) The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) Notice be given by 19 October 1986 that the Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap be terminated by October 1987. (2) Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. (3) Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government support the introduction of additional television channels through the Multi Channel Service proposal submitted by North Queensland Television. We oppose the aggregation option favoured by the Government as this will lead to a loss of local programming, community service involvement and local employment at NQTV. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government support the Multi Channel Service proposal submitted by North Queensland Television. by Mr Lindsay. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of 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 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 Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine the 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 Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor government's productivity- superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: (a) The film ``Hail Mary'' (i.e. ``Je Vous salue Marie'') has been registered by the Film Censorship Board for public exhibition with a Restricted Classification; and is due to be screened in the forthcoming Sydney Film Festival; (b) The film is a blasphemous and pornographic attack on Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph and the Archangel Gabriel, as such it is extremely offensive to the undersigned; (c) The film therefore breaches regulation 13 (1) of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations. Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives call upon the Attorney-General, as the Minister responsible, to prevent the exhibition of the film in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the Capital Gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and wealth creation, has contributed to Australia's economic crisis and contains many anomalies. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately repeal the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Capital Gains) Act 1986. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we the undersigned are totally opposed to the Government's policy to tax pony club income. Your petitioners urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to allow tax exempt status for pony clubs. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give 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 Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: Take the action necessary to create an Australian Republic on or before 1st January 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian atomic energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W., or any site within Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights or within Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the 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 wake of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government close down the Lucas Heights reactors immediately and permanently, and that no new nuclear reactors be built within Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the 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 Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House the Report of the Ministerial Committee to Review the Structure of Higher Education in Western Sydney which recommends the establishment in 1987 of a Western Sydney State University along lines detailed in that report. Your petitioners therefore request that the Commonwealth Government acts promptly to rectify the serious deficiencies in Higher Education in the Western Sydney Region by taking all actions necessary to enable the New South Wales Government to establish the University. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Western Australia call on the Commonwealth Government to reverse recent decisions which deny Secondary Allowances to Year 11 Students under the age of 16 years and make such allowances directly payable to students on attaining the age of 16. This request is made on the basis that: (i) Education benefits as part of income support benefits generally are a Commonwealth responsibility under the constitution. (ii) It is the right of parents with children in Year 11 in Western Australia to receive the same benefit as parents with children at the equivalent stage of their education in other parts of Australia irrespective of their age. (iii) This decision by the Commonwealth Government will impact most unfairly on the capacity of low income families in Western Australia to keep their children at school in Years 11 and 12. (iv) Direct payment of the allowance to 16 years olds will make it easier for young people to leave home and bring more pressure on State Authorities to find alternative accommodation for them at the community and taxpayers' expense. 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 Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain residents of the Northern Territory of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation recently passed by Parliament is unfair and will prejudice the current working conditions of all Territorians. 1. It will increase both personal and company taxation. 2. It will undermine employment levels through reducing profitability and international competitiveness of industry. 3. It will result in price increases. 4. It will force employers to withdraw voluntary incentives to employees paid over and above existing payments. 5. It endangers stable industrial relations because of the potential for forced withdrawal of Fringe Benefits. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take such action as is necessary to rescind the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986, the Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986, the Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Act 1986 and the Fringe Benefits Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1986. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, respectfully showeth that we, the people of Victoria would like to remind you of your moral duty in regard to your decision to sell Uranium to France, against ALP policy. The French are still nuclear testing in the South Pacific, despite world wide protests. We therefore call on you to reverse the decision to sell uranium to France. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully demand 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 demand 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. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The devastating effects that the Government's new taxes, especially the Capital Gains Tax and the Fringe Benefits Tax, are having on employment and business activity in rural Australia. 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 COBB(Parkes)(3.39) —This Government's policies and in particular its taxation policies are having a devastating impact on the viability of businesses, miners and farmers in rural Australia. I remind the Government that 80 per cent of Australia's export earnings come from the mining and farming industries. Only this week we have learnt that Australia is running a trade deficit equivalent to $17,000m annually. This staggering figure, greater than half our gross export earnings, is crippling country Australia. From these figures it is obvious that this country needs every export dollar it can earn and that the Government should be encouraging the rural sector instead of burdening it with a whole new welter of bureaucratic legislation and new taxes, as it has done since it came to office. Such socialist nonsense is crushing the incentive and economic lifeblood out of rural Australia. The Government must realise that, if the exporters of this country go under from the weight of these taxes, the whole of Australia goes under. The list of new taxes that we have had to stomach is as long as the looks on the faces of present Government members will be after the next election. There has been the superannuation lump sum tax, the entertainment tax-there goes 11,000 jobs-the removal of negative gearing which is pushing rents sky high, the assets test on pensioners and the iniquitous capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax that we will repeal. There has been a whole host more. There has been the doubling of sales tax on wine. Mr McGauran —Shame! Mr COBB —It is a shocking thing. It extracts another $47m out of the wine industry at the same time as the Government is spending $5m on a vine pull scheme. We have extra taxes on milk. We have extra taxes on fruit juices. We even have taxes on pony clubs, for heaven's sake. The National Farmers Federation has calculated that high analysis fertiliser prices will rise by $47 a tonne as a result of recent Budget decisions. The list goes on. This is the highest taxing, highest spending government in the history of this nation. The Government has become obsessed with tax. We might wonder what it does with all these taxes. We might ask what it could be spending it all on. This Government is throwing money around like confetti in a hurricane. The taxpayers of Australia would rise up in revolt if they could see where some of it is going. I have a 10-page list of Australia Council grants to left wing trade unions alone. It seems that almost every trade union in the country is funded at the taxpayers' expense to have a muralist in residence, an artist in residence, a lyricist in residence and a story teller in the community. It is unbelievable. When I show people this list, they just cannot believe it. There are grants of $10,000 here, $30,000 there. No amount is too high. There are grants to homosexual groups, communist groups-nothing is too radical for this Government to bankroll. There is one grant of several thousand dollars from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to hold a conference. Honourable members may well ask what for. It is for the National Network of Young Lesbians and Homosexual Men. Mr Hicks —Disgraceful. Mr COBB —It is disgraceful. Mr Tim Fischer —How much? Mr COBB —The amount is $5,000. Unfortunately all this has to be paid for from the extra taxes that have to be raised, which are causing enormous hardship and job losses in country areas. Let us look briefly at the assets test. In the town of Nyngan in my electorate there is an 89-year old ex-digger from the First World War and his 91-year-old wife. They retired a few years ago and moved into town to live out the remainder of their lives in what they thought would be peace and dignity. They borrowed against their life insurance policies to buy a modest house there. The son works on the farm and the income from the farm barely supports his family. Now, these ruthless tax gatherers have taken away this old couple's pension and the couple are bewildered and upset. You may well ask what they are living on. They are living on home care and Meals on Wheels. But, do not worry, Mr and Mrs Gibson from Nyngan; when we get rid of these mongrels from the Government benches, we will repeal this tax straight away. Mr Cunningham —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The terminology used against other members was totally unparliamentary. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — The honourable member will withdraw the unparliamentary words. Mr COBB —I meant no offence, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was simply referring to their breeding. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should not compound the matter. The honourable member will withdraw. Mr COBB —I withdraw. I have not yet mentioned the fuel tax. Despite promises to drop it, this Government has lifted its share of excise tax from $1.3 billion when it came to power to $5.5 billion. That is a 336 per cent increase. A whole town in my electorate has closed down because of the increased excise on diesel fuel. I refer to Fifield, where there was a magnesite mine. Diesel was used in their furnace. The mine could get no relief from those taxes. Seventy workers plus their families have been put out of business and Australia has an extra loss of export income. What about the farmers in Australia? They are struggling under a debt of $8,000m. They are living on $70 a week. Not only are they paying high fuel prices and almost the highest interest rates that this country has ever seen; they are now to be burdened with a capital gains tax and a fringe benefits tax. The capital gains tax is calculated to pluck an extra $300m a year out of the community. Discussion interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Holding-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Discussion resumed. Mr COBB(Parkes)(3.46) —The fringe benefits tax will extract another $600m to $700m a year. Both of these taxes are hitting the mining and business industries also. The Executive Director of the Australian Mining Industry Council has said that 3,000 jobs have already been lost in some mining areas because of the fringe benefits tax and that another 3,000 jobs will go in the near future. So much for decentralisation and job creation! The capital gains tax is discouraging investment in industries of high risk that often give very low returns on capital investment. Of course, that erodes borrowing capacity. The possibility of a capital gain at the end of a working life is all that keeps some businesses going now. That has become their superannuation policy. If we take that away from many people, they will just leave. The capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax are full of anomalies. Let us take the example of a son who has been given a low interest loan by his parents so that he can establish his own business or get a start on a farm. The parents will now have to pay fringe benefits tax on that low interest loan. It is almost unbelievable. The fringe benefits tax has become a bureaucrat's paradise. We have 139 pages of legislation from the Australian Taxation Office. We have 11 new tax rulings so far of 97 pages and there are still many more to come. There is one booklet of 56 pages, another booklet of 113 pages, several Press releases-and a video, for goodness sake. The situation with the capital gains tax is no better. We have a 155-page explanatory memorandum and 103 pages of legislation. The country is awash with paper. Mr McGauran —Red tape. Mr COBB —There is red tape everywhere. As I have said before, these taxes have created the three Ps in Australia-poverty, paper and public servants. I will read from a telegram I received today to show that it is not just the problem with the money that is being collected; it is the paperwork that goes with it. This telex is from a Mr R. P. Hansen, who states: FBT quarterly liability took two days to calculate plus tedious and infuriating compilation of log books and additional accounting costs. All for a tax of $49.97. FBT onerous, wasteful and ludicrously inefficient, generating savage resentment among Australia's several million small business people. Have suspended all such benefits to employees with expected compensating decrease in productivity. Greatest unforeseen consequence will be net loss to Australia. I urge you and your colleagues to repeal this nonsense. I say to Mr R. P. Hansen that we will do that. I turn now to mention the country shires. Of course, they have to pay fringe benefits tax. That alone will run into several thousand dollars. I am in the process of going through the shires, of which I have 13 in my electorate. The ratepayers in country areas are already very hard pressed. I am pleased to see the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) here. The roads in country areas are deteriorating and have been doing so over the past three or four years. Mr McGauran —Where is the money going? Mr COBB —One wonders. If fringe benefits tax of several thousands of dollars is imposed on each shire, rates will have to go up to compensate for that alone, or else taxpayers will have to foot more in grants to the councils, or the roads will deteriorate even faster. They are the choices. So much of the fringe benefits tax is unclear. So much of it is confused. Some accountants who have approached me in my electorate are too frightened, too scared, to give rulings to their clients who ask them questions, for fear that the Tax Office will come down with another ruling in the future which will change the situation and thereby make the accountants liable to be sued. What a ridiculous situation we have got ourselves into. Look at the case of the Australian Taxation Office. Even the Tax Office itself has to pay fringe benefits tax. I guess that when we finally have the spectacle of some public servant in the Tax Office sitting down and writing a cheque to himself we will know that this country has truly gone mad. I guess the Tax Office collecting fringe benefits tax from itself is a bit like the economy drinking its own blood. The mining industry is being driven mad by this fringe benefits tax and estimates of the expected extra costs to it vary between $40m and $70m. Imagine the jobs impact that the fringe benefits tax will have on the Mount Isa mine in Queensland, for example, which made only a $25m profit over the last two years combined. That alone indicates a return on capital invested of only a fraction of one per cent. Now Mount Isa Mines and, incidentally, many other mining companies around Australia will have to pay fringe benefits tax on accommodation, with anomalous remote area allowance differences between housing and board and lodging yet to be dealt with. Fringe benefits tax will have to be paid on cheap meals given to workers there. Fringe benefits tax will also have to be paid on relocation expenses. Relocation is a frequent occurrence in the mining industry, especially with skilled labour. Relocation expenses are hardly a benefit to people. Certainly it is not a rort as the Government is trying to claim. The mines already have substantial costs with relocation, but now in that regard they will have to pay fringe benefits tax on fares, temporary accommodation, agent's commission on the sale of a house and on a purchase at the other end, legal fees, stamp duty, packing, insurance, even the removal and kennelling of pets, for goodness sake. They will also have to pay tax on the re-registration of vehicles at the destination of relocation. Certainly jobs will have to be shed to pay for this tax. It is no wonder that people in the bush are in revolt. The Australian Labor Party will not hold a country seat after the next election. We will not have a Labor member for Hunter, thank heavens. We will not have one for Calare. There will not be one for Eden-Monaro, Leichhardt or Rankin-and certainly not Capricornia. To illustrate this, I woke up this morning, turned on my television set and heard a fellow reading out the results of a poll that had just been taken. The poll indicated that Hawke has gone. He has broken just about every promise imaginable. Let me read honourable members one of them: 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. The only thing the Prime Minister breaks more than his promises is his wind, as he regurgitates his worn out policies in this chamber day after day. People switch off when he talks now. He has lost the goodwill he once enjoyed from the people of Australia because no one can trust him any more. What did this morning's television report on this poll say about the Treasurer (Mr Keating)? It said that he is a cheat, a liar and a funeral director, for goodness sake. I do not know why it said a funeral director-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member cannot use the device of quoting to make an allegation. He will withdraw those remarks. Mr COBB —It was a quotation, but in deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will not do it in deference to anyone. He will withdraw the remarks. Mr COBB —I withdraw. Two years ago he was the world's best Treasurer. Incidentally, that was after the Treasurer of Mexico had won that award the year before. Today he is the world's second worst Treasurer. Australia is becoming a banana republic. We will soon be the only Third World country where one can drink the water. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(3.55) —The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) gained national prominence some time ago because he was drinking 2,4,5-T. After having listened to the diatribe that he just poured forth in this chamber, I think he is still on it. Let us come back to some of the facts about what he said so that the people listening to this debate can make their own judgment. He made some wild comments about the funding of organisations. A similar wild comment was made in this House recently about the funding of a gay publication in Victoria. It was found that the money was actually given to the organisation by a Liberal State government. Allegations were also made in this chamber about moneys being given to an organisation of lesbians in New South Wales which produced a document. It was found that the publication took place in 1978 under the Liberal-National Party Federal Government, the Fraser-Howard Government. The honourable member made some wild comments about fuel costs. Let us go back to the facts and figures. The Federal Government controls the wholesale price of fuel. When the Fraser Government came to power the wholesale price was just over 11c a litre; when it left the treasury bench it had gone up by more than 28c-an increase of 28c a litre. Under the Hawke Government the increase has been about 11c a litre. I turn to some of the other mad statements that the honourable member has been making. He made a claim before about a person who wrote to him, a Mr Ron Hansen. The honour- able member ought to get up with the facts. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), a Government member, also contacted Mr Hansen. The truth of the matter is that Mr Hansen owns a private company that employs his wife, himself and one other person and now Mr Hansen will not pay any fringe benefits tax because he has cashed out the benefit to his own company and he has invested his money in his own superannuation fund. The honourable member's statement in that case was another fallacy, like so many of the nonsenses that he has brought forward. I accept that it is the responsibility of any opposition in a democratic parliamentary system constantly to test and question the policies of government. From the ordinary citizen's point of view, this is what is expected of an opposition, but there is also an expectation, and I believe a requirement, that in testing and questioning the policies of government the opposition must also present factual, substantiated criticisms and must also put forward at the same time alternatives to the government's policies. On the issue of fringe benefits tax, this Opposition has failed on both counts because in the first instance so much of the criticism of FBT has been baseless. So many of the so-called unexpected consequences of the tax have been illusory and as an opposition it has failed outright to present any alternative policies, although I note that four or five Opposition members have been coming up with different proposals. The Opposition has tried to create fear and confusion in the minds of the community, particularly the rural community and the small business sector. At the same time, spokesman after spokesman for the Opposition has gone public contradicting other Opposition spokesmen on what they would do if the Liberal-National coalition ever got into government again. The whole debate around the fringe benefits tax has been characterised by a phoneyness that has been matched in this country only by the debate that took place on the assets test. Honourable members will recall the outlandish claims that were made by Liberal and National politicians across the country. They said the assets test would devastate millions of pensioners. There are only 1.5 million pensioners in Australia. Yet experience has shown that only those in the high income and asset bracket have been affected. The vast majority of Australians agree with the assets test. They agree that it is proper that millionaires do not receive a pension, that those who have assets worth $600,000 or $700,000 do not receive a pension. Experience with the fringe benefits tax will show the same result. When a government introduces new legislation, especially in the tax field, there is always the risk of unintended consequences. Mr Hodgman —Ha, ha! Mr WRIGHT —The honourable member may laugh but he should know; he was a Minister. He was involved in the presentation of legislation. Sometimes these unexpected consequences relate to unexpected loopholes. At other times it is a matter of a particular group of people being unintentionally caught up in the tax net. Should this occur-it occurs with every government across the land-it is the responsibility of that government of the day to act to redress the problems. I suppose it would be much easier if no government ever had to amend or fine tune legislation, but thinking people appreciate that when dealing with a total community, law and a million different circumstances, as can be the case with employment, problems and unexpected circumstances have to arise. One has only to consider the present Income Tax Assessment Act and other relevant legislation to realise how many special exemptions, special provisions and provisos prevail in the legislation-all aimed at addressing special circumstances. Instead of being criticised for being willing to monitor and deal with the unintended consequences, this Government should be praised. This is the Government that has had the intestinal fortitude and the plain political guts to take on the problems in the taxation system-problems which existed for more than a decade under the previous Liberal Party-National Party Government; which have slowly but surely undermined the integrity of the Australian tax system; and which have been costing ordinary taxpayers on wages and fixed incomes almost $700m a year. They are the ones who have been paying-not the Government but the ordinary taxpayers. The question that those who listen to this debate should ask themselves about fringe benefits is whether it is right and proper for a small group of Australians to be able to avoid or evade tax simply because they are paid with a salary package that is made up of a number of fringe benefits, instead of being paid in cash like everyone else. Of course it is not right, as all sorts of prominent people now agree. Two weeks ago I attended the Australian Advertising Conference on the Gold Coast. The guest speaker at its Sunday luncheon was Mr Bob Ansett. Bob Ansett, as most people realise, has been identified with the FBT debate, yet it was Bob Ansett who said at the luncheon-I will not quote him-that he was not against the principle of the fringe benefits tax. They were his words and 400 people were listening to him. He said that he challenged the way we had applied it whereby the employer paid it rather than the employee. I repeat that Bob Ansett said that he was not against the principle of the FBT. I believe that he was saying that the principle of the FBT that the Hawke Labor Government has introduced is correct. It would appear to me that, apart from the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), most coalition leaders at least have the intestinal fortitude to admit that there is a problem with FBT and that we should do something about it, because each has come out in the last few weeks publicly talking of the need to tax certain fringe benefits. Another wild critic of the fringe benefits tax in my home State is the Premier of the National Party State Government, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. I notice that he is also against elections that do not go his own way. I hear that he said today that if he does not win the next election in his own right he will have another election. It is a great put-down of the Governor of that State that Sir Joh thinks he can do that. Sir Joh said that he and his Government are against the principle of the FBT. It seems that he has conveniently changed his mind. I have in my hand a document that has come from the State Government-I hold it up for honourable members to see-which carries the official Queensland crest. It is headed `Queensland's taxation reform package, including single rate tax proposal'. It goes on: As presented to the National Taxation Summit in Canberra, 1-4 July, 1985 by- I ask honourable members to listen to this- the Honourable Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Premier and Treasurer of Queensland. Let us not forget that he is a Treasurer when it comes to the economic disaster which that State is facing. That document under the heading `Summary' contains three very interesting tax propositions. First, Bjelke-Petersen proposes a single rate tax of 25 per cent on all income, obviously not caring about the low income earners or the pensioners. It was interesting to hear the remarks of the honourable member for Parkes on negative gearing and to hear that he was against what the Government has done, because, secondly, the Premier of Queensland advocates: Elimination of tax shelters by quarantining negative gearing and farm losses . . . It is amazing that the National Party of Queensland says `Let's stop negative gearing and do something about the quarantining of farm losses', but National Party members have the audacity to say in this House that it is wrong. I come to the third and most important proposition put forward by the Queensland Premier in his document. He proposes: A fringe benefits tax on the beneficiary (but with employers to be required to record such benefits on group certificates). Despite what the National Party Premier of Queensland says now, because there is a pending election, he has officially proposed and advocated a fringe benefits tax. He has advocated a new and special tax on the fringe benefits that employees receive. He has advocated a new and special tax on those benefits over and above the normal wage or salary. It is rather significant that when he proposed these other measures, such as the single tax, he added some special provisos. He said that there ought to be a rebate to replace the existing non-tax threshold. He also made a few other provisos in that regard. But when he proposed his fringe benefits tax he made no such proviso-no provisions and no exemptions. He proposes a fringe benefits tax on all employees, to be collected by all employers day by day. He proposes that they keep a complete record day by day of every benefit paid. He makes no such provisos or exemptions, such as our proviso that there is no tax payable on the first $200 in fringe benefits that a person may receive. We have a special exemption for rural housing and accommodation in country areas. But the Premier of Queensland makes no such exemptions. He has no exemptions for any circumstances, foreseen or unforeseen. Instead, he officially puts forward a fringe benefits tax, as the Premier and Treasurer of Queensland, on all Queenslanders, on all Australians. He says that there should be a tax on all fringe benefits, regardless of whether the person is being paid an allowance for his industrial clothing, shoes, tools or anything else. He is probably one who ought to talk about fringe benefits because of the $400,000 that he got. We ought to hear more about that as well. But he says that there should be no exemption for rural people who get a bit of meat and milk. The Premier of Queensland says: `No exemptions; a fringe benefits tax on everybody'. The people of Queensland ought to remember this when they go to the polls on 1 November. In the few minutes remaining to me I will mention some of the other comments and criticisms that have been made, particularly by the National Farmers Federation. I have had a certain respect for many of the people in the National Farmers Federation. I have had the opportunity to work with some of them in my region. But I think it is rather a putdown on the people who they are supposed to represent that, when they had the opportunity to come forward to the special review that is being undertaken by this Government, they chose not to submit any proposition or submission to that review. Mr Simmons —They have lost all credibility. Mr WRIGHT —They have lost all of their credibility, as has been said by the honourable member for Calare. They have lost any standing in the eyes of people who are really thinking about this issue. This was the same organisation that put forward 106 questions to the Commissioner of Taxation. It is also the same organisation that said it did not get the answers. I have the questions and the answers. I can understand why some members of the National Farmers Federation do not want to admit that they have the answers, because the answers make some of their questions look pretty stupid. They made some wild accusations about how shearers will be taxed on their temporary accommodation. It is totally untrue. They made some wild claims about how share farmers will get caught up in the fringe benefits net. It is totally untrue. These are self-employed business people. Mr Humphreys —The honourable member for Petrie was supporting the National Party. Mr WRIGHT —I know; it was quite regrettable. But I think he was dealt with rather well today. The National Farmers Federation, regrettably, has made all of these sorts of strange allegations. The fact is that, like the allegations made by the honourable member for Parkes in this debate, most of them are unsubstantiated. There are some problems. I note some problems in regard to substantiation of car use. But that is not necessarily linked with fringe benefits. It comes back to ordinary tax law. If one gets a benefit, one ought to be able to substantiate that one uses that benefit for the proper purpose. There are some problems in rural areas where people must supply houses under industrial award conditions. But these are the issues that this Government is trying to address. The Government has been prepared to take hold of the problems that exist in the tax system. The Government wants to bring back some dignity and integrity to the tax system in Australia. Instead of criticising it, the Opposition ought to come up with its own alternatives. But it has not done that. It has done nothing like that. Instead, it is trying to create fear and concern in the community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(4.10) —I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs Emily Greig, nee Post, of Broken Hill. Mrs Greig will be 108 years old tomorrow. Mrs Greig was born on 18 October 1878 at Pinkerton Plains north of Adelaide. In 1898 at the age of 20 she married and moved to Broken Hill with her husband, who was looking for work in the mines. Honourable members can imagine what Broken Hill must have been like in those days-a dusty town of hessian humpies, disease and deprivation. Mrs Greig's husband died 40 years ago and so far she has outlived nine of her 10 children. Her last remaining daughter is Mrs Mildred Rodgers, who is 76 and now lives in Adelaide. Her family line includes 12 grandchildren and 25 great-grandchildren. Mrs Greig remembers doing all her cooking on an old wood stove, scrubbing her floors and washing all her clothes by hand. No doubt honourable members will have read about those days. Until she was 106 years old, Mrs Greig did all her own washing and cooking. She has been a resident of Elleoura Lodge at the Broken Hill Base Hospital for two years. She is very well cared for. I know that all honourable members will join me in wishing Mrs Greig a very happy birthday for tomorrow and in thanking her for her great contribution, not only to Broken Hill but also to Australia. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(4.12) —This afternoon I wish to mention the Australian Political Exchange Committee. This Committee was established some years ago as an all-party joint committee and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) is an executive member of that exchange. Last year it was my great pleasure-albeit for a very brief time-to lead the inaugural delegation from the Australian Parliament to Canada. That delegation comprised two parliamentary representatives and representatives from all political parties in Australia. We were looked after very well by our colleagues overseas, and this year it was our turn to reciprocate. The inaugural group from the Canadian Political Exchange Committee has been in Australia for the past week and will continue its series of fact-finding missions around this country during the next week. The delegates have been to Melbourne, where they have had discussions with a number of influential people, and most recently they have been here in Canberra. They are travelling to Adelaide and then on to Sydney. During their discussions they have met representatives from all political parties, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and a number of other parliamentarians, as well as people within the political party structure in Australia. They also had discussions with people in the trade union movement, the banking sector, big business and a variety of other groups. As part of this process of cementing our relationship with fellow parliamentarians overseas we should encourage these sorts of exchanges through the Political Exchange Committee and the political exchange program. This afternoon I should like to wish the very best to our colleagues from Canada. They include Ms Anne Scotton, who is the leader of the delegation; Mr Jim McEachern, who is the senior adviser in the Canadian Prime Minister's office; Mr David Dale, the policy adviser to the Minister for Science and Technology; Mr Tom Hart, who is a parliamentary assistant to a Conservative member of Parliament; and Mr Ken Bradley, a director of communications in the Government of Alberta. All those people represent the Progressive Conservative Party. Other delegates include Ms Teri Kirk, who is a lawyer and represents the Liberal Party; Ms Brigitte Fortier, well known to `la bouche from le sud', so I am told, who is a consultant and a former Press officer to the Leader of the Opposition. Among those representing the New Democrats are Mr Gary Doer, Minister for Urban Affairs in the Government of Manitoba; Ms Norma Kassi, a member of the Legislative Assembly in the Yukon, Territories; and Ms Christie Mjolness, a member of the Legislative Assembly in Alberta. I was very pleased to see a number of Albertans here because some 12 years ago I studied for a master's degree at the University of Alberta in Edmonton and my daughter was born in Edmonton. I also commend Mr Roger Webb and Miss Sue Whisker from the Australian Political Exchange Committee. These two officers have been husbanding these people around Australia and they have been doing a very fine job. I wish them all the very best for their continued stay in Australia. I hope that they learned as much about the Australian political system and other matters as some of us did when we went to Canada. I am sure that those members who were able to Dentertain them during their last couple of days in Canberra, particularly at the all-party representative dinner which I was fortunate enough to host on Wednesday evening, enjoyed themselves. I sum up as I started my speech: It is a very important part of the political process that exchanges such as this take place, that we are able to go to foreign countries to see their political processes at work, to watch the parliamentary activities in operation and so on. From talking to these young people-they were an extremely vibrant and extremely lively bunch of people-I think that they have demonstrated their capacity to learn from Australia and to pass on some very important points, particularly one or two I would not mention. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of raising this matter this afternoon. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.16) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Humphreys) proposed: That the question be now put. Mr Hodgman —This is shameful; disgraceful. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —This is Canberra, not Moscow. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Denison. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 4.17 p.m. Mr Gear to ask Madam Speaker: (1) What are the details of travelling allowance payments made to Members of the House of Representatives in 1985-86, indicating in respect of each Member (a) home base, (b) total travelling allowance paid and (c) overnight stays claimed in connection with (i) sittings of the House or the Member's direct travel to or from such sittings, (ii) a meeting of a parliamentary committee of which the Member is a member or his or her direct travel to or from such a meeting, (iii) attendance at a function representing a Minister or the Speaker on his or her official business as a Minister or Speaker, or direct travel to or from such a function, (iv) a meeting in Canberra of the Member's parliamentary political party, of its executive or of one of its committees or the Member's direct travel to or from such a meeting, (v) a meeting of the Member's parliamentary political party executive in a capital city, (vi) meetings, other than in Canberra, of a committee of the Member's parliamentary political party or the Member's direct travel to or for such a meeting, (vii) attendance at official government, parliamentary or vice-regal functions and (viii) travel in the Member's electorate on parliamentary or electorate business in accordance with paragraph 9 of Remuneration Tribunal Determination 1986/10. (2) What are the details of travelling allowance payments made to Members of the House of Representatives who are (a) Leaders and Deputy Leaders of recognised parties, (b) Whips, (c) Chairmen of Parliamentary Committees and (d) shadow Ministers in accordance with paragraphs 13 to 17 of Remuneration Tribunal Determination 1986/10. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 2184) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 October 1985: (1) Further to his answer to my question No. 9 (Hansard, 8 October 1985, page 1555), is it a fact that of the banks and their officers who handled cheques that were part of `round-robin' tax avoidance schemes, only one investigation case made progress to the court proceedings stage; if so, why is action not being taken in other cases where similar transactions of `round-robin' arrangements were assisted by the banks and their officers. (2) Is it a fact that provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act and the criminal codes could be used to bring such banks and their officers to account for these nefarious acts. (3) What action does he intend to take against all such banks and their officers which are implicated in these tax avoidance schemes. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In my answer to parts 1 and 2 of question No. 9 (Hansard, 8 October 1985, page 1555) I advised that charges had been laid against a number of persons and that court proceedings were pending in one case of the kind to which the question refers. The Commissioner of Taxation has again advised that as far as he is aware this is the only case of this kind in which court proceedings are pending. Round-robin transactions are, in themselves, not illegal. The use of round-robin arrangements has been examined by the Courts and Boards of Review in FCT v Lau 84 ATC 4929 and Cases S 58 and S 59 85 ATC 413 and 420. No inference adverse to the taxpayer or his bankers was drawn in these cases. However, where a round-robin transaction is found to be part of some wider transaction which is illegal, participants in the round-robin may be implicated as participants in the wider transaction. I am advised that a decision to proceed with prosecution action in such cases is only taken after all the facts of the particular case have been examined. (2) If it could be established by admissible evidence that any bank officer who facilitated the use of a round-robin of cheques was a party to any fraud on the Commonwealth then there may have been a breach of certain provisions of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914. There were no specific provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 at the time the tax avoidance schemes in question were being implemented. (3) I am not aware of any cases where there is sufficient evidence to warrant any bank officer being charged for any offence, such as conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth, under the Crimes Act. The mere fact that the bank, through its officers, facilitates the use of a round-robin of cheques is not sufficient evidence to enable charges to be laid against the bank officers. There must at least be evidence that the bank officer were aware that the round-robin was part of a fraudulent transaction. If any such evidence is provided to me or to the Australian Taxation Office it will, of course, be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration. (Question No. 4200) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) Is he able to say what countries have negotiated fishing agreements with the Soviet Union, allowing Soviet vessels to fish in their waters. (2) Is he able to say what countries export wheat to the Soviet Union. (3) What was the total value of Australian exports in 1984-85 and what products are exported. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) According to information available to the Government the following countries have negotiated fishing agreements with the Soviet Union. The Americas-Argentina, Guyana, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru. Northern Africa-Algeria, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia. African (other)-Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Ghana, Mozambique, Tanzania. Asia-Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka. Indian Ocean-Comoros, Maldives, Seychelles. Europe-Finland, Norway, Spain. Pacific Ocean-Kiribati, New Zealand. Middle East-Iran, Iraq. This list is based on publicly available information and is not necessarily exhaustive. It does not include, for example, agreements that the USSR may have with other soviet bloc countries. (2) Countries which have exported wheat to the USSR in recent years (and the quantities involved) are shown in the following table: Country 1983-84 1984-85 1986-86(f) (m. tonnes) (m. tonnes) (m. tonnes) EEC... 4.01 6.0 5.4 Canada... 5.7 7.6 4.7 Australia... 1.5 2.0 3.3 Argentina... 3.6 4.0 0.8 US... 4.3 6.1 0.2 Other (a)... 0.2 2.1 2.5 (a) Others include: Eastern Europe, Austria, Finland, Sweden, China, India and other origins. Source: International Wheat Council Record and Operations International Wheat Council Market Report 1 July 1986 (f) Forecast. (3) The total value of Australian exports to the USSR in 1984-85 was $873.4 million. Principal exports in 1984-85 were as follows: Commodity Value $m Wheat... 371 Greasy and fleece washed wool... 288 Barley, unmilled... 130 Oats... 26 Raw sugar, bulk (country details Confidential from 1.10.84)... 12 Butter... 9 Cotton... 5 Mineral sands (excluding monazite)... 4 Total above item... 845 Items for which details are not separately available... 20 Other... 8 Total... 873 Source: Department of Trade. (Question No. 4337) Mr Jull asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Is it a fact that the Australian Taxation Office will need 5% additional staff to collect the fringe benefits tax; if not, how many additional staff will be appointed. (2) What is the estimated cost of the hiring of these additional staff. (3) How many additional staff have been engaged by the Australian Taxation Office since the beginning of 1983. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. In 1986-87, 590 staff are planned to be engaged on fringe benefits tax work. This represents a 3.6% (590/16489) increase in staff over the 1985-86 approved average operative staffing level. (2) The estimated salary cost for a full year of the 590 staff required for fringe benefits tax work is $13,456,651. (3) From a 30 June 1983 base of 14,498 (including 253 seasonal staff) the approved staff level for the Australian Taxation Office has increased by 392 in 1983-84, 727 in 1984-85, 872 in 1985-86 and 782 for 1986-87. (Question No. 4342) Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: Can an estimate be made of the loss of Commonwealth company tax revenue due to tax deductible losses caused by the drop in the value of the $A; if so, what is the estimated revenue loss for the latest available year. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No estimate is currently available of the impact of the fall in the value of the $A on Commonwealth company tax revenue. The latest income year for which company taxation statistics have been made available by the Commissioner of Taxation is 1983-84 and these do not include an item for foreign exchange losses deducted against company incomes. It should be noted that exchange rate depreciation will give rise to revenue gains and losses so that the net effect on the revenue is ameliorated. Moreover, prior to 19 February 1986 certain exchange gains and losses on overseas borrowings were considered to be on capital account and were not therefore assessable or deductible for income tax purposes. (Question No. 4488) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Will the Commission for the Future be holding any seminars or producing any discussion papers on nuclear energy or technology. (2) How frequently has he met with members or officers of the Commission. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) I met with Commissioners and officers of the Secretariat to establish the goals and work program of the Commission in June 1985. I receive monthly reports on the Commission's activities and I have met with officers of the Secretariat on about a dozen occasions in the last twelve months, though not on a regular basis, to discuss policy matters.