Tuesday, 24 February 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —I have become aware, through a tape recording and newspaper, radio and television reports, of certain remarks made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) yesterday outside the House which were critical of the Speaker. As the honourable member has been suspended from the service of the House until 2.43 p.m. today, I do not intend to pursue this matter until the honourable member has the opportunity to return to the House. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a matter of courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is absent from the House today on government business. Any questions which would normally be addressed to him should be addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young). Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Is he able to confirm the official American interpretation of recent satellite photographs of Cam Ranh Bay that this base constitutes the largest Soviet naval facility outside the Soviet Union-an interpretation which is clearly at odds with the claim by the Minister-Counsellor at the Soviet Embassy in Canberra that no such naval base exists at Cam Ranh Bay? Do these satellite photographs confirm the permanent deployment of one squadron of MiG 23 Flogger fighters, squadrons of Bear and Badger long range strike bombers, the presence of Soviet Echo and Foxtrot submarines and surface combatant ships? Will the Government's impending White Paper on defence take full account of the Soviet build-up at Cam Ranh Bay and the adverse impact that this build-up will have on regional security? Mr HAWKE —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. He will appreciate that I will not go into details of intelligence that we have. However, it is nonsense to say that there is not a build-up of Soviet military capacities at Cam Ranh Bay, and I will not engage in such a nonsense. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I believe that when he hears the statement of the Minister for Defence and sees the Government's White Paper, he should be satisfied that the considerations involved in his question will have been seen to have been taken into account in the White Paper. Mr GRIFFITHS —Will the Treasurer inform the House of actions that the Government is taking to ensure that Australia has a fiscal policy appropriate for our current trading difficulties? Mr KEATING —Today, I announce, on behalf of the Government, the Government's intention to make a statement to Parliament in May of expenditure saving measures anticipating cuts in outlays beginning 1 July in the next financial or budgetary year, 1987-88. The point of a May statement, which the Government has used now on two previous occasions, is to effect savings not just from Budget night but for the full 12 months, and also to indicate to the country at large and to markets in particular that the Government intends to maintain the discipline over fiscal policy, which it has had now for four years, to adjust Australia to the sharp fall in its terms of trade and the prices for its exports, so that we are no longer in a position where we are relying on overseas savings, over the long term, to prop up our living standards because we have failed to increase our own savings for productive investment in the import-competing and exporting sectors. The Government believes that the deficits have needed to be cut. When we came to office the deficit was 4.8 per cent of gross domestic product in prospect. The Government brought it in to, I think, 4.5 or 4.6 per cent. This year the deficit in prospect is forecast to be 1.4 per cent of GDP. As Australia moves through this process of adjustment to its terms of trade decline it is not in a position to be paying for its imports and balancing its payments to a very consider- able degree, in fact of the order of $14 1/2 billion. A continuing grip upon fiscal policy, along with the other instruments of policy, is entirely necessary. Again I contrast the mechanisms of the Government and the announcement of a further process of discipline on the fiscal side with the kind of lack of discipline which would come from the adoption of the Opposition's policies on taxation, which would add $14 billion unless the deficits are changed. Of course we know what the impact of that would be; it would simply smash Australia's credibility on financial markets. The cost of funding our current account would rocket to the high 20 or 30 per cents as Australia was crushed into a domestic recession. I contrast for the House and the public the difference between a government that believes that the difficult process of adjustment must continue and be undertaken and an Opposition that believes that at a time when our national income is being cut we can have some cosmetic increase in living standards by some fistful of dollars. We will let the public be the judge of where the truth and honesty lie in the economic policies of the various parties. However, I say again that this Government is committed to the kinds of disciplines it has now had in place for four years and the announcement of an expenditure statement in May is just another step on the road to the introduction of another Budget which will maintain that discipline and that process of adjustment. Mr SHACK —Is the Prime Minister aware that there are currently thousands of young Australians who are being denied the chance of a higher education not because they are academically unqualified but because public funds simply cannot provide enough university or college places for them? Because of this situation, why is it that his Government actively encourages overseas students to enrol at Australian higher education institutions on a fee paying basis yet categorically denies the same opportunity to our own young people? Mr HAWKE —Let me first of all make the point about what this Government has done during its period in office in regard to the provision of additional tertiary places. Mr McGauran —It has done nothing. Mr HAWKE —`It has done nothing' is the interjection. We are getting used to the refusal of the Opposition to face the facts. Let me put the facts before the House. In the first four years of this Government's office we have provided 36,800 new places in tertiary education. I ask the honourable member for Tangney in particular to contrast that performance in our four years with the coalition's last four years. What was the figure for the coalition's last four years in government? It provided the princely increase of 8,000 places. Under this Government 36,800 new places have been created; under the coalition Government 8,000 new places were created. So the honourable member should not stand up here and try to lecture this Government about the provision of places in tertiary institutions in this country. Mr BLANCHARD —I direct a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is there any evidence that Aboriginal voters in the Northern Territory are being discriminated against in relation to basic democratic rights-in particular, the right to vote in the forthcoming election? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for his question. Unfortunately the short answer to his question is yes. The electoral rolls in the Northern Territory closed on Monday, 16 February, the day the election was announced. Of course, they closed at a time when the wet season was at its height. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. If the Minister is addressing himself, as he appears to be, to a question concerning the administration of the electoral rolls in the Northern Territory, that cannot be any part of his portfolio duties. Madam SPEAKER —I take that point but the Minister has been asked whether the Aboriginals are being discriminated against. The Aboriginals of the Northern Territory are his direct responsibility. I call the Minister. Mr HOLDING —Let me point out to the honourable gentleman opposite that unfortunately there is clear evidence of what could only be described as discriminatory practices in the provision of mobile polling booths. For example, at Pine Creek, a predominantly white community of 139 voters, polling facilities are available from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on the day of the election; but in a much larger, predominantly Aboriginal community the polling times are restricted. For example, at Nguiu on Melville Island, with 600 enrolled voters, the polling booth is open from only 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Other larger Aboriginal communities are similarly treated. One blatant example of discrimination would appear to be at Auvergne which has six white voters. It receives a polling booth. Ten kilometres away at Bulla, 40 Aborigines will have no access to a mobile polling booth. I can understand that it is part of the pre-conditioning of some members of the National Party that they believe in discrimination against voters, particularly of people likely to vote against the National Party. Members of the National Party do not have any problem about saying: `That is fair', because as far as they are concerned the electoral system can be adjusted or manipulated to try to produce a narrow political advantage. I just make the point-- Mr Spender —That should be ruled out of order. Mr HOLDING —Why does the honourable member not take a point of order? Mr Spender —Now that you have invited me to do so, I take a point of order. In answering the question the Minister went on to make direct comments and to say that this constituted pre-ferential treatment. He was talking about the National Party and how this was organised by the National Party. It does not matter how it is organised or what it is there for, he is not talking about discrimination within his portfolio. He is talking about the way an election is to be run-what is effectively a State-type election. If somebody is to answer a question on that subject, it should not be him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is quite in order. He is describing the discrimination against the Aboriginals directly under his control-within his portfolio. Mr Scholes —Madam Speaker, on the point of order which has been taken: All Northern Territory law is made under delegated authority by legislation of this Parliament and is the res-ponsibility of the Ministers in this Parliament. Madam SPEAKER —That is not a point of order either. I call the Minister. Mr HOLDING —Before I start, I wonder whether the honourable member for North Sydney has any more fatuous points of order. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will get on with answering the question. Mr HOLDING —I would have thought that in this Parliament there should be some level of consensus whereby it is agreed that if our political system is to operate effectively and democratically, whatever administration is in power, governments and Ministers ought to see that all citizens-black or white-have equal opportunity for voting. That should not be a matter about which there is any serious disagreement in this Parliament. But such is the state of mental confusion and disorientation opposite that the Opposition is prepared, as it throws all sorts of policies overboard, to jettison basic democratic principles-even if honourable members opposite have to use bodgie points of order to try to establish them. Let me say this for the satisfaction of the overfed Queen's Counsel from North Sydney-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not care what the Minister says about me, but I do care that as a general rule parliamentary decency should be observed. That applies whether it concerns me or anyone else. Incidentally, I am perfectly willing to contrast my waistline with the Minister's waistline. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister said something offensive; he will withdraw. Mr HOLDING —If the honourable member is offended, I certainly withdraw the word `overfed' and say that, on the basis of his points of order, the word `overpaid' would be more appropriate. The question raises a matter of concern for this reason: With such a level of malapportionment, representations are being made within the Northern Territory to see that some balance is maintained in this matter. I will be making representations directly, because it has to be understood that the lack of provision of these sorts of facilities can affect the vote and, where that occurs, certainly, as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I would be prepared to provide the necessary legal and other support mechanisms to see that Aboriginal people are not discriminated against in the forthcoming election. Mr BLUNT —Is the Prime Minister aware that in New South Wales Department of Social Security staff have implemented bans on the Government's meagre anti-fraud measures? Is he aware that the bans result in no strict identity requirements, no penalties for non-disclosure of income for unemployment beneficiaries, no requirement to register with the Commonwealth Employment Service and no regular checks on the payment of supporting parent's benefit? Has the Minister for Social Security reported to the Prime Minister on this situation and what is his estimate of the cost to the taxpayer in additional fraud and overpayment? In view of the vandalism being done to the social security system, what action does the Prime Minister's Government propose? Will the Prime Minister reintroduce the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the first part of the question is no; the answer to the second part of the question is no; the answer to the third part of the question is no; and therefore the answer to the fourth part of the question is: Until such time as I have this matter reported to me I do not know what action, if any, is necessary. Mr SCOTT —Does the Minister for Housing and Construction endorse the view of the spokesperson for the National Australia Bank Ltd indicating that housing interest rates should be increased? Mr WEST —Madam Speaker, no, I do not-- Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 144 and remind you that the questioner asked: `Does the Minister hold the view . . .'. He is asking straight out for an opinion and in that circumstance the question should be either rephrased or ruled out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Farrer is quite correct. Does the honourable member wish to rephrase the question? Mr SCOTT —Madam Speaker-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will rephrase his question quickly. Mr SCOTT —The words I used were: `Does the Minister endorse . . .?'. Madam SPEAKER —There is nothing wrong with that. I call the Minister. Mr WEST —No, the Minister does not endorse the view of the National Australia Bank Ltd that the deregulated housing interest rate offered by savings banks of 15.5 per cent should be increased. In fact, the National is one out on that issue and is not supported by the other savings banks. For instance, the House will be aware that yesterday the Commonwealth Bank of Australia said that there was no need for the 15.5 per cent to increase, and I note that today the Westpac Banking Corporation has reiterated that view. So the other savings banks are not supporting the National, nor should they because savings bank deposits are currently increasing at an annual rate of over 13 per cent, and savings bank lending during December of $777m represents an annualised rate of over $9 billion. Further, the St George Building Society Ltd has lent over $600m during 1986 at an average rate of 15.5 per cent. So it appears that there are ample funds available from banks and some major building societies at 15.5 per cent. Why would anyone want to borrow from the National Bank at higher rates if that is the case, and it is the case? This Government's policy on housing is clear. The Prime Minister has said that, unlike the Opposition, we do not advocate sharp, sudden drops in housing interest rates. The intention of this Government is to develop housing policies that are sustainable in the long term. That means that we, unlike the Opposition, are looking for sustainable reductions in interest rates. At the same time we are offering to the housing sector priority assistance which is commensurate with the demands of other portfolios and other programs, still allowing for the fact that we have proved by our policies that housing is a very high priority area. We have already established that fact by the subsidy that we have paid to the savings banks over the last 12 months. That subsidy has been paid to hold the 13.5 per cent regulated rate and that 13.5 per cent regulated rate will continue to be held. Furthermore, we have maintained, at a cost of some $1,000m, the first home owners scheme which offers assistance and which has already enabled 230,000 households to become home owners. That scheme is being held in place. Unlike the Opposition, we intend to continue our public housing policies. We have offered $1.3 billion in grants or low interest loans to the States in 1986-87. This will result in some 18,000 additions to the public housing rental stock compared with 8,500 additions in the last year of office of the former Government. That is the record that we have on the board. It has resulted in an increase in employment in housing and construction of some 100,000 over the last three years of this Government. This Government will continue to offer to the housing sector housing policies which are commensurate with the highest degree of assistance that we can offer in tough economic times. I conclude by laying it down to the Opposition spokesman: When will we see the Opposition's housing policy? I understand that the Opposition was about to release its policy last Wednesday but, because of the disruption and discussion in its own ranks, the Opposition spokesman was told to hold it up for another month. The Opposition intends to advocate abolition of the first home owners scheme. Let me put this on record: That scheme is in place and will continue to assist low income home purchasers. Mr SPENDER —Can the Attorney-General verify that the National Companies and Securities Commission is not prosecuting a $13m corporate fraud case because it cannot afford the cost of investigation, and that this case is a relatively small one compared with others involving amounts probably in the tens of millions of dollars which will not be prosecuted because of lack of resources? Will the Attorney-General tell us how many tens of millions of dollars are involved in those cases and what action has been taken to ensure that these cases are promptly and rigorously investigated? Mr Kent —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Would you agree with me that the question is somewhat lengthy? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr SPENDER —Good try. I repeat: Will the Attorney-General tell us how many tens of millions of dollars are involved in these cases, what action he has taken to ensure that these cases are promptly and rigorously investigated, and what body is to conduct the investigations? Can the Attorney-General explain how this scandalous state of affairs stacks up against the Government's protestations about its plans to combat organised and white collar crime? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman's question is based on a newspaper report that there was a $13m fraud which the NCSC was unable to prosecute overseas because of lack of resources. I had inquiries made as to whether that is the true position. I am advised that that is not the position. I understand that there was a suggestion of fraud and a prosecution was commenced in Queensland and was successfully prosecuted in that State. Accordingly, the NCSC advised that no Australian shareholder was disadvantaged. It went on to say that there may have been matters that it would have liked to investigate overseas. Mr Spender —Involving tens of millions of dollars. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. On that basis-it was made very clear-the NCSC was asked whether it wanted to avail itself of any other resources, particularly in the States, for example, in which there are many resources available for investigation. It was indicated that it did not wish so to do. The thrust of the honourable gentleman's question ought to be answered in this context-- Mr Spender —What about the United States matter? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The evidence given to us related only to that matter. If there are other matters which the honourable gentleman thinks might be the subject of investigation, we have not heard about them. The point I want to make is this: It is wrong for the NCSC, through some unknown spokesman, to create a climate in the media to the effect that it is unable to prosecute fraudulent practices or insider trading. Let us make it very clear that the resources that are available to the State corporate affairs commissions would also be available to the NCSC. Those resources amount to about $137m gross and $75m net. There are 1,400 people employed in the State corporate affairs commissions and they have over 300 investigators. One cannot understand why the NCSC was not able, if it wanted, to ask some of the States whether they could not make some of those resources available. No such request has been made. Mr Spender —Is anybody doing anything? Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member for North Sydney that the Chair does not intend to put up with his ceaseless interjections. I warn him that if he continues, I will deal with him. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —What must be said to the honourable member is that the NCSC has not asked for any definite further increases in its resources. There was a request by us to explain what resources it might need and why it could not use existing resources. At this stage, no answer has been given. There will be a meeting of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities on 6 March. I tell the honourable member that it will be very forcefully put to the members of the NCSC that the members of the Ministerial Council, which picks up all of the States, would be very anxious to learn whether there has been a failure to prosecute any suggestion of malpractice, fraud or insider trading, because we would want those prosecuted to the full. We cannot understand why the extensive resources available to the NCSC are not being utilised, if that is the position; but we have no evidence of it. The thrust of the original question was: What happened to the $13m fraud? I have given an answer to that question. If there is a suggestion of other fraud, or other insider trading, we would like to know about it. If this has occurred because of failure to provide resources, we have not yet heard about it to that extent. The National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1978, which set up the Commission, makes it very clear that this is a co-operative effort between the Commonwealth and States. The NCSC has full entitlement to use State resources. If that is the case, we want to know why it has not done so in the past. Those resources are available now and, from the point of view of the business community, there is a $75m profit going to the States at present from filing and other fees. Mr CHARLES —Has the Minister for Defence heard reports about the growing Russian influence in the Pacific and at Cam Ranh Bay? Is the Government concerned about this reported Russian influence in the Pacific and in particular at its base at Cam Ranh Bay? Mr BEAZLEY —We are thoroughly aware of the activities of the Soviet Union in the Pacific, in South East Asia and at Cam Ranh Bay. We are aware of this, not just because of reports which are occasionally released in the Press and picked up on the odd occasion for Question Time here, but because that area is the object of our own independent intelligence gathering activity, which is very substantial. We are very well informed on developments which take place there. In answering the honourable member, I take this opportunity to remind the House of some of those independent intelligence gathering capabilities. We have negotiated for the operation of our Orion P3C aircraft out of Butterworth. These aircraft operate a regular surveillance throughout the area and monitor not only Soviet shipping but also the shipping of other nations in the region. Thus, we have a very thorough-going assessment from our own point of view of Soviet shipping movements in that area. We also have regular deployments to that area of our own frigates. I had occasion to remind the House last year of a frigate which followed a major Soviet warship for a substantial period when that warship was visiting that area. To put the visits of our warships to that area in perspective, I point out that my home town of Fremantle in Western Australia last year had 36 visits from United States warships and in the same time 28 of our warships visited Singapore. This is not an area that is in any way neglected by the policies of this Government. It is an area of strategic concern to us; we take that seriously. This is shown in what we have negotiated at Butterworth, both in terms of the operation of the Orion P3C aircraft and in terms of the replacement of the Mirage squadrons. Quite clearly we could never have replaced those Mirage squadrons with our FA18 aircraft, which require much more direct activity for our Services. However, there will be regular visits by FA18 aircraft through Butterworth as a result of the agreement with the Malaysian Government. I stress again that we do not rely on any advice that we receive from anybody else about what is going on in the region. We have our own intelligence gathering capability and it is very effective. Mr McVEIGH —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of Australia's disastrous trade figures released recently and the need to improve our exports, will he inform the House about the current state of negotiation regarding the integration of the Chinese and Australian steel and iron ore industries with the reopening of the Kwinana steel mill and the development of the Channar iron ore deposits? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question and for the spirit in which it has been put. China is an outstanding example of the potential market available to Australian industries which are prepared to go after exports in our region. Iron and steel making is one of the four key areas of possible co-operation which China and Australia are currently examining. The Australia-China Iron and Steel Joint Study Group has spawned several very worthwhile projects. For example, it is now likely that Australian companies will collaborate with the Chinese Ministry of Metallurgical Industry in developing the Meishan iron works into a major steel producing centre. In respect of Channar, I would say to the honourable member that discussions are currently continuing between Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd and the Chinese Metallurgical Import and Export Corporation about the prospects for a joint venture to develop the iron ore deposit. I think the honourable member will appreciate that those are commercial matters and, while we are obviously not privy to all the detail in regard to those commercial negotiations that are going on in regard to Channar between Hamersley and the relevant Chinese authority, I can say to the honourable member that I have a considerable degree of optimism as to the outcome of that matter. Also I can say in regard to the Kwinana pig-iron venture that again that is a matter of commercial negotiation, but I understand that that project is not likely to go ahead until there has been some improvement in pig-iron prices. I note, and I think the honourable member would be aware, that currently the market prices for pig-iron are very depressed and not least, as he would know, because a number of suppliers including the Soviet Union, Turkey and Brazil are said to be tendering on non-commercial terms. I understand that the Chinese Vice-Minister of Metallurgical Industry, Wang Rulin, visited Australia from 10 February to 21 February. I can convey to the honourable member that I believe the discussions that he engaged in included discussions with Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd on the Kwinana project. Out of those discussions it was agreed, again as I understand it, that prices had not recently moved in favour of the project but that they would continue to keep the project and the possible co-operation under periodical review in the light of movements in pig-iron prices. I understand also that other possible areas of co-operation between BHP and the Chinese steel industry were also discussed in that period earlier this month but, as I say again, the details of those discussions between BHP and the Chinese remain confidential to the parties. I believe that what is happening can only encourage BHP, and we would certainly encourage it and others to pursue those matters vigorously. I would point out, and I think the honourable member may be aware of this, that Australia has already increased its exports to China of iron and steel making materials by some 300 per cent between 1983 and 1985, and I hope that the honourable member will agree that that is a very significant achievement. Mr DUBOIS —Has the attention of the Minister for Aviation been drawn to problems of congestion at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport at Mascot and at its international terminal building? If so, for what reason did Qantas Airways Ltd withdraw its proposal to build a new terminal? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. The question he asked has been dealt with in this House on three earlier occasions-in June, October and November of last year. There are those who want to perpetrate the myth that in some way there was a proposal from Qantas to build an international terminal. Quite some time ago a proposal was based on a misunderstanding by Qantas of what was proposed in the upgrading that is currently under way by the Department of Aviation. When Qantas became aware of the 80 per cent improvement in capacity of the international terminal under the Department's proposal and the underestimate of cost of its proposal, it withdrew its proposition. That was early last year. It was detailed to the House in June, October and November. Let me say also that the problems of lack of capacity at Mascot did not suddenly develop under this Government. Again it is an example of the legacies that we inherited from those who sit opposite-a complete lack of planning, a complete contempt for the provision of adequate infrastructure for aviation and transport generally where and when it is needed. If in some way it had been able to make a decision in all those years of office, the problems that we face at Mascot today would not exist. This Government has taken the matter in hand. The $23m program that is under way now will, as I said, increase passenger capacity by some 80 per cent. The program is due for completion, over several stages, by about mid-1989. Each stage will be brought into operation on completion. The program involves the provision of two additional aero bridges and the upgrading of a third; the provision of a greater area at the primary Customs line; new baggage claim facilities; a large public area in the arrivals hall; a new bus dock and lounge; and an enlargement of the departures hall. In addition to that, improved management procedures have been implemented. Some 20 additional Customs staff have been employed at the primary Customs line by my colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. That, and the improved management procedures at the terminal, have resulted in improved efficiency at the terminal. During December-January there was a 19 per cent increase in the number of people inward bound through the terminal and a 16 per cent increase in outbound passengers. So, even given the complexities and the restraints of the old terminal, it is doing very well. The new facilities that we have announced and which are now under way will provide an additional increase in capacity. I would also like to say to the honourable member that later this year we will be inviting registrations of interest for the installation of a new system of radar which will improve the handling of aircraft through the airport. We have already upgraded on an interim basis the existing radar. But the new system of radar is due for completion by 1991. The taxiways are being upgraded. Overall, the effort that has gone into managing and improving the airport is a credit to the people working there. We inherited an old fashioned terminal which is totally inadequate for the task that it now has to perform. But we are getting on with the job. As the terminal for the major airline market in this country, it merits the attention that it is getting from this Government. Mr DOWNER —Is it a fact that the Minister for Territories has written to the de facto of the administrator of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands suggesting that he may wish to conduct at the expense of taxpayers a survey of the animal and plant life of the islands at an annual salary-paid, of course, by taxpayers-of $40,000 tax free? Why has the position not been advertised in accordance with the Government's usual procedures and why does the Minister believe that this survey has such a high priority? Mr SCHOLES —This question was resolved some time ago. The honourable gentleman raised the matter and a response was given. There are, as a matter of course, ongoing activities in relation to conservation and- Mr Sinclair —Birds and bees. Mr SCHOLES —I am sure that the right honourable member will realise that the birds on Cocos Island are important to many people-and not the type of birds that he is normally interested in. The position which was referred to was the subject of consideration by my Department. It was determined that Dr Williams had expertise in this area and had in the past been involved in similar work in respect of the area concerned. I am aware that certain members of the Opposition have been engaged in activities which are designed to destabilise the community on the Cocos Islands in the interests of a particular individual. The honourable gentleman, whilst not one of them, has himself become involved for reasons which are not apparent to me or members of this House. The Cocos community has an extremely high degree of community interest. This area is the responsibility of the Commonwealth, both economically and ecologically, and this Government will do whatever is necessary to ensure that we meet our obligations to the people of the Cocos Islands, not just to Clunies Ross. Mr MILTON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Education aware of the difficulties facing teachers in language centres advising recently arrived young refugees of their entitlements under the Austudy scheme? Has any provision been made for information and application forms on Austudy to be produced in different languages to assist teachers in language centres and secondary schools in informing student migrants of their entitlements under the scheme? Mr KERIN —The Government is aware of the problems facing teachers and non-English speaking students and of the need to provide them with comprehensive information on Austudy benefits and entitlements in a form which is accessible to the students themselves. The Government also recognises the importance of providing the same detailed information directly to non-English speaking communities in their own languages through the ethnic press, and to the community advisers and service organisations most used by the ethnic communities, such as the Telephone Interpreter Service, migrant resource centres and adult English education centres. The Government has taken steps to ensure that Austudy information is readily available to all who need it. Next week, each high school and technical and further education college principal in Australia will receive Austudy information translated into 13 languages, together with a State office contact number if more information is required. The 13 languages are: Italian, Spanish, Greek, Arabic, Chinese, Turkish, Serbian, Croatian, Vietnamese, Polish, Khmer, Laotian and Macedonian. At the same time, this information will be distributed to Commonwealth Employment Service offices, youth access centres, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs migrant resource centres, adult English education centres, Department of Social Security ethnic liaison officers, peak ethnic organisations, union organisations, Commonwealth Department of Education offices and the Telephone Interpreter Service. Also beginning next week, ethnic newspapers will carry advertisements with complete information on the schemes and State office contact numbers for people who need further information. Each State and Territory office of the Commonwealth Department of Education will actively distribute information to local ethnic organisations. These offices have been developing their ethnic liaison activities over the past 12 months and many have conducted seminars and meetings to brief adviser groups on Austudy and other student assistance schemes. This initiative will be continued and expanded, where possible, during the coming year. An Austudy advertisement is also being prepared for community service screening on Special Broadcasting Service television. The advertisement will explain Austudy benefits and encourage members of ethnic communities to inquire about the scheme. Madam SPEAKER —Order! As I reported to the House when it met, I have become aware, through a tape recording and newspaper, radio and television reports, of certain remarks made by the honourable member for O'Connor yesterday outside the House which were critical of the Speaker. I have heard the tape and I have read the transcript, so I am fully aware of what the honourable member said. His remarks included: `Speakers who are in control don't get troubled'; `Yes, I think the Speaker should resign'; `I believe the Speaker was very unfair in taking me on and ignoring Paul Keating's insult to her'; and `I think the Speaker is now just a political animal and I say she has been intimidated'. I have received a letter on this matter from the honourable member for O'Connor which I shall read to the House. It states: Further to my very brief personal comment to you, I write to express my apologies to you and your Office regarding the publication of my comments outside the Parliament today. I have heard the comments on radio and realise their implications. However, as I will seek to explain at my first opportunity in the Parliament, the comments were not aimed directly at you or your Office. I consequently apologise and unreservedly withdraw, and I seek your leave to make a personal explanation immediately after Question Time on 24th February, 1987, which will be that first opportunity. Yours sincerely, Wilson Tuckey. I table the following documents: A transcript taken from the tape recording of a Press conference held by Mr Tuckey on Parliament House steps on 23 February 1987; extracts from the following newspapers of 24 February 1987-the Australian, the Canberra Times, the Age and the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial; and a copy of a letter dated 23 February 1987 from Mr Tuckey to Madam Speaker. I am in no doubt that his remarks are a grave attack on me and my office and I think they therefore constitute a contempt of the House. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Madam Speaker, I take it that you are prepared to grant precedence to a motion under standing order 96. Madam SPEAKER —I am. Mr YOUNG —I move: That this House-- Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Before the motion which the Leader of the House is about to put is moved, in accordance with requests made by the honourable member for O'Connor that it would be appropriate for you and the House to hear the remarks that he seeks to make, I suggest that it would be more appropriate that that be done than for peremptory judgment to be made. Above all, it is important that the quality of justice within this place should in no way be in question. I suggest that it is appropriate, irrespective of feelings on this matter, that the honourable member for O'Connor be allowed the proper right to make, as he has requested, whatever statement he might wish to make and to give whatever apology he wishes to give. Madam SPEAKER —I have read the letter from the honourable member for O'Connor and have also heard it on the radio and read it in newspapers, where it was discussed. I consider this matter so serious and the comments made such an attack upon my office that I believe the House should support me in this matter. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, on the point of order-- Madam SPEAKER —I have resolved the point of order. Do you have another point of order? Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, are you denying me, as Leader of the Opposition, the indulgence normally extended to say something about a matter which we on this side of the House believe touches the rights and privileges of members? Madam SPEAKER —I am saying that I have made a statement. I consider the remarks made by the honourable member for O'Connor outside this House to be an attack on me, on the Speaker and on the House. I call the Leader of the House and I will not hear any further-- Mr Howard —You do not grant me the normal indulgence? Madam SPEAKER —I will not hear any further points of order. I have called the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG —I move: That this House finds that remarks made by the honourable member for O'Connor yesterday are a serious reflection on the character of the Speaker; contain an accusation of partiality in the discharge of her duty, and therefore constitute a contempt of the House; and suspends the honourable member for O'Connor from the service of the House for seven sitting days, including today. Madam Speaker, it is obvious from the comments that you have made to the House that you are seriously offended by what occurred outside it after Question Time yesterday. All honourable members know that this House would cease to function if every honourable member were to take upon his shoulders the right to go outside this chamber and say things along the lines of the things that were said by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) about the Speaker yesterday. We all suffer our frustrations with the rulings that are given from time to time by the Speaker and some of us have had occasion to vent those against various Speakers who have been the custodian of that office at certain times during our period in this House. However, on those occasions each of us, depending on what we have said, has been asked either to apologise or to withdraw. In some cases honourable members have been suspended. Not only was the honourable member for O'Connor suspended yesterday, but if he had remained in the House and said inside it what he had said outside he obviously would have been named again and the penalty would have been suspension for seven days, which is the period now included in the motion I have put before the House. All honourable members must realise that if the Chair is brought into disrespect, irrespective of who is in government, this chamber will not function at all. It is our system that the government of the day elects the Speaker. It is part of the frustrations which may be imposed upon people, particularly in opposition; and we have had more experience of that than those opposite. Nevertheless, we have had to abide by the rulings of Speakers who have been elected by the conservative parties over a long period of years, irrespective of our views about the rulings that have been given from time to time. It has not been the intent of previous parliaments to bring the speakership into such disrepute that the Speaker can no longer carry out his or her job. I am in no doubt at all that the honourable member for O'Connor was sincere when he put his words together last night in a letter to you, Madam Speaker; but the damage is done. He told everybody in Australia that you are a political animal and that you are subject to intimidation from this side of the House. All the damage is done. The 16 million Australians who witness the events of this Parliament are told that you are not fit to hold office. It is little wonder, Madam Speaker, that you take such offence at the words that have been expressed outside by the honourable member for O'Connor. As Leader of Government Business, this is not a task that one looks forward to but we all know that if your position in particular falls into the disrepute which was placed upon it yesterday outside this chamber, we will have to change the rules altogether-and there will be no respect left for this Parliament, let alone for the position you hold, Madam Speaker. The fact that you have expressed yourself so strongly should make every member of this chamber-on both sides-realise that now we have a larger parliament of 148 members you have a very difficult task indeed. You are new to the Chair. You have done your best to treat the chamber and every member of it fairly. Unless the Parliament is prepared to protect you, Madam Speaker, when you are under attack, no one will want to take the position of Speaker of this chamber. There are rules that guide our behaviour in this chamber and nearly all of us have had times when we have been called to court to behave ourselves, lower our voices, withdraw, apologise or be suspended from the House. But there is a limit to what any Speaker should tolerate. Madam Speaker, you are quite right. You reached your limit when you heard the tapes, read the newspapers, watched the television and saw and felt that every citizen of this country was being told that you are not a fit and proper person to hold the post of Speaker. The only way to deal with that is to give a very loud voice of endorsement today to your position. There is no way of doing it other than with the motion I have moved. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.58) —There are three substantive issues before this House today. The first and the most significant issue was the desire expressed by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) to make a statement to this House which went hand in hand with the correspondence which you, Madam Speaker, have read to us. That request was put to you formally and in a way which I suggest should have had precedence before this House was allowed to proceed to the matter now before us. I will return to that in a moment. The second and equally significant matter is that judgment is now to be passed without that honourable member having had the opportunity to speak. All of us within our democratic system know that we uphold above all else the right of individuals to hold and express a point of view; and after that point of view has been expressed for either agreement or disagreement to be made upon that statement. Madam Speaker, you, above all, are the person in this place who is supposed to be the custodian of democracy. You, above all, are the person who is supposed to protect the rights of individual members. You, above all, Madam Speaker, are expected to allow members within this House to exercise those rights for which they are elected. You, above all, are expected to consider and allow points of view-from whatever side they might come-in order that justice may be dispensed according to that responsibility with which you were elected. The third point of view and the third essence of this debate is that I am concerned, as on another occasion, that it would seem, while this matter was raised, quite properly, by you at the earliest opportunity immediately after prayers, the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has read to the House from a typewritten motion. Madam Speaker, I suggest to you that if judgment is to be passed within a court of law, if judgment is to be dispensed within the practice and procedure of any democratic system, it should not be done in haste; it should not be done by a Minister having heard an early announcement and suddenly rushing out and saying: `Well, he'll be good for seven days'. It should be done after proper, adequate and dispassionate consideration of the nature of the offence, having heard whatever remarks might be made by the person in his cause, and having then, without rancour, bitterness or prejudice, determined what might be a fair response. That third concern, relating to the adjudication upon this process, goes to the whole fundamentals of the exercise of the rights of a democratic system. We, unlike other systems, have inherited an opportunity to be able to express our point of view freely and without favour. It is for that reason that privilege is accorded to the members of this place and, irrespective of the remarks made by the member, Madam Speaker, your responsibilities are to ensure that justice is done-that members within this Parliament are not denied the right for which they have been elected. Members, within their parliamentary rights, are given certain responsibilities and it would seem that in respect of that third matter-that is, the extent to which there has been presented to this House as a fait accompli a judgment on a typewritten motion by the Leader of the House-an opportunity for consideration of this matter which presumably every other member of this House has not had, has been given to one member. Madam Speaker, I put it to you that this forum is quite apart from any function that members of the Government might exercise as a result of their majority within it. This forum is not their forum; it is the members' forum and you, Madam Speaker, are the custodian of the responsibilities of each and every one of us. That third point concerns me greatly. The first issue, concerning the character of the remarks by the honourable member for O'Connor and the nature of the proceedings, needs first to be put in perspective. I believe all of us yesterday were disappointed that the man who for the time being, albeit temporarily, is Treasurer of the Government did not accede to your request when requested to do so on successive occasions. Having said that, I do not support the character of the personal remarks made by the honourable member for O'Connor. But that has no real import in this present debate. Madam Speaker, you need to undertake as part of your responsibilities to ensure that you have heard the honourable member's point of view. It is not mine; it is not that of any other member of this House; it is the point of view of the honourable member for O'Connor. Madam Speaker, he did the honest and gentlemanly thing in writing to you. He did the honest and gentlemanly thing, beyond that, in seeking an opportunity to respond within this Parliament by requesting that he be allowed the opportunity to give to this Parliament whatever answer he might have for whatever statement he has made. I think it important, therefore, that the character of the offence be divorced altogether from those other two issues. Madam Speaker, I think that the honourable member's having apologised, as his letter to you has done, is also material in the second and third parts of my concern. Madam Speaker, in this world no one of us is perfect. Why, even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), we are told, has his faults. It is important that if somebody apologises, particularly in this forum, an opportunity be given for people to accept that apology. Madam Speaker, I think it ill becomes anyone in the exercise of responsibility in this place on the first count not to hear the apology and, on the second, not to receive it. Madam Speaker, I think it is a great pity that you, in the exercise of your function, seem not to be prepared to hear the honourable member for O'Connor. Madam Speaker, I think that having heard whatever the honourable member might say-for no one of us will hear it until he has had the opportunity to express it-you should not reject hastily an apology if properly given. This proceeding before the House can well threaten the whole stability of the Constitution and of the democratic process-- Government members interjecting- Mr SINCLAIR —This is not something one should regard lightly. Labor members guffaw and carry on. They have little regard for the rights of the ordinary man. They have little concern for the people whom they purport to represent. They have little worry about the elderly widows or their children. They carry on without regard for the rights of individuals. It is important that the honourable member for O'Connor be given the opportunity to express his point of view, to be heard, and for dispassionate judgment to be passed upon it. I do not mind that Government members have so little regard for the democratic process. Indeed, I think that their present behaviour rather puts them in the position of contempt in which we hold them all. It is sad that in a matter like this-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my right will cease interjecting. Mr SINCLAIR —I think that it would be wise, Madam Speaker, if they themselves remembered that there are occasions when they too could be in this position, namely, having a point of view and being refused the opportunity to express it, having given an apology and then that apology being completely ignored, and then having peremptory justice administered to them. I believe it important that this House consider those three points. The first is that we are not at this time in a position to pass judgment on anything the honourable member said, for his point of view has not been heard. Secondly, it is critical that he, having been honest, decent and responsible enough to have written to you and asked that he be heard, is denied that opportunity. Thirdly, there is an equally fundamental and important point, and that is whether there has been in any way collusion. I seek from you, Madam Speaker, and from the Leader of the House an assurance that prior to the sitting of this House this day there has been no deliberation between any member of the Government and yourself on this matter. If there has been, the people of Australia can know that there can be no confidence that your position is being exercised with the total dispassion that we expect of you and believe necessary for you to undertake and maintain the authority which you now seek. Madam SPEAKER —I resent and reject the implication. Mr SINCLAIR —Thank you, Madam Speaker. Then, it is important that we know how the Leader of the House was able to prepare a motion, have it typed and present it to the House, judgment having been made and the honourable member for O'Connor not having been heard. It is the Government's fault. So the Government decides that it does not matter that anybody on this side of the House might have a proper point of view to express; it does not matter that justice is ignored; it does not matter that a member has written asking that his point of view be considered; what does matter is that he be silenced whatever. That type of rough justice illustrates the type of government we have in this country. It is one that has no manner of concern for the ordinary Australian. I think that it is illustrative yet again that the sooner the Labor Government of Robert James Lee Hawke is defeated the better Australians will be. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(3.08) —The first element of the arguments put forward by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) was that the rights of all honourable members in this place are about to be affected by the motion that is before the House. In that he is correct; but the rights of all honourable members in this House rest upon all members recognising the authority and the integrity of the Chair in carrying out the Standing Orders of this House. Having listened to the remarks of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), I venture to say that not even the Leader of the National Party, who has been around politics for some considerable period, has ever heard such a serious set of public allegations directed at the Speaker of this Parliament, and therefore at the institution of this Parliament. That is the reality. Of course, the Leader of the House (Mr Young) does not have to be a political clairvoyant to know that this issue would be raised in the Parliament one way or the other. The assertion that he put to the House is very clear and simple: If half of the statements made by the honourable member for O'Connor had been made in the chamber after he had been named, there is no doubt as to the course that the Chair would have followed. He would have automatically been suspended from the service of the House for seven days. That is what is now being proposed. I can understand party loyalties and party feelings. But let us understand what the Leader of the National Party is asking this Parliament to do and the threat that it poses to this institution. What he is saying, essentially, is this: It is open for a member, having been named in this Parliament, to go to the media, to make a lurid and contemptible attack upon the Chair and upon the Speaker, and to make accusations about the Speaker in terms which, on any kind of analysis, clearly constitute contempt of the Parliament, and then his party leader can call him in and say: `Look, I think you might have gone a bit too far; we will solve this by writing a letter of apology'. The House, if it were to accept the argument of the Leader of the National Party, is being asked to create for this Parliament a precedent which is without any tradition or concept in any Westminster system. It is being asked to endorse a principle to the effect that it is all right to go outside the Parliament and smear and malign, in the most contemptible terms, the Speaker of the House and the institution of the House. The precedent that the House is being asked to establish is that if a member writes a letter to the Speaker, stating, `I did not really mean it', we will all forget about it. The adoption of that precedent would erode this institution and the rights of all members. It would leave the Speaker in a position in which contempt and calumny would be the order of the day. The action which was initiated by the Leader of the House is the correct and principled action. Let us have done with this sorry business. Let this House say that no honourable member can abuse the Speaker in the public media in the way in which she was abused and not expect the condemnation and the action of this House to stand by the Chair and the integrity of the Chair. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.12) —The motion before the House raises a number of serious implications about the way in which Parliament is conducting itself at present. Madam Speaker, I say at the outset that I will never condone or encourage an attack on your office or your person by any member of the Opposition or any member of my Party. Mr Hurford —Why did you then? Mr HOWARD —If the Minister is interested-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. He is not assisting. Mr HOWARD —I think, Madam Speaker, that that should be said at the outset. But I think I would be failing in my duty to my Party, to my colleagues and to the institution that I hold very dear, if I did not say that you cannot look at the events of the last 48 hours concerning the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) in isolation from other matters that have transpired in this Parliament, particularly over the last week. You cannot look at the events in isolation from the way in which the Government has stretched to their very limit the theoretical meaning of the Standing Orders of this Parliament so far as Question Time is concerned. You cannot look at them in isolation from the inherent influence that you, as Speaker, can bring upon the conduct of all members of the Parliament by your interventions in Question Time and in parliamentary debate. You came to your office, Madam Speaker, with the genuine good will and personal respect of members on this side of the House. We hold you, as a person, in very high regard. Many of us have had a long association with you. We believe that the very fact that you are held in high regard gives you the capacity to exercise an influence on the conduct of all members of this Parliament-including members of the Government, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and other senior members of the Government-which may on occasions not be automatically sanctioned by the Standing Orders. We have said repeatedly that there is a capacity, particularly at Question Time, to bring an influence to bear. You have been reminded and the Government has been reminded of the precedents that abound in the Hansard for that kind of intervention. While, as I said at the outset, I do not and will not condone any personal attacks on you or the Chair, I believe that to try to look at the conduct of the honourable member for O'Connor in isolation from the events of the past few days is, to say the least, to be completely and utterly unrealistic. The second point I would make is that which was made so well by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), and that is that the sentence was determined, the numbers assembled and the decision taken before the man was given an opportunity to be heard. By no measure of Australian justice can that be regarded as a fair go. It is all very well for people to say that the honourable member for O'Connor had written his letter of apology and that the letter had been read. The reality is that the man has not been given an opportunity to explain himself or to speak in his defence. I agree with you, Madam Speaker, and I agree with the Leader of the House (Mr Young) when you speak of the importance of the institution and the authority of the Chair. I am not contesting and will never contest the authority of the Chair in this Parliament. But I do contest the way in which the Government and its front bench have abused and stretched the Standing Orders of this House and then cry like wimps when points of order are taken against them as they have over the past couple of days. We object to this motion, not because we contest for a moment the authority of the Chair, not because I or any members of my Party or of the National Party will ever condone personal attacks on you, but because we believe it proceeds in isolation and in defiance of the circumstances that gave rise to the conduct of the honourable member for O'Connor and because it proceeds upon the basis that a man has been tried and convicted without being heard in his defence. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. A division having been called for and the bells being rung- Mr Wilson —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: First, there is no copy of this motion before members of the House. It is a matter which every honourable member should consider as a member of parliament. In the motion, as I understood it, the Leader of the House moved the suspension of the honourable member for O'Connor for seven sitting days-- Madam SPEAKER —That is how I heard it. Mr Wilson —Yet in debate we were asked as parliamentarians to draw the comparison between a suspension for seven sitting days and the provision of the Standing Orders which says that for a second suspension there shall be a suspension for seven days. Madam SPEAKER —I think there might be a misunderstanding here. I think the second suspension referred to in the Standing Orders relates to a suspension by the Speaker for a further misconduct within the House on the lines of the first misconduct, and they go on to detail the position in relation to a third. This has nothing to do with the motion that has been moved on the floor of the House. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, you have seven days on your mind. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member does not pursue that. I have already answered that. Mr Wilson —Madam Speaker, the House suspends members, not the Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The House has made its own decision. It is in the process of voting on it now. Mr Wilson —Madam Speaker, you just said seven days suspension by the Speaker but not by the House. Madam SPEAKER —No, in the Standing Orders the second suspension, the honourable member will notice, is seven days. Mr Wilson —By the House? Madam SPEAKER —Yes. It does not mention seven sitting days. Mr Wilson —Yes, and this is by the House; so it should be the same. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the House has moved the motion from the floor. He has not moved under the Standing Orders under which the Speaker is required to move. Mr Carlton —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I have not been through a procedure like this before in my time in the House, and it is the first time that I have had to vote on something without having seen the evidence put forward or had a chance to read the transcripts which have been tabled. Is this the normal procedure for this kind of operation? The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dubois, S. G. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. 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. Hawke, R. J. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. DBeale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J. Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H. Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. In division- Mr Donald Cameron-On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Before we vote on this, are you absolutely positive that this procedure exists whereby the honourable member can be sentenced to a suspension for seven sitting days rather than, as in the Standing Orders, one week for the second suspension? Madam SPEAKER-The Leader of the House moved the motion from the floor. When moving suspension the Chair is constrained by the Standing Orders which maintain 24 hours, seven days or 28 days. I do not know what governs the Leader of the House. He moved his suspension from the floor of the House. We are now voting on it. Mr Spender-On a point of order, Madam Speaker: It is difficult to know what has been said if we do not have a copy of the motion. Madam SPEAKER-The honourable member cannot stand during division. Mr Spender-Perhaps I could kneel. Madam SPEAKER-I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. I do not require him to kneel. I simply require him to do as I ask. Mr Spender-Having made the-- Madam SPEAKER-The honourable member may sit in his place and then direct his questions to the Chair. Mr Spender-Madam Speaker, it is extremely difficult to get any clarification on this matter. I seek clarification on it. Madam SPEAKER-The Leader of the House moved a motion. The House is voting on it. Mr Spender-But what is the motion? Madam SPEAKER-I imagine that copies of the motion will be available. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor is suspended from the service of the House for seven sitting days including today. The honourable member for O'Connor thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of Norfolk Island for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Canberra Retail Markets Trust for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Agents Board of the Australian Capital Territory for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 24 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, I present the annual report and financial statements of the National Capital Development Commission, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —by leave-Honourable members will recall that on 22 August 1986 I tabled three important documents relating to broadcasting in Australia. The first, a report by the Forward Development Unit of my Department on `Ownership and Control of Commercial Television', remains open for public comment until 31 March 1987 although honourable members will know that the Government has already taken some important decisions on matters discussed in that report. I intend to introduce initial legislation on cross-media ownership and related matters later in the autumn sittings. The second document, a draft indicative plan for equalisation of regional commercial television, has since developed into a final indicative plan and the relevant legislation is now being considered by a Senate select committee. I hope that body completes its work quickly so that regional Australians may look forward confidently to enjoying television services as good as those enjoyed by their cousins in the capital cities. Today, I want to announce government decisions on the third document I tabled in August, the Forward Development Unit's final report entitled `Future Directions for Commercial Radio', as well as on the FDU's interim report on the possible conversion of AM radio licences to FM. Apart from announcing decisions on the FDU's radio reports, I will announce a program to plan over the next three years additional commercial radio services to nearly 30 areas outside the mainland State capital cities. And by the time planning is under way in the first of the areas I announce today I will be able to announce services to be planned in later years. I will also give details of streamlined planning procedures developed in my Department which will help to bring new services on line as quickly as possible. To commence the program, I shall call in April this year for applications from people interested in providing new, competing services on FM in Geelong, the Gold Coast, Gosford and Shepparton. At the same time, I will refer to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal supplementary licence applications from 8HA Alice Springs and 2VM Moree. I have also recognised the need for a new commercial radio service to the West Moreton area, based on Ipswich, and I will make a further announcement on this market in the middle of the year. Streamlined Approach I turn now to the details of this initiative. The Government wants to speed up the delivery of new commercial radio services to regional areas, and to do so by introducing competing services wherever possible. It is clear that some areas or markets are capable of supporting new and competing services. It is just as clear that other areas cannot support competition. With that in mind, we needed to find a way of speeding up the provision of additional services. This meant streamlining the planning and inquiry process as far as possible. It is widely agreed by the industry, including potential licensees, that it is unnecessary to burden all areas with all stages of the often costly and time-consuming ABT inquiry process. We also intend to make our service planning run more smoothly. Accordingly, we are not asking interested groups to submit lengthy and expensive planning proposals. Instead, we will just ask them to comment on draft service areas and draft technical specifications released by my Department. This approach will enable us to move quickly to invite applications. Thus, before calling in April for formal applications for the new services in Geelong, the Gold Coast, Gosford and Shepparton, I shall be asking interested parties in these areas to provide comments to the Department of Communications on the draft service areas and technical specifications which I shall table today. I have a statutory obligation to consult licensees as I plan the development of broadcasting services but I want to hear also from prospective licensees and members of the public. The documents I intend to table give more details of the planning program and procedures for new services. Competition The streamlined approach to planning will work differently according to whether an area, or market, seems prima facie able to support a new, competing service. In markets where it seems to me prima facie that competition can be supported, the crucial choice which needs to be made is among the various applicants for the new licence. In these areas I shall dismiss applications received from the existing licensees for a supplementary licence. Section 82a (4) (b) of the Broadcasting Act gives me the power to dismiss supplementary licence applications for a reason to do with `the planning or development of broadcasting services'. It will then be necessary in these areas to hold an inquiry into the grant of a supplementary licence. Instead, I shall invite applications for new licences and the Tribunal will hold hearings to decide which new applicant should be granted the licence. In areas where there is doubt whether competition can be supported, the ABT inquiry process will continue, although the Government has decided to have the Broadcasting Act amended to clarify my powers relating to inquiries. This legislation will ensure that it is possible for me to have the ABT consider simultaneously the claims of supplementary licence applicants and potential new operators-rather than have to hold successive inquiries-and it will be a significant improvement. Thirdly, in areas where it seems clear that competition cannot be supported current inquiry procedures will continue for the time being. I am concerned to give applicants for competing services, even in relatively small markets, the opportunity to have their cases heard. Our presumption all along has been in favour of competition and this remains the case. But if current procedures do not produce new services smoothly over the next two years, we will consider legislation to allow for the automatic grant of supplementary licences in these areas. Finally, I have asked my Department to look at ways in which listeners in small and isolated areas now receiving only one commercial service can be given additional services. This examination will consider, for example, the provision of services through remote commercial radio services-RCRS. Priority Areas The planning program for the first three years-both the areas nominated and the sequence-has been developed by looking at whether a frequency is available in the area-or soon will be when television frequencies are cleared from band II-and by looking at demand for FM services. We have also taken into account the results of extensive consultations with industry, together with the nearly 50 submissions received on the FDU reports. This material covers everything from technical specifications to projected revenues. Of the areas on the program for 1987, Geelong has a current 1987 service area population of 240,000 which makes it the most populous area with only one local radio station. The Gold Coast with 220,000, Gosford with 200,000, and Shepparton with 145,000, are not far behind. Bringing commercial FM services to these four areas alone will benefit over 800,000 people. Supplementary licence applications in these areas will be dismissed and the ABT will consider the claims of the independent applicants. We are thinking also of smaller areas-areas where it seems unlikely that competition can be supported. I will soon pass on to the ABT the supplementary licence applications from Moree, 46,000, and Alice Springs, 25,000. Information from hearings in these relatively small markets will be useful both to me in my planning role and to intending applicants for competing licences in similar markets. Market Groups Approach I want also to refer to government decisions on a number of approaches canvassed in the FDU's final report. A planning approach outlined in this report has been adopted by the Government because it promises to achieve the streamlined approach we are looking for. Under this approach I shall allocate markets into groups as follows: Group A: Markets where I find a prima facie case that a new, competing licence would be viable; Group B: Markets where I am in doubt; Group C: Markets where I am satisfied that a new, competing licence would not be viable; and Group D: Markets so isolated and/or small that special measures must be taken. It will not be possible to develop this approach fully until I have more information about the circumstances of particular markets. Thus I have not yet attempted to allocate the 1987, 1988 and 1989 markets into groups. I shall be seeking from the ABT financial information on individual markets to assist me to place them into groups and I shall announce allocations for each 1988 and 1989 market when I announce the calling of applications. I recognise the sensitivity of financial information and I undertake that it will not be used in any way that publicly identifies the performance of individual stations. Finally, I stress that allocations to market groups will be prima facie only. The Tribunal will still make the final decisions on independents or grant the supplementary licences. It is quite open to it to make a decision about a market which does not accord with my prima facie judgment about that market. That is its right as an independent body. Service Areas It might be necessary in some cases to determine service areas for new services which differ from those of existing AM stations. In looking at this question we have been conscious of the important role which regional radio stations play in bringing local programs to local people. New interests in the industry want to play a similar role. I recognise the concerns of existing licensees that significantly larger new service areas could take away some national advertising revenue from the existing service-although I do not believe it is beyond the wit of imaginative managements to meet this challenge. It seems unnecessary to devise a different ser- vice area for the new service where the existing service area is quite capable of supporting competition. Thus, different service areas for new services will be proposed in future only where, firstly, it is not possible for the existing service area to support competition and there is no application for a supplementary licence, or, secondly, where existing service areas overlap substantially. It will still be possible, as it is at present, for existing licensees to seek to vary their service areas if they wish to take this approach to meet competition. I am aware of the time which can be taken up in negotiations between my Department and licensees or potential licensees over service area boundaries. This is why I have decided to nominate draft service areas when calling for applications. It is, of course, open to interested parties to nominate a proposed service area for consideration. Likewise, minor differences between existing and new service areas might be proposed for technical reasons. Other Decisions on FDU Report There are some other government decisions on the FDU report which I wish to announce today as well. It is not possible or sensible to consider in isolation from other questions of media ownership such matters as whether to remove or relax the prohibition on owning more than eight radio stations. Possible modifications to the ownership and control rules in radio will be taken up as part of the current study of ownership and control, particularly cross-media matters, being undertaken in my Department. Similarly, the possible need for a review of the viability provisions of the Broadcasting Act and for revision of the provisions relating to the confidentiality of financial information will be taken up as part of a continuing review in the Department of the role and powers of the ABT. The FDU report raises the possibility that it might be necessary to categorise licences by program format or introduce some other means to ensure diversity of program choice if diversity did not follow the introduction of new services. I would much prefer to leave programming to station managers and their view of the market and leave regulation to the ABT and its monitoring of adequate and comprehensive services. This Government will steer well clear of any other approach. AM/FM Conversion Finally, I want to address issues raised in the FDU's interim report on the possible conversion of AM licences to FM. I have some sympathy for the argument that regional AM stations competing head to head with a new FM station should be able to convert to FM, provided this does not lead to loss of service to audiences of the previous AM service. However, my first priority is provision of new services. Any decisions on conversion will be influenced by the capacity for high power services, to be identified in the national VHF-FM radio frequency allocation plan, and by the demands for FM frequencies from each of the broadcasting sectors. These considerations apply also to conversion in metropolitan areas. When we know how many frequencies are available in metropolitan areas under this plan, it will be possible to make a decision for these areas, too. In some cases, however, the availability of frequencies may depend upon the clearance of band II. I will be in a position by the end of March to announce a final timetable for the first three years of band II clearance. West Moreton-Ipswich While our main concern has been to provide additional commercial radio services, it has come to our notice during this process that there are some quite populous areas which have no service at all. The public responses to the FDU report have shown evidence of a significant area of inadequate radio services in the West Moreton region, around Ipswich. While Ipswich itself receives some services from Brisbane there are some 50,000 people in the rural areas north and south of Ipswich who have lacked a technically adequate commercial radio signal since the old Ipswich station 4IP moved to Brisbane and became station 410. I believe this historical service to the West Moreton region should be restored and my Department is examining the possibility of either an AM or FM service in this area. I expect to make a further announcement in the middle of this year. Conclusion The planning program I have announced today will provide FM services to enhance greatly the diversity of choice available to radio listeners in regional Australia. As Australia has developed, the number of commercial radio services has not kept pace. Since 1940, only a handful of new AM services has been introduced in regional areas and the number of FM services is only now beginning to expand. Newcastle, where the ABT has completed its inquiry, should be the first regional area to receive its own commercial FM service. Canberra and Mildura will follow when current legal action is resolved. Once services also come on line in the areas I have listed today, more than three million Australians outside the mainland State capital cities will be able to listen to commercial FM radio, and by the time services in these areas have commenced we shall have begun to plan further services as we develop our rolling program. The first full year of this planning program will be 1988 and it is fitting that our bicentennial year should see this development. My statement today effectively sets the future course for commercial radio in regional areas but there is clearly a great deal of planning work yet to be done to fill in the details. With the measures I have just announced in place, I am confident that the log-jam that has developed in the supplementary licence process will be cleared away quickly so that additional commercial radio services will soon be on air. Together with our plans to expand Australian Broadcasting Corporation services to regional areas through the second regional radio network, we shall have taken great strides to provide diversity of choice to those who live outside the metropolitan areas. I seek leave to table for the information of honourable members two documents entitled `Planning Program 1987-89' and `Outline of Planning Procedures for New Commercial Radio Services (Effective February 1987)'. Leave granted. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —by leave-The Opposition, with few reservations, welcomes the announcement of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). It seems that after a number of delays and a great deal of confusion we will now see additional services for regional radio listeners. It is certainly better late than never and the general approach taken by the Minister is one which we welcome. The Minister has accepted the market groups approach which was outlined in the Forward Development Unit's final report on the future directions for commercial radio. At last it appears that the Government has set a blueprint for the future expansion of regional radio and I am sure that the industry will welcome some clear directions, which have been so sadly lacking in the past. It is quite clear that from the time this Government came to office and abandoned the policy of the previous Government a great many investors have been waiting on the sidelines, have had a lot of money tied up and have had no clear direction at all. But after four years there is at least some ray of hope for some of them. One of the main reservations which the Opposition has is with respect to the type and quality of programming which the regional listeners will have when new independent operators are determined for markets such as Geelong, Gosford, the Gold Coast and Shepparton. We are concerned that the Minister has, perhaps too readily, ruled out some of the recommendations of the FDU report and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. As I understand the Minister, the Mildura and Canberra situations will proceed under the old rules, and we welcome that. We also welcome the new services but serious thought must be given to what types of programs will be provided by the new independent operators. There is a very real danger that the new competitors in these markets will not provide diversity of programming so much as direct competition for what they perceive to be the majority audience. That is, perhaps they will not provide real program choice, which regional people are entitled to but cannot obtain under the existing situation, and which they have been clamouring for. For many years the Opposition has favoured, in the first instance, the granting of supplementary licences. For a while the Government was sympathetic to that. It moved away somewhat from that concept but has now come back a little more towards it. The Minister knows the argument well but it is worth putting it back on the table. The argument simply is that if one has only two competitors-the market seems to show that if one has fewer than five competitors-each station will try to chase the 70 per cent popular programming, which these days tends to be of a kind of music which very few members of this House are any longer in tune with. Country stations have had the worst of all worlds in trying to provide for all kinds of programming. They have probably rarely satisfied their listeners because of that. But if two competitors are setting out on the same rocky-jockey type of presentation it will be even more difficult to satisfy regional listeners. The Minister is aware of that but I am bound to say that I think he has rejected out of hand rather too soon the format approach that was recommended to him. I would have thought he would have been wise to keep that in reserve. Mr Duffy —I will. Mr MACPHEE —The Minister nods. He may keep that in reserve. I thought that his statement excluded it rather too much. `Me-tooism' is the phrase. It is very clear that a supplementary licence in the hands of one person or corporation has the advantage of ensuring that program choice is greater because the programs are diversified. Where now the one station tries to provide for everything it would have two outlets to provide all those programs. I recognise that there is a problem again where there is a concentration of media ownership in a particular listening area where sometimes the radio monopoly is in the hands of people who own the print and television media as well. That certainly is deemed by the Government and, I think, by most people to be undesirable. In those circumstances the idea of granting a competitive radio licence is clearly desirable. I merely make the point that in the way the Minister has presented this he has not acknowledged as fully as he should that that does not necessarily improve the diversity of choice in programming for listeners in regional areas. There will be competition, but competition for much the same kind of programming. That still is an improvement on the present situation and we acknowledge that. We want to see a more genuine attempt at alternative programming. I hope that this Minister, or the next Government-which I am sure will be a coalition government-will look at the other options that were before the Minister before he made this statement today. As a result of this statement there are additional quantities of programming but our point is that they are not necessarily more diverse in choice or better in quality. We think that the supplementary licence scheme, which the Minister has partly welcomed back again, still has a great deal going for it in terms of opening up real choice for the listener. These sentiments are in line with the recent Australian Broadcasting Tribunal decision with respect to Canberra commercial radio. In that decision the Broadcasting Tribunal rejected the applications by independent licensees in Canberra and instead awarded the two existing commercial licensees additional, supplementary licences so that Canberra listeners now have two Australian Broadcasting Corporation stations and, in effect, four commercial stations, those four stations being in two hands. We think that that provides diversity of programming. The Tribunal emphasised at the hearing: Two supplementary services offer the greatest opportunity to the people of Canberra for a diversity of music and talk services and formats to suit the needs of different interest and tastes. We know that the Forward Development Unit report mentioned that it might be necessary for the Government to take steps to ensure that diversity of choice did follow from the introduction of new services in respect of the subjects under consideration by the Minister. The Minister said today: I would much prefer to leave programming to station managers and their view of the market and leave regulation to the ABT and its monitoring of `adequate and comprehensive' services. This Government will steer well clear of any other approach. I understand that and respect the role of the Broadcasting Tribunal and station management in that. But, as I said earlier, in this very critical issue the Government cannot claim at the next election that it has provided services to regional people if what we see is a similarity of programming. We want to see that those programs that now run and rate lowly are not run by either station. That is one of the important things which the Minister knows that listeners of regional Australia will be looking for. Mr Duffy —Do you think you would get that through a dry Cabinet? Mr MACPHEE —I am sure the Minister would not get it through his Cabinet. Leaving aside climatic conditions about which the Minister interjects, how will the Minister give regional listeners a decent choice in the event that station management and the Broadcasting Tribunal are unable to meet the matter that I have raised? The Minister will have to reconsider the format approach again, at least in some areas of Australia, because I would be very surprised if what he outlined today provides the listeners with the choice that he is aiming for. In the Minister's statement, he also alluded to `the possible need for a review of the viability provisions of the Broadcasting Act'. Again, the Opposition favours a review of the commercial viability criteria but we also believe that viability has an important role to play when radio licences are considered and new and existing stations are required by law to provide an adequate and comprehensive service-and decent programming costs money. If an adequate and comprehensive service is to be provided, radio stations must be viable. If viability as a concept is abandoned or watered down too much, adequate and comprehensive services will not be provided. It seems to us that standards must be set and the market will then determine when a station can be commercially viable to meet those standards. So standards of listening quality are essential. A very important point in relation to this is the question of localism in programming. We appreciate that many people tape network news broadcasts on the radio but local programming, including local news, is still essential. In the United States of America where there are no viability criteria there are 9,000 radio stations, most of which are almost fully automated. They have little or no local programming. We know of stations in the US where everything is recorded. Sometimes they program as much as a week ahead on a kind of continuous tape-a muzak type of station. It has been known for a one man owner-operator to go on leave for as long as two weeks and the tape has simply replayed itself. I hardly think that that meets listener choice or a diversity of programming. One can say that another station can set itself up but when costs are that low there is no real chance for adventure in the type of programming. All one gets is another automated, different type of muzak program. We would not want to see that happen in Australia. I know that the Minister would not want to see this but I point out to him that the decision taken by his Cabinet could move in that direction if the Government says that it will leave it all to station managers and perhaps the Broadcasting Tribunal. In conclusion, a new streamlined approach was outlined by the Minister. We welcome that very much. It is certainly a step forward in the process of simplifying the approval of licences. One of the most discredited features of the present system has been the cumbersome procedures. We congratulate the Minister for removing them. I also know that the Government intends to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act so that the Minister's powers in relation to inquiries are clarified. That is important. The new legislation will enable, where necessary, the Broadcasting Tribunal simultaneously to consider the claim of supplementary applicants or applications and applications for potential new operators. That is important, too. A farcical procedure has eventuated, not through the design of any government, but by the way regulations were drawn, which often led to several inquiries about whether there was room for a second licensee or whether a supplementary licence should be granted. I am pleased that that defect is cured by this proposal. This is a very worthwhile reform. It will do away with absurd and costly hearings. But many questions remain unanswered. More have been raised by this statement, especially regarding ownership and control. I give just one example. On 27 November last year the Minister said that cross media ownership rules would be introduced so that the ownership of a radio station which was in a monopoly situation would be a bar to ownership of a television licence. But it seems from what the Minister has said today that many stations will now no longer be in that situation because of competitive licences being granted. Also, it seems to me that the Minister, in drawing up his new legislation, will still have to look at a number of ways in which he will ensure more diversity in the total reach of the media, both in respect of ownership and control and in the spread of news and information. The sooner we have that legislation before us the better. Otherwise, licensees and potential licensees will be forced to make commercial decisions in a climate of very great uncertainty, regarding the content of the law and government policy. We have seen some horrendous examples of that already in respect of television, and I think it would be a great shame if as a result of this statement today we saw a repetition in respect of radio. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —by leave-In April and May of 1986 a series of serious allegations were made concerning claims that nazi war criminals, who had evaded justice after the end of the Second World War, had managed to obtain entry into Australia and were resident here. As a consequence of these allegations and the widespread public disquiet aroused by them the Government announced on 25 June last a review of material relating to the entry of suspected war criminals into Australia. The review was conducted by Mr Andrew Menzies, a retired senior public servant. His report was presented to the then Special Minister of State on 28 November last, and, except for a small confidential part, was tabled in the Senate on 5 December last year and in the House of Representatives on 17 February this year. Mr Menzies also presented to the Special Minister of State on 28 November last a sealed envelope containing details of allegations relating to some 70 named persons, allegations which he recommended should be the subject of further investigation. As part of the conclusions of his report Mr Menzies made a number of factual findings. Given the wide public concern over the allegations made in 1986, and the attention they attracted both in this country and overseas, I think it is important that I give further emphasis, in the Parliament, to these findings. Mr Menzies found that it was more likely than not that a significant number of persons who committed serious war crimes in World War II, have entered Australia, and some of these are now resident in Australia; that while endeavours were made to prevent the entry into Australia of persons responsible for war crimes, there were serious limitations, particularly in early years, in both the staff available for checking, and the data relied upon for those checks; that it is important to remember that the number of persons suspected of serious war crimes who have been able to enter Australia would have been a minute proportion of the enormous number of persons who migrated to Australia in the post-war years; that no evidence whatsoever has been found that an Australian officer had knowingly allowed a war criminal to migrate to Australia, nor do the facts establish the existence of any policy by any Australian government to allow or assist the entry of known or suspected war criminals into Australia; that no person admitted into Australia under arrangements with the United Kingdom or the United States intelligence agencies, to the knowledge of Australian authorities, appears to have been the object of charges or allegations as to the commission of war crimes, although there is a possibility that, particularly before 1956, former employees of such agencies may have entered Australia without the knowledge of Australian authorities; that Australian Security Intelligence Organisation officers in a number of cases had contact with persons some time after their entry into Australia in respect of whom the review has recorded allegations of the commission of war crimes and obtained information from them for ASIO purposes not related to the war crimes allegations, but there is no evidence that ASIO was involved in the entry of any of these persons into Australia. The Government accepts the conclusion that some persons, against whom the most serious allegations have been made, are likely to have entered Australia after the Second World War, and to be still resident here today. However, as Mr Menzies has found, their entry was achieved in the circumstances of the urgency and intensity of our post-war immigration program. Given that background, there is no value in continuing to examine the past with the idea of apportioning blame, or endeavouring to sheet home responsibility. Instead, our attention must be concentrated on the steps to be taken to ensure that suspected war criminals involved in serious crimes are brought to justice. On 22 March 1961, the then Attorney- General, Sir Garfield Barwick, speaking in this House, said in regard to the prosecution of war crimes committed in the course of the Second World War that the chapter should be regarded as closed. Where serious war crimes are concerned this Government does not regard the chapter as closed. This Government will take appropriate action under the law to bring to justice those persons found in Australia who have committed serious war crimes. We do not intend that there should be any reduction in our normal standards of justice when dealing with such cases, or in the safeguards now available under Australian law to persons accused of serious crimes. We will take action against individuals only where charges are serious and fully supported by evidence. It is important to understand that the Government's determination to investigate allegations of war crimes, and, where appropriate, to lay charges, is not action directed against ethnic groups, and is not to be regarded in any way as a slur upon any particular ethnic group. Our actions will be taken in relation to individuals and will be based, not on their ethnic origin, but upon their behaviour. The first recommendation in the Menzies report is that the Government should make a clear and positive statement on its attitude to the prosecution of serious war crimes. That statement I have just made. The report recommends that the Government establish a small unit in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions along the lines of the United States Office of Special Investigations, to conduct investigations of allegations of war crimes. The Government will be setting up a Special Investigations Unit within my portfolio, reporting directly to me. It is normal practice to separate the investigation and prosecution functions. The Director of Public Prosecutions will, of course, conduct any prosecutions in the ordinary way, and it will be the DPP who decides whether the results of an investigation justify the bringing of a prosecution. The unit will have responsibility for investigating, in the first place, the allegations listed and detailed by Mr Menzies and contained in the sealed envelope handed to the Special Minister of State. That envelope will be handed over to the head of the Unit. The Unit will also have responsibility for investigating any other allegations that persons resident in Australia, either now or in the future, committed war crimes during the Second World War, including the allegations received by the Government from the Simon Wiesenthal centres in the United States and Israel. Mr Menzies, in his recommendations, placed emphasis on the possibility of extradition where investigations showed that serious charges of war crimes should be brought against particular individuals. The approach preferred by the Government is to conduct war crimes prosecutions in Australia. I would be concerned at the prospect of making special arrangements to extradite persons to countries with markedly different judicial systems. However, should there be a request for the extradition of an alleged war criminal within the context of Australia's normal extradition arrangements, it will be dealt with by me in the ordinary way, with assistance, where appropriate from the Special Investigations Unit. If extradition was not appropriate, Mr Menzies recommended that consideration be given to revocation of citizenship and deportation in appropriate cases, but he specifically declined to recommend legislative change. The Government will consider those possibilities within the context of present legislation and policy. As a result of its inquiries, the unit may be recommending the bringing of prosecutions. Mr Menzies has recommended that only the more serious war crimes are worthy of attention now, more than 40 years after the events. The Government agrees and the work of the unit will be directed accordingly. For example, allegations as to membership of, or demonstrated sympathy for, various fascist organisations in nazi controlled Europe, and allegations as to production of fascist propaganda, do not warrant attention. The Menzies report sets out the types of crimes which would always be of concern, no matter how long ago they were committed. I mention, for example, participation in police or so called `security' units which had the task of deporting, ill-treating or murdering persons on racial or political grounds-in some cases these people worked under German orders, in other cases they operated largely independently; participation as guards or administrators in the operation of German established concentration camps or prisons at which large numbers of people were murdered or ill-treated; participation in national or local puppet governments under Nazi German direction at an executive level, allegedly involving direct responsibility for the deportation, ill-treatment or murder of persons on racial or political grounds. So that prosecutions may be brought in Australia, it will be necessary to make amendments to the War Crimes Act 1945. The principal amendments will be as follows: To provide for the trial of war crimes before State courts exercising Federal criminal jurisdiction or, where appropriate, Territory courts, instead of before military tribunals as is presently the case. At present, the Act arguably does not apply to serious crimes committed in the course of hostilities in Eastern Europe, in that the extraterritorial application of the Act is restricted by reference to countries allied with His Majesty. An amendment is needed to encompass war crimes committed in the course of hostilities known as the Second World War. The Act would be applicable only to persons resident in Australia, either now or in the future. Evidentiary and procedural provisions which would be inappropriate for criminal prosecutions before civil courts will be repealed. These changes will necessarily involve amendments to the criminal law having retrospective operation. The circumstances are, however, sufficiently serious to justify this course. I will be introducing amendments to the War Crimes Act as soon as possible. Mr Menzies also recommended that the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 should be amended to permit ASIO, in relation to persons seeking entry into Australia, to obtain and communicate information concerning the commission of war crimes. Overseas investigation may be made by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Once the amendments to the War Crimes Act have been made, the present provisions of the ASIO Act will allow communication of any information the Organisation has in its possession. This Government shares the abhorrence felt by all civilised nations at the serious criminal activities committed in the course of the Second World War, and considers that justice must be done, no matter how much time has passed since the events in question. We commend Mr Menzies, and those who worked with him, for the report. The Government will ensure that investigations are conducted with seriousness and dispatch, and that, within the normal standards of our criminal justice system, suspected war criminals will be brought to trial. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —by leave-The Menzies report on material relating to the entry of suspected war criminals into Australia takes us back to events of more than 40 years ago, but events which should never be forgotten so long as there is civilisation in this country or indeed anywhere else in the world. The author of those events was Adolf Hitler. If one goes back to his work Mein Kampf, one is staggered that that book was circulating in a civilised country in Europe, stating the views that he had on the Jewish race and on other questions and stating his plain intentions. I quote two passages only from that book: For as long as people remain racially pure and are conscious of the treasure of their blood, they can never be overcome by the Jew. The second passage is as follows: In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord. We recall those events, yet many people in this country were not born when they took place and for many they are almost ancient history. Some six million Jews were exterminated between 1939 and 1945 by the nazi regime and its supporters. Other racial groups were exterminated in hundreds and thousands. In relation to the Jews it was regarded as the final solution. It was one of the most repellent chapters in history; made worse because it was organised and carried out by a government, and with many supporters, in one of the most civilised and cultivated areas of the world. It was carried out with the active complicity of millions and with the passive complicity of many more millions. It was made possible by co-operation, acquiescence of many groups and forces; by indifference and a deliberate moral blind eye on a giant scale; by the rejection of the values that hold civilisation together; and by a kind of moral blackness within an entire government and its supporters inside and outside Germany. Following on from the war-and of all wars it can certainly be said to have been a war when the issues were plain, when right was on one side and wrong on the other-more than 170,000 displaced persons and refugees had come to this country by mid-1951. In absolute terms the intake of this country of refugees and displaced persons was second only to that of the United States. In comparative terms we took in per head of population far more displaced persons and refugees than any other country in the world. The difficulties in screening were huge. Post-war Europe was in a state of dislocation on a scale which is hard for us these days to imagine. The central finding of Mr Menzies' report, which is lucid, ordered and well-reasoned, was that the chapter should not be closed. The Opposition supports in principle the Government's approach to this report, and we support without any qualification at all that the chapter should not be closed. We have some qualifications as to the course of action that might be taken and some questions for the future, but those are comparatively minor matters, save for the qualifications which I believe the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) accedes to in spirit. Mr Menzies rejected the view of Sir Garfield Barwick stated here in 1961 that the chapter should be closed. In saying that, he took a view of post-war life in this country which was supported not only by the Government of the day but, so far as I can determine, by most people in this Parliament. There seems to be very little dissent from the Barwick view and there has been very little dissent from that view for many years, but we cannot agree with that view. Neither time nor escape from detection is any answer. It never has been an answer to a major crime, nor should it ever be. There is no good reason for the Australian Government to view serious war crimes committed overseas by persons who may be here any differently than it would view serious crimes committed in this country or committed abroad against Australian citizens. The nature and the immensity of the war crimes committed by the nazi regime and its supporters in World War II are such that the interests of civilisation and justice require that those responsible be brought to book, however late in the day it may be. There were two safeguards which Mr Menzies did not address and which I will put now to the Attorney-General. First, if any question of extradition arises, regardless of whether it is a country with which we presently have extradition arrangements or with some other country, it must be determined under the laws that apply to committal proceedings in Australian courts. I say this because I have reservations that the operation of extradition treaties, and the way in which extradition is obtained from Australian courts, gives to the accused person the rights that he would ordinarily have. Certainly it does not give to an accused person the rights that he would have if he were an Australian, or a resident of this country, or a person found in this country and accused of a crime here. On committal he has a right to challenge the evidence brought against him, to bring evidence to controvert that evidence, and to seek to persuade the committing magistrate, the magistrate sitting in the proceedings, that no prima face case has been made out. That kind of protection should be available in the case of extradition proceedings made against alleged war criminals. If any country wishes to bring extradition proceedings, its witnesses should be offered in Australian courts and be subject to the kind of interrogation, and the accused subject to the kind of defences, that we regard as basic to our system of justice. The second qualification is that if an application for extradition should be made and a prima facie case established in Australian courts, we need to look very carefully at the question of a fair trial-at the system of justice which is in place in the country seeking extradition. Mr Menzies referred to this point. I note from what the Attorney-General has said that he shares the concern because he stated that he would be concerned at the prospect of making special arrangements to extradite persons to countries with markedly different judicial systems. I think we all would. The Government's preferred position is, he says, to conduct any war crimes prosecutions in Australia. There is much to be said in support of that view. Mr Menzies was concerned only with allegations of serious war crimes involving a minute proportion of those who came to Australia in the post-war years-those people who came here from their own countries in such difficult times and who have so greatly enriched our country. Some ethnic communities, as the Attorney- General will know, have expressed concerns that any proposals to examine war crimes could operate unfairly or adversely against members of their communities or against the community as a whole. Those that have expressed concern include the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian communities. The kind of concerns they have voiced include, for example, the fact that the presumption of innocence should apply in legal proceedings, and the vested interest that the Soviet regime has shown in the past in discrediting anti-communist refugee communities. We share their concerns. I believe that the Attorney-General also shares the concerns that they have expressed. Lastly, I emphasise the fact that we are here concerned only with allegations. We do not know where the investigation of these allegations will lead. It will be necessary, as the Attorney-General has made plain, that a solid prima facie case be made out before any action is taken. It is necessary that any who are investigated have all the protections that the Australian system of justice affords to accused persons. It is also necessary that, regardless of time, regardless of age, regardless of the blameless lives that individuals may have lived in the meantime, if there is a case made-a substantial case, a prima facie case, one that requires to be answered-any such individual should answer it. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.23) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals Nos 1 and 2 (1987) and Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1 to 6 (1987). The tariff proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Excise Tariff Proposals Nos 1 and 2 (1987) and Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1 to 5 (1987) formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff alterations made by notices published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette during the recent recess. Excise Tariff Proposals Nos 1 and 2 (1987), operative on and from 17 January 1987 and 14 February 1987 respectively, provide for altered rates of excise duty on certain refined petroleum products resulting from the Government's decisions on the pricing of indigenous crude oil and related issues. Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 3 and 5 (1987), operative on and from the same dates, provide for corresponding alterations to rates of Customs duty. Rates of diesel fuel rebate have also been altered in conjunction with the changes I have just outlined. Eligible primary production continues to attract a 100 per cent duty rebate and the altered rates for eligible mining operations effectively mean no change in duty payable. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1987), operative on and from 17 December 1986, implement the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's interim report on citrus fruit. Mr Porter —Hear, hear! Mr BARRY JONES —A feeling interjection from a South Australian member. The Government has decided to re-introduce the rates of duty which applied to citrus fruit juices of tariff sub-item 20.07.2 prior to 10 December 1986, until 9 December 1987. The rates will then phase down on and from 10 December 1987. This interim action has been taken pending receipt of the Industries Assistance Commission's final report on the fresh fruit and fruit products industries. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1987), operative on and from 1 January 1987, contain a variety of amendments. The first set of amendments provides for the phased reduction of duty to free on certain rubber goods of New Zealand origin-partly to reflect concern about acquired immune deficiency syndrome. This action follows mutual determination by Australia and New Zealand under the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2 also implement a decision taken in the context of the Government's consideration of the post-1988 assistance arrangements for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. The general tariff rate of 25 per cent on knitted fabrics laminated with expanded or foam rubber is reduced to 2 per cent. A series of amendments made in the context of the current textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy are also included. These cover: variations to the developing country exclusions from preference which are made annually; the insertion of the 1987 tender quota rates of duty following the settlement of the relevant premium tender quota rates; the extension of the validity of the 1986 quota allocations; the phased duty reductions in certain items for goods of New Zealand origin which are made in accordance with article 5 of the ANZCERTA; and changes providing special provisions in relation to footwear from New Zealand and hand made footwear from developing countries to avoid large variations in duty rates which could occur because of currency fluctuations. Amendments to Schedule 5 and Part II of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act regarding passionfruit products also form part of Proposals No. 2. These changes complete the implementation of the new Forum Islands preference scheme which came into operation for all other goods on 1 July 1986. The final amendments in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2 cover phasing arrangements under Article 4 of the ANZCERTA and the deletion of redundant phasing rates in Schedule 3 and Part II of Schedule 4. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1987), operative on and from 1 February 1987, implement part of the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the chemicals and plastics industries. These proposals form the first step in the phasing-in of the long term rates to apply to the chemicals and plastics industries. Most general tariff rates above 25 per cent fall to 25 per cent. Rates on certain basic chemicals are, however, reduced in the first phase to 20 per cent. Honourable members did not know that, did they? Mr N.A. Brown —Why is it 20 per cent? Mr BARRY JONES —The secrecy of Cabinet impedes me from explaining that. Also included in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 4 are new provisions in the Customs Tariff Act to enable the implementation of policy by-laws: to permit the duty free importation of caustic soda for use in the production of alumina and for use in the processing of rare earth compounds and metals; and to continue the duty free entry of certain films and plates used in educational, religious and related activities. The final change in these proposals is the amendment of the definition of refined glycerol to be glycerol containing not less than 95 per cent by weight of glycerol calculated on a water free basis. In addition to the changes on refined petroleum products I mentioned earlier, Customs Tariff Proposals No. 5 contain a change to implement the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on electric lamps. The Government has accepted the Commission's recommendation that all electric lamps and parts therefor under reference be dutiable at a general tariff rate of 15 per cent. This change operates on and from 14 February 1987. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1987), operative on and from 1 March 1987, implement two tariff changes on which decisions were taken in the context of the Government's recent decision on the textiles, clothing and footwear industries post-1988 assistance arrangements. The general tariff rate on knitted towelling and knitted towels will increase from 35 per cent to 60 per cent while the general tariff rate for interior textile blinds will increase from 2 per cent to 25 per cent. These changes are being made to remove anomalies which permit the goods involved to be entered at rates lower than those applying to substitute products, these changes have been deferred from their earlier operative date of 1 January 1987 in order not to penalise importers who were irrevocably committed to overseas purchases or who had goods `on the water'. Summaries of alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many post office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel. further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to service the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal of the above said bill ``National System for Therapeutic Goods for Human Use''. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should: (1). Block the introduction of the above said bill ``National System for Therapeutic Goods for Human Use'' and (2). Continue to allow the free availability of vitamins, minerals, homoeopathic remedies, biochemic remedies and herbal remedies to the general public through the present distribution outlets. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron and Mr McVeigh. 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 mixtures 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 Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hawker. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 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 a 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 in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances to be used in Food Irradiation and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. And your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 is having a detrimental effect on the car industry generally in South Australia, and more particularly, on employment in that industry. 2. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 contains many anomalies, inconsistencies and mistakes in drafting and its administrative implementation is an unwarranted burden on Australian businesses and the Australian taxpayer. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House repeal as a matter of utmost urgency this regressive legislation which imposes a disincentive to economic and employment growth, thereby jeopardising the well-being and living standards of all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strongly object to the sale of the Queen Elizabeth II Rehabilitation Centre at 59 Missenden Road, Camperdown, N.S.W. as it would be a disadvantage to patients who are incapacitated/invalid who require the specialised treatment/s which are now available in one Centre. We urge the Government to rescind the selling of this building and the breaking-up and loss of expertise in a centre that has every available facility for the disabled patient. by Mr Lionel Bowen. 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 equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. by Mr Cadman. The Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December, 1984 as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material, (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and the other related test in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dawkins. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Mr Dawkins. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the 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 Dawkins. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the inequitable 33% cut to the Education Centre program as announced in the recent Budget. 2. That the impact of this will be to cut across programs and projects with a recognised National and International significance; and 3. That an extremely cost effective program which attracts additional funds to Education is in jeopardy due to a proposed reduction in funding for the Education Centre Program of $838,000 in 1987. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray the House of Representatives and Government of the Commonwealth seek to have the Minister to arrange finances within her portfolio in order that this program be restored to 1986 funding levels or such as may be nearly the same, given national economic constraints, in order to maintain this unique national program. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dawkins. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the pricing of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively, with recent Government decisions adding over 8c per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6c. per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the committment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3c per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises in the cost of petrol. And you 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 showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, Fringe Benefit 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 Australia 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, Fringe Benefit 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 the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, or 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 allowances payments, and reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable 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 every pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. 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: We are concerned that the decisions to be taken by Government with regard to the footwear industry in which we work may not recognise the continuation of a form and level of assistance which will maintain the security of our employment. Your petitioners therefore pray that every consideration and support will be given to this matter so that we are able to maintain our employment in this industry. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that persistent rumour suggest that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensure no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Review the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: Despite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights statement that ``the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State'', the present Australian tax system penalises families with children at every level of income. The tax system discriminates in particular against families with large numbers of dependants. This may be one reason why, according to Professor Bettina Cass, only 27 per cent of married couple families with children had three or more children in 1985, in contrast to almost 35 per cent in 1969. Fair levels of family allowances and taxation benefits are the reasonable entitlement and expectation of parents. Such a change in government policy may help to arrest the sharp decline in Australian births with beneficial results for our country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. That the taxation system cease to discriminate against families. by Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of Dawson respectfully shows that while most urban areas of Australia enjoy ABC FM radio transmission, the Mackay region of Queensland is still deprived of this facility. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will immediately take steps to rectify transmission anomalies which continue to prevent approximately 100,000 potential listeners in this region from receiving this service. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth. That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Hawke Labor Government to provide the vision and policies for the much needed expansion of Australia's higher education system. 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 SHACK(Tangney)(4.36) —During Question Time I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It was a genuine question seeking information about the Government's intentions. I asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that there are currently thousands of young Australians who are being denied the opportunity of gaining a higher education, not because they are academically unqualified, but simply because the Government and public funds are unable to provide sufficient places for them. In the light of that demonstrable fact, I asked the Prime Minister why his Government was actively encouraging the full fee paying enrolment of overseas students but was categorically denying the same opportunity to our own people, to the thousands of Australian students who are missing out on a publicly funded place. The record will show and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will recall that the Prime Minister totally failed to answer this question. Instead, he resorted to a very aggressive covering up of his inability or, indeed, his unwillingness to answer the question. The fact that I asked the question really gives a window into our reason for raising this matter of public importance today. This Government is displaying an absolute lack of vision and a total absence of policy for the much needed expansion of Australia's higher education system. This week and next week will mark the beginning of the careers for many thousands of students who are enrolling for the first time at a university, college of advanced education or institute of technology. I ask the House to spare a thought, in fact more than a simple thought, for the 30,000 fellow students who qualified in year 12 studies last year but who are being locked out and denied a place at a university, college or institute of technology. A qualification that would have got students into an institution three or four years ago-the tertiary examination, tertiary admission entrance or higher school certificate score, whatever it is called in the different States around Australia-is no guarantee to get them in today. Honourable members on both sides of the House will understand that, because I would be greatly surprised if they have not been contacted by the parents of many of these students, expressing any wish about their inability to get their sons or daughters into a higher education institution. It is not because these kids are dumb or stupid, it is not because they have failed their year 12; it is simply because under the Government's present restrictive policies insufficient places are available to take those who wish to study at higher education institutions. I am very pleased that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is to participate in this debate because over the years I have come to expect from him-and I know I will not be disappointed this afternoon-a consideration of the points being raised and a proper response, unlike the response that was given by the Prime Minister in Question Time. Too many people on the other side of the House resort to some sort of historical analysis of what has been done in respect of higher education. I say this especially to the Minister, who is also concerned about the future: We have raised this debate to focus on the great opportunity before all of us to replace the stagnation of today with policies and vision that will provide for future growth, innovation, excellence and achievement in the higher education system of this country. In his policy speech for the March 1983 election, the Prime Minister said: Australia cannot afford to lose so many able students from our high schools, colleges and universities. Yet four academic years later, in February 1987, we have 30,000 qualified applicants denied an opportunity to enhance their skills in higher education because of the blinkered, restrictive approach which this Government has adopted and is continuing to demonstrate. Unless new directions are courageously pursued and unless the present Government's policies are overturned, by 1992 we will have upwards of 100,000 qualified potential students being turned away by our universities, colleges and institutes. Let me repeat that figure: Unless there is change, unless policies are adopted for the expansion of higher education in Australia, by 1992, 100,000 qualified applicants will be turned away each year because of too few places being available in our universities and colleges. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is not because they are dumb. The same marks would have got them in three or four years ago. It is simply that the policies are not being adopted to expand the system and provide places for them. It is an absolutely perverse situation. The other day the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, issued an excellent Press release about the effort that must be undertaken by all of us to increase the participation rate in high schools. The Minister said that the Government had adopted a target of 65 per cent of students undertaking year 12 by the early 1990s. She stated that the target was not unreasonable, and the Opposition unqualifiedly agrees with her. We are encouraging more and more of our high school students to stay on to year 12, yet we are not providing the growth and the expansion of the higher education system so that those year 12 students can take the next step and gain a higher education qualification. We have now reached the stage where only 40 per cent of year 12 graduates are going on to higher education. This is the reality of this Government's misplaced priorities in education. It is the truth about education under Labor. There is declining educational opportunity, especially for the young; there is a rundown in equipment and facilities and academic employment opportunities; there is increasing bureaucratic control of higher education by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission; and there is growing stagnation, frustration and despair in our halls of learning. Australia's higher education system is in a state of unprecedented crisis. It is unable to meet growing student demand; it cannot train students on state of the art technology and, in the advanced education sector, 50 per cent of the equipment is now obsolete. Honourable members do not have to take my word for it; they need only ask the directors and principals of our CAEs around Australia. The bright and ambitious academics are continuing to flee Australian institutions for the greener pastures of private enterprise or overseas research and teaching positions. The Minister is fast becoming known in the higher education community as Dr No because she flatly rejects any positive suggestions to revive, let alone expand, the system. She says no when asked to permit an increase of student numbers to accommodate increasing levels of unmet demand. She says no when petitioned to help repair crumbling buildings at, for example, the University of Sydney. She says no when CAEs plead for help in upgrading their equipment so that students can learn relevant skills on modern equipment. She says no when the New South Wales Government asks for permission to establish a university in Sydney's western suburbs and when the Northern Territory Government says it deserves its own university. She says no when universities and CAEs request greater flexibility in academic salaries and conditions of employment. She says no when the Western Australian Institute of Technology changes its status to a university, with the full support of the Western Australian Labor Government. When the Labor governments in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia again demand greater say in planning higher education in their States the Minister says no. No is Senator Ryan's byword in education. If one were to ask her how Australia will achieve higher participation in higher education under the Hawke Government's policies she would have to say: `I don't know', because she does not know and she is failing in her responsibilities. I would like to put forward to the Minister at the table four positive suggestions and ask for his categoric and definite response. The Opposition is talking about maintaining public funding for higher education in Australia, maintaining free places funded by the Australian taxpayer. The task for all of us who are concerned about higher education in Australia will certainly be to maintain that public line in Cabinets now and in the future which seek to reduce government expenditure in order to be able to fund other areas or to deliver to the Australian people the tax cuts that they so desperately want and need. So we are talking about maintaining the public vote for higher education. Over and above maintaining the public vote, many things can be done to expand the system which this Government ideologically and blinkeredly is refusing even to consider. First, the challenge of expanding educational opportunity can be seriously addressed only if the Government throws away its opposition to the enrolment of additional students on a private basis. What right does any government have to say to any potential student: `You didn't make the quota. Don't worry about it that we put up the quota level higher than last year. You didn't make it, and therefore you can't go. You're not allowed to back your own career, back your own ambition. You're not allowed to take out loans. You're not allowed to solicit the help of your employer and pay your own way through a university degree, if that's what you want. The answer is no.'? This is an absolutely stupid situation. We encourage overseas students to come here on a full fee basis; we have representatives of our institutions in South East Asia and points beyond encouraging students to come on a full fee basis; yet over and above the quota of taxpayer funded places we deny the same opportunity to our potential students. It is an absolute criminal disgrace. The second requirement is not only to maintain the base of recurrent and capital funding but also to build a new and exciting regime of private financial involvement in higher education. We intend to set free each university, CAE and institute of technology from unnecessary regulation, restrictions and prohibitions which discourage or prevent private fund raising activities. The Minister has tentatively given her support to this, but we need a full blown effort to maintain the public vote to our public institutions and to encourage our public institutions to go out and seek private funds because the Government knows, we know, and we have a joint understanding that if we are to expand higher education in Australia in the foreseeable future we will not be able to do it from taxpayers' moneys. Even the Minister has said there are no more buckets of money. She said there are no more buckets of cash. We have to have a full blown effort to encourage our institutions to seek additional sources of money-not to diminish the public vote but to expand the system. Thirdly, we need to inject elements of competition into higher education, both within the public sector and between government and higher education institutions and any private institutions which emerge. The Minister at the table is well read. He understands much by way of international comparison. It is absurd that Australia does not have any private higher education institutions. We need, again, a full blown effort to encourage private enterprise investment not only in our public institutions but also, importantly, in the establishment of new private institutions. We unreservedly support the Bond University on the Gold Coast and any other ventures that may be undertaken around Australia. Finally, we need to wind back the stifling bureaucratic control that the Federal Government is exercising over higher education. The Liberal and National parties will say `yes', and not `no', to the higher education system. We intend to get it back on the rails. We intend to inject new life and new funding into it. We intend to let the system rip and expand the number of places available. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(4.51) —I appreciated the tone in which the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) made his points. I will try to deal, if I can, with the issues that he raised before going on to respond with the very strong and impressive record of the Hawke Government in education. The honourable member began by talking about the numbers who are excluded from tertiary education-they who have finished secondary education and who would, under normal circumstances, have qualified. It is true that many qualified students are unable to find entry into higher education. But it is very difficult to be precise about numbers. There is a good deal of doubling or trebling up because applicants habitually apply for more courses than they can actually take. For example, in 1986 there appeared to be a shortfall of some 30,000 places. In fact, the final figure was about 10,000. That is not a matter for congratulation. But what appeared to be a large figure of 30,000 or so finished up at about one-third of that. There will be a similar situation in 1987-perhaps the number will be a little higher, up to 12,000. The honourable member also raised what he regarded as the non-response by the Prime Minister to a question he asked during Question Time today. I thought that he had a very good response from the Prime Minister who made the general point that the Government's record in education is good. But the honourable member is concerned that there is a discrepancy between excluding some Australian students and welcoming full fee paying overseas students. The full fee paying policy for overseas students in higher education was announced in 1985. The full fee policy guidelines announced by the Government make explicit the requirement on universities and colleges that full fee activities should not displace or in any way disadvantage Australian students. Mr Shack —That is not my point. Mr BARRY JONES —I just want to put the context. In other words, the overseas students will occupy only physical space that is not in demand for places for Australian students or additional places created by institutions for the purpose of taking in full fee students. Because the full fee guidelines require institutions to set fees at a minimum of full average costs, including a capital element, and because most institutions are adding a margin of profit to their fees, it is clear that institutions must increase their private income sources. Revenue, including the capital element of fees, will be applied by institutions to the benefit of all students, including Australian students-this is very similar to the third point that the honourable member made later in his speech about expanding capacity and improving equipment or the capital fabric. In addition to the educational benefits, the economic benefits of the increased trade in services to be generated by full fee overseas students ought to be obvious to all. The honourable member made four proposals. First, he accused the Government of throwing away the right of potential students to enter institutions on a private basis. He argued that they ought to be in a position to take loans and enter institutions on a fee paying basis. He emphasised that this was in sharp contrast with our encouragement of full fee paying overseas students. One of the pre-conditions to this proposal-and I would not regard myself as being violently opposed to it-would be a reorganisation of the structure of the way in which universities and CAEs operate and particularly the extent to which universities are able to operate right around the clock. There are difficulties ensuring that lecture facilities, classrooms, laboratories and so on are fully available. I always get a bit of a buzz when I go to the United States of America and see universities that seem to be operating 24 hours a day, pretty well seven days a week. That does not mean that the same people are working in those institutions all the time. It means that there is a very imaginative multiple use of facilities. We ought to be prepared to think of the benefits that could result from such a system. I think this country suffers from having inherited the British tradition in education because universities in the off season are almost like sanctuaries. I was in New Zealand for the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Congress and I went to the University of Auckland during a weekend. The university was like a country cemetery. There was absolutely nobody around. There was no sign of life. That is very different from the situation in the United States, Canada and much of western Europe. The two things really have to be looked at together. One cannot have one without the other. The second suggestion of the honourable member for Tangney was that we retain the present financial base of Commonwealth funding but add to it high levels of funding contributed directly by the community. I do not think that is a bad idea either. The realities are: When does it start and where does the money come from? Australia has an astonishingly bad record of contributions from private sources into the university system, let alone colleges of advanced education. I cannot recall the precise figure, but I remember working it out for the Masson Lecture in 1985. Barely 2 per cent of the total contribution to universities in Australia comes from the private sector as opposed to between 40 and 50 per cent in the United States. That is an astonishingly bad figure. I think I am also correct in saying that in all of our universities there are only seven or eight privately funded chairs. I am not talking about faculties; I am talking about chairs. A couple of years ago there was a big campaign at the Uni- versity of Melbourne to get funding from the engineering community for expansion of Melbourne University's engineering school. That was reasonably successful. However, that example stands out like granny's tooth because it happens so rarely. I think it would be a fine thing if we could get the private sector seriously interested in higher education. In exactly the same way, Senator Button and I have been saying that it would be a fine thing if we could only get the private sector seriously interested in research and development. The fact is that it has been light years behind the business community in other countries, particularly in other Pacific Rim countries. We have a lot of catching up to do. If the honourable member for Tangney and some of his associates can do something to gee up support from the private sector that will be very good. We have a long way to go. The third point raised by the honourable member was the need to have elements of competition in higher education. He referred, of course, to the prospect of setting up private universities. Again, this matter seems to relate to the difference between the Australian academic tradition, coming as it did from the British model, and the American model. The one private university in Great Britain, the University of Buckingham, has sometimes been trumpeted as being a model for the way the Bond University would operate here. The total student population of the University of Buckingham is certainly less than 1,000. A very high proportion are students from the old British Commonwealth. Indigenes of Great Britain who have come into the university are of the order of 300 or 400. That number is not far out. The honourable member for Tangney should not delude himself into thinking that by saying: `Oh well, we are going to introduce a new element into tertiary education, namely private university funding' we will necessarily get this fundamental shift. The University of Buckingham has been going since 1976. Mr Reith —Is the concept right? Mr BARRY JONES —I am not worried about the concept; I am simply saying that things won't happen overnight, and we have to be careful. To hear the assertion made that simply because Chicago University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University- Mr Shack —Not made by me. Mr BARRY JONES —No, I am not saying that the honourable member for Tangney has made that assertion; he has been much too cautious to say that because they are all private institutions-bingo! Some honourable members opposite think that if they create a private university that makes it the equivalent of an MIT. I have listened with great attention to some of the subjects to be offered at the Bond University, including the offer, made in a broadcast, of courses in remedial English and letter writing for businessmen. That really sounds a bit more like TAFE-that is, technical and further education-in scope. It does not sound like a university. But honourable members opposite might be relieved that I am not the responsible Minister. I have no doctrinal hang-up. Mr Shack —I regret that. Mr BARRY JONES —Is that so? All right. The fourth point that was suggested was the winding back of stifling bureaucratic control. I would have thought that, compared to certain other elements of the bureaucracy, the people in the Department of Education were amazingly enlightened. But remember, too, that this is an area where the Commonwealth has essentially only a funding authority-perhaps also a moral authority. The real difficulties down at the coalface occur at the State level. After all, we have six States and a Territory-quite apart from the Australian Capital Territory-involved in it. One issue that we have to look at very seriously is whether the Commonwealth ought to be more directly involved, not just at a funding level, in the actual administration of universities. In some ways I think the Opposition had a nerve to raise the word `vision' in a matter of public importance on education because vision requires imagination, courage, and a willingness to take on tough issues and to look towards the future. That is something which I think this Opposition has been conspicuously lacking in. Because the honourable member for Tangney has been generous to me I will reciprocate. I do not put him altogether in the same category but, looking at the stony-faced men behind him, we see that they are a bit light in the vision department. It is notorious that this Opposition, at least in its public face, has been consistently hostile to the Government's establishment of the Commission for the Future, an attempt to create a higher level of awareness in this community, especially within areas of community leadership, such as politicians, teachers, school councils and others associated with education. Looking back at the record of the Fraser Government and its conservative predecessor, one has to ask: What have honourable members opposite been doing, what have they ever done, and what are they trying to do in their policy now, to encourage working class participation in higher education? They maintain this split level view of education-a strictly hierarchical and discriminatory model in education. They offer encouragement for the affluent and disincentives for the poor. There is not one word in the Opposition's education policy-if it can be dignified with such a description-about how to redistribute opportunities for participation. Under the Fraser Government, only 36 per cent of students in secondary education were completing year 12 in 1982. In 1986 the figure shot up to nearly 50 per cent and we are working towards 65 per cent by the early 1990s. Under the Fraser Government, with the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) as its Treasurer, capital funds for higher education plummeted by 73 per cent. Under Labor they have risen by 43 per cent. During the period of the Fraser Government, universities and colleges of advanced education suffered a real decline in capital and in recurrent funding, a real negative growth in higher education, and they underwent a massive restructuring through forced mergers. What are the Howard promises? The honour- able member for Tangney purports to uphold education standards while his Party advocates policies which will lower quality and erode standards of achievement. I have already dealt with the question of the numbers of people excluded from tertiary education. It is irresponsible to exaggerate the number who are missing out. The Opposition is hypocritical in raising the matter of higher education places. The Fraser Government managed to create only 8,100 places in the same time that the Hawke Government has created 36,800 places. Some of the pressure now reflects our success at encouraging students to complete a full secondary education and then go on further. The Opposition does not have a plan or any rationale for co-ordinated expansion of higher education. Indeed, members of the Opposition have said that they will give State governments as much control as possible over the planning and development of higher education in each State, including the size and location of any new institutions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(5.06) —Before the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) lapsed into that political rhetoric for which he is so well known, towards the conclusion of his contribution, I found his comments quite fascinating. Indeed, it can be said that the bulk of his speech, if not most of it, was spent refuting arguments put forward by the shadow Minister for Education, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), yet he concluded by saying that the honourable member for Tangney had a hide for speaking about vision-the proposals of the Opposition for reforming an increasingly outdated higher education system. Not one constructive proposal was put forward as representing government policy. Instead, the Minister's entire time was spent attempting to dismantle the arguments put forward by the honourable member for Tangney. The Minister for Science would have us believe that he readily acknowledges the benefits to the Australian education system of overseas students paying a full fee, but he then stopped short of accepting the argument put forward by the Opposition for full paying students at private educational facilities. The Minister told us, generously, that he was not violently opposed-to use his words-to private universities or colleges of advanced education, yet he failed to articulate exactly what was holding him back from embracing the idea. However, he did say that an idea such as a private institution would require a reorganisation of universities so as to allow round the clock utilisation of all the facilities. He spoke very highly of his experiences in the United States, Canada and Western European countries. All of those countries allow proper utilisation of university facilities. The Minister told us that that multiple use would have to be tied in to the full fee paying student. What is stopping us? If we are prepared to acknowledge that the higher education system in this country is failing 30,000 students this year-more than double the 14,000 students last year, approximately, who failed to gain a place despite their qualifications-why can we not radically look at how our higher education system works? The Minister seemed to say complacently that there were some very good points in the contribution of the shadow Minister for Education, yet he would not pick up any of them properly. The Minister went on to speak about privately funded chairs. He accepts them. He dismissed out of hand privately funded faculties, but again he failed to tell us-- Mr Barry Jones —I said they hadn't happened. Mr McGAURAN —The Minister tells us that they had not happened. They will not happen because he will not allow them. This Federal Government has a monopoly on every higher education institution. When a proposal such as the Bond University is put up the Government knocks it on the head and does everything it can to prevent it. To that extent it bears the odium for keeping so many of those students who are qualified out of their proper entitlements. The Minister then went on to speak about competition. I, and I am sure my colleagues join me in this, got hopelessly confused when the Minister spoke about whether we can permit competition in our higher education facilities. All he told us is that he was sympathetic to the idea of competition. Quite frankly, perhaps a closer examination of the transcript of his remarks will assist us. The Minister brushed very quickly over the suggestion of bureaucratic inertia which was outlined by the shadow Minister for Education. He then concluded, of course, by trotting out that good old favourite-working class participation in higher education. Of course, it is hopelessly unsatisfactory. Honourable members should ask the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in the Senate. He has been trying desperately to get this Government to acknowledge that, if anything, there has been a decline in blue collar socio-economic background participation in higher education. So the Minister should not come into this chamber with the sanctimonious rhetoric into which he falls too easily. I find that he failed to answer properly any of the points raised by the shadow Minister. He equivocated and was quite uncertain in his own mind just what needs to be done but to his undying credit he did admit that something has to be done. Something radical certainly has to be done because there would not be a member of this House who does not have the frequent experience of students and parents complaining about the education system. Admittedly, many of those complaints are about curriculum, the standard of teaching, discipline, courses such as human development, human sciences, peace studies, the Human Rights Commission's interference with, we are told, some 200 schools and all of those matters which mostly belong with State governments. However, the fact remains that in this country in the age group between 16 and 24 only 35 per cent of youths are participating in higher education. In America the figure is a staggering 73 per cent. Mr Saunderson —Perhaps you had better repeat that. What period of time? Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Aston asked me to detail the period for which those figures were compiled.They are for the year 1984. Moreover, the percentage of the labor force qualified to the first degree level in Australia-- Government members-What is your record? Mr McGAURAN —Government members are asking what our record is. Our record is a very proud one. The problem with this Government is like that with the hospital waiting lists which continue to grow. The number of qualified students who are turned away from higher education has grown dramatically in this Government's four years in office. We will not allow the Government to continue to perpetuate the myth that all economic ills of the present day fall within the responsibility of the previous coalition Government. Nobody in this place and certainly nobody outside it buys that. The Government spends $5.2 billion on higher education, which represents some 7 per cent of total outlays. So we are entitled to ask just what value we receive for taxpayers' dollars. Very sadly, the taxpayer believes that he or she gets very little value for those dollars. What really needs to be done is, first, to allow institutions to enrol additional students. If we are to enable those students, who are presently turned away, despite their qualifications, we have to allow institutions to enrol additional students on top of the tax funded places. Obviously the financial arrangement under which this occurs must be acceptable to both the institution and the students concerned. As I have said, this already applies to overseas students and there is no argument in logic for preventing Australian students from obtaining their proper entitlement at their own cost. Secondly, institutions have to be freed up and encouraged to supplement government funds through their own revenue raising activities. Of course. this would not jeopardise in any way their right to continued public support. Thirdly-I have already touched on this matter, as has the Minister for Science, representing the Minister for Education-private institutions have to be encouraged and fostered. It is only then that we will boost the overall number of students. In the very short time left to me I want to touch on the problems associated with Austudy. Mr Cobb —What a failure! Mr McGAURAN —`What a failure', the honourable member for Parkes says and he is joined by the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp). There is no question that Austudy, which comes on the heels of Priority One: Young Australia and the drug campaign, has proved to be an administrative failure. Once again every member of this chamber bears the odium for that. When young students or their distressed parents come to see us they do not differentiate whether we are a member of the Government party, which is entirely responsible for the mess, or whether we are a member of the Opposition, which has alternative proposals. Parents want to know why their children are denied education, why their proper entitlement under Austudy is several weeks late. This Government is famous for raising expectations and just as famous for never following them through. There is a growing cynicism amongst young people which the Government started with Priority One and which it seems determined to continue with every successive massive publicity campaign. A number of other matters really need to be touched on in this debate on higher education. The shadow Minister and I have outlined the concrete, constructive proposals of the Opposition finally to address the fundamental flaws, the basic conceptual inadequacies, upon which this Government has built its higher education policy. The Minister for Science readily acknowledged these but he failed to detail any future action. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(5.15) —Perhaps a good point to start on in this matter of public importance debate is the point on which the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) finished, and that is cynicism. I think we should look at the policies of the shadow Minister for Education, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), who is also the spokesman on youth, and then we will see some real cynicism in his approach. Before I get on to the Opposition's education policy I think we should look at its attitude to youth. It is very enlightening to look at its attitude and cynicism in the light of its hopes of getting back into government. Last year the shadow spokesperson circulated amongst Opposition members a document which was his youth strategy package. It said that the first way to get youth to listen to us was to use popular jargon such as `make my day' from Clint Eastwood and to talk about Bruce Springsteen because he is popular. In other words, we should try to win them by pandering to what appear to be the popular issues of the day. The honourable member for Tangney also said that the Waste Watch Committee, in criticising government expenditure, should make sure it did not mention things such as the peace group grants because the youth really believes that those grants are worth while. In other words, he was saying that the Opposition should deceive the youth by not describing the Opposition's real attitude to many of the things it supports. I turn to education. The honourable member for Tangney talked about the number of people who cannot get into education institutions. He did not tell us why that situation has come about. He said that the Opposition would look to increased funds from the business sector or extra students enrolling on a fee paying basis. That is how the Opposition would do it. To this shoddy document on youth policy which he sent out to Opposition members he attached a questionnaire asking them to come back with further ideas. Question 5 in that questionnaire was: `Are there any special ``tricks'' you have used to raise your profile among young people?'. In other words, Opposition members have not raised their profile by listening to the youth, by talking to the young people of Australia; they have tricked them into believing that they are doing something. If Opposition members had any tricks the honourable member for Tangney wanted to know about them so that all back benchers could embark on a similar exercise. That is the Opposition's policy on youth; it is one of deception, deceit and misinformation. Let us look at its policy on education which the shadow spokesman put out in February of this year. The Opposition would cure the problem with a new system of awarding free places in higher education to replace the current arrangement. Honourable members should remember that the current arrangement is free education which is unlimited in the terms of the number of places in institutions. In replacing the current system the Opposition would award free places. Obviously the award would be made as a result of some test or examination. There is no indication as to whether it would be means tested. Given the Opposition's attitude on everything else, it would probably not be means tested. So it would mean that many of the people who under its proposals could afford to pay fees would still get the limited free places. What is more, the honourable member goes on to say at the end of his document: . . . There are some 390,000 students funded `free' by the government. We will maintain full funding for roughly the same number . . . In other words, under a Liberal government there will never be an increase in the current numbers of free places. No matter how much the population grows in the future the Liberals will keep those numbers where they are. So the only increase that will occur in education under a Liberal government will be in private full fee paying institutions. That is the policy of those opposite and that is not what they are telling the youth of Australia. If there is any doubt as to their policy, let us look at their record in funding because the shadow spokesperson mentioned that some prospective students cannot get a place. In the last full triennium for which those opposite were responsible, the overall funding for higher education was cut-reduced in real terms-by 2.1 per cent. In capital works-that is, the buildings that provide the places at universities and other higher education institutions-the funding was reduced by 73 per cent. In that triennium they were able to provide only some 8,000 new places. Look at the record of our Government in the first full triennium for which we were responsible. Overall funding increased in real terms by 7.6 per cent. Capital works programs are up in real terms by 43 per cent. The number of new places is 36,800-a record that any government would be proud of. But let us take the argument of those opposite about the number of people who missed out on getting into university this year and last year. As the Minister said, there were 10,000 in real numbers last year and the number perhaps will be slightly higher this year. The figure cited by the Opposition member of 30,000 is one which he knows full well takes into account multiple applications for several universities or institutions by people who are hoping to be accepted by at least one. Mr Staples —Another one of his tricks. Mr SAUNDERSON —That is right. If we take the figure of 10,000 or 14,000 and if we think back to when those opposite were in government in their last triennium, it is clear that had the Opposition funded education to the same extent that we have, not one of those persons would have missed out on an education place. Another 27,000 places would have been provided if those opposite had funded education at the same rate that we have. The problem is theirs. It is an inherited problem that takes years to overcome because it requires a capital works program and an expansion in government spending-at a time when obviously we have great difficulties. If they had devoted their priorities to education, which they obviously were not doing, we would not be in the situation now where some people are missing out on university. We have done our part in redressing the problems that those opposite created but if any people in the community are concerned as to why their children have not been able to get into university or some higher education institution in Australia this year, they should lay the blame where it belongs-with the Opposition, because when in government it neglected education. Let us not forget that when those opposite went out of office they were about to introduce loans and fees. They were moving directly and very quickly, as can be seen by the drastic way they were reducing funds to education in 1979-81, towards private education at the higher level. Let us also look at one of the reasons why there are some increases in the number of people not able to get places. If we look at our record, more people are now staying on at secondary school. For instance, in 1982, the last full year of the Liberal Government, only 36 per cent of students were staying to the end of year 12. After three years of this Government, some 46.4 per cent of students are staying at school. The evidence is there. We have paid attention to the secondary school area and the university level. Let us look at the attitude of those opposite to other assistance for education-student assistance funding. Honourable members are critical of Austudy. It may well be that there are some teething problems with the introduction of a new system but let us look at Opposition's attitude to funding. Under the Government of those opposite, from 1978 to 1982 the tertiary education assistance scheme was reduced by 25 per cent in real terms. Under our Government in four years we have increased it by 31 per cent. The secondary allowance under those opposite went up by 32 per cent. We have increased it by 179 per cent. For the adult secondary education scheme under those opposite there was a reduction of 36.6 per cent in funding and an increase of 27.3 per cent under our Government. No matter which way one looks at it we have done more for education and in education at all levels in the three years we have been here than the previous Government did in seven years. To some extent we have redressed the problems and the destruction that those opposite wreaked in the education industry during their seven years of government. I would just like to say that not only have we taken an interest in expansion but we have also increased equity and participation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Transport Safety, I present the report of the Committee on sports aviation safety, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs DARLING —by leave-The Committee's inquiry into sports aviation safety arose in response to a number of concerns raised by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris). The Committee was asked to review the whole spectrum of sports aviation activities, particularly the safety and regulatory aspects. Sports aviation encompasses gliding, hang-gliding, parachuting, ballooning, ultralights, gyrocopters, aerobatics and model aircraft. Quite early in the inquiry it became obvious to us that the major problems were in the ultralight area. The majority of the report is therefore directed at the ultralight problem. The Committee did not find any significant safety problems in the remaining sports aviation activities. Given the similarities between ultralights and powered hang-gliders, or trikes as they are commonly referred to, airworthiness and pilot certification for powered hang-gliders should be of the same order as those for ultralights. The Committee has treated them as such. I am aware that a considerable amount of interest in this report exists within aviation circles. Work by the Department of Aviation on ultralight regulatory proposals has stopped, awaiting the recommendations of the report. The Committee members have taken this to heart and appreciate the fact that the Minister and others are awaiting the recommendations. The ultralight community is expecting these recommendations to overcome many well-entrenched problems. Committee members have taken their task seriously and hope that the result will meet these expectations. Certainly there has been speculation about how specific our recommendations will be, particularly because of the technical nature of airworthiness, flight handling and performance. We have made a number of specific recommendations aimed at overcoming aircraft, pilot and regulatory problems confronting the ultralight movement. We found that current ultralight regulations were inadequate to promote aviation safety and have recommended changes to both existing ultralight categories-ANO 95.10 and ANO 95.25. We could not sanction the existence of the ANO 95.10 category, which enables an aircraft without any airworthiness or safety requirements to be flown by a pilot without any sort of licence. We do not wish to prevent owner-builders from the pleasure they obviously get from constructing their own aircraft, but feel it is absolutely necessary to recommend the addition of specific minimum airworthiness requirements and to require that the construction process be supervised. The Committee has recommended that the existing 95.10 category of ultralight be replaced by a category limited to owner-designer-builders, covering single place aircraft with a maximum empty take-off weight of 150kg, together with basic airworthiness requirements to at least the standard specified in the AUF Technical Bulletins Nos. 1 to 4. The Committee members were very impressed with the work that had been put into these bulletins and we wish to commend the AUF for that. We have recommended that ANO 95.25 be replaced by the proposed ANO 55 series-that is, the new series, 101.55, 100.55 and 95.55-but incorporating a few additional requirements. The Committee believes that all commercially built ultralight aircraft, including kits, should comply with ANO 101.55. We have recommended this because comprehensive safety requirements are needed for the protection of consumers. The Committee has further recommended that the airworthiness requirements of the ANOs be declared a product safety standard under the Trade Practices Act. There was a unamimous agreement and concern amongst committee members when we discovered that imported kit planes could actually be bought at a shop, taken home and assembled in a backyard, and then people could climb into them and fly sharing the airways with general aviation aircraft without any type of regulation or protection at all. A related regulatory issue is the problem of the proliferation of overweight, illegal ultralight aircraft. The problem has been allowed to continue, with almost no enforcement of the regulations, for the past 10 years. After considering various options we concluded that a 12-month amnesty, with certain requirements and conditions, was the best and fairest solution to the problem. Many owners of illegal aircraft have sought ways in which they could be made legal. The Committee is sympathetic to their plight but unwilling to contemplate solutions which abdicate all responsibility for safety. An amnesty for aircraft up to 150 kilograms empty weight will allow many aircraft now illegal to become legal and provide measures which will allow owners to upgrade progressively the classification of their aircraft. The Committee also found that the current 500 foot height restriction applying to ultralight aircraft was too low for safety. Greater height gives a better chance of recovery as well as a much wider choice of landing places in an emergency. Ultralights are more vulnerable to air turbulence than larger faster aircraft, and wind and thermal turbulence is far greater at low levels. Because of this we have recommended two higher ceilings for ultralights. These are 3,000 feet when fitted with a radio and 1,500 feet without. There are some other conditions to these increases. We have also recommended that, three years after the implementation of the new ceilings, a review should be made of their safety. We concluded that the current level of pilot safety and instructor training is inadequate. Although the safety of third parties is addressed in current ultralight regulation, the regulations fail to address the safety of the pilot. To ensure safety we have recommended that all ultralight pilots be certificated to a certain minimum standard. We think this is necessary. We have recommended a formal testing and training process for ultralight instructors before they begin to teach students. One of the unsatisfactory elements of the situation we came across is the necessity for people learning to fly ultralight aircraft to choose between flying in a single seater legal aircraft meaning that the person learning to fly has to do a dummy run of kangaroo hops on the ground and then do his maiden flight solo or flying illegally in a two seater with someone beside him. We found that was not satisfactory, although it should be said that the Committee has welcome the Government's action in setting up ultralight training schools, such as the one at Lovelybanks Airstrip, and we welcome the approval of two-seater craft which are of legal weight, although there must be more. The Committee was very concerned regarding the areas of ultralight accident investigation and release of accident information to the ultralight community. We found that significant problems existed here. The investigation of ultralight accidents receives a very low priority compared with other aircraft accidents. Release and dissemination of the results of accident investigations, which are designed to prevent similar future accidents, have been poor. We found that many of the problems stemmed from the central office of the Department of Aviation. We have recommended the reallocation of priorities within the Department and the implementation of an efficient accident notification scheme as essential, if the situation is to improve. The Committee heard allegations of illegal and unsafe aircraft which continue to be manufactured and sold, despite having been involved in fatal accidents, even after those accidents were attributed to certain design deficiencies. The Department was unable to give a valid reason for its prolonged inactivity in this regard, nor did it give any undertaking that appropriate action would be taken against unsafe aircraft in the future. The Committee, regrettably, found that whilst the Department had apparently co-operated with other sectors of sports aviation it had demonstrated a lack of responsibility in ensuring the safety of ultralight aircraft. It had taken virtually no action against aircraft which were drawn to its attention as unsafe and which were involved in a number of accidents, under the guise of being unsure of its legal powers. Many difficulties arose in efforts to develop self-regulation in the ultralight movement, which eventually resulted in a serious communication breakdown between the Department and ultralight representatives. The Committee found that a regulatory impasse had developed due to a combination of: A naive and unstable ultralight movement in certain sectors; unreasonable departmental expectations; and a lack of consultation between the Department and the Australian Ultralight Federation, the national ultralight body. Conflicting perceptions of ultimate responsibility resulted in almost nil enforcement of the regulations in relation to illegal and unsafe aircraft. We concluded that compulsory aircraft registration, clearly delineated responsibilities and widespread consultation should overcome the major problems and ensure that regulatory and safety standards are acceptable to both parties. The Committee was encouraged, however, by the improved relations between those two bodies towards the end of the inquiry and believes that this, together with the implementation of the regulations, will improve the safety standards of ultralight aircraft for those participants who enjoy the sport. The Committee recommends that the Air Navigation Act 1920 be amended to require the tabling of air navigation orders in each House, so that Parliament can oversee the use made of this delegated power. We have made a number of other recommendations which I will not detail here, but I refer interested people to the full report and defer to some of my colleagues on the Committee. We would like to recognise those individual officers of the Department of Aviation and adherents of sports aviation across Australia who really went out of their way to assist the Committee in its deliberations. That co-operation was excellent. I would like personally to place on record my thanks to all members of the Committee, who worked with dedication during the course of the inquiry-the Deputy Chairman, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who took a fair share of the chairmanship of proceedings with me, as has been characteristic of his performance with this Committee; the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Gorman); the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), the intrepid flyer, as he has been nicknamed; the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb); the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran); the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren); and the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred), who replaced the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) who replaced the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) at the end of 1985. I thank them all for the way in which they co-operated and gave much time to this important report. The Committee would also like to thank the secretariat staff: Allan Kelly, who has supported us through a number of hearings; Monica Telesny, our research officer, whose special task was the complete researching of the inquiry and who operated with distinction on this, her first committee report-congratulations, Monica-and Catherine Saunders, our steno-secretary, who was responsible for an excellent typing and typesetting job. I also thank Mr Greg Adkins for the majority of the photographs, officers of the Department of Aviation and Australian Ultralight Federation, and lastly our advisers, Mr John Blackler and Mr Peter Stephens. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —by leave-First, I wish to congratulate the honourable member for Lilley, Mrs Elaine Darling, the Chairman of the Transport Safety Committee, and all its members. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety-Transafe-may not be the most fashionable committee and a lot of people do not seem to want to join it; but we work in a bipartisan way to save lives, and that is the important thing. We have brought down many recommendations, all of which I hope will be taken up. There was a little bit of misunderstanding the other day when I said that there was a bit of petty jealousy. It is not within the Committee. The petty jealousy to which I was referring is in the States. The Committee brings down sound recommendations and the States, because of their own little petty jealousies, sometimes do not take up those recommendations. That is most regrettable. Mr Coleman —Not Tasmania. Mr GOODLUCK —No, not so much in Tasmania; but sometimes the States duplicate those recommendations. They form their own committees two years later and do exactly the same thing. This is a very hard hitting report which will have a far-reaching effect on the ultralight and aviation sports industry. It is a growth industry-I use the word `industry' advisedly-it is a sport, and it can be argued that if people want to participate in a sport or want to do this or that, whatever happens is their own fault; but there are a lot of implications in the aviation sport involving ultralights. As I have said, it is a growth industry, ultralights are getting faster, they are flying higher and more people are getting involved. Therefore, we want to make certain that the regulations and the ground rules are sound and helpful and will save lives in the long term. I have been deeply involved, as has every other member of the Committee, in its work. All of a sudden in Hobart there was an ultralight smash in which a person lost his life and the ultralight was a complete wreck. One cannot comment on the matter as the report on the incident has not been handed down, but I understand that the man involved had been in Australia for only 2 1/2 hours. I do not know what the ultralight was like-- Mr Beale —Maybe he flew in on it. Mr GOODLUCK —You stick to your ceilings. These recommendations may have saved that man's life. That is the important thing and that is what the Committee is all about. The report will help the sport, and if it saves lives that is the important consideration. I implore others of my Liberal and National Party colleagues-the honourable member for Gippsland, Peter McGauran, has been a member of the Committee, as has the honourable member for Bruce, Ken Aldred-to join the Committee. It may not be as fashionable as some of the other committees, such as the Standing Committee on Expenditure or the Joint Committee of Public Accounts where one can climb up the political ladder, but it is an important Committee because it will save lives. I would like to see others of my colleagues join the Committee and work with us to save lives. Sometimes in this House we live for glory, but we must remember that there are people out there who want us to help and guide them in the safety of roads, ships, aircraft and transport in general. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(5.44) —I move: That this House condemns the Opposition parties for misleading and confusing the Australian people with reckless and reactionary promises of change-promises which they are unable to enunciate or cost. This is a unique occasion of which the Government takes advantage because we have now been back in this House for eight sitting days and we have been listening to the Opposition parties-all of them-putting forward their views about taxation, government expenditure and wage policies, none of which have been manifested or articulated in such a way that the Australian people can understand what all the Opposition parties or any one of the Opposition parties stand for. In fact, not only are there differences between the parties, but there are differences within the parties--(Quorum formed) As I was saying, not only are there differences between the parties-the National Party of Australia, the Liberal Party of Australia and the Joh Party-but there are vast differences within the parties. I notice from the speakers list put out by the Whips that leading the Opposition in this debate is the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), the junior coalition member. Mr Howard, the Leader of the Liberal Party, will also speak in this debate and his alternate, the honourable member for Kooyong, Mr Peacock, is eighth on the list. This debate will not finish until all three have had the opportunity to speak so that we know exactly what their policies are-both the National Party and the Liberal Party-and what the Liberal Party will do under the leadership of Andrew Peacock. Let us look at why the Government has brought on this debate. Taxation, the Opposition has said, will be the major issue for 1987. We have welcomed it and have put it on the agenda today, as the Standing Committee on Procedure asked us to have these general debates from time to time. But what has the Opposition to say about taxation? The Australian of 10 January this year said: Pick a tax policy, any tax policy. If you are buying conservative you can have an old federalist tax policy or you can have a new centralised one, and you can have either in any one of several tiers or any degree of inclination in flatness. It is the silly season for politics and the Liberal and National parties are excelling themselves even by their previous best efforts. Federal leader John Howard's outburst about a `flatter' tax regime, followed by Ian Sinclair's new federalist State income tax policy, followed by John Howard's repudiation of the National Party leader, followed in turn by the honourable gentleman's protest that his was not a Coalition orientated plan, just a National Party plan, all revealed the fundamental ideological torment among the conservatives and the resultant paralysis of policy formulation. That is a pretty accurate description of how the Opposition parties now stand in the Australian political spectrum. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown), speaking at the Young Liberals conference, said: My message to you and to the Party today therefore is concise and clear. First, it is that government will not simply fall into our lap. We will win if we present to the people a sharp and clear Liberal alternative. Secondly, my argument is that we will lose if we do not present that sharp and clear alternative. It has been like a London fog since we came back to the Parliament. It has not been the sharp clear alternative about which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was telling the Young Liberals and about which he seeks to pull the wool over people's eyes when he is called to account in the national Parliament. Indeed, we notice that the Deputy Leader has not been on his feet in the fortnight that we have been back. One goes on to examine some of the propositions put forward by spokesmen on the other side of the House. Let me quote from an article by Tom Connors in the Canberra Times headed `When the rich piddle on the poor': You would have noticed that the leading proponents of a flat tax are wealthy people, such as the Queensland Premier . . . the business knights who have found their Nirvana in the Sunshine State and the mining magnate, Mr Lang Hancock. They would be a lot better off if the progressive income tax system was abolished and replaced with a simple 25 per cent tax rate. Unfortunately, there would be many people worse off; the 60 per cent of Australians who earn less than $22,000 a year and already, under the progressive tax system, pay less than 25 per cent. So here we have an analysis of the simple policies being put forward by various spokesmen from the Opposition, none of which stand up. We cannot find out which ones they will adhere to, which ones the Australian people must judge. The Leader of the National Party got out of bed one morning, and we were told: The Liberal Party moved decisively yesterday to distance themselves from the State income-tax proposal put forward by the National Party Leader, Mr Sinclair. That was another proposal which was put forward in January. Let us see what people said about that. An article in the Australian Financial Review reads: The divisions first surfaced with a suggestion by the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, for a 25 per cent single rate tax. This was quickly followed by the Federal National Party Leader, Mr Sinclair, unveiling plans to hand back income tax powers back to the States. . . . Mr Sinclair's tax initiative was not endorsed by the Opposition Leader, Mr Howard, and was attacked by the deputy leader, Mr Neil Brown, who said it was `unlikely, very unlikely, that (it) would be accepted by either our party or by the National Party'. But it was pointed out that under the 25c in the dollar taxation system, the Queensland Premier and his wife, Senator Bjelke-Petersen, would be $30,000 a year better off. Mr Howard told us about the condition of the coalition and how it would put forward its policies when parliament resumed. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald he stated: `The coalition is strong. It has endured despite major, and at times acrimonious, disputes and differences of opinion between the two parties in some of the States'. Mr Howard, promised a flatter, less progressive income tax scale, broader consumption taxes . . . So in January he was promising broader consumption taxes. The Leader of the National Party told us last night that he could be persuaded to a consumption tax as long as it did not hurt his constituents in the bush. It can be imposed on people in the cities, but not on his constituents outside the metropolitan area. So are we, or are we not, going to have a consumption tax? I will follow another line and quote from an article in the Canberra Times in January, in which Mr Howard talked about American taxation reform. He stated: ``When the largest and most powerful free-enterprise nation in the world reduces its personal tax rates to a bare 15 per cent and 28 per cent, that has worldwide ramifications,'' . . . ``The rest of the industrialised world cannot stand apart from such a change. Inevitably, the sheer size of the United States economy and the competitive impact of President Reagan's tax reforms will create pressure for similar changes in other countries.''. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is nonsense, as was exposed by Ross Gittins in the Sydney Morning Herald, who stated that what the people who look at America forget is that-and I quote: . . . the Americans have gone about their tax reform in just the same way. After all, they've had even less success in slashing government spending than we have. The US tax reform package is `revenue neutral' . . . Like us, the Americans are lowering the rates of income tax but covering the cost of this by abolishing deductions and tax shelters and closing loopholes. The difference is that they were able to make more dramatic reductions in rates because they had more lurks and loopholes to get rid of. American tax payers will lose their deductions for interest paid on credit cards and personal loans . . . They will lose their deductions for payments of State and local government sales taxes; their deductions for contributions to retirement funds will be curtailed, and most will lose their deductions for donations to churches and charities, medical expenses and work-related expenses. Income averaging will be abolished, even for farmers. And the tax on capital gains will be much tougher. At present you only pay tax on 40 per cent of your . . . gain, at a maximum rate of 20 per cent. Under the new scheme, you pay tax on 100 per cent of the gain, at a maximum rate of 33 per cent . . . . . . . What these pluses and minuses mean is that the tax table gives a quite misleading impression of the net tax savings people will make-particularly higher income-earners. . . . . The net effect in the case of American companies is that although their tax rate will fall from 46 per cent to 34 per cent, their overall tax payments are estimated to rise by about 25 per cent. The article states that an additional trick to remember about the United States is that people have to pay social security contributions. The article continues: This is just a form of ear-marked income tax. The rate for social security contributions has been rising rapidly in recent years and at present stands at 7.2 per cent of income, up to a ceiling of about $A162,000. So much for Mr Howard being attracted to the American system of reform of the taxation system! That shows what the Opposition has been telling the Australian people in the lead-up to this parliamentary session, which began just 10 days ago. But what has happened subsequently? We have had a spate of fighting between the coalition partners and between the leaders about what they stand for now. They are not prepared in any forum-either inside or outside the Parliament-to say what they have in mind for the Australian people with regard to taxation. This is an election year. They said at the end of the parliamentary session in 1986 that taxation was the big issue. They have not been able to articulate a tax policy within the Liberal Party, within the National Party or between themselves. There are many other political factors at work within those parties which prevent them from being able to do this work. Of course, do honourable members remember that, after mollycoddling Joh for the first week after he announced he would be the great Messiah of Australian politics, John Howard said: `Joh and I are not that far apart. We both want lower taxes and we both want to bash the unions'. I tell honourable members opposite that they should get a copy of the tape of the speech by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) to his Party room this morning about getting into bed with Joh. Let everyone throughout Australia hear what the honourable member for Ryan said in his advice to the Liberal Party in his Party room this morning about honourable members opposite not being too far removed from Joh. Joh and the National Party detest the Liberal Party. They absolutely detest it. Members of the Liberal Party are walking around, saying: `Let's shake hands, Joh; we can make agreements, Joh; we can run Australia together, Joh'. He will walk right over the top of the Liberal Party, just as he has done in Queensland. If I were a member of the Liberal Party I would listen very carefully to the State President of the Liberal Party. It is only in the last few days that the Liberal Party has woken up. Now we are told by Senator Messner that everybody earning under $27,000 a year-and that makes up about 80 per cent of Australian wage and salary earners-will be worse off under Joh's plan. It took the Liberal Party six weeks to get up the courage to confront Joh, to say that what he is doing would benefit 20 per cent of Australia and that he will hurt 80 per cent of Australia. More than that, when one goes through the document which was released by Senator Messner, explaining how people will suffer under Joh's scheme, one sees that on page 5 he talks about the consumption tax. He said: `What if we leave out things like food, clothing, gas, electricity, health, education and fuel. If we leave out all of those things, we do not need a 7 per cent tax; we need a 9.4 per cent tax'. Is that Liberal Party policy? Is that what it will present to the people? It will have some tax exemptions so it will lift the rate of revenue by having a tax rate of 9.4 per cent. That will be terrific. Why does the Liberal Party not tell us so that we can debate the issues in the Parliament? As I said, Senator Messner has finally woken up and has put out a document dissociating the Liberal Party from what Joh is putting up. The National Party is still silent because it is terrified of Joh. He has most members' pre-selections in his pocket. They will go down the drain as soon as they utter one word of criticism about Joh in Queensland. The Leader of the National Party received an overwhelming vote of confidence in Wagga Wagga-87 to 58. On the Australian Broadcasting Corporation news on Sunday he said. `Have I had a great day today'. He was wiping the sweat from his brow. He said: `I have absolutely floored them'. But the other resolution was carried. They still want Joh down here in his job. So the motion was carried overwhelmingly by a margin of 87 to 58. What a great victory for this person who has been in the Parliament for 25 years-this great leader of the National Party, this great tactician, who, with his deputy went into his Party room last week, twice, and said: `Come on fellows, give me a vote of confidence'. Did they give him the raspberry! They said: `You must be joking; you are lucky to have a job at all, let alone get votes of confidence'. There are a lot of people who want the right honourable member's job; it is not only Joh. Personally, I do not think Joh will ever come here but he has all the Opposition members terrified. If they are not terrified why will they not tell us their policies? Everybody who earns less than $600 a week will be worse off under the plan being put forward by the nut from Kingaroy. The Opposition is talking about a 9.4 per cent tax, yet it has no wages policy. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, who is the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, sits opposite smiling at us. That is all right, I do not mind looking at his smiles. I just wish he would tell us what his wages policy is. I have been looking at a media statement from the Confederation of Australian Industry. Honourable members should see what it has to say about those who want to destroy the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The CAI approves of refining the Act, but it says: . . . this is a very different thing from those who would do away with the system in its entirety. Their arguments however have nothing to support them but their own personal opinions and in fact represent a grave danger to employers. They advocate massive change with its commensurate risk of massive dislocation, without providing any clear idea as to how this change will be brought about nor any evidence that it will in the end be better for employers. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) is quite right. He made that brilliant 12-page speech about the Liberal Party which everyone in this House should read. This is one of the reasons why the Opposition cannot get a policy. The honourable member for Boothby pointed out to everybody in the Liberal Party that up until Christmas the Leader of the Opposition had as his chief of staff Dr Gerard Henderson. The Leader of the Opposition cannot be responsible for everything that Dr Henderson says but it was noticeable that as soon as Dr Henderson left the staff of the Leader of the Opposition he began writing all these articles in the Australian. He said that the honourable member for Boothby, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), the late Senator Missen, Senator Puplick and the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) really had no place in the Liberal Party. Would it not be nice to have freedom of information applying to the office of the Leader of the Opposition? Would it not be nice to look at the memos which Dr Henderson sent to him about some of his colleagues during the two years he was chief of staff? Then the Leader of the Opposition said: `I will stick by the Liberal Party. I will not sell the Liberal Party out. This issue is far too important.' However, for two years he sat there listening to Dr Henderson telling him that these people were not worthy of their positions in the Liberal Party. That is why the Liberals cannot formulate a policy-because the honourable member for Boothby, the honourable member for Higgins and others on that side of the House who have a rational view about Australian institutions and do not want them destroyed will not put their hands up for all the reactionary right wing madness that is flowing through the veins of the National and Liberal parties in Australia today. That is why the Liberals cannot tell us what they will do with all these programs. They go to the universities and tell the kids that they will do away with the administration fee. They go to the stock exchange and tell the people there that they will do away with capital gains tax. They go to the wine and grape growers and tell them that they will do away with the brandy excise. But when they get together these matters are never all packaged up. They have to sneak around Australia hoping that little interest groups will believe their promises. The Opposition is an absolute rabble and it is about time this Parliament said it was a rabble and condemned it for its inability-and this is the first time for any Opposition since Federation-to give us any insight into what it intends to present to the Australian people. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.04) —It is 75 years since a government of any persuasion introduced a motion of this character. On that occasion, Mr Deputy Speaker, your predecessor ruled it out of order because of its trivial contribution and its inability to meet the by-laws and Standing Orders of this place. I move: That all words after `that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `this House, noting the Government's belated acceptance of the Opposition's calls for a mini budget, and appalled by the damage to the nation and the burdens imposed on Australians by the failure of the Government's economic and other policies, calls for further urgent action to- (1) heavily reduce Government spending and public sector borrowings; (2) fundamentally reform the tax system to lower the burden of tax on all Australians, particularly families; and restore incentive and equity; (3) lift restrictions on foreign investment except those vital to protecting the national interest; (4) free Australia's over-regulated and over-controlled labour market; (5) significantly increase immigration, and (6) lift the burden of Government intervention in and regulation of the economy.' The last two weeks of parliamentary sittings have been characterised by the total inability of this Government to address the fundamental and serious problems of the Australian community. On each day in this House at Question Time and on matters of public importance I and my colleagues within the coalition have asked the Government why it has misled the Australian community. We have presented to it the comparable statistics from 1983 when it came to government and the statistics today. We have asked it about interest rates, housing, inflation, Australia's overseas borrowings and Australia's credit rating. We have asked it why it has allowed the standards of living of ordinary Australians to fall. We have asked it why the Australian farmers are going broke, why small business can no longer invest and why young people out there searching for jobs still represent 21 per cent of the number of unemployed. We have asked the Government why it is unable to manage this country. What has happened is that the Government has given us no answers. It has provided us with no more than constant rhetoric that really relates more to its own misdoings than to any real explanation of what it is doing. Today we finally had from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) an admission that there will be a mini-Budget. As always, the mini-Budget is too late and too little. It will be introduced on 14 May-and the Government did not even know that it would happen because 14 May happens to be an occasion when the Parliament was not due to sit. That is how great its co-ordination is. What exactly is the excuse for all these errors and inactivity over the past four years. There are two fundamental mistakes, according to the Government. First, it is all the fault of the Europeans, the Americans and the United States Farm Bill and the fact that the Labor Government of Australia is unable to cope with the world. Secondly, it is all the fault of the last coalition Government. In the few minutes allocated to me I wish to tell the people of Australia that there is an alternative and that alternative is set out in a few simple steps that are included in our amendment to the motion tonight. It is not a matter of there being any search for what needs to be done. It is a matter of identifying, and identifying tonight-not on 14 May-those steps that can and should be taken to bring Australia back into a position of economic responsibility. It is not a matter of the Government saying that it is all too hard, too difficult and someone else's fault. It is not a matter of looking for other solutions. It is not a matter of the band-aid ministerial reshuffle, with the Minister for long lunches putting a new multicultural coat on his Paddington Bear. It is not a matter of the Treasurer, who cannot add up, being out there still unable to fill in his travel allowance form, let alone his tax form. It is not a matter of the maestro, that former Australian Council of Trade Unions bully-boy, now a wimp in prime ministerial clothing, just pursuing expediency yet again instead of principle. We have the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) who has yet to learn the meaning of diplomacy. We have a Minister from Tasmania who is a Minister only because the Prime Minister could not get the numbers. The Socialist Left has been left right out. Of course all the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has done is to reshuffle a well thumbed and somewhat powdered pack of cards without regard to public interest or the flaws and improprieties of his Ministers. Indeed, we need to remember that the only Minister to take a stand on principle is the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), who has told the Prime Minister to go jump. There are immediate ways in which the coalition would address the problems of Australia. It is important that the people of Australia should comprehend that the practices and procedures of this Government are designed to conceal, not to reveal, the maladministration for which it and it alone is responsible. If one looks at the media headlines and then at the position of Australia today one sees that that banana republic prognosis of the Treasurer has been fulfilled-`Wages policy farce', `The dollar's unnerving fall', `Inflation on the march once more', `Gloomy future for Australian economy', `The black hole beckons as our deficit deepens', `$101,366,000,000: We're a nation in the red', `Australia's foreign debt has hit a record $101 billion', `Huge foreign debt to put pressure on interest rates' and `Mortgage belt feels pinch of tight times'. The Real Estate Institute of Australia has revealed that average home loan repayments have soared by $117 to $678 a month in the past year. The Institute's survey shows that repayments now exceed 25 per cent of before tax income, a barrier that formerly was set in cement. Mr Hand —Tell us which tax package you support. Mr SINCLAIR —And, of course, the honourable member from the Socialist Left is left right out in the cold, and one wonders why. The Institute's figures showed that, while mortgage repayments have risen 21 per cent in the past 12 months, salaries have increased by only 8 per cent. That is a result of the famous accord of this Government-a discord if one has ever seen one. The number of home loan borrowers who fell behind in their repayments by more than four months jumped a dramatic 50 per cent in the last year. That is the economic record of this Labor Government. That is something for which it cannot blame overseas people; it cannot blame European governments; it cannot blame the Government of the United States of America; and it certainly cannot blame the Government of Malcolm Fraser and Doug Anthony. It must accept the blame itself. We are in a position today where, first, the Government must reduce government spending and public sector borrowings. We were told that this Government had an expenditure review committee. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Treasurer, the Minister who today comes into this House with a somewhat tatty image, tell us that they went through all those public sector expenditures and did the best they could. We all know that the result has been an increase in inflation and an increase in government sector spending, to the point where this Government is the biggest spending, biggest taxing government in Australia's history-a government under which the Australian dollar has reached the lowest value ever achieved. We know that home interest rates, bankcard interest rates, prime rates, small overdraft rates, rates for business and rates for farmers have increased from about 13 per cent to up to 20.5 per cent in the last three years. We know that in this climate steps must be taken. The first and most important thing is that the Government has to reduce government spending and public sector borrowings, and it cannot wait until 14 May to do it. Secondly, it must fundamentally reform the tax system. A person on average weekly earnings, even after the tax cuts on 1 July, would need another cut of $15 a week just to put him in the same position in terms of tax paid as when this Government came to office. On our side of the House we undertake to lower the burden of tax for all Australians. We intend to implement a family tax policy so that the single income family is not disadvantaged on the basis that it is by this Labor Government. We undertake to restore incentive and to restore equity for the Australian taxpayer. Where is the legislation for the foreign tax credits and this much vaunted dividend imputation system of the Government? Where is the certainty and predictability for those who are out there in the market-place trying to earn income with their funds for themselves and their families? Where is the incentive to invest? We undertake to lift the restrictions on foreign investment except, of course, those vital few to protect the national interest. That is a third measure which immediately could and would be put in place were we in government. Fourthly, we undertake to free Australia's overregulated and overcontrolled labour market. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) has already produced for the people of Australia a very far-reaching and comprehensive industrial relations policy. It is a policy which provides opportunity for freely negotiated wage agreements amongst those in small business. It is a policy which, unlike the restrictive policy of the Labor Government, provides an opportunity for Australians not to have to belong to trade unions. What was the response of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) this week to the decision of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Board? We have a government that is committed to compulsory trade unionism and, if it does not implement it, the New South Wales Labor Government and other Labor governments around Australia will ensure that they do so. This country, which has been told by this Labor Government that it needs a Bill of Rights to guarantee individuals the right to join a trade union, has been told by this Government that it is not prepared to provide for Australians the right not to join a trade union. This Government is not prepared to free the labour market in the way that our published, prepared, available industrial relations policy would do. Mr N.A. Brown —A charter for freedom. Mr SINCLAIR —Precisely. The fifth thing that we would undertake immediately is to increase immigration significantly. We on this side of the House all know that within the migration flows into Australia have been a large number of people who have contributed enormously to the development and growth of our society. We know that those people have not only enriched our culture but also enlarged our economy. We believe that every new migrant to our country brings something like $30,000. We seek to increase immigration significantly, to ensure that we will have enhanced domestic demand and to advance further the whole of the development of our society so that once again we can lift our living standards and be competitive with the countries that are growing so rapidly in our geographic vicinity. Finally, we intend to lift the burden of government intervention in and regulation of the economy. All members know that the Government set up a much vaunted Business Regulation Review Unit and that all it has produced is statistics. It is interesting to note that business regulations may be costing the Australian economy, according to that unit, $60,000m a year, almost 25 per cent of the gross domestic product. The figures suggest that some 60,000 public servants are engaged in the regulation of business, of which around 60 per cent work for State and local governments and about 40 per cent work for the Federal Government. The cost to the taxpayer of employing these regulators is around $2,700m a year, $45,000 per public sector regulator. Let us not have any of this rubbish from the Government about our not knowing where we are going. That is what we would do, and it is what we would do tomorrow were we in government. This Government is bringing Australia to its knees. None of the bluster of the Prime Minister, none of the boasting of the Treasurer, none of the empty rhetoric of members opposite can change that. This Government has set new records in economic vandalism. It is the highest taxing, biggest spending government in our peacetime history. It has pushed interest rates and our overseas debt to record highs and the value of the dollar to a record low. It has pushed inflation to the worst level relative to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development since the formation of the OECD 26 years ago. It is the first government to lose Australia's AAA international credit rating. The point is that these statistics bite home where it matters-in the pockets of the people of Australia. Because of Labor's policies family living standards have fallen by $31 a week. Under Labor the average tax rate for a single income family on average weekly earnings has risen from 17 1/2 per cent in March 1983 to a projected 20.5 per cent in July 1987, even after the Treasurer's much vaunted, so-called tax cuts. Under Labor monthly repayments for a typical $50,000, 25-year home loan have increased by $172. Under Labor our gross foreign debt has reached over $100 billion-more than $25,000 for every Australian family. Under Labor bankruptcies in the last six months of 1986 were up 35 per cent on the same period 12 months before. Under Labor the housing industry is in crisis; the motor vehicle industry is collapsing; the health system is in chaos; our great export industries are being discarded; and the union movement is out of control. Under Labor ordinary Australians, and especially families, are ground down by taxes. Under Labor our international relations are being put under strain; the vital ANZUS alliance has been split; and we have disturbing attempts to win favour with the Soviet Union, now the fastest growing Pacific power. The measures that we call for are the only way to give hope to the nation. They are the only way to ensure that all Australians, whatever their ages and wherever they live, can look to the future with confidence. If they are rejected an historic opportunity will be lost. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr N.A. Brown —I second the motion, and reserve my right to speak at a later time. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(6.19) —I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate on the matter of public importance. I do so not to engage in a slanging match but because I believe that at this moment in Australian history we are facing a potential turning point. Opposition members interjecting-- Mr TICKNER —I point out to members opposite that it is not my practice to interject when they speak, and I would hope that they would accord me the basic courtesy that I accord them. It is not the Australian Labor Party that has deepened the divisions that exist between it and the conservative parties. It is the conservative parties which have come under the domination of the extreme right wing forces of the New Right. This debate will show just how clearly they have swung to the extreme right of the Australian political spectrum. I propose to deal with the motion in three very specific ways: Firstly, to review the promises and policies which have been made by the Opposition; secondly, to highlight the bankruptcy of those promises; and, thirdly, to bring home to the Australian people the reality of just how these extremist policies would threaten the quality of life, not just of Australian families, not just of middle class Australians, but of all Australians, including the old and the poor. Firstly, let me refer to the specific promises that have been made by the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia at least so far as the details have been made known to the media and the public. There have been 19 specific policy proposals, each of which can be directly traced to a Liberal or National party official spokesman for the Opposition. The Opposition has promised to repeal the Government's tax reform measures. These proposals by the Opposition are, of course, nothing less than a payback to the New Right and have no basis, either in economic rationality or in social justice or equity. The Opposition proposes to repeal the fringe benefits tax, allow tax deductibility of entertainment expenses, repeal the capital gains tax and restore negative gearing for property investments. The Opposition has also made other promises. Some of them have been made directly by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) while others have been made by his spokesmen. It is true to say that the Leader of the Opposition has introduced and turned into an art form the concept of arm's length pork barrelling. The Opposition has promised to implement income splitting, to repeal the wine sales tax, to repeal the tax on lump sum superannuation, to introduce child care tax rebates and the list goes on. It has promised to abolish the indexation of fuel excise, to fully rebate excise on all petrol used by farmers, to restore income equalisation deposits and tax averaging, to implement the restitution of immediate write-off on conserving or conveying water, to abolish tax on oils and lubricants and to remove the excise on brandy. These promises add up to a cost of $3,840m. They are the specific promises of the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesmen. Promise No. 15 is the repeal of the assets test. Promise No. 16 is the cost of the Opposition's industrial policy and the 12-months wage freeze which would cost $500m. The proposed personal income tax changes-this is promise No. 17-would cost $6,650m. Promise No. 18 is the proposal to reduce the company tax rate to match the personal income tax rate at a cost of $2,200m. To offset this long list of inequitable and irrational pork barrelling, we have promise No. 19-this time by Senator Messner-for an 8 per cent broad-based indirect tax to give a net revenue of $3,800m. The problem for the Opposition is that this litany of promises has amounted to 19 steps to a political graveyard. The grand total of its commitments is $14,715m-nearly $15 billion. The revenue proposals total $3,800m, leaving a net addition to the deficit of $10,915m. This damning indictment of the credibility of the Opposition speaks for itself. But it goes further. As the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) has said, we are now witnessing splits, not just between the Liberal and National parties but within those parties themselves. The Leader of the Opposition has become the mouthpiece of the New Right in the Parliament. The Liberal Party, which was once proud of its independence, now dances to an extremist political tune dictated by forces not only outside the Liberal Party but also outside the Parliament. The intellectual force of conservative politics in Australia is not in this chamber. It lies outside the Parliament and outside the Liberal Party and it is pushing the Liberal Party further and further to the right. Luckily for the Liberal Party, there are people inside that party who want the Liberals to return to being a middle of the road party. The former Liberal Premier of South Australia and now member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) said on 28 January that the Australian electorate does not like extremes. He said that it does not like divided parties. He referred to the New Right and urged them to justify their actions `in ripping the guts out of the Liberal Party with a butcher's knife of extremes'. That is what was said by a Liberal member. Another Liberal, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), who is the Opposition spokesman on communications, was reported in the Australian as having said: Menzies insisted he was founding a Liberal Party not a conservative one. The honourable member said that the H. R. Nicholls Society, a well known arm of the New Right, proposed a greed-based libertarian conservatism which is not the genuine liberalism of Menzies, or of Alfred Deakin, or of John Stuart Mill. Another genuine Liberal, who is also a serving member of this Parliament, was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 29 January 1987 as saying that the extreme Right `had become a major destabilising influence in the Liberal Party'. But what of the Leader of the Liberal Party himself, the person who puts himself forward as the alternative Prime Minister of Australia? On repeated occasions the Leader of the Opposition has been given the opportunity to distance himself from the policies of the New Right extremists. On 2 September Ray Martin, a journalist, put a straight question to Mr Howard. He asked: So you don't think the so-called New Right is extremist? Mr Howard replied: No, not at all. Less than one month ago, on 26 January, the Sydney Morning Herald-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! the honourable member for Hughes might refer to honourable members by their title or their electorate. Mr TICKNER —Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Sydney Morning Herald continued that saga on 26 January by running an article under the heading `Howard: We won't shun New Right'. On 29 January the Leader of the Opposition was reported as fighting to retain the loyalty of the New Right hero, Mr Jay Pendarvis. What a sad and sorry spectacle of the leader of a major political party in this country! I now turn my attention to the National Party. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) launched 1987 for the National Party in a rather big way. On 4 January he put out a media release which specifically called for the States to levy personal income tax. In the same statement he welcomed moves by the Queensland Premier to assist the coalition by putting the main focus on taxation. The State income tax proposal perhaps received a more preferable political fate than did the Leader of the National Party because that proposal received an immediate political death whereas the Leader of the National Party has experienced death by a thousand cuts at the hands of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the very people who are supposed to owe him allegiance in his own party. The National Party has now moved for all practical purposes to giving allegiance to a person who is neither in this Parliament nor has been elected by the National Party as its leader. But let us make no mistake-Joh is king. Despite the fact that the taxation policy of the Leader of the Opposition was based on the concept of a broad based indirect tax, no indication had been given by the Leader of the National Party that he demurred from that policy. But he ambushed the Leader of the Opposition when he declared on 16 February that he had never supported a consumption tax. On the same day, he locked the Leader of the Opposition into an impossible position by declaring that the Liberal and National parties would go forward with a single tax policy. How could the Leader of the National Party have got it so wrong? In the time that I have left in which to speak, I urge the people of Australia to give very serious thought to the consequences of our country if these people were ever to gain government. I ask people to remember that if Sir Joh comes to Canberra, at the very least he will be deputy to the Liberal leader should the Opposition ever form a coalition in government. At the very least, if the Opposition won government, Sir Joh would be the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. People in the marginal seats across Australia are going to remember that a vote for the Liberal Party will effectively be a vote for Sir Joh Bjelke-Peterson as Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Let us see what that might mean in practice. Let us look at the impact of the policies of the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts. In New South Wales, the coalition Opposition has as its spokesman on the environment not a Liberal member but a National Party member. Of course, here in the Federal Parliament the Opposition spokesman on the environment is not just a National Party member but also a Queensland National Party member. If anyone in this country has any illusions as to what might happen under a government led by the current Leader of the Opposition, he or she ought to have a very close look at what Senator Collard has said about environmental protection. That honourable senator is opposed to the Government's stand on Kakadu, he is opposed to the Government's support for the protection of rainforests, and he has even gone on the record as opposing the Fraser Government's action to protect Fraser Island from sand mining. I do not know whether the Opposition aims to have a Howard-Sinclair government, a Howard or Peacock-Bjelke-Petersen government, or even a Bjelke-Petersen-Cameron government. But no part of the community would be able to escape the impact of the extremist policies of such a coalition, and that includes even sensitive areas such as veterans' affairs. If we look at what the Returned Services League is saying about the coalition, we see that its national President, Sir William Keys, met with the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party and Sir William referred to the disquiet within the ex-service community about the statements from the Leader of the Opposition and spokesmen from the New Right `which gave cause to believe that the Department of Veterans' Affairs might not be retained'. If Sir William was looking for an assurance from the Leader of the Opposition when he went to see him, he, like many other groups in the Australian community, would have gone away empty-handed. Every parent in Australia should be under no misapprehension about what a right wing conservative government would do to education, and this applies whether children are attending government schools or non-government schools. The Leader of the Opposition's Liberal Party is committed to massive public spending cuts, the privatisation of public institutions and the reintroduction of tertiary fees. No parent concerned with his or her children's future will be supporting cuts to education at the ballot box. Pensioners and veterans will not be immune from the cuts. The Opposition, which professes concern for the family, says very little about children in poverty. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) was quoted in the Age of 16 September as spelling out the approach of the Opposition. He said: We must cut out the big ticket items. When we take office there will be howls of protest as we cut program after program. I turn now to the question of housing. This morning every Labor member of the Federal Parliament expressed a total commitment to the maintenance of the 13 1/2 per cent ceiling on home loan interest rates for those home owners who took out their mortgage prior to April last year. Mr Beale —How are you going to deal with the housing crisis then? Mr TICKNER —I am glad that the honourable member interjected. The one and a half million Australian voters who are protected by the Labor Government should be aware that the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction has been publicly critical of the Labor Government's stand in this area. Under a conservative government more than 1 1/2 million Australians would be left to the mercy of the banks and the market. In winding up, I turn to the question of industrial relations because no area could be more central to Australia's economic recovery. In this area the clear implications of the New Right's policies are that minimum wages will be cut and conditions will be destroyed. This will have such a deleterious effect on Australian families that people will take years to recover from such an assault. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Sitting suspended from 6.34 to 8 p.m. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(8.00) —The first thing to say in this debate, as I second the Opposition's amendment, is to thank the Government for the opportunity it has given the Opposition to draw attention to the economic shortcomings of the Government's policies for this country and to the Opposition's alternatives. I say that because one would have to go a long way to find a government so incompetent and so ham-fisted as to embark upon this procedure which results in the Opposition being given almost unlimited time to draw attention to the Government's shortcomings and to set out the Opposition's proposals, which are so essential if we are to get this country back on to the rails. So at the outset, in a charitable mood, may I thank the Government very sincerely for its indulgence on this occasion and wish it well in pursuing equally similar ham-fisted proposals and procedural matters in this Parliament. Tonight the Opposition has an opportunity-we will proceed to take advantage of it-to draw attention to the very substantial economic damage that is being done to this country by the present Government, to draw attention to the burden that is now being imposed upon ordinary Australians as a result of government policies and to set out its proposals to set these matters at right and to get this country back on to the rails. What we say is set out very clearly in our amendment. We say that the policies the Government must embark upon, and the policy which this Opposition would embark upon if it were the Government, would be, firstly, to substantially reduce government spending and public sector borrowings. Secondly, we draw attention to the urgent need to reform the Australian taxation system. Thirdly, we draw attention to the urgent need to lift most of the foreign investment restrictions in this country so that there is an opportunity for people to invest and people are encouraged to invest in this country. Fourthly, we draw attention to the need, which falls squarely within my own responsibility, to reform Australia's over-regulated and over-controlled labour market. Fifthly, we draw attention to the need to increase immigration to provide a much needed economic boost in Australia. Sixthly, we draw attention to the need to lift the burden of government intervention in and regulation of the economy. They are the things we say are necessary. If there ever were a need in this country to embark upon those sorts of proposals it must surely be now because one only has to look to the economic record of this Government to see just how urgent these proposals are. Let me ask Government members to pause for a moment and just think about the economic results that they have obtained over the lifetime of the present Government. Let me remind the Government that it now has the undistinguished privilege of being the biggest taxing government in the peacetime history of Australia. That is its record on tax. It talks a lot about the Opposition's taxation policy but before we go any further let us look at the Government's taxation record. The burden of taxation that the Government is imposing on the Australian people is such that it now qualifies for the accolade of being the biggest taxing government in Australia's peacetime history. As if that were not enough, it is also the biggest spending government in Australia's peacetime history. It has a fetish for spending taxpayers' money on every conceivable subject. So much of it is an utter waste of money but, in any event, it is the biggest spending government in Australia's peacetime history. In terms of the value of our currency, it has produced the lowest value of the Australian dollar ever. That is what the Government has done to people's savings and the value of their money. In terms of the debt that it is leaving behind for future generations, it has achieved this privileged result: The largest stock of foreign debt that this country has ever had. Some $101 billion is the inheritance that it is leaving to future generations of Australians. As if that were not enough, it has also achieved the highest interest rates in this country ever. The home loan interest rate is 15.5 per cent and it has produced Bankcard interest rates of 22 1/2 per cent. That is the burden the Government is putting on the Australian people who are trying to buy things. It is making them pay a 22 1/2 per cent interest rate. As if that were not enough, what is the final accounting that the Government has produced when we add up the ingoings and the outgoings? What is the final account of the Government's stewardship? It has now produced the highest current account deficit ever in the history of this country. We can compare ourselves with other countries with which, as Mr Whitlam used to say, we like to compare ourselves. Let us compare ourselves with some of those countries with which we like to compare ourselves-countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. For instance, when we look at our inflation rate compared with theirs we find that we in Australia now have the worst relative inflation rate ever in the history of this country, an inflation rate which is four times that of our rivals in the economic race. That is true; the statistics bear it out. I ask: How does the Government expect us to compete, how does it expect our people to invest, how does it expect our people to trade profitably when that is the record it has achieved with our inflation rate? Finally-although one could go on all night giving economic statistics-to the Government's everlasting shame it has achieved what no other Government in the history of Australia has been able to achieve. It has been responsible-it was our day of shame-for our losing our AAA credit rating on any international test. That is the Government's record, so we say that if there ever were a need to introduce and put into practice the economic policies that the Opposition has set out in its amendment to the foolish motion of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) it must surely be now when we can see the economic results that the Government has achieved. The Government is hopeless. Its economic record is in tatters. It should be ashamed of itself and if it continues with its present economic policies ruin will certainly await it at the end of the day-make no mistake about that. That is the economic framework we are looking at. Let me for a moment look in more detail at part of that economic framework to see what the Government's achievements are in part of the area for which I am responsible. I emphasise this matter in particular because above all the economic matter that the Government likes to trade on and claim credit for is employment and unemployment. That is the last thing, it says in its honest moments, that it can rely on. Let us just see how well the Government has done in terms of unemployment. It says that it has largely solved the unemployment problem in this country. People are unemployed. They probably always have been and they probably will continue to be unemployed, but what is the duration of unemployment? What concerns ordinary people who, unfortunately, are thrown into unemployment is how long they can reasonably expect to be unemployed. I do not say that the previous Government was perfect; what I do say is that when the Australian Labor Party came into government the average duration of unemployment was 36 weeks. It now has the proud record of doubling that figure to 64 weeks-that is the average duration of unemployment. The number of people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months-the hard core of unemployment-has gone up substantially. It was 124,000 people when the Government came to office; it has gone up from 124,000 to 202,000, an increase of 63 per cent. The average number of people unemployed in any week has increased from 332,000 to, believe it or not, 559,000. So if the Government thinks that it can claim any success in the unemployment area it is mistaken. The unemployment rate in this country is now worse-I emphasise `worse'-than it was in virtually the whole of the seven years of the Fraser Government. If those opposite continue with the policies that they are presently pursuing they will have continued and high unemployment as one of the testimonials that they will leave behind them when they go out of government as surely they will at the next election. That is their record in the field of unemployment and in the whole economic fabric. For those reasons we say that our six proposals which those opposite have so generously and kindly given us the opportunity to air for five hours today are really so essential. We say that if government spending and public sector borrowings are reduced, if the tax system is reformed and the burden of taxation taken from people as much as possible, if some of the restrictions on foreign investment are lifted, if this inflexible and rigid labour market that we have is reformed-and in the course of that incentive is given back to people-if the Government increases immigration and takes its hopeless, incompetent hands off virtually every area of commercial and industrial activity, this country will start to function again and will start to have a more vibrant economy than it now has. We say that it is possible to reform these institutions in the way we have suggested and the particular area for which I am responsible is the one to which I will devote the final few minutes that I have-that is, the reform of our industrial relations system and our labour market system. We say three things about the industrial relations system. They are three straightforward and easily provable things. The first is that our present system is far too rigid and inflexible. The second is that it provides no incentive to the ordinary workers, the working men and women, to make the most of themselves and their lives. The third is that the whole thing is being stultified and controlled by excessive trade union power. This system can be reformed by some simple but substantial measures. The first thing that must be done is to give ordinary working men and women a chance, for the first time in their lives, to have a direct say in bargaining with their employer on the terms and conditions of their employment. Give them a chance for the first time in their lives to have a direct say as to what their labour is really worth; to have a direct say on what their hours of work should be; and a direct say on the conditions of their employment and what is convenient for them rather than having those things handed down from on high by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and imposed upon them by union bosses. That is the first reform. Secondly, by introducing employee share ownership schemes and profit sharing schemes, which can be done by some simple changes to the taxation law, incentive can be restored to our industrial relations system where presently there is none. If we get that incentive back into the system people will give of their best. They will go the extra mile and produce more. They and the entire country will benefit as a result. Thirdly, those opposite can do something to reduce the extreme trade union control which is so much one of the inflexible barriers and a pillar of this industrial relations system. We had the curious spectacle here earlier this afternoon of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who moved this absurd motion, saying that I had not spoken in this House this session. He obviously was not here last Friday afternoon at 4 o'clock when I drew attention to the evil of compulsory unionism. I suppose that he was not here at 4 o'clock because he was at one of his long lunches. If we had spoken at 5 o'clock, perhaps he would have been aware that we drew attention to the fact that there was compulsory unionism in Australia and that time and time again when the people have had a chance to vote on it they have said that they want voluntary unionism, not compulsory unionism. We made it perfectly plain that it is the Government which stands in the way of getting any reforms that can be introduced. If it is introduced we will have a much more flexible, sensible and practical industrial relations and wage fixing system. We come back to the basic point which simply is that on any economic test-I repeat, on any economic test-this Government's economic performance has been appalling. It is driving this country into bankruptcy. It has removed whatever incentive there was for ordinary people to make the most of their lives-and there is an urgent need for change. Finally, we say that if these six proposals of ours in our amendment are accepted, if they are put into practice-which we will do when we are elected as a government at the next election-this country will be the more prosperous and its people the happier for that. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(8.15) —Once again we have had another opportunity for a senior spokesman for the conservative parties to make a statement of policy. We have heard very little indeed from the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) in relation to any substantive policy issues. That reflects the extraordinary weakness of the members of the Opposition within this Parliament. Day after day they have the opportunity to say what they are for and they do not take that opportunity. They cannot take that opportunity because of the enormous divisions which exist not only within this Parliament but within the parties that are represented in the Parliament. The Opposition increasingly is being ruled from outside. Mr Cleeland —By whom? Mr HOWE —For example, by the Premier of Queensland who, from his base in that State, has become a very significant factor. One of the crucial inabilities of the Opposition is to get together any coherent policies on any issue. It is all very well to state, as the honourable member has just done, a number of tendencies with respect to so-called items of policy, none of which were spelt out at all. Of course, as is always the case with Opposition spokesmen, the honourable member placed the greatest emphasis on the need to reduce government spending and public sector borrowing. That statement can be made extraordinarily easily by the Opposition because in its time in government it was unable to tackle any of the hard issues which have been tackled by this Government. Those opposite make that plain with extraordinary ease because they will not give any substance at all to it. They will not directly nominate areas in which they believe government spending ought to be cut back. They will not do that because once they nominate any single area enormous divisions will appear within Opposition ranks. We want to know what those opposite might do. They certainly talk in tendency terms. For example, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) only a week or so ago said that we must cut the big ticket items. He said that when they took office there would be howls of protest after they cut program after program, and that the most severe cuts would be in welfare. That was said by the honourable member for Kooyong. But even within the safety of the electorate of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), the honourable member for Kooyong did not go on to spell out where those cuts would be. If we want to understand something of the areas in which such cuts might occur we have to look at some of the background institutions-the centres that exist within this country to promote conservative ideas-to see the kinds of proposals that no doubt eventually will be shown the light of day in Opposition statements, when those opposite have the courage of their convictions. Until they have the courage of their convictions, nothing they say about public spending and cutting spending can be taken seriously at all. Let us look at some of the options that have been floated in recent weeks. For example, there is the proposition that there ought to be massive cuts in family allowances. That proposal has been made seriously from time to time by isolated members of the Opposition and certainly was floated by the Centre of Policy Studies a week ago. In terms of any equity, fairness or justice, one would not have thought that that was an area that would be taken seriously; but it is certainly one that is floated around. Another proposition was put very explicitly in a Centre of Policy Studies submission a week ago that university fees ought to be reintroduced on a full scale basis. Whilst that policy has not yet been fully adopted by the Opposition, we heard the Opposition's spokesman on education today talking about students who are currently unable to get into educational institutions getting in on a full fee basis. One does not need to look very far beyond that proposition to see what is involved in it-it is the thin edge of the wedge, the movement to full scale university fees. Also, from time to time, we have had statements which have suggested that we need to attack the welfare system in terms of unemployment benefit. The proposition has been that all 16 and 17-year-olds ought to be denied unemployment benefit. At one time the shadow spokesman who has just been addressing the House suggested this for all long term unemployed. He has just been referring to people who are unfortunate enough to be in the long term unemployed group, suggesting that all those people ought to have their benefits removed. We have had the suggestion that there ought to be significant cuts in job creation and training programs. Proposals have come from the Opposition-they float for a while and then disappear-that there ought to be social insurance principles, that people ought to have a pay as you go form of welfare. We have had, of course, the proposition that Medicare ought to be dismantled and that we ought to go to yet another scheme for health insurance, which would add to the very many schemes that honourable members opposite were responsible for in the period that they were in government. Of course, all these proposals are floated, but they have no substance; they are not spelt out. They are simply there so that the Opposition can talk about achieving significant cuts in government spending. But whenever any specificity is given to any of these proposals, the Opposition is on the retreat. Of course, in relation to taxation the Opposition has been much more explicit. It has suggested that at least the revenue aspects of the tax package, such as the capital gains tax, the various fringe benefits taxes and the abolition of tax deductibility for entertainment expenses, would be removed. Of course, honourable members opposite can be very explicit about that because it indicates very clearly who it is that the Opposition is willing to serve. It has no interest whatever in any concept of fairness. I challenge the Opposition at any time to state how its policies or proposals-whether in the taxation system, the social security system or generally in any area of fiscal policy-would meet any objective of fairness or would be likely to produce a fairer society. The word `fairness' is not in the lexicon of the Opposition-because that is not what the Opposition is on about. It is on about a form of negative redistribution, which would take from people on low and middle incomes and redistribute to those people on higher incomes who form the traditional base not only of the Liberal Party of Australia, but of the much more self-interested and radically conservative interests that currently lie behind the conservative parties. There was a time in which the Liberal Party in this Parliament perhaps deserved something like the name `Liberal'. But, of course, that is a long while ago. The number of small `l' liberals to be found on the opposite side of this House could be counted virtually on the fingers of my left hand, because they have simply ceased to exist as a dominant force within the conservative party and the coalition today. That is why the word `fairness' and the concept of public expenditure, in terms of having any merit at all, lack currency and form in terms of current conservative philosophy. Opposition members are not liberals. They are radical conservatives; they are Tories who are interested in ensuring that society works in favour of the greedy rather than the needy. They are interested not in protecting the interests of the people who are workers. That is indicated by their taxation policy, which is clearly geared towards the interests of people on the very high incomes; but it is even more clearly demonstrated by the attitudes expressed by the previous speaker in relation to wages policy. The policy of the conservative Opposition in this country is one of denying wage increases irrespective of economic circumstances and irrespective of any capacity within the economy to pay. Irrespective of circumstances, at every wage case in recent years honourable members opposite have advocated a nil increase. They have never conceded at all that workers ought to share in the very significant growth in productivity that has occurred. In terms of the concept of market deregulation what honourable members opposite are concerned about is introducing a level of industrial conflict within this country which we have not seen, certainly since the 1930s. They are interested in introducing to industrial relations a notion of confrontation because they believe that the collective power of the corporate sector would be sufficient to ensure that any reduction in living standards in this country would be borne not only by people on wages but also often by people within those sectors of industry which struggle to pay the highest wages. Of course, that means a reduction in family living standards, which takes us in the direction of reducing the living standards of people who can least afford to have their standards of living decline. In terms of the Government's policy, we recognise that this country has been going through a very difficult period. We reject any notion that the difficulties that currently are being experienced in macro terms within this society reflect anything more than very basic changes in external conditions which have imposed a very heavy burden on the living standards of this country. We recognise that these are serious problems which need to be addressed. But I repeat: They need to be addressed in a way which expresses some commitment to some sort of fairness. During this very difficult period, and despite very significant cuts in real wages within this country, we have had the best industrial relations record of any government since the war. The reason for this is that we have been perceived to be moderately fair. We have been seen to be concerned to ensure that there is a reasonable and fair distribution in terms of income and wealth within the community. That is why we have had to take measures which, although tough, have been accepted. They are accepted because they are fair. On the other hand, we have this absurd proposition being peddled, again in very general terms, that it is possible to achieve a massive cut in the tax burden borne by the wealthiest people in the community at the same time as reducing wages significantly and cutting back on the public sector. This inevitably means a cutback in the area of the social wage and areas such as income security, education and health. It is the proposition that we can achieve a cutback in those areas at the same time as wages are reduced and at the same time as there is a negative redistribution in terms of taxation. What that adds up to is the creation of a society in which unfairness and greed are constantly rewarded and in which real need within the community is ignored. Mr Reith —What rubbish! You don't believe this, do you? Mr HOWE —I believe it, if I might say so, with a certain fervency, because I look, for example, in my own area to income security and I see where the poorest people within the social security system were after seven years of government of honourable members opposite-there was a 30 per cent cut in payments for the lowest income families in the community. I look to the massive cuts in the level of benefits paid to the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed. In the term of government of honourable members opposite I look to the lack of any capacity to develop a policy in relation to job creation and employment. I compare that with the record for our period in government. I look also at the fact that during the last year in government of honourable members opposite there was a massive increase in unemployment with 186,000 jobs being shed, whereas since we have been in office 730,000 jobs have been created, 170,000 of which were created during 1986, which was not the easiest year in terms of economic management. I do not believe members of the Australian public are unclear about where our priorities are. Our priorities have been with ordinary people and have been to achieve a fairer society. I think they understand where the Opposition's priorities lie. They lie with the white-shoe brigade in Queensland, with new money, with people who have no interest at all in fairness and equity and no sense of the need to develop a coherent society. Despite all the difficulties of our period in office, we have moved significantly towards achieving that goal. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(8.30) —The Opposition welcomes this opportunity to debate with the Government where Australia is going, where the present Government is taking Australia, and where Australia might be taken if there is a change of government at the next election. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is one of the best examples of a high-minded socialist, the practical effect of whose policies is to disadvantage the poor and to affect ordinary families adversely. The Minister himself, when addressing a group of his own kind within the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party, described the Hawke Labor Government as `a mule with no future'. He, like the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), who is the factional leader of his Party in Victoria, criticised the Hawke Government for leaving the poor worse off than they were before this Government came to office. It is the same old thing always with a socialist government-the people who lose out are the genuine poor and the people who come out on top are those clever, smooth people with bureaucratic smoothness who manage to get themselves at the head of the queue. I shall take the Minister up in very detailed terms as to just where people stand after four years of Hawke government. Mr Cleeland —By comparison, I hope. Mr CARLTON —By comparison, yes. Let us talk about practical matters. Before Mr Keating became Treasurer, before this Government came to office, the average food bill for a week was about $80 and now it is $105. Home repayments in the State of New South Wales for an average loan for the ordinary family-nobody special, no white-shoe brigade involved-at interest rates then prevailing were $436 per month; they are now $528 a month. For the ordinary family that decided to insure itself for a bed in a private hospital if its members needed it and could not get into a public hospital and were in a queue, if one takes Medicare payments and private insurance together and compares them with what happened before Keating, before the Hawke Government, health insurance costs then were $9.10 per week for that family and are now $15.44 a week, which takes into account the taxation differences. For a family of two adults and two children on average weekly earnings for a full time adult male-that is an average family with a single income-the weekly tax in 1983 when the Hawke Government came to office was $57.94. Would you believe it, Madam Speaker, the weekly tax bill for that family is now $106.19! What other things do we have to worry about in addition to family tax? Family tax, incidentally, has gone up from an average of 17 1/2c in the dollar for the average family on average weekly earnings under the previous Government to 20 1/2c in the dollar, even after all the so-called Keating tax reforms. The same family paid a top marginal rate of tax in March 1983 when the Hawke Government came to office of 30c in the dollar. At the end of the so-called Keating reforms the marginal rate is 40c in the dollar and that is not taking into account the extra 1.25 per cent for Medicare. Let me turn to interest rates. I talked earlier about home mortgage repayments, but interest rates affect every family in a number of ways. A savings bank home loan at an 11.5 per cent interest rate when the Hawke Government came to office is now at 15.5 per cent. For the small business person the small overdraft rate when the Hawke Government came to office was 14.5 per cent, and is now 20.5 per cent. What is even more disgraceful is that, in those areas where the Minister for Social Security claims to have a special interest, we find that the number of people on waiting lists for public housing-for housing commission homes, those who clearly are unable to afford private rentals and cannot afford to buy their own home-under the Labor Government, dripping with concern for the poor, has gone up from 124,000 to 158,000. What about waiting lists in public hospitals under the much-vaunted Medicare scheme? The Government promised that nine out of ten Australians would be better off under Medicare, that they would have cheaper, better health care under Medicare. To take the State of Victoria alone, I point out to those who followed the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), and believed his promise that if they dropped their private insurance there would be a bed waiting for them free in the public hospital, that queues in public hospitals in Victoria now total 34,000 compared with 10,000 before the advent of Medicare and the Hawke Government. I never know why Ministers such as the Minister for Social Security in the Hawke Government get so caught up by their compassion that they overlook the basic facts. I went out to the electorate of Bankstown in Sydney during a State by-election. I went into the heart of the electorate which is occupied by the Treasurer and in which electorate the Labor vote dropped by 20 percentage points in the State election. It was claimed by the Treasurer as a great victory that the Labor vote dropped by 20 percentage points. The reason was that the food bills in Bankstown under Keating had gone up from $80 to $105; home repayments had gone up from $436 per month to $528 per month; the cost of health had gone up from $9.10 a week to $15.44 a week; and for the family on average weekly earnings the weekly tax bill had gone up from $57.94 to $106.19. The bottom line for this Government and the things that are hurting in the community are as follows: After four years of Labor government, after four years of the accord, which collapsed a couple of weeks ago, after all the promises we had made at the National Economic Summit, in this very room, Australian people are noticing that we have falling real wages after inflation, we have higher family and business taxes, and we have rising prices. Indeed, prices have gone up by nearly 10 per cent in the last year, which is five times what people in other countries similar to ours are experiencing. In other words, prices here have gone up 10 per cent versus 2 per cent in those countries with which we compete. For 15 relentless months interest rates have been at their highest levels in real terms since the Great Depression, driving people into bankruptcy and into household despondency. Unemployment is still over 8 per cent. In regard to youth unemployment, one-fifth of our youth are still unemployed, despite the promises of Hawke and the Summit; and we now have a crisis in home purchase and rental housing. I refer to the poorest people, the ones who are the most inarticulate, those who are least able to fend for themselves and to get to the head of the queues. In Victoria, just taking one State as an example, there are 34,000 in the hospital queues compared with 10,000 four years ago. There has been almost a fifty per cent increase in the number of poor people on the waiting list for Housing Commission homes. Is it any wonder that, in the opinion polls that will be published tomorrow in the Bulletin, the Government's standing, despite the most extraordinary public relations bonanza over the last two weeks, has fallen to 42 per cent. Despite the bonanza over the last two weeks, its standing is rock bottom, and it is rock bottom because ordinary people understand that there are falling real wages, higher family and business taxes, rising prices, high interest rates, continuing high unemployment-particularly for youth-and a crisis in home purchase and rental housing. What alibi does the Treasurer have for this gross failure in economic policy? What excuse does he have for the failure of the accord? What excuse does the Government have for the failure of all of those higher ideals and objectives that were so eloquently put to the people in this chamber on national television during the National Economic Summit in 1983? What excuses do they have? Let me look at the alibis. I suppose that the alibis that the Treasurer uses are the same as the alibis he uses for not putting in a tax return-`I forgot'-and the alibi he uses for claiming a travelling allowance which is clearly insupportable on the rules, because he forgot where he was actually living-- Mr John Brown —What about Anthony, Nixon and Sinclair? You have forgotten about them, have you, you hypocrite. Mr CARLTON —He forgot where his principal place of residence was. If the Minister for a good time and good overseas travel, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, wishes to draw attention to himself in this debate, let him do so. Let him also explain why he is letting a contract to an American firm in regard to the Exposition in Brisbane. Let the Minister at the table explain in this debate why he thinks an American firm can do a better job in constructing an Aboriginal display in our national exposition in Brisbane. We are prepared to take on any Minister in this debate. The Government brought it on. Who is taking part in the debate? We had leading it the clown and jester, Mr Young, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, as he now is. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Mackellar should refer to Ministers and other members by their titles or electorates. Mr CARLTON —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I recognise that. We have also the Minister for Social Security. But where is the Prime Minister? He should be defending the Government's record in this debate. Where is the Treasurer? Where are the other senior Ministers? Where are the people who are responsible for this? They have alibis. They say: `It is terrible. There was a deterioration in the terms of trade'. Of course there was a deterioration in the terms of trade. There has been one for the last 20 years. The period with which Government members seek to draw a comparison is the period during which they came to government-1982-83-a period of collapse in the world economy and the worst drought we have ever had, and one of the most destructive periods of trade unionism in Australia, led by the present Prime Minister. They compare all of their statistics with that period. I have here a booklet called `Accord: The First 2 Years'. It is a glossy booklet prepared at taxpayers' expense to tell us that in the first two years of the accord everything was wonderful. Well, in the first two years of the accord many things did pick up. They picked up because the drought broke. They picked up because the world economy picked up. They picked up because the Fraser Government had implemented a wages pause, which restrained wages and inflation. That is what picked up. But there is no new booklet showing the second two years of the accord, because the second two years of the accord involved a period of falling real wages, higher family and business taxes, rising prices, high interest rates, continuing high unemployment, particularly for youth, and a crisis in home purchase and home rental. Overall, without doubt, this Government has totally failed, and it is quite clear to everybody in the community that it has failed. I have said before, and I will say again, that high interest rates will be the death of this Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I call the honourable member for McEwen. Mr McGauran —Bring on the heavyweights. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will cease interjecting or he might not be here for long enough to hear the heavyweights. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(8.46) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just listened to the most mealy-mouthed, feigned excuse for concern for the poor that I have ever heard in my life. We have just heard from the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), about his concern for the poor. We have given the Opposition the chance tonight in this Parliament, before the Australian people, to tell us once and for all what its policies are. This debate was brought on by the Government. Members of the Opposition have been given the chance to explain their policies. What have we heard? We heard nothing at all from the right honourable member for New England, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). We did not hear one policy. We heard from the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). Let us talk about the honourable member for Menzies. I have in my office a copy of a little magazine called the Liberal Forum. It was produced by the Liberal Party in the former Federal seat of Diamond Valley and it is dated August 1983. It criticised the former member for Diamond Valley-now the member for Menzies-for being a useless member. It blamed him for losing the Federal seat of Diamond Valley in 1983. That is the man who, through a series of distortions and half-truths, attacks the Government but did not produce policies. We have given members of the Opposition this chance. Let them stand up before this Parliament and before the people of Australia and give us some details. But no, we were given a six-point plan. Let us look at that six-point plan. The first and most important plank of the six-point plan is to reduce taxes for the wealthy. That is the first point. The mealy-mouthed speech we have just heard from the shadow Treasurer talked about the poor. Of course, the six-point plan, first and foremost, will look after the white shoe brigade. It will cut taxes for the wealthy. It will give tax cuts to the 20 per cent and increase taxes for the 80 per cent. The Opposition proposes massive tax cuts, and with the $14 billion cut in expenditure, what one can glean from the Opposition's public statements-although it will not admit it in the House-is that this will be offset very simply by cutting pensions. That is what members of the Opposition would do in government. They should not run away from it. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) might be interested in what will happen to the age pensioners in his elect- orate. Their pensions will be cut. That is the policy that honourable members opposite are supporting-the cutting of pensions to the aged. So that is the next part of their big plan. Of course, we know that they intend to cut health expenditure. They say that they are concerned about the ordinary working people of this country, those who earn under $30,000 a year-the majority of Australians. Yet they will cut health expenditure. They will privatise the health system, give it away, add $15 a week to the average cost of health care for Australian families-and give them a $5 a week tax cut. And they say they are concerned about the family! Their six-point plan disposes of that proposition. We know that they do not give a damn. They will also sell the education system. That is the very next thing that they will do. They will privatise it, give it away, and introduce a voucher system so that those of some wealth can use little vouchers. I notice that Senator Messner, who is in the gallery, is nodding in total agreement. He agrees that the Opposition will sell the education system, get rid of the cost of it so as to save $1 billion. I thank Senator Messner for agreeing with me. I know that that is what members of the Opposition will do. I hope that everyone here has noted that the good senator agrees with me. They will give vouchers so that the wealthy can skip along to their private schools and get the same per capita grant as the poor. This is their equity and their fairness. They are a wonderful, mystical lot of people. They talk so much about the family. We heard the honourable member for Mackellar express concern about the poor. Yes, they show a great deal of concern for the poor! They will sell the education system to private enterprise and then they will reduce family incomes. They intend to have a three-year wages freeze. I hope that the honourable member for Mackellar can answer me in this House because I would like to know. He talked about all the increases that Australians face-mortgage increases, food price increases, education and health cost increases. How can he equate his mealy-mouthed expression of concern with the fact that he intends to freeze wages for three years? He says he is concerned for families, yet he intends to increase those costs and give those families a three-year wages freeze. I do not think he is concerned; I think he is a fraud and a phoney and so are all the Opposition members. Apart from doing all that to families, the Opposition will sell Australia to the highest bidder. It does not matter to whom it sells Australia, but when the first bidder comes along it will sell. Let us be honest about this: We know who the highest bidder will be. There is only one country in the world with the money to buy Australia-Japan. That is exactly what the Premier of Queensland-the Opposition's unknown hero, the one it will not talk about in this place-has been doing to Queensland. He has been selling it to the Japanese. That is the Opposition's plan. It will take the yen for Australia. It cannot run away from that fact. When Opposition members say that they will abolish all controls on foreign enterprise in Australia they know that there is only one country in the world that can afford to buy-Japan. I wonder what Mr Ruxton will say about that. I never hear Mr Ruxton concern himself about the fact that this country is losing control to the Japanese and that is what Opposition members want to support. Mr Ruxton never talks about that. Opposition members will sell Australia for yen. I wonder what they will do next. Then of course the Opposition parties will privatise. That is the secret agenda of members of the Liberal Party-the very secret agenda. They will do what Maggie Thatcher has done in Britain. They will balance their Budget every year by selling off the assets of every Australian. They will sell the Commonwealth Bank for a start. Opposition members should be honest about this. We have given them the chance to debate this matter; they have had the time tonight. They should come clean and be honest. But they cannot do so. They cannot stand up in this House and give us their private agenda; they cannot come clean and tell the rest of Australia what they plan. We know that the Opposition parties will sell the Commonwealth Bank and Telecom Australia. We know what will happen then. Every Australian farmer will face an extra $1,000 on costs. We do not see the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and other National Party members who express concern for farmers running around the place and saying: `What will happen to the farmer when we sell Telecom?'. They do not really care. After all, the white-shoe brigade from the Gold Coast are their new gurus; they are the people to whom National Party members now pay obeisance. Those are the people who will fund the massive billions of dollars for their next election campaign. Joh will come down with his fistful of dollars and look after you. That is the sort of campaign that we will get. Honourable members opposite talk a load of nonsense when they come into this House. Why are they not honest enough to give us their policies? Why will they not come into this House and tell the Australian public and the Parliament what they plan to do about taxation? Why are they not honest enough to lay out a policy on health care? Why are they not honest enough to come into this House and tell us what they intend to privatise? Why do they not tell Australian families some decent truths for a change and tell them exactly where they stand in this whole debate. The answer is that either they cannot or they are dishonest. Those are the only possible solutions-either they have no policies whatsoever or they do not have enough courage to reveal their secret agenda in debate in this place. I suspect it is the latter. As the coalition's historical antecedents have shown to the people of this country in their years of government, they will go on the path of deceit. They will not debate fairness or equity; they will go down the path of deceit, as they have always done historically as parties. They will deceive the Australian people and destroy them should we ever have the disastrous luck to see them back in power. Opposition members are a hopeless lot. Mr Downer —Beef it up! What will the people who are listening to this debate think? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mayo is interjecting while out of his seat. I warn him that if continues to do that he will be dealt with by the Chair. Mr CLEELAND —When one speaks the truth in this place, when one stands up and issues an open and fair challenge to Opposition members to lay their policies bare on the table, put their cards down, they cannot do so. They do not do it. Their three senior shadow Ministers, the Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Mackellar and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-and we note that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) will not speak in this debate, he is being protected yet again-- Mr Connolly —He will be here, don't you worry. Mr CLEELAND —Oh, so he will be here. Why did he not lead the debate? The honourable member says: `Don't you worry'. Oh golly gosh, we will have the Leader of the Opposition too-that is terrific. Mr Duncan —Which leader? Joh or John? Mr CLEELAND —Yes, which leader? We have offered the Opposition members a chance to put their cards on the table, an opportunity to tell us their policies. Where are they? What about the six-point plan? That is hopeless. When we talk about tax in this Parliament Opposition members say that they will abolish capital gains tax. They have a strange notion about capital. They somehow think that those who have the capacity to take earnings in other than earned income should not pay tax. That is the argument they put forward. They say that those who have the capacity to use the stock market, property or other forms of investment which one could call capital under the terms of the Income Tax Assessment Act should not pay tax on the gains. That is a strange notion and Opposition members are quite prepared to give their friends those perks again. They are simply saying that those who gain economic wealth through one form of activity should gain that economic wealth and power without tax because it is not earned income, a salary or a wage. That is what they are saying when they attack the capital gains tax. They say that those people who invest in property, shares and other forms of capital should not pay tax. I would like to hear some arguments from one of the simplistic members opposite on these matters. I would like to hear why someone who invests income in an interest bearing investment account and who pays tax on the proceeds should pay that tax while someone who invests in a non-income earning capital investment, such as a rental property, should make a gain on the property but not pay tax on it. Why should a person who chooses one form of investment because that person does not need an income receipt at the time, and makes an accretion to economic wealth, not pay tax while a person who has less financial capacity and invests in an income earning asset such as a bank account or a fixed term deposit is disadvantaged? Quite frankly, the Opposition arguments are nonsense. I was pleased to read in today's Australian some comments by Professor Galbraith, who is not a man to be taken very lightly. He is a former diplomat and a former American presidential adviser. It is worth while pointing out what he said. The article in the Australian says: He said it must be understood that there were no magic monetary formulas- unlike the honourable member for Mackellar- therefore, it must be accepted that there was a need for expenditure restraint by governments, except on welfare- the Opposition parties will cut welfare under their proposals; we will not, but they will-- coupled with increases in taxes. That is what the good professor says. He advocates an increase in taxes. Opposition members are running around the place suggesting that they can cut taxes. They could have a $14 billion deficit, yet they still say they will cut taxes. Not one of them could lie straight in bed. The article continues: `I am devastated by the commitment of a great number of people to the belief that there is some solution in major tax reductions . . . That is the sort of stuff the Opposition is peddling. It believes that some magical, mystical solution to our problems can be brought about simply, by a tax reduction. This is the solution that President Reagan has inflicted upon the American economy. The Americans are printing money on their presses 24 hours a day. They cut taxes on a false notion and then they start printing money madly. That is the Opposition's solution. What does Professor Galbraith say about these weird notions of cutting taxes? He says: This is a form of mysticism that adult people should not tolerate. I do not tolerate it. Where does that leave members of the Opposition? It leaves them in infant childhood; they still have not grown up. He goes on to say: As adults we should be willing, when demand presses on supply, when deficits are structural in our economy, to meet the task of appropriate increases in taxes. But the Opposition is going to cut them. The professor continues: I don't find myself coming as an advocate of the newest panacea, namely the flat tax. Members of the Opposition have had their chance. Their three principal speakers-their three principal economic debaters-have spoken in this House after having been given the opportunity to debate their policies. What have we had? We have had the six-point plan of deceit and deception. Members of the Opposition could not come into this House and debate one principal matter on which this Government has given them the chance. They have had their chance; they can sit back and laugh their heads off. They had the chance to give the Australian people their answers. Have they given the answers? The answer to that question is no. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(9.01) —The honour- able member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) did a lamentable job for his Government. I feel sorry for him really; he was following the same old pattern of resorting to excuse after excuse for the Government's unforgivable failures. This motion is a stark reminder that the Government is on the defensive. Its economic policy approach is in tatters; it has admitted to such because we will be having a mini-Budget in May, and I think it is long overdue. It simply does not have the answers to record real interest rates, the unprecedented blowout of foreign debt, inflation more than four times the average of that of our trading partners, a Budget deficit being overrun and a dollar value which is propped up by monetary intervention. Nowhere is the economic crisis being felt more than in regional Australia where interest rates are destroying the struggling farmers, the small businessmen and the home buyers, especially those young people who have had to buy at market rates in recent weeks. Nowhere is there greater demand for rational and effective policies to restore our international competitiveness. Ministers from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) down have blamed everybody and every circumstance except themselves for our crisis, including the Menzies-McEwen governments, for the uncompetitiveness of our industries and our current economy. I am sick and tired of hearing the late Sir John McEwen being blamed for our economic ills today. He has not served in this Parliament for 17 years. It is like blaming one's grandfather for going broke today. When Sir John McEwen was Minister for Trade and Leader of the National Party of Australia, Australia was the eighth greatest trading nation on earth; our inflation rate was 2 to 3 per cent; our unemployment rate was 2 to 3 per cent, with the biggest immigration program on record; our annual growth rate was between 5 and 7 per cent in real terms; and our interest rates were 6 to 7 per cent. How we would like to see a return of those days to the Australian community now. Four years after the Fraser Government was voted out of office this Government still seeks to blame it. It blames the world; it blames the world commodity prices; it blames other countries for our dilemma. It has blamed everybody but the real culprits, and the real culprits happen to be the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the irresponsibility of some-I repeat some-trade union leaders. The Government fails to mention the Whitlam years when the present incumbent Prime Minister was President of the Australian Labor Party and President of the ACTU, when Mr Hawke presided over a 28 per cent increase in wages in 1974, and I attest that that was one of the reasons that the Whitlam Government went out of office. During the period of the Whitlam Labor Government, when Mr Hawke was President of the ACTU, we suffered the worst bout of economic vandalism ever witnessed in this country. In 1981 the trade union movement, with the help of the New South Wales Premier at that time, scuttled a responsible wage fixing formula with the power and transport workers in New South Wales. This sinister Labor plan sabotaged the Australian economy with an 18 per cent rise in wages at a time when Australia was suffering the worst drought this century, and a world recession to boot. What was the result? Sure, it was the defeat of the Fraser Government, the crowning of Mr Hawke as Prime Minister and the plunge into today's economic dilemma. We now have a union government in office, a government of the people for the ACTU by the ACTU. We have had lumped on us an accord which has ensured an increase in wages three times the average of that of our trading competitors. That is why we are in a crisis. Farm industries have been wilting under record real interest rates and costs have been rising three to four times faster than those of our competitors, resulting in an average farm income across Australia falling to less than half the average wage this year, despite the fact that farmers have to service enormous capital investments, have heavy debt and spend long hours running the farm. Since the Hawke Government came to office we have witnessed an acceleration of our national debt, the overseas debt, the balance of trade deficit, interest rates, inflation and a crash in our exchange rate. We do not have an account in this country that is not heavily in debt. We have lived beyond our means, and we might as well face it. Firstly, let us look at the national debt. Domestic personal and business debt has emerged as a trouble spot. It was $96 billion in 1983, which was bad enough, but by the end of 1986 it stood at $151 billion. Secondly, let us look at the oversees debt. The escalation of our foreign debt to over $100 billion by the end of September staggered even those who were forecasting that this might happen by the end of June this year. When the Hawke Government came to office our overseas debt was $36 billion. Over the period of my few remarks-that is, 15 minutes-the external debt will rise by at least $1m. Out of every $100 borrowed by governments, $92 is now required to repay interest, which is strangling the lifeblood out of Australia and putting our children's future economic security in total jeopardy. I think it is an indictment against our generation, if honourable members opposite want to know. Australians ought to wake up to the fact that their children are inheriting a legacy that we did not inherit, even after the last war. Thirdly, let us look at the balance of payments. Recovering from the worst ever drought, we faced a balance of payments deficit in 1983-84 of $7.4 billion. There was a staggering blow- out to $13.8 billion in 1985-86. We are now facing a predicted record figure of $14.7 billion for 1986-87. The January deficit of $1.3 billion was the worst ever January result in Australian history. No wonder the Government has at long last taken the Opposition's advice and has resorted to a mini-Budget in May. The only problem is that I think it will be too late. Fourthly, let us look at the interest rates. They leapt from 13.5 per cent prime rate on overdrafts of $100,000 or more in December 1984 to 20.5 per cent in December 1985 without bank charges. There is virtually no relief in sight. This is falling on a farm debt in excess of $10 billion. We have a new poor in Australia, and I do not think the average urban dweller realises how serious this crisis is. The average farm debt across Australia is now exceeding $74,000, and I think that figure from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics is now out of date. In New South Wales the debt of wheat farmers is close to $200,000; for Western Australian farmers it was estimated at $20,000; the capital intensive small business and farm sectors and new home buyers are the hardest hit in our community. Many farmers are now unable to meet the interest bill, despite having made responsible decisions to borrow within the last few years. We must break the nexus between interest rates and the dollar or we will wreck Australia. Fifthly, inflation, now nearing a double digit range, is hopelessly out of kilter with world trends. Our inflation rate is now at least four time the average of our trading partners. Indeed it is up to eight times that of some of our trading partners, including Japan where I was only 10 day ago. The exchange rate, devalued at more than 40 per cent against the trade weighted index, is an indictment of economic management in this country. The Government is now engaged in a dirty float to prop up the Australian dollar with excessive interest rates to stave off further devaluation and any further wage discounting. Look, the honeymoon is over! It is over for all Australians. It is over for this Government and it is over for the Opposition. We have some very hard and tough decisions to make in this Parliament. The sooner they are made, the sooner our children may get some relief from what I see as an impending crisis for Australia. The Government is giving appropriate attention to the world scene. I give it some credit for what it achieved at the Uruguay multilateral trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I think the Davos statement of the Prime Minister was a very good attempt to get other countries to adopt rational agricultural and economic policies. The all-party delegation to Washington last year, led by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) who is sitting opposite, was a great success. I think it needs to get back to Washington pretty quickly. But the Government has failed to change its domestic macroeconomic strategy which is destroying so many regions of this country. Unless it does something radically different to what it has been doing, the question will be asked: `But what are you doing for your own domestic economy?'. It is no good postulating on the world stages and asking other countries to do something when our country is obviously in a far worse position than any average Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nation. Tomorrow we will witness the sad sight near Molong in New South Wales of repossessed farm machinery being sold by finance houses. Farmers' tools of trade will be taken away from them because the policies of this Government have underlined the value of farm assets. Now farmers are losing their machinery and this is placing them in an impossible situation. In many cases, conditions three years ago were such that they were advised by their lending institutions to invest. Today these people are in a hopeless situation. I refer to the degree of uncertainty and despair, especially in the sheep-wheat belt. It is the worst that I can remember and there is much anxiety and concern. The Government must focus on economic policies to reduce interest rates. The Minister for Primary Industry admitted last year in my home town of Narrabri-where I was born-that interest rates are the biggest single headache. I wish he could convince his colleagues of that. We are still waiting for the Minister to fulfil his promise of August 1985 when he said that the Budget would bring interest rates down. This has not materialised. Mr Braithwaite —Who said that? Mr HUNT —That was the fervent hope of the Minister for Primary Industry but it has not materialised. The Government's macroeconomic policy is a dismal failure. The social trauma in country areas is an indicator of the savage downturn which is bleeding our country towns dry and crushing the long term economic future of millions of people. Like so many people in this Parliament, I returned from the summer recess alarmed at the rapid financial deterioration among family farmers. I am aware of the gut wrenching stories of hardship and personal trauma and the economic and social crisis. Suicides are increasing in country areas as farms and small businesses collapse. Yet, no sector of the community is more important to us if we are to overcome our balance of trade difficulty. Earlier this month I released a strategy that I hoped the Government would take seriously. I welcome the opportunity to outline part of that strategy. Of the 14 points in the strategy, only one proposes a new spending commitment and that is the payment of substantial additional funds to the rural adjustment schemes. It is vitally necessary to extend interest rate relief and debt adjustment to those sectors of agriculture which are the victims of the predatory trading actions of other countries and the domestic economic policies of the Hawke Labor Government. Clearly, rural adjustment is not meeting the crisis in the wheat or cereal industry. Fifty-three per cent of all New South Wales wheat farmers are at risk, with many being unable to meet interest repayments which have blown out over the past two years. Unless an additional amount of money is paid into the rural adjustment scheme, we will see a wholesale national smash in many regional areas of Australia. I hope that the Minister answers my plea to call a debt crisis meeting of all the lending institutions, people concerned with the rural adjustment schemes, the Ministers responsible and some of the farm organisations. I hope that he does this as a matter of urgency so that we can come up with a strategy to overcome a social and economic crisis that could do long term damage to the structure of the Australian economy. This shocking state of affairs has been written off too lightly by this Government. Farm industries have immense potential to pull Australia out of its slide. The Government cannot go on vandalising the lives of millions of Australians with its murderous high interest rate policies without placing the welfare of all Australians at risk. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(9.16) —The motion before the House states: That this House condemns the Opposition parties for misleading and confusing the Australian people with reckless and reactionary promises of change-promises which they are unable to enunciate or cost. The people of this country today see an Opposition with no cohesive economic or social policy. Members of the Opposition are divided on tax. They are inconsistent and duplicitous on wages. They are duplicitous on spending and deficit management. They are simply wrong and misguided on issues such as interest rates and inflation. They do not even have a sensible analysis and what they are putting forward, of course, would make the situation worse. Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is not game to come into this House. Where is the member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock)? Will he speak in this debate? The Government and the Australian people have to face some basic economic facts. We are losing billions of dollars on the sale of our traditional products because of the corruption of international markets and general international structural problems. The rate of inflation comes from the price of imports and the Opposition must focus on the problems we have with our external account. We are not ignoring domestic problems. Through the calendar year 1986 the wage increase was 2.3 per cent for wage and salary earners. Sure, there was some wages drift but that is because the market works, to some degree, as it did for executives where the increase was about 11.4 per cent. But we do have an incomes policy; we do have an accord. All we have from the Opposition is a lot of confusion on this key aspect of our economy. The Opposition will not face our deteriorating terms of trade or our balance of payments situation. Its only solutions, if one could dignify them with that title, are to create unemployment and devastate the economy with short term populist solutions, none of which serious, honest members of the Opposition really believe in. Opportunism is one thing; the future of Australia is another. If a visitor came from another world to this country today he would find a very strange situation indeed. With an economic situation which must mean a lower standard of living for all of us for a while, while policy measures in place take effect, the Opposition is capitalising on the views of the extreme and greedy in our society, most of whom are outside this chamber. With three million people and 800,000 children living in poor circumstances, the Opposition is talking about the millionaires; favoured tax, a flat tax, as if it is some nirvana-a tax which will disadvantage between 60 and 80 per cent of all wage and salary earners. This is just another left-over from the extreme supply-side economics as if the Reagan experiment and monetarism had not been disproved constantly by now. We constantly hear from the Opposition spokesman on social security, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), of welfare fraud. We hear of this from the forces of reaction opposite but we never hear a word about tax fraud or medical fraud. The divided Opposition-or is it only the Liberals-have adopted the slogan `incentivation' on the assumption that the rich are not working because they have too little and the poor are not working because they have too much. This would be laughable if it were not so serious. The Opposition is saying: `Give the mob a slogan; do not give it a policy'. This is the new cynicism-well beyond the `fistful of dollars' of 1977. So now we are into slogans. What will the National Party of Australia have? Will it be `mass ruralvation' or something else? Then we have the divided old Liberal Party of Australia. The wets are probably into salivation but maybe that is really `Peacockivation'. What will the dries give us-`inactivation'? What shall we get from honourable members over in the National Party? It will be the geriatric gibberish: `Don't you worryvation'. These are the new slogans. Every principle of social justice, every principle of social equity and everything that small `l' liberalism ever stood for is now being turned on its head by the Opposition. We have the old two-card trick. In the Heathcote and Bankstown by-elections members of the Opposition all raced round saying: `Your living standards are coming down. This is terrible, is it not?' Yet they want to freeze wages or they want to give people $171.30, which is the New Right's minimum wage. Even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown), who is here tonight, has said that our dollar is at its lowest value in Australia's history. Yet the National Party wants a lower value for the dollar, regardless of the consequences. It really wants to play the two-card trick the whole time. Against the background of the economic situation we are in, the divided Opposition is playing the reverse of Robin Hood. It is proposing a mish-mash of policies from the reactionary groups in our society which adds up to the most cynical, fascist ideological attack on those Australians least able to defend themselves and their families by those most able to stay on the gravy train. We all understand why this is so; there is a vacuum. The leadership of the Opposition is pathetic. Members of the Opposition talk about the New Right. They grab the slogans of Katharine West, or whoever, but I cannot see that there is much difference from the League of Rights-the old Rights-because we get the same sort of nonsense. We have instant heroes and instant slogans. We really do not know where privatisation and deregulation and those sorts of concepts have gone now. Maybe they are on the hidden agenda. We have the instant heroes such as Jay Pendarvis, Ian McLachlan today in the newspapers, and I suppose it will be Bruce Ruxton tomorrow. People have to be brought in from outside to attract a bit of publicity, because the leadership of the two Opposition parties in this place has failed. They cannot articulate a policy. They have failed. They are being wrecked from outside because there is a vacuum. We hear that the answer to all these problems is wages. Let me just tell honourable members about the price of wheat. Some wheat was recently sold to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for $US75 a tonne. That was subsidised by the European Community with another $US168 a tonne. Our sugar producers were getting $A223 a tonne last year for their sugar and the subsidy by the EC was $A600 a tonne after it had spent $450 getting it. The world price for sugar is between US6c and US7c a pound. The Americans pay their own growers 18c to produce it. Beef farmers in Europe get 3,440 ECU a tonne for beef. An ECU equals a United States dollar. That means that they are getting $5,160 Australian, which is five times the price we get. How the heck will the Opposition bring wages down enough to compensate for all that nonsense? The proposition of the New Right is a minimum wage of $171.30 and a wages freeze for two years. Honourable members opposite simply do not know where they are. They do not even understand the relationship between the exchange rate and interest rates and inflation. They have not even got the equation right. Let us look at our terms of trade. Australia's terms of trade were 15 per cent lower in the September quarter of 1986 than the figures in 1983-84. In overall world price terms Australia has suffered a 17 per cent drop in average export prices over the last two years. Let us look at some of the rural price declines. In world price terms since 1983-84, wheat is down 32 per cent, wool 31 per cent, sugar 28 per cent, feed barley 32 per cent, and dairy products 33 per cent. That is the problem that we have, and we have to focus on it. As I have said, the Queensland Premier has been able to wreck the Federal National-Liberal parties because of their pathetic leadership and their failure to develop any responsible policies. The Opposition's policy on taxes, for example, is a complete shambles, with fundamental divisions over the Opposition leader's additional broad based consumption tax and the Queensland Premier's totally unfair flat rate tax. It does not matter who wins this fight. Both outcomes would be equally bad for Australia as a whole and country people in particular. A broad based tax will inevitably harm country people. Call it what you will-consumption tax, retail tax or value added tax-there is no way that this can be avoided. It will hurt the country people. The Opposition is incapable of developing a wages policy that could discount for the inflationary effects of increased indirect taxes. So an 8 per cent tax would become an automatic 8 per cent added to the inflation rate forever. Imagine the effects on industry competitiveness of an addition to the inflation rate of twice the average inflation of our trading partners. This would absolutely wipe out farm incomes in three years. These are the witchdoctor economics that are being put up by the Opposition. Any indirect taxes applying at the retail level must tax the freight component of retail costs. The Leader of the Opposition is not being truthful if he says otherwise. So country people would be heavily disadvantaged. The freight component of retail prices can be very large in country areas. On Thursday Island, for example, food prices are 64 per cent higher than in the capital cities, and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) are well aware of this. A broad based indirect tax must also cover some farm and other business inputs. Major items could be exempted at a considerable compliance cost, but what about smaller items? What about every time a farmer wants some tools to fix a shed? He will be slugged with an indirect tax. This impact on farm costs has been recognised by the National Farmers Federation, so perhaps it is time that Mr McLachlan told his friends in the extreme Right of the Liberal Party some of these facts of life. Will food be exempted from the tax? Farm organisations have been very critical of any indirect tax on beverages. Imagine the impact of completely taxing food. The Federal National Party-if we can call it that these days-has done a complete about-face on indirect taxes. It has come to recognise some, though not all, of these effects. Three weeks ago the Deputy Leader of the National Party was asked how he would pay for his wild promises and he said: It just depends on how you change your tax system. If you had a broader based tax as the IAC recommends-a broader based indirect tax-you would not need to tax fuel to the extent that we are taxing it. And the IAC Report has come out very strongly in favour of the line that we are advocating. We could not get a clearer endorsement of the Opposition Leader's consumption tax proposals. That was the week that the Deputy Leader of the National Party was on side with John Howard. But what did he say last week? He said: Our Party room is very much opposed to a consumption tax because we feel that a consumption tax introduced at this time could have a very serious effect on people out in those regional areas. As we all know, the National Party is being directed from outside this Parliament by the Queensland Premier. Let us look at the tax policies of the Queensland Premier. He says that he wants a flat tax. We all know that this means an increased tax slug on the great majority of taxpayers-60 per cent to 80 per cent. I have said before, and I shall say it over and again until the Queensland Premier and his backers learn: A flat tax will cost farmers money. Let me explain once again. Average farm income this year will be $16,400. A taxpayer on this income will pay $1,200 more under a flat tax than under our tax scales. This is 9 per cent of his total net income. It would be a rip-off of $200m from the farm sector. In addition, tax averaging must, by definition, go under a flat tax, at a further cost to farmers of $88m. So the Queensland Premier may be arrogant enough to believe that all he has to do is blow the whistle and farmers will follow him like sheep. But wait until they learn what his flat tax policy will cost them. No one in country Australia should kid himself that the Queensland Premier is capable of fixing any of his other problems. For example, interest rates would absolutely skyrocket as a result of the massive Budget deficit that would occur. The evidence for this can be seen in Queensland, which had the largest increase in debt of any State last year-an increase of over $2 billion. Of course, this problem of interest rates is not unique to the Queensland Premier. The Federal Opposition's policies would do exactly the same thing. There would be a massive run on the dollar, the foreign debt would explode, and inflation and unemployment would go through the roof. Let us turn to the shambles the Opposition is also in over primary industry policy. Three weeks ago the Deputy Leader of the National Party announced a so-called strategy for primary industry. What a joke that turned out to be. Of course, as is usual with the National Party, it completely ignored anyone who is not a farmer. The National Party has no interest in the great majority of people in country Australia. But let us look at the policy itself. The strategy surreptitiously dumped most of the things that National Party members have been running around the bush with. No more will full freight equalisation be increased, or sales tax on wine and lubricants abolished, or income equalisation deposits restored-three of the promises that have already been torpedoed by the Liberals. The Leader of the Opposition has said that the only expenditure increase he would countenance is to pay pensions to millionaires so the Nationals' promises about extra funding for the rural adjustment scheme and the abolition of export inspection charges were stillborn. Similarly, the coalition's industry spokesman, Senator Chaney, has broadly endorsed the Government's industry policy approach, thus sabotaging the National Party's attempts to tell farmers that it would lower tariffs more rapidly than we are already doing. We know what the former Leader of the National Party said when a former Prime Minister cut tariffs by 25 per cent: He said that it was cowardly. What Mr Anthony said at the conclusion of the last General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade round was really cowardly. So it is the old National Party trick of saying one thing to farmers and another in this Parliament. All this means a contempt for democracy that we are used to getting from the National Party in Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(9.31) —Yesterday in this House, when discussing the matter of public importance, I asked the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) to explain how the housing policies he is pursuing have utterly failed. I asked him to explain why new dwelling commencements over the last two years have fallen from 153,000 to the current level of 118,000. I asked him to explain why the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry in New South Wales now says that housing starts in 1987-88 could be 5 to 10 per cent lower than originally forecast. I asked the Minister to explain why his factional colleague from Sydney, Mr Walker, the New South Wales State Labor Minister for Housing said: 1986 was a bad year for housing primarily because of high interest rates and problems with federal taxation policies. I asked the Minister to explain why the Indicative Planning Council says that interest rate falls during 1987 are now unlikely. I asked him to explain why bank lending for housing remains at relatively low levels and, increasingly, this lending is for larger homes for more affluent buyers trading up into more expensive existing housing. I asked him to explain why the Government's deliberate high interest rate policy is murdering the housing industry in Australia and why new home loan interest rates have risen from 11 1/2 per cent to 15 1/2 per cent and, for some loans, as high as 17 1/2 per cent. I asked him to explain why the $145m bribe given by the taxpayers to the savings banks has not worked. I asked the Minister to explain why 26.7 per cent of median family income is now being spent on home loan repayments. Families around Australia are now spending at a massive 51 per cent annual rate of increase on mortgage payments. I asked him to explain why the first home owners scheme is drifting into oblivion. I asked him to explain why the private rental market is in crisis, why vacancy rates are trending downwards, why rents have been increasing by amounts higher than inflation and why the capital gains tax and his policies on negative gearing are adversely affecting the housing rental market. I asked the Minister to explain why since the Hawke-Keating Government was first elected public housing waiting lists have increased from 100,000 to 160,000 and why an additional 60,000 people are seeking home loan purchase assistance. I asked the Minister to explain how he can justify increased spending on public housing if that expenditure is not having the desired effect of bringing waiting lists down and putting decent Australians under shelter. I asked the Minister to explain why 400,000 people live in caravan parks, many of whom do not want to, and I asked him to explain how he can allow 100,000 Australians to sleep outdoors from time to time. Time and time again during my speech yesterday I asked the Minister: `What is your excuse for that?'. Mr Webster —What did he say? Mr BEALE —The Minister barely addressed any of the questions. He read a prepared text that was his same old tired speech. In all these circumstances, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can imagine my astonishment when I was told this morning that the Government proposed to move a motion condemning the Opposition parties. Even more intriguing is that twice in that motion the Government has used the word `promises'. It is to this matter of promises that I now turn. On 2 April 1986-on the announcement of the so-called housing package-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Housing and Construction promised the Australian people that there would be 135,000 new housing starts in the 1986-87 year. Already this number has been downgraded by the Government's own advisory body on housing-the Indicative Planning Council-first to 130,000, then to 125,00 and is currently 122,500. On 6 March-in a few weeks-the Australian Housing Council will meet to consider a further downward revision of that figure, and industry sources put the revised number at 118,000 starts. The fall in housing starts from the promised level of 135,000 to the revised level of 118,000 is a fall of over 12 1/2 per cent in just 10 months. The Government promised 135,000 starts; we will now get 118,000 starts; and I say to the Government: `Why did you break that promise?'. On 16 February 1983 the current Prime Minister made one of his most famous promises when he said: And here let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it: and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion, there will be no new capital gains tax. We now have a capital gains tax with bells on and it will be at the punitive rate of 49 per cent. What has the capital gains tax done to the private rental market? No responsible economic commentator around Australia does not now acknowledge that the private rental market is in crisis, that vacancy rates have come down and that rents are increasing at rates greater than inflation. Investors are leaving the private rental market in droves. In the four years since the Prime Minister made the promise that there would be no capital gains tax, the number of investors in rental housing has declined from 25 per cent to 9 per cent of the market. The Hawke-Keating Government's capital gains tax and the Keating policies on negative gearing have been responsible for the crisis in the private rental market. The Prime Minister promised that there would be no capital gains tax and now we have a capital gains tax. I say to the Government: `Why did you break that promise?' So there can be no misunderstanding about the capital gains tax, let me say again that the coalition in government will repeal the capital gains tax. Since those promises were made what has happened to inflation? It is the highest since the June quarter of 1983. It is now more than four times the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average and it is our worst relative performance since OECD numbers were first prepared a quarter of a century ago. The Government keeps promising us lower interest rates but those importers who have seen the costs of their products affected by depreciations of the Australian currency of between 35 and 50 per cent still have not passed on the full price effects. There is still strong evidence from importers and importer organisations to suggest that the rate of inflation will not abate significantly during the March quarter. In December 1984, when inflation was 5.1 per cent, the Prime Minister promised: We expect inflation will be less than five per cent in the year ahead and we are determined to keep it below five per cent. Inflation is now 10 per cent; and I say to the Government: `Why did you break that promise?'. Since the Hawke Government was re-elected, general interest rates have risen by between 4 and 6 per cent with Bankcard, small overdraft and home loan interest rates currently at all-time records. While interest rates in Australia have been rising, interest rates in the economies of our trading competitors have been falling. In particular, home loan interest rates have been rising. The Minister for Housing and Construction on 24 September 1986 said: Currently my economic advice which I concur with is that we should get a decline in housing interest rates sometime in the first half of the '87 calendar year. The headlines of this morning's papers were on fire with the news that within a few months the general level of new home loan interest rates by the National Australia Bank may rise to 16 per cent, and that bank is already making some housing loans at 17 1/2 per cent. When housing interest rates were 11 1/2 per cent the Minister promised that they would go down. They are now in the range of 15 1/2 to 17 1/2 per cent. I say to the Government: `Why did you break that promise?'. Today, in response to a Dorothy Dix question the Minister for Housing and Construction said: We do not advocate sharp, sudden drops in housing interest rates. Furthermore, the Government promised to reduce taxation. In fact, it is the biggest spending and biggest taxing government in Australia's peacetime history. Do we recall the promises made in the much vaunted trilogy? The trilogy undertakings have been breached, and I say to the Government: `Why did you break that promise?'. Taxation for the Australian worker on average weekly earnings has now increased from 17 1/2 per cent to 20.6 per cent-or 20.5 per cent after the final round of the Keating tax cuts. This increase in taxation, together with sharply increased mortgage repayment requirements, now means that the average Australian family has more than 10 per cent less disposable income. This is reflected in lower expenditure on food and clothing. It is an outrage, with a record like that of broken promises, that the Government should refer to the promises of the Opposition in the motion before us. However, so that it is clear to the Government what the coalition stands for, I say to it that coalition policies in government will be based firmly on achieving the following objectives: Reduction in the growth of government expenditure; reduction of the Budget deficit and government debt; reduction of the personal income tax burden; reduction of the overall burden of taxation; reduction of the overall level of interest rates; reduction of inflation; reduction of housing interest rates; the promotion of investment, which is the engine of economic growth; softening the rigidities in our various markets in areas such as wages, transport, communications and health services; reduction of our overseas debt by making Australian goods and services more competitive internationally; and removal of the curses of government regulations on individuals and on industry. These are our objectives and all our policies announced thus far are entirely consistent with meeting those objectives. Our policies on industrial relations, on business, on small business and on the family are firmly directed to meeting those objectives to which I have referred. The Government is in a policy maze. Each time it desperately tries to open a door, two other doors close. All the Government's policies reflect broken promises and a failure to address the underlying and critical issues facing Australia today. The Government's policies are policies of the black hole. The coalition's policies will open up the blue skies for a better Australia. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(9.46) —After that, what can one say except that Joh is right. What a mess the Opposition is in. We have heard tonight probably the weakest performance ever put up in this place in defence of an opposition. One can now begin to understand why the National Party members sit here and smile every time the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) or one of the spokespersons from his Party gets up on his feet. The speech by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), was a repeat of yesterday. All he did was show that he has not studied his portfolio. I suggest that he go away and look at the figures of what we are spending on housing now compared with what was spent when he was in government. He will find that he is a failure as a shadow Minister just as he was a failure when his Party was in office. I have never before thought of writing a book but I suggest that I might after this last fortnight because many quotable quotes ought to be documented on what members of the Opposition say about each other. One of the tragedies of this country is that as a democracy it is important for the democracy to have a proper strong, alternative Opposition. The fact is that those opposite are a shambles-they are a mess. They have no policy on wages and no policy on the poor except to slash, slash, slash millions of dollars. Mr Blunt —What have you got, Gerry? Mr HAND —The honourable gentleman is interjecting as he walks across the chamber when he should be in his seat-but that is another matter. He has no idea. The arrogance of these people is typical. They have never accepted the fact that they are in opposition. They are going to be there for a long time. I suggest that even the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) will become grey while he sits and wallows on the front bench-as long as the current Leader retains the leadership. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) has wandered in. The big gun has come in because Sinkers is not in the House; so he is allowed in. He has come in to hear what we have to say. This is the de facto leader of the National Party, the person whom the honourable member for Ryan attacked, I understand, in the Liberal Party meeting today, when he launched a scathing attack on his coalition colleagues. What do we have? We have two groups of people-the Liberal Party and the National Party-pretending to the whole of Australia that they are a real alternative government, when quite clearly they are not. I will prove without a shadow of a doubt that we will see some dramatic changes taking place over there in the very near future. Two documents have fallen into my hands recently. I do not want to go on about it but I tell honourable members what I said the other day in this place: The problem with the Liberal and National parties is that they leak. We do not need to get the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in and we do not need to check for bugs because those opposite all drag us into rooms and tell us what is happening in both parties. I have become a bit embarrassed by all this because I seem to know-- Mr Blunt —I have got one of yours, Gerry. Mr HAND —The honourable member has one too because I have circulated it. That is all right. I would have thought that the honourable member had a copy because he is in the opposite party to the one concerned. Mr Ian Cameron —You missed out on the numbers; you are a failure. Mr HAND —The point I am trying to get across to the honourable member for Maranoa is that I will not go into his room and learn about the problems in the National Party any more because he gives me away by coming in here and interjecting. He will have to meet me in another place. We are witnessing the absolute crumbling of the Liberal Party of Australia. Last night at about 8.30 I was rung by a member of the Liberal Party who suggested that he might have a little bit of information for me. Mr Ian Cameron —Name him! Mr HAND —I have never been a copper, you see. I have never lagged anybody in my life and I do not intend to start here. So I went away and met this person. He handed me two sheets of paper with handwritten lists of names-who they are, where they come from et cetera, et cetera-and beside them was an H or a P or a W. I thought: `This is very interesting. What should I do with this bit of information?'. I thought: `I cannot circulate that document because it will only cause problems for the person'. I want to point out that the member of the Liberal Party was not a woman, so she is in the clear. The point is that the person has very distinctive handwriting, so I had the information typed. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether, because of the interest that obviously many Australians would have in this matter, it is possible to have this list incorporated in Hansard? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Is leave being sought for the incorporation of the documents? Mr HAND —I would appreciate it if I could get leave. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is being sought. Is leave granted? Opposition members-No! Mr HAND —All right. It does not matter. The honourable member for Barker need not take a point of order. Mr Porter —Can the honourable member vouch for the accuracy of the document? Mr HAND —If the honourable member will wait a minute I will read it to him, then he can check it. Mr Porter —You couldn't get the numbers right to get into the Ministry. I'll bet these numbers aren't right either. Mr HAND —The reason I never got into the Ministry is that I was not a candidate, you fool. The facts are-- Mr Porter —Oh, is that right? So the Press is wrong as well. Mr HAND —I know that honourable members opposite are trying to upset me, but they will not do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member sought leave to incorporate a list in Hansard. Leave was not granted. Mr HAND —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I should spell it out in a bit more detail. The House of Representatives situation is this: For the H group, which is the Howard group, that of the honourable member for Bennelong, 19 people on the list have an H beside them. Mrs Kelly —Who are they? Mr HAND —I will come back to that if I have time. There are 22 people with a P beside their names-a bit of a problem for Little Johnnie. There were five names with W beside them. I thought `waverers' was not a very nice word, so I put `fence sitters'. Honourable members will know what Joh said about fence sitters. He said: `If you sit on a fence of barbed wire it is bad news'. Going to the Senate it gets even better, because there are 12 names with H beside them, 13 names with P beside them and three fence sitters. The totals are: H for Howard, 31, Peacock 35, and F for fence sitters, 8. In fairness to the fence sitters I think I should tell honourable members who they are. We will get them out of the road. There is the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew); the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), who has never been able to win-he worked for one, got the sack, got in here and voted for the other one-the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), who is from across the water and it takes a long time for things to get across; and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith). I think that is right. Mr Porter —Is this the best you can do on this important motion? Mr HAND —That is right. I am trying to explain to the people. There is also Warwick Parer, John Watson and Baden Teague in the Senate. I have given this list out to a few people tonight and, as in everything, one cannot trust anybody and it is bound to leak. That is the problem. There it is. If anybody wants a copy of it-- Mr Carlton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask for your guidance as to whether on a serious matter before the House this kind of clowning is in order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr HAND —I am sorry to say that the honourable member's days as the shadow Treasurer are numbered. The point I am trying to get across to the honourable member and the Liberal Party is that we have given them in this chamber tonight the greatest free kick that anybody has had for a number of years. What have honourable members opposite done? They have kicked the ball out of bounds all night. They have not kicked one goal. They have no policies at all-none whatsoever. Honourable members opposite have a divided party and the people of Australia must understand this. Every night in this place one can go into any Opposition member's room and he will spill his information right across the carpet and talk about his colleagues. They are divided like no other political party has been. No wonder Joh says: `The Opposition leads nowhere' and: `While Howard has a team of people down there I can't trust and who don't like me I won't work with them'. The problem for the Australian electorate is this, quite simply: For the information of the honourable member for Ryan-I will try not to use the exact words the honourable member used in the Liberal Party room when he attacked the Premier of Queensland today-it is becoming quite apparent that the Premier is representing what has been called the white-shoe brigade of Perth and the beaches of Queensland. Its members are involved in, as everybody knows, the manipulation of the system in Queensland. Is that what the people of the Liberal Party want-a person who promises a flat tax of 25 per cent, which will mean that every Australian earning under $27,000 a year will pay more in tax? It would mean that every single Australian who pays tax in this country and earns less than $27,000 would pay more taxation. That is the choice for the Australian people. Mr Ian Cameron —I rise on a point of order. I point out to the House and to the people of Australia that the National Party's policy is not a flat tax policy. It is a top rate of 25c. I would like to tell the honourable member for Melbourne to get it right. He is wrong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr HAND —We have heard a range of spokespersons-- Mr Baldwin —Spokesthings. Mr HAND —Spokesthings, sorry. They have spoken in this debate. People ought to read the speech of the honourable member for Deakin. He listed a whole range of areas where the Opposition is going to cut. There is not a single area where it is not going to cut. But one thing is for certain: Whether it is the Howard forces, the Moore forces, the Peacock forces, the Cameron forces or the Joh forces, one thing they have in common is that they are all about making the rich richer and the poor poorer. They are about lower taxes for the rich and higher taxes for the poor. They are about cuts in welfare. Let us consider what was said, in terms of leadership challenges by the person who is now in the process of attacking the current Leader, the person whose obsession is to be the Leader of the Opposition-he in fact has a history of such behaviour. On 28 April 1981 he made a speech in which he tried to put the dagger into Malcolm Fraser. So it is not the first time that a leader who has sat at the table has had to endure the thrust of the knife of the colt from Kooyong, although I suggest he is probably getting a bit too old to be called a colt any more. We should perhaps try to think of another name. Whilst the honourable member for Kooyong was roaming around the electorate of O'Connor with the protector of the morals of the Parliament, who is doing a seven-day stretch, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) said that whilst Andrew had the policy ideas, he was the protector of the morality of the Parliament. God help us all if the honourable member for O'Connor is the protector of the morality of this place with a record like his. He has the morality of an alley cat-and honourable members opposite all know it, because not one of them got up to defend him yesterday when he hit the door. He is an outrageous disgrace to this place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to restrict himself to parliamentary language when referring to colleagues of this House. Mr HAND —I will try to work out a more suitable term to describe him. I was referring to the common position of all the warring factions, and their attack on the poor. I welcome the intervention of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen; I welcome the intervention of the honourable member for Maranoa; I welcome the intervention of the honourable member for Kooyong; and I welcome the intervention of the people who are trying to shore up the current Leader of the Opposition. They are welcome in my electorate any time they would like to step in to describe the cuts they plan in education, welfare and right across the board. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) talked about housing. For God's sake, one has only to look at the record, which is quite clear. Millions, in fact billions, of dollars more have been spent by this Government on housing than by the previous Government. The pretender to the leadership of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Kooyong, said: It is no use making 5 per cent cuts across the board as the programs roll on. We must cut out the big ticket items. When we take office there will be howls of protest as we cut program after program. The public must understand what Opposition members are on about. The honourable member for Maranoa said-I want to quote him so that it is not unparliamentary-`When we have finished with them they will squeal like stuffed pigs'. Mr Ian Cameron —Stuck pigs. Mr HAND —Stuck pigs; I am sorry. The point is that both forces represent to this country a rejection of what we have all been working for, and that is a better society. They will take us back to protecting the rip-off merchants, the white shoe brigade, the quick money people on the Gold Coast and in Perth and these other places, instead of being more concerned about the poor. The shadow Minister for Social Security no doubt will get up here and bleed; but let him deny that the Opposition plans to cut all levels of social security. Let him get up and say that the Opposition will not do that and then we might have a proper debate in this place-and it will not be a joke, as Opposition members turned the debate into earlier tonight. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.01) —It really is a very sad day for the Parliament of this nation and for the people who are listening to this debate to hear the standard of the contribution by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). It was always my impression that the honourable member for Melbourne had some credibility, that he pretended to be the factional leader of the Left; but here tonight we saw him reduced to the role of street corner comedian for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Leader of the House (Mr Young), who tonight has demonstrated his tactical ineptitude by bringing on this notice of motion in an attempt to embarrass the Opposition. The reality is that the Government is totally embarrassed. It has been able to muster only one Minister other than the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to speak. We have seen the greatest motley lot of people coming in here and trotting out the greatest rubbish I have ever heard in my life. The honourable member for Melbourne purports to have some document which has been leaked to him by someone in the Liberal Party. Well, it is so accurate that it does not even have the names of the members of the Liberal Party accurately. Senator Alston's first name is Richard, not Ken; that is how accurate the document is. I have a document that somehow came into my hands courtesy of some of the colleagues of the honourable member for Melbourne. The paranoia that must exist on that side of the House is absolutely amazing. Maybe they, like us, got advance warning of what the gallup polls are saying. The speech by the honourable member for Melbourne here tonight is probably his last in this House because obviously he was aware that the gallup polls show that the Government is down to 42 per cent in popularity-- Mr Hand —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not think the honourable member would stoop to going through rubbish tins and getting inaccurate pieces of paper. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. It is quite frivolous and is not the sort of point of order that should be taken. Mr BLUNT —The document that came into my hands is actually signed in the handwriting of the honourable member for Melbourne. It is hardly a forgery. If he would like to see the document and compare his signature with the one on the bottom of this, I would be more than happy to table it. Let me tell the House how paranoid they are on the Labor Party benches. They know what the opinion polls say. They know that popular support for this Government is down to 42 per cent. They know that tomorrow morning's gallup polls will show that the Opposition's support-- Mr Hand —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I submit that that is just a blatant untruth. There is no document with a list of names with my signature on it at the bottom. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr BLUNT —Let me be absolutely precise about what the document is that has the signature of the honourable member for Melbourne on the bottom of it. It is a notice of meeting and indicates the paranoia on the Labor Party benches. It states: We will have a special meeting this Wednesday at 6 to 8 p.m. to discuss the New Right offensive. The honourable member for Melbourne signed this, along with his colleague Bruce Childs. The paranoia is not just on the Socialist Left benches, on the tomato Left; it exists in the whole mainstream of the Labor Party. That is why the Leader of the House has brought this ridiculous, trivial, frivolous motion into the House. The reason that the Government has brought this trivial, frivolous motion before the House is to try to distract attention from the main debate in this nation at present, and that is on the declining living standards of Australian families as a result of the economic incompetence of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Treasurer (Mr Keating), and the callous disregard for the welfare of Australians generally in favour of the sectional interest of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and certain people it purports to represent. Tonight we have seen a procession of embarrassed Labor Party speakers, who were dragooned into this House, trying to defend the failures of the Hawke Labor Government. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), a man who purports to be part of the intellectual foundations of the Labor Party and the representative of the left wing in Cabinet, came into the House, sold out, and delivered the rhetoric of the Right. He did not address questions of social security because he does not have a social security policy. He is a man whose credibility in this nation could not be lower. He is a man who has done nothing to address the open door policy of fraud and overpayment. He is a man who has allowed the social security system to fall into total disrepute. He is a man who has pursued the vendetta of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister against the aged and the infirm. He is a man who does not have a heart. He is a man who purports to be compassionate, but who cannot add up and cannot even support his factional colleagues. Mr Blanchard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member is casting aspersions against a member of the House, and I think that is uncalled for. You have already drawn attention to the honourable member for Melbourne for doing something somewhat similar earlier in this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I was listening to the language used. I had not thought it unparliamentary at that stage. Mr BLUNT —Let us get on to the record of the Minister for Social Security. This man knows that 70 per cent of maintenance orders are not complied with, and he has done nothing about it in four years in office. He has brought into the Parliament a proposal which supposedly will do something about the matter but which is really a sell-out to the Democrats. It is opposed by every responsible community group, and in Cabinet it is about to be tossed out. This is a man who does not even prosecute social security cheats and frauds when they are caught, a man who has been condemned by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ian Temby, for identifying cheats and not following through. He is a man who claims that prosecuting 2,000 people for social security fraud in 1986 is a proud record, but who comes into the Parliament and claims that they will find 10,000 cheats on unemployment benefits this year. If he could prosecute only 2,000 last year, how on earth does he expect us to believe that he will prosecute 10,000 this year? This is a man who comes into this House and says `No way can we have an Operation Noah-style dob-in for social security cheats', when he knows that the manual for his own officers includes instructions on how to utilise public information dob-ins on social security cheats. This is a man who ran an amnesty and gave away millions of dollars in social security payments to people who were not entitled to them. This is a man who reduced field officer numbers. This is a man who ignored for three years Auditor-General's reports telling him what was wrong with his Department. This is a man who condones prisoners in New South Wales getting unemployment benefits. This is a man who said that there was no problem in Kiwis getting unemployment benefits in this country. This is a man who was dragged screaming into this Parliament at Budget time last year by the Treasurer and by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and told to do something about social security fraud. This man is an absolute failure. It is no wonder that he came in here tonight under the pressure of the right wing, under the thumb of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and purported to support this Government's policy. This is a man who stood up at a conference of left wing groups and said: `The Hawke Labor Government is a mule with no political future'. How right he is. He must know what tomorrow's gallup polls will show. He does have some foresight because he knows the incompetence of the Treasurer and the ineptitude of the economic policies they are introducing. This is a man who purports to have compassion for Australian families. Let me tell the House and all those Australians who are listening just what this Government had done to Australian families. The tax package introduced by the Treasurer last September cost Australian families $1 billion. The non-indexation of the dependent spouse rebate cost $394m. The non-indexation of family allowances cost $513m, and the abolition of concessional expenditure rebates cost $170m. If members of the Government do not think that that is relevant to the way in which people vote, they should look at the situation in the suburbs of Australia. They should look at the disposable incomes of Australian families. They should see what the high interest rate policies of Treasurer Keating and this Labor Government have done to the average family paying off a mortgage. They should see what the high interest rate policy has done to the average family which is trying to buy a car. They should look at the car industry and talk to a motor salesman about how often he sells a car and who can afford to pay a rate of 19 per cent on hire purchase or a lease to buy a car. Members of the Government should look at the impact of the declining Australian dollar on the cost of living in this country. They should look at the supermarket shelves and see what 10 per cent increases in the consumer price index are doing to the cost of food. They should ask the average wage earner how much money he has left at the end of the week after he meets those fixed commitments to provide shelter, transport and food for his family. The answer is: Precious little. Under this Government, 100,000 people in this country are homeless. There are 158,000 people in the public housing queues. There are 700,000 families living in poverty. Yet this Government decides to means test family allowances for 16 and 17-year-olds. Even the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), who cannot take the heat and has left the chamber, has said that it is embarrassing to him to have to acknowledge that under the Hawke Labor Government poverty in Australia has increased. The honourable member for Melbourne, the leader of the Left, a colleague of the Minister for Social Security, spoke in this debate tonight. He said: `It embarrasses me to acknowledge that under the Hawke Labor Government poverty in Australia has increased'. What sort of integrity do members of the Labor Party have when they are prepared to make statements such as I have quoted tonight outside the chamber, yet come in here and be dragooned into supporting this trivial, frivolous motion, a motion that has embarrassed the Government? Where are the Ministers? Where are the members of the Labor Party's front bench, who should be arguing in favour of this motion? The reality is that the Leader of the House is the laughing stock of his colleagues for introducing this motion. The number of members on our side of the House who are prepared to speak in this debate is almost without limit. Yet this Government is not prepared to allow the debate to continue. I am told that it will close the debate tonight when it is time for the House to adjourn. If it had any real conviction or any preparedness to debate the real economic issues of this country, it would bring the motion on for debate tomorrow, and again and again, until every member of this House has had an opportunity to speak to it. Members of the Government have the nerve to talk about the policies of the Opposition. In September 1986 the Treasurer rushed into this House with great fanfare and presented a so-called tax package. There were 20-odd items in that so-called tax package. Seven of those items have been changed dramatically since the Treasurer announced that this would be the tax law of Australia. It was announced on 19 September. Progressively, there have been dramatic changes to the proposals for the Australia Card. There have been changes to the treatment of fringe benefits taxes. There have been changes to the substantiation requirements. There have been total changes to the quarantining of farm losses and the deductibility of expenditure on soil and water conservation. We have seen a complete climb-down on the foreign tax credits system, and we have seen a dramatic, almost total, rewrite of the imputations system for company tax. This Government purports to have policies. It purports to know where it is going. It has the nerve to suggest that the Opposition should justify its policy positions. The reality is that, even with the resources of government-even with four years in government behind them, even with the bureaucracy writing their documents-Labor brings its policies into this House and within 12 months is forced to climb down and change them dramatically. Madam Speaker, there is only one conclusion that you can draw; that is, that this Government is incompetent. It has no comprehension of the real economic problems faced by Australia today, and it has no policy answers. This Government has adopted the policies of expediency. The Prime Minister is renowned for breaking promises. There is a list, about which just about every Australian knows, of the promises that have been broken by the Prime Minister. Let me list those promises. The Prime Minister said that inflation would fall. Inflation has gone up, and it is higher than in every other comparable Western developed nation. The Prime Minister said that interest rates would fall. Housing loans have gone up. It costs 20-odd per cent to use one's Bankcard these days, and rates are going up further. Yet the Prime Minister said that interest rates would fall. He said that there would be a 13.5 per cent ceiling on housing loan interest rates. What do those poor young Australians who are trying to pay off their mortgages think about that promise? He said that petrol prices would fall. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Cohen-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) -As I said, this Prime Minister breaks promises. The last election was conducted on the basis of the trilogy. The trilogy did not last 12 months. He said that the value of the Australian dollar would stay firm. The value of the Australian dollar has dropped like a rock. The only reason that the Government has taken the Opposition's advice and has announced today that it will bring down a mini-Budget is to try to buoy up the markets, otherwise the Australian dollar would have fallen through the 60c level. The Prime Minister said that there would be no capital gains tax. There is a capital gains tax. He said there would be simpler tax laws. Look at the fringe benefits tax and the substantiation requirements and see what happened to the promise about simpler tax laws. What about the cuts? They have been deferred and delayed and nothing has been done for the low income earners and the people on welfare in this country. He promised that there would be no interest withholding tax. He said that there would be 10,000 Priority One traineeships. Where are they? All we got was $2m worth of photographs of the Prime Minister in the newspapers. He said that housing construction would be increased. Housing construction in Australia is dropping like a rock. As for the balance of payments, which he suggested would stabilise, we now have record deficits. The January figures were the worst in Australia's history. As for the Button car plan, which was to stabilise the motor industry in this country, it is an abject failure, with declining employment and a crisis-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate interrupted. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Madam Speaker, it has been drawn to my attention that earlier today in a Press interview I may have used words that reflected on the character of the Speaker and the Chair. If that is the case, I unreservedly retract those remarks. Madam SPEAKER —And apologise? Mr CADMAN —And apologise. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for Mitchell. Debate resumed. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(10.17) —When one has the opportunity to talk about the policy incoherence and ferment that besieges the Opposition, one could talk for 15 days rather than 15 minutes. I rise to speak tonight on the Opposition's wages policy and industrial relations policy. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the average male breadwinner's pay packet in this country today would be at least $71.80 per week less if the Liberal and National parties had got their way on Australia's wages policy in the period in which the Australian Labor Party has governed this country since 1983. The Opposition, of course, has consistently opposed national wage case increases to the wage and salary earners of Australia. But, with breathtaking hypocrisy, it claims to be concerned with family living standards. The facts are that since the Labor Government was elected in 1983 there have been five national wage cases, the cumulative value of which today is $71.80 per week on average weekly earnings for full time adult male workers. At this stage, Madam Speaker, I seek leave-I have cleared the matter with the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt)-to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the effect of those five wage cases. Leave granted. The table read as follows- National wage case Percentage increase A.W.E. Full-time male Increase % $ $ 6.10.83... 4.3 379.80 16.30 6.4.84... 4.1 400.70 16.40 6.4.85... 2.6 429.00 11.20 4.11.85... 3.8 453.60 17.20 1.7.86... 2.3 465.90 10.70 Cost of Liberal Policies-$71.80 Mr PUNCH —Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank those opposite. Further, the Liberal and National parties can hardly be pro-family or really concerned with standards of living of families in this country when their policies would have deprived the average families of this country of a figure in wages of that proportion. What is more, the Liberal Party's commitment, as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) as recently as last Saturday, to abolish the Prices Surveillance Authority, would exacerbate the plight of families even further. In fact, the position really would be much worse than the $71.80 a week that I have calculated if the Liberal and National parties' opposition to wage increases in one form or another that has occurred in 18 out of the last 20 national wage cases were taken into account. Honourable members opposite should not be under any delusion for one moment. Their wages policy is well accompanied by foolishness in policy making. The industrial relations policies of members opposite can best be summarised by one word-unconstitutional. To understand this, let us look at the matter in more detail. Let us begin with a most noteworthy quote from the former head of the coalition's back bench committee on industrial relations. the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), who said in December 1986: The concept of replacing awards with contracts is fraught with danger. It is appropriate that employers should have scope to make private arrangements with their employees. However, any private arrangements must work from a base established by the Arbitration Commission. To attempt to do otherwise would leave workers vulnerable to exploitation and no doubt set the stage for an intense industrial battle between unions and employers What then is the legislative basis for this revolution, this radical new development in industrial relations that is supposedly being put forward by honourable members opposite? Even more fundamentally important, where is the constitutional basis for this excursion into the unknown? The constitutional basis for any system of voluntary contracts in this country is at best unclear and certainly non-existent for many small businesses-the very group whom those opposite claim they represent. Let us not forget that at the last election this very same Opposition opposed constitutional amendments which would have made it possible for its policy-if it ever sees the light of day-to be put on a much firmer basis. In terms of constitutional power, would the New Right urge the Opposition to base its industrial relations and wages policies on no constitutional concept at all? Is it really serious about the conciliation and arbitration power, the corporations power, the external affairs power, the territories power, the interstate trade and commerce power or the incidental power? Indeed, what does the Constitution say about voluntary agreements and their regulation? The Constitution does not permit legislation regulating industrial matters directly. It provides for the prevention and settlement of interstate industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration. It is simply not possible to set up arrangements for voluntary agreements using this power or, indeed, any of the powers that I have just mentioned. Therefore, the policy would have to rely on other constitutional heads of power the like of which honourable members opposite do not seem to be able to identify. But to the extent that the present scope of these and other heads of constitutional power would mean pushing the scope of the Federal Government's legislative powers into areas that have traditionally belonged to the States, I believe that this is something the premiers of Queensland and Tasmania in particular should look at when they consider the policy format of those opposite. It would appear that the corporations power is the main source of proposed constitutional power on which the Opposition seeks to rely. Under this power Federal laws can be enacted with respect to foreign, trading or financial corporations. Whether this power can be used to support voluntary contracts is quite unclear. The Federal Government already has a clear power to deal with interstate industrial disputes by way of conciliation and arbitration. The High Court of Australia could find that the corporations power could not be used to extend that power. But even if the corporations power could be used, there are many businesses that are not corporations-especially small businesses. These are the businesses which honourable members opposite say this policy is specifically designed for. As at December 1985, which is the latest date for which figures are available, there were more than 400,000 non-farm private enterprises which were not corporations. They employed more than 1.6 million employees. They constituted 28.5 per cent of all employers in the non-farm private enterprises. The trade and commerce power could perhaps provide some support, but this applies only to businesses engaged in interstate trade or overseas trade, which of course the majority of small businesses are not. Therefore, we have the quite absurd situation, in considering the Opposition's industrial relations power, that while the Opposition's policy focuses on enterprises with fewer than 50 employees it is precisely in this area of small business that there is a clear lack of constitutional power to apply such a policy. One must ask whether the Liberal Party, the Federal National Party, Joh's National Party, the drys, or the wets, to which the honourable member for Lyons belongs, contemplate amending the Constitution in order to seek wider Commonwealth powers and to deny the States some of theirs. That could be the only logical, rational explanation for what they have put forward. That leaves us with a wages policy that would cost the average wage and salary earner in this country to date $71.80 a week and more if the other national wage cases applying before this Government came to power were taken into consideration. We have an adherence to that policy whereby those opposite are saying that there will be no more wage increases until 1989; we have a wages policy therefore that will not only limit the functional spending power of families in this country but also set them so far behind that even future wage increases which might come about by a rebirth of productivity which those opposite say they can deliver, would not ever allow them to catch up. So we have a wages policy that will grind families of this country into the dirt. That is before one takes account of the additional $27 a week that the abolition of Medicare and the privatisation of the health system that those opposite advocate would cost. It is also before the social wage would be crippled in this country with education cuts, social security cuts for those who need social security, and housing cuts for those who need public housing. Before any of that is done we have a wages policy and a social wage platform by the Opposition that would drive 80 per cent of Australians into the ground. Then we have an industrial relations policy that is unworkable. We have had very clear indications from Business on its thoughts about the industrial relations scenario that would result from the Opposition's policies. The Confederation of Australian Industry, for example, in a recent Press release on 2 February commented about extending the sphere of industrial relations beyond its traditional conciliation and arbitration power. It said: Indeed, provided safeguards are put in place, the CAI supports the Hancock Committee recommendation which would permit the use of voluntary agreements consistent with the conciliation and arbitration power. CAI is, however, totally opposed to the use of the corporation power, the external affairs power, or any other alternative powers to be found in general industrial legislation. That leaves us with a scenario in which we have a wages policy which deserts the rest of the nation and an industrial relations policy which is unconstitutional and which has been criticised by big business itself in this country. It has to be said that those opposite would be launching the industrial relations scene in this country into the great unknown and as a result the greatest level of industrial conflict that the country has ever seen would inevitably arise. I ask Opposition members who they think would really be at the front line of this new industrial civil war. It would not be big business as represented by the CAI; it would be small business and the farmers-the very people-- Mr Nehl —They are going broke under your Government. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Cowper will cease interjecting. Mr PUNCH —For those listening tonight to the radio, I say that the interjector is obviously a member of the National Party of Australia, and I say no more. So we have a situation where this industrial relations policy which those opposite say is for the small business people would in fact be putting them in the front line of a new industrial relations civil war. That returns me to my initial point. The policy incoherence and ferment that now characterises the Opposition is so grave-it is exemplified by tonight's proceedings-that, for the first time since 1912, we have a government condemning the lack of Opposition policies that are coming forward. Those policies are so incoherent and so poor that the people in whose interests they purport to be-that is, families in the wages policy area and small business in the area of industrial relations-would be hurt the most. That is how grim and how lacking in policy development those opposite have become. I conclude by saying that it is in the interests of the democratic traditions in this country that we have an Opposition that at least has a semblance of policies; it is in the interests of the people of this country that we have an alternative government. Quite demonstrably we have no alternative government. No alternative policies are being logically put forward by that side of the House. We have a situation where there are now four conservative leaders in this country-the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the Leader of the National Party in Queensland. We have four alternative leaders with not a semblance of a policy between them, not a semblance of detail between them. Rather, we have an incoherent mess that would see the wages and industrial relations structure in this country decimate the economy in less than a few months should those opposite win the next election which I believe, starting from tonight with our exposing their lack of policies, will not happen. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.32) —I have been a member of this House for nearly three years, and I must say this is one of the most pathetic performances I have ever seen from this Government. By just about any standard one cares to consider, our country is going backwards and, instead of addressing the problems that we have, we have this nervous, pathetic and irrelevant motion. It is the first time for 75 years that we have had such a motion. It is no wonder, because last time someone put up such a motion it was thrown out on a point of order for being frivolous. It is no wonder that only three Ministers have been prepared to deliver speeches in this so-called withering attack on the Opposition, and it is no wonder that we have seen the forth-graders being paraded here to try to put up some sort of performance for the Government. I think members on the other side of the House are worried, and they have good reason to be worried. They lack direction; they have the left wing forever saying that they have abandoned Labor Party policies, and within their own ranks the members do not know what will happen next. The other day I overheard a couple of Labor members. In a wishful tone one said: `I think things will get better', and the other responded-does this not tell a story-`Keating has been saying that for four years'. That is what people in Australia have been saying, and they will be saying it more and more as time goes on. People do not want to hear this abuse that Labor members love to dish out at Question Time. People do not want to hear the grandstanding and the bravado. People have had enough of their excuses. This motion is too smart by half. It is just a game; they have the numbers, and it will get through, but what good will it do for Australia? When Labor members go home tonight I ask them to ask themselves: `What have I done for my country today?'. The answer will be nil, absolutely zilch. They have run out of puff; they have run out of solutions; but the problems are there, and they are problems that they have created. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was on 3AW radio in Melbourne today-my wife heard him-and he said he is the politician in Australia who is closest to the people. What a joke! What an absolute joke! When was the last time that he was in a supermarket? When was the last time that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) took the Prime Minister's advice and went into either his own electorate or a supermarket? It is some time because it is obvious that neither of those gentlemen have a clue what it is like to have to go into supermarkets and face the ever increasing prices caused by Labor's inflation. Since the last election that inflation has just about doubled. In the December quarter 1984 it was 5.1 per cent. What is it now? It is 9.8 per cent, or nearly 10 per cent. On a world-wide basis this is the worst comparative figure that we have had since statistics have been collected. This is a problem that every Australian has to live with from day to day. It is a problem that we ought to be discussing and debating, and we ought to be hearing from the Government what it will do about it. Take health, another problem which affects tens of thousands of Australians. The Government's maladministration and Medicare have give us 100,000 people who cannot get basic hospital care. Let me give one example, which I do not think will be a surprise to members opposite because my guess is that they have had people with the same problem in their offices. I had a bloke in the other day-I will not give his name, but I will give it to the honourable members opposite if they want it-- Mr Chynoweth —I bet you can't. Mr REITH —I have the file, and the honourable member can see it. This man came to see me a couple of weeks ago. He is 76, an age pensioner, who lives alone in his own house. He used to have private hospital cover, but he could not afford to meet the premiums. He is in constant pain. He has been waiting for 12 months for his hip replacement, and the hospital has told him that he has to wait at least another three months but that it could be another 12 months after that. I can tell honourable members opposite that that man will not be impressed with this performance in this game that is being played today in the House. This is a problem facing hundreds of thousands of Australians. We should be debating what the Government will do about it to help ordinary Australians with these sorts of problems, instead of wasting the House's time with this petty and irrelevant motion. Let us take another problem. Hundreds of thousands of families are really feeling the pinch. There are people who do not buy meat for their families as much as they used to because they cannot afford it. Children wear tight shoes because mum defers buying them new shoes. Instead of helping families, the Government is just taxing them out of existence. In real terms an average family is about $1,500 worse off under the Government's maladministration. To put it another way, in March 1983 effective net tax payable on average weekly earnings by a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children was $52.12 a week. After the phony tax cuts in July 1987 that person will be paying $94.50 a week. That is an extra $42.38 a week going to this Government to be squandered. It is just slugging the lives out of ordinary Australians. People do not want to hear about this motion. They want to hear that the Government at least understands these problems, and they want to know what it will do about them. Let us look at interest rates and housing. In my State, Victoria, accordingly to figures prepared by the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the average house payment is up from $405 to $609 per month. That is a 50 per cent increase from March 1983, when the Hawke Government was elected, to last September. The Prime Minister is okay; he is in the Lodge. He is all right. He does not have to worry about that. We have the Treasurer-I am all right, Jack. He has his $17,000 travelling allowance, and he is still getting it. That is why Government members are not worried about what ordinary Australians are facing every day. Most Australians just cannot afford things, and it is about time the Government woke up to itself and started to address these problems, instead of putting before the House this sort of irrelevant motion. This situation is not getting any better. Interest rates are moving upwards, and in Victoria we have the additional burden of a Cain Labor Government that is slugging people through rates, in particular water rates. The tax package, of course, also contains some well disguised time bombs for home buyers. The capital gains tax taxes family homes, contrary to all the assertions that have been made. People listening to the proceedings tonight want to watch out. Labor has been saying that the family home is exempt from the capital gains tax. That is not true. I suggest that people keep an eye open for this because Labor taxes family homes. I have it in writing. If honourable members want to see it from the Commissioner of Taxation or from the Treasurer, I will be happy to make a copy available to them. Many people will feel cheated when they realise that, contrary to Labor's assertions, family homes are subject to capital gains tax. That is the grim picture for home owners but it is as bad, if not worse, if one is renting one's home. Private dwelling rents are rising rapidly, thanks to Labor's capital gains tax and the abolition of negative gearing. The waiting lists for public housing have grown since the coalition left office in 1983 from 123,700 to 157,600 in June 1986. The situation is also pretty grim in the rural areas. I take just one example because it is relevant to my electorate of Flinders. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics figures for horticulture show a real rate of return, including capital depreciation, of minus 13.5 per cent in 1986-87 and a very modest average farm income of $7,400, or $3,900 per horticulture farmer. That is just not good enough. We have a national debt of $100 billion. We ought to be trying to build up our economy to give these people some encouragement so that they can get into the export markets and start to turn this country's fortunes around. It is not good enough for a Labor administration to move a motion like this today which is absolutely irrelevant to the problems of Australians who may well be listening. I have been citing some of the national figures. But the effects of bad government are also everywhere to be seen at the local level. It is frustrating for me as a member to have people come to me with the reasonable complaints, demands and expectations of communities and find that those expectations are not being met because the Government, through its maladministration, is throwing taxpayers' money down the drain. Just to put this debate at the national level into some perspective for ordinary Australians, I mention just three areas of neglect by this Government in my electorate. The first is the funding of an extra 10 nursing home beds at the Kooweerup Hospital. This important project has been held up by a lack of capital funds. Road funding is not often placed high on the national agenda and in the Press. Road funding is important for all areas but it is particularly important for rural municipalities in which the rural economy is so dependent on a decent road system. I think of the requirements of the shires of Bass, Cranbourne and Korumburra. There is also a very real need for additional nursing home beds at Rosebud on the Mornington Peninsula. None of the reasonable expectations of communities in those areas will be met when we have the sort of administration we have in this country today. Australia has not been doing well by any standard. That is why our credit rating has been dropped by the world's two largest credit agencies. That is why, as every second ticks by, as I speak, our nation's debt increases by $1,300. That is why our national debt is over $100,000m. I have spoken for 11 or 12 minutes, so the debt has gone up by about $1m in that time. Thanks to Labor-thanks for nothing-this country is in a mess. But we can and must turn the situation around. Only a coalition government can provide this country with the direction and the leadership it needs. If we want a starting point, instead of making futile and silly interjections, members on the other side ought to pick up the Notice Paper in front of them and look at the comprehensive amendment which the Opposition has moved which gives some direction to the steps which this country ought to be taking to get out of its problems. Honourable members opposite ought to wake up because Australians are being hurt by their policies. Australians will not put up with this sort of maladministration forever. I can see the end of the tunnel but it is blocked by the Labor Government. The sooner we remove that Labor Government, the sooner we will be able to see the light and move out into it. That will be a good day for this country. It will be a day when we can start to get our act together. Debate (on motion by Mr Griffiths) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Cohen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(10.46) —Listening to the debate this evening, it struck me-in some respects our side of the House is also guilty of a transgression-that we have been engaged in an auction this evening. We go out and tell the people of Australia what we have been able to achieve in four years. Of course, in objective terms, I think that we have a very commendable record across a whole range of criteria that impact upon ordinary Australians. Members of the Opposition, of course, march in here, as I suppose they have done since time immemorial, and indicate to the Australian people the terrible taxes that we have brought in. They tell us which they will abolish. They appeal to sectional interest groups and by way of auction they seek to gain the confidence of the Australian people. But it seems to me that a much more important issue is before this Parliament. In a very subtle way, what this Parliament is now discussing is fundamental. It goes very much to the core of what Australia has been about since its inception and, hopefully, what it will be about for some decades yet. This was summed up recently for me in what was said by a very famous Australian, Paul McNamee, who, as is customary, was asked to make a few comments on being made the king of Moomba. I do not know Paul McNamee's politics, nor, frankly, do I particularly care. But Paul McNamee did something that unfortunately has become somewhat atypical. In responding to the high honour that had been bestowed upon him, and having regard to his success in perhaps the most competitive environment-that is, international sport-he took time out to reflect on the role of those who are successful and who owe society something. He reflected on what some people ought to do for the disadvantaged in our community. That made a great impact on me because he brought to my attention something that has been missing from the debate in Australia for probably two or three years. It seems to me that unless you are a politician who articulates a particular philosophical viewpoint or a person engaged in some institutional role in which it is your duty to articulate a point of view on behalf of disadvantaged persons, we really do not hear any public comments from a whole range of people, including those outside the strict parameters of politics, about the disadvantaged in our community. I think that is a very sad thing. Indeed, a massive change has taken place. I can recall vividly as a young person-- Mr Cohen —You still are young. Mr GRIFFITHS —Well, I am aging rapidly but I accept the comment of my colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment that I have a couple of years left in me yet. Years ago, when people accepted an accolade or an award, it was almost universal that in so doing they would acknowledge that there were people in the community who, by dint of circumstance or by dint of not having chosen their parents in material terms perhaps as carefully as some of our colleagues in the Opposition might have done, were less advantaged. For whatever reason, circumstances conspired to make them fall into a category of less advantaged people in our community. I will conclude my brief five-minute contribution simply by saying that it is a sad thing when this Parliament demeans itself by engaging in what I consider to be an absurd auction. What we are all talking about, which unfortunately we will never get through to the people on the other side of the House, is that at the end of the day we are talking about real people out there. Those real people will suffer if the Opposition comes into this House as a government. It has been the traditional role of the Australian Labor Party to protect those people. Forgetting all the rhetoric, we will continue to do just that. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.51) —What a fascinating contribution we have just had from the Left tonight. Mr Griffiths —Hey, hey! I am a right winger. Mr CADMAN —The honourable member could have fooled me. If this attitude to the well-being of the country were to be matched by government action, we would see quite different policies from this Government. For instance, who would have thought that a Labor government would introduce policies that would massively increase the number of people on Housing Commission waiting lists around Australia? I remember old Tom Uren coming into this chamber-- Mr Cohen —That's enough of the old. Mr CADMAN —He is retiring. Mr Cunningham —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Standing Orders clearly point to the fact that a member should be referred to by his seat and not `old Tom Uren'. I think he should be correctly addressed as a Minister or referred to by his seat. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The point of order is correct, but I rather felt it was a term of affection. Mr CADMAN —It was indeed, Madam Speaker. I remember the current Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) coming into this chamber when the Labor Party was in government under Gough Whitlam, and he talked passionately about the needs of welfare housing. He not only talked about it but also convinced his Government actually to do something about it. Under this current Labor Party we see that the number of people on the housing waiting list is just sky-rocketing. Young couples seeking to purchase their first homes are facing a 17.5 per cent basic borrowing rate to purchase those homes. Mr Cunningham —Where? Mr CADMAN —At any bank or building society. The honourable member should ask them, and then he should try to take out a cocktail loan, as they have to, with finance company money wrapped up with it at 21 per cent. What a dreadful situation for the Labor Party, which claims to be concerned for people and then has policies that produce these effects! We remember the Treasurer (Mr Keating) saying in the early days: `She'll be right. Trust me'. He is still saying ad nauseam in this chamber: `Don't you worry about that. It is all under control'. But it is not under control and honourable members opposite know that it is not under control. They know that this Government has borrowed too much money. They know that there has not been the discipline on the management of government that they would need to have in order to restrain expenditure. They know that their priorities have been so subverted by people seeking to make a minority claim on the funds of government that they have missed the mainstream issues and needs of Australia. Who would have thought that the Labor Party would postpone pension increases for the elderly at Christmas time? Coming up to the Christmas period the Labor Party delayed the payments to pensioners. I think it is appalling that Australian families today are $31 per week worse off than they were in 1983. That takes into account wage rises, tax falls and everything else. In real terms, families are $31 per week worse off. We have problems with welfare housing, with the cost of housing, with families that are worse off, and record breaking bankruptcies in small businesses. The employers, who are going broke, are the people who provide jobs and who should bring about the economic recovery that members of the Labor Party talk about. On top of that, the most massive factor in the Government's Budget is the constant need to raise the capital and the interest charges needed to repay the money that the Government has borrowed-from overseas, from the Australian people and from all and sundry. It is no wonder that the Treasurer can say: `We have done some things'. But on the basic issues of the real needs of people, whether it be through the superficialities of this Government's policies towards the young, the conjuring tricks that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) contributes every day, or the postponement of the pension increases for the elderly, in every area this Government has missed the mark. That is a tragedy for a great party such as the Labor Party. The man I referred to-the current Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services-must be ashamed of the processes that this Government has adopted. It is all right to be led by those people who will not go near their electorates and who will not go into supermarkets. But the real theme of the Australian Labor Party has been missed because its back bench is superfluous to its current front bench. It is not listening and it is not facing any of these issues. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(10.56) —Madam Speaker- Mr Gear —What a terrible speech! Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Canning will resume his own seat. If he keeps interjecting I will stop him. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I rise in this adjournment debate to follow the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). He is the first year apprentice for the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) after his performance on television this morning, as he tried to get in on the act of, and behave in the same way as, the honourable member for O'Connor. I wish to say- Madam SPEAKER —I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that the honourable member for O'Connor has unreservedly withdrawn and apologised for the remarks he made. The Chair has accepted his apology. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Madam Speaker, I thank you for your advice in relation to that matter. Mr Cadman —Maybe you should withdraw those remarks. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I withdraw any remarks that I may have made that offended the honourable member for Mitchell. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member. Mr CUNNINGHAM —The matter which I wish to raise tonight follows the debate that has been going on in this Parliament almost all day today and has been one of the issues that have been discussed around Australia particularly over the last couple of weeks. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McMillan may not allude to the debate that was before the House earlier today. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I wish to refer to a matter that occurred subsequent to the debate that occurred today. Madam Speaker, I think you will realise that it is a topical issue. I would like to make a few comments which relate to it. Over the last couple of days we have heard many speakers addressing the issue that Aus- tralia's major problem is that we are buying more goods from overseas than we can afford to pay for with our exports. This is a typical example that most families have to face up to at some time in their lives. Businesses have to face up to it when there is a downturn in their business transactions, when the income coming into either the business or the family is not enough to pay for their expectations. They suddenly find that their income does not match their expenditure on the goods that they have been purchasing over a number of years and they have to make adjustments to it. That is a very simple equation of where Australia is at present. One strange thing I cannot understand is that members of the Opposition, in all their debates, give the impression-I do not think for a moment that they believe it-that there is a possibility that some people in the community can have more money placed in their pockets to give them more funds to buy imported goods at a time when the national economy cannot afford it. I am saying that those in the community who have plenty and who are quite well off are in a position to buy imported goods but this is not the case for the poor in the community. Are we going to take a policy position, as has been espoused by the Premier of Queensland or perhaps the National Party of Australia or the Liberal Party of Australia, that we can give money from the public purse back to those who have fringe benefits or to those who are making profits on capital gains and that they should not contribute to the public purse? In other words, for every $100,000 that is available in that area, 49c in the dollar should be handed back to them so that they can buy a Mercedes-Benz or another BMW and add to our debt on the world scene. Who pays for those products? Who pays for our imports? It is not the person in a four-wheel drive vehicle who heads up the path in the national forest to where our timber industry workers are working. It is the person in the community who exports goods who pays for our imports. At present we have in Australia this spectacle where the Opposition is saying that more money should be placed in the hands of the wealthy. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned till 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Kerin to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend section 15 of the Wheat Marketing Act 1984. Dr Blewett to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the National Health Act 1953, and for related purposes. Dr Blewett to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to establish an Australian Institute of Health, and for related purposes. Mr Duffy to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act 1942, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 24 February 1987: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor- General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Bankruptcy Act 1966-Amendments made by Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1986-2 March 1987. Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984-Section 37-1 March 1987. Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Act 1980-Sections 24 and 34-1 March 1987. Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No 4) 1986-Paragraph 55 (2) (b)-1 March 1987. Section 55-1 March 1987. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4291) Mr Hunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What is the (a) value of and (b) percentage of foreign exchange earnings, in both percentage and dollar terms, for the years 1979-80 to 1984-85 for the (i) agricultural industries, except wool, (ii) wool, (iii) minerals, (iv) petro-chemicals, (v) other mining sector industries, (vi) manufacturing, and (vii) other export industries sector. (2) What is the (a) interest and capital repayments made to overseas lenders, (b) profits expatriated overseas, (c) capital equipment imported to Australia, and (d) other payments made overseas for each industry sector in part (1). Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The attached table sets out Australia's major exports by broad commodity groups in terms of their value and percentage of total exports for the years 1979-80 to 1985-86. (2) (a) The levels of interest and capital repayments made to overseas lenders are not available on a sectoral basis. (b) The latest information available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on income payable on direct foreign investment in enterprises by selected sectors is set out below: INCOME PAYABLE ON DIRECT FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN ENTERPRISES BY INDUSTRY SECTOR ($A million) 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 Agriculture... 11 -2 -24 -7 -2 Mining... 497 472 180 138 421 Chemicals, Petroleum and Coal Products... 170 156 149 58 149 Manufacturing... 429 471 594 -31 602 Other Industries... 867 723 621 477 909 Total... 1,974 1,820 1,520 635 2,079 Source: Foreign Investment Australia, 1983-84 ABS Catalogue No. 5305.0. (c) Data for imports of capital equipment are not available on a sectoral basis. However, data for total imports of capital equipment between 1979-80 and 1985-86 are set out below: IMPORTS OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT TO AUSTRALIA ($A million) 1979-80-2,610 1980-81-3,715 1981-82-4,637 1982-83-4,357 1983-84-4,932 1984-85-6,583 1985-86-8,094 (d) The information requested on other payments made overseas for each industry in part (1) is not available. EXPORTS 1979-80 $m % of Total 1980-81 $m % of Total 1981-82 $m % of Total 1982-83 $m % of Total 1983-84 $m % of Total 1984-85 $m % of Total 1985-86 $m % of Total RURAL EXPORTS Meats ... 1,729 9.3 1,593 8.5 1,380 7.2 1,675 8.1 1,393 5.9 1,372 4.7 1,700 5.3 Cereals ... 2,957 15.9 2,339 12.5 2,484 13.0 1,849 9.0 2,773 11.7 3,855 13.2 3,900 12.1 Sugars ... 719 3.9 1,199 6.4 784 4.1 608 2.9 676 2.9 615 2.1 646 2.0 Wool and sheepskins . 1,790 9.6 1,920 10.3 1,875 9.8 1,789 8.7 2,000 8.4 2,573 8.8 3,069 9.5 Other (dairy, fruit, etc.) 1,653 8.9 1,636 8.7 1,752 9.2 1,984 9.6 2,132 9.0 2,429 8.3 2,958 9.2 Total Rural ... 8,848 47.6 8,687 46.4 8,275 43.4 7,905 38.3 8,974 37.9 10,844 37.1 12,273 38.1 NON-RURAL EXPORTS Metal ores and minerals ... 3,306 17.8 3,409 18.2 3,456 18.1 3,852 18.7 4,229 17.9 4,718 16.2 5,000 15.5 Mineral fuels- coal and briquette . 1,686 9.1 1,981 10.6 2,295 12.0 3,078 14.9 3,338 14.1 4,665 16.0 5,223 16.2 other ... 427 2.3 497 2.7 846 4.4 1,046 5.1 1,427 6.0 2,346 8.0 2,287 7.1 Petro chemicals*... N.A. N.A. 20 0.1 21 0.1 12 0.1 10 .0 10 .0 16 .0 Metals and metal manufactures ... 2,027 10.9 1,686 9.0 1,627 8.5 1,912 9.3 2,192 9.3 2,508 8.6 2,717 8.4 Machinery and transport equipment ... 798 4.3 912 4.9 1,053 5.5 1,150 5.6 1,379 5.8 1,659 5.7 1,620 5.0 Other ... 1,497 8.1 1,527 8.2 1,513 7.9 1,701 8.2 2,131 9.0 2,461 8.4 3,088 9.6 Total Non-Rural ... 9,741 52.4 10,032 53.6 10,808 56.6 12,751 61.7 14,706 62.1 18,367 62.9 19,951 61.9 Total Exports ... 18,589 100.0 18,719 100.0 19,083 100.0 20,656 100.0 23,680 100.0 29,202 100.0 32,224 100.0 * Full Title-Residual petroleum products not otherwise specified and unrelated materials. (Question No. 4970) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: (1) When will the new allocation principles, which will govern methods by which Federal funding will be distributed within each State to local authorities, be approved. (2) Is it a fact that between 40% and 75% of the 835 local councils in Australia will find themselves disadvantaged by the new principles. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The States and the Northern Territory are required under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986 to submit the principles of allocation to me by 1 July 1987. My Department is currently consulting with all States and the Northern Territory on these principles. I will be assessing each State's submission of principles as it comes forward, and will ensure that the States' requirements with respects to timing of implementation of principles is taken into consideration in the approval process. (2) As I said in my Second Reading Speech, the principal objective of the new Act is to provide general purpose financial assistance to those councils that are most disadvantaged with respect to their abilities to raise revenue and to provide services. The States and the Northern Territory are currently developing principles with this objective in mind. As none of these principles have yet been submitted to me I am not in a position to assess how many councils are likely to receive increased grants over time and how many decreased grants. It is my intention to work with the States to obtain a more equitable distribution of financial assistance grants than may exist at present. I will ensure that any changes in the level of grants to councils are phased in a gradual manner over a number of years so as to avoid disruption to the local government system. (Question No. 3744) Mr Baldwin asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 April 1986: (1) What are the names of all those persons who have been authorised to institute, or in any other way conduct, proceedings on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions at any time since the inception of the office. (2) Were any of those persons not legally qualified; if so, who were they and for what reason was each person chosen. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It should be noted at the outset that section 10 (2) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 preserves the right of any person to institute or carry on proceedings for commitments or for summary conviction in respect of an offence against Commonwealth law. Most prosecutions for a Commonwealth offence are in fact instituted by an Australian Federal Police or other Commonwealth officer, with the Director carrying on the prosecution pursuant to section 6 (1) (e) of the Act. Section 15 of the Act specifies a number of classes of persons (all of whom are legal practitioners) who may represent the Director in proceedings instituted, taken over or carried on by the Director. As identification of each person who represented the Director would involve examination of each case file, it is not practical to identify all persons who have represented the Director pursuant to section 15. Apart from past and present members of the Office, those persons would also include all solicitors and counsel in private practice who have been briefed to represent the Director since the commencement of the Office in March 1984. Pursuant to section 15a of the Act the Director may be represented in proceedings for commitment or summary conviction by a member of the Australian Federal Police, or a member of the police force of a State or Territory, whether or not the member concerned is a legal practitioner. Again, it is not practical to identify all members who have represented the Director pursuant to section 15a. Section 15a is mainly used to enable police prosecutors to represent the Director in minor matters being heard in remote localities where it is not practicable for a member of the office to appear, or the costs involved in so doing would not be warranted. The following persons have been authorised pursuant to section 319b (2) of the Criminal Code of the Colony of Singapore in its application to the Territory of Christmas Island to conduct prosecutions before the District Court or the Magistrate's Court in that Territory: Victor Aubrey Young, Inspector of Police, Christmas Island Allen Cockcroft, Superintendent of Police, Christmas Island Garry McNiell Rutherford, Barrister and Solicitor, Office of the Director of Legal Services, Perth John Thomas MacKenzie, Inspector of Police, Christmas Island Bernard Arthur Smith, Superintendent of Police, Christmas Island. Only Garry McNiell Rutherford was a legal practitioner at the time of authorization. The following persons have been authorised by the Director pursuant to section 9 (2) (b) of the Act to sign indictments for and on behalf of the Director- Peter Holloway Clark, Walter Antonio Mesiti, William Ian Nairn, Walter Denis Baker, Anthony David Davies, Bryan Francis Rowe, Robert Francis Greenwood, QC, Kerry John Hempenstall, Pierre Mark Le Grand, John Puls, Peter Charles Wood, George William Turnbull, Ivan Gregory Brown, Ian David Francis Callinan, QC, Allan Chapman Saunders, QC, Joseph Xavier Gibson, QC, Brian Anthony Doherty, William Kimmins, Raymond Eddy Neal, Robert Chisholm Webster, Peter Julian Walshe, Justin William McCarthy, Henry James Wheeler, John Christopher Parker, John Owen Jerks, Roy Edward Kasper, John Denis Pyne, John Timothy Lynch, Kenneth Paul Bates, Sean Walter O'Sullivan, John Raymond Pritchard, John Graham Clark, Justin James O'Halloran, Andrew Ian Fairbank, Ian William Bates, Edward Paul Evans, Terence Peter Griffin, Gregory Eugene Smith, Anthony James Wadick, Terence Michael Gardner, Peter Donald McNab, Reginald Francis Hiscock, Michael Henry Peedom, John Greville Smith, Ian Russel Bermingham, Robert Frank Redlich, Thomas Anthony Sherman, Paul Thomas Halliday, Grant Robert Nieman, Brian Edward McMillan, Anthony Joseph Gaynor. However, it should be noted that for reasons of administrative convenience recent authorisations pursuant to section 9 (2) (b) of the Act have not been to named individuals but to the person from time to time holding, occupying or performing the duties of a specified office or position within the office of the DPP or relevant office of the Director of Legal Services. All of the persons authorised pursuant to section 9 (2) (b) were legal practitioners as defined in section 3 of the Act at the time of appointment. In addition, at the request of the Director the following State Crown law officers have been appointed pursuant to section 69 of the Judiciary Act 1903 to prosecute indictable offences against the laws of the Commonwealth- Graeme Fredrick Scott, Michael John Murray, QC, Peter Apostolos Panegyers, Kevin Horace Parker, QC, Paul John Rice, Christopher John Sumner, Paul John Lawrence Rofe, John Allen Coldrey, QC, James Howard Morrissey, QC, Leonard William Flanagan, QC, Allan Chapman Saunders, QC, Joseph Zavier Gibson, QC. All of the above persons were legal practitioners at the time of appointment. (Question No. 3853) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) Has the Director of Public Prosecutions received from the Commissioner of Taxation a request for an opinion and further proceedings concerning sales tax evasion through use of exemptions available to charities relating, in particular, to consideration of the report in the Sydney Morning Herald, of 19 April 1984, entitled ``Boys Club Papers gone clerk says''; if so, does the request concern allegations (a) that documents usually kept at the Head Office of the NSW Federation of Police Citizens Boys' Clubs recording motor vehicles registered in the name of the Federation were missing, (b) of a false pretence, that certain motor vehicles were represented to be purchased for a Police Citizens Boys' Club at the State Government contract price between 1976 and 1979, that is, at a price free of sales tax and (c) that the Federation's representative had searched the files of the Federation of Police Citizens Boys' Club and could find no record of purchases of certain vehicles, additional to 2 authorised vehicles. (2) Has the Director of Public Prosecutions provided opinions on these allegations; if so, will he make them available. (3) Has the Director formed the view that any prosecutions should be initiated. (4) Have any prosecutions commenced; if so, (a) against whom (b) for what offence or offences and (c) what progress has been made. (5) If not, when are prosecutions anticipated and when will information concerning the proceedings be made available. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I have been informed by the Director of Public Prose- cutions that on 28 October 1985 certain enquiries were made by the Australian Taxation Office of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning a possible evasion of sales tax involving the purchase of vehicles between 1976 and 1980 by Mr Christopher Robin Jones purportedly on behalf of the New South Wales Federation of the Police Citizens Boys' Club. This was not a request for an opinion and no advice was given. Rather the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions made suggestions as to further lines of inquiry that should be made. No brief of evidence has been referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and accordingly no decision has been made as to whether a prosecution should be instituted for any offence or offences against Commonwealth law. (Question No. 3854) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) Has the Director of Public Prosecutions received from the Commissioner of Taxation a reference for an opinion on the question of prosecution of any individuals, organisations or corporations arising from investigations into allegations of sales tax evasion on motor vehicles sold using exemptions available to charities. (2) Has the Director formed the view that any prosecutions should be initiated. (3) Have any prosecutions been commenced; if so, (a) against whom, (b) for what offence or offences and (c) what progress has been made. (4) If not, when are prosecutions anticipated and when will information concerning the proceedings be made available. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I have been informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that apart from the matters outlined in the answer to Question on Notice No. 3853, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has not received a request for an opinion from the Commissioner of Taxation concerning the matters outlined in the question. (Question No. 3855) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: Has the Director of Public Prosecutions received from the Commissioner of Taxation a request for an opinion, advice and further proceedings concerning the evasion of sales tax through using exemptions available to charities relating in particular to a purchase of a Mercedes Benz motor vehicle valued at $50,000.00 less tax of $6,325.24 said to have been acquired for Art Union Boys' Club No. 14 in aid of the Parramatta Police Citizens Boys' Club. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I have been advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions that, apart from the matters outlined in the answer to Question on Notice No. 3853, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has not received a request for an opinion or advice from the Commissioner of Taxation concerning the matters outlined in the question. (Question No. 3926) Dr Klugman asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: (1) What has been the cost to the Commonwealth of the Social Security Fraud Trial involving members of the Greek Community? (2) What further costs are expected? Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Exhaustive costing of the proceedings is not available. The Commonwealth's disbursements for its own legal expenses were $2,733,852 and legal aid disbursements up to February 1982 amounted to $1,030,833. The Minister for Social Security stated the cost to the Commonwealth in June last as being more than $10 million and I would certainly not disagree with that figure. I am not however aware of any comprehensive and detailed calculation of the cost and do not think it would be desirable to deploy further resources in order to obtain such a calculation. (2) Dame Roma Mitchell estimated that the cost of implementing her recommendations was $7,406,337, including an amount of $1,239,287 for costs of the three medical practitioners and the clinical psychologist in the committal proceedings and proceedings associated therewith. The Government has agreed to implement these recommendations. No estimate has been made of costs involved should claimants not settle their claims in accordance with the recommendations. (Question No. 4811) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) Is it a fact that (a) $868,005 has been allocated to the proposed yabbie farming project at the Gerard Aboriginal Reserve, Winkie, South Australia, since September 1983 from the Federal and State Governments and the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC), (b) due to difficulties in obtaining water diversion rights and a power supply, together with concern by the ADC regarding construction methods, this project has been lying dormant since February 1985, (c) an independent ADC inquiry estimates that a further $612,000 would be required to complete the project and (d) weather conditions are constantly eroding and deteriorating work already completed. (2) Will he set aside additional funds to ensure the completion of this scheme. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows. (1) I am informed by the ADC that the situation in relation to this part of his question is as follows: (a) Yes. (b) Stage 2 has not commenced as Gerard Council has not taken up the Stage 2 funding being offered by the CEP Secretariat and the State Government because engineering reports commissioned by the ADC indicate that completion costs had been significantly underestimated. (c) Yes. (d) Yes. (2) It is a matter for the ADC to determine its own priorities for Aboriginal enterprise assistance in regard to the provisions of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980. (Question No. 4942) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: Why are working holiday visas for persons under 25 years of age restricted to married couples without children or single persons. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The intention of the Working Holiday Maker Scheme is to allow young people holidaying and travelling in another country the right to work in order to supplement travel funds. It provides young people with wider opportunities to appreciate the culture and general way of life of another country for the purpose of promoting mutual understanding. The groups intended to benefit from this facility are young single people, or young people who have been married only a short time, who are able to move about freely in keeping with the spirit of the Scheme unencumbered by personal or career related considerations. A recent survey indicated 95 per cent of working holidaymakers entering Australia are single, they travel extensively and mostly work in service occupations as cleaners, hotel/motel staff, waiters etc. To offer this facility to couples or persons with young children would be to change the fundamental nature of the Scheme.