Wednesday, 12 November 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 9 a.m. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That- (1) standing order 48a (adjournment of House), as amended by sessional order, be suspended for the remaining sittings this week; (2) in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills: Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986 Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill 1986; Australian Capital Territory Tax (Transfers of Marketable Securities) Bill 1986; Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986; Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986; States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996; States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill 1986; Australia Card Bill 1986; Privacy Bill 1986; and Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.02) —The record of the Government in administering Australia, we know, is appalling. Its record in administering this Parliament is getting even worse, if that is possible. There is little doubt that over the last 3 1/2 years the Government has successfully provided a log jam of legislation which it is impossible for Parliament to consider adequately before the House rises. In this instance we know that there are only two more sitting weeks before the House of Representatives rises and there is a series of complex Bills, some of which are still to be introduced, and which really, because the Senate has properly said that it is not prepared just hastily to consider legislation, are now in this instance to be peremptorily rushed through the Parliament with debating time very strictly limited so that the Government can supposedly get its act in order and get all the legislation in place before the Christmas adjournment. The first thing that people need to know is that until the last sitting week-we have had an adjournment for two weeks-the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) had intended that the House rise because we all knew that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had decided that he might have an election. But quite properly he suddenly realised that nobody in the community wants him as Prime Minister. It was not a matter of deciding what is good for Australia. If people thought that the legislative program that is now before us was legislation that had to be passed, they have to put it against the picture that the Prime Minister himself, three weeks ago, said that none of it was necessary. He was quite happy to have a Federal election if he thought he could win. But he knew that his economic performance was appalling. He knows that the people of Australia are not going to buy the idiocies of the fringe benefits tax, nor of the Australia Card, when they see what is in it, when they realise the intrusion which it will play in the lives of ordinary Australians. Any person in seeking employment, in making any banking transactions, in taking any financial step will have to produce that document of record. What it does is destroy to a greater degree than has ever happened in Australia the individual rights of Australian citizens. It is a far greater intrusion than the fringe benefits tax. It is a measure which, when Australians comprehend how it will prejudice their ordinary lives, they will reject out of hand, as they will the fringe benefits tax. As far as I am concerned, this guillotine motion has absolutely no validity when the Prime Minister, the Special Minister of State, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Government all decided only three weeks ago that none of this legislation was necessary. When one understands that the Government decided that it was unnecessary one wonders how it can have the gall to come in here, three weeks later, and say that suddenly we have to get this legislation passed before Christmas? It says: `Never mind, boys and girls, you can't possibly leave here unless we have an expedited debate on a package of legislation'. That is arrant nonsense. There is no basis on which a government can change its mind and direction so fundamentally in that short period and say suddenly that all this legislation has to be passed when the Parliament itself was scheduled to rise at the end of the first week in November when we all knew that none of this legislation was even to be introduced. The first premise I put to the House and the reason we reject this guillotine motion is that the Government knew that it would not even introduce this legislation, let alone consider it, and had no real worry about it. The second premise is that it is, I think, necessary that people understand that yet again the Government is seeking to enhance the power of the Senate and to deny to the elected members of the House of Representatives a proper opportunity to debate and consider matters of prime community concern. A range of measures covering some two pages are to be guillotined. We have the Australia Card Bill, the greatest intrusion we have ever had on the rights of Australian citizens. We are not to be allowed a free debate on that Bill; we are to have a restricted time limit. We know that the Government is making a devil of a mess of education as far as schools assistance is concerned. We know that our schools are in crisis, that our hospitals are in crisis, and that there are queues of patients. By imposing time limits the Government will not only deny the members of the House of Representatives a chance to debate these measures but also restrict our opportunity to consider as we would wish those other areas where the Government is failing in its public responsibilities. I have mentioned Medicare, health care, nurses, and the queues of patients waiting to gain admission to Australia's public hospitals. We will not be able to debate these issues because of the guillotine. The Senate has no such time restriction and will be able to deliberate, as it wishes, on measures of this ilk. I see no reason at all for members of the House of Representatives to give to the Senate alone adequate opportunity to consider matters within this legislative program, and of wider public moment. The coalition rejects the proposal by the Leader of the House. The third premise is that within the measures there are a number of matters which we believe are such that they should be considered without having a time restraint. Before the Special Minister of State set down these time limits, I went through with the Whips the number of speakers that we have listed. We have a large number of people on our side of the House who properly exercise their electoral responsibilities in this Parliament to raise the genuine concerns they have about the effect of legislation on their constituents. The Special Minister of State is saying: `We, in the Government, will deny you, the members of the Opposition, the opportunity to speak'. Obviously, nobody in the Government really wants to speak. After all, they have so little to say anyway. If honourable members did want to speak surely they should be on our side. All those honourable members who will lose their seats at the next election, and there is an array of them sitting in here, should be joining members of the Opposition in saying: `We want to express our views on the Government's legislative proposals'. But they are sitting mute. They are there in their factional divisions. They are concerned about fighting within their factions. They bandy away one with the other not in the Parliament but in the closeted corridors of this place. That is no basis for the public exposure of matters of serious moment for the Australian citizen. The debate should take place within this Parliament, not in Caucus, in Caucus committees or within the factional fighting of Labor. It is, therefore, not acceptable for those of us on this side of the House, who wish to conduct the debate in Parliament and who wish to speak on behalf of our constituents, to have this sort of a guillotine, which will provide far too little time and opportunity for adequate consideration of these measures. On those three grounds I believe it inappropriate that the Parliament should accept the time restraints the Leader of the House has mentioned. For those reasons the Opposition opposes this motion. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.11) —We are in the same situation this Government seems to get itself into every time. I implore the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) to do his side a favour. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has to bring in some of these Bills. It is only the people on this side of the House who seem to be able to educate him about what is in them. When we ask him he does not know. He does not have any idea at all. He will give us all the rhetoric. He will tell us what the public sector borrowing requirement is and all those sorts of things. He knows what non-farm deflator means, although nobody who listens to him, including Senator Richardson, does. Here is a man who has an opportunity, if he bothers to listen to the Opposition, to have his Bills explained to him. We can explain the effect they will have on ordinary people. We can explain, for instance, how his fringe benefits tax is hurting all the little people. All the big salary earners are now putting advertisements in the newspapers asking what sorts of packages people would like. In the Australian Financial Review last Friday Albert Smith set it all out. Professor Richter of the University of Melbourne has told us that the rich are going to get richer and the poor are going to get poorer under the Government's legislation. We could have told the Treasurer that, had the Leader of the House (Mr Young) given us time. We would have exposed some of the problems the Government has now discovered in its capital gains tax. That is what parliamentary debate is all about. If the Government is not prepared to have it, it is the loser, because it will have to come back here and admit that it was wrong, as it is doing now with its capital gains tax and all those sorts of things. It is most important that we get a chance to tell the Treasurer what his legislation is all about, because obviously he does not know. Government members-Ha, ha! Mr TUCKEY —Honourable members have seen the record. He said to us one day: `I am not a computer'. I agree with him on that. He went down to Treasury, when the Government made him Treasurer, with no experience. He did not have any experience in business. He did not have any experience at school. In fact, as I understand it, he had only a very brief flirtation with the private sector when he left school as a kid. He had a job for about three months. So he had no experience whatsoever. The Government shot him off to Treasury and Treasury pumped him up. Now he knows about the public sector borrowing requirement, the non-farm deflator, fiscal policy and monetary policy. But we keep saying to him: `Do you realise that you are hitting little people with the FBT?'. He says: `I am not a computer, I do not have to answer those questions'. Of course he does. If he does not have time to sit down with his advisers, he can come into this Parliament under the proper forms of the Parliament and we can tell him about these things, because we study them. Mr Chynoweth —We don't believe you, though. Mr TUCKEY —We study these things and we understand when the Government is hurting little people. We are a party for all people, not for big factional issues. Government members-Oh! Mr TUCKEY —Honourable members opposite are getting upset but they are getting the same message in their electorates. It is the plant foremen and people like that who are getting their cars taken from them. Have honourable members opposite read of any managing director losing his car? No, thank you! He is on 50c or 60c in the dollar and it pays him to take the fringe benefit. It also pays his employer to give it to him. But if one is on only 25c in the dollar it does not pay. The figures are very simple. They have been published in numerous newspapers. So it is the little guys who are losing under the fringe benefits tax. They are the ones who are told `You can't take the car home any more, Charlie' or: `I am sorry but you cannot have that little bit of bank interest subsidy we gave you any more because you are on 25c in the dollar and you are a loser for us, so we will take it back'. That is what the Government calls equity. We could have explained that to the Treasurer, had the Government not gagged debate on the fringe benefits tax legislation in this place. Now it wants to apply the gag to other Bills. It wants to gag debate on the identification card legislation. Government members will go back to their electorates and bump into a real estate agent who will tell them that he is now up for a $20,000 fine if he accepts the right to rent someone's property. They will run into the corner delicatessen employer who is up for a $20,000 fine if he gives someone a job without seeing that person's ID card after 24 hours. The person who happens to be on the dole because he has given false information and has said that he does not have a job is up for only $2,000. We would like to tell those opposite through this debate about things like this but they will gag us out of it. God save some of their Labor constituents who give a bit of work to someone and do not ask to see the ID card because they do not understand about it. We have not had the opportunity in this place to spell this out so that the people can hear us. They will be up for a maximum $20,000 fine. Those people are not the villains. They are not cheating on tax. Someone else is responsible for that but those opposite will fine them $20,000. We do not know what those opposite will fine other people. If a person forges a card he will be fined only $10,000. If some poor devil accepts it those opposite will fine him $20,000. Government members interjecting- Mr TUCKEY —What are those opposite getting upset about? I am trying to help them. I am trying to explain why they have an electoral liability. What do they do? They are complaining. Government members are astounding, they are gagging their own people from making the necessary speeches. I know how the rules work for them. They cannot criticise their Government as I did when in government. They are totally subject to and get their instructions from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We know where all these tax packages came from. Bill Kelty told us on 3 February 1985 that the Government would introduce all these things. There was the farce of the Tax Summit. It was never going to work. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) got his instructions half way through from the ACTU and pulled the rug out from under the Treasurer. That is all right. We know all about it. But those blokes opposite do nothing about it. Government members are not even interested in what is in the legislation. The Treasurer does not know what it is about and he will not spend time in this place because the Leader of the House wants to knock off for Christmas or something. I do not know what he has in mind. We will come back for an extra week or so. We do not mind because we want to time to explain to Government members and their Treasurer the horrible effect that their silly legislation is having on their own constituents. I love those two beer ads-two glasses of beer. Every six months those opposite put up the tax on working class entertainment and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), the Minister for arts and culture, boasts that he got more money for the opera. Those people on fringe benefits can get free tickets to the opera. It pays people in the 50c in the dollar bracket to get the boss to pay for the free tickets to the opera. They will be subsidised because the Minister has been boasting that the Treasurer loves museums, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) likes the opera and Senator Gareth Evans likes the ballet. So money is being pumped into those things, while the Government is increasing the tax on beer every six months. The working man in the advertisement is paying 60 per cent of the price of every drink he has-and there are plenty-in tax. Those opposite are taxing petrol in the same way. What does the working man do on the weekend? He takes his family out for a drive in the car. He is taxed on that and the subsidy is sent to the people in our community who are now able to get fringe benefits tax free and make a profit on them. That is not the working man. He has been let down. We could have told those opposite all that if they gave us time. But they do not want to listen and I think their Treasurer is incapable of learning. At the end of the debate he would not understand one scrap of detail of the legislation, not one. Mr Hand —I take a point of order. Mr TUCKEY —If it is starting to hurt the honourable member he should just tell me and I will keep going. Mr Hand —My point of order is that the honourable member is wasting the time of the House. We want to get on with the debate. We will debate him anywhere and in any place. Why will he not sit down so we can get on with it? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr TUCKEY —I am pleading for the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) to have some time-the original 20 minutes-to lay down a few words on behalf of his constituents. I would like to think that he had the courage to say a few words for his constituents, the people who I have just pointed out are being hurt by a lot of these tax measures. Many ladies in his electorate do a bit of work in houses around the town getting a bit of extra money. They will be knocked about and the honourable member knows it. He will hear about it. He can say: `That is quite right'. They will have to go everywhere with their ID card whenever they want to do a little job to help out and keep the family from starvation. They will have to produce the ID card. The honourable member tells us about those people and says that they are his constituents. They will be hurt by the honourable member's ID card. I want to give him the time to state the views of his constituents. I am arguing against the gag. I am prepared to use the time available to me because I want everybody in this Parliament to have sufficient time to talk about these important issues. For honourable members opposite to suggest to us that we should not oppose the gag so that we get a few extra miserly minutes is not enough on these important issues. Honourable members opposite are making a total mockery of the Parliament as they are denying themselves the right to support their constituents, the people who had the confidence to vote for them. If honourable members opposite think that these particular proposals-the FBT, the ID card and these other tax measures we have here-are only going to attack the rich, they too have not read the legislation and they too have as little understanding of these matters as their Treasurer, who has no understanding at all. All of the questions we put to him day after day on the details of the tax, which honourable members opposite think is some sort of masterly trick we run to try to trip him up, are asked so that the people of Australia might understand the tax. After all, taxpayers are under self-assessment now and if they make a mistake in their tax returns, there is nobody in the Australian Taxation Office to tell them about it. The Commissioner has said that. Mr Beale —Do they get fined? Mr TUCKEY —They certainly get fined. They will get fined 200 per cent of their mistake, plus interest. The Treasurer brought that in and-- Mr Sinclair —Plus penal interest. Mr TUCKEY —The penal interest on both the original loss plus the 200 per cent. Had that Bill not been gagged we would have had more time to explain that to the Treasurer. Previously the Taxation Commissioner had the responsibility to tell a taxpayer whether he had got it right and if he did not bother, of course, the Commissioner was the loser-he could not reassess a taxpayer unless he could prove that the taxpayer had misled him by failing to make a full and true disclosure. That has changed. The Leader of the House did not give us time to explain the consequences of that. The ordinary Australian citizen, who is not a tax expert, now has the problem of getting it right and if he does not get it right, he is a tax evader. I am trying to explain to honourable members opposite what they are doing by gagging our time. I know it is a bit beyond their resources as they have not had an opportunity ever to be in business and meet these sorts of tax requirements-their tax is plucked out of their pay-but a lot of people in the community need that help. They need the opportunity of a full debate, the proper reporting of the debate in the Press and being able to hear the debate on the radio as they drive home in their cars, but honourable members opposite are going to gag the debate. We have days and days at the beginning of a session where we have 20 or 30 speakers on some bit of rubbish that no Australian is particularly affected by. Those matters might be a bit emotional, but that is all. Every session since this Government has been in office we get to the end of the session and what happens? All the important stuff comes up where the Opposition can point out the mistakes, make some amendments, make the Government's legislation better and keep the Australian public informed, and for a very obvious reason we are gagged. Honourable members opposite want to ambush Australia and that is what they are on about again today. It is an absolute disgrace and I just wish that we could give that bit of advice to the Treasurer. That is what I am really debating here. It is a great opportunity to explain to him how his tax legislation works so that later on he might be able to answer a few questions. He might even be able to tell those opposite the truth in Caucus, because he did not tell the truth when he went to America. In America he boasted about his wonderful economic management and he rounded out the figures. He had a 5.2 per cent figure or thereabouts which he just happened to call 6 per cent. Honourable members opposite say: `What is wrong with that? He was talking percentage of gross domestic product'. But that is hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars. I wonder what those real economic experts around the world over there were doing. They must have all had their hands over their mouths giggling away at this upstart from Australia who tried to tell them fibs. He tells fibs to honourable members opposite in the Caucus and they do not mind. We all know who will lose their seats at the next election. He will not, although Premier Unsworth might have been whispering in his ear and saying: `Paul, you had better take a few more VIP trips down to your electorate because the people down there are voting against us'. Mr Cunningham —I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor claimed that the Treasurer was telling lies to Caucus. He used the word `fibs' and I think that should be withdrawn from the Hansard. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, I will withdraw. I am terribly sorry that the honourable member for McMillan is unable to differentiate between truth and dishonesty. He obviously cannot. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not cast aspersions on other members of the House. Mr TUCKEY —I am sorry. It is just one of those mentality things, that he believes he gets told all the truth. I am on my last minute and I just repeat that it is a disaster that the Special Minister of State, who is the Leader of the House, is prepared to gag a debate in which the Opposition might just educate the Treasurer on his own legislation. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 11 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J. Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. 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. Charlesworth, R. I. 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. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R. Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C. Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, D. J. H. Hodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Darling, E. E. Downer, A. J. G. Duncan, P. Fife, W. C. Jacobi, R. Fischer, TimBilney, G. N. Porter, J. R. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills: Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986; Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill 1986; Australian Capital Territory Tax (Transfers of Marketable Securities) Bill 1986; Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986; Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986; States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill 1986; Australia Card Bill 1986; Privacy Bill 1986; and Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. Question resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.32) —I move: That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows: (1) Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986; For the remaining stages, until 11.00 a.m. this day. (2) Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill 1986; For the remaining stages, until 11.10 a.m. this day. (3) Australian Capital Territory Tax (Transfers of Marketable Securities) Bill 1986; For the remaining stages, until 11.20 a.m. this day. (4) Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; For the remaining stages, until 11.30 a.m. this day. (5) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; For the remaining stages, until 5.20 p.m. this day. (6) Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; (a) For the second reading, until 5.30 p.m. this day. (b) For the committee stage, until 5.50 p.m. this day. (c) For the remaining stages, until 6.00 p.m. this day. (7) Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986; For the remaining stages, until 6.10 p.m. this day. (8) Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; (a) For the second reading, until 6.30 p.m. this day. (b) For the committee stage, until 8.20 p.m. this day. (c) For the remaining stages, until 8.30 p.m. this day. (9) States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986; For the remaining stages, until 10.40 p.m. this day. (10) States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; For the remaining stages, until 10.50 p.m. this day. (11) States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; For the remaining stages, until 11.00 p.m. this day. (12) Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill 1986; (a) For the second reading, until 10.00 a.m. on Thursday, 13 November. (b) For the Committee stage, until 10.20 a.m. on Thursday, 13 November. (c) For the remaining stages, until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 13 November. (13) Australia Card Bill 1986; For the remaining stages, until 11.00 a.m. on Friday, 14 November. (14) Privacy Bill 1986; For the remaining stages, until 12.30 p.m. on Friday, 14 November. (15) Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. For the remaining stages, until 12.40 p.m. on Friday, 14 November. Urgent Legislation Urgent Legislation Urgent Legislaton It was not my intention to take up the time of the House in speaking to the motion but, as we have been subjected to a couple of speeches from the Opposition about the conduct of business in this House, there are some matters that ought to be responded to. This is more of a procedural motion than a guillotine in terms of setting the times over the next three days for business that must be conducted. The Opposition tells us that it wants to debate matters. We have all day tomorrow to talk about the ID card and we have all day on Monday when the Opposition can explain to us the courageous decision it took in its party room yesterday on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-Special Broadcasting Service amalgamation. We will be able to listen to that explanation all day on Monday. We want the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to explain to us the political tactics that were developed by the Opposition in the party room yesterday in relation to the ABC. We have looked at the speakers list. There will be no fewer than 19 speakers from the Opposition on the Australia Card tomorrow. We want them to tell the Australian public why they are in favour of the Australian taxpayers being ripped off by a billion dollars a year because of their refusal to accept the introduction of the Australia Card. It does not mind about all the tax cheats. At Thredbo the Opposition said it stood for the family. Here is the Opposition's opportunity to do something for the family and stop all the rip-off merchants to the extent of $1 billion a year. The Opposition will use its numbers in the Senate to block the introduction of a mechanism that can save honest taxpayers $1 billion a year. The Opposition should explain that to the Australian public. It talks about the strong stand it takes on certain things. This week the Opposition launched its publicity campaign. The advertisement shows someone breaking chains with his wrists. There were not many strong wrists in the Liberal Party room yesterday. The Opposition could not get its subject out of the Liberal Party room yesterday when it was breaking the chains to use for its publicity advertisements. There was not much backbone in the Liberal Party room yesterday when the Opposition had to take a couple of tough decisions. Members of the Opposition were all at Thredbo paddling around in the swimming pool. All they are concerned about-for God's sake, they should get it over with-is putting Andrew back. Let us have a decent fight instead of wandering around Australia with this wimp who is in the Leader of the Opposition's room. The Opposition should clean out its front bench, including its shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). No one listens to him. The Opposition talks about wanting more time to speak in the Parliament but who in the Opposition is being listened to? Mr Rocher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask you whether the word `wimp' is a parliamentary term. If it is not, I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr YOUNG —I could not think of a more fitting word to describe the subject. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I think honourable members have used the word `wimp' in this place before. Mr YOUNG —All the Opposition has to do is get a bit of backbone; it should not worry about when it will announce its policies on taxation and everything else it is supposed to be telling us about. It will not tell us where it stands on any issue. It is against everything, except the family. Little honest John had to pose with the kids at the swimming pool at Thredbo. His policy announcement for 1986 was: `John stands for the family'. Isn't that terrific? What about the families who will lose $1 billion a year because the Opposition is opposed to the ID card? The Opposition will not even discuss, in any intellectual way, the amalgamation of the ABC and the SBS. It just says: `It will be politically popular for us to take a stand against the amalgamation'. The Opposition does not know what this move would do in the future for the proper operation of the ABC but it thinks such a move might put it back up in popularity in the polls. That move will not put back the Opposition's popularity in the polls at all. Both Opposition parties are in a total mess. They do not know where they are going; they do not know what they stand for; they have no policies; they are rudderless; they are being led by a person who is too frightened to speak about any issue; they will not develop any policies to tell Australia where they stand and yet they complain that they are not getting enough time to talk in Parliament. Who wants to listen to the Opposition? All I want the 19 Opposition speakers, whom we will allow to speak tomorrow, to do is justify how they will allow the Australian taxpayers to be ripped off by $1 billion a year. That is what we want to know. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.38) —It had not been my intention to speak until I heard the wimp across the table, who is now being a parliamentary turkey, state such absolute arrant nonsense. To start off, the Government has not been prepared to get together its Australian Taxation Office administration; it now has what is quite demonstrably an Australian Labor Party stooge as the Commissioner of Taxation. He is a person who is prepared to declare, in order to defend the maladministration within his office, his support for a policy which we were shown yesterday to be totally unnecessary if the Commissioner of Taxation had done his job as he should. We learned that neither the fringe benefits tax nor the Australia Card would be necessary. So much for the intervention of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). He talked about our opposition to the Australia Card. Our opposition to the Australia Card is based on what we see as an absolutely unnecessary intrusion into the lives of every Australian. The Government does not worry about the taxpayers' money that it would cost to implement the Australia Card. We have already seen the Auditor-General, quite properly, put the Tax Commissioner into perspective. We know that the costs of introducing the Australia Card and the delay in its introduction, as such, will not do anything to overcome the maladministration of the Tax Office. The Special Minister of State went on to talk about the Special Broadcasting Service and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. We know that yet another Labor stooge has been appointed without advertisement from being Chairmen of the State Rail Authority of New South Wales to chief executive of the ABC. A person has been suddenly picked out of that very corrupt Labor administration in New South Wales, taken from the State Rail Authority, put with the ABC and given some sort of a blessing. If it had been the other way around and we had been making the ABC part of the Special Broadcasting Service, we might have been talking sense because, frankly, the SBS has shown that a public authority can be run efficiently, adequately and on a minimal budget and that it can provide a service to the Australian people. We all know that the ABC is in a disastrous state of maladministration. We know that it needs to be cleaned up. Yet the Government's decision to amalgamate the two bodies will suddenly increase the expense and the inefficiency of the efficient element of public broadcasting. It is no good the Leader of the House coming in here today and trying to cloak all of the problems of the Labor Party, the factional fights and Government's inability to get the Tax Office administered properly. The Leader of the House did not even address the fact that $56m has not been spent by the Tax Office on the introduction of computer systems. He gave us pale excuses. It is of no use his talking about what the Opposition is not doing. The reason for the accelerated consideration of all of these measures and the failure of the Government to allow proper parliamentary debate is that the Government has not got its act together. The Government cannot correctly come in here and not allow members on both sides to put their point of view as they should. It is only on that basis and no other that we oppose the guillotine motion. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J. Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, 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. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R. Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C. Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Conquest, B. J. Shack, P. D. Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F. Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. 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. Hunt, R. J. D. Darling, E. E. Downer, A. J. G. Duncan, P. Fife, W. C. Jacobi, R. Fischer, TimBilney, G. N. Porter, J. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! I remind the House, before the debate resumes on this Bill, that it has been agreed that a general debate will be allowed covering this Bill and Orders of the Day Nos 2, 3 and 4. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(10.44) —Before the adjournment debate last night I had been critical of the Taxation Office and the position of the Commissioner of Taxation in making some public statements that were political. Those criticisms were not lightly made but they were also not made in a spirit of vindictiveness. They were made in the hope that the complete breakdown in public relations can be repaired and that the perception and the respect which is most desirable that we maintain between the ordinary, honest taxpayers and the Australian Taxation Office can be restored. We must remember that the great bulk of Australian taxpayers are honest, decent people. They are willing to pay their fair and proper portion of tax; they are not trying to avoid paying tax. But they are hurt and afraid due to the poor relationship with, and response to their approaches to the Taxation Office. I notice that according to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986 a third Second Commissioner is to be appointed, and I agree with that. If that helps I endorse the appointment. But I do not think that is enough because the Government has heaped increased responsibilities on the Tax Office. It has a host of new taxes, pages and pages of new tax legislation, including the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax and the valuation of assets caught up by the assets test, and the list goes on. I despair that we will ever catch up and will ever be able to meet the backlog which faces the Taxation Office. If the appointment of a third Second Commissioner will help at all of course I have absolutely no problems with it. I would have liked to have said more, but because of the guillotine I will confine my remarks to just one other aspect of this piece of legislation. I have never been happy about the decision of the Government to subject tertiary education assistance scheme payments and adult secondary education assistance scheme payments to tax. The Bill amends the law to subject the new age-related student assistance scheme, called Austudy, to tax. I cannot comprehend the logic and the rhetoric of the Government in taking this step. It vowed that it would never countenance the reimposition of tertiary education fees but then it imposed a fee of $250, and obviously that fee will creep up. Now it subjects certain student allowances to taxation. The Government's favourite justification for bringing in taxation measures is that it aims to get the affluent, whom it loves to call the tax dodgers, to pay more heavily and allegedly relieve the load on the pay as you earn and low income earners. It says that it wants to make education freely available to lower income groups, but these measures fly in the face of that logic and are a direct contradiction of that philosophy. The affluent do not get TEAS, ASEAS, SAS, and presumably Austudy. Those allowances are subject to income tests, and they are very rigid tests. I am often approached by parents and students who are of very limited means who have been denied assistance under those assets tests. They wonder how the students can continue their course of study. So the allowances are payable to the very people of limited means whom the Government says are disadvantaged and alleges that it wants to help. Having provided for the allowances, it now subjects them to tax. The tax payable on the allowances will not be at the minimal rate but at the higher rate on the resultant figure obtained by adding the allowance to the PAYE or other income, and then the tax is levied. So the PAYE taxpayers will receive assessments, and perhaps substantial assessments, because they receive Austudy or other assistance. In closing I reiterate that this piece of legislation is a very unpleasant dish. It is another instance where a government, which is claiming to be cutting taxes, adds new fees, new taxes and new levies. It is not about cutting taxes, it is a measure which is casting the tax net wider and wider. It will be seen by the taxpayers of Australia very clearly for what it is, and the attempts by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) in the second reading speech to make it sound benign and commendable will not disguise either its intent or its deficiencies. It is a bad Bill and it is yet another of the growing list of taxation imposts which will re-emphasise that this Government has lost the confidence and the trust of the people of Australia. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.55) —In speaking to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) and cognate Bills I pick up the remarks of the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann). If anyone has lost the trust and confidence of Australians it is the Opposition. It is interesting to read the Australian today where it talks about a real credibility problem, a real problem of honesty and integrity with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the parties that support him. It is a tragedy that the government of the day when trying to bring about the most far reaching tax reform, for equity and fairness reasons, has not had one scintilla of support from the Opposition. In fact, it boycotted the National Taxation Summit, it has not been responsible or honest with the people of Australia, and it claims that it will withdraw the fringe benefits tax, yet at the same time it obfuscates the fringe benefits tax that it will inevitably bring in itself. The Leader of the Opposition talks about responsibility, about fiscal responsibility in bringing the deficit and expenditure down, but he has an outstanding commitment of some $5.9 billion of tax promises. It is no wonder that the Australian today leads with headlines about the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. Already this morning the imposition of an identity card has been mentioned. It is interesting that the Opposition opposes the institution of an ID card, a very important reform, which in one form or another has the support of over 90 per cent of Australians. In particular the Opposition is very much opposed to the opportunity of instituting this ID card to recover taxation revenue which is being avoided and evaded. It is very sad to see a dispirited Opposition wanting to talk about tax having learnt nothing about its own administration. After all, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer he had the unenviable record of being the grand protector of tax evaders and avoiders. This morning we heard a very uncharitable attack on the Commissioner of Taxation. I remind the House that a former Taxation Commissioner, under the Liberal and National parties, had to write 32 times to bring attention to the outrageous ramps and rorts that were occurring under that administration. So I suggest that it ill becomes any honourable member in the Opposition to start name calling current taxation officials, whether they be permanent heads or officers who work in the Australian Taxation Office. I have a great deal of respect for their integrity and the honesty and fairness with which they discharge their duties. Mr White —Keep them out of the political debate then. Mr PRICE —The honourable member might object because there is no doubt that under this administration we have got to his friends, the tax cheats and avoiders. But he still wants to protect them. He has not learnt anything. I live in a very working class suburb and I assure the House of this: There is little sympathy in those working class families, whether they be a family with a single income or dual incomes, for tax evaders and rorters because those families have had no opportunity, nor have they sought any opportunity, to avoid or evade taxation. They have done it hard, and they have done it proud. They take exception to honourable members such as the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) championing the cause of tax evaders and avoiders. That is the lesson that the honourable member will learn on this issue of the Australia Card. The ordinary people of Australia will not tolerate continued abuses of the social welfare system and of the taxation system. I will talk briefly about the capital gains tax as it applies to goodwill in small businesses. There has been much misunderstanding, particularly amongst the small business community. Where there is a net value of less than $1m, under our system of tax reform, it is revenue neutral. America unlike us has hit $250 billion on to the business community to pay for its tax reform package. We are revenue neutral. Unlike the Americans we will deflate that goodwill for inflation. The American capital gains tax on goodwill hits at the nominal rate. We deflate the amount by the rate of inflation, then take 20 per cent off the top and apply the tax rate. That leaves an effective rate of some 20 per cent. So far from incentive being taxed out of existence it is, in fact, very concessionary. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to: Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 15 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read third time. Consideration resumed from 15 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 15 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Mr Wilson-Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member have a point of order? Mr Wilson-I wish to speak on the third reading. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Bill has been read a third time. Mr White-He was on his feet. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I did not see the honourable member rise to his feet. He could have called my attention by saying: `Mr Deputy Speaker'. I apologise but we have passed the stage where we can deal with that. Debate resumed from 15 October, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 with the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 and the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986. There being no objection, it is so ordered. Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.03) —Because of the way in which the debate on all these issues has been curtailed I am not surprised that some honourable members are a little confused about how this legislation will go forward. The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3)1986 and the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 take up Government announcements that have been made over a period and relate to a very wide-ranging number of topics. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), representing the Opposition spokesman on minerals and energy, will play the major hand in the Opposition's contribution to this debate in regard to the excise on petroleum. Suffice it for me to say that this is an area where the Government has played it both ways with the oil industry. In the 1983 election we were promised an immediate reduction of 3c per litre in the price of petrol. Since then the increase in the oil excise has been dramatic and wide ranging. It has increased by about 21c. The Government has failed to pass on to motorists, farmers and industry the lower prices for crude oil yet again-not for the first time. By doing so the Government has added very markedly to the problems of the rural sector and of industry, which has great opportunities before it with the lower exchange rates. By failing to pass on the appropriate reductions which were promised by the Government in the first place and made possible in the second place by the fall in crude oil prices, once again the Government has heaped upon industry a further cost which will do nothing at all to help economic recovery. Instead the Government has moved in, changed the rules and added very considerably to its take from the oil industry. The financial impact of the legislation is significant. In the period to June 1986 petroleum excise increased by $564m. In the current financial year the measure is expected to add nearly $2,000m to government revenue. It is a very significant step and a very significantly increased tax on all Australians, particularly those in the rural and industry sectors, which so badly need help. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 includes some 15 schedules which have been affected by recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission and associated government actions. Schedule 2 contains changes to remove the customs duty from certain agricultural chemicals and cultivation machinery. Local industry in this area will be protected by way of a 10 per cent subsidy on an ex-factory sales basis. Schedule 4 covers tariff changes in regard to electric motors and generating sets. The IAC's recommendation is a long term rate of 15 per cent duty for all alternating current generating sets. At the moment tariff rates on AC generating sets are 25 per cent for those sets having a rating not exceeding 5 kVas, 20 per cent for those between 5 kVas and 25 kVas and 20 per cent for any others. For sets currently attracting a 25 per cent tariff the rate will be phased down to 20 per cent in April 1987 and 15 per cent in April 1988. Schedule 5 removes the 5 per cent duty on lawnmowers-which have two significant producers in this country-previously applicable on certain engine-powered lawnmowers imported from New Zealand. This change follows a review of the intermediate goods compensating charge applied under Article 14 of the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement. The tariff changes regarding sulphur and furniture from New Zealand once again reflect the freeing up of trade between Australia and New Zealand and allow for the removal of trade restrictions on these goods. It does so at the request of manufacturers in both countries, which proves once again the benefit of freer trade between Australia and New Zealand. Schedule 13 contains changes to permit the duty free entry of certain parts for use in the repair of ships in Australia. These changes will give Australian shipyards much needed assistance. Parts for use in the construction and modification of ships are already allowed duty free entry. This amendment merely grants equal treatment to ship repair activities. This is designed to help the industry, which has been affected by a falling off in construction demand. There are certainly wide areas for repair. Some shipyards in Australia have done remarkably well in the last few years, while others which have not met changing market demand for repair work rather than for construction work have fallen behind. This measure will do something to help the repair side of things. Schedule 14 implements tariff changes on certain books and complements proposed changes to the book subsidy scheme. Earlier this year the IAC recommended an extension of the book bounty to items falling within tariff item 49.01. Therefore, telephone directories, timetables, street directories and road guides will become eligible for bounty, and their rate of duty, currently 25 per cent, will be cut to zero. This switch from straight protection to a bounty will apply some pressure and changes to the book industry. But the Opposition feels that the move directly to a bounty is probably in the best long term interests of the book industry. Schedule 15 affords some very substantial protection to the cheese industry, brought about by a change in the marketing techniques proposed by the European Economic Community. This amendment provides for the implementation of a general tariff rate of $2,100 per tonne for imports of cheese and curd falling within certain sub-items in excess of the 1985-86 level of 11,500 tonnes. This is brought about by the extreme subsidisation of exports by the European Common Market. While these areas of protection are certainly large and comprehensive, they fall within the dairy plan which has been supported in this House. Because of that it is not proposed by the Opposition to oppose the short term protection afforded by this measure. We note that a sunset clause is to be implemented and we accept the fact that exports to this country from the EEC are heavily subsidised. While the countervailing duties that are in force have failed to cover the degree of export subsidisation, it seems that the operators of this export market are not only endangering the local market by dumping but are also a major threat to the stability offered by this dairy scheme. The Opposition will, in the Committee stage, propose an amendment. At that point I will raise a question about a matter I have just spoken on. Because this is Budget legislation the Opposition will not be opposing it. However, we will be proposing an amendment to it at a later stage. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.15) —As did the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), I want to address mainly the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) because it is of significant importance not only to this House but to this country as to how the oil industry sees its future and what has happened over the last 3 1/2 years. The overall effect of this Bill will be to lift the excise rates on refined petroleum products in the wake of world oil prices since earlier this year. We all remember the collapse in world oil prices. As the honourable member for Ryan has said, the Opposition will not oppose this Bill as it implements long-standing government policies and recent Budget decisions. The Opposition's views on that matter are well known. However the Government should be and will be criticised for not passing on to the consumers of Australia the dramatic fall in world oil prices. As I understand it, since March 1983 excise has quadrupled. At that time the promise of the Labor Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was for a reduction of 3c a litre in that price. The price now is a far cry from the earlier price. By increasing the excise on petroleum products the Government has maintained its almost $7 billion take from the oil industry, despite the price collapse. That represents about 10 per cent of all revenue collected in Australia by the Government. The Government must also be criticised for its resources rent tax for which this Bill also lays the groundwork. For a few moments I will discuss the falling world oil price and the petroleum excise changes. The United States price for oil has fallen from $US27 to $US28 per barrel in 1985 to $US13 to $US15 in 1986. At one stage we saw the price dramatically reduced below $US10 per barrel. In 1986 the Government's take from crude oil collapsed with the price fall to about half of the previous year's level. However, in a very neat little shuffle the Hawke Labor Government increased the excise on petroleum products to offset the bulk of the cut in the crude oil excise. It did not really adjust it in terms of the record low of below $US10 per barrel. It is the first time that a government in this country has reneged on that pricing policy. As a result, the motorist has seen only a very small decline in the price of petrol. In fact, for many people in various parts of Australia there has been no decline but an increase in the retail level. The fall in the oil price should have resulted in a substantial fall in the Australian price for petrol. Had this occurred, retail petrol prices would now be 11c per litre lower than they were in January, when the world price was about $27 or $28 per barrel. Instead, the Government has considerably increased the excise by some 13.4c per litre including a 3c per litre rise in the last Budget. The excise has risen from 10.437c per litre at the beginning of the year to the level as at the date of the Budget, as indicated in the Budget Papers of 19 August, of 23.88c per litre. In that time the figure has doubled but since the Labor Government has taken over the figure has quadrupled. It is worth noting that when the Hawke Government took office the excise was 6.155c per litre. Again, this shows the size of the increase since that time. The net revenue effect of the Government's alterations to the refined petroleum excise will result in an increase in receipts of $1,560m in 1986-87. Mr Barry Jones —I hope so. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The Minister for Science says that he hopes so. I imagine that if the amount does not reach that figure the Government will have no regard whatsoever for the rate of excise. Perhaps on the Minister's own suggestion we can expect an increase in that. The problem is that this has been built into the Government's expenditure program from which it cannot withdraw. The deficit forecast for this year of $3.5 billion, forecast to blow out by another billion dollars by the end of June next year, was achieved at that time only by the deferral of some payments to the next year, transfers from the public sector to the private sector of some of the expenses which are now being paid for by the public and, more importantly in this regard, the motorist is paying this extra tax at the bowser. Even then, the deficit is $3.5 billion. Since the Hawke Government came to power the average retail price of super grade petrol has significantly increased in spite of that promise of a 3c reduction. For example, the price in Melbourne has increased from 42.1c per litre in March 1983 to 48.8c per litre in June 1986. In my own constituency the retail price of fuel is between 55c and 56c a litre. This is a major inhibiting cost for our export industries. At a time when we are trying to develop our trade potential overseas we have given the export industries a major disincentive with the retail price. But the tragedy is that while retail prices have considerably increased, as indicated, the companies producing indigenous crude around Australia in whose hands lies Australia's future incentive to explore and develop facilities and oil reserves have had to work on reduced profits. This Bill also lays some of the groundwork for this Government's resources rent tax. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill exclude the Jabiru field in the Northern Territory from excise arrangements as part of the legislative package implementing the resources rent tax. While we have not yet seen the resources rent tax legislation the Opposition is opposed to the application of this tax, as we indicated very early in the piece. It is a profit-based tax which is designed to apply in place of excise and royalties. It is intended to apply to off-shore petroleum projects which had not reached the development stage as at 1 July 1984. The resources rent tax will thus be equivalent to additional taxation on new oil. This will discourage exploration and development of the harder to reach reserves around Australia, to get the oil out of the ground and into production. The general outlook for the Australian oil industry is very bleak. Recent statistics released by the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association show a disturbing fall in exploration and development drilling and seismic work. Petroleum exploration activity is expected to fall by more than 50 per cent this year to the lowest level since 1980. It is interesting to note that this year probably only 136 petroleum exploration wells will be drilled in comparison with the record of 265 in 1985. Mr Barry Jones —The situation is serious in the United States too. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is very serious. We should regard it as serious in Australia because only last week I was on a platform in the Bass Strait and realised how much money is going into the further drilling of wells and the difficulties the people there have in tapping the harder to reach reserves. I believe that that is a fundamental problem for Australia and, as the Minister says, the rest of the world. I could address a few remarks about that and what is being done about alternatives. At this point I would like to make some remarks about the supply and demand outlook for Australian crude oil. Demand is expected to grow at a very modest rate of about one per cent a year. However, at the same time indigenous crude oil production from current discoveries will decline quite rapidly. This will leave a widening shortfall which will have to be met by either new discoveries or imports. The consequences of increased oil imports for Australia's balance of trade would be most unwelcome in the present circumstances. I deviate in connection with that matter because the balance of trade figures for the month of October are due at about this time. The energy resources of Australia are important in that balance of payments figure. Coal is the largest of our exports, providing about 20 per cent of income. At a time when coal is so important to the figure we will receive today there are strikes going on in the coal fields of New South Wales and Queensland to protest against something in connection with export controls. That will be a major disruption. Self-sufficiency in oil means that by the turn of the century there will be a tremendous outlay by Australia to buy oil if we cannot find any more ourselves. The real point of the legislation we are debating is that there is now a major disincentive around Australia, as indicated by that fall in exploration wells, for companies to get out there and take the risks to drill the wells to see what can result as far as self-sufficiency is concerned. I think we should not all be fooling ourselves. The longer we adopt this course the more difficult and the more costly those exploration wells will be. Its influence on the balance of trade will be significant. With low prices and the severe downturn of projected exploration activity, the outlook for future discoveries is severely impaired by this legislation and other legislation involved. If there are only a few new discoveries, Australia's self-sufficiency level will drop to only 35 per cent in the 1995-2000 period. As I say, this self-sufficiency is very important to us now looking ahead to the 1995-2000 period. At present it appears that we could perhaps be importing 65 per cent of our crude oil requirements and the effect of that on our already desperate trade position should be contemplated because it is a serious and disastrous situation. As I was saying, this compares with the 100 per cent self-sufficiency that we reached last year, a fact that I believe not many throughout Australia realise. That has had a major impact on the energy requirements of Australia and particularly on reducing our imports. Clearly this outlook demands that urgent steps be taken to encourage exploration and development in the oil fields right around Australia on-shore and off-shore. We suggest that Government action is required in this case. There is no doubt that taxation measures such as the resource rent tax touched on in this Bill will act as a negative influence on exploration. Therefore, the resource rent tax should be abandoned. To allow the optimum level of exploration, development and production the Government must lower rates of taxation in the oil industry. The fact that the Government takes almost $7 billion in tax from the oil industry underlines the need for complementary restraint in government expenditures. The Government needs to allow the oil industry to retain the financial resources that are necessary for optimum exploration and development. At the moment these are being creamed off in taxes. The Government must also allow oil producers to have free access to markets and let the market-place establish the prices. Finally, the Government needs critically to review all existing regulation and remove it wherever the benefits cannot be shown to exceed the cost. In regard to other Government action required, particularly in the oil industry, I also mention the effect of the fringe benefits tax. It is not a tax on income; it is a tax on incentive, growth and productivity. In the situation that I have outlined-a situation that the oil industry well appreciates-the fringe benefits tax is just another nail in the coffin of oil exploration and development in Australia. The legislation before the House does not move in the direction that I have suggested the Government should be moving. It actually moves in the opposite direction, and if the Government does not do something to reduce its take from the oil industry soon, it will have no choice because there will be no oil industry and there will be no oil on which to levy particularly the import parity pricing levies, as well as these others. With the downturn in oil exploration the Government shortly will have no indigenous oil at all to tax. Indeed, if the Government pursues its policy on taxation and regulation of the Australian oil industry, which this Bill increases, it will extinguish all local oil exploration and the Australian oil industry. As has been indicated, the Opposition will not oppose these Bills, but it is an excellent opportunity to debate this matter of critical importance. It is unfortunate that a greater opportunity will not be given for more members of the Opposition to participate. I do not think I can stress often enough that Australia's self-sufficiency is in danger and is endangered further by these Bills, the excuse and other levies that apply. I have talked of the effect on the oil industry. I just come back and comment a little further on the effect on the consumer. As I understand it, the cost of this legislation and the excises will be passed on in such a fashion to the consumers of oil that any benefit from the tax relief at the end of this year will be negligible. In just this one excise increase we have an offsetting factor. I think this is important for retailers and other people. As I say, I think a grand opportunity was missed for a wider debate on this subject because of the guillotining of this Bill. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(11.30) —I rise to support this legislation. At the outset I want to concentrate specifically on the change in pricing policy as it relates to liquefied petroleum gas. As a member of the Prime Minister's country task force, I know that the Government is actually conscious of the need to keep energy costs as low as possible in rural and provincial areas. One of the issues that we were keen to look at was the Government's pricing policy on LPG. I am very pleased to be able to support this change which is leading around country Australia to a reduction in the price of LPG of about 3c per litre. One tends to look at that at the ground level in my electorate and ask what it means to the ordinary person. People who rely on bottled gas for their home domestic energy needs are making savings now of about $3 a bottle for gas. They welcome this change in policy. People who have converted their motor vehicles to LPG have noticed a significant saving in the cost of transport in the country. We must remember as a government that distances are great in country areas, public transport is not available in the same way as it is in city areas and that, therefore, people are much more reliant on cars and on cheap fuel. That is why there has been so much conversion to LPG in country areas. So motorists in country areas welcome this legislation. Pensioners who have bottled gas in their homes welcome it. It is a worthwhile move, and I am happy to support it. I would also like to pick up briefly a couple of comments made by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) because he chose in this debate to introduce the question of fringe benefits tax, particularly as it relates to the motor vehicle industry and to petrol taxes. I have to point to the deplorable performance of the Opposition when in government under the leadership as Treasurer of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and the move during that period of office towards a greater reliance on income taxes and offshoots such as petrol taxes to bolster a budget that was failing. Let us not forget that that Government handed over a projected $9.6 billion budget deficit to this Government, and that was with massive increases in income tax. I heard the Treasurer (Mr Keating) refer to the honourable member for Bennelong as the high priest of Australian inflation and taxes. During that period not only income taxes soared but also petrol taxes. It is quite clear that as a government, while we support the concept of import parity pricing, in the future as we clean up this tax system and as we start to generate revenue, benefits will be seen in areas such as LPG and petrol pricing. In my view petrol taxes are the most unfair example of this whole fringe benefits tax rip off because the ordinary person goes to work and gets a pay packet which has had taken out of it full bore income tax. The first thing that person does on the way home from work is stop at the petrol station to buy with his after tax dollars a tank full of fuel so that he can drive to work again. He pays full bore for his petrol with after tax dollars. What happens with company cars? The Opposition never sought to tax them and does not want to tax them. Managing directors and such people never buy petrol with their after tax dollars; they are always supplied with a vehicle full of fuel. Not only does the company supply the petrol but it also gets a tax deduction for it. So the ordinary person who pays his income taxes through those income taxes pays for the tax deduction on the petrol that managing directors and such people get. Petrol tax is one of the most unfair taxes but the Opposition never raises this question when we talk about fringe benefits tax. It never talks about business executives and the people the Opposition represents at least paying for petrol out of their own pockets with after tax dollars. So the honourable member for Dawson should not try to twist the discussion on excise Bills to some sort of attack on the fringe benefits tax legislation. The lead article in yesterday's Australian Financial Review concerned the fringe benefits tax and the dispute in the banking sector at the moment. I make no bones about saying that I totally support the actions of employees in the banking sector. Why should they not take action against the management of banks which are trying to pass on to them as employees the fringe benefit costs that the banks have been using to keep their taxation on profits down? The average tax rate paid by the Westpac Banking Corporation was 4.9c in the dollar, yet the Opposition is trying to protect this situation. The tax rate paid by National Australia Bank was 3.8c in the dollar. Their employees are paying full bore income taxes. Now, when we are trying to clean up the rort and to reduce the income tax of employees by collecting a bit of fringe benefits tax, the Opposition is saying that it will protect this situation, keep company tax down and stop any move to clean up the rort that it created. People will see through this; I am very confident of that. When people look at their pay packets from 1 December and see that they are getting genuine tax cuts-tax cuts that were never delivered by the previous Government-and that companies are starting to pay a bit more than 4.9c in the dollar in tax they will appreciate that. The business pages show that the banks are not only paying minimal amounts of tax; they are paying them on record profits. I repeat that they are paying tax at a level of 4.9c in the dollar on record profits while business executives are being supplied with company cars, free petrol and all the other benefits. So I do not think it behoves the Opposition in this place to try to turn a debate on a measure to reduce the price of liquefied petroleum gas to the consumer into a fringe benefits tax debate. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), who is in the House with me, as the chairman of the country task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), knows that energy costs in the country are an important issue. From our travels around the country and our meetings with people from all sectors of rural and provincial Australia we know that they welcome the reduction in the price of LPG. They realise that the country task force has been influential in giving country people a voice in Canberra and helping to turn the theory of the bureaucracy in Canberra into practice which works at the level of ordinary people. Let us not have any of this mumbo-jumbo about fringe benefits. Let us look at the Bill for what it is, a very real attempt by the Government to keep in place sound economic management which has brought about a reduction in the deficit, a reduction in unemployment and a reduction in inflation. The Government's economic policy is starting to be perceived to be working by the key financial writers. It will carry through during next year strongly and successfully. Most importantly, through measures such as this it is delivering real benefits to people not only in metropolitan but also in rural and provincial Australia. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(11.41) —In listening to the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) I must admit that I was reminded of the comments of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about, I think, grade four economics. One could not but think, from his comments, that he is rather ignorant about the most basic principles of business, in particular when he talked about the rate of return of banks. I was not clear whether he was actually suggesting that the banks were evading tax or whether he did not understand how to read their balance sheets. It was also interesting to hear him talking about his country task force and what he has been seeing and hearing. He is obviously seeing quite a bit. He may be hearing but he does not seem to be taking a lot of notice. When listening to his defence of the fringe benefits tax I was reminded of a saying of a wise old gentleman who has left this place that more people have talked themselves out of parliament than have talked themselves into it. Today I should like to talk very briefly about the excise on fuel and also to touch on the resources rent tax, because I think this is very much related to it, and the effects the increase in excise is having and what will be the likely effects in the future. By way of introduction it might be worth remembering what the previous Government did and why it did it. The import parity pricing policy was introduced partly in response to the second oil shock in 1979, the oil crisis. Most commentators at the time agreed that it was a sensible policy designed to achieve three things. Firstly, it was to encourage people to conserve oil because it was known that Australia's reserves were limited and that by conserving what we had and by increasing the efficiency of the usage of what we had the whole community would benefit. This proved to be reasonably successful. The second object of import parity pricing was to encourage exploration. This was eminently sensible. It was supported by anyone who had any thought for the future. The policy had a reasonable amount of success. The third reason for import parity pricing was to encourage the substitution of other fuels for oil fuels. This had some effect, particularly with industry. For those three reasons the previous Government's policy was accepted at the time as being sensible and showing foresight for the future of Australia to help the next generation of Australians with the likely energy problems to be faced. It is interesting to reflect on 1983 when the present Government was about to be elected. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made the wonderful promise that when he got into power he would reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre. I think that was one of the first promises the Government broke; in fact it may have been the first. That record certainly was not one to be proud of. Since 1983 the excise on petroleum products has jumped from 6.1c a litre to about 20c a litre. There has been a continual rise. So much for the 3c a litre fall promised! The excise is still rising. Crude oil on the world markets has dropped to less than half its previous level and excise has just been increased. I will come back to that point in a minute. Not only has the Government stepped in to increase its revenue from excise; there has been the usual anti-rural discrimination, such as the removal of fuel freight equalisation, which was designed not only to help those in the country to have cheaper fuel but also to help to keep the cost of transport down. Mr Lloyd —That was a good policy. Mr HAWKER —It certainly was a good policy. It is a shame that the Government was so shortsighted as to get rid of it. This legislation allows the Government to alter the excise rates to compensate for falling crude oil prices. It might help the Treasurer to try to balance his books-or help him to move towards that position, as he still cannot balance them after three years. Nonetheless, it puts the Government in a wonderful position. Although fuel prices in the rest of the world are falling, and other countries are reaping the benefits of that fall by way of falling transport costs, in Australia the Government is stepping in and skimming off the extra amount for itself. It is making sure that the motorists, the people of Australia, are the ones who will never reap the benefits of the fall in prices. In other words, no matter what happens in regard to fuel prices, for the Government it is a case of `Heads I win, tails you lose', `you', of course, being the motorist, the consumer and, in particular, farmers and exporters. Mr Braithwaite —They are good milking cows. Mr HAWKER —That is right. They are using them as milking cows, except that most members of the Government probably would not know what a milking cow looked like. I think the other point that we ought to look at is the effect that this increase in tax will have on revenue. The Federal Government will take nearly $7 billion in fuel excise and crude oil excise in the coming year. That represents nearly 10 per cent of total government revenue in the coming year. On top of that, the State governments impose franchise taxes. Victoria, for example, is taking 4.17c a litre, which represents another $212m. The Government is using excise, as my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) has just mentioned, as nothing more than a milking cow. It is a shortsighted policy. Although it may help the Government in the short run, in the long run it will cause enormous problems for Australia. The reason that it will cause enormous problems for Australia is already being seen. Because the Government has increased the excise we are seeing a dramatic fall in exploration. If we had large reserves this may not be so important in the short term; but the fact is, as anyone would know, Australia's reserves are declining rapidly. Our production has already peaked. It is likely to fall fairly significantly over the next few years. In fact, by 1995 we may be only 35 per cent self-sufficient. So the question of exploration is a very serious matter. An article in the Age of 23 October points out what is happening to exploration. I will quote briefly from the article, which shows very clearly what a dramatic impact this policy has had. It states: Australia's off-shore exploration industry has ground to a halt in the face of depressed oil prices, with no drilling being carried out for the first time in a decade. For the first time in a decade we are seeing no off-shore drilling. This is extremely serious in light of our known reserves and in light of the fact that production is likely to fall. The article continues: The outlook for a quick recovery in prices to revive the drilling industry appears unlikely . . . . . . Onshore, drilling activity is also depressed, with seven drilling rigs engaged from a total of 44. Of these, only four are engaged in new exploration work. I think that points out the seriousness of what Australia faces around the corner. The Government has obviously ignored this serious matter. I guess that the next Government will be landed with this serious matter, which is something for which we will certainly not thank this Government. Putting politics aside, this Government's shortsightedness in squeezing every last dollar-every last billion dollars-out of oil is not only something that this Government will rue in time, but also the people of Australia will have extremely long memories about it. Obviously, the Government is looking at the oil companies at the moment as being the golden goose. It will end up wringing its neck. Let us look at the different ways in which the Government gets money from oil companies. There is the crude oil excise. The government found itself losing in this area, so it moved on to the one further down the line. But before I mention the petroleum products excise, I mention also that State governments extract royalties. There is the petroleum products excise, which is the one we are talking about today. The Government has moved in very quickly to say: `Heads I win, tails you lose'. On top of that, we find that most State governments impose franchise levies. Of course, oil companies, like any other companies, pay company tax, which the Government has also very kindly raised this year from 46c to 49c in the dollar. There is also a tax called the resource rent tax which can only be described as the politics of envy. When one looks at all those taxes, is it any wonder that exploration is declining and has almost ground to a standstill? Is it any wonder that oil companies are now throwing their hands up in the air and saying: `Why should we bother?'. Putting aside the oil companies for a moment, it is the future of Australia that we ought to be concerned about. It seems that this Government has never heard of looking ahead. Unfortunately, Australians will be the great losers. The question is this: What could the Government be doing instead to make sure that we have a future? Obviously, it should be passing on the lower crude oil prices so that in the short term our exporters will be more competitive. It would also give Australia's inflation rate a chance to fall, rather than rise. If this were allowed to occur, we would see a massive increase in our international competitiveness. This would, on its own, do a lot to help our chronic balance of payments problem. It would also ensure that we would have a much stronger base for recovery. As oil production declined, as our reserves started to run out, we would be in a much better position to face up to this problem because we would have increased export income to pay for the additional imports that we would need. If the Government were to allow it, we would also see an increase in exploration, which may well help to offset this decline in our reserves. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that the time that has been allotted for this debate is short. I say in conclusion that the Government, because of its shortsightedness in this fuel excise debate, has failed to give a lead for the future. It has failed to look down the line to the problems that, in the long run, will confront this country because of the massive decline in oil production. It has introduced a classic Labor government policy-the politics of envy. It is trying to wring the neck of the golden goose and, unfortunately for Australians, I fear it will be very successful. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(11.53) —We are debating the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986. There are some remarks which I think are central to the debate. I note that the Opposition paid some attention to the question of import parity pricing and how that has been the central feature of our price structure within Australia. Also, we must put into that equation the change in world commodity prices, which has been quite significant as far as this economy and many other economies are concerned. When we draw this wide picture in regard to the pattern of oil exploration and the question of oil prices within the domestic economy, we need to recognise that there has been a substantial change in world commodity prices which has resulted, firstly, in a decline in exploration activity within Australia and internationally, and, secondly, in an impact on economies generally in terms of the level of activity and the level of income. We on this side recognise that that change in commodity prices has been of enormous importance to Australia. It has resulted in a substantial reduction in our potential and actual revenue. It has also meant that we have had to change our economic strategy to try to cope with it. When we talk about these wide issues, it is important to say to the Opposition that it throws into very sharp focus the need for the Opposition to have a policy in terms of revenue. What is its tax policy? What is its policy with respect to excises, such as excise on petroleum products? Also, what is its expenditure policy? What we have attempted to map out in the Budget has been a cohesive strategy both on the revenue side-shortly I will talk about that in terms of tax policy-and the expenditure side. We have set out deliberately to try to cut areas of expenditure which we believe could be reduced and to reduce the overall burden of Government activity on the economy. Speakers from the Opposition should bear in mind that the community is paying a lot of attention to its current deliberations about taxation policy and Budget strategy generally. I have to say, in the context of the debate we are having, that so far there has not been anything of substance or of a convincing nature put forward by the Opposition on its tax policy or its overall budgetary strategy. Those are important issues that have to be addressed by the Opposition. Those issues are certainly raised by people in my electorate with me and generally in the financial Press. I say to honourable members opposite that when they are addressing issues such as this legislation and are talking about petroleum product pricing the thing to bear in mind is that we are looking at a wider canvass. In that wider canvass one has to be able to say: `What is our wide tax policy? What is the overall structure of that tax policy and what will our policy be in terms of the expenditure side?'. Very clearly we have said that we have some tax policy objectives and this legislation is one element with respect to taxing petroleum products. The second element which is still under debate is the fringe benefits tax and the third element is the substantial cuts in income tax. These are the elements we see as being important on the tax side. On the expenditure side we see as important the capacity to cut expenditure in areas where it can be effectively cut and to reduce the burden of total Commonwealth expenditure. On reflection, people would concede that, in that sense, the last Budget was very effective-this legislation was one measure in that Budget-because it resulted in a substantial reduction in the deficit, a reduction that, by and large, measured in terms of the market assessment of the Budget, that is in terms of the financial institutions, has proven to be one of some durability. We have to refer only to the current level of the Australian dollar to recognise that by and large the Budget has been satisfactory in holding up the value of the dollar and providing a degree of financial stability. It is important in this debate that Opposition speakers try to recognise that from our side and certainly from that of the community there is a great gap in the propositions the Opposition is putting before the public. What is its tax policy and what is its attitude towards expenditure? The answer depends on whether one is talking about the National Party or the Liberal Party-one tends to get a variety of views-and on whether we are talking about the dries or the wets in the Liberal Party. Obviously, that is a matter for debate amongst the Opposition parties but it is also a matter about which the community is asking questions. I refer specifically to this legislation. In terms of the approach of this Government to the question of petroleum pricing, one of the issues that has been of considerable concern to us is that the import parity price has had to be adjusted in a way that we can manage in our economy and that does not have a too significant impact upon our revenue that has been one of the big revenue gainers. I reflect that one of the windfall areas that the previous Liberal Government had was import parity pricing and the taxing structure that was imposed upon it. We on this side have tended to try to take the view that the import parity pricing policy is important in terms of retaining stability in pricing and it also has a role to play in exploration. We also recognise-we have done something about it-that the price of petrol at the pump is an important component of cost in the community. Earlier this year this Government acted towards reducing petrol prices. If one looks at the strategy this Government has, in terms of both its policy approach and the impact of that policy, one sees that this Government has proved to be very successful. We have a degree of stability in price movements which was not experienced under the previous Government and we have also managed to get some degree of stability on the external account in the face of very difficult circumstances. I canvassed those very difficult circumstances in my remarks at the outset about commodity price movements. I have to say, in terms of our historical experience, that this Government has faced an extraordinary difficult circumstance in regard to change in commodity prices. We also have to face up to how we put in front of the Australian community an economic package that relates to its real needs. I am in no doubt and the Australian community is in no doubt that that has been a difficult task but it has also been a task with which we have coped successfully. As I said earlier, on the tax side we have put in place some substantial changes in tax which are important. Let me remind speakers and listeners to our tax policy-earlier speakers referred to the fringe benefits tax and its role-that there is no doubt in the community's mind that there are some items which should have been taxed and are being taxed. I refer to such matters as overseas travel, school fees, housing loans and expensive motor vehicles. There is no doubt that there is support in the community for that approach and there is no doubt that the view of honourable members on this side is that such items ought to have been taxed and that they ought to have been taxed a long time ago. We have to reflect on comments of previous Commissioners of Taxation as to the deficiencies in the administration in tax law that showed up when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was Treasurer. Those matters have been remedied. What is also in prospect-I think this is important because I foreshadowed it earlier in my remarks-is a big round of tax cuts on 1 December and a subsequent round of tax cuts on 1 July next year. When we put those tax cuts in focus what we have to be able to say is, in terms of the overall strategy of this Government towards the community, that we are trying to get people who previously avoided paying tax to pay tax and we are also giving tax cuts where they are deserved and needed. There would be agreement in this chamber that the people who have borne a substantial amount of the tax burden in this country have been pay as you earn taxpayers. Let me list very quickly the tax changes from 1 December. The tax free threshold will be increased from $4,595 to $5,100 and the $12,500 threshold will be increased to $12,600. The 25 per cent marginal rate of tax-this is where the important changes are-will be reduced to 24 per cent; the 30 per cent rate will be reduced to 29 per cent, the 46 per cent rate will be reduced to 43 per cent, the 48 per cent will be reduced to 46 per cent and the 60 per cent rate will be reduced to 55 per cent. That is the range of cuts that will come into effect on 1 December. It is appropriate that we are looking at what I believe is a substantial increase in retail activity during the Christmas period and these tax cuts will help fuel that activity. From 1 July 1987 there will be a further round of tax cuts. I referred earlier to the 46 per cent tax rate being cut to 43 per cent and the 48 per cent rate to 46 per cent. From 1 July the 43 and 46 per cent tax rates will be reduced to 40 per cent and the 55 per cent tax rate will be reduced to 49 per cent. So we will have a substantial realignment of our marginal tax rates which has been something the Australian community has long sought. It was ignored under the previous Government and, as I said earlier in my remarks, it is an issue that the Leader of the Opposition has not addressed effectively. Why do we have very high marginal tax rates? We inherited very high marginal tax rates and nothing was done about it. At the same time a substantial amount of tax avoidance and evasion was being practised and very little was done about that as well. It is all right for honourable members opposite to talk about the fringe benefits tax. We are talking about people who ought to bear taxes paying them-that is what we are doing-and about bringing in tax cuts where they ought to be brought in and we are doing that. I reiterate so that it is very clear: The marginal tax rates about which I am talking-the 25 per cent tax rate will be reduced to 24 per cent, the 30 per cent rate will be reduced to 29 per cent, the 46 per cent rate will be reduced to 43, the 48 per cent rate will be reduced to 46 and the 60 per cent rate will be reduced to 55 per cent-will take effect from 1 December. On 1 July 1987 a further consolidation will take place. The 43 and 46 per cent tax rates will be reduced to 40 per cent and the 55 per cent rate will go to 49 per cent so we will have a completely new alignment of tax rates in this country. I am saying that this Government has a responsible tax policy and that this legislation is part of the tax strategy of this Government. On the expenditure side we have made the necessary cuts. I turn to another issue that I believe is important and significant in terms of customs and excise. This Government was responsible for an innovation in customs and excise policy in terms of inwards duty free purchases-that is, overseas travellers are able to buy inwards duty free goods on their return to Australia. This arrangement applies to tobacco, alcohol and perfume. I would like to make two observations. The first which I make very clearly is that the arrangement ought to apply to other products such as cameras and video recorders. The second is that the duty free concession has been awarded only to airport franchises. This has meant that prices at airport franchises have been significantly high because a monopoly situation has been created. We have to look seriously at reducing that monopoly situation and in fact extending the duty free concession to all franchises. We are very clearly facing a problem because the price structure at airport franchises is unnecessarily high. Clearly a case can be made for extending the inwards duty free service to a number of other goods. People talk to me about important goods such as video recorders and cameras which tend to be bulky items. What would be the impact if we were to extend the arrangement to those goods-if we were to go all the way? We would increase Australian retail turnover, we would increase Australian production and we would certainly increase the associated employment. When we talk about the inwards duty free operation as part of the customs and excise activity, I believe a strong and important case can be made for extending the inwards duty free concession from airport franchises to other franchises in city and suburban locations. We also ought to be extending this arrangement to other products such as video recorders and cameras. It is quite clear from talking to Australian travellers that we would be providing a valuable service if we did so. The impact would be clearly of benefit to Australian travellers. But more importantly, it would also be of benefit to Australian producers, Australian investors and Australian employers because we would see a substantial increase in business activity. I put to the House that it is a source of frustration to see a lot of money being spent on duty free goods at places like Hong Kong and Singapore when we would be very keen to see that money spent in Australia. If this happened, more business would be brought to Australia. Certainly, some of the goods are manufactured in Australia. As part of the Australian-made campaign it would be a very important manoeuvre in encouraging in a very deliberate way more Australian manufacturing and business turnover. So I think we ought to be examining the extension of the inwards duty free operation to off-airport franchises because I believe that currently a monopoly situation is being exploited. In my view, prices at airports are unrealistically high and unsatisfactory. I think to some extent Australian travellers are paying unnecessarily high prices when they shop at airport franchises on their return to this country. We ought to reduce that monopoly by extending the franchise to other operations. I also think it is very important that we extend the range of products that are available. In many cases, video recorders brought by people overseas are not operational in Australia because they do not match up electronically or because they were faulty from the outset. It seems to me important that we give as much consumer protection to Australian travellers as we can by offering them the opportunity of buying goods when they return to the country. If this were done, they would get after sales service and a guarantee. They would be able to go to a retailer to ensure that everything was up to standard. By and large Australian manufacturers and Australian products have a very high standard. We want to make sure that Australian travellers benefit from that. It is no good people in Singapore and Hong Kong benefiting from expenditure by Australian travellers. We are keen to see the benefits apply to Australians and Australian travellers. I am suggesting to the House that these reforms would be very important as a way of improving both the inwards duty free operation and services to travellers. I want to raise one other issue which I think is important. Members of the Opposition have spoken in this debate about the Government's whole program on tax and tax policy. They have talked about the fringe benefits tax and what it means. I want to say very clearly to the Australian community that we have a tax policy that is basically about equity and fairness in the tax system. When we talk in this debate about issues such as the fringe benefits tax, we have to say very clearly that these are issues that should have been addressed previously. They were not addressed effectively by the previous Government. I think the Leader of the Opposition has to examine very clearly his deficiencies as Treasurer because many of the tax changes that were not brought in then have been brought in under this Government and are effective. It is interesting to note that at the moment there is pressure in terms of the housing loan arrangements that have been entered into between the banks and the bank employees. I want to say very clearly that it seems to me that the onus is very much on the banking managements to do something about this situation. The Commonwealth Bank Officers Association is currently saying that the fringe benefits tax is impacting upon its membership. I want to say very clearly to the management of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation that this year it recorded a pre-tax profit of $445.5m-a figure which is up from $359.5m. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia had an after-tax profit of $244.4m-a 91 per cent increase from $127.8m. The group after-tax profit was up 21.5 per cent to $289.2m. It is interesting to note that group chairman Sir Brian Massy-Greene talked about the fact that the boosted profits reflected higher levels of business coupled with a slight widening of net interest margins-in other words, the difference between the interest rate it paid to depositors and the interest rate it charged borrowers. I am suggesting, firstly, that clearly there is no capacity to lift the interest rate ceiling on housing loans. Secondly, I make the point very clearly that Westpac pays tax on 4.2 per cent of gross income; the National Australia Bank pays tax on 3.9 per cent; and the ANZ Bank pays tax on 4.7 per cent-in other words it pays tax on 4.7c in every dollar. When we look at that situation, I think the onus is on bank managements to look at how they will look after bank employees in relation to the application of the fringe benefits tax. Very clearly the Australian community is saying that it wants more fairness in the tax system. It supports the general approach of fairness and equity in the tax system. I believe that what we put before the Australian community and the House is a series of measures which are linked together. I think the onus is now on the Opposition to show what it would do. Very clearly, that will be a testing time because I believe that our policies stand up very well to any sort of scrutiny. I am pleased to commend the legislation to the House. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(12.13) —The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) is a very reasonable member and we are quite good friends outside the House. But just let me tell him a few facts. The honourable member said that his Government has done a lot for the average taxpayer. Let us go back in history just a little to the time when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was the then Opposition spokesman on Treasury affairs. The present Treasurer continually said in this House that the collection of money at the petrol pump was taxation by stealth. He said that when his party got back into power it would reduce the price of petrol to the average consumer of Australia. The then Opposition did not actually criticise the Fraser Government for adopting import parity pricing of petrol. I think that this decision was realistic in that there was a world shortage of oil and we had to look for alternatives. I think there was an acceptance that in the common interest and the common good it was necessary for us to go to import parity pricing. As a result of that, there was an immediate increase in the price of petrol. It would be stupid of me to say that this did not have an effect on the economy of Australia. But most people thought that this was the most sensible thing to do in the national good. I have been involved in the oil industry for most of my life and, of course, I went along with that decision in the hope that alternatives would be found, that we would be self-sufficient and that in the long term this decision would be in the national good. I have a few reservations now in retrospect because I do not think we did enough with liquefied petroleum gas conversion and I do not think we pushed hard enough to be self-sufficient in this country. I believe to a certain extent we are still beholden to certain countries because of our imports and those countries are so topsyturvy that it is hard to be realistic. In fact the oil industry is a mire. It is always difficult to control and unravel and it is always difficult to tell the ordinary consumer the reasons why prices rise. I have looked at the annual report of the Prices Surveillance Authority. One cannot be too critical of how it or any other authority which has been set up as a mechanism to recommend maximum wholesale prices has worked in the past, because that is always a complicated exercise. The purpose of the PSA is to fix a maximum wholesale price of petrol for every capital city in Australia. When oil companies feel that they need to increase the price they individually go to the Prices Surveillance Authority and if they can, by argument, show that they need an increase, that increase is invariably granted. That is fine, and it seems to be a very good mechanism. But regrettably it does not work that way. Let us face it, in Tasmania at the moment the average consumer is paying about 63c a litre for petrol, which is nearly $3 a gallon. It is costing the working person in Hobart, who lives on average 15 miles from work, nearly $3 a day to get to work. When I measure that up with the price of petrol when the Hawke Government came into power, there is an increase of about 18c a litre. I have to be fair about it; 5c a litre was imposed by the State Government, by Mr Gray, and it was indicated that the reason for this was a shortfall from the Federal Government in taxation to be distributed in Tasmania in the normal process of funding for the States. So there can be an argument both ways. But the cold, simple facts are that the consumer in Tasmania is paying nearly $3 a gallon for petrol, which is a heck of a lot. I very rarely criticise Opposition spokesmen in the Tasmanian Parliament, but I am going to give a fellow a bit of a serve, and he has the right to give me a serve or determine whether he is prepared to debate the price of petrol in any forum in Tasmania. I refer to the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, Mr Neil Batt, who seems to have an air of grandeur about him. He walks around as though he can walk on water. Mr Cunningham —He can! Mr GOODLUCK —Fine, then I will accept that! He seems to have that air about him, that he is so superior. He addressed a group in Hobart about a fortnight ago and it was written up in the Press as though it was a big rally, but in fact it happened to be only 23 truck drivers and owners. He addressed them in not a little town but, for Tasmania, quite a big town, Campbell Town. The front page of the local paper said that there will be a rally and there will be protests against Mr Robin Gray due to the imposition of 5c a litre on the price of petrol in Tasmania. Fine, the newspapers are allowed to do that in the name of politics, but Mr Batt kept condemning the Gray Government for lack of leadership, et cetera. But he did not say very much about why there has been such an increase in the price of petrol since the Hawke Government came to power. He did not say very much about his discussions with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when there was a reduction in revenue for Tasmania. He also did not talk about the Prices Surveillance Authority fixing a maximum wholesale price in every capital city, which does not vary very much from one capital city to another. That is why I would like to see a restructuring of this Authority, particularly in the area of fixing the price of petrol throughout Australia. I believe it is ludicrous to tell the average consumer `The PSA, an instrument of the Government, fixes the maximum wholesale price of petrol, for example, at 48c a litre, in every capital city'-it varies a little in Tasmania, by about 1c a litre, because of transportation costs-and to say that the Authority will abide by that. But then the consumers in Tasmania see petrol being sold in some parts of Victoria, such as Melbourne, and in Sydney and Adelaide and other parts of the country at prices below that set by the Prices Surveillance Authority. People start to ask questions as to why that is so. For example, there was a letter in the Hobart Mercury this week about this. The people of Tasmania, thank God, are starting to look at this subject because it is affecting their pocket. It is not much use their coming to me and saying: `Bruce, you have talked about the price of petrol ad infinitum, ever since you have been in parliament, but the price still goes up and we are still paying this for it'. They are the cynics who like to try to pull a decent bloke apart at the seams when he is genuinely trying to foster good will in the area of the pricing of petrol and he is trying to make certain that a fair price is charged. Of course they do not worry me or my colleague the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr). I brush them aside like ants under my feet. But the fact is that these questions are being asked in Tasmania and they are being asked hard and fast, because there is a realisation that there is something wrong. When we get back into government we need to have a good look at the mechanism for fixing the price of petrol in Australia. When we went to import parity pricing we increased it in the national good. When we did that everybody paid that penalty but we did it because there was going to be conservation alternatives and we were also going to be self-sufficient. That is fine, but now we are paying the penalty. We have a world glut of oil and the barrels are the cheapest they have ever been; yet we are still paying a high price. The people of Australia are paying varying prices from State to State. I have never been a lover of the oil companies, and they know it, but that is good for debate, because we know where we stand on this subject. They might know a lot more than I do, but I do know the common fact is that the price of petrol in Hobart is 63c a litre and the wholesale price is 48c a litre. We can put on the margins for the service station proprietors and we can put on the taxation for the State. But then we see petrol being sold at certain times in Melbourne and Sydney at only 43c, 40c or 39c a litre to suit the whim and the fancy of the marketers of the oil industry, the oil companies. The people get upset when they see that. They know dashed well that there is competition. They know that if there is a glut in one place and if they want to get into the market they can drop the price. But the poor people of Tasmania, my State, still pay the wholesale price. I challenge Mr Batt to mention in the House in Tasmania what I have said. I challenge him to name a forum in Tasmania to debate the price of petrol and to stop his grandstanding in Tasmania and to stop trying to blame the Premier, who has had to impose a 5c levy. All right, that can be debated, but what about the difference of nearly 16c a litre? Where is the other 11c coming from? I say to him: `Start thinking about that and ask your Labor colleagues in Australia why, since the Australian Labor Party came into power federally, the price of petrol has increased on average by about 13c a litre throughout Australia'. This is now affecting the average working man. I ask him to ask the Prime Minister about this. I know that leaders have to make certain statements when they are vying for the leadership of Australia. Mr Hawke said that he would reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre, but it has gone up by nearly 13c a litre. The Treasurer said it was stealth at the petrol pump. There is very little said about it now. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, Mr Batt, to answer those questions. I ask him once again to stop his stupid grandstanding and trying to say that the truck owners in Tasmania are upset with the Gray Government for imposing the 5c a litre that is putting them out of business. I ask him to look at the real reasons why the price has gone up by nearly 16c and 17c a litre in Tasmania. If he does we might be able to discuss it on a rational basis. Let us face it, the people of Australia are finding that the price of petrol is adversely affecting them and those effects are flowing right throughout the economy. As the price of petrol is increased the cost of other goods and consumer items as a result go up. I hope that when we get back into government, which will not be very long, we can have a good look at the pricing of petrol in Australia and make certain that it will be fair and just for every consumer. Then we can hold our heads up high and say that at least we have done something to sort out a messy business. I have reminded people before that if they drop a bucket of oil on a driveway it is B hard to clean up, and that scenario is typical of the oil industry. We need to do some- thing about it because people are starting to ask questions. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(12.25) —I address my remarks to the excise tariff alterations in the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) and to the issue of petrol pricing and policy in relation to them. The majority of the alterations relate to the excise duty rates on refined petroleum products, mainly brought about by the volatility of world oil prices and the effect this has had on indigenous crude oil since early this year. Honourable members will recall that on 24 February the Government announced that it had decided to adhere to the long-standing policy of determining crude oil excise on the basis of import parity pricing. At the same time it was announced that because of the significant fall in oil prices and its resultant impact on the revenue there was no alternative to an increase in excise duties on petroleum products. That raises a point which I think is very relevant to what we have heard in the debate in the House today. Petrol prices, as everybody is aware, took off around the world in the early 1973-75 period at the same time as the conservative forces in Australia used their powers in the Senate to take control of the Treasurer benches of this country. They also walked into what was the most advantageous opportunity any Australian government could have walked into as far as petrol pricing was concerned. The position was that we were producing our oil mainly off the coast of my electorate of McMillan in the Gippsland area. Oil was coming out of those very lucrative wells at a very cheap price which enabled the government at the time, by using oil parity pricing, to have a bonanza in government revenue. After listening to the debate on tax reform over the last six to 12 months one would think that if we went back to that time and extrapolated some of the arguments used in support of a reduction in government spending, as has been espoused by the Opposition, and of an improvement in the management of the economy that it appears to be espousing-it has been making those sorts of statements-we would see that the opportunity was there when it used its numbers in the Senate to take over the Treasury benches to put into practice some of the issues which it is now proclaiming to put to the Australian people. In other words, it had an opportunity with a windfall revenue to reduce Budget deficits to nil and to put Australia's economy on a very sound footing for the 1980s. Let us look at its record to see what it actually did do. At that time when the Government's coffers were being filled to the tune of something like $3,500m on average every year in revenue, it did not impose an increase in the excise on fuel coming into the coffers. It has an opportunity which it absolutely wasted. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for much of that time was the Treasurer and he set about spending the money in a way that left Australia in the dire position of having a $9.6 billion projected deficit when Australians decided that after seven years they had had enough of those types of policies-rhetoric with no action. We hear the Opposition, when speaking to the excise Bills, condemn the present Government because of petrol pricing. There is one thing of which Australians are aware and of which they should be made more aware and that is that in those years the significant amount of money the then Government was collecting from oil off the Gippsland coast-which was an asset for Australia-could have been used very effectively to create an economic environment for Australia to have had a fantastic spring board to go into the late 1980s and the 1990s. But we had a government that did nothing about tax reforms that were required at that time, and nothing about projecting the value of the Australian dollar. Upon coming to government we saw that the Hawke-Keating approach was the one that should have been put into practice many years before. A point that has come through from the total debate is that fuel prices and costs are an enormous problem for the economy. Yet we hear at the same time that one of the great problems is too much government expenditure, and that there is a need to cut that expenditure and, at the same time, cut taxes. How the two go together is beyond me. In chairing the task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) I heard the same argument in many parts of rural Australia. The farming organisations called for more expenditure and at the same time for less taxes. It is very difficult to put the two together. It is difficult to have both approaches at all times. Some people want more money for roads-it is a constant plea-but they want less excise on fuel. It is an amazing request that on the one hand they want a higher standard of living and a higher standard of roads to drive around on, and on the other hand saying, as the Opposition does, that there is too much excise on fuel. My argument is that the opportunity Australia had over those seven years was absolutely wasted. It led to the market collapsing when the world price of oil fell as more oil was found. Our economy was too geared in to that excise. Government revenue was firmly established. The support for programs for roads and for many other programs such as health and welfare that were in place-the assistance that the public demands from governments-very much relied upon the income that would have come into the Government coffers from the oil revenue. Hence when the oil prices collapsed around the world and the parity prices came down there was a need to adjust excise in order to make up for some of the loss of that income that would have occurred very rapidly had we not adjusted the excise duties. It is one of the reasons for this legislation today. Another area I wish to discuss concerns the issue we find actively debated around the country, namely fuel diesel prices. There is a diesel rebate for those in the rural sector who are using fuel for the production of much of our export commodities. We are finding from discussions around the country that that is a policy of this Government which is very well received in rural Australia. The producers of our wheat and many other products are fully aware that this diesel rebate is a vital cog in keeping their costs down. Only yesterday I had a group of farmers in my office discussing the collection of that rebate. One farmer suggested that we find an easier way of collecting the money which would cut down on some of the bookwork. I quickly found that the other five farmers who were there considered that the responsible department should be congratulated for the efforts it puts into returning that rebate to farmers. They said that when suppliers send their receipt dockets to them that within three weeks, on average, before they have to pay the bill, the department is able to turn around the rebate money to those farmers. It is good to hear the message coming through-particularly to us on this side of the House-that there are people who are willing to commend the Government for the sorts of actions we are taking and who also are prepared to commend the department for the way in which the Public Service and the bureaucracy are carrying out their duties. It is a welcome change I can assure the House to be commended in that way and for the Office to be commended in that way. I pass on those comments to people who are working so effectively in those areas. The issues before the House are, of course, vital as far as taxation and income are concerned. We have heard the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) give his usual speech as far as Tasmania is concerned, claiming for some reason that he feels aggrieved that Tasmania does not get the discount prices that perhaps other parts of Australia are getting. That is, I think, a concern to all people. In driving from Melbourne to the Gippsland area last Thursday week I noticed that prices vary from 45.3c a litre in Caulfield and Packenham towards the Gippsland area, to 58.9c in the Latrobe Valley area where the oil is actually produced off the coast. It is understandable that people are getting upset about that. It is something we have to take on board. If the oil companies are discounting at that rate there has to be some reason for it. They seem to be discounting mainly for their own outlets and not for the independent outlets. I know that the outlets in the La Trobe Valley area which I represent certainly are all independents and were not in the position to cut prices when that 45.3c was being displayed last Thursday week. It is an issue which I will be raising with the Government. I hope that we will be able to do something about it so that if there is to be this type of discounting it is spread across the community a little more widely and will not take the form of the very short term cut-throat operations which seem to be going on close to the cities. There is a big difference between 45c and 58.9c. I fully support the measures before the Parliament which provide for these excise changes. They have to be put into place simply because of the fluctuating oil prices around the world. Another thing that has resulted from the drop in oil prices has been the enormous change in oil exploration in Australia. The honourable member for Franklin was blaming the Hawke Government for high petrol prices. But the import parity pricing policy was supported by the conservative parties as well as the Whitlam Government back in 1974-75, simply because, to encourage oil exploration in Australia, Australian prices would have to be set at world oil prices. Now, with the drop in world oil prices, exploration has slowed down and has almost come to a sudden stop. That is the supply and demand of the market at work. It has cost thousands of people in the exploration industry their jobs. Many rigs around Australia at the moment are not working. Whilst the oversupply of oil continues in the world there is not a great lot that can be done in that regard. I am concerned that in the seven years of conservative rule in Australia-the seven years when those opposite demanded and grabbed the Treasury bench-there was a golden opportunity to reduce Budget deficits to nil with a windfall gain from fuel which was wasted. The previous Government wasted an opportunity to increase road funding at the time. It wasted a golden opportunity to put in place an economic strategy for Australia which would have taken us into the 1980s in a very sound position. As we all know, we finished up with an overvalued dollar which created a collapse in our manufacturing export base. The overvalued dollar also led to massive unemployment. To rectify that situation, three years ago, in December 1983, we floated the Australian dollar. We have now seen our dollar move to a parity situation around the world which makes us competitive again. Had this sort of measure been taken by the previous Government there is no doubt that Australia would have had a sound base today. But the Hawke Labor Government has had to pick up the problem areas and then make the decisions. The Opposition is now putting forward policies which do not mean anything. It has no policies on tax reform. I am sure that when the public has the opportunity to evaluate fully the tax reform package and the tax cuts that are coming through in December and in July next year we will have much greater support for the measures that have been adopted by this Government. I fully support the legislation. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(12.38) —The honour- able member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) made much play about wasted opportunities whilst the Fraser Government was in office and talked about the inheritance of difficult economic circumstances by the Hawke Government when it took over. I take his memory back to 1975 when the Fraser Government took over and the great crisis and chaos that existed in this country. Australia had lost its confidence as a nation. The people had lost confidence in Australia. The great slide in our economy started during those dreadful Whitlam years. Australians are paying a very high price for it today. As for the so-called wasted opportunities, let me draw the honourable member's attention to the wasted opportunity the Government has presided over with the fall in world oil prices. It has intercepted the fall in world oil prices by increasing fuel excise to unbelievably record high levels. I want to talk about that because the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 and the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 propose a number of changes to the excise tariffs and bounties on a range of items, including petroleum products. While other changes wrought by these Bills are important, the changes relating to petroleum products are perhaps the most significant. Obviously, the honourable member for McMillan recognised this. They achieve this prominence as a result of the Government's blatant refusal to allow Australian motorists, Australian industry, Australian transport operators and Australian farmers the right to benefit fully from the major decline in world oil prices which has occurred in the last 12 months or so. This Labor Government deserves to be remembered-a bad memory will linger in the minds of many people after the next election-as the Government which preached economic reform, good management and getting the fundamentals right but, when it was given a major opportunity to do something to help Australia become more competitive in the world market-place, failed dismally. The Government took great delight in blaming high fuel prices on the coalition's policy of import parity pricing at the time it was introduced; yet when this policy reached a point where it should have allowed Australians to reap the benefits of lower world oil prices honourable members opposite immediately stepped in to ensure that this did not happen. Mr Braithwaite —They reneged on it. Mr HUNT —They reneged on it. Being the highest taxing government this country has experienced since the last Great War, the tax addicts opposite decided to intercept a large portion of the fall in oil prices. Under this Government we have witnessed the excise on petroleum products increased from 6c a litre to a staggering peak of almost 24c a litre. Even today the level of excise on fuel remains at just under 20c a litre. The revenue collected by the Government with this tax in a full year has risen by a massive 336 per cent from a level of $1.3 billion in 1983 to $5.6 billion in 1986. As a result of this rip-off the average Australian motorist, who uses 1,884 litres of petrol a year, is paying $5.07 a week more in fuel excise tax than he did under the previous Government. Any Australian motorist who earns less than $355 a week, which is very close to the average weekly earnings of $366, will be paying back his 1 December cut in personal income tax in the form of the extra fuel tax imposed by the present Government. Despite the high price, total consumption of petrol in agriculture still exceeds 850 million litres a year. Petrol represents 40 per cent of the total fuel used on-farm. If the 20c a litre excise were cut to the 1983 level-the inherited level which honourable members opposite talk about-of 6.1c a litre, the saving to farmers would be $119m a year. This represents a saving per farm of more than $13 a week or more than 10 per cent of net farm incomes. No wonder the honourable member for McMillan, who resumed his seat a moment ago, had so many farmers and country people, who have to use more fuel than their metropolitan cousins as they go longer distances, laying a lot of blame on this Government for much of its dilemma. It is interesting to compare the changes in the price of petrol around the world in the last 12 months to mid-July this year. It is then that one recognises the gravity of what the Government has done to Australians. The price of petrol in West Germany fell by 26 per cent. In the United States it fell by 29 per cent. In Australia honourable members opposite expect us to be grateful for having experienced a fall in the retail price of petrol of 12 per cent. The fact is that this is less than half the drop in the price of petrol we should have had. Honourable members opposite should be truly ashamed of what they have done to everyone in this country who owns a motor vehicle and relies on fuel. They have attempted to salve their consciences by running around the country claiming accolades for passing on the full benefits of the drop in oil prices to farmers in the form of rebates on diesel, which were brought in by our Government anyway and taken away and reimposed by this Government after a lot of pressure. They conveniently ignore the fact that 40 per cent of fuel used on farms is petrol for which there is no rebate. Then there is the transportation to and from the farm. In the last financial year the total Federal revenue from petrol was $7,069m. We cannot go on taxing fuel in this manner. This country depends so much on transportation of its goods from remote areas to ports and to the market-place. It is an act of absolute lunacy. The sooner we have a broader-based consumption tax in this country to relieve the fuel tax the sooner we will start to become more competitive as a trading nation. It is no accident that we have a balance of payments problem in this country. We are imposing costs upon the agricultural industries, the export industries-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Gwydir will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 p.m. to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a matter of courtesy I wish to advise the House that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) will be absent from Question Time today on Government business. Mr McGauran —Overseas? Mr HAWKE —No, they are just doing a good job locally. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) will answer questions relating to their portfolios. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that the report tabled yesterday by the Standing Committee on Expenditure on the efficiency of the Australian Taxation Office states that several billion dollars each year in tax revenue are lost because of the inefficiency of the Tax Office and its systems? Is it also a fact that the Government's report on the identity card states that $724m in extra revenue could be obtained from the implementation of the card? Does this mean that if the Tax Office did its job properly under existing legislation more revenue would be available than from the combined yield of the identity card and the fringe benefits tax? Mr HAWKE —The Government and the Australian Taxation Office recognise the administrative and enforcement problems which have been highlighted in the recent reports by the Auditor-General. I am informed that the Tax Office is already putting in train measures to overcome weaknesses identified by the Auditor-General. It should be recognised that senior management of the Tax Office in recent years has had to cope with a backlog of disputes and avoidance cases as well as with the introduction of a considerable amount of new legislation, as this Government seeks to rectify the travesty inflicted upon the Australian community by the years of neglect by the previous Government. I would have thought that on the matter of the identity card and its relevance to the collection of tax the Leader of the Opposition, after the statements this morning by the Commissioner of Taxation, would have been wise not to go to this issue because every member of the House will be well aware of the observations made by the Commissioner of Taxation when he was asked about this matter. Mr Howard —It has damaged the political neutrality of the Tax Office. Mr HAWKE —We hear by way of interjection that the Leader of the Opposition is attacking the integrity of the Commissioner of Taxation. It is no wonder that the Leader of the Opposition is going down and down in the polls; it is not only in the estimation of members of his own Party, some half of whom want to see him out of his job, but in the estimation of people in this country. He has abandoned every position of principle that he has ever had. Now, in his final moments of desperation, he is attacking the integrity of the Commissioner of Taxation. Mr ROBERT BROWN —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the Australia Card. In view of the decision of the Opposition parties to oppose the Australia Card legislation, will the Government proceed with the legislation? What are the Government's intentions concerning the card? Does the decision of the Opposition parties affect the proposal in any substantial way? Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order. This legislation is listed for debate in this week of sittings. Certain questions have been asked regarding the Government's intention for the legislation. The question is therefore out of order. Madam SPEAKER —It is quite in order for the honourable member for Charlton to seek information. Mr HAWKE —The obvious point to make at the outset is that if the Opposition had any sense of credibility it would support the Australia Card legislation. Those opposite throw up their hands about the dole cheats and the taxation fraud. Here is the most certain way of dealing with those issues. I simply make it clear that if, as I suppose we have come to expect from this pathetic collection opposite, they oppose the legislation we will put it back before the Senate until it is passed. It is appropriate to make the observation in the context that any shred of credibility that the Leader of the Opposition might have on this issue is totally sacrificed with his decision to oppose the introduction of the Australia Card. One by one the Leader of the Opposition has abandoned his so-called positions of principle as he engages in this exercise of political ex- pediency. Let us listen first to what he said on the Australia Card. In an interview with Laurie Oakes on 15 September last year the Leader of the Opposition said: I personally see some merit in having an ID card. That was his position then. He said: The United States has had a social security card for generations. That was said by John Howard, the man of principle-Honest John-in September 1985. That was his position on the Australia Card. I will very quickly go to the other positions of abandonment by the Leader of the Opposition. Let us look at the question of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Special Broadcasting Service merger which, as we all know, is a Budget measure decided by the expenditure review committee and endorsed by Budget Cabinet. On the day after the Budget the Leader of the Opposition was asked what the Opposition's position would be in regard to Budget legislation. These were his words: We're not going to engage in some kind of sabotage exercise. The national interest at the moment requires that political parties not be opportunistic. What happened yesterday when he was asked about his decision in regard to the ABC and SBS merger? He said that the politics of the situation have to be taken into account. So there is the abandonment of principle number two. Let me quickly go on with the list. Honourable members will recall what I have said about the position of the Leader of the Opposition on the fringe benefits tax. I will not go to all the quotations but members of the House will recall that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked with whom does the Prime Minister agree on the fringe benefits tax. I will tell him today that I am in total agreement with this statement. I will read it: Fairness demands that employees who are paid solely in cash-and most Australians are-should not be asked to pay more tax and thus effectively subsidise those whose income is obtained partly in cash and partly in the form of valuable benefits of other kinds. Mr Griffiths —Paul Keating? Mr HAWKE —No, it was not a quotation from the Treasurer. Honourable members are perfectly entitled to assume that that was a statement from my friend, the Treasurer. In fact, it is a statement by the Leader of the Opposition on 11 July 1980-Honest John, principled John Howard, circa 1980. That was his position on the fringe benefits tax. Honourable members will recall his position on the capital gains tax. I will just read two short lines. This was circa 1984-29 August 1984 to be precise. What did the Leader of the Opposition say when it was put to him that there was a place for a capital gains tax? The statement is not by the Treasurer but by the Leader of the Opposition. He said: There are arguments within a total restructuring of the system for what you have said. Fifthly, what did the Leader of the Opposition say on the assets test? This is what Honest John Howard said on 27 November 1983: I'm personally in favour of a needs approach to the payment of welfare . . . There we have it. On just about every issue, whether it was the Australia Card, the integrity of the Budget, capital gains tax, fringe benefits or the assets test, he succumbed to political expediency on every occasion. Is it any wonder that we had this contribution yesterday in the Northern Territory from the Deputy Chief Minister? It is not surprising that he gave me and the Government a bit of a serve. He had a bit of a go at us. That is not surprising, but Mr Coulter had this to say: And now a word about the Federal Opposition. Help! Having said `help' in regard to the Federal Opposition, he said: We need to know where the coalition stands once and for all. I will tell the Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory Government, the Opposition's so-called friend, where the Opposition stands. It stands divided, devious, unprincipled, without hope and unfortunately, I think, increasingly likely without Howard. Mr MOORE —I address a question to the Treasurer. Government members-How is the count going? Mr MOORE —We did not do too badly. We did a lot better than the Australian Labor Party. We did a lot better than that mob up there. There are a couple of honourable members opposite who will not win their seats on that vote. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Ryan has a question. Honourable members on my right will cease interjecting. Mr MOORE —Madam Speaker, I appreciate the difficulties the Labor Party has with that election result. At what stage did the Treasurer become aware of the failure of the Australian Taxation Office to take full advantage of technical advancements to fully reap in the areas of undisclosed interest? The Taxation Office has the power today to make that requirement. It has failed to do that. What is the Treasurer doing to ensure that the Taxation Office is now exercising its authority? Mr KEATING —Firstly, let me say this about the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure: The $2,000m which the Leader of the Opposition has been running around with all morning on any radio station that will listen to him is the same $2,000m referred to in the White Paper I brought down last year. It is the same $2,000m that the fringe benefits tax, substantiation and all the other things are directed against. It is the same $2,000m that the Opposition is voting against, measure for measure, to stop. Honourable members opposite should not shake their heads. It is understatement of income, overclaimed employee expenses substantiation, the non-declaration of dividend and interest income substantiation and the non-declaration of rental income under the Australia Card and other areas. In other words, the $2,000m is overclaimed expenses plus the cash economy. The $2,000m figure in the White Paper last year has been reproduced from the White Paper with the acknowledgment of the Committee. The Leader of the Opposition is running around saying that there is $2,000m there, but he has voted against every measure we have put up to pull the $2,000m back. Talk about humbug. It is as if this $2,000m has just been discovered by the Leader of the Opposition, but it is the same $2,000m the Government has laboured to get under substantiation, fringe benefits, declarations, lost income and the Australia Card. On the very day he is running around talking about the $2,000m, he is saying that he will not have the Australia Card. The honourable member for Ryan asked me about the question of interest income. Certainly the Australian Taxation Office gets reams of names and addresses with interest income. But the problem is that without an Australia Card one cannot computer match the names. Honourable members opposite know that to be entirely true. There are lots of people with similar names who live in the same suburbs, lots of people who are related to one another. If they were all given the same Australia Card number, if their bank accounts had the same Australia Card number and if the institutions were given the Australia Card numbers, the Australia Card would produce instantly the matching of each recording of interest income against each name. Let me make a more general point. The parliamentary Committee was reviewing audit reports which were conducted years ago-reports between January 1982 and December 1984. It was not a review of what was happening yesterday; it was a review of what was happening years ago. The fact of the matter is that the Taxation Office was run into the ground by the former Government. It let the compliance staff fall apart. The Government kept the place screwed to the floorboards for staff and when it panicked under the criminal evasion schemes of 1981 and 1982 it then dumped on the Taxation Office the requirement to try to alter the tax system to cover up its own neglect. Staff had to be swung around to protect the Government, to try to get the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act and Part IVa and the rest of it into place to deal with the evasion schemes. Let me refer to one letter which the Taxation Commissioner wrote to Mr Monaghan, the Auditor-General, in January 1986 in relation to the prescribed payments system. He said: . . . PPS had to be put into effect without us having had an opportunity to prepare or plan, before mid-1982, for it. A failure to take account of this permeates the whole of the draft audit report . . . it wasn't until the middle of 1982, when the decision was made to adopt PPS, that we had any real idea that this major project was to be undertaken. Guess who adopted the program overnight? Honourable members have got it; it was J. Howard. Why-because the tax system was haemorrhaging to pieces and he was under pressure. The Taxation Commissioner went on to say in the letter: . . . it was not all plain sailing after the time that the previous Government had made a decision to bring in the PPS. The latter part of 1982 was marked by Government preoccupation with bottom of the harbour matters, culminating in the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) legislation. Earlier the letter stated: The advice to Government in mid-1982 that it ought to go for deduction at source rather than mere information reporting . . . is advice which I personally gave. In other words, what happened was that in the former Government's grief stricken panic it decided it would have, because of runaway cash in the building industry, an information reporting and withholding system in mid-1982. It said to Boucher and O'Reilly, who were labouring under the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act and all the other criminal evasion schemes, to go to it and introduce a prescribed payments system on the building industry. The Government was under threat and it wanted to look as though it was doing something; so the Tax Office then had to develop a withholding and information scheme in the building industry. The Commissioner said to Mr Monaghan, the Auditor-General: `If you do not understand the position in which the Taxation Office was put in introducing this, how can you in any way be critical of the Taxation Office bringing it about?' But guess who had to put it into effect? It was this Government. The Minister for Trade and I were the two people who had the responsibility of putting the prescribed payments system in the building industry into effect. The Commissioner said: $515m was collected through the PPS in the last financial year and $750m estimated for this year. That was $750m that was being rorted under the previous Government for years and years. Yet when the Commissioner brings this provision in under us, the Opposition seeks to hide behind some report which attacks it. The worst things that have been said today were said by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party, who had the indecency in the House to call the Tax Commissioner a Labor stooge. That was a disgraceful, unprincipled, low, squalid remark about a statutory officer who is not a public servant. This is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about the same statutory officer in 1984: The Commissioner of Taxation was appointed by the present Treasurer. He was the second in charge of the Taxation Office the whole time I was Treasurer. He is a person for whom I had the greatest regard. I thought he was a very competent, hard working and honest officer. I think he will do a good job for the present Government. I think his word can be very greatly relied on. That is from Hansard of 9 October 1984. The Leader of the Opposition shakes his head. Well he might because he knows that I have never spoken to the Taxation Commissioner saying anything about these things. He holds a statutory office. He is not a public servant. He has an obligation to the Parliament, not to the Government. He is a tax administrator. He gets asked a question as the first tax officer of the Commonwealth about the tax system; he replies in most unpolitical terms and he is belted by the Leader of the Opposition and pelted by the Leader of the National Party. That is the low position the Opposition has sunk to. So it should not talk to us about the $2,000m while it is out in the community opposing substantiation, fringe benefits and the Australia Card. The Leader of the Opposition ought to be ashamed. He ought to hang his head in shame not just for what he did to the tax system before 1983 but for what he has done to every attempt to make it more decent ever since. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether he is aware of claims that an alternative industrial relations policy would increase living standards and provide a better deal for the Australian work force. Can the Minister inform the House whether this would in fact be the effect of such a policy? Mr WILLIS —Yes, I am aware that through national advertising the Opposition is portraying its industrial relations policy as offering greater freedom to workers and higher living standards. Let me say that such advertising is an incredibly blatant attempt at deception of the Australian public. Simultaneously with that advertising, statements have been made by the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, calling for substantial wage freezes and the abolition of conditions of employment, which would greatly reduce the living standards of Australian workers. So whilst on the one hand the Opposition advertises saying that its policies are to increase living standards of Australian workers, we have in the Press statement of 7 November, I believe, by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition a call for a wage freeze through 1987, which would mean a wage freeze from the middle of 1986 to the end of 1987-no wage increase for a year and a half-the abolition of the annual leave loading of 17 1/2 per cent and no industry based superannuation extension. Quite obviously the agenda of the Opposition is not to improve the living standards of Australian workers but rather reduce substantially the living standards of Australian workers. Further, Parliament should take note of the fact that the Opposition says in its advertising that under the Opposition's policies workers will get a direct say in their pay and working hours and conditions but with a guaranteed minimum hourly wage. There are a number of points to note about that. Firstly, under the existing industrial relations system we have awards and agreements covering 90 per cent of wage and salary earners and they all have a guaranteed minimum rate of pay. They do not need the Liberal's policy to have that. But under their policy that would not be possible, indeed because there is no constitutional power to provide in a voluntary agreement that there shall be a minimum rate of pay. Also, under the policy of the Opposition workers in enterprises with 50 or fewer employees-almost half of Australia's wage and salary earners work in such enterprises-those who are forced or cajoled to be involved in so-called voluntary agreements would be deprived of their current award protection on all matters relating to their conditions of employment such as annual leave, the annual leave loading, the standard hours of work, the lunch break or tea break, overtime rates, sick leave and so on. There would be no award protection which is currently there for all workers who are covered by awards and agreements and who are working in enterprises with fewer than 50 employees. All of those things would disappear for those who were cajoled or forced-as many would be-into so-called voluntary agreements. So rather than having a policy which is protecting their living standards, obviously those standards would be put in enormous jeopardy. Yet the Opposition has described this in advertising as a better deal. It is some better deal to offer a shonky promise on a guaranteed minimum hourly wage, which the Opposition has no constitutional power to deliver-even if it could it would never increase the rate-and removal of the award protection for all of the rest of the conditions of employment. Yet this is supposed to offer some great new nirvana for the workers of this country. Obviously the objective of the Opposition is to open employees in small business in this country to massive exploitation. It should be fully realised by everyone that that is the real agenda of the Opposition and that rather than being concerned with breaking the chains on Australian workers this Opposition wants to pull the chain on them. Mr CARLTON —I refer the Treasurer to his answer to my colleague, the honourable member for Ryan, regarding the failure of the Australian Taxation Office to take advantage of technological changes in the collection of tax. Why over the past three years has the Tax Office failed to spend $40m allocated by the Parliament for computer plant and equipment that would have assisted the Tax Office in gathering the $500m in tax revenue that has been lost each year in undeclared interest and dividend payments? Mr KEATING —The honourable gentleman would have heard what I had to say earlier about the way in which the Australian Taxation Office gathers information from the various financial institutions. It comes by way of names and addresses. The bank account numbers have no matching quality in the tax system and therefore they have to be matched. Of course, the Australia Card would assist this process greatly because every payment by a financial institution would carry the same number, which would then be matched automatically to the taxation number of the particular taxpayer. That is the principle. If the Opposition is interested in collecting some of the money which is forgone in undeclared interest and other income it should support the Australia Card concept. We all understand that now there is this phoney argument about the right to privacy when members of the Opposition know that now there is an information system. One must give one's name now to open a bank account. One must give one's name when one takes employment. But the existing information system does not work. What we are seeking is an efficient information system. From what the Opposition is saying one would believe that no one has to give any information now and all of a sudden information would be required. People would not have to give any different information it is just that the information would become secure and be computer matched in the system. That is why there is not a skerrick of credibility left in the position of the Leader of the Opposition in opposing the Australia Card. The more general point is that the tax administration was run into the ground by the former Government. It got to the point where people did not even have to be in the slightest way clever in developing avoidance schemes or using tax shelters; they simply had to strip the money from the companies and bottom them. That is the situation that was reached. The rorts were so great that even things which were slightly clever were entirely out of vogue. People did the very unclever thing of taking the money out of the bank and leaving the company as a shell. That is the point that was reached. Not only did the Leader of the Opposition as Treasurer not move for five years on that but he did nothing on avoidance-not just evasion of the criminal variety-shelters, the close to home fringe benefits, the cash economy and interest and dividend reporting. Every single measure this Government has taken to deal with those things and to make the system secure he and his Party have voted against. That is the record of the Leader of the Opposition. His record is a parliamentary voting record. It is not a record of claims by the Government. It is a record of parliamentary votes, led by his, against substantiation, the fringe benefits tax, capital gains and the Australia Card. That is where the Opposition stands. It has always stood to see the system fall to bits because it always knew that the people it truly represented would fall through the holes in the system and be able to run their income down. The fact is that the Tax Office has been denuded of staff. The Government has trebled the number of compliance staff, from 607 to 1,800, in the three years in which it has been in office. It has more than quadrupled, in some cases, the penalties against abuse of the system, and it has kept up the funding for technological changes. The honourable member for Mackellar asked me about the reported figure of $49m. The first thing to mention is that the figure should be $39m. The reason it was not spent was that an Australian supplier was unable to deliver equipment to schedule in that year. Despite this failure, there was pressure to persist with the contract-apparently, because it was an Australian supplier. Those problems with the supplier meant that the allocation could not be spent in the year. But it has been spent ever since. In other words, money was earmarked but could not be expended because the equipment from a supplier did not arrive. But the more general point is that, even if the equipment had arrived, the matching would have been a problem because of the way in which the data from the financial institutions is presented. Honourable members opposite should understand this point. As I said yesterday, they should not compound their dishonesty by being Simple Simons on this matter. They understand that if there is no Australia Card number against the interest payment and there is no Australia Card number in the tax system, they cannot be computer matched. One can send printout after printout to the Tax Office, but they must be matched, name for name, address for address. That is the problem. Honourable members opposite can help to solve this problem by voting for the Australia Card legislation. Why do they not want to vote for it? Because they want the right to run around the country, attacking the Government on fringe benefits and substantiation, trivialising its tax legislation, attacking it on capital gains, refusing on umpteen occasions in both Houses of Parliament, particularly in the Senate, to pass legislation to collect bottom of the harbour money. They are now saying that they will vote against the Australia Card, but they think I should answer the honourable member's mingy question about how a piece of equipment cannot computer match when they know that the system is fundamentally flawed without there being a high integrity number. Honourable members opposite should be decent and gather about them some honour, if that is possible. This must be the only country in the world in which a government, which is prepared to bring in decent tax law, is thwarted by an opportunist bunch like those opposite. It must be the only country in the world which has to go through this sort of crazy charade to pass a bit of decent tax law. When a Commissioner for Taxation has the decency to stand up-he probably earns about $100,000 a year; he could probably earn four or five times as much in other employment-and argue for a decent tax system, he is called a `Labor stooge' by the Leader of the National Party of Australia. He was attacked humiliatingly by the Leader of the Opposition on a radio program this morning. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well the integrity of Mr Boucher and all the other commissioners we have had. That is the level to which the Liberal Party, that once great Party, has sunk. It is a party which protects ramps, rorts and rip-offs in the tax system. It puts the burden of a thousand million dollars back on the ordinary wage plugs. That is where, of course, it always wanted it to be. At the same time it wants to freeze their wages as well. Let the public make a judgment about the Opposition's tax credibility, and its honesty in public policy. Let the Leader of the Opposition put his position of defending the continuing haemorrhage of the tax system and opposing every decent piece of tax law that the Government has ever introduced in the Parliament. Dr CHARLESWORTH —I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of recent press reports of possible coup plans against the Government of the Philippines, is the Australian Government concerned about the current situation in that country? Mr HAYDEN —We have been taking note of reports coming out of the Philippines, in particular reports that there may be some effort at some stage to embark upon a coup. Of course, we regard these reports with a great deal of concern and continue to monitor developments as they unfold. The Administration of Mrs Aquino in the Philippines has an enormous task before it. It has inherited a system of administration which has been thoroughly corrupted in many ways and the efficiency of which is questionable, and its commitment to democratic procedures has been seriously undermined by the style and quality of administration which the Marcos Administration had imposed on that country for so long. We wish the Aquino Administration every success in regard to the huge challenges which confront it. On the basis of the evidence I can see, we believe that it is the only Administration which is likely to have widespread-and sustained widespread-community cohesion and support behind it. Any effort to accede to office by any source in the Philippines through unconstitutional means would be totally unacceptable to Australia and, certainly, to the rest of the West. I also place on record, not only on behalf of this country, but, I think, with confidence, in respect of the attitude of other countries in the event of such an undesirable outcome, that the consequences of any such action from within the Philippines would be quite sharp and marked from Western countries, including this country, indicating the unacceptability of any change which were brought about in that way. Having said that, it should not be concluded that there is a presumption that such a change will be brought about; on the contrary. But the instability which the behaviour and statements coming from some sources create are quite antithetical to the best interests of the Philippines and to the successful administration of what, I repeat, is an extremely difficult situation that has been inherited. Mr COLEMAN —I refer the Minister for Defence to the schedules of VIP flights for the period between 1 July 1983 and 30 June 1985. Is the Minister aware that these schedules reveal that on more than 10 occasions in this period the Treasurer used Royal Australian Air Force aircraft on Fridays or Saturdays to fly from Sydney-his so-called principal place of residence-to Canberra? Were any of these trips for the Treasurer to attend official functions in Canberra on weekends, or was the sole purpose for the Treasurer to fly to Canberra-which everyone knows is his real home-for the weekend? Will the Minister provide details of the arrival times of these VIP flights in Canberra? Will he also release copies of the official requests made by the Treasurer, or his office, listing the reasons why these VIP flights were required, and why commercial flights could not be taken? Finally, when will the Minister release the RAAF schedules for the period from 1 July 1985? Mr BEAZLEY —I will take on board the detail of the honourable gentleman's question and give him a response at another time. But I would have said that 10 flights, as he outlined, in a two year period in the usage of the aircraft is not likely to be found to be terribly excessive when one looks at any of the records of this Government or predecessor government on that subject. I do not find anything particularly startling about the statistics that the honourable gentleman put forward. That is the first point I make. The second point I make is that there are rules relating to the operations of VIP flights for those who use them, which includes ourselves, and, of course, the Leader of the Opposition, and in recent times the present Leader of the National Party of Australia. The rules relate to the availability of commercial aircraft. They do not relate to the question of weekend movements. The VIP flights are used quite frequently on weekends. The honourable member would be aware, from his period as a Minister in the New South Wales Government, that there would have been the odd occasion when he would have had to work on weekends. I think he would find that the experience of all Ministers in this Government, and Ministers in the previous Government, is that they have had frequent occasion to work on weekends, both in regard to official functions and other purposes. VIP fleet movement does not just relate to the requirement to be at what might be termed official public functions; it also relates to attending meetings that are in some way or other related to the Minister's portfolio or other forms of political commitments. Obviously, in the case of the Leader of the Opposition, such flights are almost entirely related to some form of political commitment. I do not find anything particularly surprising about either the times cited by the honourable gentleman or the number of movements of the Treasurer-10 in two years. I shall look at the detailed questions he asked and see whether I can assist him. The Special Minister of State can help me with the charter flights although I do not really need it. I will view these matters in the light of quite reasonable opinion. I cannot see the slightest problem at all with the sorts of statistics that the honourable gentleman outlined. Mr GRIFFITHS —Will the Minister for Communications give the House further details of the Government's proposed plans for the amalgamation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question. The Opposition's announcement yesterday concerning its intention to oppose legislation to be introduced today to provide for an amalgamated national broadcaster is again one of its hypocritical and unprincipled performances. As indicated earlier today by the Prime Minister, the Opposition's capacity seems to know no bounds in these areas. Obvious efficiencies and savings are to be achieved by the amalgamation. The honourable member for Goldstein disputes this but it is very difficult to treat what he says on this issue as at all credible. There will be substantial savings in the medium and long term through sharing accommodation, joint purchasing of programming, sharing of production facilities, rationalising administration overheads, pooling of engineering resources and so forth. Of course there will be efficiencies and savings, and yet the shadow Minister for Communications, the honourable member for Goldstein, says that there might not be any savings in year one. The Government has projected savings in the first year of $2m. We accept that the savings will be small in the early years but it defies logic to say that substantial efficiencies will not be available in the medium to long term. I do not think that the interests of ethnic communities or the interests of multicultural and multilingual broadcasting are best served by quarantining that broadcasting into a small special purpose organisation with limited transmission facilities and, unfortunately, limited funds. I believe that the multicultural broadcasting must be brought within the mainstream of the national broadcaster. It is only in that way that the important values, which are being promoted by the SBS through multicultural broadcasting, will permeate national broadcasting in a fundamental way which is essential to obtain benefit from it. The merger is not just about savings; it is about better services all round. Let me give one example. The SBS news will have available for the first time the ABC's network of overseas correspondents. The SBS, as a small organisation, cannot afford such resources, and how ridiculous it would be for those resources to be shut off in the future. In closing, it is necessary, for the information of honourable members, to look at what the Opposition is now saying. It agrees that the two organisations should be merged in the national interest. The honourable member for Goldstein repeated that position yesterday. Mr Hawke —But not now. Mr DUFFY —As the Prime Minister just interjected, but not now. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said the same thing. This morning I noticed in the Melbourne Age a reference to the Opposition in an article by Michelle Grattan taking an Augustine position which is absolutely right in this situation. Mr N.A. Brown —St Augustine. Mr DUFFY —St Augustine; I am terribly sorry. Of course the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be more aware of these matters than I am. It was St Augustine who took the position of `make me pure but not just yet'. What does the Opposition say about the SBS now? Does it want to see it as a stand alone organisation? No; rather it intimates that it will consider amalgamation after a Senate inquiry. What terms of reference has the Opposition suggested for that inquiry? Again it does not say. As the Prime Minister says here every day, one cannot get the Opposition's policy on anything. What reporting date do we have for that Senate inquiry? We do not know and the Opposition does not know. Is the SBS to be left in limbo until 1990 as implied by the honourable member for Goldstein? The Opposition does not make that clear. What is the Senate inquiry meant to do and how different would it be from the Connor Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service and what could it look at that the Connor inquiry has not already looked at? According to the Opposition it accepts the findings of the Connor inquiry, so why does the Opposition want an inquiry by the Senate? The House knows what this is all about: It is a transparent performance of self-political interest by a desperate Opposition. If the SBS and the ABC are left up in the air and destroyed in the process, that would not worry the Opposition. The managing director of SBS has indicated-I say in fairness that he has always opposed the amalgamation but once the Government took the decision the SBS has co-operated in the manner one would have expected-in today's Press that the worst possible decision is to leave this matter up in the air again. That is what the Opposition is doing, and the managing director is right. How can morale be obtained? If the Opposition decides to block the legislation, it is no good interjecting and saying: `It is for us'. How can that organisation recruit or plan in an area of uncertainty? Let there by no doubt in anyone's mind-- Mr Macphee —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. This matter is on the blue sheet for today and will be debated next week. All of the matters will be made clear by the Opposition. The Minister is abusing Question Time. All of these matters will be made very clear to him next week. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is answering a question asked of him. Mr DUFFY —Let there be no doubt that in the Opposition's own words it intends to amalgamate the ABC and the SBS. It is merely dragging out the process for as long as it can because it perceives some political milage. I have no doubt that that move will be rejected by most Australians for the transparent hypocrisy that it is. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —I present the report of the inquiry into the Australian War Memorial, conducted by Mr K. N. Jones. I regret that no copies of the report are available at this stage. As soon as copies become available they will be circulated to honourable members. Motion (by Mr Holding)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the inquiry into the Australian War Memorial. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Does the Minister wish to make a personal explanation? Mr HAYDEN —Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the Canberra Times of even date there is a report headed `Hayden refuses to meet Papua rebels' by a Debbie Cameron. The report says: The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, has refused to meet West Papuan rebel spokesmen because the Government fears it would aggravate Indonesia. I have absolutely no idea how Miss Cameron got that view in her mind. She did not contact me, nor did she speak with anyone on my staff or in my Department. She then says: Mr Hayden told Mr Jakob Prai, a former president and founder of the OPM (Free Papua Movement) and Mr Nicholas Messet that continued tension between the Australian and Indonesian governments prevented any official discussions about Irian Jaya. If Miss Cameron claims that she knows that as a fact, she is a liar. If she claims that she is repeating something that has been told to her, she is repeating completely misrepresenting gossip which has no basis in fact. I said no such thing to either Mr Prai or Mr Messet. She said: Mr Hayden met Mr Prai and Mr Messet unofficially in Adelaide on Sunday night but would not agree to a formal meeting because of tension between Australia and Indonesia and the likelihood that Indonesia would be disturbed by official recognition of the OPM. Again, if Miss Cameron claims that she reports that as a matter of fact to her knowledge, she is a liar. If she reports that on the basis of someone else having told her, she is merely retailing gossip which has no basis in fact and is misrepresenting the real facts. The real facts are that I was at a fund raising-- Mr Spender —I take a point of order. The word `liar' is unparliamentary language; it is as much unparliamentary language if it is directed to somebody here as to somebody outside Parliament. It is a vast abuse of the-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney is quite wrong. The standing order provides that a member cannot refer to another member as a liar. Individuals outside the Parliament do not have the same protection. Mr HAYDEN —I think the honourable member is trying to play up to the gods above him for a little bit of support. The facts are that on Sunday night I visited and was a speaker at a fund raising function in the Federal division of Makin in Adelaide. Before I spoke I went around tables greeting people and speaking with them briefly. At the particular table at which Mr Prai and Mr Messet were seated I shook hands with people. The only discussion I had was with a woman who was with that group and who said that they would like me to meet Mr Prai and Mr Messet. I said that would not be possible. That is the total extent of my conversation on this matter. So I repeat: If Miss Cameron claims-I repeat this clearly and succinctly so the honourable member will understand it-that she has written this article as a series of matters of fact in her own knowledge, she is stating a lie. If she is claiming that she bases the article on what she has been told, she is retailing gossip which has no basis in fact, which is misrepresenting what actually took place and which can be damaging in foreign relations for a number of reasons, and I wish the honourable member would have understood that point. That is why I am irritated about this article. There are two final things. The first is: It would have been a simple matter for Miss Cameron to have contacted my office. She could have been put straight. The other matter is that it seems to me that this is an example of an appallingly low standard of journalistic professionalism and ethics. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in answer to a question, said that I had been `running around talking about a figure of $2,000m'. He then went on to claim that that $2,000m was the figure that was in effect embraced in all of the fringe benefits and substantiation legislation which the Opposition had voted against and therefore there was no validity in my reference to that $2,000m figure. The Treasurer was wrong in saying that. The quote that I have used, and indeed I used it in my first question to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), referred to a figure of several billion dollars which is on page 20 of the report of the Standing Committee on Expenditure. None of that money is covered by any of the Government's legislation. In these circumstances, it was quite false of the Treasurer to allege that I was criticising him in relation to money which was the subject of legislation put forward to the Parliament by the Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has shown where he was misrepresented. 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,Dr Charlesworth,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Ruddock,Mr Simmons,Mr Sinclair,Mr Tickner and Mr White. 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 Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Nehl,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Brumby,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Jenkins,Mr Mildren and Mr Shack. 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Brumby,Mr Connolly and Mr Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. 5. We also feel it is morally wrong for one person to be forced to pay the taxes for another. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. 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 anomalous Fringe Benefits Tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that- it adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms, by creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive, it has caused unemployment, it is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefits Tax legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. 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 Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radio- active substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Ms Jakobsen,Mr Jenkins and Mr Tickner. 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 Bilney and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned plead that the Parliament implement pro-family policies. In particular we appeal for: 1. the retention of the present graduated assessment system for payment of the Family Allowance; 2. indexation of the Family Allowance in order to keep pace with inflation; 3. an increase of 3.7% in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5% of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5% of the Basic Wage when Child Endowment was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1941). 4. retention of the Dependent Spouse Rebate and the amount of the Dependent Spouse Rebate adjusted so that it is equal in value to the tax-free threshold allowed when calculating taxable income. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The introduction of an administrative charge for annual enrolment will restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, rural dwellers and some low income earners. 2. Students will be deterred from study because of the probable escalation in the charge in future Budgets, prohibiting students' ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. The introduction of an administrative charge is contrary to the education provisions of the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party ``will maintain the provision of free tertiary education.'' Your petitioners therefore pray that the annual administrative charge for higher education students not be introduced. Your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Mr Bilney and Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Shipton. 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 analgesics, antihistamines and cough medicines are to be withdrawn from the ``free'' list of pharmaceutical products. As aged pensioners many of us depend on a number of these items for the relief of such complaints as rheumatism, rheumatoid arthritis, allergies and various arthritic conditions. The increased cost of these items will cause hardship to many pensioners, who are already economically disadvantaged. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the removal of analgesics, antihistamines and cough medicines from the ``free'' list of pharmaceutical products. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Bilney. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough medicines and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. 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 respectfully showeth that: Each year the tobacco industry in Australia spends an estimated $70 million advertising and promoting this country's largest avoidable cause of disease and premature death. As it is a tax deductible expense, the Government's loss of revenue is $32 million, or $2,000 per smoking death because smoking kills in excess of 16,000 Australians each year. Today's taxpayers can no longer afford to subsidise an industry which most harms the nation's health. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Federal Government will refuse tax deductibility for expenses incurred in the promotion of tobacco products. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation, to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December 1984, as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material, (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and the other related test in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth. To the Honourable Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled to Petition of Peace; your petitioners therefore pray that the Government is more committed in establishing peaceful relations with the People within and outside of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners have grave concern about recent changes in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act of 1966 which deny basic rights which have been a cornerstone of the English and Australian law for over seven hundred years. We are speaking of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right of an individual to defend himself against his accusers. This concern has come to light during recent extradition proceedings against Messrs Hempel and Etheredge in Western Australia. We are concerned that because judicial protection of these basic rights has been excluded from the Act refugees, migrants, Australian overseas travellers, and visitors are at risk when they have been to (or come from) countries where the norms and practices of human rights and civil liberties are below traditionally accepted Australian standards. We, the undersigned petitioners, therefore urge the Government to re-examine the Extradition (Foreign States) Act as amended in 1985, and amend the current Act so that the rights of the accused are once again judicially protected in Australia. In addition, we urge the Government to refrain from entering into any further extradition treaties or proceedings under the current Act until the process of re-examination and amendment of the Act has occurred. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government should cancel the Fringe Benefits Tax they intend to impose on businesses throughout Australia because: 1. The tax discriminates against charitable organisations, sports clubs, private schools and religious organisations; 2. The tax will mean employees around Australia will suffer reductions in their remuneration packages; 3. The Bill places another impossible burden of paperwork on small business; 4. The Bill is absurd in its application to Government employees, who now constitute 32% of the workforce. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners humbly pray that you repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 shows: That the Hawke Government should; 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes, and 3. Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That 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 Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. 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 assembled: Your petitioners call for Government intervention to provide economic justice for families and humbly pray that whatever action possible be taken to provide some price control in the following areas, which most directly affect the family budget: food and other essential items petrol rent and bond levels And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. 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 assembled, the petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth opposition to cuts in English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching, the scrapping of the Multicultural Education Program, the amalgamation of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and the abolition of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (AIMA), as announced in the Federal Budget of August 19, 1986. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will review and reverse its decisions on these matters. And your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia of Albanian back-ground respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the use of the `Special Broadcasting Service' and the taxpayers funds for nationalist political purposes. We are deeply concerned that the existing Albanian program on Radio 3EA Melbourne is not meeting the needs of the community. It is being used against 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the intention of the Hawke Government to unionise independent contractors, sub-contractors, the self-employed, partnerships, sole traders and family businesses will: Remove the freedom of independent small business to: (a) set their own prices (b) work their own hours (c) control their own businesses (d) negotiate their own contracts; and will create impossible working conditions which will include the payment of: (a) union superannuation (b) compensation (c) payroll tax (d) annual leave loadings (e) public holiday loadings (f) PAYE tax deductions (g) limited incomes (h) inflexible awards and conditions; and (i) fixed hours of work. We the undersigned call upon the Government to restore incentive and opportunity to the Australian economy and to abandon these coercive measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. 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 the Summerland Point Post Office recently closed at short notice by Australia Post should be reopened. 2. This Post Office has serviced a community consisting mainly of the aged and young families with small children who are now faced with a five kilometre journey to the nearest Post Office. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ask the Minister for Communications not to deny the 800 permanent residents of Summerland Point on Lake Macquarie the use of a Post Office. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We the undersigned wish to express our opposition to the deletion of items from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule. We believe this will result in a greater financial burden on pensioners. 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 McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned show: We protest at Ballarat's exclusion from the Bicentennial Authorities Travelling Exhibition. We consider the decision unjustifiable in view of the historical importance of this great Australian Inland City which, in fact, gave birth to the idea of the Travelling Exhibition. We request you to take immediate action to have this slight on our city removed. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Mildren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until 6 August this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 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 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament: We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Capital Gains Tax on the following grounds: 1. Reaches beyond the grave and taxes. Profits on sales of most properties gifted to beneficiaries and thereby is death duty in disguise. 2. Destroys incentive to investment. 3. Hinders the growth of employment opportunity. 4. Discriminates against Small Business in taxing so called gains made on the sale of a business. 5. Will cause growth in the bureaucracy. 6. Hinders the flexibility of arrangements of partnership. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Capital Gains Tax Legislation forthwith. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, urge the retention of the Capital Gains Tax in its present form, on the following grounds: 1. Transfer of properties to beneficiaries attracts no Capital Gains Tax until sold and is totally prospective and indexed for inflation. 2. Provides a better climate for investment based on what will generate the best return to the investor not on complicated arrangements to minimise tax. 3. Enhances the growth of employment opportunities. 4. Is applied fairly and evenly to all in the community and clearly sets down that the tax is applied to real gains only. 5. Will cause a minimal impact on staffing at the Australian Taxation Office. 6. Strengthens provisions for assets arrangements within partnership. We therefore most earnestly petition you to retain the Capital Gains Tax Legislation forthwith. 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 in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, urge the retention of the Fringe Benefits Tax in its present form on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for a section of the community to receive tax free benefits in lieu of income while a large section of the community pays tax on their entire income. 2. Administration of the Fringe Benefits Tax is far less onerous than that which would be required under Section 23e of the Tax Act. 3. The redeployment of tax office staff due to the self-assessment of PAYE returns to the Fringe Benefit Tax area will not require a large scale increase of taxation staff. 4. Fringe Benefit Tax is an equitable tax as non-cash benefits will now be taxed, and then only at the company rate. 5. Fringe Benefit Tax regulations are infinetely more simple than the requirements of Section 23e. We therefore most earnestly petition you to retain the Fringe Benefits Tax forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Price. To the Honourable Speaker and 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. 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investment. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned express our deepest concern over the government's discriminatory policies on overseas students which were contained in the 1986/87 Federal Budget. We register our strongest outrage and opposition to: 1. The introduction and subsequent increase of overseas students charge imposed on overseas students. 2. The proposed imposition of fees to secondary and TAFE overseas students. 3. The restrictive quota system on the tertiary institutions entry. 4. The heavy-handed deportation of overseas students who fail to pay their fees in time. The overseas students program is an important education program to promote international goodwill and peace, especially among nations of Asia and Pacific region. The above mentioned policies have adverse effects on the objectives of overseas students program. Your petitioners therefore urge that the overseas students policies in the 1986-87 Budget be immediately reviewed. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: Take the action necessary to create an Australian republic on or before 1st January 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We your petitioners, humbly showeth: That the wildlife species, in this case-the kangaroo, have a right to exist and flourish independently of human needs. For this reason alone we should not regard the kangaroo as a human resource nor contemplate commercial exploitation simply because more offspring are born each generation than can hope to survive. Permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective legislation is completely ineffective and inadequate due to the widespread nature of the industry. All Australians have a responsibility to our already declining wildlife. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will: 1. Ban the exports of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State Governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned who are staff of the ABC and the SBS respectfully showeth that: The proposed legislation to amalgamate the ABC and SBS, together with certain existing provisions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (as amended), would have the effect of removing the present Staff Elected Director of the ABC from office before the end of his elected term, and of barring him from standing for re-election. This offends basic democratic principle. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Government will remedy this situation by either, continuing the current Staff Elected Director in office until the normal expiration of his term on 15 December 1987 or, making such amendments as are necessary to the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Act 1986, to enable the current Staff Elected Director to contest an early election after amalgamation, whilst preventing him from seeking a further term immediately following the one for which the early election is held. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard,Mr Duncan,Mr Kent,Ms McHugh,Mr Milton,Mr Scott,Mr Snow and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the State of South Australia respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the moves by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service to sell or close Payneham Rehabilitation Centre, situated at 411 Payneham Road, Felixstow in South Australia. We oppose and express our concern that vocational workshops and education services which were available at Payneham Rehabilitation Centre have already been discontinued while staff are still employed at the Centre. We ask that immediate steps be taken by the Government to fully utilise the Centre for what it was designed for i.e. the rehabilitation of sick and injured people to their maximum potential. We ask that the workshop and educational services be re-established immediately and that redeployment action of staff from Payneham Rehabilitation Centre be ceased. by Mr Bilney and Mr Scott. 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 benefits 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 year 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 and Dr Charlesworth. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The Petition of certain residents of the State of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Government has increased wholesale sales tax another 10% under the 1986-87 Budget, resulting in a 20% Sales Tax on wine. This tax was introduced at a time of a record trade imbalance between our wine imports and exports and will further exacerbate that problem. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Government cancels the 20% Sales Tax before it causes a further contraction in our wine industry, with consequential loss of exports, and employment in the wine and tourism and retailing industries which are currently operating in Western Australia. by Mr Drummond. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at Warrnambool Institute Student Union, in the Federal electorate of Wannon respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form or Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. 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 petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia being residents of South Australia respectfully showeth: that the humble petitioners respectfully seek a delay in the new funding arrangements planned for April this year for Subsidised Child Care Centres in Australia; and express total opposition to the cuts in child care which are beginning to have a deleterious effect on children's services in South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge the instigation of:- 1. Urgent discussions with State Governments, peak bodies representing children's services, and the A.C.T. 2. That such discussions ensure that funding mechanisms are fully explored and ensure more appropriate funding guidelines. 3. That such discussions examine regulations for the quality assurance of children's services. 4. That such discussions be mindful of the need to retain high quality children's services and trained personnel, to work in children's services. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter. 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 Sutherland Shire respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian atomic energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The incompetence of management in the Taxation Office which has prompted the introduction of punitive taxes such as the fringe benefits tax and oppressive, costly and impractical measures such as the Australia Card. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.03) —Today we are talking about the incompetence of the Australian Taxation Office. I noticed that the Government has sent in its second most incompetent Minister to defend the Taxation Office and presumably to defend the most incompetent Minister in the Government, that is the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I am quite happy to debate with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). All I can say to the people of Australia with very great assurance is that the health system of this country is now in a shambles. Nobody could possibly say that the health system is in the kind of good condition that I left it in when the coalition Government left office. The Minister, having destroyed the Australian health system, now wants to come in with the identity card and change the fundamental nature of the relationship between the citizen and the state. Whereas previously the citizen was supreme, now the state is supreme and the citizen will require this Minister's miserable licence to prove that he exists. I am therefore very happy to debate with the Minister for Health that the Treasurer ought to be here to defend the incompetent administration of his Taxation Office. The Opposition has had enough of the Treasurer bringing the statutory head of the Tax Office into political debate. We have had it up to here. We are not prepared to put up with that any more. We have been very careful for a very long time on this matter. Long before the fringe benefits tax legislation was brought into the Parliament Mr Boucher, the Commissioner of Taxation, sent out a letter to all employers requesting information-this was in advance of the legislation being introduced and passed by the Parliament-and he put in a political sentence which said: The Fringe Benefits Tax is an integral part of the Government's tax reform package,- I would question the word `reform' being used by a statutory officer- the overall aim of which is to cut personal marginal income tax rates- which proves not to be true- and finance other benefits for the Australian community. We did not like that. We got a lot of representations from people about that but we were very kind to the Commissioner. We believed that he was acting under some form of duress from the Treasurer and we did not take it up. Similarly leaflets went out headed `The fringe benefits tax and farmers'. Every farmer found that this stuck in his craw when he read it. This sentence was produced by the Tax Commissioner: Taxing fringe benefits will ensure that all income bears a fair share of tax and will help to finance lower personal tax rates. Those on farms earning nothing who are still having to pay this rotten tax found that that stuck in their craw, and it stuck in ours but we did not make any direct attack on the Commissioner for putting it out. Then there was a speech by the Commissioner on 14 October this year to the Australian Society of Accountants in Sydney. The Commissioner said this: The precise final shape of the tax treatment of fringe benefits is of course to be determined in the political process, part of which is being played out right at the moment. I make no comment about that. But then he went on to say: I do however have a power of recall and observe that anyone who would say that all that is needed is a return to application of the old law is either ignoring history or has a poor memory, not to speak of a lack of appreciation of the technical inadequacies in that law. He went on to make other statements which were right in the middle of the political debate and were used by the Treasurer as such in this House and in public attacks on the Opposition. But still we made no comment about this intrusion into the political debate by the Taxation Commissioner. We made no such comment because of the regard in which we held him, which the Treasurer also mentioned in quoting something mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition in Question Time today. Then in September we had the Auditor-General's report on the prescribed payments system and the way in which the Tax Office had maladministered that scheme. In the back of that report there was a most revealing and most extraordinary exchange of correspondence between the Auditor-General and the Commissioner of Taxation, and I will quote a few pieces of that to give the House the flavour of that exchange. Mr Boucher was moved to complain to Mr Monaghan using these words: I had thought that the intention of efficiency auditing was to increase the efficiency of Government administration. From reading this report one could gain the impression that the objective was somewhat simpler; simply to heap criticism, no matter how trivial, on the auditee. The Auditor-General replied to that in the following words: Clearly, you are annoyed because the Australian Audit Office . . . has not come to the same appreciation of the administration of the PPS as that which is entertained within the Australian Taxation Office . . . But it is not uncommon for the Auditor to come to a different view from the auditee. He went on to state: The fact that you may not persuade me on some points does not provide a legitimate ground for launching an attack on the objectivity of the audit. Later the Auditor-General said: I do note that, having regard to the attachments to your letter, some of your comments seem tantamount to a proposition that virtually any public criticism of the ATO's operation would be prejudicial to the ATO's administration of the tax laws. That was a most remarkable passage of correspondence between two senior public servants, but again the comment of the Opposition was restrained. In the debate on the Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Bill 1986 I indeed said: I am not in a position to judge the merits of this particular argument between the Auditor-General and the Commissioner of Taxation. I understand the administrative and management problems in a large department of that kind and I understand how strongly taxpayers fight not to pay tax; I understand that very well. That is what I said at the time and I did not take sides in that dispute. Yesterday we had the most damning report of the Taxation Office presented by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, a Committee representing both political parties. It was a unanimous report, a most damning indictment of the administration of the Australian Taxation Office, and resolved once and for all the dispute between Mr Monaghan and Mr Boucher, without doubt, in Mr Monaghan's favour. One could not read this report and come out thinking that Mr Monaghan's criticisms were ill-founded. I spoke in the House yesterday when this report came out, and again I was restrained in the way I addressed the issue. I acknowledge the problems of management in the Public Service and the lack of general management training. Imagine my outrage this morning hearing on the car radio on my way here the interview with Mr Boucher-the day after I had made these kind remarks about officers in that department. It was a blatant stepping into the political process. The transcript of that interview reads: Heather Ewart: Are you capable of dealing with the taxation reform package the Government has just brought in then? Trevor Boucher: Of course we are. Heather Ewart: Well, how can you be if you admit that you haven't got the systems that you need? Trevor Boucher: Things like FBT, we're in a position to handle that, we are handling that. The report of today is dealing with a range of other things like dividends of interest. Now, the Australia Card proposal are a heavy supporting element there. That is political comment. The interview continues: Heather Ewart: Well, on the point of the Australia Card, it looks as though the legislation for that card is not going to get through the Senate now. Does that disappoint you? Trevor Boucher: If there is to be an effective attack on evasion practices throughout the community there must be in some form a high integrity identification system. Heather Ewart: And why is that? Trevor Boucher: In order to be able, with the aid of computers, to match, to secure a flow of information and to match that information against taxpayer records to relate it to particular taxpayers. Heather Ewart: So the Opposition and the Democrats are taking the wrong stance on this in terms of dealing with tax evasion and avoidance? The following is purely a political answer: Trevor Boucher: Well, as a tax administrator I would have to say that anyone who opposes the use of an appropriate high integrity numbering system, identification system, for tax purposes, is putting a fetter on tax administration. I submit that by taking all those questions together and by taking the reference to the Australia Card just two or three questions earlier, the Taxation Commissioner has entered into this debate in a way that can be used by the Treasurer politically. The proof of that was here today when the Treasurer did use this politically. We will not cop the use of a non-political office in a political debate. If the Treasurer is responsible for bringing the Commissioner in on this debate he ought to be ashamed of himself. If the Commissioner allowed himself to be drawn into this debate he also ought to be ashamed of himself. What does this report talk about? If there is one thing that comes out of this report it is that the amount of money being lost through sheer maladministration and incompetence is enormous compared with the sorts of gains the Government thinks it can get through the fringe benefits tax and the identity card. The Government talks about $700m for this rotten fringe benefits tax, with enormous pain for everybody, and it talks about a pie in the sky $540m about five to seven years on for the identification card system. Dr Blewett —You have got the figures wrong again. Mr CARLTON —I am referring to the Government's 19 September statement. In any case if the Minister for Health wishes to add to that he will get some indication, if he reads this report, of what has been lost through unbelievable incompetence. The report's conclusion states: . . . it has been estimated that each year $2,000m in tax revenue is lost as a result of deliberate or inadvertent understatement and non-reporting of taxpayers' incomes. Elsewhere in the report it gives a figure of about $8 billion in the cash economy which, of course, the ID card does absolutely nothing to pick up. The summary goes on: While this loss is taxpayer initiated, part of the blame lies in the inadequacy of ATO's systems. ATO is responsible for the detection of such occurrences. Because of the inadequacy of ATO's current information and checking system, the probability of detection is low and as such this form of tax evasion continues virtually unfettered. This is not an old report. It looked at reports of the Auditor-General of some time ago, but the interviews on which this report was based was done this year. This report was presented yesterday by a bipartisan committee. The conclusion further states: While the ATO has described its objectives as; `Put simply, the Taxation Office exists to gather the revenue' . . . It is highly doubtful whether the ATO has in fact gathered all the tax revenue possible. It is also questionable whether ATO has been efficient in gathering the taxes it has received. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that had ATO been more successful in its collection of existing taxes, the need for further taxes and higher rates of current taxes may well have been lessened, relieving in part the onus already shouldered by those who pay tax. What truthful words by a bipartisan committee. The conclusion goes on: The cause of ATO's current inadequacies can be attributed to the aggregation of a number of factors. The lack of computerisation intertwined with the continuation of labour-intensive work practices has certainly retarded ATO's efficient operation. It is this surprising adherence to labour-intensive practices that has created many of ATO's woes. It is as though the ATO had been caught in a time warp. If one looks through this report one sees the most extraordinary examples of problems under the chapter headed `Problems within the ATO', and various remarks by people from the Australian Audit Office and by other people appearing before the Committee. I will quote from one remark as it relates to the checking of dividends and interest disclosed in income tax returns. In Question Time today the Treasurer tried to explain why the Taxation Office had made no attempt to check out dividends reported by institutions with taxpayers' files. He said that they could not be linked unless there was an ID system. That is rubbish. If that were so why did the Taxation Office order $40m worth of computers to do it-the ones he claimed were delivered late. He cannot have it both ways. If it cannot be checked one does not order computers to do it, and if it can be checked one damned well gets on with it; checks it and collects the tax. Mr Anthony Minchin, Acting Assistant Auditor-General, told the Committee: . . . from what we have seen of the dividends and interest check in the Taxation Office, it seemed to us they would never get it right . . . It did seem to us in the dividends and interest check audit that the ADP area was not well organised. Had it had more resources, it might have made a bigger mess. All this is current. We are being asked to spend $1,000m on a system put up by the Minister for Health to be run by the Health Insurance Commission when the Government cannot even collect a little dividend or interest tax. It cannot even match two computer runs. It cannot even order computers to do simple tasks, so how on earth can we trust the Government with all these other complicated systems? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.18) —It was, of course, indicated by the opening remarks of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) that he much prefers to attack the individual rather than the institution. The motion moved was about the Australian Taxation Office, but his first 10 minutes or so was devoted to attacking a particular tax officer. I will not engage in that kind of personal debate, but I will simply point out that one would never have gathered from the speech of the honourable member for Mackellar that Mr Boucher said this morning: `If there is to be an effective attack on evasion practices throughout the community there must be, in some form, a high integrity identification system'. That was simply to endorse the agreed all-party position presented in this report. In fact, Mr Boucher was making a statement which, as I will show the House, endorses the recommendation of the all-party report, `A Taxing Problem', by the Standing Committee on Expenditure, not that our good friend the honourable member for Mackellar would bother to acknowledge that. It is a very interesting report and it establishes two things quite clearly, neither of course mentioned by the honourable member for Mackellar. It shows quite clearly that the problems facing the Tax Office today are overwhelmingly the responsibilities and failures of the Fraser Government. I will prove that in a moment by quotation from the report. It can be seen in two ways. First, it is clear that the Taxation Office lacks computer facilities. It needs more computerisation. Our whizz kid from Mackellar, who claims to be some kind of management genius, does not seem to realise that if one is to have an effective computer system, particularly to deal with the areas of taxation, one would have needed to do something about it years ago. It needs planning in advance over many years to have an effective computer system. The point that the report makes is that now under this Government at last those issues are being addressed as it says: Although somewhat belated-- much of the responsibility for the belatedness must rest with the previous Government- ATO's current ADP policy appears to be a positive step in further computerising its operations. It is simply a management issue which was utterly and totally neglected by the previous Government. As in so many fields which require long term planning, we have difficulties today because of these failures. But that is not the only thing that the report establishes. It is not just the lack of planning for computerisation. The report points out quite clearly that it was the deterioration of the Tax Office under the Fraser Government in the late 1970s and the 1980s that started the present problems of rot. Let me quote at length from the report: The decline in the ATO's operational efficiency appears to be closely linked to the tax scheme era of the 1970s and early 1980s. That is an era which we put an end to. That is the source of the present deterioration. The report continues: Until a decade ago the Australian tax system-- that is, until 1976- seemed virtually free from organised tax evasion and ATO's role was largely that of a receiver as tax revenue flowed in with only minimal collection efforts. Look what happened under the Fraser Government: With the creation in the 1970s of the highly elaborate tax schemes this situation dramatically changed. The report goes on to deal with the kinds of schemes that were allowed to run rampant under the Fraser-Howard Treasury which led to a deterioration in the operational efficiency of the Office. The report points out: As the Commissioner of Taxation told the Committee, dealing with specific tax evasion schemes became a pre-occupation within the Taxation Office. This pre-occupation obviously worked to the detriment of other tax operations. So when we come to look at some of the problems we have today in the Tax Office-we are not denying them; we are in the process of correcting them-they require, in relation to computerisation, long term planning. These problems are the product of the way the people opposite allowed the tax system in this country to degenerate. We can see, as a result of what we have been doing-this is endorsed by the all-party report; it is not my statement-the past difficulties with the tax system which the previous Government left us to inherit are not insoluble. Indications suggest that the current situation, that is, the situation under this Government, is greatly improved. I quote again from the report: To this effect, the Committee endorses the relationship and co-ordinated effort now evident from the three major bodies involved-the Australian Federal Police, ATO and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. With that type of combination we have tackled our responsibility and ended the era of tax evasion and avoidance that developed in the late 1970s. In doing so we have begun to put the ATO right. As the report points out, we have begun to take up the computer issues which were neglected by the previous Government. In the quite dishonest speech we heard from the honourable member for Mackellar there was no mention whatsoever of the report's recommendation about a high integrity identification system. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I interrupt the Minister for a moment. I am not asking the Minister to withdraw, but the question of people's honesty seems to be entering these debates in recent days. Mr Carlton —From that side. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —From both sides. I ask honourable members to bear this in mind and not to use those sorts of words. Dr BLEWETT —I withdraw the remark I made and say that in 15 minutes the honourable member managed to neglect entirely all reference to one of the major recommendations of this report. For his benefit, because he may not have read it, I will read that recommendation. I quote from page 42: With or without the adoption of the Australia Card, the Australian Taxation Office takes the necessary steps to establish a high integrity identification system which would ensure maximum taxpayer compliance. A major recommendation of the report is the need for a high integrity identification system. That is the very thing this Government is trying to achieve. At the moment it is totally rejected by the Opposition. We have committed ourselves to providing this society with a high integrity identification system. Any examination of the record of this Opposition on the question of the Australia Card over the last 12 months is a sorry tale of shamble, evasion and outright denial of what its members apparently believed 12 months ago. Let us look at the waning credibility the Opposition has on this issue. As I have said today, it refused to acknowledge that in that all-party report a major recommendation is a high integrity identification system. Mr Wilson —Within the taxation system. Dr BLEWETT —I will take on that interjection. We will talk about it in a moment. Twelve months ago there was full blooded support for the Australia Card by the National Party elite. I will quote its members again. We will keep on quoting their record to the people of Australia. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) said: What we need in Australia to effectively fight all forms of abuse is a proper identification of each Australian with a number, photograph . . . The honourable member even went as far as saying that it needed a fingerprint. He continued: We need a policeman to safeguard the public purse. A plastic policeman would be the most effective in preventing this abuse. That is an extraordinarily strong commitment and statement from a leading Opposition front bencher. Then we have the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt), who said: I will be making representations to the Government strongly supporting this aspect- that is, the ID card in the White Paper proposals. The Deputy Leader of the National Party was so keen on the ID card that he said he would make strong supporting statements to the Government on the proposal. He said: The proposed national identification system offered dual benefits to the Australian people. One of the most evasive members of the Opposition bench, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), said quite firmly: The introduction of a national identification system using ID cards offers benefits to the Australian people which outweigh any civil liberties consideration. So 12 months ago there was full blooded support by the National Party. Six months ago two of its leading figures, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and the honourable member for Richmond, signed a report which was brought down in this House supporting a national identification system based, it is true, on the tax file number, not on the same system- Mr Carlton —Here you are, sliding again. This is your old trick. I know that. Dr BLEWETT —Unlike the honourable member for Mackellar, I will acknowledge the qualification that National Party members wanted a national identification system but would have it based on the tax file number. But at least six months ago they were supporting a national identification system which was to upgrade the tax file number and provide every adult in society with an identification number. Six months later they have even backed out of that. First they gave full blooded support to the Australia Card and then to the wishy-washy, Mickey Mouse tax file number identification system. Now they have abandoned those positions altogether. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), when he was asked last night about the issue, at least had the responsibility to endorse the commitment that was made in the report of the Committee which he chaired. He was asked whether an Australia Card would be helpful in terms of tax evasion. He said: Yes, it may be helpful- qualifying it a little. Then he went on to say, even more firmly: Our joint Party committee says that the Tax Commissioner will need his own high integrity identification system whether an Australia Card is introduced or not. He must have a system that enables him to match income received by individuals with their tax returns. There is no way that an Opposition which is going to tackle the real problems which this country faces can get away from the need for a high level, high integrity identification system in some form or other. When those opposite talked about that yesterday they abandoned any suggestion that they would have any form of identification system. If we look at their record, over the last year it is fairly shabby. By contrast, we have tried to provide an effective Australia Card program simply as part of the total number of safeguards that we are setting up for the tax and welfare systems. We have met the one worry of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). When he talked about the idea a year ago he thought it would be very good if the civil liberties and privacy issues were addressed. Anyone who seriously reads the very voluminous Australia Card Bill that has been put before this Parliament will recognise that no government before at the national level has made so comprehensive an effort to cover issues of civil liberties and privacy. Mr Carlton —You could not even keep Medicare records quiet. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will cease interjecting. Dr BLEWETT —I am not concerned about the hysterical utterances of the honourable member for Mackellar. This Government in this Bill and the associated privacy legislation has provided the most comprehensive privacy and civil liberties covers. From the other side we simply get exaggerated claims. Let me take all the factual errors that ran through the so-called Opposition pronouncement yesterday which combined a whole series of factual inaccuracies with a set of vacuous waffle. That is the only way it could be described. If we look at what those opposite say about the tax system, illegal immigration and social security we see it is little more than vacuous waffle. That was preceded by a whole series of quite inaccurate statements. The first was that somehow the system will produce 2,150 extra public servants. As the people who wrote that document presented yesterday know, because one of them sat on the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, that requirement is only for the short period of 18 months, the period in which the registration takes place. After that, the administration of the card needs only half that number of people. With an effective identification system there will be savings right across the need for public servants because once there is a successful central identification system many of the other identification tasks which presently require staffing can be considerably reduced. Those opposite know that our statement makes it quite clear that for carrying out the ongoing Australia Card operation we simply require approximately 1,000 public servants, not the 2,000 that they talk about. The most fantastic figure of all that they produce is that this will cost the private sector $2,000m. That is a fantasy figure. It is interesting that the Australian Bankers Association, which represents the major private sector area affected, now says that the initial establishment will cost $60m and there will be ongoing costs of $4.6m a year. The major section of the private sector involved estimates establishment costs of $60m and then $4.6m a year. That compares with the fantasy figure that the Opposition uses of $2,000m. Those opposite are a discredited party losing credibility rapidly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(3.33) —What an amazing sight we have just seen with the contribution of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). If ever I have seen a Minister slip and slide around an issue I have just seen that from the Minister for Health. Obviously, he has very few ideas on the differences between an Australia Card and a tax file number. If he would like to get those differences straight perhaps we would be able to get this debate back on to the rails. For the benefit of those who are listening, let us not forget what the Australia Card means. It means that everybody will have to have an Australia Card-pensioners, children and absolutely everybody. What else does it mean? It means effectively that it will be an internal passport, a foot in the door for big brother. The Australia Card in the end-I know that the Minister denies it-will also mean that there will be unlimited access to the personal affairs of every citizen in this country. If we want an example of that let us go back to the New South Wales doctors dispute when the Health Insurance Commission, which will have control over this new Australia Card, leaked doctors' incomes for political purposes. That is the reality of the matter. This needs to be compared with a much simpler proposition, which is to have a tax file numbering system. Let us take this debate back a little to the National Taxation Summit. Let us remember the fiasco of Labor's Tax Summit and the night-I think it was a Thursday night-when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was invited to the room of his union bosses and told what to do. He was told to go back and introduce a tax package which gets stuck into the business community. We have even seen the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in writing to his colleagues during the last few months, boasting that $3,000m will be brought in from this tax package. To camouflage Labor's game plan those opposite justify the tax reforms by saying that they are all introduced in the name of fairness and equity. `The system has fallen into a shambles. Blame the last Government' they say. That is a constant and recurring theme. Those opposite revert to one of their favourite ploys-the politics of envy-and then say that anybody who raises constructive criticism at any proposal they put up is greedy and a tax cheat. An historic report has entered on to the public stage, a report prepared by coalition and Government members. That report blows the Government's argument to pieces because basically it says that we do not need more taxes. We do not need to camouflage our arguments with trumped up claims about tax rorts and ramps. All we need to do is attack incompetence and inefficiencies in the Australian Taxation Office. Why does the Treasurer defend the Tax Office? Why does he resort to abuse, as he is so fond of doing? He does it because he is the captain of the ship. The buck stops with him. He is responsible. What is revealed is that instead of introducing all these new taxes and preening himself as a fixer he ought to have got on with the job of giving some decent government and administration to the Tax Office. That is one of his primary responsibilities. Now on to the stage comes the Commissioner of Taxation. `Do not blame me' he said this morning on the radio. He went one step further. He said: `Oh, I don't know if it's a matter of attaching blame anywhere'. In other words, not only should we not blame him but the Tax Commissioner says that we should not even attach any blame to the Government. He then supported Labor's proposal for an identity card. It is flabbergasting. The Commissioner goes into bat for the Government when the ball before he was clean bowled by the report tabled yesterday in this Parliament. We all have to be branded by Labor's ID card. We all have to carry Labor's internal passport because the Australian Tax Office is so incompetent that it cannot even collect interest from back accounts when it already has the power to do so. Unfortunately, it is not the first time that the Tax Commissioner has entered into the political debate. In addition to his letter to taxpayers on the so-called benefits of the fringe benefits tax and his comments on section 26 (e) he has been busily giving all the back room support that he can to the Government. Obviously, the Commissioner supports, for example, the capital gains tax, because he has been doing his best to cover the Government's tracks. If ever there were a case of ruling by decree, this is it. I give an example. On 3 October 1986 the Australian Financial Review reported: The Australian Taxation Office has conceded that a number of key sections of the Capital Gains Tax had unintended consequences . . . It went on: In instructions to staff, the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Trevor Boucher, has softened the literal interpretation of sections of the Capital Gains Tax. Who does the Commissioner think he is? What delusions of grandeur occupy him so that he thinks that he makes the laws, not the Parliament? He is even now giving advice on the basis of his own changes to the legislation. His letter to me of 11 November is a case in point. One of Australia's top tax experts has said that the capital gains tax applies in certain circumstances-which I put to the Tax Commissioner. He said otherwise on the basis of his personal amendments to the legislation. To cover his office's incompetence, the Taxation Commissioner is now endorsing the Government's claptrap about tax cheats. I particularly resent this attack on my constituents. If Mr Boucher wants to be in the debate, let him answer some of these questions on the fringe benefits tax mark 2. Let him justify publicly why we should all have to pay these new taxes to make up for the incompetencies of the Taxation Office. I ask: Are employers who provide Christmas parties for the children of their employees tax cheats? Are members of the clergy tax cheats? Are employers who pay funeral expenses for deceased employees tax cheats? Are school teachers, police officers and bank employees who have to live in remote areas in employer provided accommodation tax cheats? In respect of the capital gains tax, what is wrong with people who want to live on a block in excess of two hectares without having to pay capital gains tax? Why should people who leave home on a temporary basis, perhaps to wait in a queue to be admitted to one of the hospitals for which the Minister for Health is responsible, on their return home have to notify the Taxation Commissioner in writing so as to avoid having to pay capital gains tax on their family homes? Why should people who work from home have to pay capital gains tax on their family home and why are they tax cheats? Let us hear from Mr Boucher a bit more on the ID card. He said his piece this morning. He might also like to tell us whether or not he is in favour of the Opposition's proposal that people on the dole ought to do some community work in return because if ever there is a proposal that will put an end to a lot of the social security abuse, that is one. He might also like to tell us why his Office drew section 41 of the Australia Card Bill so widely that voluntary organisations which fail to require the production of cards from their members when repaying moneys lent to them will face fines of up to, not $20,000, but $100,000. The Treasurer at Question Time today came up with two general defences, plus his usual dose of abuse. His first defence was about computer delays. He said: `It was not our problem, we had trouble getting the equipment'. I refer the Treasurer to the very report we are discussing because it says that the Australian Taxation Office's past record in implementing new technologies has been deplorable. One only has to read the report to see through that defence by the Treasurer. His other defence was that one needs an Australia Card so that one can find the Smiths who live in Smithsville and the Bourkes who live in Bourke Street. That is utter rubbish. The Treasurer referred to the major recommendations in the report but when we look at it, what does it say-it says with or without the adoption of the Australia Card. The fact is that the essence of this proposal and what is in this report does not rely upon the introduction of an Australia Card. In fact, there is no necessity whatsoever for it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(3.43) —I am somewhat intrigued by the tactics of the Opposition this afternoon in coming in here, talking about a matter of public importance and having the audacity to talk about management incompetence, given its record in government. I ask honourable members which was the Government which gave us the $9.6 billion deficit? Have honourable members forgotten that? Which was the Government which produced double digit inflation in Australia? Which was the Government which produced double digit unemployment in Australia? Yet we have heard the same rhetoric this afternoon from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) with distortions and scare tactics, but that is just part of the overall scene of the Opposition at present. It has no policies, so it just resorts to scaremongering. Let us look at some of the questions raised in this matter of public importance-questions about allegations of oppression, cost and impracticability of the Australia Card. These allegations made by the Opposition are quite hypocritical. During the course of the remarks of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) this afternoon he touched on a number of comments that have been made in the past by Opposition spokesmen on the question of the Australia Card. I think they are worth while repeating. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), as the shadow Minister for Social Security, in June last year suggested that all cards should have a picture and a fingerprint. Yet honourable members opposite suggest in their matter of public importance that the measures that this Government are suggesting are oppressive. What could be more oppressive than suggesting that a person's fingerprint should be put on an Australia Card? Mr Hand —Who said that? Mr SIMMONS —The honourable member for Dawson. He is not alone. The honourable member for Gwydir, the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt)-a man renowned for his honest statements in recent times, who is renown for his comments particularly on country radio and in country Press-made this statement: I will be making representations to the Government strongly supporting this aspect of the White Paper . . . What was the aspect he was talking about? It was the consideration of a national identification system. Then we have the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The Leader of the Opposition made the point in an interview with Laurie Oakes on 15 September last year. In a very straightforward question Laurie Oakes asked: . . . where do you stand on the proposed ID card? The Leader of the Opposition gave this straightforward answer: I personally see some merit in having an ID card providing the civil liberties concerns that people have voiced can be looked after and provided the Government can satisfy the community that there is some cost benefit in it. I haven't gone overboard in supporting it but, as a matter of principle, I think there is some merit in giving it favourable consideration. That is a fairly definite statement by the Leader of the Opposition but as time has weathered, we find that he seems to be losing a few of these principles along the way. He is becoming the same sort of opportunist that he accused his predecessor of being before he replaced him as leader. Let us look at the question of costs. The government has said that in the first 10 years the cost of the introduction of the card will be $759m. The revenue will be $4.7 billion over the same period. The Opposition has raised concerns about costs. It is purely nonsensical to talk about considerations of cost when we have that sort of arithmetic. For every $1 that the Government is prepared to spend on the card, $5.37 will be returned in additional government revenue. According to my mathematics that is not a bad sort of proposition. What is the reason in the past that we have seen so many unclaimed group certificates? I had heard a figure mentioned that a couple of years ago there were some 250,000 unclaimed group certificates. I ask honourable members opposite why there are so many unclaimed group certificates. I will grant them that a number of those would not be collected because of the insignificant amounts concerned, but there is also a factor involved whereby people have been using the wrong identity and have been claiming smaller taxation deductions by filling in the income tax declaration certificate in ways that have been against the law. It is important that we ensure that this sort of practice stops. The Hawke Government, since its time in office in the last 3 1/2 years or so, has been undertaking the job of unwinding the tax mess that was inherited from the Fraser Government. We have heard about its record of taxation and its level of management competence during the period of time it was in government. We have heard about the bottom of the harbour schemes and about how it had to be bludgeoned into changing the laws because of the extent of public pressure on tax evasion. I am convinced that the same sort of thing is going to occur during the lead up to the debate on the Australia Card, particularly in the Senate, because the community is rightly offended by the fact that it is paying what it perceives to be high levels of tax to support tax cheats and welfare abuses. It is a cry one hears everywhere one goes. No wonder that the more honest people in the Opposition supported the question of an Australia Card a little over 12 months ago. They have now changed their tactics simply for purely political opportunism. Even National Party of Australia supporters seem to be somewhat disenchanted with their Party's performance in recent days. I had an interesting example in my electorate today. I have learnt that the National Party selected candidate in Calare today resigned, reportedly because of concern that he has had about the domination of political opportunism over principles within the coalition at present. I am wondering whether he is concerned, for example, about his Party's stance on the Australia Card. Only last Thursday he was sitting alongside his Leader, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), in the studios of 2BS Bathurst listening while the Leader of the National Party was rabbiting on about the Australia Card. This is what the Leader said: You're going to have a total record through computers as to where you've been, what you've been paid, where you've spent your money, what you've drawn money for, if you want to give a bit of money to the children, that goes on the computer-if you want to draw a bit of money for an investment, if you . . . decided that you want to buy a new motor car-it's a bit flasher than the last one-you will get that knock on the door saying `Hey there . . . why the devil are you buying a bigger car instead of a little one? Where did you get the money from that you are doing it?' and look, its really absolutely ridiculous. There are ways to overcome social security fraud. Of course there are. The way to overcome social security fraud is to support the Government's initiative on the Australia Card. In the context of what has happened in the central west of New South Wales today one cannot help thinking that perhaps during those remarks Lord Forres contemplated his Leader's nonsensical gibberish and was concerned that his party had abandoned principles. The record shows that the National Party has consistently supported the Australia Card. Honourable members in the chamber today are on the public record-on regional radio and television stations-as embracing the concept in April last year when I first proposed the concept of a national identification system. Mr Carlton —I didn't. Mr SIMMONS —To grant the honourable member for Mackellar his due, he has at least been consistent in his opposition to the Australia Card and for that I suppose he can take some sort of credit-misplaced credit, I might add. Nevertheless, at least he has been consistent, unlike many of the other people in his Party and in the National Party particularly. At the end of May this year the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card handed down its report. There were two reports, a majority report and a separate report by a dissenting minority of Committee members. But both reports were in strong support of a national form of identification. The form of this identification was the subject of a great deal of debate. Let us make no mistake; over the next few months there will be such enormous pressure, particularly in the National Party electorates, that people will probably have second thoughts. They will question the honourable member for Dawson, the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), the honourable member for Gwydir and the other National Party people as to what happened to their principles in light of their public statements made over 18 months ago in support of the card. This matter of public importance is absolutely nonsensical. The remarks of members of the Opposition in the debate indicated that their hearts were not really in the proposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The time for the discussion has concluded. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the tenth report for 1986 of the Committee, relating to the 132kV subtransmission development, east Tuggeranong, Australian Capital Territory, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —The Committee, in recommending construction of the 132kV subtransmission development at east Tuggeranong, Australian Capital Territory, has made the following recommendations and conclusions: 1. Due to the development of suburbs in east Tuggeranong an additional supply of electrical power is essential and there is a need for a zone substation at Theodore and associated subtransmission network. 2. The route of the 132kV subtransmission line from Gilmore to Theodore is satisfactory. 3. Measures will be taken to minimise the visual impact of the subtransmission line on the landscape. 4. The Theodore site is well suited for a zone substation to efficiently supply electricity to present and future consumers. 5. The zone substation area will be landscaped to minimise its visual impact. 6. The limit of cost estimate is $6.24m at March 1986 prices. I thank the House. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(3.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to implement a Government decision that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service should be amalgamated from 1 January 1987. Honourable members will be aware that the decision to amalgamate the two broadcasting organisations was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech. Accordingly, the Government sees the amalgamation as a Budget-related matter. Before dealing with the provisions of the Bill, I would wish to make some general points in respect of the objective to be achieved by this legislation. The decision to amalgamate the two broadcasting organisations was taken in the context of a difficult Budget and the conclusion that this country could no longer continue to afford to support two separately Budget-funded national broadcasting organisations. Nowhere else in the world are there two separate government supported national broadcasters and, indeed, there is widespread recognition of increasing difficulty in meeting the costs of such organisations totally from government budgets. The Government expects that there will be appreciable cost savings in the long term, and has in fact identified the objective of achieving some savings to the Budget in 1986-87. Having taken the decision to amalgamate the two organisations, the Government will ensure that it is done in a manner which will retain the strengths of the two existing organisations and combine them in a way which will serve to enhance the services provided through the national broadcasting service. In considering the legislation necessary to implement the amalgamation, the Government took advice from a steering committee chaired by the Secretary to my Department and chief executives of the ABC and SBS. The provisions outlined in the Bill are essentially those which have come to the Government from the steering committee. One of the threshold questions was whether to establish the amalgamated organisation under a totally new structure under a new Act. In the end result, the Government accepted the recommendation of the steering committee that the objective of an efficient and cost-effective amalgamation would best be achieved by seeking to amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act. Accordingly, the Bill seeks to reflect a broader responsibility of the ABC to cover the functions and responsibilities previously undertaken by the Special Broadcasting Service. I would wish to stress the Government's intention that there should be an amalgamation of the two organisations in the full sense of that word. From 1 January 1987 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will not only continue its previously established services, but will ensure continuation of a multicultural television service in those cities served by the SBS and an ethnic radio service in both Sydney and Melbourne through stations 2EA and 3EA. The amendments contained in the Bill will not add to the costs or revenues of the Commonwealth. It is expected that, in the long term, financial savings will accrue from the amalgamation. Such savings should occur in areas relating to rationalisation of accommodation, reduced overheads and economies in the area of program production and acquisition. Budget savings for the 1986-87 financial year have been estimated at $2m. The Bill provides for the amendment of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983. It also includes consequential amendments to the Broadcasting Act 1942, by omitting the provisions under which the Special Broadcasting Service is constituted, and to other Acts which make reference to the Special Broadcasting Service. A New Charter The responsibilities of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as a national broadcaster are embodied in the charter of the Corporation. Honourable members will be aware that the charter adopted for the Corporation in 1983 reflected recommendations arising from a comprehensive inquiry into broadcasting undertaken by a committee chaired by Mr Alex Dix. Whilst the present charter includes a recognition by the Corporation of the multicultural character of the Australian community, the Government believes that its objectives for the continuation by the Corporation of services currently provided by the Special Broadcasting Service should be reflected in the strengthening of some aspects of the charter. The strengthening of the charter is to achieve several purposes. Firstly, the Government recognises that ethnic radio and multicultural television add a unique element to the Australian broadcasting system. They constitute a recognition of the diversity of the Australian population, and provide practical as well as less tangible benefits to their audiences, such as information on services, educational programming and cultural and linguistic maintenance as well as other assistance. This is of particular importance to many people of non-English speaking background who may rely on these services as the only media accessible to them and, in some cases, for example, some new settlers and ethnic aged, their only contact with a community speaking their language or with the broader society. Educational programming has been an important ongoing responsibility of the ABC. In the same way the SBS has provided valuable educational programs for new settlers, including in helping them to learn English. Having regard to these valuable elements in the provision of multicultural broadcasting, the Bill includes amendments to the ABC charter which will require the ABC to: Provide multilingual radio and television programs; recognise the need to encourage people whose first language is not English to participate in the political, economic, social and cultural life of Australia; take account of the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and persons of diverse cultural backgrounds; cater for people from non-English speaking backgrounds when providing educational programs, particularly in facilitating the learning of English; and take into account Australia's cultural diversity when encouraging and promoting the musical, dramatic and other performing arts. Consultative Arrangements Another feature of the legislation which established the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was that there should be comprehensive arrangements for community consultation and advice to the Board of the Corporation on matters relating to broadcasting programs and television programs. Accordingly, provision was made to establish an advisory council known as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council. Provision was also made for the Board of the Corporation to establish advisory councils in relation to any State or to any Territory or in relation to any region of Australia. In the context of the amalgamation of the two broadcasting organisations, arrangements for consultation will be an important factor in ensuring that the services meet the requirements of the charter and the Government's intentions. The Government considers it essential therefore to ensure the participation in such advisory arrangements by representatives of the broad spectrum of the Australian community, including those who would seek to represent ethnic community interests. Accordingly, the Bill includes a requirement for the Board to recognise the diverse cultural background of the population and to ensure, as far as practicable, that membership of its advisory councils reflects a broad representation of the Australian community, including persons of non-English speaking backgrounds. I should add that this provision does not preclude the establishment by the Corporation of more specific consultation arrangements where such a need is recognised. For example, I understand that special consultation arrangements have been established in ethnic radio by the SBS to assist its determination of programming directions. I would expect that these sorts of ad hoc arrangements will continue as a means of recognising community interests in specific areas. Structure of the Board The broad oversight of policies and operations of both the ABC and the SBS are currently vested in statutorily appointed boards. The effect of the amalgamation will be to place the responsibility for those functions currently undertaken by the SBS within the responsibility of the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The Government takes the view that this substantial change would best be reflected by establishing a new board. Accordingly, the Bill provides for a board comprising a managing director, a staff-elected director and up to ten non-executive directors. This will result in a board slightly larger than the current Board of the ABC. It will also enable the membership of the Board to be strengthened to enable it to carry out the wider responsibilities it will assume in relation to ethnic broadcasting under the new structure. A further provision in the Bill will cause the appointments of all non-executive directors, that is, those directors other than the Managing Director, to cease to hold office on the day of amalgamation. New appointments will thus be necessary to form a new board from 1 January 1987. I have mentioned that the Board also will continue to include an office of staff-elected director. In establishing the Corporation in 1983, this Government took the step of ensuring that the interests of staff of the Corporation should be represented on the Board. Such a position was unique in Commonwealth legislation, but recognised the special nature of a body such as the ABC which relies so heavily on the creativity and participation of its staff in achieving its objectives. It is important to note, however, that the occupant of such a position needs to be seen by all staff as representing their interests. Accordingly, in amalgamating two organisations, the Government believes the opportunity should be provided for all the staff of the organisations to have a say in selecting their representative. The Bill includes, therefore, a provision that a new election is to be conducted as soon as practicable after amalgamation to allow a truly representative staff-elected director to join the new Board. To ensure the continuity of representation of staff interests, the Bill provides for the presently identified staff-elected director to remain until a new election is conducted. The Bill also provides for some consequential amendments to reflect the new Board structure. Such matters as quorum levels and provisions for convening of meetings are to be amended by the Bill to reflect the larger Board. Inquiry into Multicultural Broadcasting In 1984 the Government established a Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service. That Committee, chaired by the Hon. Xavier Connor, QC, provided a detailed report to the Government and proposed a considerable number of recommendations as to the future form and operation of the Special Broadcasting Service. Whilst the Government has now decided to take a different course to that recommended by the Committee as regards structural arrangements, it is important to note that very many of the recommendations put forward by the Connor Committee are being reflected in the operations of the Special Broadcasting Service and are proposed to be adopted by the ABC as an integral part of the amalgamation. For example, one of the recommendations of the inquiry was to strengthen the relationship between the then SBS and those services provided by public broadcasting stations. In recent years the Special Broadcasting Service has established comprehensive co-operative arrangements with public broadcasters for provision of programming and news material to public broadcasting stations around Australia. The Bill includes a specific provision for the Corporation to have regard to services provided by holders of public radio licences or public television licences, and establishes a principle that the Corporation may provide programs and services to such public licensees. The Government is committed to retaining and encouraging the continued development of this relationship with public broadcasters. Another related recommendation of the Connor inquiry accepted by the Government was for the organisation to develop a specific program package for distribution to public broadcasting stations. It was suggested that such a package should consist of national and international news, homeland bulletins, public affairs, settlement and other information, as well as programs in various languages, including English. It was suggested also that such material might be produced by a specialist program packaging unit within the broadcasting organisation. The Government continues to support such a proposition and will refer the specific recommendation to the new Board of the ABC to consider in the context of its new charter and responsibilities. At the time of its decision to amalgamate the two organisations, the Government had referred some 160 recommendations of the Connor report to the Special Broadcasting Service for decision. Many of those have already been adopted. Notwithstanding the amalgamation decision, the Government considers many of those original recommendations to be still appropriate and commendable. Accordingly, the new Board of the amalgamated organisation will be asked to consider implementation of a range of those recommendations and to report to the Government on progress. Annual Reporting The Government is conscious of the concerns expressed by ethnic community representatives that the ABC has not, in the past, given sufficient consideration to ethnic community needs. There are, of course, a number of protections in the Bill to stress the responsibility of the ABC to meet these needs. As a further measure, however, the Bill provides that the ABC is required to specifically include in its annual report to the Parliament particulars of programs in languages other than English and programs contributing to the development of a multicultural society which it has broadcast or televised during the year to which the report relates. By this means the performance of the organisation in respect of its new responsibilities will be clearly and demonstrably available for public scrutiny. Transfer of Staff An important provision of this Bill is for the movement of staff from the SBS to the ABC. It also reflects the requirement to provide protections for the interests of those staff. The Bill provides that all staff who are, immediately before the amalgamation day, employed by the Special Broadcasting Service, will become either officers or employees respectively of the ABC, depending on their status at the time of amalgamation. The Bill also provides a mechanism for ensuring that terms and conditions of employment of persons who are transferred to the ABC under these provisions are the same as those applying to them before amalgamation. There are, of course, specific provisions under the Public Service Act which offer further protections to staff who, until the amalgamation, have been covered by the Public Service Act. It is expected that the process of integrating the staff of the two organisations will take some time to complete after the amalgamation, but, in this process, there will be full consultation between management, staff and unions. I should also add that the SBS has been working for some time to achieve a permanent staffing structure for broadcasters and co-ordinators who work in radio stations 2EA and 3EA. I am pleased to say that those agreements which had been reached on a structure will carry over to the new organisation. Having dealt with the specific provisions of the Bill, I want to repeat to the House that the Government is committed to achieving a true amalgamation of the two organisations. It is not, as some would wish to suggest, simply absorbing the SBS into the existing operations of the ABC. I had indicated earlier that co-ordination arrangements have been established between my Department, the ABC and the SBS. In pursuance of those arrangements, agreement has already been reached on a new organisation structure to apply after the amalgamation. Under these arrangements, I understand that radio stations 2EA in Sydney and 3EA in Melbourne will be formed into a new division. With regard to television, the Chairman of the ABC has already announced the intention to continue in a clearly separate and identifiable way the television services presently provided by the SBS in parallel with ABC services. SBS television will become known as ABC-1, whereas the existing ABC television services will be known as ABC-2. The organisational arrangements I have mentioned will ensure the continued separate identity of these services within the ABC. The adoption by the new organisation of these arrangements should also enable the range and type of services that have been available until now from the SBS to be continued. Within these specific and separately identifiable elements the organisation will continue to provide multilingual news services on radio and be able to provide multilingual television news services. Indeed, there is a specific provision in the Bill to ensure the continuation of these services. Much has been said recently in discussing the pros and cons of amalgamating the two organisations, of the innovative approaches of the SBS in commissioning its programs and in its use of independent producers. Far from constraining such innovative practices, I believe that the amalgamation of the two organisations will promote more efficient and effective arrangements in the new national broadcaster. In addition to economies which will arise from sharing of facilities and accommodation, there will be much greater opportunity for joint purchasing and production of programming and greater complementarity between the services provided. This should ensure not only the continuation of multicultural programming and services to traditional audiences of the SBS, but also allow some proportion of such services to be available to a much wider audience through the extensive ABC network. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(4.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is a historic Bill because it provides the legislative framework for a major expansion of the Australian broadcasting system. Honourable members will know that Australians living in our mainland State capital cities already have, or in the case of Perth soon will have, a choice of three commercial television services as well as the two national channels. The five million people who live in regional Australia have, in the main, only one commercial service and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This is a situation that the Government is no longer prepared to accept; it is inequitable and discriminatory; moreover it is unnecessary. Accordingly, in 1984 I announced that the Government placed primary emphasis upon the need to extend regional services and to maximise diversity of choice. After a process of research, consultation and public debate we have now reached the point where we can begin to put flesh on the bones of that policy. In my statement to the Parliament of 20 May I set out three strategic goals the Government wants to achieve: Firstly, to provide services in most regional areas comparable to those in capital cities, that is equalisation; secondly, to create larger more viable markets in regional Australia through the process of aggregation; and, thirdly, to encourage competition. Equalisation After my Department's 1985 report on future options for the development of commercial television, two processes were identified for moving towards equalisation. The first process was direct aggregation, whereby existing markets, or service areas, were combined in order to provide a sufficient population base for three competitive services. The second process was to utilise a mechanism known as multi-channel services-MCS. This involved allowing existing regional operators to provide two extra non-competitive services in their existing markets. Honourable members will know that either approach necessarily involves structural change on a very large scale. They will also know that managing and financing this large expansion will impose considerable strains upon the regional commercial television licensees who will play the central role in achieving it. Accordingly, both concepts were exposed to wide industry and public debate. Regional commercial licensees represented by Regional Television Australia-RTA-and the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, FACTS, met with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), with me and with honourable members on the Government side on several occasions. Moreover, both individual licensees and a wide cross-section of interested parties have made submissions to me and my Department. Someone once remarked that in the race of life, one can always back self-interest as a starter. The media reports have often been colourful, but, in fact, there is no single view in the industry. Neither RTA nor FACTS reflects all licensees' views all of the time, and over the last few months in particular the industry has demonstrated a flexibility in debate which can only be admired. Interests which took one point of view in 1984, or even 1985, have adopted the opposing view in 1986; moreover they have argued for that view with all the fervour and zeal of the converted. In all of this, the Government has tried to remind the parties of the Government's strategic objectives, and particularly of its concern to encourage competitive markets. The Australian broadcasting industry has been heavily regulated and protected. We are not interested in perpetuating that protection if it works against the interests of regional viewers. As I announced on 20 May, the Government has decided to adopt the aggregation process and allow the licensees themselves to make the choice between proceeding directly to aggregation in enlarged markets or to provide multi-channel services-MCS-in the licensee's existing service area as an interim step before aggregation. It remains our view that aggregation is the preferred way in which larger and more soundly based competitive regional services can be developed to give regional viewers services like those currently available in the mainland capitals. Aggregation will unlock the competitive dynamism which regional commercial television, despite its many achievements, has so far lacked. Less ministerial involvement and government regulation is attached to the aggregation process than is the case with MCS. Moreover, aggregation represents, for the Government and the industry, one decision point, and, importantly, the decision is an industry decision. The scheme provided for in this Bill is, as far as possible, market driven. The Indicative Plan The Bill before the House provides the mechanisms for achieving the objectives I have outlined above and provides a framework within which the industry driven transition to aggregated competitive services in regional areas is to be achieved. This will result in regional viewers in approved markets having a level of service like that now enjoyed by their metropolitan counterparts. The Bill provides that the Minister is empowered to publish the equalisation of regional commercial television indicative plan. This is the basic strategic planning instrument for the equalisation scheme. The indicative plan will not be a complex document. Firstly, it will specify the regional licences to which the equalisation scheme is to apply. It does not cover Tasmania, however, as special provisions to cover Tasmania are set out in the Bill. Secondly, it will specify areas, to be known as approved markets, which are the expanded markets in which a number of identified licensees will eventually provide, between them, three competitive services. For most regional viewers in Australia this will be by 31 December 1996. The major means of achieving equalisation is by a process called aggregation. This will involve the expansion of a licensees service areas so that licensees who previously had monopolies in their service areas are brought to compete in expanded service areas-aggregation areas-against other licensees from their approved market. The indicative plan will specify the aggregation area for each licence. The indicative plan will also list pairs or groups of licences which are, under the Bill, eligible for consolidation into one licence. The indicative plan may also specify, as approved markets, regional areas in which there are only two existing licences. In these areas a third service would be provided by means of the issue of a new licence. The creation of this type of market provides some planning flexibility for the creation of new approved markets in future years. Regional licensees who are not specified in the indicative plan as being part of an approved market will be permitted, and encouraged, to adopt multi-channel services in order to provide additional services in their existing service areas. On 29 July this year I released a draft indicative plan for public comment. As a result of comments received, the structure of approved markets has been revised and substantially reworked. I expect to be able to table the plan next week. The essential criteria which will be applied in the determination of approved markets include community of interest, continuity, viability and, where possible, avoidance of overlap of State boundaries and time zones. The Bill also provides for variations to be made to the plan. The power of the Minister to vary the indicative plan is primarily to bring further regional licences into the equalisation process and to set new deadlines for aggregation for these licences in the new approved markets. The Minister cannot change arrangements already in place. In relation to approved markets set in the indicative plan I expect to table next week, the Bill will require that aggregation be completed by 31 December 1996. Where subsequently approved markets are created under a variation of the plan, a later deadline can be set for those new markets. Multi-Channel Services (MCS) The second mechanism for providing additional services to regional viewers is multi-channel services-MCS. In most approved markets, the licensees may elect, as an interim step, to provide additional services utilising these permits, in their original service areas, before proceeding to aggregation. Licensees in an approved market will have 28 days from the date of publication of the indicative plan to give the Minister notice whether they wish to proceed immediately towards aggregation or first to provide MCS services in their existing service areas before proceeding towards aggregation. Where a licensee in an approved market fails to give notice within 28 days, the licensee will be taken to have given notice of an election for aggregation. If all licensees within an approved market elect to provide MCS, the market will be taken as proceeding towards aggregation by way of MCS. If any one or more licensee elects to move to aggregation immediately, the approved market will move directly towards aggregation. This is what has become known as the one-in all-in rule. Implementation Plan After the Minister has given notice to licensees of the direction to be followed in an approved market, each licensee is required to submit an implementation plan to the Minister for approval. They have three months to do this. If the approved market is proceeding immediately towards aggregation, the implementation plan will set out the stages and timetable proposed by the licensee for the extension of services into the licensee's aggregation area. In the case of licensees utilising MCS, the implementation plan will set out the stages and timetable proposed by the licensee for the provision of MCS in the existing service area. The plan will also set out the stages and timetable proposed by the licensee for the subsequent extension of services into the licensee's aggregation area. A vital function of the implementation plan approval process is the co-ordination of the transition from MCS to aggregation in an approved market. Licensees in MCS markets may include, in their implementation plans, a proposed timetable for the transition to aggregation prior to the end of 1996. The process must, however, be complete by the aggregation completion date. Concern has been expressed that the powers in relation to implementation plans could be used so as to impose an unrealistically short period for the currency of MCS services before licensees are required to move to aggregation. I want to state that where licensees elect to use MCS services before proceeding to aggregation, the timing of the transition in the approved market would be based on their proposals rather than ministerial preference. This, of course, is subject to satisfactory completion of aggregation by the end of 1996. Further, some judgment will be required where the licensees proposed timetables vary substantially. The flexibility in the provisions allows licensees to put forward a transition timetable which best suits the circumstances of the particular approved market. In this way it allows the process to be market driven, as much as possible, within the constraints of the basic strategy. When considering a licensee's implementation plan the Minister will need to have regard to the implementation plans of other licensees within the market. This is particularly necessary in relation to the transition timetable from MCS to aggregation which must necessarily be co-ordinated for each approved market. As this co-ordination could involve considerable negotiation between licensees and the Minister, and between licensees, the Bill provides flexibility to the Minister as to how he might approach this task. If the Minister does not approve the licensee's implementation plan, the affected licensee concerned will be required to submit a second plan. Should the Minister not approve the second plan, the Bill outlines several options. The Minister may again refer the plan back to a licensee; he may refer the matter to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal-the ABT-for consideration and recommendation or, in the ultimate, he may determine the terms of the implementation plan that is to be applicable to the licensee. The Bill allows the first two processes to be used more than once; the ultimate power of the Minister to determine an implementation plan is clearly something that would only be used as a last resort. If a licensee fails altogether to submit an implementation plan, the Bill also permits the Minister to determine an appropriate implementation plan. The Minister may vary an implementation plan in certain circumstances. This may be on application by a licensee or on the Minister's own initiative. Before the Minister varies a licensee's implementation plan he is required to give each licensee in the approved market notice of any proposed variation and have regard to any subsequent representations made to him. Most importantly, an implementation plan cannot be varied to alter the period over which the MCS option can be used in the absence of consent from all licensees in the market. A feature of the MCS permit is that it is granted by the Minister whereas broadcasting licences are issued by the ABT. The Minister may grant an MCS permit consistent with the licensees implementation plan. An MCS permit may be granted for up to 12 months. Its relationship to the head licence is such that if the head licence is transferred to a new licensee then the MCS permit automatically transfers with it. MCS permits do not have separate proprietary interests attached to them. Should at any stage the head licence not be in force then the MCS also ceases. Licensees will be permitted to operate a maximum of two MCS permits in relation to a particular licence. MCS permits will be subject to the same broadcasting requirements as commercial licences. They will individually have to provide an adequate and comprehensive service to the service area and will be subject to the normal commercial programming constraints set out in Part IV of the current Broadcasting Act. This includes the requirement to comply with program standards. An additional requirement is that MCS permit holders will need to obtain ABT approval before they can regularly broadcast programs of the head licence or of another associated MCS permit-that is, it will not be possible for a licensee to simulcast without ABT approval. This requirement is based on an existing provision applicable to supplementary licences. Planning Obligations The planning obligations accepted by licensees and permit holders in approved markets are contained in the licensee's implementation plan. Licensees will be required to comply with their implementation plan as a condition of licence. The ABT will be able to refuse to renew a licence where the licensee has failed, to a significant degree, to comply with the licensee's implementation plan. This includes provision of MCS transmissions. The ABT will not, however, be able to refuse to renew a licence on this ground without seeking the Minister's views on the matter and without having regard to any representations that the Minister might make. The Bill provides for a licensee's performance under his implementation plan, with respect to both his licence and his MCS permits, to be investigated by the ABT at the time of the normal cyclical renewal of the head licence. The division of functions between the Minister on planning and the ABT on licensing is maintained by providing that the Minister's representations are necessary before the ABT can refuse to renew a licence on the grounds of non-compliance with the licensee's implementation plan. The same structure is provided for in the Bill with respect to the suspension and revocation of licences. Further, the ABT can, at its own initiative or on receipt of an application, recommend to the Minister that he revoke an MCS permit on the basis of the MCS permit holder's substantial failure to comply with his implementation plan. Programming The ABT role in relation to programming matters is basically unchanged with respect to licensees. In its simplest sense the process of aggregation only means an expanded service area. The Bill contains a new provision, however, which is designed to cover the licensee's obligation to provide an adequate and comprehensive service during the period when he is progressively expanding his service: (i) Into his aggregated service area in compliance with his implementation plan; or (ii) by the MCS process whereby he is extending the coverage of an MCS service in his service area in compliance with his implementation plan. In each of these situations the ABT is required to have regard to the implementation plan when considering whether the licensee has been providing an adequate and comprehensive service for the purpose of a licence renewal or suspension or revocation inquiry. This provision is intended to act as a protection to licensees. It ensures that they are not required to provide an adequate and comprehensive coverage immediately to the whole area but rather in accordance with the staged process set out in the implementation plan. Consolidation of Licences In order to allow for the creation of larger markets, the Bill will enable specified pairs of licences, at their option, to consolidate their licences into one licence. These pairs or groups of licences will be specifically identified in the indicative plan. Approved Markets with an Additional Licence The Bill includes a provision which could enable the granting of additional licences in some specified approved markets. The Bill provides that an approved market could be made up of two services, which may consist of pairs, with the third service being provided through the grant of a new additional licence. As decisions on the desirability of having a third new licence is made as a ministerial planning decision, the Bill will not allow the ABT to refuse to issue a licence on the basis of commercial viability of existing licences or because the Tribunal concludes that a licence of the nature called for by the Minister should not be issued. Special Provision Applicable in Tasmania The Bill makes special provisions concerning commercial television services in Tasmania. Currently both Tasmanian licences in Tasmania are controlled by the one company. It is the Government's intention that a new second service will be introduced as soon as possible in Tasmania. There are two ways to achieve this objective. Firstly, the existing licensee may sell one of the two licences to another operator whereupon each licence will have its service area expanded to include the service area of the other. Alternatively the existing two licences may be consolidated into one licence and another licence called for having the same service area as the consolidated licence. If another licence is called for, the Tribunal will not be able to refuse to issue a second licence on the basis of the commercial viability of the incumbent licensee, or on the grounds that it does not consider that another commercial television licence should be issued. Delegation The Bill includes a number of miscellaneous provisions including one which enables the Minister to delegate his powers in relation to licensees' implementation plans to officers of the Department. The relevant clause in the Bill is in standard form but I intend to issue directions to the effect that the power to refuse to approve of an implementation plan for a second time and all of the consequential powers provided for in the Bill be reserved to the Minister. Further, in cases where any objections are received to a proposed variation to an implementation plan, I will require that the final approval rest with me. Ownership and Control In regard to ownership and control, the Bill introduces a new constraint by providing that a person may not acquire a prescribed interest in more than one licence in a single approved market. This provision reaffirms the competitive objective underpinning the Bill. If problems arise between now and when the Bill is enacted in relation to attempted transfers of licences which would conflict with the `one to a market rule', the Government will have to consider introducing further amendments to remedy the situation. I should also point out that the Government has the so-called `two station rule' under consideration at the moment. In addition, my Department has recently prepared a report on the general ownership and control provisions of the Broadcasting Act. This report is also being considered by Government and major revisions to this area of the Broadcasting Act could well result. Supplementary Licences As I indicated in my statement of 20 May 1986, provisions relating to supplementary television licences will be repealed by way of this Bill, however, those relating to supplementary radio licences will be retained. Localism I briefly want to address some specific issues that have received some publicity. Among these issues has been the claim that aggregation will lead to loss of what is known as local content or localism. This claim needs to be put into perspective. Latest data available from the Tribunal indicates that over recent years local programming by regional stations runs at an industry average of about 7 per cent. Some stations are of course better than others. The vast majority of programs, however, are taken from the major networks. If localism is important to local viewers, and a inherent part of regional TV viewer preferences, the competition introduced by aggregation will encourage localism. It will ensure that the licensee/operator who fails to provide local content will suffer a loss of viewers with its attendant commercial consequences. Larger service areas provided through aggregation will also provide the opportunity for forward-looking licensees to expand and develop regional content to serve a range of population centres. Given the consequent need for additional production, service and sales staff in a wider range of cities and towns, this will not decrease employment opportunities, but increase them. Commercial Viability A second major point at issue has been the question of regional stations having their commercial viability adversely affected by aggregation. Historically, the regional stations have been highly profitable, with a low level of commercial debt and a high price/earnings ratio, compared to other industries. An independent consultant engaged by my Department has formed the opinion that with a modest 4 per cent per annum real increase in advertising revenue stations would be able to meet their commitments under the indicative plan. Financial Implications As an incentive to licensees to implement aggregation the Government has decided to exempt from sales tax ultra high frequency television transmitters purchased specifically for equalisation before 1991. It is estimated that the cost of revenue forgone by this provision will be approximately $13m in 1986 prices. Additionally, the Government has agreed to rebate a percentage of licence fees paid by licensees to the Commonwealth over the period required to implement aggregation. Expected revenue to be forgone is estimated at some $22m. The forgone revenue is likely to be made up, at least in part, by increases in licence fees arising from increases in revenue earned by licensees as a consequence of the equalisation policy. A co-ordinated capital works program is being undertaken to upgrade Commonwealth transmitting stations to accommodate equalisation and two other major programs, the ABC Second Regional Radio Network and clearance of Band II television channels. For equalisation alone, expenditure of $16m will be required on capital works over a six-year period. This will be offset, however, by the ongoing economic rents levied on licensees sharing Commonwealth transmitting stations. Total costs to the Commonwealth for equalisation are estimated to be of the order of $60m over the period until 1996. In concluding I wish to take the House back to November 1983, not long after this Government came to office, when I first spelled out our intentions in the area of broadcasting policy. I said then: The Government's primary concern is to see that radio and television services reach the people who want and need them. The day has long since passed when broadcasting services could be regarded as luxuries. Virtually all Australian homes have both radio and television, and people now regard the opportunity to choose between a range of services as their basic right. While we always have to be constrained by consideration of cost and good management, the Government's intention is to see that they get that choice. Those were not idle words. This legislation paves the way for a fundamental restructuring of Australian commercial television, and that restructuring is directed towards giving the five million Australians who live in regional areas a choice of programs. Almost three years to the day from my original speech on equalisation, I am proud to commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(4.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Consequential amendments are required to the Television Licence Fees Act to provide for the aggregation of revenue of existing licences and multi-channel services-permits for fee calculation purposes. The Bill also provides for the making of regulations to give effect to the Government's decision to allow a rebate on licence fees paid to the Commonwealth by licensees involved in aggregation as outlined in my second reading speech on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986. I commend the Bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate will be allowed covering this Bill and orders of the day Nos 6, 7 and 8. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(4.39) —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was discussing the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) and also giving special reference to the excise on petroleum products. I was really speaking in response to the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) who drew attention to fuel taxation and also to the inadequate funding for roads. Since the Hawke Government came to office in 1983 revenue from fuel excise has risen from $1.3 billion to $5.6 billion, or from about 6c a litre to 20c a litre. In effect, the Government intercepted the fall in the world oil price structure and, of course, overloaded the lower world price structure for oil with an additional tax. How does this affect the average motorist? I posed this question prior to lunch. I repeat that the average motorist, according to my research, consumes something like 1,884 litres of petrol per annum. Mr Brumby —Say it in gallons, Ralph. Mr HUNT —I will say it in litres because this is the way in which it is measured and how we pay for it. That results in an increase of $5 a week to the average Australian motorist. Mr Lloyd —How much? Mr HUNT —Five dollars a week since the Fraser Government went out of office. The Government has, through this additional excise, cost the average motorist $5 a week in consuming 1,884 litres of petrol per annum. The average Australian motorist who earns less than $355 a week-do not forget that the average weekly earnings is about $366 a week-is now paying $5 a week more for petrol on average due to the additional fuel excise which will wipe out, and is wiping out, the tax cut that all Australians are looking forward to on 1 December. It will cost the average farmer $13 a week more because 40 per cent of his fuel consumption happens to be petrol on which there is no rebatable excise. In effect it represents an additional loss to his net farm income of 10 per cent, costing the whole farm industry $119m per annum. What happened in West Germany? There the price of fuel to the consumer fell by 26 per cent. That is the latest figure-it could have fallen more. It fell by 29 per cent in the United States of America, but in Australia it fell at the retail level by only 12 per cent. So the revenue that has been received from fuel has resulted in the price of fuel to the consumer being forced up. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised in 1983 that there would be a reduction of 3c a litre on fuel. That did not happen. Through this legislation we will get a 3c a litre increase in fuel prices as a result of an increase in excise. The Federal revenue from petroleum is now over $7 billion, $5.6 billion of it coming from excise. I said before lunch that we need very badly a broader based consumption tax in this country. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) attempted to implement such a tax but went down the wrong track. He should have been looking more towards a value added tax which would have exempted those inputs. But he made the country less competitive on overseas markets by going down the track of a retail turnover type tax with a very high level of 12.5 per cent. Basically, in my view, he was on the right track. This must disturb the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) who has been a fighter for roads just as I was a fighter for roads. The honourable member for McMillan brought into the debate road funding and what we did or did not do for road funding when in government. I had the privilege and pride of introducing the Australian bicentennial road program which was based on a user pay type principle. It was an excellent principle. The Treasury fought it up hill and down dale because it was hypothecating revenue to particular purpose. How wrong Treasury is and was. There is a need for a user pay principle to fund roads. I give the Minister some credit for having taken on the bicentennial road program and for having built into road funding an extension of that principle. Since this Minister has been the Minister we have seen a drop from 2.12 per cent of Budget outlays for road funding-it was 2.12 per cent when he came into the portfolio-to 1.67 per cent of the total Budget. This has been largely due to a number of factors which I do not want to go into. There is justification for using fuel excise to fund roads, but there is no justification whatsoever to be taxing fuel to the extent that we are taxing it in this country. It must be reduced progressively or we will see a continuing burden imposed upon the export industries of this country at a time when we should be doing as much as we can to improve their competitiveness on world markets. That is absolutely fundamental. We cannot have it both ways. We have resolved that we will not subsidise our farmers. I would not advocate using production subsidies as they have proved to be a failure in the European Economic Community and the United States and they shield the farmers from the realities of the market-place. Having taken that decision there should also be a decision to relieve Government charges and taxes including the cost of tariffs, et cetera, as a direct cost to their inputs. I firmly believe that there has to be a total revision of the tax system in Australia once again. Mr Brumby —We just had it. Mr HUNT —The revision was not good enough. To my mind the most extraordinary thing at the National Taxation Summit was that $700 billion tax regime was not even on the agenda for discussion. The taxation on fuel is a very big component of Australia's tax regime. I give the Queensland Premier, a National Party Premier, some credit for having rejected taxation fuel as part of his tax raising mechanism. He recognised that in his State, with the long lines of communication, long distances to travel, the long distances to get goods from mines and properties to ports, transport cost happens to be a very substantial cost. Mr Conquest —Transport is the lifeblood. Mr HUNT —It is the lifeblood. If we go on taxing fuel to the extent that we are in this nation we will do a great disservice to those people engaged in those industries-whether they work in those industries or are actually deriving profit from them-and they will find it more difficult to hold their market share. This will be reflected in the standard of living of every Australian. It is outrageous. I will make a big song and dance about it everywhere I go because it is an outrage that the fuel excise is now costing the average motorist the tax cut that he will get on 1 December, the average motorist who earns on average $355 a week. For the Government to increase excise from 6c a litre to a little under 20c a litre will do a great disservice to the Australian motorist, and make it very difficult, because of high transportation costs, for those export industries to hold market share and to operate profitably. That is my appeal and not enough is said about it in this Parliament. We need to focus attention on it. I hope that the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) who will follow me in this debate will also add some weight to this view. He represents a rural constituency. He must have had pressure put on him. If he has not he has been living up a hollow log. The people who represent those constituencies have a very big responsibility to impose some pressure upon the parties of which they are members. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(4.50) —It is my pleasure to rise in support of the four Bills before the House-the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 and the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1986. These Bills cover an extremely wide ambit of government activity, as I am sure you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker. They range from measures to encourage the export of oil to measures which go in many ways to the heart of the Government's rural and economic policy statement which was made back in April, such as measures to reduce tariffs and duty on certain farm chemicals and machinery. They go to the question of petrol prices and also to the question of farm costs in an indirect way. The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 is an important Bill. Its purpose simply is to revise the excise duty rebate arrangements on exports and domestic free market sales of Bass Strait crude oil. It also makes some other minor adjustments and amendments to excise legislation. By way of background, crude oil which is produced in Bass Strait is sold under two methods. The majority of production is allocated under the crude oil allocation scheme, which requires refiners to take a certain amount of Australian crude. In turn, producers are required to supply that amount to the refiners. The domestic allocation from Bass Strait is approximately 350,000 barrels per day and is sold at the import parity price. That is an important point. Once producers have met their allocation under the allocation scheme they are permitted to export excess production or to sell it on the free domestic market at negotiated prices. This legislation introduces some new arrangements. Under these new arrangements the rate of excise on old oil from Bass Strait will vary with the price received. Under these new arrangements the rate of excise will vary on a sliding scale from 65 per cent for oil sold at $12.50 or less per barrel to 87 per cent for oil sold for in excess of $35 per barrel. Except for production from Fortescue, which exceeds 77,000 barrels per day, Bass Strait oil will be deemed to be old for free market sales. As a result of the excise changes, the level of exports has already begun to rise. That rise is measurable and quite appreciable. Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has recommenced exports. I have statistics here only up to August but they show that approximately 7.2 million barrels of oil valued at more than $200m have been exported in 1986. In its own way, as I have said, this is important legislation. Questions are often asked in this place about whether it is government policy to encourage the export of crude oil. Indeed, I am often asked that question in visits around my electorate by people who think that we should be retaining all of our oil for domestic consumption. The decision to allow the export of crude oil was taken in 1983. It was made only after a very detailed examination of all the issues and factors involved. A key consideration in the decision to allow exports was the incentive it would give to oil exploration in Australia, the impact it would have on government revenues and the contribution it would make to Australia's balance of payments performance. Some idea of the impact of oil exports on the balance of payments can be measured from the fact that during 1985 crude oil exports were valued at some $A1.6 billion. When we consider the existing balance of payments problem that Australia experiences, particularly in regard to the balance of trade and the prices we are getting for our traditional exports, it is crucial that we encourage the export, as far as possible and within those considerations I have outlined, of Australian crude oil because it is a very valuable export income earner for Australia at a time when we desperately need export income. If we begin with the assumption and policy that it is part of government programs to encourage the export of oil, the question often asked is whether allowing the export of crude oil is compatible or incompatible with Australia maintaining an acceptable level of petroleum self-sufficiency. In the Government's view it is quite compatible, on the one hand, to export oil and, on the other hand, to maintain an adequate level of oil self-sufficiency. When we examine the Government's decision to allow the export of oil and its impact on our level of oil self-sufficiency, it is necessary to place in perspective the amount of oil which is involved. Australia's export surplus from Bass Strait is anticipated to last only for the next few years. In total, it is not expected to exceed in volume terms an amount which is equal to about six months of Bass Strait production. So it is by no means considerable. The Government believes that its policy of allowing exports of crude oil which are surplus to domestic requirements represents a fair balance between the interests of the Australian community and the oil industry. It is an interest for the oil industry that must be adequately rewarded. The industry must also have the opportunity to market any oil discovered if it is to continue to invest in the risky business of oil exploration in Australia. All honourable members would appreciate that, if we expect companies to get into the high risk area of exploration, be it for oil, other minerals, gold, diamonds or whatever, there must be the opportunity of some income and profit at the end of that process. In that sense allowing those firms to export, particularly surplus production, and so increase their available revenue yields puts a bit of light at the end of the tunnel and encourages oil exploration in Australia. So that is a sensible policy and is compatible with meeting Australia's self-sufficiency in the petroleum area. The other matter which I wanted to touch on today was the fact that these Bills give effect to the 3c per litre increase in excise which was announced in the Federal Budget. I am sure that I could safely say that the Government did not take any pleasure in having to increase the excise on fuel in this Budget, but it is a measure which raised more than $600m. In the Budget context we started with a Budget deficit of about $6.7 billion. We wanted to get that down appreciably below the $4 billion mark. We cut spending to zero real growth, which has been done only twice before since the Second World War. Having done that, we were still looking at a Budget deficit of about the $5 billion mark. So it was necessary to increase some taxes. We looked at a whole range of taxes. We tried to increase taxes which would have a fair impact across the community. It was necessary to increase the excise on petrol by 3c per litre. The point has to be emphasised-it is a very important point-that, despite that increase, the total government revenue which we will be receiving this year from the petroleum sector will remain about the same as it was in 1985-86. So this increase is no more than preserving the status quo. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) talked at some length about petrol prices and the purported increases in petroleum excise that have occurred under this Government. If one looks at the revenue which governments have raised from petroleum products over the last six, seven or eight years, be it from oil levies or excise, the fact is that around 12 per cent of total government revenue is raised in this form; in other words, in taxes of one kind or another on oil or petroleum products. The situation under this Government has been no different from what it was under the previous Government. In other words, there has been no imbalance. There certainly has been no real increase, in terms of total Budget revenue, in this Government's reliance on petroleum taxes. It is incorrect and fallacious of the Opposition to argue that. Opposition members know, and the honourable member for Gwydir knows, because he has a genuine concern about the rural sector and about farmers, that under his Government in 1979-80 the index of fuel prices paid by farmers increased by a massive 40 per cent. That is much more than has ever occurred under this Government. We have not done that to farmers and we would not dream of doing so. The honourable member for Gwydir knows that in 1979-80 that occurred. In 1980-81 the figure was 21 per cent. There were massive increases in the price of fuel paid by farmers. That brings me to the broader question of farm costs. I mention that because petrol and petroleum prices constitute a significant element of farm costs. Let us compare our record with that of the Fraser-Howard Government. Our record is good. It is one of which Government members can be relatively proud. We can certainly say that during the period of the Fraser Government the average increase in farm costs was 13 per cent per annum. Under this Government the average increase in farm costs has been only around 6 per cent per annum. In other words, we have halved the rate of increase in farm costs. The honourable member who is about to call a quorum will realise that there is a guillitone on these debates. If he calls it I will talk for my full 20 minutes. (Quorum formed) Unfortunately it is not a broadcast day. I was pointing out that if those opposite persist in this sort of puerile behaviour in calling quorums, every Government speaker will speak for the full 20 minutes. That is a simple statement of fact. I was making the point that there were very rapid increases in petrol prices under the previous Government. In 1979-80 petrol prices-the index of fuel prices paid by farmers-increased by 40 per cent. That certainly has not occurred under this Government. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), as an objective person, would agree that under this Government we have managed to halve the rate of increase in farm costs from around the 13 per cent that occurred under the Fraser Government to the 6 per cent that has occurred under this Government. I am very pleased to say that this financial year, 1986-87, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics expects that the rate of increase in farm costs will be reduced to around 2 per cent or 3 per cent. These points are important because as far as the rural sector is concerned-I know this through representing a rural and provincial seat-there is enormous uncertainty among farmers and people in country towns and cities about what the real policies of the Opposition are or might be if they were ever to return to government. People in country areas are worried about a coalition government's possible exchange rate policy. They are very worried about what the inflation rate might be under a coalition government. They are extremely concerned about what they hear about flat tax proposals. They know that if a flat tax rate were introduced, as is being pushed by the New Right and the extreme right sections of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, that rate would have to be set at around 25 per cent. That would mean that 95 per cent of farmers would pay a much higher amount than they are at the moment. There are two specific measures in this legislation which I am very pleased to see being implemented. One is the decision which was announced in the Government's rural and economic policy statement in April to remove the 2 per cent revenue duty which applies on imported agricultural chemicals. This legislation puts effect to that. That measure will reduce the rate of increase in farm costs. That is what is important. It is an area in which our Government has a good record but we want to make it even better because we know that it is very difficult in the rural sector at the moment with the problem of declining rural incomes, particularly for people who produce wheat. This measure will reduce cost inputs. I have pleasure in supporting that. The more significant measure is our decision to replace tariffs on agricultural machinery with bounties. That is not an insignificant decision. It will cost this Government around $30m this year in outlays in a budgetary situation which all honourable members would agree is very difficult and where we have to keep spending to zero real growth in outlays. (Quorum formed) Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.10) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a delight to see you in the chair as I join in this cognate debate on the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 and the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986. These Bills cover a wide range and give me an opportunity to speak about the Government's excise policies. The remaining time available to me, after exposing the action of the Hawke socialist Government and the blatant robbery of the motorists of Australia, will give me the opportunity-- Mr Simmons —I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for Denison constantly makes reference to this Government using emotional trigger words. I was asked to withdraw a reference to the Howard fascist Opposition. I ask the honourable member to do the same. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Will the honourable member indicate which term he objects to? Mr Simmons —I find the term `Hawke socialist Government' objectionable when I cannot use the term `Howard fascist Opposition'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —While the honourable gentleman is objecting to the term, I think one has also to recognise that terms objected to are supposed to be unparliamentary terms. I find that the term which has been objected to in fact has not necessarily at any stage been considered by the Government side of the House to be an unparliamentary term. Mr Simmons —I make the point of order in the sense that when I used the term `Howard fascist Opposition' I was ruled out of order by the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable gentleman has to be very careful that he does not raise facetious points of order. I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —In view of the likely result in Calare at the next Federal election it is not surprising that the honourable member is a little bit twitchy. However, I want to expose today the blatant highway robbery of the Hawke socialist Government. Anybody who thinks that highway robbery went away when Dick Turpin was hanged is grossly mistaken because the highway robbery and bushranging of this bunch of latter day Ned Kellys-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison must be particularly careful, firstly that he remains relevant to the Bills and secondly that he watches his language and his aspersions. I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the excise of the Hawke socialist Government today which replaces the pistol of the bushranger and the highway robber of years ago. Mr Robert Brown —I raise a point of order. The honourable member has again referred to the Government as the Hawke socialist Government. I make it clear that the point I am making is not based upon any personal offence I feel as a result of the use of that term except that the term being used is incorrect. The Government appropriately could be identified as the Hawke Labor Government, the Hawke national Government or the Hawke Commonwealth Government. It is not and has never claimed to be appropriately described as the Hawke socialist Government for the purpose of identifying it as the national Government. I put it to you that the honourable member should withdraw that and should be required to refer to the Hawke Labor Government by its appropriate, correct and accepted title. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I assume that the Party on my left would not object to being called a conservative party. I would find it rather difficult at this stage to rule against the honourable member for Denison calling the Party in government, irrespective of what its title is, in descriptive terms a socialist government, and for that not to be reasonably accepted. Mr Robert Brown —Further to my point of order; I accept the legitimacy of the point you have just made. I raise this as an additional point of order in connection with the way in which the honourable member has been identifying the Hawke Government. While I am not personally offended by the use of the word `socialist' as that word would normally be defined, I am absolutely personally and deeply insulted by the use of that term by the honourable member who uses it as an insult. I take offence at that and I ask personally for you to rule that he be required to withdraw that insulting reference. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am not quite sure what the reference is that is insulting. Truly, the Chair is not certain what the insult is. Mr Robert Brown —The insult is that-- Mr Hodgman —I wish to speak to the point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Perhaps the honourable gentleman will withdraw the remark if there is somehow an intention of insulting- Mr Hodgman —I wish to be heard on the point of order. Madam Speaker has already ruled on it and Mr Speaker Jenkins has ruled on it. I have been saying it for three years. The honourable member has not previously objected to it and I will not withdraw it under any circumstances. Mr Robert Brown —I have become increasingly insulted by it until I have now reached the point where I am deeply offended by it. I am deeply offended by the effort of the honourable member to insult me and my colleagues by using a term which should be an honourable term but which is being used in a deliberately insulting way. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. I do not accept the point of order. Mr HODGMAN —This robbery inflicted upon the motorists of Australia makes the latter day highway robbers-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I have already asked him not to cast aspersions of that kind upon the Government. I ask him to withdraw that comment. Mr HODGMAN —I withdraw. It is no coincidence that we are debating these Bills the day after the anniversary of the hanging of Ned Kelly because I want to talk about what has happened to the motorists of Australia. I want to point out that when this wretched Government came to power, excise on fuel was $1.3 billion per annum. It has now gone up to $5.6 billion. Mr Robert Brown —With great respect, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is there a point of order? Mr Robert Brown —Yes. There is no reason why we should be required to continue to hear and to receive the insults being handed out by the honourable member. He referred to us as a `wretched Government'. This is an honourable Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Charlton will resume his seat. I ask the honourable member for Charlton to recognise that there is a standing order regarding facetious points of order. Mr Robert Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, with great respect, I assure you absolutely that my point of order was not facetious. I am offended by a reference to this Government as a `wretched Government'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. I am sure that there are many times when members in this House are offended by comments made by honourable members. I ask you to ensure that points of order that are made are not either frivolous or vexatious. Mr HODGMAN —When the Hawke socialist Government came to power, excise on petroleum products was 6c a litre and it has now rocketed to a staggering 24c a litre. This is an increased slug on the motorists of Australia of 336 per cent and it means that an average motorist who uses 1,884 litres of fuel in a year, pays an extra $5.07 a week in fuel excise tax than he did under the Fraser Government. It is no surprise that yesterday was the anniversary of the hanging of Ned Kelly. This Government will be hanged by the motorists of Australia because of its excise rip-off, because it has exploited and continued to exploit, because it broke its promise that it would cut the price of fuel and because unabashed and unashamed it inflicts 1986 Hawke highway robbery on an Australian motoring public which trusted and believed it and was fooled into voting for it back in 1983. It deserves to be hanged and it will be hanged-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.22) —I think it is a particularly tragic situation in Australian politics when people are conned, deceived into voting for a government on a clear promise only to find that promise dishonoured. I thought the old fashioned idea about truth and honesty still had some currency in Australian life and in Australian political life. In the lead up to the 1983 Federal election the honourable member for Blaxland, the present Treasurer (Mr Keating), actually told the people of Australia that if Mr Fraser got re-elected there would be a branch of the Australian Taxation Office at every petrol bowser in the country. A lot of people believed that. Then he and the new-found messiah, the honourable member for Wills, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) actually told the people of Australia that if the people voted for them the price of petrol would be cut. Mr Cobb —And what happened? Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member makes an interesting point. Not only has the price of petrol not been cut; it went up. But when in the rest of the world it started to come down it did not come down in Australia. I always believe in the law of gravity; that what goes up must come down. Mr Barry Jones —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr HODGMAN —This is another time wasting point of order. Mr Barry Jones —Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Denison is clearly speaking-as I would have loved to have the opportunity to do-to the previous Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) which has already been carried. The subject matter of the next item, with which we are now dealing, has nothing to do with the subject matter of his speech. I suggest that in the very limited time that honourable members have before the question is put on the second reading he give an opportunity to people who have something to say about the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). That is not the subject he is talking about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —I think there is a valid point. I ask the honourable member for Denison to speak to the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —I am indeed. I am astounded at the behaviour of the Minister. The Minister is a barrister at law. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will speak to the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, sir, I will. One of the great vices that the Government has perpetrated on this country is the vice of automatic indexation of excise. The Government has now perpetrated on the people of Australia a situation provided for in this legislation in which excise increases are automatically linked, would you believe, to the consumer price index. I note that there are one or two economists in the chamber. I ask: Where on earth did the Government get the basis for this? It means that automatically and by stealth the price of a packet of cigarettes rises with the CPI. The price of a beer in the pub rises with the CPI. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have not only taxed fringe benefits and taken the spirit out of Christmas for most Australians but also the ordinary Australian worker cannot now go into a pub and have a beer and buy a couple of packets of cigarettes unless he has a least a $20 note with him. Mr Barry Jones —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The purpose of this legislation is to introduce a new offence, the offence of bringing or attempting to bring or causing to be brought into Australia narcotic goods as defined in the principal Act. That has not much to do with what the honourable member is talking about. The Bill also ensures that the provisions of the Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901 give full effect to the Government's policy involving crude oil and liquefied petroleum gas by introducing provisions into these Acts to make it clear that all excisable crude oil and LPG are first to be entered for home consumption and duty paid before being entered for export. That has nothing to do with what the honourable member is talking about. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, the Minister is a barrister at law. He first took a point of order that I could not talk about excise on crude oil. He has just admitted that the second part of the Bill relates specifically to that. He has just referred to narcotics. I was talking about cigarettes. I was talking about automatic indexation. This, in a gagged debate with this Moscow oriented-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member has responded to the point of order. There is some merit in what the Minister said. I suggest that the honourable member continue his speech. Mr HODGMAN —But you give him one out of 10? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member continue his speech. Mr HODGMAN —I will continue. Because this debate is not being broadcast-- Mr Hollis —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Denison referred to this corner as Moscow oriented. I have never visited Moscow; I have nothing to do with Moscow. Mr HODGMAN —You do not have to; you just go to the Embassy. Mr Hollis —I ask that that and the statement about my being at the Embassy-I have never been at the Soviet Embassy in my life-be withdrawn because I find them personally offensive. Mr Reith —Another frivolous point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think quite a lot of frivolous points of order are arising. Mr Hollis —That is not a frivolous point of order. I have never been to the Soviet Embassy. Mr HODGMAN —Oh, come on, comrade. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would not classify the remarks as ones which would call for a withdrawal. Mr HODGMAN —Government members really are twitchy, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have said it before; I will say it again: If some of the people opposite get their way the Australian coat of arms will go. There will be a hammer and sickle over the top. All debates will be in Russian and we will be paid in roubles. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will return to the legislation before the House. Mr HODGMAN —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will. I now have two and a half minutes left to speak on this matter because this wretched Government has guillotined this legislation through the Parliament so that the representatives of the real people of Australia on this side of the House do not have the opportunity to speak. Pointless, frivolous points of order have been raised. In any decent country racing club honourable members opposite would be fined like jockeys for entering a frivolous protest. It is time wasting. Is it a question of whether you have been to the Soviet Embassy or they send your speeches over to you here at Parliament House? What is the difference? The short point that I make is that we have an excise mad government which is ripping off the people of Australia. As I said in an earlier debate, it is no coincidence that yesterday was the anniversary of the hanging of Ned Kelly. At petrol bowsers you are conducting greater highway robbery on the motorists of Australia than Ned Kelly ever did and you have the pistol in your hand but it is a pistol attached to a petrol pump and not- Mr Robert Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Denison is speaking through the Chair. He said: `You are ripping off the motoring public of Australia'. That is insulting to the Chair and he should be required to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see how Government members are scared that the truth will come out. The plain fact is that they are quivering because they have heard, as I have heard in the last 24 hours, that Mr Sorby, the new adviser to the Prime Minister, who is also very interested in this legislation, is urging the Government to go for an early election. Government members are starting to quiver at the possibility of a March election next year. The Ides of March will come very early. I mention it because of Mr Sorby's personal interest in this guillotined and gagged legislation which the Government will not let us debate. Does the Government expect the House to be a vacuum for the last 10 minutes on the legislation? It is a vacuum as far as the Government side of the chamber is concerned. Government members have taken points of order to prevent my bringing out the truth that they are ripping off the people of Australia-their robbery, their deception, their deceit and the lies they have told. They have ripped and ripped. Just as Kelly was hanged on 11 November, this Government is well on the way to its own hanging, each and every member of it, because of the legislation we are debating on the twelfth. Mr Deputy Speaker, at any second now, Moscow-like, you will be compelled by virtue of the motion that was moved in this House, by Gorbachev Young, the Special Minister of State-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The time allotted for the second reading stage of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.31) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 1, title, add ``and for related purposes''. (2) Clause 2, page 1, at the end of the clause add the following sub-clause: ``(3) Section 8a shall be deemed to have come into operation on 21 October 1986. ``(4) Sub-section 8b (1) shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 October 1983.''. (3) After clause 3, page 2, insert the following new clause: Entry of goods for export ``3a. Section 114 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end of paragraph (3) (a) `and Excise duty on which has not been paid'.''. (4) After clause 5, page 3, insert the following new clause: Special provisions with respect to narcotic goods ``5a. Section 233b of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting after paragraph (1) (a) the following paragraph: ``(aa) without reasonable excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon the person) brings, attempts to bring, or causes to be brought, into Australia any prohibited imports to which this section applies;''; (b) by inserting in paragraph (cb) ``, bring, or cause to be brought,'' after ``import''; (c) by inserting in paragraph (d) ``, or bringing,'' after ``importation''; and (d) by inserting in paragraph (e) ``, or bringing or intended bringing,'' after ``importation'' (second occurring).''. (5) After clause 8, page 3, insert the following new clauses: Entry for home consumption, &c. ``8a. Section 58 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting `Entries' and substituting `Subject to sub-section (2), entries'; and (b) by adding at the end the following sub-sections: `(2) Subject to sub-section (3), exciseable goods that are stabilized crude petroleum oil or liquefied petroleum gas shall not be entered for exportation unless and until the goods have been entered for home consumption. `(3) Sub-section (2) does not apply to exciseable goods that are- (a) stabilized crude petroleum oil obtained from prescribed petroleum within the meaning of section 5b of the Excise Tariff Act 1921; (b) liquefied petroleum gas obtained from unstabilized crude petroleum oil; or (c) liquefied petroleum gas obtained from naturally occurring petroleum gas, produced from the adjacent area in respect of the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands within the meaning of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967.'. Permission to deliver certain goods without entry ``8b. (1) Section 61c of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting after sub-section (1) the following sub-section: `(1a) A Collector may give permission in writing to a person specified in the permission to deliver for home consumption or to deliver for exportation from a place specified in the permission exciseable goods, being stabilized crude petroleum oil or liquefied petroleum gas, of a kind so specified that are subject to the control of the Customs, and, until the permission is revoked- (a) the permission is authority for that person to deliver for home consumption from that place goods of that kind that are subject to the control of the Customs (other than goods that a Collector has directed are not to be delivered for home consumption under this section) notwithstanding that an entry of the goods for home consumption has not been made and passed under this Act; and (b) the permission is authority for that person to deliver for exportation from that place goods of that kind that are subject to the control of the Customs (other than goods that a Collector has directed are not to be delivered for exportation under this section) notwithstanding that an entry of the goods for exportation has not been made and passed under this Act.'; (b) by inserting in sub-section (2) `or delivered for home consumption or exportation by authority of sub-section (1a)' after `sub-section (1)'; (c) by inserting in sub-section (3) `or (1a)' after `sub-section (1)'; (d) by inserting in sub-section (4) `or exportation' after `home consumption' (first occurring); (e) by inserting in sub-section (4) `or (1a), as the case requires,' after `sub-section (1)'; and (f) by inserting in paragraph (4) (b) `or exportation as the case requires.' after `home consumption'. ``(2) Permission given under sub-section 61c (1) of the Principal Act after the commencement of sub-section (1) and before the commencement of this sub-section in relation to goods referred to in sub-section 61c (1a) of the Principal Act as amended by sub-section (1) shall be taken to have been permission given under sub-section 61c (1a) of the Principal Act as so amended.''. The more important of the amendments which have been circulated are those intended to the Customs Act to close a possible gap in the law by making it clear that it is an offence to bring narcotics into Australia either as a transit passenger or otherwise. The amendments flow from legal advice indicating doubt as to the adequacy of existing law to ensure successful prosecution of persons who bring drugs into Australia when they are not intended for Australian consumption. As a result of the uncertain state of the law the Government acknowledges that there has been one instance where a person has not been prosecuted. That case involved a person in transit through Australia who allegedly was taking narcotics from India to Canada. The Government intends that in future such persons will be amenable to the full force of the law. It is our view that it is quite wrong and, indeed, contrary to our drug strategy, for in transit traffickers or couriers to avoid prosecution when the drugs they are carrying are not intended to be unloaded in Australia. This Government is committed to a positive attack against dealers in this shameful trade-dealers in the ultimate in human misery and degradation. We consider it most undesirable that legal controversy should arise over the laws to fight this drug menace in Australia. Consistent with other similar offence provisions in the Customs Act involving drugs, the offence proposed by these amendments exempts from liability persons who have a reasonable excuse for their conduct. As with other drug offences in the Act, the persons seeking to escape liability on the basis of an excuse must establish that excuse on the balance of probabilities. We make no apology for this, just as we make no apology for the severity of any other offence involving drugs. Finally, I should issue a firm warning that no person will in future be immune from prosecution in Australia if he or she engages in the distasteful trade in illicit narcotics. The other amendments, Nos 2, 3 and 5, are proposed to the Customs Act and Excise Act to make it clear that the provisions of those Acts give full effect to the government's policy involving crude oil and liquefied petroleum gas. In short, the amendments propose to make it clear that crude oil or LPG is not to be entered for exportation unless the goods have been first entered for home consumption and duty paid. Procedures which have been in operation for several years involving these products require all product produced to be entered for home consumption and duty paid. The Government's policy is that this procedure applies irrespective of subsequent exportation. If the product is subsequently exported, producers are then entitled to a rebate of the excise duty that was paid on entry for home consumption. Those rebates are currently specified in the excise regulations. I should point out that the provisions of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill, which the Committee is now considering, provide for a new fast track rebate system, the details of which have already been announced in the second reading speech. It is important to emphasise that because these amendments reflect current practice, they will not affect producers' liability for excise on their production of crude oil and LPG, including exports. The Government's policy on exports of crude oil has existed since the first approval for exports was announced in the 1983-84 Budget, while the most recent amendments were announced on 1 July 1986. That policy currently provides for concessional excise treatment of all `old' oil exports and domestic free market sales according to a sliding scale based on the price received by the producers, while the excise rate for free market sales of `new' oil is 35 per cent of the realised price. Finally, provision has been made for the amendments not to apply to crude oil and LPG production from the area known as Jabiru in the Northern Territory. This is for the reason that Jabiru production is proposed to be removed from excise control under the provisions of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 in accordance with the Government's resource rent tax policy. Financial Impact Statement The proposed amendments have no direct financial impact. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(5.36) —The amendments that have been moved by the Government will not be opposed. I would like to make a couple of points. It is very important that the procedures at the barrier in relation to people entering Australia be looked at, and be thoroughly policed. Many examples have been referred to over the years of abuses at the barrier. People in various areas have managed to escape apprehension. The case cited by the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones) is, I think, but one relating to some inadequacies. If people in transit are ineligible to this point to be prosecuted, the amendment that has been brought forward is timely and proper. If other matters that need to be tightened at the barrier are drawn to the attention of the Parliament, I am sure that the House would readily acquiesce to make those procedures tougher. On the question of export of oil, the explanation that has been given by the Minister will lengthen the process of government regulation quite markedly. Apparently, one must now enter oil that is to be exported as being for domestic use. One must then enter it for export and then, presumably, one must claim back one's duties. Yet a fast track system has been talked about. It seems to me that this is a fairly circuitous route in regard to points of entry. The Australian Customs Service recently brought about some entry procedures which allow access to the entry procedures by computer to people who are recognised by the Service, instead of there being only authorisations. That, in itself, is causing some concern. But I think in the longer term it will be the right approach. However, this particular procedure, as outlined by the Minister-and I emphasise that-strikes me as being very cumbersome. There must be a domestic entry, one must then enter for export, and then one can make a claim-fast track and all. It seems to me to be a great dose of bureaucracy. I urge the Minister to look at that procedure in view of the other types of fast track approaches that I have heard about in relation to access to entry in other areas. Mr Barry Jones —Do you think an honour system would work? Do you see an alternative mechanism? Mr MOORE —It strikes me that under this system one would have to enter things twice and then seek a rebate, which represents three steps, if one intends to export oil. There must be an intent when one produces it and stores it. Quite clearly, an entry for export at that point would be certainly far more efficient and less costly to the Service, the operators, and the shipping company, than the procedure that has been outlined by the Minister. The procedure he has outlined certainly does wonders for the volume of paper. There is no doubt about that. I do not know whether it will do anything for efficiency. I urge the Minister to have a look at it again to see whether the paper war can be reduced rather than increased, as would appear to be the case by way of this amendment. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(5.40) —Today I rise to speak about the section within this amendment that relates to making it illegal for a person transiting through Australia to carry narcotics. Members of the House would be aware of this anomaly that has existed in our laws for over the last 12 months or so. The anomaly has enabled certain people travelling through our ports, who have illegal drugs in their possession, to get away with having those drugs in their possession. This matter has been the subject of a great deal of debate by me in this House over nearly the last 12 months. It was first brought to the attention of the people of Australia in June last year when Mr Taillon, the person who was advantaged by this legislation, was allowed to go free, having been caught in possession of about $300,000 worth of narcotics. That was in June last year. In October last year, on the front pages of the Sunday newspapers, the Government promised an urgent review of the laws surrounding this issue to try to cover up this quite serious anomaly in our drug laws. That was seen to be a positive step forward; the Government was seen to be doing something to ensure that drug traffickers did not slip through our fingers. That was in October 1985 and nothing has happened since despite the promise of an urgent review. In this House I have asked two questions of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) about what has happened to the promised action about the Taillon case. Senator Sheil asked a question of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, about this matter. Numerous speeches have been made in this House both by me and the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), as to why the Government is not acting to overcome this quite serious and obvious anomaly in our laws. Despite all of this pressure, despite the fact that there have been articles in the major daily newspapers around the countryside, nothing has taken place until now-17 months since this anomaly was first brought to the Government's attention and some 13 months since it made headlines in the Sunday newspapers and we were promised an urgent review. It has taken all of that time for this amendment to be brought before the House. If it had not been for yet another severe attack made in a debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 on the Attorney-General's Department by the honourable member for North Sydney and me about the ability of the Attorney-General in administering his Department, I do not think this amendment would have been brought before the House at all. This amendment is long overdue even though it is a good one. It puts into question the Government's sincerity about its drug offensive. In April this year we saw the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) launch the drug offensive and he promised the people of Australia that tough new laws would be introduced to try to overcome the passage of drugs through the country and the sale of drugs in this country, to try to deter people from being involved in the drug trade. All of these things were promised but very little has been delivered. Certain promises relating to the introduction of telephone tapping powers have been made since the drug offensive was announced. We have seen lots of promises but no action. We were promised legislation that would enable the law enforcement agencies to trace the money streams to get to the Mr Bigs of the drug business. That was all talk, no action. Just last week we were promised legislation relating to designer drugs. I hope that that will be action instead of talk. All of this delay-words instead of action-brings into question the Government's sincerity about the drug offensive. I would have thought that if this Government were sincere about the drug offensive, if it wanted to do something to reduce the drug problem not only in Australia but around the world, this amendment would have been brought before the House at the beginning of this year and there would not have been this unnecessary and costly delay, a delay that has caused Australia, in the eyes of the rest of the world, to be seen as a country that is slack, that is easy on drug traffickers and that cannot be relied upon in the international fight against drug traffickers. Whilst I welcome the amendment I draw to the attention of the people of Australia the fact that it has taken 17 months for this legislation to be put before the House. I think that is an unacceptable delay; it is a disgrace upon this Government and it shows up the drug offensive in its true light. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments, and with an amended title; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(5.47) —In talking to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 I refer to a speech I made in the adjournment debate on 10 April 1986. I pointed out the problems the Australian printing industry was having in regard to the 20 per cent tariff on imported papers which are of a quality not available in Australia. I said then that we should reduce the tariff on that paper and bring in a bounty to assist the Australian manufacturers if it were desirable to increase our standard of paper. I see from the Schedule that books from overseas will be allowed into Australia duty free. We will find that the 20 per cent tariff on papers coming into Australia will be maintained and this is at a time when the quality of imported paper, which is so necessary for the precise printing that is required by many people today, is not available in Australia. At the same time we also see that the bounty on books is being reduced and this is a pity. I ask the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) to look at this matter and to give the reason why we have a situation in which Australian printers and their employees are being disadvantaged in the market-place because of the flow of printing and published material coming into Australia from other countries. As a result of this legislation Australian printers and their employees will be even further disadvantaged. We notice from the second reading speech of the Minister for Science that the new scheme that is being introduced will operate until 13 June 1989. The Minister said: This will enable the Government to consider assistance for the printing industry as a whole, following receipt of the Industries Assistance Commission's report on pulp, paper, paper products and printing due in February 1987. Can the Minister comment on the fact that perhaps there will be a two-year delay during which time the printers will have to wear the reduction in the bounty rate that had been provided to help make them more competitive? The bounty rate is being reduced. The 20 per cent tariff on high class stable paper that is required for colour printing will be maintained. However, books and published material will be able to come into Australia duty free as from the enactment of this legislation. I think it is a great pity that Australian printers and their employees are to be disadvantaged because this is one industry that has shown that employers and employees can work together. When technology took over in the printing industry, the unions and the management were able to come together. Demarcation disputes within the union were avoided. These groups worked well together and fought for their industry. I ask the Minister to have a look at this matter. Perhaps, if he cannot make any changes at this stage, he can take it back, have a close look at it, talk to the printing industry and the printing unions and try to correct the situation that will be brought about by these amendments. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.52) —in reply-I am certainly very conscious of the need to maintain a healthy printing industry in Australia. I note the points that were made by the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest). The honourable member argued that a 20 per cent tariff on imported paper should be replaced by a bounty. Paper is currently under review by the Industries Assistance Commission and the final report is due in February 1987. The Government will consider the whole assistance arrangements for paper production and printing in the context of the wider IAC report. Mr Conquest —These moves remain in place until 1989. Mr BARRY JONES —That is certainly the intention of the legislation. One great problem that we inherited with the economy was a tendency to do things in fits and starts. Previously people really never quite knew the assistance or the tax regime under which they were operating and things could change very dramatically. On the whole, when this Government makes decisions, we say: `This is the period intended-we do not propose to vary it during that period'. The final report of the IAC is due in February 1987. The draft report has already been circulated. What will then come out of that is a regime which should remain in force for an extended period. Of course, there will be an opportunity when Cabinet's response is brought in as legislation for the issues raised by the honourable member to be further considered. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(5.55) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 11, page 4, lines 35-40, omit all words after ``(11)'' (first occurring) to the end of the clause. (2) Clause 12, page 5, lines 3-8, omit all words after ``(11)'' (first occurring) to the end of the clause. The amendments that have been circulated in my name relate to the provisions in this Bill which give the Minister discretion not to register premises or shipbuilders if he feels that such a registration would not contribute to the orderly development of industry. We take this course because the Opposition feels that the principle by which a bureaucratic decision can be made to direct the development of industry is counter to the free working of the market. We put forward this principle in respect of the car plan. The ability of the Minister not to register premises for shipbuilding that would attract the bounty represents a very substantial protection to existing operators. At a time of shifting technology and of great change, where substantial capital investment is necessary, efficiency will come about only through competition within industry. It is very unlikely that a lot of the older and existing companies that do not have the will or the capital will make changes within their industry unless there are competitive pressures. The Opposition amendments are designed to delete the power of the Minister not to permit the registration of premises or shipbuilding areas on which bounty is payable. From personal experience I know that a lot of commercial enterprises have been subject over a period to many phases of development. When a significant technological change occurs within an industry-it does not matter whether the industry is concerned with cars, ships, shoes, suits or even glasses-it is not in the make-up of the management of some of the older established companies to make the decisions to go on because the family or the shareholders are unwilling to put up the money or are unwilling to change. Change is forced on the industry by the new people or the new interests who come into these fields with the new technology and with the adequate capital resources. This Bill gives a discretion to the Minister under what he calls the orderly development provisions of the Act to prevent the registration, the start up or the commencement of a new business within this area. We find that this does not act in the best interests of business. We believe it is not really in the best interests of industry as a whole to be subject to judgment by the bureaucracy through the Minister. In our opinion, the provisions would be best omitted in the interests of orderly development, to use the term in the legislation, and the betterment of industry within Australia. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.00) —The Government cannot accept the amendments moved by the Opposition. In this regard I direct honourable members to what was said in my second reading speech on the subject. I reiterate that the clauses in question, that is, clauses 11 and 12 in the Bill, are directed at further improving the efficiency and competitiveness of the Australian shipbuilding industry. The 1985 amendment to make all applicants for registration, which are not building a bountiable vessel on 11 October 1984, subject to orderly development criteria, has succeeded in ensuring that throughput in the industry has increased and that some economies of scale have been achieved. The provisions in this Bill to make all applicants for registration, whether they be new entrants or those seeking annual renewal of registration, subject to the orderly development criteria will ensure that these gains are built upon and not dissipated through industry fragmentation. In this context I would remind honourable members opposite that prior to the 1985 changes there were over 90 registered shipyards, most of which had only a very marginal commitment to the industry. The annual application of the orderly development criteria, as proposed in this Bill, will also be more equitable. It will accord all equal treatment rather than discriminating in favour of those shipbuilders who happen to be building a bountiable vessel on 11 October 1984. This said, given the concept of annual orderly development, as supported by the industry generally and by the Australian Shipbuilders Association in particular, and the monetary limits placed on this bounty, the Government is of the view that to allow unrestricted access to bounty is entirely inappropriate, and for that reason we cannot accept the amendments. Amendments negatived. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.02) —by leave-I move: (1) Schedule 2, page 19, after the proposed amendment to section 14 of the Bounty (Bed Sheeting) Act 1977, insert the following amendment: ``Paragraph 21 (b)- Omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraphs: `(b) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 10a (4) (a) approving payment of bounty; (ba) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 10a (4) (b) refusing to approve payment of bounty; (bb) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 10b (4) (a) approving a payment; (bc) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 10b (4) (b) refusing to approve a payment; (bd) a decision of the Comptroller-General for the purposes of sub-section 10c (4); (be) a decision of the Comptroller-General for the purposes of sub-section 10d (1);'.''. (2) Schedule 2, page 24, after the proposed amendment to sub-section 16 (2) of the Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Act 1983, insert the following amendment: ``Paragraph 23 (1) (b)- Omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraphs: `(b) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 11 (4) (a) approving payment of bounty; (ba) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 11 (4) (b) refusing to approve payment of bounty; (bb) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 11a (4) (a) approving a payment; (bc) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 11a (4) (b) refusing to approve a payment; (bd) a decision of the Comptroller-General for the purposes of sub-section 11b (4); (be) a decision of the Comptroller-General for the purposes of sub-section 11c (1);'.''. (3) Schedule 2, page 29, after the proposed amendment to section 15 of the Bounty (Paper) Act 1979, insert the following amendment: ``Paragraph 22 (b)- Omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraphs: `(b) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 11 (4) (a) approving payment of bounty; (ba) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 11 (4) (b) refusing to approve payment of bounty; (bb) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 11a (4) (a) approving a payment; (bc) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 11a (4) (b) refusing to approve a payment; (bd) a decision of the Comptroller-General for the purposes of sub-section 11b (4); (be) a decision of the Comptroller-General for the purposes of sub-section 11c (1);'.''. (4) Schedule 2, page 34, after the proposed amendment to sub-section 14 (2) of the Bounty (Printed Fabrics) Act 1981, insert the following amendment: ``Paragraph 21 (d)- Omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraphs: `(d) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 10 (4) (a) approving payment of bounty; (da) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 10 (4) (b) refusing to approve payment of bounty; (db) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 10a (4) (a) approving a payment; (dc) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 10a (4) (b) refusing to approve a payment; (dd) a decision of the Comptroller-General for the purposes of sub-section 10b (4); (de) a decision of the Comptroller-General for the purposes of sub-section 10c (1);'.''. (5) Schedule 2, page 38, before the proposed amendment to paragraph 27 (3) (b) of the Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Act 1983, insert the following amendment: ``Paragraph 24 (1) (b)- Omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraphs: `(b) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 12 (4) (a) approving payment of bounty; (ba) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 12 (4) (b) refusing to approve payment of bounty; (bb) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 12a (4) (a) approving a payment; (bc) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 12a (4) (b) refusing to approve a payment; (bd) a decision of the Comptroller-General for the purposes of sub-section 12b (4); (be) a decision of the Comptroller-General for the purposes of sub-section 12c (1);'.''. (6) Schedule 2, page 42, after the proposed amendment to sub-section 14 (2) of the Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act 1981, insert the following amendment: ``Paragraph 21 (d)- Omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraphs: `(d) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 10 (4) (a) approving payment of bounty; (da) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 10 (4) (b) refusing to approve payment of bounty; (db) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 10a (4) (a) approving a payment; (dc) a decision of the Comptroller-General under paragraph 10a (4) (b) refusing to approve a payment; (dd) a decision of the Comptroller-General for the purposes of sub-section 10b (4); (de) a decision of the Comptroller-General for the purposes of sub-section 10c (1);'.''. The Bill includes amendments modernising provisions in six of the older bounty Acts relating to the submissions of claims, variation or adjustment of inadequate or excessive claims, investigating provision and overpayment and recovery mechanisms. By an oversight the modernising amendments omit from Schedule 2 provisions for an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to the decisions of the Comptroller-General concerning the provisions I have mentioned. Since such an appeal already exists in the six Acts concerned, the Bill would have the unintentional effect of detracting from that right. The amendments will correct the inadvertent admission and preserve the review ability of these important administrative decisions. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(6.04) —The amendments are acceptable to the Opposition insofar as they correct an oversight to the Bounty Acts. We were talking before about fast track, and this sounds to me a bit like a fast track to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Amendments agreed to. Bill as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(6.05) —The answer given by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), in response to the amendment relating to orderly development criteria, seemed to me to be rather curious because he referred to the amendment as giving an access to bounty. Surely access to bounty in a competitive sense would be good for the industry. The amount of bounty is limited in the Bill. It is an amount. No one keeps on doling it out because the Bill has said that it is a precise amount. Because of the industry fragmentation that concept would fall to the ground through competition because there is only so much bounty that can be got and the industry is in competition for it. We see the improvements coming to the shipping industry not through restrictions in terms of entry, as is proposed in this Bill. That is why we moved our amendments and I thought that the Minister's response about access to bounty was rather quaint. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. (Quorum formed) Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) concurrently with the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2). There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(6.10) —I support the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3), the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2). I will confine my remarks to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3). Despite rather strict budgetary constraints this Government is maintaining its deep commitments to the education sector. It is committed to a return to growth in the tertiary education sector. It is committed to providing more places to giving young people the opportunity to reach their full educational potential and to providing the skills levels in the work force essential for economic development. When this Government came to office in 1983, tertiary education had been sadly neglected. Higher education funding levels had decreased each year between 1979 and 1982 and little effort had been made to increase the opportunities for people traditionally unrepresented in tertiary education to gain access to our colleges and universities. This Government came to office with a strong commitment to the tertiary education sector, determined to return funding to a level that would accommodate growth and broaden access to tertiary education. That the Government is achieving these objectives is evidenced by the level of funding that is being provided to the education sector, and the increase in the number of places available in the higher education sector. For instance, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report for the 1985-87 triennium, volume 4, states that additional intakes to higher education have risen from between 1,750 and 2,250 in 1986, and will further increase from between 2,700 and 3,300 in 1987. The report goes on to say that this increase, which will result in some 7,500 extra places by 1989, is a significant response by the Government to the increasing demand for places in Australia's higher education institutions, and will allow further progress to be made in expanding opportunities in areas of greatest need. As outlined in the second reading speech, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, seeks to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission reports for the 1985-87 triennium. The report makes recommendations on the distribution of additional funds for universities, colleges of advanced education, and institutes of tertiary education for 1986 and 1987, on the Commonwealth's contribution to technical and further education systems for 1987, and seeks the appropriation of an additional $414.7m. The appropriation contains much that is joyful, but I must confess that there are a couple of omissions which disappoint me. Particularly disappointing is the fact that there is no provision for a new workshop for automotive engineering at Cessnock Technical and Further Education College. A new workshop has been No. 1 priority on the region's major works list for some years. However, this year Cessnock TAFE's priority was relegated to No. 5 position after the State Government manipulated the priorities. Cessnock TAFE needs desperately half a million dollars to carry out vital works. It would be a tragedy should the Cessnock automotive engineering section have to close given that the Hunter regional office of the Apprenticeship Council informs me that jobs for motor mechanics in the Cessnock area are abundant and indeed vacancies cannot be filled. The situation at Cessnock TAFE is intolerable and must be addressed. Another grizzle of mine is the possibility that the education of all medical radiation technologists may be centralised at the Cumberland College of Health Sciences. This centralisation would mean the phasing out of existing courses at the Newcastle College of Advanced Education and at the Riverina Murray Institute. Such a development would be crazy and impossible to justify on either educational or cost-effective grounds. I am well aware that we are in a period of financial restraint and I do not intend to present a giant shopping list. However, I would be failing in my duty if I were not to point out that the Singleton College of Technical and Further Education is also in need of capital funding. Singleton has problems with its automotive workshop and as well, needs a simulated industrial experience area for metal fabrication and welding. The Singleton TAFE College also needs an extended main store and it pains me greatly to confess that the college has been operating fashion and secretarial courses in demountable buildings for a period of 16 years. It is about time that a realistic level of funding flowed Singleton's way. However, that is my last grizzle and I want to now emphasise some of the major achievements of this Government in providing higher education for the people of the Hunter Valley. In Metford, the Maitland College of Technical and Further Education has a beautiful new college nearing completion. The Government has spent somewhere in the vicinity of $11m on this new college and I am very pleased that the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, will officially open the new college in April next year. Although it is in the electorate of my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), I am delighted that the Government has continued to provide substantial funding for additional improvements at the Kurri Kurri TAFE College. Mr Robert Brown —But Eric Fitzgibbon has given me and Stan Reilly great support in achieving these improvements. Mr FITZGIBBON —Kurri is close to both of us. Of particular interest to me is the grant contained in Schedule 20 to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, grants for building projects at technical and further education institutions. Under this Schedule is a grant of $1,238,000 for the C.B. Alexander Agricultural College at Tocal in the Hunter Valley. The project is listed as `additions and conversions for farming courses' with a grant of $826,000 in 1987 and a further $412,000 in 1988. The grant will permit extensions to the college which will lead to upgrading the quality of existing courses through additional library space, computing teaching facilities and laboratory and demonstration space. The grant will also allow for the expansion in the number and range of home study and short courses for the rural community. The college is to be redeveloped to meet the growing needs of the agricultural community for courses in farm management practices. The redevelopment is designed to accommodate 140 students, comprising 80 additional facilities and 60 replacement facilities. The C.B. Alexander Agricultural College was established in 1955 by the Presbyterian Church and transferred to the State in 1970 under the umbrella of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture. The goals of the College are to help people prepare for careers on the land, and to help farmers and others in the rural community to meet their educational needs. One might ask that given the downturn in our agricultural sector whether there is a demand for the courses the college offers. The sharp answer to that question is a very definite yes. The number of full time students and part time students such as farmers undertaking either home study courses or short term courses at all our agricultural colleges has increased dramatically despite the downturn in agriculture. These people recognise that if we are to see a revival in our agricultural industry they need to be aware of trends leading to economic gain. It is vitally important that the industry keep up with the latest technology, including the use of computers for farm business management and the latest trends in farming practices. The C. B. Alexander Agricultural College, under the very able stewardship of principal Dr John Drinan, is able to offer a range of courses that will result in enormous benefit to those in the agricultural industry. This year, 69 full time students were enrolled in the one-year course for the Tocal certificate of agriculture. This course is open to people who are at least 16 years of age and who have completed year 10. Tocal, and its sister college, the Murrumbidgee Agricultural College, and various technical colleges, are the only institutions which offer vocationally oriented agriculture courses to people of this age in New South Wales. Forty-one students were enrolled this year in the advanced certificate of agriculture. This particular course is available for students who have completed certificate level agriculture education, or who have gained several years of farm experience. These two very significant courses are distinguished by their strong practical emphasis. Students are sent out to work on various farms to gain first-hand experience and to put their knowledge to good use. I have spoken in this House on previous occasions about the renowned Hunter Valley dairy industry. To meet a need in this field of farming, the C. B. Alexander College offers a certificate course in dairying. This is a three-year part time course and 39 students were enrolled in the course during 1986. The course is open to people who are at least 15 years old and who have completed year 9, and who are apprenticed to dairy farmers. This very successful course was introduced into Tocal and several technical colleges in 1980 and reaches young people who probably would not otherwise have undertaken formal agricultural education. It is attractive because it trains on the job and its success has encouraged the development of a farm trades course which is expected to commence in the near future. Of particular significance are the courses offered to all adults in farm management and farm office management. The farm management course, which saw 334 students enrolled in 1986, is a two-year home study course, and the farm office course, which had 210 students enrolled this year, is a one-year home study course. These home study courses began in 1970 and have been extremely successful in providing farmers with relevant courses in farm business management and agricultural technology. They reach farmers in their own homes, to be done at times when it is convenient to them. In a changing agricultural environment, no longer is it safe or sensible to follow farming methods just because one's father or grandfather followed those methods, or planted certain crops. Most farmers realise that things have changed and are continuing to change and they must move with the times if we are to have a strong and viable agricultural industry. To meet particular needs of farmers and others in the rural community, Tocal college offers a range of short courses from one day's duration to three weeks encompassing activities such as field days, seminars, workshops, conferences and the like. I am very pleased that this Government has allocated substantial funding to the C. B. Alexander College in my electorate. By upgrading and improving the quality of courses offered at Tocal and providing additional much needed premises, longheld objectives of the college will be achieved. In the words of Dr Drinan: `The new facilities will be a great asset to the rural community in helping it through present difficulties, and helping it to be better equipped to face the continuing forces of change in the future'. I congratulate the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) on the outstanding contribution she has made to education, particularly during these times of budgetary constraint. I would also like to congratulate and thank Dr Drinan, Miss Marcia Wilson, Mr Len Cusack, Mr Alec Armstrong and their staffs for the valuable contribution they are making to higher education in the Hunter Valley. I commend these Bills to the House. Sitting suspended from 6.25 to 8 p.m. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(8.00) —After the suspension of the sitting for dinner the House has now resumed this cognate and guillotined debate on three important pieces of education legislation; namely, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3), the States Grants (Education Assistance- Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2). This package of legislation entails funding and other government decisions which range across the entire gamut of education. They deal with school funding and the educational programs to be found in our Australian schools. They deal with technical and further education funding and training programs to be found in our TAFE colleges. They deal with higher education funding, including funding for universities and colleges and also assistance for students. First, I want to turn to the tertiary education assistance legislation and, using the broadest brush possible, I will say that the future of the world in the twenty-first century will be decided between the highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled and highly motivated societies and all the rest. All of us in this chamber and in the other place would want Australia, our nation, to be in that first group of countries. Against that background this Government's approach to education is jeopardising our future as a nation because the Hawke Labor Government is presiding over the collapse of tertiary education. Our TAFE colleges are struggling to train adequately existing students while being forced to turn away potential students by the thousand. I noticed a report in yesterday's Melbourne Herald which mentioned that 15,000 young Australians had been turned away from TAFE colleges in Victoria this year. I repeat that 15,000 young Australians were denied a place in TAFE colleges in one State alone. As the Opposition spokesman on education and youth affairs matters it is my lot to travel around the country. I can tell honourable members first hand that there is not a TAFE principal in Australia to whom I have spoken who does not talk about the unmet demand, the number of students that he or she could admit into the colleges if those principals were allowed and, importantly, if they had the resources. In higher education the situation is no better. Honourable members do not have to take my word for it. The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee and the Australian College of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education have estimated that between 9,000 and 14,000 qualified high school students are missing out on a place this year in our universities and colleges. The vice-chancellors, directors and principals of our institutes and colleges have said that their estimate was and is conservative. The crisis of capacity in higher education and TAFE is being matched by the crisis of technology. The college directors and principals surveyed said that 54 per cent of equipment in advanced education is obsolete with a further 10 per cent unserviceable. Universities fair little better. Eighteen per cent of their equipment is obsolete and 16 per cent is unserviceable. Again, most of the facilities and equipment we are using to train tomorrows doctors, scientists, engineers, technicians and so on is out of date. State of the art technology for many of our students is something they are shown on a slide or in a book. This technology crisis inhibits particularly applied research at post-graduate level and is contributing to the brain drain of academics and researchers from Australia to technologically greener pastures overseas. Once again honourable members need not take my word for it. They need refer only to a recent speech by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) which was reported in the West Australian newspaper of Tuesday, 4 November. He is quoted as saying that about one fifth of all important equipment in Australia and higher education research institutions is unserviceable, obsolete or inadequate and that its replacement or upgrading is beyond the capabilities of the institutions. I accept that there is a measure of bipartisanship on this matter. We should all be immensely concerned about this state of affairs. Nothing could be more destructive of our nation's interests and our need to increase the stock of human capital and thereby give Australia a fighting chance in the world markets for manufactured products and technology. We on this side of the House in the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia see the poverty of technology in education and the flood still of some of our very best brains to academic and commercially rewarding posts overseas as a serious problem jeopardising Australia's future. It is a disgrace that this problem is being given insufficient attention and, indeed, by some of the Government is being treated with disinterest and nonchalance. There are three points I wish to make while addressing the first Bill in the package. First, the problems of capacity, the forced rationing of student places and outdated and outmoded equipment will persist so long as the Government insists on a public monopoly of higher education in Australia. Funding restrictions imposed on institutions deny those institutions the opportunity to maximise their resources by drawing on non-government sources of finance. This in turn is reflected in the crisis of capacity, equipment and morale in higher education. A major injection of money is needed if higher education is to perform at its optimum level. In the current economic circumstances it is abundantly clear that this money will not come from government. It cannot come from the present Government and it is unlikely that it will come from any government in the foreseeable future. It is reprehensible that the Government is not prepared to allow institutions greater flexibility in their revenue-raising activities. As an example, this Government's ideological opposition to the Bond university, despite support voiced by the AVCC and the involvement of the senior Queensland educational administrators in its council, is reactionary dogma at its worst. It will only impede the development of non-government universities. Secondly, while discussing this Bill, it is a source of great concern on this side of the House that the $250 tertiary fee that we discussed a fortnight ago, semantically described by the Government as an administration charge, has thrown a large air of uncertainty into student enrolments and institutional planning. When we debated the $250 fee, as I said a couple of weeks ago, attention was drawn to the strong concerns expressed by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee and others. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in its response to the guidelines of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) voiced concern that the charge will have a severe impact on part time and external enrolments especially in advanced education and will have a disproportionate impact on certain course areas. The Commission said that the charge will have a serious impact on participation and equity, the subject of another of the pieces of legislation in the package, and further raise the possibility of undesirable outcomes which will need corrective measures. I repeat now, as I repeated earlier, that the Liberal and National parties would not have imposed this inequitable measure and that there is full recognition, inarticulate and unvoiced by many on that side of the Parliament, of the anomalies of this fee. I say to the Government, as the Opposition allows the passage of its Budget, that it should look to these anomalies and that the very least it can do in the Senate is to enact some reforms that will reduce, if not eliminate, those anomalies which will be experienced by part time and external students especially. The third point I want to make about this Bill is that it provides $4m to assist TAFE with equipment and facilities for the traineeship scheme. We all know-it has been the subject of much debate in this Parliament and outside-that the Australian traineeship scheme was to have placed 10,000 trainees by June of this year. To date there have been fewer than 2,500 of which 120, or a miserable 4.8 per cent, are in the private sector. The mishandling by the Government of this promising scheme, the concept of which has our support, and its failure to stand up to union opposition to the trainee income or wage element are a disgrace. I welcome in this legislation the belated decision to provide some additional funding to help TAFE cope with the demands of training young people under this scheme. I could make the same comments when I turn to the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2). Last year a Bill of this same name gave effect to the Government's decision announced in the May 1985 economic statement to spread funds previously allocated for PEP-as we shorthandedly refer to the participation and equity program-for 1986 over the two years 1986 and 1987. The 1985 decisions represented a reduction in the amount previously legislated for PEP for 1986 by $38.462m. When we debated that Bill last year-the criticisms are still valid this year-we said that this Government has its priorities wrong. It is failing to extend educational and training assistance to young people and instead persists with the continuation of its individually corrupting, socially damaging and economically unproductive employment benefits system. I now turn to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and I firstly address the widespread changes to the specific purpose programs. In this area we can clearly see the Government's misplaced priorities-once again misplaced and wrong priorities-and its lack of strategic vision. Planning throughout schools and systems has been thrown into confusion and doubt by these sudden ill considered changes. This Government has a propensity for forgetting worthwhile and worthy objectives in the educational area. I was fascinated, mind-boggled almost, to hear the Minister recently promote an inquiry into the pre-service education of the teaching profession and express concern at current standards of teaching. The complete termination of the professional development program and the forced closure soon of many education centres have seriously undermined efforts to improve the quality of the teaching profession and, in turn, raise the quality of classroom education. It is a classic example from the Minister of `physician heal thyself'. Other positive programs like computer education and multicultural education have been closed down. I specifically draw attention to the importance of increasing the familiarity of young Australians with computer technology if we are to adapt to the information revolution in a post-industrial society. Perhaps the most regressive step of all is the savage cuts to the English as a second language program. ESL, like most of these specific purpose programs, has a few teething difficulties still to be ironed out. That is not to be denied. These have been adequately covered in the QERC report-the Quality of Education Review Committee-and the Schools Commission papers, especially that entitled `Bridging the Language Gap'. It is interesting to note in passing that after 18 months the Government has still not responded to the QERC report. However, even while we are still awaiting the national languages policy from the Minister, the Government has decided to cut the ESL general support element by 44 per cent. Mr Staples —We waited for it for a long time from you. Mr SHACK —This decision, which the honourable member for Jagajaga understands as well as I do, jeopardises the educational prospects of thousands of migrant children. I would warrant that there are more in the electorate of the honourable member than in mine. It jeopardises the educational prospects of thousands of migrant children and it will lead to the sacking of hundreds of ESL teachers. It is an illogical and ill considered move which has justifiably drawn condemnation from the entire ethnic community in Australia. It is totally inappropriate for the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, to suggest that the ESL cuts can be overcome by transferring funds from other programs and by training so-called mainstream teachers to replace specialist language teachers. This sort of comment shows the Government lacks a clear understanding and appreciation of the skills required to train young people from non-English speaking backgrounds in the English language. The Government's attack on the ESL program flies directly in the face of the 1985 Campbell report, the report of the Committee of Review of the Adult Migrant Education Program, which called for systematic ESL tuition by specialist teachers. In addition, the Government is also ignoring the findings of the QERC report, which reported that mainstream teachers simply do not accept responsibility for the language development of students from non-English speaking backgrounds. Unless appropriate tuition and support are provided for those young people who are not native speakers of English, their learning potential could be destroyed. The Liberal and National parties introduced the ESL program and we continue to support its objectives and applaud its achievements. I cite the fact that the Government has its priorities wrong. It is the Opposition's view that people living in this country should be able to enjoy an environment which allows them the opportunity to achieve their individual potential. They should have equality of access to the highest possible levels of education in order to enable them to participate in a competitive society and to share the responsibilities and benefits of our nation. The Minister for Education stands condemned by her own admission that ESL funds were cut only as a result of economic necessity and not from any education strategy or vision. It is little wonder that teachers and ethnic communities around Australia feel betrayed by a government which claimed to have a mandate to create a fairer and more equitable society. I understand that the Minister has now tried to divorce herself from that decision affecting her own portfolio. On 26 October she told students in Marrickville: I am upset and annoyed by the cuts to ESL. Senator Richardson, that most candid of individuals-the numbers man for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and a born again environmentalist-went even further last weekend in his notorious speech to the New South Wales Australian Labor Party State Conference. Perhaps you were there, Mr Deputy Speaker, and perhaps you heard him when he honestly and forthrightly said, when referring to the ESL program: If I sat down for a month and tried to work out how to offend and how best to hurt them-- `them' meaning the ethnic community- I would have cut back the English as a second language program. Senator Richardson continued: That decision was not only bad politics-- I interpose but even more importantly, even to put politics to one side, even to exclude it from this debate- It was wrong in principle and wrong in implementation. I have no doubt that others who will follow me in this debate from the other side know what I say and what Senator Richardson said to be true. In the second reading stage of this legislation I foreshadow that I will be moving on behalf of the Opposition an in principle amendment seeking to restore funding to the ESL program. The other feature of this legislation dealing with schools is the continuation of the hostility of the Minister for Education to non-government schools. The Minister has a long record of hostility to non-government schools. Honourable members will remember her infamous hit list of so-called wealthy schools which she wanted to cut-off from Commonwealth assistance. It was only the intervention of the Prime Minister which saved the political day for the Government. The Minister's intention represented her full frontal attack on the non-government school sector and, as I have said, aroused so much community anger that the Prime Minister was forced to step in, override his Minister and find an acceptable compromise to hose down the raging political bushfire. Mr Free —Oh brother! Mr SHACK —Honourable members opposite might have short memories about that. They might not have attended the meetings in New South Wales, in Sydney. They might not have attended the meetings at Bendigo and in Melbourne, but I remind them that other memories in the community are not so short when it comes to Senator Ryan's hostility to the non-government school sector. Government members can forget about trying to label this as a debate between rich and poor schools because when we talk about the majority of the non-government school sector we are talking about many impoverished schools typified by asphalt playgrounds, large class sizes, iron-framed desks and the like. What we are seeing now, Mr Deputy Speaker-I am sure you understand it-is less of an attempt to wipe-out the forest overnight but a concentrated strategy nevertheless to choke off growth and burn it off slowly starting at the fringe and working in. This legislation is a continuation of that strategy. Last year the Government overturned the long held principle that every school student in Australia is entitled to a basic financial grant from the Commonwealth. The basic grant was killed stone dead when 21 new non-government schools out of the 52 which applied were denied funding by the Minister-a 40 per cent rejection rate. Each of those new non-government schools had been fully accredited by State education authorities and had satisfied all requirements but Senator Ryan denied them one cent-denied the schools, denied the parental community and denied the children at those schools one cent of Commonwealth assistance. That decision was unwarranted. It is condemned in the wider community and it is totally abhorrent to the Australian tradition and ethic of fairness. It was an ideologically motivated measure and in a similar vein this Government in this legislation is continuing to impose the most complex and intrusive accountability requirement on non-government schools which still manage to receive Commonwealth assistance. The provisions contained in the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) we are now partially discussing extend this intrusive process even further. Bureaucratic controls are extended by requiring non-government schools and systems, if requested, to hand over original documents for perusal by any person the Minister cares to appoint as an `authorised person'. The requirement to hand over original documents is extraordinary and unprecedented and the only rational explanation for this amendment is that the Minister and the Government do not believe what non-government schools are telling them. That is a disgraceful attitude from any government. Mr Howe —It is public money. Mr SHACK —To pick up the Minister's interjection, I note that no such requirement is made for any other group which receives Commonwealth money. It certainly does not apply to trade unions given grants for artists in residence, for muralists and for story-tellers. It does not apply to peace groups, environmentalists and the like funded under various programs. Why single out only the non-government school sector for such unwarranted bureaucratic surveillance? If the Government is worried about accountability, there are two forms of accountability: It can pursue this intrusive control type of accountability or it can conduct an audit after the event. There is no worry-there never has been any worry-with accredited non-government schools in ensuring the proper expenditure and the accountability for that expenditure of public moneys. There is no disagreement between us about ensuring that public moneys are spent properly and legitimately. This sort of accountability is in the name of intrusion and control, not audit. I again indicate that in the second reading stage of the legislation I will move an in-principle amendment that requests, as we requested last year, that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to delete, to scrap this unjustified and unnecessary measure. Time is running out. The attitude of the Hawke Government towards non-government schools reflects the traditional democratic socialist paranoia and distrust of any independent cultural, political, economic or social institution. In fact, the most abhorrent of totalitarian societies do not have any; they get rid of them because of the paranoiac distrust of some barrier between the all-powerful state and the individual. One does not find independent cultural, social or economic organisations in totalitarian societies. To go down this route is to go in that direction. As a member of the Centre Left faction of this hybrid Government Senator Ryan supports the socialist belief that ideas must be changed if the Government's ideology is to be implemented without provoking widespread political backlash. This Government has the basic view of the education system that it is primarily an instrument for social change. It is only natural that Senator Ryan wants to impose uniformity in schools. As a democratic socialist it is only natural that she will demand standardised form and substance and that the focus be on limiting diversity, choice and independence of thought, undermining so-called bourgeois notions of excellence, achievement and reward. Few parents will ever forget-I point again to the long memories in the community-that gem of ministerial comment when the Minister said that she did not like the `pursuit of excellence' because it had elitist overtones. This is one of the greatest contradictions of this Government's overall strategies. Our Prime Minister in his address to the nation in June, called upon the deified sporting and other heroes of our times and exhorted our manufacturing sector to become industrialised trade versions of Deek, John, Ben and Joan. He called for a pursuit of excellence in our activities in the work place. Yet at the formative stage where young Australians gain many of their central values and attitudes, excellence is being discouraged, competition is being denigrated and individual achievement is a secondary priority to social change. We should have no false illusions in this matter. If we want Australia to succeed in a competitive world, to produce commercial and industrial Deeks and Joans, major changes are necessary in the classroom. They are necessary in our TAFE colleges, they are necessary in our universities and they are necessary in our institutes of technology. I started my comments by referring to this broad brush picture: The future of the world will be a contest between the highly educated, highly trained and highly motivated nations and all the rest. While this Government continues to pursue the economic policies that it pursues, limiting our education across the board, downplaying excellence and achievement, it is selling this generation short. It is ensuring that in the twenty-first century we will continue to be in a non-competitive position. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(8.31) —The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) is not a bad bloke, when it is all boiled down. I can understand some of the things he is saying, as shadow spokesman for education. He was not really responsible for the mess with which his predecessors left him. I can see that that must be quite a burden for him. Nonetheless, in his speech he clearly seemed to be able to avoid responsibility for the mess that his Party left from its time in government. That is no more evident than in the area of tertiary education. I would like to address most of my comments this evening to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986, which deals with expenditure in the area of tertiary education. It is a Bill that appropriates $414.7m. It deals with recurrent grants for higher education institutions in 1986-87, and also provides adjustments, for cost increases, to the grants which were provided under the 1984 Act, to the tune of about $89m in retrospective cost supplementation. That is an initiative of this Government. It is something that his Party, when it was in government, did not care to do. I will return to that point later. It also provides $305.7m for technical and further education in the 1987 education year. Much of that will be spent on new programs, equipment and minor works to assist TAFE institutions, particularly in areas associated with the Australian traineeship system. I think it is important also to recognise the role of the Commonwealth, which provides only about 30 per cent of funding for TAFE. The remainder, of course, comes from State governments. In regard to tertiary education, in the last couple of days the report of the Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education has been presented to the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) by the Chairman of that committee of inquiry, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Mr Hugh Hudson. I recommend this report to all members and senators and, indeed, the community in general, as being very important reading. It is a very important document, not only because of the very valuable consolidated information included in it, but also because of the recommendations that it makes in regard to Australia's future in higher education. One of the problems that I find with the document is that basically it covers the period from 1975 to 1985-that decade of higher education out of which we have just moved. Its words and tables treat many areas, as perhaps it should, as aggregates. The true picture cannot be shown as an aggregate, but the honourable member for Tangney tried to present it in that way. One can understand why he did so, when one looks at the figures that I will refer to later. Over that 10 years, total government spending on universities and colleges remained virtually unchanged in real terms, although 100,000 extra students, an increase of about one-third, flooded into the institutions. In fact, the institutions had to do more with less. As a result, operating grants per full time student declined by about 8 per cent and student-staff ratios deteriorated by about 11 per cent. Public sector funding of higher education as a proportion of gross domestic product doubled in the decade to 1975. Most of that increase occurred during the Whitlam years. But the figure then fell by more than a third in the following 10 years. The honourable member for Tangney mentioned equipment grants. Over the 10 years from 1975 to 1985 they did not increase in real terms, despite the substantially larger student load. I could go on. Let us remember that in that period the number of universities increased by only one. Because of the Fraser razor gang initiative of amalgamation of colleges of advanced education, the number of colleges was slashed from 81 to 45. As I said, when one looks at the aggregate figures on a year by year basis and on a government by government basis, from the final year of the Whitlam Government, through the Fraser years and into the early years of the Hawke Government, from 1983 to 1987, we see a very different picture. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables which I have shown to the shadow spokesman. They relate to funds for higher education and student places in higher education. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- HIGHER EDUCATION (Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education) 1. Funds for Higher Education ($'000) (constant est. Dec '85 price levels) 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total ... 2,254 2,228 2,197 2,181 2,192 2,214 2,280 2,322 2,382 Change on previous year (%) ... -1.2 -1.2 -1.4 -0.7 0.5 1.0 3.0 1.8 2.6 Source: Department of Education 2. Student Places in Higher Education (thousands) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total ... 249.3 252.3 255.5 263.1 270.3 278.0 288.9 299.9 Change on Previous Year (%) ... 0.2 1.2 1.3 3.0 2.7 2.8 3.9 3.8 Source: Department of Education Mr STAPLES —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. (Quorum formed) I will refer to higher education funding over those 10 years. During the last Liberal triennium of higher education funding, when the Opposition was in power, it cut expenditure in higher education in real terms by 3.7 per cent. In the first triennium of the Hawke Labor Government, real funding in higher education has been increased by 7.6 per cent. Let us turn to capital expenditure. We have heard about the rundown buildings and the rundown equipment. The Liberal-National Party Government cut capital funding by 73 per cent. It is no wonder that the kids could not get into higher education. It is no wonder that there were waiting lists of people who could not get into TAFE colleges. The previous Government cut funding by 73 per cent in the 1978-82 triennium. From 1983 to 1987 the Labor Government has increased funding by 43 per cent at a time when it has cut the deficit. The Opposition cannot match that and that increase in higher education and in funding for student places is right across the board. In 1978 to 1982 under the Liberal-National Party Government the number of increases in student places in higher education in Australia rose by a mere 3.3 per cent. From 1983 to 1987 under this Hawke Labor Government the number of student places has risen by 14 per cent. The number of new places that were created under the Liberal-National Party Government-the Party which the honourable member for Tangney represents-increased by only 8,100. Under this Government, a government that cares about higher education and education generally for the young people of Australia, the number has increased by 36,800. That is more than four times the increase of the similar period under the previous Government, and this was achieved at a time of cutting government expenditure overall. That is a real record and is something of which to be proud. It is not something to denigrate as the Opposition spokesman on education did in his opening comments and which the Opposition will continue to do. I agree with the honourable member for Tangney when he described the role of education and his desire to see Australians developing through higher education. He said that the Government was presiding over the collapse of higher education. We are fixing up the rusty ship in which the people whom the honourable member represents let holes develop. We are plugging up those holes and making higher education ship shape again. We will get more people into higher education and more people to the gate of universities. Can honourable members imagine what the situation would have been like if we had continued down the path of reduced capital expenditure and very meagre increases in student places while more and more people were crammed into suitable premises? We hear talk on the other side of the House of what the Opposition would do and what the problem is but we have not heard any of its policies, any of its programs, anything about the dollars which it would spend on higher education or schools. The Opposition says that it would cut the deficit and cut government expenditure but it has not done anything and it has given no reason why it has not done anything. The Opposition talks about the $250 fee. It is common knowledge that it would introduce full tuition fees. It would not worry about a mere $250; it would go the whole hog. I challenge any Opposition speaker to state to honourable members and the people of Australia that the Opposition would not introduce full tuition fees in higher education in this country. Honourable members opposite will not deny it; they are deadly silent on the $250 fee. The honourable member for Bennelong, the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-we on this side hope he is the Leader of the Opposition for a long time-said on the John Laws radio program that he is quite comfortable with the $250 fee. There is a gap because the honourable member for Tangney has just criticised it and yet his current leader has said that he is quite comfortable with it. Let me move on to private institutions and private universities. The Opposition thinks they are the answer. What is the answer? We used to put lakes around housing developments; the Oppositions now wants to put universities around them. We used to have marinas; we now have Bondy's university and Tokyu. All it is is public money going to property developers. Opposition members are not education developers; they are property developers. More public money is going into Bond and the Tokyu giants profits. That is what the Opposition is after. The figures speak for themselves. The record of this Government speaks for itself just as the record of the former government speaks clearly for itself today. Let us not look at the aggregates; let us look at the year by year figures. Let us look at the figures that are provided for the years when the Opposition was in government and the years when this Hawke Labor Government has been in power, and it will continue to be in power for quite a long time to come. It is with great pleasure, indeed pride, that I commend the legislation to the House. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(8.45) —I rise to address the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3), the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) on the premise that education, its administration and financial planning are very similar to a business. Both business and education have people, facilities, equipment, a hierarchy of management, routines, aims and goals. But unlike business, the education system offers a product which is intangible and imprecise in nature. The business community uses its net profits as a measure of effectiveness while schools have difficulty in measuring their product because of the ongoing nature of the education process. Yet despite this ambiguity, companies and the education system have much in common. Both face the challenge of making work productive and meeting the challenge of keeping up with the structural readjustments occurring in our economy and society generally. Business, however, can plough back its profits into making its structure more competitive and cost efficient while the education field has no such profit orientation or propensity. Our educators on the tertiary level must rely on the State and Federal governments to provide funding and this in turn depends on who sits on the treasury bench here in Canberra. It is interesting to note how political bias affects funding provided to States purporting a different political power base from that of the Commonwealth Government. In 1971, when university funding was a State responsibility, more Queenslanders, as a percentage of the 15 to 29 age group, attended universities than students in any other State. Yet today, under Commonwealth funding, fewer Queenslanders per head of population are able to attend Queensland's universities than students in any other State. Queensland has 16.5 per cent of the total population of the six Australian States. But in 1985-86 Queensland was allocated 14.4 per cent of the Commonwealth funds for universities, 15.6 per cent of Commonwealth funds for colleges of advanced education and only 12.4 per cent of Commonwealth funds for technical and further education. Needless to say, if Queensland were to receive Commonwealth funding based on its 16.5 per cent population factor, it would have to receive an additional allocation of over $37m for all of its tertiary institutions. If the allocation of funds had been based on the proportion of under 25-year-olds, the figure would have been higher. Last year well over 34,000 potential students applied to the Queensland tertiary admissions centre for acceptance to a Queensland tertiary institution. Of these 34,000 almost 20,000 failed to gain a place by the end of March of this year. Queensland needs an additional 6,000 places just to keep up with the demand and to bring the participation rate up to that of the national average. We, as a State, are facing further problems because we have more students completing year 12 on a population basis than any other State. It is small wonder serious discussions are occurring within Queensland about establishing a privately funded university on the Gold Coast. Mr Peter Fisher —An answer to this guy over here. Mr McVEIGH —We know that the socialists always hate private enterprise; it could get on with the job of providing education to Queensland students, an education denied to them by the socialists here. Surely they can learn from the results of the Queensland election. The Queensland people told the socialists what they thought of them. They annihilated them. Mr Peter Fisher —Some 58 per cent of them. Mr McVEIGH —On a two-party preferred basis the Queensland National Party obtained 56 per cent of the vote. Quite obviously, that entitles it to be the democratically elected government of the State. If honourable members recall my analogy of the education system closely paralleling business it is not surprising for an enterprising individual to understand the potential market for a private institution of learning. I am heartened by the remarks by my colleague the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) who, as a free enterprise person, understands that people are being denied education. He fully supports the action of private enterprise in overcoming the neglect of the Hawke-Keating Government and endeavouring to provide education at tertiary level to Queensland. Of course, we will take some students from other States if they want to come to Queensland and have access to top quality educational opportunities. We are living in times when economic strategies are calling for a massive increase in the proportion of skilled and highly trained labour in our work force. Yet, the decision to decrease real funding and to impose an administration fee will have increasingly serious consequences for the longer term health of the Australian economy. Mr Deputy Speaker, it was depressing for us, and I presume for you to have heard the previous speaker, the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), say that the sum of $250 was paltry. He just does not understand that $250 is a very large sum to an enormous number of students. I am just disappointed that National Party of Australia members have to point out, on behalf of the coalition, the fact that $250 is a big sum to a student who has never had the opportunity of working. Yet, members of the Australian Labor Party, the people who in ordinary circumstances one would believe would understand the plight of the young and the poor, scoff at and dismiss this allocation off hand by saying that $250 is not a very significant sum. I am disappointed and I am depressed. Quite obviously, the grand old Labor Party members of the past who were the real Labor men would be very disappointed, just as I am disappointed, that the new academics do not seem to understand the value of money and the difficulties of young people. It is a widely held view in the academic world that education is likely to become increasingly important for success in the work place. Basic academic skills, occupational knowledge, problem solving and interpersonal skills are important ingredients for occupational success. If our computer oriented technology is to be developed to its fullest potential, workers need to develop their thinking, reasoning, problem-solving and diagnostic skills. Even in our rural industries, education is playing a more important part in developing new, efficient methods of production. If our agricultural industry is to compete with overseas markets, we have no option but to look at higher levels of technological development. We need higher participation rates in agrarian studies and greater, not less, funding for establishing courses and training centres in remote, isolated areas. Over recent years there has been, unfortunately, a gradual reduction of grants to agricultural students, indicating the Government's concern for the urbanised community in our cities. It has absolutely forgotten the wider parish out there in the remote agricultural areas of Australia. This is unfortunate as in the final analysis an agricultural degree is a wealth-producing degree. Australia, as a primary producer nation, ranks last in the line-up of funding for training its agricultural students, behind New Zealand, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community countries. Let us not be fooled. Our rural output plays a very important part in our export earnings. The commodity market decline will not continue indefinitely. Therefore, we must utilise this time to prepare ourselves and our rural industry for the changes called for in the future. Our agricultural colleges can play a vital role in this revitalisation by providing the laboratory as well as the field studies needed by our future farmers. Education, like business, is not a stagnant entity. But unlike business, education planning requires greater lead times to bring about changes in the system. It is not easy or simple to alter the direction of a tertiary course as it is to change the strategy of a business program. Therefore, it is important for the Commonwealth to continue funding nationally-sponsored programs for their entire life cycle and I refer here to the participation and equity program and its foreshadowed demise. A need exists to fill the void left through the gradual phasing out of PEP funding, since many programs developed under PEP in response to Commonwealth initiatives still need to be maintained. Yet, with the overall pressures placed on recurrent finances from State sources, there is a strong likelihood such programs may have to be discontinued unless Commonwealth funding is forthcoming. The cutback in PEP funding has reduced the ability of tertiary and further education to respond to remote community needs, particularly in and near my electorate. This is also the position in many other electorates. We cannot afford to wait until the 1987-88 Budget for announcements of plans for PEP's future. If the Government is to follow the recommendation of the `Review of TAFE funding' and introduce the new start program, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) needs to make an announcement now in order to provide the States with the advice necessary for its implementation. I mentioned earlier that the potential population participation rates for many Commonwealth sponsored programs will be higher for Queensland than the Australian average. Two of the areas which have rapidly growing populations and hence greater demands made upon them are the Gold Coast and the Darling Downs areas, specifically Toowoomba and the surrounding district. As a major growth centre, Toowoomba is rapidly outgrowing its existing TAFE facilities at a time when increasing attendances continue to outpace population growth, with almost 20 per cent of Australians undertaking full or part time studies. Toowoomba serves as a centre for the large grain growing area surrounding it. Toowoomba is also a centre for the growing tourist industry. Its geographical location offers first rate opportunities to promote the development of its TAFE as a centre of excellence. For example, it could be developed as a centre for courses directly relevant to its agricultural hinterland by servicing demands for technical skills associated with agricultural and diesel machinery. There is no such centre in Queensland at the moment. At the other end of the spectrum, Toowoomba's TAFE could be used as a centre for training in the hospitality industry-and that is obviously a major growth area. The beauty of TAFE colleges is their adaptability and flexibility. Our TAFE colleges are in a good position to meet the challenges of change which impact on the structure of our economy and lead to new skills being required within our communities. They are also capable of involving industry and other sectors of education in planning and developing courses incorporating new technologies. But they must be placed in the financial position to take advantage of these opportunities. The Queensland Government had expectations of further funding for TAFE and committed moneys to planning buildings and expanding campuses, only to learn now that the Commonwealth has failed to produce the goods. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission recommendations call for the establishment of TAFEs as first or second year establishments for higher education. Therefore, facilities and staff will be needed to fulfil this recommendation. All of us are aware that education plays an important role in providing our future generation with the basis of skills development and our present generation with the retraining needed to adjust to changes in the work force. Closer links need to be forged with the industrial and business sectors in order to make course work relevant and productive. Education must be recognised as an industry in its own right, reflecting the changing demands of the market-place. If the Government feels that it cannot continue to fund these calls for changes in the approach to education, it must relax its antiquated stance on privately funded institutions of learning. The Minister can no longer plea tight economic times as the reason for cutbacks when private money is being offered to fill the ever-widening gap between supply and demand. Times are calling for a rethink of our whole education process. Should not the Government and its policies reflect these changes? After all, knowledge is a salable commodity, and education is a business with a great market potential. Is it not about time we moved with the times? Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(8.59) —Administrative charges to university students of $250 a year have been associated with 5,500 extra student places in universities and colleges of advanced education by 1985. The legislation we are considering will provide an extra 15,000 places over two years. Many of the 15,000 people who are going to receive a tertiary education would, without the extra provision, often feed into the more difficult and harder to find semi-skilled and unskilled job market. Every sector of education is vital to our confrontation with international competition. If we want to sell our wool, wheat and meat in a more processed form overseas, and that means more jobs here, we have to meet the-- Mr McVeigh —And angora wool too. Mr SNOW —And mohair. If we want to do this we have to meet the challenges of technology. We have to train mathematicians and scientists along with a wide range of other professionals. We must give young Australians, who are our greatest resource-how often has the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) told us this?-the opportunities they deserve. He has woken the Australian nation to the need which is at last being recognised, and he has been telling us for years that we have to train our young people, that we have to train our mathematicians and scientists if we are going to meet the competition from overseas. The United States has recognised the failure of its system to meet that need. A lack of skilled people in science means slower technological development, which in turn means a less competitive edge. Yet the United States has the flexibility in fund raising that the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) talked about tonight. He called for flexibility. He did not say precisely what he meant by flexibility, but when he mentioned the Bond university proposal I suspected that he was talking about the sort of flexibility that is in the United States. That implies that Australia's universities and colleges will have to hunt around the corporate sector for funds. The Opposition has gone quiet about its real aims in educations. No longer do we hear about student loans having general application, about students receiving $10,000 to $20,000 worth of education on tick which they will have to pay for after they graduate. We no longer hear about the voucher system. The Opposition has changed its tactics and now says `Do not be specific, do not tell the people of Australia what we will do, just do it after the election', but it will not have the opportunity. It is the same with everything else that it wants to privatise, such as Telecom Australia, the Australian Postal Commission and Australian Airlines. It wants to shake up the whole infrastructure of Australia-communication, power, education and transport-but it fails to recognise that this infrastructure has been based on a need to balance the high cost of delivery of services to the country with the more lucrative receipts in the city. It is the country areas that will suffer when the Liberals apply their user pays principle. The outback mining areas, the farms where most of our exports are produced, and the workers in our country towns, will pay more for their telephones and their education if the user pays principle applies. The changes in the legislation also involve an increase of $3.7m in reimbursement grants to technical and further education colleges. The tertiary sector, which more than any other keeps people in their country towns and on their farms, trains them and gives them skills so that they can find jobs. This tertiary sector is going to receive $3.7m more in reimbursement grants. There have been some remarkable changes in Eden-Monaro in the past four years, due to changed attitudes by both the State and Federal governments. But there is still plenty of room for improvement. We still have overtaxed facilities at Cooma. My friend and colleague John Akister, the State member for Monaro, assisted Cooma in gaining extra facilities, but still the demands of a rapidly growing hospitality industry and the demands of the rural industries cannot be met. The machine workshop has two classes in the one space for four days out of five. The students are forced to work outdoors in the cold Cooma weather. I inspected the Cooma TAFE college last week and took note of its wide range of needs. The Moruya TAFE college has similar problems. Needed courses cannot be met. I was shocked to be told, as a member of the task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) visiting Moruya just a week ago, that there may be a waiting time of at least 10 years for a new TAFE college there. But on the positive side, I have worked with John Hatton, the State member for the South Coast, a former educationist and compassionate representative of his constituents, in having a community employment program grant made available to shift the Moruya sale yard so that a TAFE college can be built there. Of the increased placements available for technical and further education some have been made available in Moruya. Let both the State Government and Federal Government, with its funding involvement, take note of the need of a rapidly growing fairly low income level community in the Eurobodalla Shire. There has been a substantial difference in the growth of the Bega Valley TAFE college at Bega over the past four years, since I have been elected. I recall when I was first elected inspecting that TAFE college and it was placed in three different areas of Bega. It included a dairy school which had no power. In fact it has a projector which was run by kerosene. There have been substantial changes to the Bega TAFE, changes that are long overdue, but once again it is very difficult for it to meet the needs of the rapidly growing population in the Bega Valley Shire, with its fairly low level of income. I believe that the Government has recognised the fact that for too long technical and further education has been the Cinderella of higher education. The Government has expanded technical and further education services and this has kept people in the country towns. The Prime Minister's policy statement on the Commonwealth Government's strategy for young people reiterates the Government's commitment to growth in educational opportunities as one essential element of its overall plan to enable young people to progress towards independence and a sense of personal worth and to enable them to move towards self-determination and economic self-sufficiency. I believe that the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) and cognate Bills are a step towards that achievement. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(9.07) —We have just heard from the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) a very domestic and parochial speech, with good reason. The endorsed candidate for that electorate, Air Vice- Marshal Evans, was giving cause for concern, and no wonder the honourable member is concerned. Mr Holding —He has to give his candidate every assistance he can get. Mr WHITE —He does not need too much from me. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) and cognate Bills are essentially Bills which give money to the Australian education system; grants to universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education colleges. What we are really talking about is the number of places that this Government, or any government, can provide for all those Australians who wish to take advantage of the Australian education system. The reality is that there are not enough places and thousands of students are missing out. The challenge that we have, whatever side of the Parliament we might be on, is to provide those extra places. It is quite clear, as the shadow Minister for Education, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) and others have said, that, whatever government is in power in this country, there is simply not going to be enough money to provide for all the places for people who wish to take advantage of and who are encouraged to take up tertiary and technical education. There is only one simple answer to providing those extra places, and that is to harness the resources and the finances of the private sector. That is why I wish to dwell for a few minutes tonight on the proposed Bond university on the Gold Coast and examine briefly why there should be such resistance from the Government, and in particular from the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), against what seems I think to the majority of Australians, and certainly to the majority of people who think about these matters, to be a realistic alternative of how to provide those extra places for those students who seek them in Australia. It really is incomprehensible to me and to a lot of others as to why we have this blanket ideological opposition to what seems to be a practical solution to a very real problem which is going to affect the future of this country for generations to come. On 23 July the Minister said that the Bond institution would undermine the maintenance of high standards across tertiary institutions. Why on earth would it do that? Why should a private university such as the Bond university not set the very high standards? Why would it not provide the competition for existing universities to lift their game? The reality is that unless the university is good enough students and their families simply will not pay the money required to go to that university. The statement that it will undermine the high standards of existing institutions seems like a lot of hogwash. On the same day the Minister said that unco-ordinated private developments would also frustrate proper planning and co-ordination. Why would the insertion of a private institution into the tertiary web of education in this country upset proper planning and co-ordination? It is simply taken into account when the planning and co-ordination is done. Again, what an absolute lot of hogwash. The Minister goes on: Resorting to private universities to meet the unmet demands of the wealthy students is grossly unfair to other students. Here is an opportunity to provide extra places for the thousands of students who seek to enter tertiary education in this country in any one year. Why would anyone in his right mind seek to deny those extra places to students who have the money, and who wish to pay, to acquire a higher education? One has to ask, after seeing the hundreds of quotations on record, why the Minister for Education steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that there is a place for private education in the tertiary sector? What sort of Minister do we have? Mr Holding —A very competent one. Mr WHITE —We come to the conclusion-despite the comment about competence from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) who is at the table-that she is narrow minded, bigoted, obsessed with the socialist ethic as distinct from encouraging private enterprise and turns a blind eye to the very proposal that could give us an opportunity to provide extra tertiary places for Australian students. Some 25 per cent of our students are educated in our private school system. As a natural extension of that sort of education system, why would we not extend it into the tertiary and perhaps the technical field in due course. If 25 per cent of our school students are educated in private schools why would we not encourage an extension of the school system into the tertiary field? More students will be educated at the tertiary level. Just as important, we will create a whole field of new employment for teachers. It is beyond reasoning why some academics turn a blind eye and an absolutely paranoid face against the creation of employment in their own particular field. It is in their own interests for more jobs to be created. It is interesting that the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee has decided not to oppose the establishment of new universities, either public or private, provided they meet the stringent criteria. No one is opposed to stringent criteria in tertiary education-they are expected. If the Vice-Chancellors Committee can support and welcome it, why would this Government and the Minister not seek to support the vice-chancellors in creating not only more jobs for the academic world but also more places for those students seeking a tertiary education? The fact is that private universities will succeed in this country. The ground swell is there. They will come. There has been much comment in recent months about Harvard University in the United States. One fear the Minister has seems to be that an Australian private university will inevitably fail and that the Government will be asked to make grants to prop it up. That is not a prospect that I see happening and it is not a prospect that worries me. If Harvard University is getting government grants-which I understand it is-is it not, like the private school system in Australia, a much cheaper way of providing places for students than the Government having to fund the lot? Is it such a terrible thing that governments have to support, as they do in the private school system, universities which are basically supporting themselves? On 7 August the Minister for Education said: It is about time the myths about the insularity of our institutions or their unwillingness to respond to commercial or industrial challenges ought to be laid to rest. It is a comment which I fully support; they should be laid to rest. We, as Australians, should put aside the bogey of the private institutions in tertiary education and welcome them. We should ensure that the standards are maintained, and that students attain the very highest degree of excellence in this country. I would have thought that the very way in which to encourage high standards of excellence would be to encourage the private sector in the tertiary field. I take this opportunity to welcome the Government's support at long last for some funding for the Gold Coast College of Advanced Education. It will open next year in a very modest way. It has been a long battle for many of us to get this institution off the ground. The $2m allocated to it in 1987 is a modest start. It has a catchment area of over 200,000 people. No one denies that the reasons for starting the CAE have long been established. I am sorry that it has been so long in coming, but it will start operating next year. It will work in conjunction with the Bond university. In due course we will see the area which I represent develop as a major tertiary education area in the same way as it has as an area of secondary schools. I turn briefly to the question of technical and further education colleges in this country. It is an area where there is a desperate shortage of places. The Government has set about increasing programs in other areas. It loads on to the TAFE colleges all the programs which cannot be accommodated in other places, but it fails to give the TAFE sector sufficient money to carry out these programs properly. The future of Australia lies in increasing our exports and not in increasing, I would think, our traditional exports such as those from the mining and primary sectors. If we are to get out of the economic mess which all of us from both sides of this Parliament hope we can do in the shortest possible time, the future lies in increasing our manufacturing exports. To do that we have to increase our technological base in this country. We cannot do it unless we train our young people. Much of that training must be carried out in our TAFE colleges. I very much hope that this message is absorbed by the Government, in the time it has left, and it allows the expansion of the TAFE sector so that the technical base for our young people can be increased. I refer to the English as a second language program. The decision by the Government to reduce funds for that program, in the long term, will prove to be a disaster. We are a huge country with a small population. Our migration program must expand in the future. We are a country whose people come from all over the world. At some stage or other in our history we all have come from somewhere else. Many migrants these days come from non-English speaking countries. The English as a second language program has had immense benefits for those people. I hope that it will continue to allow them to settle in, to learn the language and to become Australian citizens with the fewest possible problems. To go about cutting out a program when immigration should be increasing seems to be nothing short of a disaster. It seems to me and to all of us on this side of the House that the priorities of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) and the Government in education spending are very much astray. The only good thing I can see in the education programs of the Labor Government is that they have a very short time to run. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(9.21) —If one had to define a central theme or a single strategic objective of the education policies of the Hawke Labor Government, it would be to increase participation. It is to the fulfilment of this objective that the Government has designed programs and directed resources. The reasons for pursuing this objective are obvious. They were mentioned by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) in his speech which has just concluded. They are quite clear. We all recognise that Australia's future depends on the development of our skills base. By overseas comparisons we are quite deficient in that area. While we still have a long way to go, it is important to recognise that the progress this Government has made in participation has been quite outstanding. To illustrate this point I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard three tables entitled `Participation Rates by Age, All Schools', `Apparent Retention Rates to the Final Year of School' and `15 to 24 Year Olds in Education'. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 4 PARTICIPATION RATES BY AGE, ALL SCHOOLS, SELECTED YEARS 1975 TO 1985 (Per cent) Age (years) 1975 persons 1980 persons 1983 persons 1985 males females persons 14... 95.9 97.4 97.7 98.1 98.1 98.1 15... 83.1 86.1 88.5 90.0 90.6 90.3 16... 55.3 57.4 61.9 63.8 65.8 64.8 17... 30.2 29.4 33.5 36.7 39.3 38.0 18... 6.7 5.7 6.3 8.0 6.5 7.3 19... 1.6 1.7 2.2 1.4 1.1 1.3 15-19... 36.3 35.4 38.2 40.8 41.5 41.2 Source: Commonwealth Department of Education. Table 5 APPARENT RETENTION RATES TO THE FINAL YEAR OF SCHOOL, SELECTED YEARS 1975 TO 1985 (Per cent) 1975 1980 1982 1983 1984 1985 Males... 34.6 31.9 32.9 37.5 32.1 43.5 Females... 33.6 37.3 39.9 43.9 48.0 49.5 Persons... 34.1 34.5 36.3 40.6 45.0 46.4 Source: Commonwealth Department of Education. Table 6 15 TO 24 YEAR OLDS IN EDUCATION (PERCENTAGE OF RELEVANT POPULATION COHORTS) Age (years) 1975 persons 1980 persons 1983 persons 1984 males females persons 15... 85.6 91.8 94.6 94.2 95.7 94.9 16... 67.5 75.6 84.0 85.5 86.3 85.9 17... 54.2 56.7 61.3 65.1 60.1 62.6 18... 41.4 43.3 43.7 50.6 37.1 44.0 19... 34.9 36.9 39.9 46.8 34.9 41.0 20... 27.3 29.2 30.6 35.6 26.7 31.3 21... 21.4 22.5 24.1 28.2 21.2 24.7 22... n.a. n.a. 19.5 22.9 16.9 20.0 23... n.a. n.a. 16.6 19.2 14.5 16.9 24... n.a. n.a. 14.7 17.0 13.0 15.0 15-19 year olds Full-time education... 43.3 43.8 48.1 49.6 51.6 50.6 Part-time education... 14.0 16.6 16.4 19.1 11.6 15.4 Total... 57.3 60.4 64.5 68.7 63.2 66.0 20-24 year olds Full-time education... 7.0 7.0 7.2 8.2 6.8 7.5 Part-time education... n.a. n.a. 13.9 16.4 11.6 14.1 Total... n.a. n.a. 21.1 24.6 18.4 21.6 17-24 year olds Schools... 4.7 4.6 5.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 TAFE... n.a. n.a. 16.9 20.4 12.9 16.7 Advanced Education... 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.8 4.6 Universities... 5.3 4.8 4.7 5.3 4.3 4.8 Total... n.a. n.a. 31.0 35.3 27.6 31.6 (a) Adjusted to take account of concurrent enrolments at school and TAFE. Source: Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. Mr FREE —The tables show a dramatic increase of 11.3 per cent in retention to the final year of school of students between 1975 and 1985. Over that period one-third more of our young people stayed on to complete a full secondary education. There was an increase of 50 per cent in retention rates of girls at school. The important difference has been that in that decade, in the Liberal years from 1975 to 1982, there was a mere increase of 2.2 per cent, but in the years of this Government there has been an increase in the retention rate to the final year of secondary school of 10.1 per cent. There have also been steady increases in the retention rate of the 15- to 24-year-old age group across all sectors of full time education. So, whilst we have a way to go, we have certainly made some progress. The contributing factors towards this progress have been the work of this Government. There was steady growth in global funding across all sectors of education from 1983 to 1985. Despite the successive cuts in the years of Liberal government, particularly in the advanced education sector, great progress has been made. We have seen the institution of an eight-year general recurrent program for schools in 1985. This has provided the greatest increases in the areas of greatest need, as one would expect from a Labor government. Over the eight-year general recurrent program, government schools will enjoy an increase in the primary sector of 30 per cent per student and in the secondary sector of 74 per cent per student. In the non-government sector we have a new needs scale of 12 categories. In the top four categories, as one would expect, there will be no increases. The greatest increases will be targeted to the categories towards the bottom, the children in greatest need. This general recurrent program, one of the great reforms of this Government, restores stability and predictability to the general recurrent area for non-government schools. It places our needs policy on a firm, practical and predictable basis. Forever and a day it removes the state aid debate from the political agenda. I also point to the increasing use of the specific purpose programs to meet clearly defined objectives. I point to the success of the computer education program, to the great success of the participation and equity program and also to the newly introduced program for basic learning in primary schools. A number of general points need to be made about specific purpose programs. They ought to have clearly defined objectives. They ought to have as their focus specific areas of disadvantage. They should have built into them a mechanism for their evaluation and they should have a fixed lifetime, perhaps not necessarily in advance. They ought not to be seen as an alternative avenue for recurrent funding forever and a day. These are programs-we should admit this across both sides of the House-which have achieved their objectives. There are specific purpose programs which, quite correctly, have been absorbed into the general recurrent area and which, quite correctly, ought to cease if only to make way for new programs. In this context I refer to the controversy concerning the reduction in funding for the English as a second language program. I note in passing that the teacher unions and Opposition members find themselves to be strange bedfellows indeed in this case. Whilst I hate to interrupt a good argument with some facts, let me do so. The facts are these: One of the Commonwealth's prime responsibilities is to assist with the language needs of newly arrived migrant children. The new arrivals component of the English as a second language program remains intact under this Government. Whilst it is true that funding for the general support element of the program has been reduced-not cut entirely-the major objection to this reduction has come from New South Wales. That is strange indeed when one analyses the figures for New South Wales because, whilst the reduction to the program in New South Wales involved $7.3m, it is important to note that in 1987 New South Wales will still receive $9.3m under the program. It will also receive a special Commonwealth allocation of $1.5m plus an additional New South Wales allocation of $1m, amounting to a shortfall of $4.8m. It should also be noted that in 1987 New South Wales, in fact, all States, will receive additional money from the Commonwealth as part of the general recurrent package. In the case of New South Wales there will be an additional $18.4m as against the shortfall of $4.8m. In that context, given the budgetary difficulties the Commonwealth has, I find not unreasonable the proposition that New South Wales should absorb out of $18.4m of new money a shortfall of $4.8m, bearing in mind that all of that money is coming from the Commonwealth anyway. The extravagance of criticism about the reduction to the English as a second language program has quite surprised me. I have found in my time in this place that a reasonable rule of thumb to apply is that there is an inverse relationship between the extravagance of language used by interest groups and the strength of the case they bear. It is true in this case that the stronger and more abusive the language that they have used the weaker is their argument. Simple arithmetic destroys their case. Positions will not be lost in ESL. In fact, New South Wales will receive more money than ever from the Commonwealth Government for education. That is apart from the general ignorance that those critics display of the economic difficulties that the Government faces and the need for restraint that we should all exercise. I turn briefly to the tertiary sector. I have been listening to this debate with some interest and have been surprised to hear criticism of this Government's contribution to higher education. To illustrate some points I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a number of tables illustrating funding for higher education, student places in higher education and student assistance expenditure. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- HIGHER EDUCATION (Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education) 1. FUNDS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION ($,000s) (constant est. Dec. '85 price levels) 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total... 2,254 2,228 2,197 2,181 2,192 2,214 2,280 2,322 2,382 Change on previous year (%)... -1.2% -1.2% -1.4% -0.7% 0.5% 1.0% 3.0% 1.8% 2.6% Change: 1979-1981 Triennium 1985-87 Triennium Liberal (Last Liberal Triennium) (First Labor Triennium) vs Labor (%)... -3.7% +7.6% Change: 1978-1982 1983-1987 Capital (Liberal) (Labor) Funds (%)... -73% +43.4% 2. STUDENT PLACES IN HIGHER EDUCATION (thousands) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total... 249.3 252.3 255.5 263.1 270.3 278.0 288.9 299.9 Change on previous year (%)... 0.2 1.2 1.3 3.0 2.7 2.8 3.9 3.8 Change: 1978-1982 1983-1987 Liberals (Liberal) (Labor) vs Labor... 3.3% 14.0% No. of new places created... 8,100 36,800 STUDENT ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURE ($ Millions) Type Liberal 1978 1982 (82-78) % Change Labor 1983 1987 (87-83) % Change SAS... 7.0 9.3 2.3 +32.9 19.9 55.6 30.9 +179.4 ASEAS... 4.1 2.6 -1.5 -36.6 3.3 4.2 0.9 +27.3 ABSEC... 9.8 10.7 0.9 +9.2 11.6 13.5 1.9 +16.4 ABSTUDY... 3.4 6.7 3.3 +97.0 8.4 17.1 8.7 +103.6 AIC... 10.9 10.1 -0.8 -7.3 10.7 10.6 -0.1 -0.9 TEAS... 124.2 92.7 -31.5 -25.4 111.6 146.2 37.2 +31.0 PGA... 7.5 5.5 -2.0 -26.7 7.7 7.9 0.2 +2.6 Total... 167.9 137.6 -30.3 -18.0 173.1 255.2 82.1 47.4 (Constant prices-CPI Deflator with 1976 as Base Year.) SAS=Secondary Allowance Scheme ASEAS=Adult Secondary Education Allowance Scheme ABSEC=Aboriginal Secondary Assistance Scheme ABSTUDY=Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme (tertiary) AIC=Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme TEAS=Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme PGA=Postgraduate Awards Scheme Mr FREE —I thank the House. The tables show funding for higher education over the years 1979-1987. In the last Liberal triennium total funding for higher education fell by 3.7 per cent. In the first Labor triennium it rose by 7.6 per cent. Capital funding for higher education during the last Liberal triennium fell by an astounding 73 per cent, while in our first triennium it rose by 43 per cent. Those figures are reflected in the provision of student places in higher education. In the second table the difference is illustrated quite clearly. In the last Liberal triennium the number of places grew by a mere 3.3 per cent, while in our first triennium we provided 14 per cent more places in higher education. Putting those percentage figures in terms of actual places makes the difference very clear. It really makes a mockery of the criticism advanced by the shadow Minister for Education. In the Liberal's last triennium, from 1978 to 1982, 8,100 new places were provided in the higher education sector. In our first triennium 36,800 new places were provided in the higher education sector. It is an outstanding record and one that I am very disappointed has not been acknowledged by the Opposition. I realise that my time is running very short. I must make way for colleagues. Before I close, I must say that I noted earlier today some criticism from the Opposition about the application of the guillotine today to Bills. I point out how hollow that criticism is. In the last three years-- Mr Beale —You have already overrun. Mr FREE —The honourable member knows that we are being restricted to 10 minutes. I simply make the point that I am restricting my time to 10 minutes to allow other colleagues to enjoy an opportunity to participate in the debate. The honourable member is well aware of that. In the three years that we have had this annual debate on the States Grants Bills under this Government the second reading debate has exceeded two hours. In each of those three Labor years 10 or more speakers participated in the second reading debate. If one takes the trouble to look at Hansard for the last year of the Liberal Government-the last year the coalition was in power, in 1982-one would see how long the second reading debate lasted. It lasted 27 minutes. Mr Griffiths —I don't believe it. You must be misleading the House. Mr FREE —No, it is true. If the honourable member looks at Hansard he will find that the debate lasted 27 minutes in 1982. There were three speakers during the second reading debate. They were all from the Australian Labor Party. Not a single one was from the Liberal Party or the National Party, which is an illustration of the total lack of concern they had for education when they were in government. The bottom line of all the argument, all the discussion, about education funding is this: The Hawke Labor Government has an outstanding record. In its period in office it has achieved magnificent progress. When it is returned to office at the next election it will continue to make great progress. If people take the trouble to refer to those figures on participation and retention, which I have mentioned, they will see that the bottom line is that if those people opposite had been in power for the last three years there would have been 30,000 fewer students in higher education and one-third fewer students completing full secondary education in this country. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(9.36) —I am deeply grateful for the indulgence of the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) and his colleagues in allowing me and other members on this side of the House to contribute to this debate! It is a mark of the patronising attitude of the honourable member that he dares to say that people who have been elected to this House should have to seek the right to speak here. Indeed our time for debate has been cut back; Bills are being debated cognately; at short notice we have had to consider three Bills and treat them as one. If the Government to which the honourable member for Lindsay belongs is so concerned about education, why were we not allowed the full time in which to debate these three pieces of legislation separately, as was earlier indicated? To use the short time that has been allotted to me with the application of the guillotine to this legislation and the extended hours of parliamentary sitting-I understand that no provision has been made for adjournment debates for the rest of this week-I will try to get on with the subject. In the context of tertiary education assistance I draw attention to the total lack of assistance offered by the Hawke Government to students seeking a Northern Territory university education. This Government is putting barriers in the way of Territory students wishing to attend their own university. The history of this matter is one of frustration and double-talk from the Commonwealth when the fastest growth area in Australia and that with by far the youngest population, the Northern Territory, is seeking to establish its own university-a necessary piece of social furniture. I need hardly state why the Northern Territory needs its own university. The reasons would be obvious to any member of this House whose electorate lies beyond the boundaries of the major eastern seaboard capitals. One can easily imagine the outcry if all of the best of the young people of Western Australia, Tasmania or Queensland were forced to travel to Sydney or Melbourne to undertake university studies. There would be outrage. It would be seen as an intolerable burden on families and an extraordinary imposition if they had to travel thousands of kilometres to the nearest university, yet that is the position for young people in the Northern Territory. The investment of years of primary and high school education is lost to the Territory. The Northern Territory Government has a responsibility to stop that loss and it expected support and enthusiasm from the Commonwealth, from the Tertiary Education Commission, to put that right. It not only has failed to get that support but also has found the Commonwealth erecting deliberate barriers. At first the Commonwealth said that it would not help with funding until at least 1991. The Territory decided that it would go it alone. Then the TEC Chairman changed his mind and said that he had $4m up his sleeve which he was prepared to chuck in for the university, but he said that there was a catch: The university had to be sited with the Darwin Institute of Technology. Many things are wrong with this plan, as I am quite sure both the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and the Tertiary Education Commission are well aware. First, looking ahead over the next decade there will be no room for expansion for either the university or the institute under that plan. Shared facilities would be inadequate for a university. The institute laboratories are of secondary school standard. There are no facilities for research laboratories and lecture time would be at the mercy of the institute priorities. It would be a Clayton's university operating under a nightmare of conflicting priorities and administration, with the university status question thrown open to doubt while it is dominated by the technical and further education division and priorities. But the Chairman is completely intransigent-and no wonder-because that $4m on offer is in fact the same $4m which has been earmarked and approved for the new administration and library building at the institute. The $4m is bait, offered by the Commonwealth to divert the Northern Territory Government from its university plans, and is a transparent confidence trick. The Minister seems determined to use every bit of leverage to make the Northern Territory Government's legitimate aim for a university an uphill battle, because we now find that she has made a ruling that only students attending education institutions funded by the Commonwealth are eligible for tertiary education assistance scheme assistance. So Northern Territory students wishing to attend their own university in their own capital are to be doubly disadvantaged-first, by the lack of Commonwealth funding, and, second, by being ineligible for tertiary education assistance available to students in all other States, and to them if they care to go to other States. This is not merely obstructive, it is vindictive. If this economically irresponsible Federal Government cannot stand the thought of the Territory pressing ahead with its own plans for a university that is one thing. But to use its powers to frustrate and to victimise those who only wish to continue their education in their home Territory with small-minded decisions is quite another thing. It is socially irresponsible and it is deliberate and calculated educational vandalism. At this moment the Territory's own university college is ready to start teaching in February next year as an outpost of the University of Queensland. All but two of the 24 staff have been appointed. Six million dollars has been spent on refurbishing the old Darwin Hospital in readiness for a student intake of between 200 and 250 students. We only have an old Darwin Hospital because the Whitlam Government embarked on a vast, expensive and extravagant plan to give us a new expensive hospital that to run and maintain drains our health budget. It is a photocopy of the Woden Valley Hospital in Canberra-tremendously suitable for the Darwin climate, people and everything else! The university has accreditation to teach University of Queensland degrees in the basic science and arts courses and first year law. I say to the Minister and to the Tertiary Education Commission: `Do your duty and accord Territory tertiary students the same rights as those students have from the States. Get behind this new institution and give it your support instead of playing your mean-minded games of one-upmanship with the education future of the Territory's youth'. Turning now to younger students, we are told that participation and equity program funds are to be cut to nothing from 1987. The Minister for Education views that program as a jewel in the crown of Commonwealth education but it seems that she is prepared to very readily pawn that jewel in the Cabinet room in the desperate clamour for savings that echoes from that room at every meeting. I do not know why the Government finds it so hard to save money. I could tell them one place to start. It might find out how the staff of the most junior Minister in this Government, Senator Arthur Gietzelt, ran up a travel bill of $56,191 last year. That compares with just $5,829 for the staff travel bill of the very senior Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), and that Minister has more staff and resides in Perth, rather than Sydney. If the Government is looking to save money it might start with the lowest Minister on the totem pole-some might say the lowest polecat-and find out how his staff has managed to run up a bill second only to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and almost 10 times a senior Minister's staff travel. Mr Holding —I raise a point of order. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the unparliamentary remark he made about the Minister which I find offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —I am sorry, but I was just arriving. Could the Minister repeat the term that was used? Mr Holding —The honourable member described the Minister as `the lowest polecat'. I think that is an offensive and non-parliamentary term and I ask that the honourable member withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If it is offensive to the Minister I will ask the honourable member to withdraw it. Mr EVERINGHAM —Well, certainly the lowest wimp. Mr Holding —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. If the honourable member wants to continue with that sort of nonsense I will ask him to withdraw that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the honourable member withdraw that remark? It is offensive to the Minister. Mr EVERINGHAM —Mr Deputy Speaker, which remark should I withdraw? Mr Griffiths —Why don't you withdraw yourself? Mr EVERINGHAM —Well, I do not like the company of the honourable member anyway, so I am always pleased to leave this place. Mr Griffiths —You don't like the company of Northern Territorians either, because you are never there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maribyrnong is next on the list to speak. I ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory to continue his speech. Mr EVERINGHAM —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To return to these Bills, only the outcry from educationalists prevented the Government-- Mr Holding —On a point of order: I asked the honourable gentleman to withdraw and he still has not withdrawn. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thought he did withdraw. Mr Holding —If he has withdrawn- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes, he did withdraw. Mr Holding —If he has, I accept that. Mr EVERINGHAM —That is very decent of the Minister. Only the outcry from educationalists prevented the Government from ending the program this year. Even then, it is a pea and thimble trick-an extension until 1987, but only half the money in each year. After reading the gobbledegook put out by the Commonwealth participation and equity program co-ordinating committee in its `national pep talk' publication, I had my doubts about the value of the whole exercise. I quote from the July issue which states in relation to the student leadership program: . . . included sessions on meeting and negotiating skills, communicating with others and brainstorming to seek innovative ideas. In simple English, students could talk together and think. It is the rhetoric of classroom democracy, of muddle-headed idealism disguised in high-sounding jargon, that worries me. Experience shows that rhetoric, while good enough for this chamber, is not good enough in the classroom. As evidence of that I cite Katherine High School which, to use the jargon, is today a lighthouse school, a beacon of educational achievement. Significantly, just three years ago Katherine High School was anything but a well respected school. Katherine people said that discipline was appalling, that their kids were not learning and that the whole school atmosphere was one of trendyism and near anarchy. The Northern Territory Department of Education used funds under the PEP program to give the school a chance to take a long hard look at itself. A senior teacher was brought in to look at curriculum, community relations were improved, horizontal time- tabling was introduced, and other improvements were made. The school today has an extremely good reputation both with parents and with interstate educational authorities. The lesson is readily apparent. Katherine teachers knew the rhetoric that dominated the educational debate. When it came to translating rhetoric into reality they were found lacking. That change took funding-funding from the PEP program. Now this Government intends to terminate the funding, and that will mean confused principles, high ideals and failed basics. It will be the kids who will suffer. The Minister has only two responsible choices: Either she must maintain the financial backing to the participation and equity program, thus ensuring that funded programs support what is otherwise merely woolly-headed rhetoric, or she must extract from our education system the superficial nonsense that is so often spouted in the classroom and return to basics. I also take this opportunity to press the case for Northern Territory representation on the Commonwealth Schools Commission. There are many special educational problems, particularly for isolated students in the Territory, which the Schools Commission could hardly hope to understand. From memory, in the past 10 years or so the Commission has visited the Territory twice-once in 1979 and once in 1982. On could hardly expect that the Commission would have a ready appreciation of the Territory's special problems and difficulties. This lack inevitably leads to the imposition of Commission recommendations and decisions which may be totally inappropriate to Territory schools. Particularly, I am talking about Aboriginal and geographically isolated children, for whom the Commission's special purpose programs for disadvantaged students are particularly relevant. Yet the Territory has no way in which to present to the Commission the needs of these children, nor to draw the attention to the special difficulties encountered in such isolated schools and areas. I have sought some action from the Minister and she has told me that at present there is no vacancy for the Territory on the Commission. In the interests of equal treatment for all Australian school children, I again ask the Minister to find room on the Commission for a Territory representative. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(9.50) —At the outset I wish to make a couple of brief comments, the catalyst for which was the contribution by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham). It is interesting that given that he had stewardship and charge of the Northern Territory education budget for some considerable years the outcome of that stewardship was that the honourable member took his children off to Brisbane for their education. I do not raise this on my own; it has been raised by the honourable member publicly. I think that is a damning indictment of the way in which he disbursed huge funding in the Northern Territory whilst Chief Minister. I should like to put the whole debate into some sort of perspective. I think an appropriate starting point is to mention again the $6 billion credibility gap that this Opposition brings to any debate in this House. If the Opposition is going to indicate areas in which it either opposes funding cuts or advocates funding increases it will have to put before the Australian community, to retain any degree of credibility, the policies that will allow it to embark on that course. If one is articulating a philosophy that one must adhere to fiscal responsibility whilst at the same time increasing funding considerably not only across the spectrum of education but also in all other policy areas, one really has some difficulty with those two fundamental and mutually incompatible positions. It is worth making the point that during the Howard-Fraser years there were real cuts in education both at the lower levels and at the tertiary levels. Nothing will change the statistics. They are not exaggerated. They are accepted by all non-partisan observers. By way of comparison, in the short time that the Hawke Labor Government has been in power there have been considerable real increases right across the spectrum. I shall refer to a couple of areas. There has been an increase of 31 per cent in the tertiary education assistance scheme, not in nominal but in real terms, in a short time frame of three and a half years. By comparison, under the Howard-Fraser Government there was a massive reduction of some 25 per cent, again not in nominal but in real terms. So just in that one area alone, the Opposition comes to this debate with dirty hands. I think we will have to go on reiterating this, not blowing our own bags about our record in our short time in office but simply pointing out the fundamentals of the debate. They are there. They stand in stark contrast for anyone who is prepared to spend even a few minutes comparing the relative records of both parties. The importance of tertiary education has been acknowledged, in my view, only in the recent past. It has been a function largely of an acceptance that Australia, over time, will have a retarded economy and will be unable to compete internationally unless we increase our retention rates. Of course, prior to our coming to office they were a shame. By comparison with most other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development we were left languishing at the bottom of the international comparative ladders. We have turned that situation around. I will give just a couple of brief examples to prove my point. Between 1975 and 1985 there was an increase of 11.3 per cent in the retention rate in secondary education. A very important component of that in the history of retention rates is that girls increased their retention rate by a massive 50 per cent. The period 1975 to 1982 encompasses both the Howard-Fraser and the Hawke Governments. In the Howard-Fraser period, which of course was much longer-seven years-there was an increase of only 2.2 per cent. That is, of the 11.3 per cent increase in retention rates, the former Government, in twice the time frame, can lay claim to an increase of only 2.2 per cent. The Hawke Government by comparison had a retention rate of 10.1 per cent. Again, this is not fiddling with statistics; these figures are accepted by all observers as part of the debate on education. It terms of the crucial 15 to 24 age bracket, which languished very much at the bottom of the international comparative ladders, there has been a massive increase in retention rates, and I do not think even the Opposition would dispute that. The Opposition may argue that we should go further, but would not dispute that that is the case. The participation rate for 17- to 19-year-olds, which is again a crucial period, shows that if they go out at 16 they are unlikely in the extreme to come back. Whilst I am almost reluctant to do so, I will mention my own experience. I went out of the secondary education system at 15 or 16 years of age, with very little option in those days of getting back into any form of secondary education. What finally gave me the opportunity to go to university was the policies of the Whitlam Government-policies for which I shall be forever grateful. One of the important policies of that Government was to abolish the very high level of tertiary fees in those days. That was a Whitlam Labor Government initiative. Were it not for the decision of the Whitlam government then, any entrant to tertiary education-higher education in this country-would be facing equivalent fees of some thousands of dollars. I make that point to provide some comparison with the $250 administrative charge that will be levied as of next year. To put the matter into context, it is worth making the point that the application of that administrative charge will not apply to all students. A whole range of students are automatically exempted from the application of that charge. I refer to beneficiaries under Austudy, which incorporates the old tertiary education assistance scheme allowance, holders of an award under the postgraduate awards scheme, holders of Austudy grants and supporting parent beneficiaries, class A widows, carers and invalid pensioners who are studying either full or part time. Furthermore, many of those who are eligible for the payment of what is a relatively modest fee when compared with what applied for decades by way of tertiary fees under conservative governments are also eligible for low interest loans and other forms of assistance if they find difficulty in meeting the charge. I could address a range of matters but, like my colleague, the member for Lindsay (Mr Free), I shall keep my contribution short to allow some of my colleagues to take part in the debate. Mr Beale —He didn't. He went for 13 1/2 minutes when he was supposed to go for ten. Mr GRIFFITHS —With the sort of dough you have stacked away in the bank we could abolish the $250 fee. By way of comparison, in the 1979-81 triennium, the last conservative government's triennium under Howard and Fraser, there was a change in funding of minus 3.7 per cent in real terms. By comparison, in the first triennium of the Hawke Labor Government the figure was plus 7.6 per cent. That is a massive turnaround by any criteria and should be acknowledged in this debate. We shall wait a very long time indeed for Opposition members to acknowledge those fundamental truths. The change in capital funds in the Howard-Fraser years, from 1978 to 1982, was minus 73 per cent. Under Labor from 1983 to 1987 the figure was plus 43.4 per cent. They are difficult comparisons to argue with. As for student places in higher education, from 1978 to 1982 under Howard-Fraser there was a 3.3 per cent increase; from 1983 to 1987 under Labor there was an increase of 14 per cent-again a massive comparative difference. The number of new places created-this statistic should weigh heavily on some honourable members opposite-from 1978 to 1982 under Howard-Fraser was a miserly 8,100. Under Labor, in comparison with that figure of 8,100, a massive 36,800 new places were created. Those figures simply cannot be argued away. They represent a commendable record and, again, a record that ought to be acknowledged. In terms of student assistance expenditure-in real terms, not nominal terms-the figure was minus 18 per cent over the period 1978-82 under the former Government. Under the Hawke Government the figure is plus 47.4 per cent. Again, it is very difficult to argue with those figures. I conclude by making this point: Not only has the Labor Government addressed many of these issues in a most difficult budgetary environment but it has found room to manoeuvre in a modest way in the provision of the first effective tertiary institution in the western region of Melbourne-an area that for decades suffered neglect under successive conservative governments. It is my role, as Federal member for Maribyrnong, to be involved in lobbying for that program. I simply acknowledge my pride in the Labor Government for having made that decision, one which I think will enhance the future of many young people in my region. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.02) —I listened with great interest to the contributions of those honourable members who have spoken recently. The thing that comes out loud and clear is that surely to God we must get together in a bipartisan fashion in regard to the education of young Australians. Any nation ignores the education of its youth at its peril. The reality is that, in spite of the statistics which honourable members on both sides of the House have sent backwards and forwards, Australians are becoming increasingly undereducated. I realise that that is a generalisation, but it is true. I will quote very briefly from an article by Professor Don Aitkin which was published in the Age on 17 October 1986. It was part three of his series entitled `The Skilling of Australia'. In that article he said: By the end of the century we need to have a participation rate in higher education that is at the top rather than at the bottom of the OECD countries-getting on for double what it is now. Of course, how true that is. I will contribute to the welter of statistics that have flowed backwards and forwards across the chamber by citing a couple of figures relating to the proportion of the labour force that is qualified to a first degree level for selected countries in 1981. I am sorry that the figures are so far out of date. The figures are taken from the Economic Planning Advisory Council paper No. 15 published in February this year, so they are the most recent figures available to me. In Australia, 8 per cent of the labour force has a first degree. That figure should be compared with the figure for Japan, where 13 per cent of the labour force has a first degree, and the United States, where 19 per cent of the labour force has a first degree. So the figures are: 19 per cent in the United States, 13 per cent in Japan and only 8 per cent in Australia. I think that that is of great significance. Every Australian who is listening to the broadcast of this debate tonight, or who perhaps reads Press reports tomorrow, should give some thought to where we are going in terms of education. Let us forget politics. Let us think about the future of this country and the future of our kids and our grandchildren. Unless we pour funding and resources into education, we will become the banana republic that has been touted about in recent months. We cannot afford to neglect education. Mr Griffiths —Why did you? Mr NEHL —I suggested that we might have a bipartisan approach, but I know that that is beyond the honourable member's capacity at present. One of the outstanding areas in which we need to make some improvement is the tertiary education assistance scheme. I cannot understand the situation which has gone on under governments of both political persuasions. I cannot understand how we can allow a situation to continue in which somebody may be unemployed, yet is paid more to sit on the beach than young Australian men and women are paid who are prepared to study, work and achieve so that they can contribute to this country. I am not being negative about the unfortunate youngsters who are unemployed-not at all. All I am saying is that we should take a much more positive view of those young Australians who want to study, work and contribute and not penalise them for having the guts and the initiative to get in there and try to study. I am particularly concerned because I live in a rural part of Australia, a provincial area. My electorate is Cowper, which stretches from Coffs Harbour to Port Macquarie, and it is similar to many other rural or provincial seats. The opportunities for tertiary education are very limited, if non-existent, in the home environment. I have spoken here before about the need for consideration of further tertiary education facilities on the north coast of New South Wales to supplement the excellent work being done by the Lismore College of Advanced Education. I repeat the point that I have made on other occasions. If one looks at the north coast of New South Wales, where we have only one college of advanced education, one sees that the current population is 367,400. This will increase to 700,000 by the year 2000. By the year 2011 it will have increased to 855,000. Will it still be okay to have only one CAE and no university? The previous speaker, the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), mentioned the move for an additional university in the western suburbs of Melbourne and there have been similar moves for the western suburbs of Sydney. But I would like to submit that the case for further tertiary education facilities on the north coast of New South Wales is by far the most outstanding in the whole of Australia. The figures speak for themselves. Given the population projections, by 2011 we will have twice the population of Tasmania. Will it still be good enough to have only one CAE? Unless we start planning now to cater for that growth and for the needs of young Australians, we will continue to go down the drain. I come back to the question of the tertiary education assistance scheme. While I certainly do not wish to see this debate subsumed in a welter of figures, I think it is significant to point out that in 1975 the TEAS allowance was 85.5 per cent of the unemployment benefit. In 1985 it had fallen to 80.8 per cent of the unemployment benefit, and the projection for 15 December 1986 is that it will be 80.5 per cent. I submit that it is inappropriate, wrong, unfair and inequitable that young Australians who are prepared to work and study should not get at least as much as those unfortunate young people who are unemployed. I take the point even further because I am concerned about the people who live in my electorate and the other areas throughout Australia where- Mr McGauran —In Gippsland, for example. Mr NEHL —As my colleague says, in areas such as Gippsland, where there is such a need for tertiary education and where, by and large, incomes are fairly low. People in these areas do not receive the incomes that people receive in Melbourne and Sydney and many other places. Incomes are low and there is a very definite and distinct need for the living-away-from-home allowance for these people. While the cut off point appears to be fairly high, I have so many cases in my electorate of people who are struggling to keep their children at university or colleges of advanced education and where the wife has to go out to work, doing cleaning or any other sort of job, just to keep the children at school. Those people are at a disadvantage because they do not live in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Canberra. Why should they be disadvantaged? Are not both sides of the House committed to the philosophy that we want to be fair to all Australians, that we want equality? Yet, we seem to ignore totally the fact that country people sending a son or daughter to a university or CAE are up for at least $3,000 a year. The last time I spoke on this matter I think the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) told me that the cost in Tasmania was $5,000 a year. For an ordinary Australian family that figure is insupportable; it is just not right or proper. Mr McVeigh —They cannot afford it. Mr NEHL —They cannot afford it so this is an area to which we should pay attention. In closing-I am very conscious of the fact that time is limited and I want to be fair to other speakers who will follow me-I draw specific attention to the Kempsey Catholic Vocational College. Kempsey is a beaut town in the Macleay Valley in my electorate. Mr McGauran —It is a beautiful town. Mr NEHL —It is a beautiful town indeed. St Joseph's Vocational College and the college at Port Macquarie have been doing a marvellous job looking after students who have had difficulty in the formal education process. These are young Australian men and women who have not necessarily been able to cope within the full stream of academic activity but vocational colleges have provided specialist training, specialist teaching, in vocational areas. The record speaks for itself because the vast majority of young Australians who have been at these two innovative vocational colleges have got jobs. One of the financing problems, particularly with the Port Macquarie college, is that these colleges cannot get funding from the Department because they are so successful in finding jobs for the youngsters who are doing the training. My point in mentioning this matter is that at this very moment it looks as though St Joseph's Vocational College at Kempsey will have to close. It has been funded with some government funding but it has had a fairly large input from the Catholic diocese of Kempsey which has found that it is not able to continue that funding. I make use of the remaining seconds in which I have to speak to make a personal appeal to the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to give this matter some consideration because it is an area that is serving not the brilliant among us but the people with the skills which can be developed with a little special training. These are the people about whom both sides of this Parliament should be concerned. I implore the Minister to give some consideration to special funding and special consideration to this college which is doing such a marvellous job for young Australians. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(10.13) —I must admit that I was heartened by the introductory remarks of the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) when he indicated the importance of our education system in equipping young people for the future of Australia throughout the information age. We have now reached a stage where, without proper education, our young people will not have as great an opportunity if they do not have a proper education. This cognate debate on the States Grants (Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3), the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) allows us to cover the whole spectrum of education-tertiary, secondary or post-primary and primary. It is an opportunity to highlight the importance of education as integral not only to the future of our youth but also the development of Australia as a nation. The Government recognises this importance. It has based its education policies on providing adequate and equitable educational opportunities. A number of my colleagues on this side of the House have indicated the record of this Government in the tertiary or higher education area. The increases in the number of new places created by this Government compared with the number under the previous Government have been highlighted-the record of the Liberal Government in the 1978-82 era of only 8,100 new places, or an increase of 3.3 per cent, as against this Government's increase of 14 per cent or 36,800 positions. Also the mishmash of policies that have been presented or suggested about the future of tertiary education under a coalition government, if we were unfortunate enough for that to occur, has also been canvassed. We have had discussion of private universities being developed in Queensland by the Bond Corporation, a sort of Disneyland of universities, or perhaps we should call it the America's Cup university. In what way would this have a proper place in the adequate planning for and provision of higher education? How will this give an overall opportunity to all young people for further education? It is about time-it will have to happen soon-that the Opposition parties put forward a co- herent and proper policy for furthering tertiary education. I wish to centre my remarks on the post-primary sector of education. A number of speakers opposite have mentioned the cuts to the English as a second language program. I wonder whether this is not so much crocodile tears or political opportunism, such as we have seen in the recent announcement by the coalition of its position on the Special Broadcasting Service-Australian Broadcasting Corporation merger. As the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) mentioned in his contribution, the Australian public must ask where a coalition government would make cuts to enable it to achieve its expressed desire to reduce the Budget deficit. Where would it make such cuts when it has already indicated that it would abandon such measures as the assets test and the fringe benefits tax? Where would it recover the moneys that have been gained through those measures? We have heard only silence from the Opposition on these matters. It is about time that the Australian public was made aware of what really would happen. It is in this context that we have to ask whether the Opposition is really fair dinkum when it asks for the restoration of funds for the English as a second language program. A number of members on this side of the House have deep regrets that there was a need to cut back the ESL program. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has already indicated that she has regrets. It is a problem that we treat seriously. We are not jumping on any sort of band wagon for political reasons. In the area of post-primary or secondary education a number of programs are in place that give a chance for more equity and more opportunity for students in disadvantaged areas. There are programs that work towards getting some form of social justice through our education system. If we look at places in tertiary education and at the socio-economic background of students at higher education institutions, we see the phenomenon of the people who do sufficiently well out of post-primary education. It is quite plain to see that those from the higher socio-economic areas have a greater advantage and more access to higher education. Therefore, there is a need to address the inequity and to improve the outcomes of secondary education. I mention programs such as the disadvantaged schools program, the basic learning program and, importantly, the participation and equity program. In keeping my remarks brief, I wish to conclude by giving an example of a very successful PEP program in my electorate. I should be allowed to be parochial because I have noted that speakers from both sides of the House have managed to bring a parochial aspect to their contributions. I have visited a number of the schools in my electorate and have discussed the sorts of things being done under the PEP program. Some schools are able to divert the time of a teacher to improving and making more relevant their curriculums. They are able to allow that teacher to discuss with students, parents and the wider school community the best way and the best sort of curriculum for the school and the area. The program that I wish to highlight most is a program being run at the Glenroy High School. This is a literary transition program. It is interesting to interpose at this stage that Glenroy High School, whilst it is a high school in a disadvantaged area, has quite a number of distinguished past students. Amongst those are two members of this House, the present honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) and the present honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe). I pay special tribute to the honourable member for Calwell who, as the honourable member for Burke, played an important role in the development of the literary transition program at Glenroy High. Glenroy High's literary transition program was set up to tackle some alarming literacy problems which, in many ways, reflect the disadvantaged social profile of the area from which the school draws its population. Let me quickly demonstrate with some statistics which highlight the relationship between socio-economic problems, language difficulties due to ethnicity and literacy level in this part of Glenroy. Fifty per cent of students in years 7 to 10 come from families receiving a maintenance allowance; 25 per cent of years 7 to 9 students come from single parent homes; and 60 per cent of students at the school come from houses in which English is not the primary language. There is much more evidence but I believe that these statistics are sufficient to provide the context for understanding the most alarming statistic of all-that in 1981, 70 per cent of year 7 students has a reading or comprehension level of below average or poor which compares very unfavourably with the Victoria State norm of 23 per cent. Having recognised the magnitude of this literacy problem, the transition program at Glenroy High has worked in close co-operation with five feeder primary schools-Campmeadows Primary, Glenroy Primary, Glenroy North Primary, Gowrie Park Primary and Jacana Primary. In so doing, the schools have developed common approaches to curriculum at both years 6 and 7 which more appropriately meet the needs of students during this period. They have also developed programs at years 6 and 7 which assist students make the transition to the organisational and social environment of a secondary school. Additionally, the program provides parents with information and opportunities for participation so that they are better able to make decisions about their children's secondary education and provide support and encouragement to their children during this period. The on-going commitment to the program by the high school and the five primary schools is of great credit to their principals and staffs. I think this is a clear and good example of the very good work that is being done under the participation and equity program which aims to give youth a chance to complete full secondary education or its equivalent. While it is possible as a result of discussions that will continue that this program will be integrated into overall programs, the principles that have been put in place in a number of disadvantaged schools in my electorate by the development of PEP will bear fruit in the future. In conclusion, I wish to refer to the Western Institute for Higher Education which was mentioned by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) who introduced the Bill in this House. I congratulate my colleagues, including the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), on their efforts which have borne fruit. This innovative institution will provide both technical and further education and the more traditional higher education tertiary courses. I think it is important, as the honourable member for Maribyrnong mentioned, that for a very long period the western suburbs of Melbourne have been deprived of a higher education institution. It is to the credit of this Government that it has made the opportunity available to the youth of this disadvantaged area to continue with higher education. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.24) —In 1976, the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties presented a report to the Parliament, the foreword of which said: However, in general terms, the Committee believes that levels of achievement are acceptable only when they enable the individual to compete in society in such a way that he can, with reasonable effort, obtain for himself reasonable livelihood, dignity, and reasonable social intercourse. After dealing with the problems of learning difficulties of children and adults, particularly children from non-English speaking families, the Committee enclosed in its appendix the following comments on the acquisition of language skills: It is not only important to read books to a child in the pre-school years but also to discuss the stories with him. Discussion is an important factor in the growth of the vocabulary. Reading and listening to stories will be a more meaningful activity if the child sees his parents read for pleasure and information. Of course he should have the opportunity to accompany his parents to the library and select picture storybooks to borrow. Parents should speak clearly and carefully so that children will hear words enunciated and parents should be good listeners when the child has something to say. Giving the child many experiences through which he may learn new words and ideas and talking about the experience afterwards will stimulate his language development. Ten years later the Federal Government halved the English as a second language program for those children of non-English speaking background. It is a crime and a shame that is condemned not only by parliamentary reports but by academics, by experts, by State Premiers and by members of the Government's own Party. Let us track back over some of the comments made over a period about the significance of language acquisition and the importance of English in our society. I refer the House first of all to a 1985 Commonwealth Schools Commission report, and I quote the following passage from paragraph 11.29 on page 139: The immigration program brings to Australian each year a sizable number of students who have minimal or no proficiency in English on their arrival. Their need for intensive instructions in the English language is immediate and obvious. Without access to English they are deprived of access to education and to an alien culture. Within the group there are those whose pressing needs extend beyond English language instruction because they are illiterate in their mother tongue. . . . The need for special assistance extends therefore beyond the newly arrived group. It may also extend to students who can use English effectively but who experience difficulty with language that is subject specific or abstract. Such students may be less able to participate in education than native speakers of similar intellectual capacity. In May 1986 the Schools Commission presented another report and stated on page 2. English as a Second Language Program. Funds available through this program provide essential help to students from non-English speaking backgrounds to develop English language skills. For newly arrived students the program provides intensive English language programs and through its general support element it provides continuing services to improve English languages competence. Further on it states: . . . added demands are being made on a program where hours of tuition provided are already seen to be inadequate. The program is a reflection of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for immigration and will involve the expenditure of $60.287m in 1986. More recently, in August of this year, a statement was made by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) titled `Guidelines for Commonwealth Schools Commission 1987' It states: The English as a Second language (ESL) Program has achieved significant results in meeting the language needs of a wide range of migrant children. The Commonwealth's principal responsibility is to assist the language needs of newly arrived migrant children. That responsibility will be met in this budget, but there will be a reduction in the general provision in the ESL program. In this, as in other programs, the Commission should bear in mind the Government's commitment to direct resources to areas or groups in greatest need. I cannot think of any group in greater need in our community than those who cannot effectively communicate or cannot effectively build as real potential for their opportunities and lifestyles. Just yesterday the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) presented in this Parliament the report of the Committee Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services. What did Dr James Jupp say in that report? I will read to the House what he said: At the school level, a survey by the Commonwealth Department of Education and Youth Affairs in 1983 found that around 23% of children enrolled in schools in Australia (approximately 690,000 students) came from homes in which at least one of the parents or guardians normally spoke a language other than English. While it is not suggested that all of these children would have been experiencing language-related learning difficulties in school, a recent review of the Commonwealth English as Second language program . . . found that 55% of those in need of specialist English as a Second Language . . . assistance in the schools surveyed were not receiving it. So 55 per cent of those children in need of specialist language training, ESL, are not receiving it. For 10 years the Commonwealth has been aware of these problems. For 10 years successive governments have taken steps to rectify them. But what do we find in 1986? The Government has cut one of the most significant and delicately balanced programs in its whole Budget. Senator Graham Richardson, a prominent member of the Australian Labor Party, was so incensed at the Government's decision that his comments were reported in the Canberra Times of 10 November as follows: `If I'd sat down for a month and tried to work out how to offend and how to best hurt [ethnic groups] I'd have cut back English as a Second Language as a program', he said. `That decision was not bad politics, it was wrong in principle and wrong in implementation.' Various Ministers, including the Minister for Education, have claimed that the cuts will not affect the delivery of programs. Somehow the machinery of the Australian Labor Party has been able to coerce various State Premiers to say that they will pick up the shortfalls in their States for the ensuing 12 months. That is fine for this year but what will happen in successive years? What will happen further down the track, after the next Budget? Will the Premiers be so generous? I think not. The comments of the Premier of New South Wales are interesting. I attended with the Premier a protest meeting involving hundreds of distressed parents and children. The Premier said, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 August: Ethnic groups will feel your Government has lost touch with their needs. Those are the words of the Premier of New South Wales, and he is right. This is not some sort of pressure group or secular claim on Commonwealth funds-it is a claim by people in dire need who recognise that opportunities for their children will be severely limited if their children cannot acquire those language skills essential for them to be successful in their secondary and tertiary education and ultimately in finding a job. Dr James Jupp examined all of the Commonwealth programs and interviewed and took evidence from hundreds of people around Australia. He came to this conclusion in chapter 7 of his report: A persistent theme in the submissions we received, in the consultations we had and in those we commissioned, was that being able to communicate in English is the single most important factor in enabling people to participate equitably in Australian life. I thought that was what the Australian Labor Party stood for. It has broken so many promises since the last election that nobody really knows what it stands for. I thought that at least the Australian Labor Party would be true to some of its commitments to equity and participation. Of course it is not. It can cut a program of essential importance by 44 per cent and palm it off on to the States and make no commitment for ongoing years. Dr Jupp deals at length with the problems established by those communities most sorely in need of Commonwealth English language programs. I reiterate to the House that over 10 years, since I have been in this Parliament, successive reports have indicated the significance for new arrivals of the acquisition of English language skills, and then a continuing acquisition of skills as there is a need for an abstract and more diverse intellectual understanding of the use of the English language. This year the Commonwealth Government has been condemned for the stand taken by the Minister for Education, by the Prime Minister and by the Government itself. It has been condemned by this Parliament, by academics, and by the expert reports from which I have read. It has been condemned by its own members and Premiers. Above all it stands condemned by the children and by the parents of those who are in so much need and who have been denied the opportunity they deserve. The cynical thing about this is that Dr James Jupp's review is entitled `Don't settle for Less'. The Government has shown that it is prepared to make disadvantaged groups settle for much less. Mr Price —Are you right, Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member for Chifley should know that he should not seek the call until the previous speaker has resumed his seat. I call the honourable member for Chifley. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.35) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the advice you have given me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is a new member and he had his mentor in here yesterday. I have no doubt that Mr Armitage would have taught him better. Mr PRICE —You are so kind, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will briefly respond to some of the remarks the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) made. Yes, I regretted the action we took but I am pleased that the English as a second language program problem has been resolved. I have written to every parents and citizens organisation in the high schools in my electorate outlining the situation and what the outcome has been. Tonight I wish to speak briefly on two matters. First, I want to quote from the speech given by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) at her historic opening of stage 2 of the Nepean College of Advanced Education. I also want to respond to a vicious attack upon me, my State colleague Richard Amery and the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, Ron Mulock, in the 3 November issue of Education, the journal of the New South Wales Teachers' Federation in an article entitled `Manufacturing senior high schools, recessionist thinking' by Andy Graham. From the outset we have campaigned publicly on two issues and in private on a third issue about education in the western suburbs of Sydney. The one that received no publicity, and quite appropriately, was the issue of truancy in the western suburbs of Sydney. I am very pleased to say that the New South Wales Government has established a pilot program in Mount Druitt in my electorate to tackle the issue of truancy. I very much regret that the planned training was curtailed. I have had good reports of the program and I am very much looking forward to an evaluation of it and, in particular, what the extra needs of training are to ensure that we do not just pick up the occasional truant but address the hard core truant. A public issue has been about the Western Suburbs University, an issue I first raised in July in the Blacktown Advocate. I pay a special tribute to the reporter Gilbert Inns, to the paper, and to all the papers in the western suburbs, for the way they have taken up the issue. There are a couple of important factors about the university of which I should remind the House. It could very well have been a one day wonder except that I am pleased to say that the Mayor of Blacktown City Council Alderman Leo Kelly agreed to set up a special committee comprised of State and Federal members, alderman and educationalists. That committee has been ongoing, very forthright and very determined. When there have been chill winds against the university that committee has kept that issue alive. When the history is written of the Western Suburbs University it will be most kind to the role the committee played and to its participants. But why should I mention these three issues? It is because we in the western suburbs of Sydney have to understand that, as a region, we are underperforming. It does not mean that we have children who are less capable or less talented than those from other areas, but certainly in the statistics of educational outcomes their performance is well below average. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 10.40 p.m., the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.42) —I was saying that, because of my concern and the concern of my colleagues both at the Federal and State levels about this underperformance in our region, we have focused on education. I want to quote selectively from the article that I referred to earlier. It states: One such example of this `recessionist thinking' is currently found in the proposal to create a Senior High School at Mount Druitt. Local State Members Richard Amery and Ron Mulock in concert with Federal Member Roger Price, have launched a campaign which aims at setting up one Senior High for year 11 and 12 students from the local high schools of the area and the resultant creation of a number of Junior Highs catering to years 7-10. The article refers to the two public meetings which were organised and which were overwhelmingly in support of this campaign as having been `tightly organised and controlled by the local Labor machine'. It is true that the Australian Labor Party in the western suburbs of Sydney is taking a very high profile on education matters, but I just want to advise the House that at least two members of the committee that has been formed as a result of these public meetings would normally vote for he Liberal Party. So it surprises me that that is said to be a reflection of a `tight local Labor machine'. But the comment in the article that I find most objectionable is as follows: Whereas a Senior College may be of some benefit to the small proportion of academically orientated students there is no evidence to suggest that the matriculation prospects of the vast majority of non-academically inclined students in Mount Druitt would be increased. In fact what the article is really stating is that the New South Wales Teachers Federation-the Federation that represents that group of people who are supposed to be educating the children of my area-is suggesting that there is perhaps something genetically wrong or different which makes these children different from children of other areas. I find this totally objectionable and obnoxious and I think that the Teachers Federation ought to get off the money band wagon and start talking about educational outcomes. In my area the participation rate in years 11 and 12 is 15 per cent to 20 per cent. I say that that is a disgrace, but it is not a reflection on the students. They are talented, they are capable, and we do have our success stories. But as a nation we cannot afford such a region with one and a half million people to be educationally underperforming. What I find most objectionable is that, when I had a meeting with the Teachers Federation and my State colleague in my office, the same gentleman who wrote this article left a copy of the paper but did not even have the courtesy to mention his vicious attack within it. All the Teachers Federation is interested in is cutting off the $23m to the wealthier public schools. If we cut off the $23 million to the wealthier public schools tomorrow, it would make not one iota of difference to educational outcomes in the western suburbs of Sydney. Whilst ever the poorer Catholic schools are in the same lobby as the wealthy schools, politically no government will tamper with it. As I say, I believe that it is a red herring. I do not believe that the issue in Mount Druitt or in the western suburbs is pouring tens of millions of dollars into the public education system to lift performance and educational outcomes. Certainly, there will be some money. I find it ironic that when we offered the Teachers Federation the proposal to develop a regional approach to the needs of public education in the western suburbs of Sydney, it declined. I repeat the offer publicly in the House. Let the Teachers Federation forget its obsession with money. Let it start being concerned about the educational outcome of the children its members have responsibility for teaching. Let it develop, in concert with State and Federal members, a regional approach to solving educational problems and forget, as I say, its constant, State-wide obsession with money. I am absolutely delighted that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has given an unequivocal commitment. I quote: `The Federal Government has unequivocally accepted the need for university places to be available in the west'. I recognise that Liberal members have supported the university campaign. I remind the House that when they were in government their highest priority was to create another university in the Australian Capital Territory at a cost of $360 million. The Australian Capital Territory is very well provided for in regard to tertiary education. Mr McGauran —Come on-10 minutes. Mr PRICE —If the honourable member keeps that going, I will keep on going. The Commonwealth's position is quite clear. It is to set up a university college in the western suburbs of Sydney. Mr Ruddock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member is speaking on a Bill that has already passed the House. It is not relevant to the matters that are now being debated. I have no objection to his discussing the university matter but others would like to talk on it as well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I am sure that the honourable member for Chifley was getting on to how important the participation and equity program was in regard to the entry of young Australians into universities. Mr PRICE —It is ironic that the honourable member for Dundas would want to gag me or pull me up on the western suburbs of Sydney. Mr Ruddock —No, we want to see that other people can discuss it as well. Mr PRICE —All right. The Commonwealth's position is known. The university will be built up into a full university over a period. I congratulate the Education Minister on that. I hope that the State and Federal governments will work to that end. When we achieve the university and the senior high school our concern about education will not end. Our concern in the region must be maintained until our region performs as well as, if not better than, other regions in Sydney and, indeed, Australia. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.48) —In the two or three minutes remaining-after the Government applied the guillotine at the commencement of today's proceedings-to discuss the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 I wish to remind the House of the grand promises which accompanied the introduction of the participation and equity program by way of legislation in 1983. Sadly, time this evening or on any other occasion in the foreseeable future will not permit me to discuss matters that arise from the legislation before the House because of the Government's determination, not to put too fine a point on it, to gag debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, I take you back to 1983 when it was said that the participation and equity scheme would cure many ills, such as unemployment, and youth unemployment in particular, by the way of grants to both the tertiary education and secondary school sectors. That promise, like so many by this Government on youth unemployment, has fallen on hollow ground. The sad fact is that youth unemployment under this Government, despite the participation and equity program, has increased substantially so that today youth between the ages of 18 and 19-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo Mcleay) —Order! The time allocated for the remaining stages of this Bill has expired. The question is: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.52) —I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for- (a) the removal of constraints imposed on non-government schools, or on non-government school communities, which will in any way destroy their independence, opportunities for expansion or interfere with the special character of non-government schools, and (b) the restoration of funding for the English as a Second Language General Support Element, to ensure that students from Non-English speaking backgrounds continue to enjoy access to specialist language tuition and to maintain and enhance their leaning potential'. In speaking to this amendment we focus on two aspects of this legislation which we oppose vigorously. I wish to deal with them in order. Firstly, we focus on this Government's continuing attacks on the non-government school sector; specifically, attacks by way of increasing control of and intrusion and interference in the operation of non-government schools. I wish to put this contribution on an even plane. For as far as I can foresee the majority of Australian school children, some 70 per cent, will continue to be educated in government schools. The Commonwealth Government in partnerships with State governments around Australia, has an abiding and unshaking responsibility to ensure that there are sufficient resources of money and time to enable the States to run strong and viable state school systems. In moving this amendment and in focusing on the Government's continuing attacks on the non-government school sector we do not do so to point to an `us' and `them' mentality. We recognise, as do all members of this Parliament, the importance of the government school sector. When in government we will continue to support it strongly. But there is an importance about the non-government school sector which this ideologically motivated Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) does not seem to understand. It is of fundamental importance for parents to have the right to choose to which school and which school system they will send their children. Secondly, in exercising that right of choice and freedom, one of the consequences of a strong and viable non-government school sector is that it provides competition to the government school sector. With both sectors operating side by side it is cheaper for governments to have many of our children, about 20 per cent, to be educated in non-government schools, so that more of the education resources can be directed at government schools. I identify strongly with the comments made in the previous debate by the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price). It is important not only because it is cheaper but because it enables parents to exercise a choice. It is also important because it provides competition in the system. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you this rhetorical question: What rational family would send dad and mum out to work and deny itself all sorts of discretionary expenditure in order to be able to afford to take away its kids from free schools, often with small class sizes, modern equipment and grass playing fields, to pay to send them to other schools which in so many cases are typified by large class sizes, old equipment and asphalt playing grounds? The answer to that rhetorical question is that tens of thousands of Australian families are doing it now and tens of thousands more Australian families wish they could do it because they are concerned about the standard of education and the standard of discipline in the government school sector, which is exactly what the honourable member for Chifley was talking about in relation to the western suburbs of Sydney. It is this element of choice, this competition, which is not only right in its own sense but also absolutely fundamental to ensuring that all of us exert our efforts to improve the government school sector. Under the Minister for Education this Government is making it harder and harder to open new non-government schools; it is making it harder and harder to expand existing non-government schools; and it is making it imperative that more and more time of principals, headmasters, bursars and administrators is being directed to satisfying this Government's accountability provisions. Has there been a scandal in relation to the expenditure of moneys in the non-government school sector? No. Has there been an outcry or an outrage? No. This is all about audit and accountability in the name of intrusive control, in the name of interference. There is no sound educational reason for it. It is an ideological imperative being carried out by this Minister who is opposed to the non-government school sector, choice, freedom, excellence and encouraging all sections of our education community to aspire to the highest standards possible. The second aspect of this amendment relates to the English as a second language program. In the contribution to the debate by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) he spelt out the answer very, very clearly. This was a stupid decision. Recently when speaking at a school that had been particularly disadvantaged by cuts to the ESL program the Minister said how great it was that the Commonwealth was paying for the awnings on the school canteen. She said that it was good for the Commonwealth Minister for Education to talk about awnings on canteens, that it brought her back to day to day needs, to bread and butter issues. I dare add that, given the choice, the students and the parents of the students of that school would have their ESL program back and give away their awnings any day of the week. I ask the House to support these amendments so that we can improve this legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.59) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion. I simply observe that in this debate we are under a guillotine and the amount of time that I have in seconding this amendment is less than one minute. I make the point very strongly that the English as a second language programs are of the utmost importance. It was one of the most disgraceful episodes in this Government's history that it attacked these particular programs and that that was its priority in the area of education. I also take the opportunity of mentioning one other area about which I have not yet been able to speak during this Budget session, and that is the Government's funding cuts to education centres and in particular the Northern Districts Education Centre. I hope that within the next few weeks before the Parliament rises I will have an opportunity to address the Parliament on that matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It now being 11 o'clock, the time allocated for the remaining stages of this Bill has expired. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Shack's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack. P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N. Hall, Steele Smith, W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hodges, J. C. Darling, E. E. Downer, A. J. G. Duncan, F. Fife, W. C. Bilney, G. N. Sullivan, K. J. Jacobi, R. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. House adjourned at 11.09 p.m.