Wednesday, 13 May 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.01) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) standing order 48a (adjournment of House), as amended by sessional order, be suspended for this sitting; (2) the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 9 a.m., and (3) government business take precedence of general business for the next sitting. The suspension does away with the automatic adjournment to enable the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to deliver the May statement at 7.30 tonight. The motion also provides for a 9 a.m. start tomorrow, in order to give precedence to government business and, as I have informed the Opposition, it is basically for the introduction of new legislation, which will be dealt with in the week when we return. It will also extend the time available for debate on the very important imputation package, which honourable members have required, including the introduction of the all-important industrial relations legislation and a number of Bills associated with the May statement. Also, of course, provision is being made for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to respond to the May statement tomorrow night. This means that we should still be able to get somewhere in the vicinity of seven hours of debate on the imputation legislation. As honourable members know, this week's sitting has been additional to the sitting weeks originally scheduled when we came back for this session of parliament. I am told by the Manager of Opposition Business, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), that he would prefer to extend the sittings to include next week-so we could sit six weeks straight. Mr Goodluck —No! Mr YOUNG —I know that the honourable member for Franklin expresses the view of all honourable members in this House. Members do have other obligations outside the Parliament in terms of looking after their electorate and occasionally seeing their families. So, the Parliament will not be sitting next week, but in relation to the week when we return, it is envisaged that two days will be available for debate on the industrial relations package and two days will be put aside to deal with the legislation which may arise from the May statement. All that legislation is essential and it must be passed, according to the resolution of the Senate, by 1 June. So, we are on track in terms of dealing with the legislation before the House. As usual, the Government is conducting the affairs of this House very efficiently. I thank the honourable members opposite who have been telephoning and congratulating me on the way in which I am conducting the affairs of the House. They have all had plenty of time in which to debate these major issues. These arrangements are agreeable to those members opposite who pressured me into ensuring that we would not sit next week so that they could return to their electorates and do some of their electorate work, so that they could massage their electorates in preparation for the coming election, and also so that they could see their families-which is not an unimportant issue. The Labor Party, which stands for the family, wants to see honourable members return home occasionally. We do not want to see them sitting here all the time, with their wives and children living at home in isolation. It is not very easy on them, and, although some honourable members opposite might like to stay here all the time, we are thinking of their wives and kids at home, so we are not sitting next week. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.04) —It is good to see a Leader of the House (Mr Young) in humorous form, as this place can get pretty dull and he provides at least one thing here-some humour. And it is good to see him also in his new role as a family counsellor. When the Minister says blandly that this action is being taken in the interests of the working of the House, that the Government's legislative program is on track and that things are being managed efficiently, let us understand what he is really saying. When he talks about the legislative program being on track, he is saying that the Parliament will continue to operate as a sausage machine. The House of Representatives, as a debating chamber, is to be reduced to the status of a sausage factory. When he talks about operating efficiently, that is exactly what he means. What we now see is the abject failure of the Government's programming. The Leader of the House sought to blame the Senate. He knows, as we all do, that the Senate passed a resolution of the same kind last year to the effect that it would not deal with business after 1 June, the reason for that being perfectly simple: It wants to know what it has to deal with, just as we want to know what we have to deal with. The Government has had the whole year to get its legislative program on track, and that program is on track only, according to the Minister, because he is able to get it through. It seems that the Government will actually be able to bring in the Bills in its program that it thinks necessary to get through. But the Government does not say that the Bills will be debated properly; no, that does not arise. Nor does the Government entertain the proposition that Bills should be examined properly by the Opposition, or that the Opposition should have sufficient time to consult on the Bills introduced and determine what should be done. No, that is not something the Government wants to take place. We know what this chamber has been reduced to under this Government. It is simply a place through which legislation is rammed, and `rammed' is the only word that describes what takes place. Last week the Leader of the House, in one of his humorous asides when there was an interjection from the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) about the legislative program, - `Where is your legislation?' - said: The legislation will all be here. There will be time for it to go through the party room of honourable members opposite and they will have time to look at it. Let us take one example. Last Thursday the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill was introduced, a major Bill of 45 clauses. It will be brought on for debate today. This means that the shadow Minister who had carriage of the passage of that Bill had to engage in consultation over the weekend and had to give advice to the shadow Cabinet on Monday, and the Bill had to go through the party room on Tuesday. Where is the time to consider that legislation? If we were honest, we would admit that we all know what is taking place - the Government's program is designed to give the Opposition the least possible time to look at legislation. One of the parts of the motion before us says that we should get rid of General Business Thursday. There are 91 private members motions on the Notice Paper. The prospect of those motions being reached is non-existent. As a result of a decision of this Government, the House has increased in size, that increase meaning that private members get less opportunity to debate matters of concern to them. Effectively, this means that unless a member is first or second on the list it is a waste of time putting down notices of motion on the Notice Paper. All honourable members in the House understand, and the people of the country should understand, that effectively there is no opportunity in this place for serious discussion of private members business. The Leader of the House will perhaps say that members can speak in debate; there will be plenty of time for that. Let us consider what happened last night, when the communications package was before the House. By any judgment, that was one of the most important legislative packages ever to come before the House, certainly the most important legislative package in the area of communications. What happened? Nine Opposition speakers were cut off and a number of Government speakers were cut off. The debate was concluded in one day. Does anybody seriously believe that that amounts to the informed examination by Parliament of legislation? It does not, and all honourable members here know that it does not. If Labor back benchers were asked about it, they would concede that it does not. They sit there and, to use the words of Mr Oakes of some years ago, they are division fodder and nothing else. Their function is to get up and vote and then go back to the Caucus room. When they have discharged that function that is it. Let me just turn to one other matter which was raised by the Leader of the House in his role as marriage counsellor to the Opposition and to other members. We welcome him in that role because we think he may discharge it more effectively than his other duties. But in that role he said: `Well look, let us not sit any more time here. Let us not sit next week'. What he is saying is: `Let us continue with the good old sitting patterns'. Last year in the autumn session we sat 43 days; this year we will be sitting 39 days. Everybody knows that we need to sit for more time if this House is to operate effectively, and I believe that most honourable members want the House to operate effectively. Most honourable members want the opportunity for debate. Most honourable members want the time to examine legislation so that what they say can be considered and not rushed. We all know that most of the things in this House are rushed and that people do not have the time to think things through. If the Minister were sincere, and if the Government really believed that we need full opportunity for debate-that is what the Leader of the House said-what would the Government have done? It would have scheduled more time, more sitting weeks. That is what should be done because we are facing the same problem that comes up time and time again. Legislation piles up because the Government has not sorted out its legislative program and the work has to be pushed through. The Minister then boasts of allowing six or seven hours of debate on such a thing as the imputation package. It is rather like what he said last week on the subject of questions when he said: I draw the attention of honourable members opposite and the Manager of Opposition Business, who knows this to be fact, that I have told the Committee that the Government will attempt to see that at least a minimum of seven questions asked by the Opposition each day. Is that not a gracious act on his part? We are told that he will attempt to do that so long as we take no points of order, so long as we permit the Government to answer questions in any way that it damn well wishes to answer them, so long as we permit the Government to be irrelevant, so long as we permit the Government to debate them and so long as we permit the Chair to be placed in the great difficulties in which it is placed when the Government abuses and debases Question Time. It does this not just as a matter of misfortune, not just by chance, but by policy, by deliberation. Everybody here knows that the Leader of the House and Government leaders have a general view towards answering questions, which is to spin them out and make them as long as possible. The Leader of the House says to us that if we are good we will get seven questions asked. Would it not be a very much better thing if we got 10 or 12 questions from each side? Could that not be managed quite simply by Government Ministers answering questions directly, answering them succinctly and not debating them or haranguing. I do not for a moment say that abuses have not taken place in the past; of course they have. But things are noticeably worse. We are getting many fewer questions now than we were during the time of the Fraser Government. If we had at least 10 questions from each side, this would be a very much better chamber because the only time that there is really serious attention to the business of this chamber is when Question Time takes place. I have one last point because I assume that the Minister will say that this is a very responsible Government. I was thinking of something that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said last week. In reference to the Senate not agreeing to Government legislation, he said: We are at the stage in our constitutional history where the Senate is poisoning the Australian parliamentary system. They are strong words and they tell us exactly what the Treasurer thinks of the Senate and what its future would be if he had his way. He went on: Senate quotas of 12 1/2 per cent- He was wrong with that figure. The reason why the quotas are lower is as a result of this Government and legislation supported directly by the Minister at the table. He continued: . . . . mean that almost any splinter group can find representation in the Senate. Is that not too bad? Is it not undemocratic that splinter groups should have representation in the Senate? He goes on: It is becoming a problem for the major parties-in this case the Government-and the whole tradition of Westminster government in having the Senate there, either as a States House, as it was designed to be, or a House of review, and its being put asunder for the basest political motives. There are no rules and no conventions; there is no sense of responsibility, no sense of the Westminster tradition. What is the Westminster tradition about? It is about, among other things, debate of issues in this House; time to debate issues in this House; and, if we need more time to do so, so be it. Let us sit a few extra weeks. When we plan the next parliamentary program, let us add an extra three or four weeks. We know that that will not occur. The Government looks on the Westminster tradition with the same fondness as the Mafia looks on the police. We accept the need to start at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and we accept the other part of the motion which provides that the Treasurer may come in here and, on television, tell us just how bad things are. We do not believe that private members' business should be treated in such an arrogant and contemptible manner and, therefore, we oppose the motion. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.16) —in reply-It is very obvious that the Opposition made a mistake in appointing the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) Manager of Opposition Business. He does not take his job seriously. He is being very flippant about this. It is a very important issue when the Government tries to arrange the business of the House. The honourable member said that the Opposition wants more time to discuss the issues and to ask questions. However, when we ask the honourable member for North Sydney what the Liberal Party's taxation policy is, he cannot tell us. That is the important issue before the Australian people today. The Liberal Party has been in opposition for 4 years and 2 months and it has no tax policy. In January it said that it supported the Government's media policy and yesterday it changed its mind because it could not get agreement between the wets and the dries. Roger Shipton cannot concentrate on the Parliament at all. He has to get pairs all the time to go back-- Mr Shipton —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The Minister is making a reflection on me and, under the Standing Orders, I ask him to withdraw that comment. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw the comment. Mr YOUNG —I withdraw. I certainly did not mean to injure your pride, Roger. As Billy McMahon once said to Clyde Cameron, you always hurt the one you love. (Quorum formed) As I was saying, the Liberal Party claims that it wants more time in the Parliament. Yet, when its members, such as the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred), are under threat of losing their pre-selections, John Elliott, Andrew Hay and Peter Costello from the extreme right wing are running around causing disruption in the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party and are trying to take the seats off the sitting members of this Parliament. For what purpose? It is because they cannot be defended by their leader. We are giving honourable members the opportunity of a few days off next week to return to their electorates to try to straighten things out. It is very important to this Government that we have a formidable opposition. We do not like to see members of the Opposition in their present disarray. It is one thing that they cannot bring forward their taxation policy, even though everybody is now calling for it to be made public. We saw the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), who is waiting in the wings to take over the reins of leadership again, making himself available for the Sunday program last week. He told us what he is going to do when he again becomes the Leader of the Liberal Party. It is fascinating that although the Liberal Party is in such disarray, so many people are emerging as future Prime Ministers of a Liberal government. John Elliott wants to be Prime Minister, Andrew Hay wants to be Prime Minister, and Peter Costello wants to be Prime Minister. Andrew Hay is a character. He is running around Victoria saying that he wants to change the preselection system in Victoria in the Liberal Party. He has been defeated three times under the old system. Why would he not want to change it? He has been knocked off by the honourable member for Higgins, he has been knocked off by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), and he has been knocked off by the honourable member for Bruce. He does not think it is fair that a person of his stature and his standing in the community-this leading employer who has two employees-should have to go through the rigours of actually talking to the rank and file of the Liberal Party out in the suburbs. Why should a person like Andrew Hay have to go and talk to the rank and file of the Liberal Party? Those opposite do not do him justice. They do not understand his position in the community. The honourable member for Higgins ought to have more sympathy for a person like Andrew Hay. It is just not fair that the honourable member has to spend all his time up here and then go back to his branch meetings and talk about some of the more mundane things that affect the lives of the average Australian in the Liberal Party branches while Andrew Hay goes almost unnoticed in this great theatre of Australian politics. As for John Elliott, trying to Fosterise the Liberal Party, why should he have to talk to the common people? Why should a person of John Elliott's standing-No. 1 ticket-holder for Carlton, flying around in this private jet-be brought down from the clouds and have to talk to the average Australian in order to get preselection for the Liberal Party? The honourable member for North Sydney says that we cannot get our legislation in order. What about Opposition members' performance in the Liberal Party and the National Party? Then there is old Joh. He is going to announce the names of some more prominent Australians today to come down here with his team. It is going to be a great presentation of policies at the next election. We are going to have John Howard, or whoever is sitting in the leadership of the Liberal Party, and he will say: `My policy is this, and this is what we will do after the election if we win'. Then we will have Captain No. 2, Ian Sinclair, saying: `No, we are not going to do that. This is what we are going to do'. Then we are going to have the Thunderbolt from Queensland. He will say: `No, we are not doing either of those things; we are going to do something else'. Jim Carlton, the shadow Treasurer, will be saying: `No, we are going to water a bit of each of them down, put them all in the melting pot and see what we come up with'. That is going to be the presentation to the Australian people at the next election. It is going to be similar to what members of the Opposition did yesterday on their media policy. They could not make up their minds whether to support or oppose the legislation, so someone got up and said: `What about some more licences?' `Good compromise! Terrific compromise! Let's grab that. Give that bloke three stars on his chest and an elephant on his wrist'. It is like primary school. We can imagine the excitement in the Party room when someone came up with the idea of another licence. It has not been mentioned for months, and they come in and surprise the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and say: `Gotcha! You never thought of this, did you, Duffy? But we have really stymied you this time'. Members of the Opposition told everybody in Australia in January that they agreed with the Government's propositions, but because they have got their Leader so politically castrated, he walks into his Party room and he has got no leadership there at all. No one listens to him. No one takes any notice of him. On the radio this morning the honourable member for Goldstein said: `I got sacked three weeks ago because of my views on media policy, but I would like to tell everybody in Australia today that I was successful yesterday in the Party room'. So why was he sacked? What happens to him now? Of course, we have the honourable member for Kooyong giving us his views about what the Liberal Party ought be doing. Rather than the honourable member for North Sydney pretending that Opposition members want to spend more time in the national parliament debating Government legislation, they should be advocating `a back to Thredbo' weekend. I do not know whether it would be safe to send them all back there together. Perhaps they could have one Sunday for the wets, one Sunday for the dries, one Sunday for the Nationals, and one Sunday for those who do not fit any of those categories. Let them put their resolutions together and see whether at the end they can have some sort of policy to deal with the mainstream, major issues which will confront Australia in the months ahead. Mr Carlton —Let's get on with the Supply Bills. Mr YOUNG —No; I moved the motion this morning. The honourable member for North Sydney, who does not take his job seriously-he is very flippant about this-has been made Manager of Opposition Business. I am very surprised because he does not care about the responsibilities he now carries. He will not enter into these debates. He waffles on for 15 minutes as though he does not have any additional responsibility at all. I say to him that he is holding a very important job there, which Sinkers did not want to give up. He is a bit grey about not being called the Leader of Opposition Business now. The honourable member for North Sydney will just have to take the job more seriously. The House of Representatives is a very important chamber-this is the Government of Australia. We will not be able to take it more seriously until the Liberal and National parties, the Joh party, the Elliott party and the Andrew Hay party and all the rest of them can sit down and agree to have one policy to oppose the Government's policy at the next election so that the people can make up their minds about who they want to vote for. At the moment the Opposition is in total disarray. As I have said, honourable members opposite cannot concentrate because the higher group in the Liberal Party wants to dismiss all the preselection infrastructure in the Party so it can take over. There is the group out at Monash University which is now declaring Liberal Party policy, involving $13 billion-worth of cuts in government expenditure. The honourable member for Kooyong is just waiting up there in the wings; growing just a little bit like Richard III. There is a modicum of Richard III sitting there; smiling, thinking: `I'll know when to strike'. Not only is he near the throne but also he has actually been on the throne, so he knows what it is like. He just wants to get it back. As I indicated earlier, the Parliament will be conducted in the same positive, efficient, constructive manner that it has been over the four years of Labor Government, since March 1983. The Opposition will have more time than any Opposition has ever had to discuss major pieces of legislation. There will be no guillotining of 19 Bills in a one-day sitting as there was under the former Liberal Party Government. Members will be given the opportunity to debate legislation. Occasionally there will be the need to sit an extra hour or two, as we are doing tomorrow and as we may do in the next week of sitting. It is all to give democracy a greater say, so that members of this House can have more time to debate major issues. In the meantime, I hope that honourable members opposite can be a little more friendly to each other, that they can sit together in the dining room. I do not like, and no one who sits behind me likes, the way in which those opposite separate in the dining room, at different tables, as though they are not friends, as though there is some sort of animosity between them. We would rather see them all at one big table, all drinking out of the same pot so that we know that they are all friends again. We would like to see John Elliott send up a crate of Fosters free of charge to those at the Liberal Party table so they can all have a drink to him. We would like to see Andrew Hay as a guest speaker in their party room, telling them what they have to do while they sit there and listen. I would like to see Peter Costello from Copeman's society talk to them. They can grab some of its ideas, which would be so appealing to the Australian electorate, such as cutting out pensions and knocking down schools. Those opposite have no idea how popular those ideas would be outside. They ought to grab some of those ideas; they are terrific. Closing down the public hospitals would be a great idea. We want to see a great deal more friendliness amongst the Liberal and National Party members. They have had enough fighting. We do not think that it is in the best interests of those parties to continue along the path they are taking. We think that it is very necessary to have a formidable Opposition in the Westminster system. We hope that the Parliament can return to such a situation in the weeks and months ahead. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian (Teller) 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. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. 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. White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Hayden, W. G. Brown, N. A. Snow, J. H. Shack, P. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative Debate resumed from 6 May, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 concurrently with the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.39) —This morning we are debating the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88. The Opposition will not be seeking to block the Supply Bills. However, on behalf of the Opposition, I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) draws attention to: (a) the widespread and growing concern among Australians about their future, (b) fundamental weaknesses in the nation's economy which are revealed in recent key economic indicators, including inflation at 4 times our major trading partners, a $105 billion foreign debt which now accounts for 42.4% of GDP, record relative interest rates, a current account deficit of 6% of GDP which is the highest since the 1950's and the highest taxation in post war history, and (c) the Government's failure to correct these fundamental weaknesses, and (2) calls upon the Government to adopt as a matter of urgency the Opposition's plan to redress the nation's fundamental economic weaknesses and put Australia back on the road to economic recovery, namely: (a) creation of a climate of lower inflation and interest rates by adopting a more balanced policy approach, involving significant and genuine reductions of government spending, (b) abolition of the anti-business taxes, such as the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax, (c) reduction of excessive business regulations and (d) major reform of our industrial relations system. This motion is seconded by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). The debate on the Supply Bills enables this Parliament to examine the Government's stewardship of our national economy. It is a time when we can take stock of how well the Government has managed the economy in the interests of all Australians. After all, the purpose of economic policy, Budgets, May statements, Premiers Conferences, and the like, is not merely to mess about with the economic variables or to make weighty statements in technical terms; the real test of economic policy, the whole purpose of it, concerns how it benefits the individual Australian and each Australian family. If economic policy does not in the long run present benefits, increasing prosperity and a widening economic choice for Australian individuals and families, then it fails utterly in its objectives. In looking at the current situation and the role of the present Government in advancing the cause of the average Australian, we find that they compare very badly indeed with previous periods of government under the Liberal and National parties. After the war, Menzies faced the urgent task of post-war reconstruction by making intelligent use of private enterprise energies to stimulate economic growth, and, equally intelligently, Menzies progressively, in both senses of the word, applied the fruits of that economic growth to establish a safety net for the poor and the disadvantaged that was the envy of most nations in the world. It is worth noting that when Menzies retired, government spending at all three levels amounted to 31 per cent of our gross domestic product; it now amounts to 43 per cent of our GDP. Menzies managed the affairs of this nation very well. One of the legacies of Menzies' success was that we have tended to assume that increasing prosperity was automatically assured. We have since learnt, to our cost, that it is not assured. We cannot blame the rest of the world for that, for the world has always been a chancy and cruel place. We must look to ourselves. Our institutions, our methods, must be flexible enough, resilient enough and clever enough to survive, compete and triumph in a constantly changing world. The aspiring young Menzies of today would place high on his or her agenda the issues of individual and family living standards. So, I repeat, the real issue is not the economy; it is not money supply, government spending, fiscal drag, or the implicit price deflator. The issue is individual and family prosperity; whether Australians can hope to see their horizons continue to widen, not only in the material sense but in relation to all the non-material choices available to those on rising incomes. The best cure for poverty is rising employment and reduced unemployment. The healthiest sign of a prosperous society is rising real incomes amongst the vast mass of people in a country which has full employment. How can we avoid the stark warnings of 8.3 per cent general unemployment and, worse still, 23.1 per cent youth unemployment, with the average length of unemployment having increased from 33 weeks in 1983 to 46 weeks today? Can we afford to ignore the decline in after tax, after home mortgage payment, after health insurance and after inflation cash in the pocket of the average family? A single income family with dependent children on average weekly earnings paid $65 a week tax in March 1983 under the Fraser Government. Now it pays $102 a week. After the great Keating tax reforms are complete on 1 July this year, it will still pay $102 a week. Thus, its weekly tax bill has increased under the Hawke Government by $37. Because of rising interest rates that same family's home mortgage repayments will also have increased by at least $26 a week. If the family has kept up with its basic private health insurance, its after tax cost of that insurance will have risen from $9.60 a week in 1983 to $14.30 a week today, an increase of $4.70 a week. True, over that period the income of that family on average weekly earnings has increased by $119 a week, or 32 per cent; however, prices have also risen over that period by 29 per cent. In real dollar terms, extra income has risen by only $9 a week. To stand still in tax terms alone, compared with its position in March 1983, that family would need a further tax reduction of $15 over and above the 1 July changes. It is clear from an analysis of the Real Estate Institute of Australia that, whereas in 1983 an average family paid 19.2 per cent of its income in home repayments, it now pays 26.9 per cent. In 1983 the average family paid 24.5 per cent of its after tax income on its home mortgage and now it pays 35.2 per cent. That is a crippling burden on the ordinary Australian family. What about the poorer families, the more disadvantaged people, the Government claims to look after? Under the Labor Government, to its eternal disgrace, the number of people on public housing waiting lists has grown from 124,000 under the Fraser Government to 157,000 now. So the party which purports to worry about the poor has thrown tens of thousands more of them on to the public housing waiting list. What about the poverty line? Figures recently released show that, whereas in 1983 1.9 million Australians were under the poverty line-and that in itself is nothing to be proud of-the number has increased to 2.6 million under the Hawke Government. What about the ordinary family's consumer credit-the humble Bankcard? The interest rate on Westpac Bankcard has gone up from 18 per cent in 1983 to 22.3 per cent as at June last year. The National Australia Bank rate will rise, by August next, to 23 per cent. That is the plight of the average family. If the objective of economic policy is to be measured in human terms, as it must be, the plight of the average Australian family, after four years of Labor Government demonstrates the stark failure of the economic policy of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). It can also be measured by the usual economic indicators: the dramatic fall of our dollar since early 1985; inflation five times that of our major competitors; interest rates twice as high; overseas debt rising, on figures released yesterday, to $105 billion; debt absorbing 40 per cent of our export income in servicing costs; public debt interest charges in the Federal Budget higher than our spending on education or health, or even defence; the loss of our AAA international credit rating; high unemployment, especially for youth; the highest level of bankruptcies in many years; and, ominously for the future, the virtual absence of new business investment in productive enterprise. All the hot money is here, taking advantage of our fallen dollar and high interest rates, but there is hardly a skerrick of that lifeblood of further growth and prosperity and of jobs for our workless-the commitment of energetic men and women to new or expanding enterprise. The Government's only excuse for this terrible failure is the decline in the terms of trade, said originally to rob us of $6 billion but which is now said to take $9 billion of our national income. It is not a good enough excuse. The combined effects of the drought, international recession and declining terms of trade, which is not a new phenomenon, cost us when we were in office at least $12 billion in current dollar terms in 1981, 1982 and 1983-yet we in the Fraser Government were able to leave the average family in far better shape, despite the recession, than it is in today. The reason we could do that is that, unlike the present Treasurer, we followed prudent fiscal policies. Unlike the present Treasurer, we did not begin our term of office with an almighty splurge of spending, amounting to an average 7 per cent increase in real terms in his first two Budgets. Unlike the present Treasurer, we entered the recession with a balanced Budget. Unlike the present Treasurer, we had not run up unrepayable overseas debts. Unlike the present Treasurer, we had not defied the laws of economic gravity which, in the end, are very simple. They are the same as in the running of a household. Mrs Thatcher was once asked by a journalist what kind of economist she was. Was she a monetarist or a Keynesian? She replied: `I am a handbag economist'. When asked `What is a handbag economist?', she replied: `A handbag economist is one who spends no more than she earns, who borrows no more than she can repay, and who sets aside something for her children and her grandchildren'. Clearly the present Treasurer has failed the handbag test, and the average Australian family is paying the awful price. This Treasurer has mugged the family and snatched the handbag. So far, we have been looking only at the symptoms of our problem, a serious problem that is at the top of the agenda for Liberal reform. It is not a problem that can be solved simply by legislation, by the redistributive processes available to government when there is something to be redistributed. Nor is it simply an economic problem. Most of the economics is clear enough, as other countries have been successful in finding solutions. The real difficulties lie not in economics but in the changing of institutions, processes and attitudes in ways that make our society more productive. Our objective is to have a prosperous, tolerant and compassionate society, within an aesthetically pleasing physical and cultural environment. We want a free society with expanding opportunities for all. Growing prosperity, widely distributed, will help to reduce tensions and promote tolerance. It will give us the means for the practical expression of compassion for the less well off and for the preservation and improvement of our environment. The problems of Australia's failing prosperity can be divided into two major elements. First, we must deal with the immediate illness, release the patient from trauma, and transfer the patient from intensive care to the recovery ward. Second, we must repair the bodily functions so that the processes of growth and development can resume without further surgery or medication. The immediate sickness problem is what to do about the economy, with $240 billion gross domestic product, with an overseas debt of over $100 billion, with the Government continuing to run an external deficit of $14 billion per annum and a currency which under present policies can be stopped from plunging through the floor only by attracting hot money with high interest rates that are crippling for every business, farm and household. The more deep-seated problem is that of an economy excessively reliant for too long on rural and mineral commodity exports and therefore vulnerable, as it is indeed now, whenever the price or volume of those exports decline. We in the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party have devoted a lot of time and effort to developing solutions to both these elements of the problem. Whilst there has been a lot of shouting outside Parliament, we who joined here before the war started have been getting on with the job of working out those solutions. Last July we released a comprehensive analysis of the problem and our approach to it in the form of our `Policies for Business' document. Most of the external shouting has not been in criticism of that document. Its central thesis has been rejected only by the socialists. I want to tell everyone that we are utterly determined to pursue that framework that we outlined last July. Its conclusions and prescriptions are truly Liberal. It moves well beyond past prescriptions for earlier problems. It tackles the fundamental wealth creation imperative of our time. The question of how that wealth is to be used is a question of equal importance. But that is dealt with in other policy papers such as our policy for the family. Our policy objectives are therefore twofold: First, to take emergency steps to reduce our current account deficit, reduce interest rates and inflation and stabilise the dollar and, second, the far more difficult objective to achieve, to change the whole structure of the economy to make all of it in the traded or potentially tradeable sectors internationally competitive and to ensure that the non-traded sectors, that is, those that are subject only to domestic competition, are as efficient as possible in order to reduce our domestic costs. The most urgent policy need is to take the pressure off the dollar and reduce interest rates by placing less reliance on monetary policies. This must be done by eliminating the Budget deficit as soon as possible, by reducing substantially the public sector borrowing requirements and by restraining wage growth at least in line with that of our overseas competitors. We must have a balance of fiscal, monetary and wages policies. In other words, the rules of handbag economics must apply. We must not spend or borrow more than we can afford nor should we pay ourselves more than we genuinely earn. We have proposed to the Government that it should begin this process by cutting at least $4 billion from the Forward Estimates of Government expenditure in its mini-Budget tonight and take the process on from there in August. We will be watching closely tonight to see that the Government makes genuine cuts in ongoing programs and that it does not try to fudge the issue with deferrals of spending, assets sales, Reserve Bank of Australia profits or increased taxes. But I emphasise that, if people are hurt as a result of tonight's cuts, they will be hurt because of the profligate spending, the recklessness of the present Treasurer in the first two years of this Government. This Treasurer increased public spending in the first two years of the Labor Government almost as fast as Whitlam did, and he began the extraordinary build-up of our domestic and external debt. Mr Cobb —They learnt nothing. Mr CARLTON —This Government has learnt nothing from the Whitlam period, as my friend the honourable member for Parkes points out. It has learnt nothing from that period. It went ahead in the first two years on an almighty spending splurge, an almighty borrowing splurge. If there is any pain tonight it will be pain extracted by a Treasurer because of his past sins. If there is any blame for that difficulty tonight, it rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the present Treasurer. On our return to office we will have no choice but to make substantial cuts in government spending not only to reduce the deficit but also to allow for tax cuts. Just as with essential cuts in household expenditure, we will not be cutting merely for the sake of cutting. The cuts will have three objectives all of practical benefit to individuals and families. First, to reduce interest rates and inflation because they cripple ordinary families-they are crippling them today; second, to provide tax relief for all, with special emphasis on families with dependent children; and, third, to reduce the excessive taxes on business in order to stimulate investment in productive enterprise, leading in turn to increased employment and rising real wage levels. No doubt the need to reduce top marginal rates of tax substantially, to reduce the company tax rate and to remove the Government's anti-business taxes, such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, will be attacked by our opponents as favouring the rich and the powerful. We are sensitive to those charges but we explain our objectives carefully in that, unless a financial incentive is given to those with the capacity to produce more or invest more, we will all have less. The politics of envy do not work. People will work for an incentive at all levels of society. We have to produce a climate of incentive for investment which will once again create prosperity, create jobs for everybody and also provide the taxation revenues with which we can assist the poor. The historian Professor Manning Clark has said that Australian political history is a series of what he regards as exciting Labor governments being succeeded by periods of dull, conservative accounting. There is an element of truth in this, although the Professor understates the major social reforms of Liberal governments. After the Whitlam Government we had to clean up the mess. After the Hawke-Keating Government we will have to do it again. But this time it will not be sufficient merely to clean things up. This time there must be an historic break from this pattern. This time in our period of economic stringency we must create a new excitement about our future based not on our old inward looking industry structure but on a new structure designed to revolutionise our pattern of relationships with the rest of the world. One hundred years ago rural and mineral commodity exports accounted for about 90 per cent of our export income. Today rural and mineral commodities still account for about two-thirds of our export income. It is as though the whole structure of our economy were like a heavy portico that has rested for a century or more on two broad pillars whose strength was never questioned but which now, on closer inspection, are revealed to have been weakened by the relentless pressure of the elements, making it doubtful whether they will continue to support their load. There are other slender columns in place or in the making, such as manufactured exports or foreign tourism, but there is as yet no sign of the impressive collonnade that is needed to support the increasingly grand structure that we have built up above. What we need, therefore, is a ferment of activity across the board, the avenues of investment decided not by government but by the risk takers themselves, motivated by the positive incentives and removal of restraints that we will set in place in our framework for enterprise. Enhancing prosperity will be possible only when Australia once again becomes an attractive place for new business activity and new investment. Achievement of a competitive environment is essential. Without it the community will not be able to enjoy the living standards which for so long it has taken for granted. Each and every policy will help to bring to the forefront once again the historical qualities which developed this nation-qualities of energy, keenness to compete and eagerness to earn more for the individuals and families for their prosperity and for their wider choice. Australia needs the productive energies of all its people to be unleashed. We will re-establish the link between performance and reward. We will restore regard for enterprise and excellence. We believe that there are four broad requirements for this framework for enterprise: First, reduced and restructured taxes, made possible by reduced government spending; second, reduced and less costly regulation of business activity; third, the restoration of the rule of law in industrial relations, and a flexible labour market; and, fourth, rigorous control and reduction of business input costs, especially government taxes and charges. We have done our homework on all of these things. We have worked out where we have to make the changes. We have even drafted legislation in the industrial relations area. We have constructed forward budgets. We know exactly what we have to do. We have been pressed to release early the full details of our taxation policy. We have already released an enormous amount more detail about our taxation policy than the Hawke Government released before the previous two elections. Before the last election those opposite, who each day demand that we release prematurely our taxation policy, promised nothing about tax except to hold a conference. Mr Cobb —What a joke. Mr CARLTON —What a joke that was. Yet every day they say: `Bring out your tax policy'. We want to know the framework within which we will have to apply that policy before we can responsibly release it. How will we know what that framework will be before we hear tonight's economic statement, before we know what happens at the Premiers Conference and before we have seen the August Budget? How do we know in what state those opposite will leave the economy until we see the figures? We will release the further details, filling in the outlines of policies that we have already announced, at a time of our choosing which will be done responsibly, when we know that we can meet our policy commitments. Besides an internationally competitive tax regime, we also need an industrial relations system that encourages co-operation. At the beginning of the nineteenth century a Liberal, Alfred Deakin, set up a conciliation and arbitration system to protect the rights of the workers. The way things have gone, that system no longer protects the rights of the worker. It is, in fact, an instrument for excessive trade union power. We propose to make substantial changes in that system to get the responsibility for co-operation and for productivity back to where it belongs-with the managers and the workers themselves-away from commissions where pretentious judges and others make pronouncements on things about which they know very little and where bullying trade union leaders can interfere in the relationship among people working at the work face. That will be the other essential component of change if we are to restore the fortunes of the average Australian family. All the things that we want to do by way of economic policy objectives are social objectives. We would not have economic objectives without a social objective of improving the lot of the individual Australian and the individual family. Those are the Liberal objectives-the social objectives of Liberal economic policy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! Is the amendment seconded? Mr Cobb —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(11.09) —The Government rejects the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and seconded by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). It is ludicrous for the Opposition to castigate the Government for its alleged failure to correct weaknesses in the Australian economy when we all know that this Government has taken the difficult decisions, the correct decisions, and is getting on with the hard work of getting Australia through a very difficult economic period. Clearly, the results are becoming apparent. The Opposition, when it speaks in its amendment of significant and genuine reductions required in government spending, is being too clever by half when it knows that those reductions will be delivered this evening, and when it knows that the members of its parties, after tonight's expenditure statement, will go out and pander to those interest groups affected by those expenditure cuts. The Opposition is being too clever by half when it knows that its parties have failed to specify the areas in which they would cut if they gained government. The honourable member for Mackellar had an opportunity again this morning in the course of his remarks to specify those areas for expenditure cuts and he failed to do so. On the question of expenditure cuts, the Opposition has a credibility gap as wide as Sydney Heads-from there to the southern border of the honourable member's electorate. Equally, it has an enormous credibility gap on the question of taxation. The Liberal Party has been asked in this place day after day to specify the details of its taxation policy and it has failed to do so. The Liberal Party has a Scarlet Pimpernel taxation policy: We seek it here; we seek it there; and we fail to find it. I think it was suggested only this morning that the delays in the production of the Liberal Party's taxation policy have been so great that there are good grounds for believing that it may be working on the policy as a bicentennial project. However, here is at least a hint in the amendment of some things which the Liberal Party intends to do. The amendment calls for the abolition of the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. There is no doubt that were this country unfortunate enough to have the Opposition parties returned to government, we would return to a taxation system where the poor get poorer and where the rich, once again, will have the opportunity to walk around the taxation system and avoid their responsibilities. The honourable member for Mackellar may have done his homework but he has not yet handed it in for marking. When it is handed in for marking, it will score a very large fail from the Australian people. In this morning's debate on the Supply Bills I take the opportunity to make some comments about the Government's fine record in the tertiary education sector. It is particularly appropriate to do so given the multitude of people camped on the lawn at the front of Parliament House this week. The Government has had an excellent record in the tertiary education sector during its period of office. I remind the House that in our first four years we provided 36,000 new tertiary places, compared with 8,100 under the last five years of the Liberals. Equally, our record in providing improved student assistance has been unparalleled. In the last four years of Liberal government student assistance fell by 18 per cent. In our first four years it rose by 47.4 per cent. There has been some criticism of the Government's performance in tertiary education, culminating in this national week of protest, the evidence of which we see, as I said earlier, on the front lawn. The criticism centres on unmet demand, the higher education administration charge and the administration of Austudy. I turn, first, to the question of unmet demand. It was claimed earlier this year that 30,000 qualified prospective students were unable to get places in tertiary institutions in 1987. That claim, supported by the Opposition, is quite incorrect. While there is some unmet demand, the 30,000 claim is a nonsense. The same claim was made last year. It was examined by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee and the directors and principals of colleges of advanced education. They carried out a research study that showed that, far from 30,000 students unable to gain places, the estimated number was 9,000 to 14,000. This arose because of multiple counting, prospective students applying for places at a number of institutions. Of course, the unmet demand is too high, but the estimate of 30,000 is quite out of court. Whichever figure one accepts on the record, I think we are entitled to ask the question: Which Party has made positive steps to meet the demand for those places? Quite clearly, on the figures that I quote-36,000 under our first four years in office compared to 8,000 under the last four years of the Liberals-quite clearly it is only under a Labor government that that demand will be met. Equally, we might look at what the Liberals propose to do in tertiary education should they be elected to government. One of the things that the shadow Minister for Education has told us is that under a Liberal government there will be no new government-funded places in tertiary education. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) went further than that. On 5 March he was quoted in the Press as saying: A Howard government would need to take into account economic circumstances when deciding whether to maintain the existing number of free places. So there it is. Liberal policy says that no new additional government-funded places will be provided, and the Leader of the Opposition says, in addition, that he cannot even offer a guarantee on the maintenance of the existing places. We are told that members of the Opposition will encourage the development of private universities charging full fees to, as they put it, encourage students to invest in their own future. This, apparently, is incentivation in action. It is a policy that will fail if they ever get the opportunity to put it into action. Private universities, clearly, are one way of meeting this unmet demand, but I do not believe that they are a terribly good way or that they would be a very effective way. For private universities to operate properly, we would need to have a guarantee that they would never, ever, apply for government assistance. I do not think that they can offer that guarantee, and I think that the danger is that they would, in due course, apply for government assistance. I prefer the policy of this Government-that is, to expand opportunities in tertiary education through government-funded places. In this regard I congratulate the Government, particularly the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), on the successfully concluded negotiations which have led to decisions, announced late in March, on the establishment of a university in western Sydney. I have argued for over 14 months that a university should be established in the western Sydney region; that it should commence as a college of an established university, preferably Sydney University; that it should be named after former Prime Minister Ben Chifley; and that it should be established in my electorate. I am very pleased to say that the final decisions met my needs in every single respect. On behalf of the people of my electorate and of the western Sydney region, I want to say `thank you' to the Minister for Education and to this Government. Chifley University College, as it is now known, and Chifley University, as it will become, is very strongly supported throughout the western region of Sydney. On 24 April, last month, there was a meeting of representatives of local government and others from the region-from Auburn in the east to the Blue Mountains in the west, and from Hawkesbury in the north to Campbelltown in the south. That meeting decided to form a foundation, hopefully to be called the Friends of Chifley, to assist in the development of this, Australia's newest tertiary institution. I look forward very much to future developments confident in the knowledge that, under this Government, Chifley University College has a very exciting future indeed. I will turn briefly to the higher education administration charge. Honourable members would be aware that quite a campaign has been waged around the introduction of this charge. We would all have received letters, reports and submissions from individuals and interested groups. There was the very unfortunate incident of the occupation of the Department of Education offices in Sydney some time ago, and more recently offices of the same Department in Brisbane were subjected to some disruption, and this campaign has culminated in a week of protest this week. I accept, as I am sure most people do in this place, that reducing a benefit, by however small an amount, is always an unpopular and painful process. But I believe that given the current economic difficulties which the nation faces, given the need to share the burden of sacrifice, given that last year pensioners were asked to accept a delay of six weeks in their increases due to indexation, it is not unreasonable to ask those students who are better off to make a contribution which amounts to $5 a week towards places in tertiary education costing, on average, $8,500 and paid for by the taxpayer; and remembering, as opponents of the charge hardly ever seem to do, that it does not apply to Austudy recipients or to disadvantaged groups. I think one ought to draw a distinction between Austudy recipients and disadvantaged groups. Let us look at the income limits for part Austudy benefit, remembering that the tertiary administration charge does not apply to those receiving part Austudy. A family with one student at home receives part Austudy up to an income of a little over $27,000. If that student lives away from home, the income limit rises to $32,324. For two students living at home, the income limit for Austudy is $38,294, and for two students living away from home, it is $48,714. All those figures are well above average family income. Last week I received, as other honourable members would have received, a report on this subject from the West Australian Post Secondary Students Organisation-WAPSSO. It makes reference to the administration charge and makes a number of interesting points. I will quote from page 2 of the report: The most common fallacy heard about education is the notion of `Free Education'. I happen to agree, although not in the same terms as the West Australian Post Secondary Students Organisation. Free education, quite clearly, is a meaningless concept-unless academics are now working for nothing. The provision of education is, in fact, quite an expensive business. The point is that it is paid for at present by the taxpayer. What the proponents of free tertiary education really mean is that it should be paid for by someone other than the beneficiary. There may be a case for that, but that case ought to be argued on those grounds and not on some emotional call to a concept of free education. The report from the Post Secondary Students Organisation argues that, in many cases, there is no benefit from tertiary education. It makes the following point on page 3 of the report: Proponents of the re-introduction of tertiary fees argue that graduates from institutions have significantly increased earning potential over others in the community. Therefore any cost incurred in gaining qualifications is a worthwhile investment towards future increases in income. This view in many cases in incorrect. To support this argument it refers readers to census statistics for Western Australia which show that there were more people in the highest income bracket of $26,000-plus with no qualifications than there were with tertiary education qualifications, thus supposedly proving its argument. In fact, the figures that it uses show exactly the opposite. They show that of those with higher degrees, 43.5 per cent earned over $26,000 while only 2.8 per cent of those with no qualifications earned over $26,000. The figures that it used to support the argument in fact prove the opposite. They prove that those with higher degrees are 15 times more likely to fall into that top income bracket. While I have some sympathy for the difficulties that students face, my support and sympathy is certainly not inspired by deceptive use of figures such as this. Those who argue for free education tend to confuse means with ends. Free tertiary education was introduced as a means to an end, not and end in itself. The end was to improve access to tertiary education across the social spectrum. In the 1970s, when fees applied, tertiary institutions overwhelmingly were the preserve of the better off. The abolition of fees was seen as a means of introducing a better balance. After 10 years, the best that can be said is that the social mix has not changed much. There are arguments against that but the facts, nevertheless, are indisputable. I believe that the reason is that the children of families of lower socio-economic status have been failing to complete a full secondary education. To illustrate this point I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table giving the details of the Australian Council for Educational Research survey on participation in education. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Provided the document accords with the guidelines set down by Madam Speaker, it may be incorporated. Leave granted. The table read as follows- ACER survey results on year 12 completion Attribute Percentage ever completed Year 12 (by age 19 in 1984) General finding Father's occupation Professional... 66 Year 12 Managerial... 50 completion White Collar... 42 rates differ Skilled... 27 with social Semi-skilled... 26 status Unskilled... 24 Family wealth Highest wealth quartile... 52 Year 12 Middle 50%... 37 completion Lowest wealth quartile... 25 rates differ with family wealth Rurality First quartile (least rural)... 42 Year 12 completion Second quartile... 35 rates differ some- Third quartile... 37 what with rurality Fourth quartile (most rural)... 34 Achievement (based on word knowledge, literacy and numeracy tests taken at age 10) First quartile (highest achievement)... 63 Year 12 Second quartile... 38 completion Third quartile... 30 rates differ Fourth quartile (lowest achievement)... 14 with earlier achievement Ethnicity Father born in Australia... 34 No evident Father born in another English speaking nation... 33 disadvantage regarding year 12 Father born in a Non-English speaking nation... 49 completion rates for persons from non-English speaking nation backgrounds included in the sample (mainly persons of Greek and Italian origin.) Source: ACER, Participation in Education (Williams) 1986. Mr FREE —I thank the House. The table sets out the details of a survey carried out by ACER in 1986, which examined the relationship between secondary school completion and five variables: The father's occupation, family wealth, rurality, achievement at age 10, and ethnicity. The survey shows that the single most powerful predictor for completion of secondary education to year 12 was the father's occupation. Sixty-six per cent of those whose father fell into the professional level completed year 12 compared with only 24 per cent of children of unskilled fathers. So clearly family background is still the single most important predictor of success at year 12 and, therefore, the single most important predictor of those who will overcome that hurdle to begin tertiary education. The Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Government are correctly focusing on secondary retention rates. We have seen some quite spectacular improvements. The Government and the Minister for Education have adopted an objective of a 65 per cent retention rate by 1992. I add one caveat to that: Achievement at the primary level is also important. If one looks at the survey one will see that the second most important predictor of success at secondary school is achievement at age 10, in primary school, based on word knowledge, literacy and numeracy tests. So there may be a hurdle in the development of basic learning skills at the primary level. For that reason I commend the Government for its work in basic learning in primary schools and for other programs the Government has initiated. Obviously, they will be very important. I commend the Government on the measures taken to increase participation in education. The work that the Government has done is paying dividends now and will continue to pay dividends in the future. Mr COBB(Parkes)(11.29) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Slipper —This will be a truly magnificent speech. Mr COBB —I thank the honourable member for Fisher for his comment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Fisher not assist the honourable member during his magnificent speech. Mr COBB —We are debating Supply Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88. They are concerned with topping up the Budget with capital grants to the States, and with some expenditure on the new Parliament House. I thought it appropriate at the beginning of my speech to read part of a letter from a constituent in the wider electorate of Australia that was received in my office and in offices of other members some time ago. The letter is headed `Taxation and Incentive'. I quote the first four paragraphs. They read: Recently at Wilcannia (N.S.W.) my son, in one day, crutched, wigged and ringed 670 good sized half woolled wethers. Others have reached higher tallies but I quote these figures because I can vouch for their accuracy. Assuming an average body weight of 100 lbs (not excessive for the sheep in question) he would have dragged 30 tons of kicking meat and wool out of the catching pen. Since the distance from the centre of the pen to the shearing stand was 4 yards, he would have dragged backwards one struggling sheep a distance equivalent to one and a half miles (670 x 4 yds)-one every (42 seconds) for 8 hours, not counting time to change combs and cutters. At the end of the 3 days in 39 and 40 degree temperatures he had earned $750 from which $355 tax was taken-(almost half)-taken by gutless ghouls who lost no sweat, no blood, and had no aches and pains in the process. His conclusion when he told me, was `Dad, I'm a . . . idiot, I should get a job in the (Public Service) and knock off at 4 p.m.' The language in the letter deteriorates after that so I will not read any more of it. Nevertheless, that letter encapsulates in a few paragraphs much of what is wrong in Australia today. Those who are having a go and who are doing the real work are being penalised. It is appropriate in the context of that letter to examine how the profligate spending of this Government has put us in the dreadful economic mess in which we find ourselves today. It is interesting to compare this Government with the Whitlam Labor Government. The Whitlam Government was, in many senses, a more open government and set the attitudes for this type of spending that will plague us beyond the year 2000. This Government, even though it is not as open in that sense, is worse in many ways. It has got us in a dreadful position and nothing exemplifies this more than our overseas debt. In 1983 when the Hawke Labor Government took over, Australia's gross overseas debt was somewhere between $25 billion and $30 billion. It took 83 years, since Federation, to arrive at that figure. What is the overseas debt today? We heard in the speech given by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) that that figure has quadrupled, within four years, to in excess of $100 billion. The net debt is rising even faster. As recently as five years ago, in June 1981 the net debt was $9.1 billion which represented 7 per cent of gross domestic product. By June last year that debt had risen sevenfold, in five years, to $65 billion. That is equivalent to 28 per cent of gross domestic product. It has gone up fourfold in relation to gross domestic product. It is an incredible increase. However, if we add the foreign equity investment in Australia to this debt, the net obligation that Australians have to foreigners, as at June last year, is something of the order of $95 billion which is equivalent to about 40 per cent of gross domestic product. That has worsened since then by another 2 1/2 per cent. By any criteria these figures are horrific. A breakdown of the raw figures reveals even more alarming trends. The composition, or the breakup, of the overseas debt can be divided into two components: Government borrowings from overseas, which represent about a third of the total and private borrowings from overseas, which represent roughly two-thirds of the total. When this Government took office in 1983 the government sector borrowed only about one-sixth as much as the private sector. At the end of 1985, after only a couple of years in government, the government sector was borrowing one-half of what the private sector was borrowing overseas. To look at it another way, in 1983 the public sector was responsible for 14 per cent only of the net foreign debt. At the end of 1985 the public sector was responsible for 34 per cent of the net foreign debt. It is also worth looking at the purpose of the borrowings. The Government nowadays uses about 50 per cent of its borrowings to finance current consumption expenditures rather than to finance capital outlays. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with borrowing as such; it depends what it is used for. If Government borrowings are used for investment activity in sound areas they will be returned with goods and services which can be used to generate income, and this income can be used to pay the interest and to repay the debt. There is nothing wrong with that. But an increasing proportion of what we are borrowing is being used in consumption areas such as welfare and health, and to pay interest, et cetera. This cannot continue. It is worth looking at the interest rates paid on these overseas debts. Only a few years ago, the interest rate averages were very low-4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 per cent. Today, they are much higher as we roll over those loans and pay interest rates of 10 per cent to 15 per cent, or even more, for the overseas debts. Therefore, that is also impacting. It is interesting to look at the terms of the loans being taken out by the Government. Once, they stretched over seven, 10 or 15 years; today, as we roll over the loans as they fall due, they are being measured not in years, but in months. Mr Slipper —We are the Argentine of the Pacific. Mr COBB —Yes, we have become the Argentine of the Pacific. Thirty-six or 48 months is not an unusual period for a loan. If our overseas creditors ever decided to call them in, we could be in some considerable difficulty. Mr Slipper —It is ruining the future for our children. Mr COBB —Devaluation has increased our overseas debt because much of it is written in United States dollars or even, sometimes, Japanese yen. It is the bad economic policy of the Government, especially during the past four years, that has devalued our dollar, which in turn has led to the increase of debt. Now, to try to balance our overspending, the Government has fixed record high interest rates that are squeezing the life blood out of the productive sector of the economy. Earlier I gave an example of that when I read a letter from a shearer. It is squeezing the farmer, the small businessmen and everyone else. The Government is pushing up these high interest rates to try to attract foreign money to Australia. That, of course, allows the Government to run Budget and balance of payment deficits larger than would otherwise be possible. In effect, it is allowing the Government to buy time, but it is at a high cost to the nation. As the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) said a moment ago, it will be a great cost to our children who will eventually have to pay back the loans. It is more and more forcing the private sector to borrow overseas. Because the Government tends to borrow the greater proportion of the domestic savings that are available in Australia, it is crowding out the private domestic borrowers. That is not only forcing up interest rates, but forcing our private borrowers to borrow more and more overseas. It does not matter who actually borrows overseas-whether it be the Government or the private sector-because it is the total debt that matters. If the Government borrowed all of its money overseas and the private sector borrowed all of its money in Australia, there would still be the same overseas debt. I think that that should be understood. The Government is crowding out the private sector in the domestic market. It is, therefore, pertinent to look at the question of savings. The latest figures that I have, which are for 1985-86, show that the household sector of Australia saved an amount equivalent to 4 per cent of gross domestic product. However, the public sector borrowing requirement in Australia at the time-that is, the total government borrowings-was equivalent to 5 per cent of GDP. Therefore, the public sector borrowing requirement exceeded our domestic savings by 25 per cent. If we add to that the private sector borrowings, which were also 5 per cent of GDP, that gives a total borrowing requirement for that year of 10 per cent of GDP. Because savings amounted to only 4 per cent of GDP, we ran a current account deficit of 6 per cent of GDP. That means that we drew on the overseas savings of foreigners at a level of 6 per cent of our gross domestic product. All that comes about because the cost of imports and the cost of our overseas interest commitments are exceeding our earnings from exports. As that continues, we increase our overseas debt. To summarise, the net external debt in Australia has risen twenty-fold during the past 10 years. The main cause of that has been the rise in government deficits in the 1980s. Therefore, we must get imports more in balance with exports. We must cut government spending-- Mr Slipper —And throw out Labor. Mr COBB —Of course, we must change the Government. At the same time, we must increase domestic savings, and give people an incentive to do so. While our debt has increased, our capacity to service it has not. For heaven's sake, we are now borrowing to service the existing debt. Our interest bill alone exceeds what we spend on health, education and defence individually. In 1982, we spent only $1.8 billion on interest payments; today, we are spending in excess of $7 billion which is equivalent to 18 per cent of our export earnings being given away in interest payments. If we include the repayments of principal falling due, which are equivalent to 28 per cent of our export earnings, that means that 46 per cent of our export earnings are being used to service our debt. It is more than the total of our primary exports alone. It is like going out and shooting every sheep, cow and calf and burning every wheat crop-but still not being able to pay for the servicing of our debt in interest rates and repayments. Mr McVeigh —They are destroying us. Mr COBB —They are indeed. The seriousness of the situation is such that I believe that the level of debate among the public must be raised; but especially, it must be raised among the Government members who are occupying the benches today. It is imperative that we obtain a commitment to do something about the problem. If something is not done in the very near future, the situation will be irretrievable, and five years down the track it will be too late. It is pertinent to look at one or two examples of expenditure under the supply Bills, which show where the Government is wasting money. One item that caught my eye relates to the Government giving another $1.433m to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Mr McGauran —Which we will abolish. Mr COBB —Yes, which we will abolish on day one. That body is completely unnecessary. It has an appalling track record and has come up with some incredible recommendations during the past year or so. One, for example, was to allow homosexual immigration on the ground of family reunion. Have honourable members ever heard anything more ridiculous? In my naivete, I did not even know that they bred. The Commission has attacked the Queensland Government over the electricity worker legislation, which has proved so successful, calling it slave labour. It claims that quite innocent remarks made by people from day to day are racially defamatory. In its 1983 report, it even suggests that certain behaviour should be unlawful, for example, Irish jokes. Therefore, if we tell an Irish joke we could be hauled before the Commission. It is quite incredible. It has supported the right of Women Against Rape to march on Anzac Day. It wants boys and girls under the age of 12-and it has already implemented this-to compete against each other equally in sporting events. It has offered bribes to school teachers of $500 and $1,000 if they will teach the contents of the Human Rights Commission teaching kit. The list goes on and on. I wish to highlight one example which has received little or no publicity, but which occurred in my electorate last year. In March 1984, the Human Rights Commission-which this Government is funding through the supply Bills-received a complaint from a Mr C. J. Booker. The Government, through the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, was trying to deport him. He appealed to the Commission to be allowed to stay in Australia. The history of Christopher Booker is rather interesting. He came from New Zealand in 1973, and back in those days a visa was not needed to enter Australia. People could come and go freely-with one exception, that someone with a criminal record had to notify the authorities of that before making any travel arrangements. Mr Booker, of course, made no such admission, so he entered Australia illegally. In 1978, he went back to New Zealand and then returned to Australia using a false name. What did he do while he was in Australia? Since coming here, he has been convicted of offences of stealing, false pretences and possession of an unlicensed pistol. On the basis of those offences, which he committed in 1982 and 1983, he got two sentences-the first for two years and the second for 12 months. Of course, under our legal system that meant that he had to spend only nine months in gaol. The Immigration Department looked at the case and made the correct decision to deport him, so Mr Booker went along to the Human Rights Commission and trotted out his story. Part of that story was that a year after he came to Australia in 1973, he met a Ms Penelope Sommerville, and they had a de facto relationship that lasted until 1983. As a result of the relationship they had a child called Nicole who was born in 1977. The child now bears the surname of the de facto mother, Sommerville. The relationship subsequently broke up. In March 1982 Mr Booker commenced living with a Mrs Margaret Roth at Narromine who had three children by a previous marriage-not by Mr Booker-who were aged between five years and 11 years at the time. He lived in a de facto relationship continuously with this woman until May 1983, about a year after he had first met her, until the original de facto, Penelope Somerville, turned up and announced to Mrs Roth that the police were looking for Mr Booker because he had a criminal record. Mrs Roth knew nothing about Mr Booker's record and naturally, being a reasonable woman, she was very upset. They parted for a while. Mr Booker moved from Narromine to Dubbo for a couple of weeks. He then moved back to Narromine and lived in a caravan park a short distance from the home of his second de facto, Mrs Roth. Mr Booker and Mrs Roth told the Human Rights Commission that the reason they had the arrangement whereby they lived apart, he in a caravan park and she in the house, was that if the police ever caught up with him no arrest would take place in the home and therefore upset the children. This is an extraordinary story, but it does not end there. Mr Booker was finally caught up with. When he was ordered to be deported he went to the Human Rights Commission. Mrs Roth and Mr Booker say that the deportation of Mr Booker would be terribly upsetting for their children-not actually his children but her children from a previous relationship. Evidence was given to the Human Rights Commission that it would have a significant effect on Mrs Roth's children. They had already been found tearful and upset at their school and had to be consoled by the teachers. Despite Mr Booker's criminal record, despite coming into this country illegally and despite the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs quite correctly saying that Mr Booker should be sent back to New Zealand, I do not have to tell honourable members the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission. Mr McGauran —Tell us anyway. Mr COBB —Well, I will. The Commission recommended that the deportation order against Mr Booker be revoked. Has the House ever heard such nonsense? The ground on which the deportation order should be revoked, the Commission said, is Article 23 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, drawn up by Warsaw Pact members. It is almost unbelievable. Article 8 of the European Convention, which requires respect for family life, is also drawn on to give some substance to the Commission's recommendation. Anybody else would have been locked up forever. I do not think that the mere fact that Mr Booker has come out here and had one child whom he does not live with and lives with another woman who has children by a previous relationship should come into it. In one sense the recommendation is an invitation to circumvent the law by fecundity. That is the sort of trick Ronald Biggs used in Brazil. It is what the Human Rights Commission wants to introduce into Australia. I have never heard such nonsense. It is typical of the ridiculous and excessive spending of this Government and is a waste of taxpayers' money. We will abolish the Human Rights Commission from day one when we get back into government. We will cut expenditure in many other areas, too. We will bring our overseas debt back into line as fast as we possibly can. The Government stands condemned for the way it is throwing taxpayers' money around. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(11.49) —The Supply Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88 seek to provide appropriations for the services of government for the first five months of the 1987-88 financial year. As has been mentioned earlier in the debate, they also give us an opportunity to review the Government's performance and to look at alternative policies which have been put forward in the economic area. I wish to discuss one such alternative proposal which was launched last week in a book entitled Spending and Taxing-Australian Reform Options and put out by the National Priorities Project. The National Priorities Project is a think tank set up by a small group of employer organisations which commissioned the Melbourne-based Centre of Policy Studies to study taxation and other economic reforms. The Director of the Centre of Policy Studies and one of the co-authors of this book is Professor Michael Porter. Professor Michael Porter attended the inaugural meeting of the H. R. Nicholls Society and is a great proponent of New Right policies. It is interesting to look at the different associations which are involved in and which financed this study. Twenty-five umbrella organisations put up funds to support the National Priorities Project, including such bodies as the Associated Bread Manufacturers of Australia, the Australian Bankers Association, the Australian Federation of Employers, the Australian Small Business Association and so on. Another organisation is the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia has a problem. It has criticised the book as being uninformed, superficial, uneducated and irresponsible. We can gather why it came to that conclusion-the book suggests that there should be no pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I was intrigued to read in the Australian Financial Review today that despite the comments made by the Pharmacy Guild, its national council voted yesterday to continue its relatively modest financial support for the project. I wonder what it expects to get out of any mark 2 version of the National Priorities Project. The proposal is one of the latest ideological fairy tales of the New Right. It outlines how a government would systematically abdicate its right to govern for all Australians, leaving a minimal shell to ensure that the rich get richer and to oversee the politics of greed. In December last year the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), speaking to the Victorian Young Liberals about the New Right's philosophy, said that it: . . . elevates selfishness to commanding heights and ignores the plight of the less fortunate and less able members of the community. Perhaps that is a very good summation of the New Right's philosophy. The National Priorities Project is less of an academic exercise than extreme Right wishful thinking. Hard questions of social necessity are invariably answered by ideological truisms. The plan makes no apology for the fact that it is a blueprint to give the rich more incentive. The book states: We do not apologise that people with higher incomes will do well. The project also provides a more comprehensive view of the policies of the Opposition and those who support it from outside. We might well remember that passing star of the public relations stakes, the word `incentivation' which was launched earlier this year and which fizzled like many such launchings. Mr McGauran —On a point of order: I understand, as all honourable members do, that the Supply Bills give range to a certain amount of latitude and the discussion of different topics. But, on a matter of relevance, this speaker has not once referred to any of the spending programs contained in the Supply Bills. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Gippsland correctly made the point at the introduction of his point of order that this is a wide ranging debate. The honourable member for Scullin is, as previous speakers have been, quite in order to refer to the matters he is covering in his speech. Mr JENKINS —Thank you for your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was quite intrigued by the point of order of the honourable member for Gippsland, considering the speech by his colleague, the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). At a later stage I will talk about the amendment put forward by the Opposition and the plan the Opposition put forward. It is relevant to look at some of the alternative policies that have been put up by far Right organisations which seem to have a great deal of influence, not only over the Liberal Party, but also and especially over the National Party, of which the honourable member for Gippsland is a member. Earlier this year we had the fly by night PR exercise of `incentivation'. The National Priorities Project has, perhaps, expanded the concept of this new word. Perhaps the National Priorities Project would have us believe that there should be incentivation for a few and disincentivation for most. In the $12 billion to $13 billion worth of welfare and expenditure cuts recommended by the project is the abolition of Austudy. If Austudy were abolished, where would that leave students in really disadvantaged circumstances in relation to their being able to continue at a school and go on to tertiary education? Also, the project suggests that dole payments for people under 18 years of age would be abolished. Is this to even up the disincentive? This approach being put forward by the NPP is a reversion to the worst form of nineteenth century utilitarianism, the principle of lesser eligibility. In 1834 the new poor law set up the appalling workhouses. These workhouses were in such an abysmal and degraded state that it was an attempt to force the poor to prefer starvation rather than enter one of those places. This lesser eligibility principle was the contribution of the utilitarians to the issue of cutting spending on welfare. The proponents of the New Right philosophy are now ignoring more than 150 years of the development of socially responsible government. Organisations such as the NPP advocate a return to the past. The Government's role in the health of the population is to be cut to a minimum-a decision which would include the close of community health centres. If government were to take on board the proposal put forward by the NPP, education would be largely privatised and its quality eroded. The NPP suggests that job creation schemes should disappear. In all, a cut of nearly $13 billion in government spending has been proposed. This is fanciful nonsense. It relates merely to figures on paper conceived in the sanctity of academia, way beyond the fringe of political and social responsibility. No government can abrogate its right to govern. No government can stand back and let the welfare of ordinary Australians be subject to the unfettered reign of market forces. The amendment by the Opposition refers to the Opposition's plan-but what plan? Even such an eminent member of the Liberal back bench as the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) has referred to this matter. He was quoted in the Bulletin of 21 April as saying: We must become more definitive because most sections of the community will not accept an undertaking, for example, to restore incentive by a significant reduction in income tax simply based on the statement `to be funded by significant cuts in government expenditure'. We will have to detail them. Honourable members would also be aware of the statement that the honourable member for Kooyong made on the Sunday program, last Sunday, when he stated: `Policies should have been out nearly a year ago'. Of course, this is what we are calling for. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), leading the debate for the Liberal Party, has suggested that people are aware of the Opposition's plans. For example, in a Press statement made in March the honourable member for Mackellar stated: `The economic proposals of the Liberals are well known'. But they are couched in general terms. Ordinary Australians do not know what to expect if the Opposition had electoral success. One must then consider the statement that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) made on the Schildberger program on 24 April, namely: `We have a policy on tax. The only thing that's missing is the numbers'. Surely the Australian community deserves better than a statement like that. Of course, tomorrow night, in response to tonight's May economic statement, the Leader of the Opposition perhaps has the chance to put forward some concrete policies rather than to continue to talk in the generalities as he has in the past. Therefore, in the absence of a concrete plan, which of the right wing fairytales are the people of Australia to be offered by honourable members opposite? There are many plans of the Right going around-there is the Joh plan, the Elliott plan, the plan espoused in the booklet `Mandate to Govern' from the Chamber of Commerce, as well as the National Priorities Project that I have mentioned. But what of the Howard plan? When will that be detailed? We can only go back to those suggestions made by these different modern conservative organisations-the organisations referred to as the New Right. There are so many different entries in the cost cutting stakes. However, all of them have one common feature: They would bring ruin upon ordinary Australians. I doubt whether those people who conceived the National Priorities Project have ever been to my electorate of Scullin. It is very easy to dismantle community health centres from an office at Monash University. Mr McGauran —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I rise on the point of relevance pursuant to the Standing Orders. During the whole of the contribution by the honourable member for Scullin, he has failed at any stage to refer to any department. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware of the nature of Supply Bills. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member for Gippsland has made his point. The question before the House offers considerable latitude for honourable members to address questions in the broad. Mr JENKINS —Thank you for your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that in the general sense Supply Bills and Appropriation Bills give latitude for wide-ranging debate. I am sure that the Minister at the table, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), would be aware that in the Supply Bills moneys will of course be provided for the continued funding of community health centres. Perhaps the fallacious efforts of the honourable member for Gippsland were simply to disrupt the workings of the House. As I have said, I doubt whether any of the people who produced the National Priorities Project have ever visited the electorate of Scullin and, further, it is very easy for them to dismantle community health centres from an office at the Monash University, for example, but it is another thing to do so after having seen the excellent and greatly needed service that is provided for ordinary Australians. Within my electorate there is the Broadmeadows Community Health Centre, which has a number of satellites; in fact it has five satellites throughout the city of Broadmeadows and they provide much needed medical and paramedical services to people in that community. There is another excellent community health centre in Lalor, which predominantly provides paramedical and support services to a community that is much in need. Without such services, and if we relied on the free enterprise type of medical services, areas in great need like Broadmeadows, Lalor and Thomastown would be provided with very little quality care in the medical field. I note that the Whip has asked me to contain my remarks to allow my colleagues to participate in the debate, so, in conclusion, I would just like to mention a number of positive achievements of this Government. Many of these achievements would be removed by the alternative economic policies that are perhaps being entertained by the Liberal Party and the National Party and the many factions and groupings within those parties. The term of the present Government has seen the introduction of Medicare; it has seen real increases in pensions; it has seen an increase from 36 per cent to 50 per cent in the number of children completing secondary education; a doubling of child care places available has occurred; and 200,000 people have been assisted by the first home owners scheme. Further, there have been major reforms of the Australian tax system, and a large number of people have been advantaged by the creation of over 700,000 jobs. But that is not to say that simply because we have set in place an improved framework for the economy the task of government is now completed. There is still a long way to go. One of the things that perhaps the Government needs to take on board concerns the change in the distribution of wealth in Australia. This is not something that honourable members from either side of the House would reflect upon well. In this regard I point out that an article in the May edition of Australian Society indicates that there are now over 30,000 millionaires in Australia; one-tenth of the population owns 60 per cent of all wealth but two million people live below the poverty line. The comfortable myth of a community with a relatively equal wealth distribution is exploded. No matter of which persuasion, a government must address this matter, because we have to not only improve the general overall framework of the economy but also ensure that in improving that economy some sort of justice is done in the way that the resources and wealth of that economy are distributed to all. I hope that at some stage the Government will be able to see its way clear to take on board the inquiry into wealth that has been suggested by a number of my colleagues. In conclusion, I point out that of course the Government totally rejects the Opposition amendment, especially where it refers to the urgency to implement the Opposition's plan, which is couched only in four generalities. The Australian people are looking for concrete proposals, and they know this Government will continue to give them concrete government. I am sure that whenever the next election is held this Government will be resoundingly re-elected. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(12.06) —When one goes through the list of developments that have taken place under this Government, it is difficult to come to anything other than a pessimistic conclusion about our immediate economic prospects. Yet when we look to the present Government for honest appraisal the response is more often than not a severe serve of vitriol or, at best, selective quotes from scarce material that tends to concentrate on a single indicator that perhaps suggests, in isolation, a nothing more than hopeful trend towards better economic performance. It is one thing to have a positive approach to our many difficulties, but it is plain folly to misrepresent them blatantly and, at times, to pretend that difficulties of enormous dimension do not really exist. The truth is that inflation is at around 9.4 per cent and, at that rate, many times the average of our major trading partners as well as the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Probably most importantly, it is many times the rate of countries such as the United States of America, Japan and West Germany. Unemployment is at intolerably high levels. Economic growth is well below Budget expectations, and is likely to be further affected by adverse economic factors facing the OECD countries. A collapse has occurred in the Australian dollar, from a trade-weighted index of 81.7 when this Government was elected on 5 March 1983, to 53.6 on 23 February this year. Interest rates have reached record levels and remain punishingly high. We do have an exploding foreign debt, with the gross figures expanding at the staggering rate of $111m a day. A very serious current account deficit does exist and has ballooned out under the current Government from $6.6 billion, or 3.8 per cent of gross domestic product, in 1983 to $13.8 billion, or 5.9 per cent of GDP, in 1986. The level of bankruptcies is much higher than in the international recession of 1982-83, there being 6,408 bankruptcies in 1985-86. The Budget forecast is that business investment will fall by a depressing one per cent. We have had nominal wage growth far ahead of our major trading partners and we have seen an increase in unit labour costs, the relevant measure of international competitiveness, of 4 per cent in Australia between 1983 and 1985, while those of our major trading partners increased by only about one per cent. Faced with these serious problems the present Government, instead of adopting prudent tax and expenditure policies, has indulged itself in a veritable orgy of taxing and spending. In real terms, Government expenditure has increased at an annual rate of 3.9 per cent over four years of this Government. As a share of GDP, that expenditure is now 29.9 per cent, compared with 27.7 per cent under the Fraser Government. The cumulative deficit of the four Hawke Budgets is $23.9 billion. Employment in the Commonwealth Public Service has increased by at least 29,000 people, or about 7.1 per cent, over three years. We have the biggest taxing government in this nation's peacetime history, taxes totalling 25.5 per cent of GDP in this financial year. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has broken his own Government's tax trilogy promise in each of the first two years of that so-called commitment, collecting about $400m in tax above the trilogy commitment in 1985-86 and at least $1.4 billion in 1986-87. Those facts cannot simply be ignored, as has repeatedly happened under this Government. Not content with these dubious achievements, the Government has introduced a plethora of new taxes. About 800 or 900 pages have been added to the tax Acts. In this context, developments under the Government have included adoption of capital gains taxes, fringe benefits taxes and the lump sum superannuation tax. We have also seen disallowance of entertainment expenditure and abolition of negative gearing. There has been an increase in the corporate rate of tax to 49 per cent. There has been a foreign tax credit scheme and the abolition of concessional expenditure rebate. There is automatic indexation of excises on beer, cigarettes and petroleum, as well as an increase in the excise on petrol. There have been the bureaucratic substantiation provisions, new sales taxes and a wine tax. Then there is income tax which, if we believe the Government, is not really an income tax. We have seen the introduction of the Medicare levy, then the increase in the Medicare levy followed by the removal of the Medicare levy limit. While the imputation scheme, which will be debated in the House later, will benefit about 15 per cent of shareholders in Australia's companies and is welcome in principle, it will do little to help single income families, who will still face higher average and marginal tax rates, even after the Government's so-called tax cuts. In March 1983, a single income family on average weekly earnings faced an average tax rate of 17.5 per cent and a marginal tax rate of 30 per cent. In July 1987, that same family will be on an average tax rate of 20.5 per cent and have to cope with a marginal tax rate of 40 per cent or more, probably nearer 41.25 per cent, if we include the Medicare levy. Given those simple truths, it is hard to escape the conclusion that, under this Government, Australia faces a dismal future characterised by economic and social stagnation and increasing community hardship. What faith can Australians put in the economic policies of a Treasurer whose reliance on the so-called J-curve to turn around our current account deficit prompted Professor John Kenneth Galbraith, an economist of some influence in left wing circles, to observe, during his recent visit to this country: When you hear talk about a J-curve let me advise you all to close your ears-that's just a piece of nonsense. Australia has a proud record on individual rights and liberties and it is undeniable that we have achieved a great deal in trying to assist those in need, but in the area of economic efficiency we have serious problems indeed. The general community needs to understand more widely that, historically speaking, our economic performance has been totally inadequate. That fact has been repeated by commentators and I do not intend to go into it today because of a shortage of time. Australia today lags in the means by which a nation must pay for its way of life-sustainable economic growth. More than one million of our fellow citizens live in poverty. As a study of American social policy from 1950 to 1980 shows, the way to avoid that is not through an intrusive, ever growing and expensive welfare system but by expanding economic opportunities. The simple fact is that the plight of many of those who live in hardship today could have been avoided if our economic performance had equalled that of the leading industrial countries during the past 30 years or so. Whilst we can assist in relieving those in genuine distress in the short term, we cannot solve the problems of poverty and unemployment through social welfare. Unless we improve our economic performance, the numbers of people enduring significant hardship must be expected to increase dramatically. Why has our economic performance been so poor? It is not only because in the last decade and a half, as the social and economic indicators of Australia's relative standing among industrial countries all confirm, that growth has been slow while unemployment and inflation rates were high or that our lack of competitiveness is reflected in a low trade to gross national product ratio. Nor is the reason to be found in any or all of the following: Low trade growth; rapidly rising external debt and debt service ratios; a weak Australian dollar; or because days lost through industrial disputes have been and continue to be on average among the highest in the world. These are all factors but there are also significant structural problems that are the result of common practices across many sectors of the community that have built up and become generally accepted over a long period. I refer to community acceptance of the incidence of strikes as one example. The only real way to achieve accelerated growth and thus to provide a better life for all Australians is to expand our participation in world trade. Our failure to meet the trade challenge is at the heart of our present problems. The simple fact is that it is our international trade that has been the engine of growth of our rising living standards throughout the post-war period. If we are to grasp the opportunities available, we must be prepared to reform many of our existing habits and attitudes and to develop as a trading nation, not by making marginal adjustments to current practices but by undertaking bold reforms along the lines of the principles that I have been able to outline just briefly today. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(12.17) —The Supply Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88, which are presently being debated, provide the necessary funds to all government departments to enable them to continue to provide essential support services to the general public and to carry out the programs and policies of the Hawke Labor Government. In speaking in support of these Bills, I want to take the opportunity to make some comments about the philosophy of the so-called New Right and the relationship of the New Right with many members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia who sit on the Opposition benches. I have previously referred to the New Right in an adjournment speech in the House on 11 November last year. At that time I pointed out that the New Right philosophy is as old as democracy itself, but is the complete antithesis of democracy. It is a philosophy which was greatly espoused by the middle nineteenth century British philosopher, Herbert Spencer, and which came to be known as Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer was not happy with the rejection of his ideas by many of the leading European philosophers of the time, but he found an enthusiastic acceptance of his philosophy in the United States of America. Social Darwinism was a theory of sociocultural evolution which derived its name from its rather tenuous connections with the biological theories of Charles Darwin. I doubt whether Charles Darwin would have ever supported such views. Indeed, the idea that the life of human beings in society was a struggle for existence based on the survival of the fittest was propounded by Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin, and it was Herbert Spencer's work which gave it some credibility as a force of natural law. The Social Darwinists believe that the process of natural selection acting on variations in the natural population would result in the survival of the best competitors and in a continuing improvement in the population. In this way the theory of evolution was advanced in a convoluted analogy that societies, like individuals, evolved in a similar fashion. It is worth quoting from the description of Social Darwinism in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, because these are the views of the New Right and its supporters in the Liberal and National parties. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: The theory was used to support political conservatism. Class stratification was justified on the basis of `natural' inequalities among individuals, for the control of property was said to be a correlate of superior and inherent moral attributes such as industriousness, temperance, and frugality. Attempts to reform society would, therefore interfere with natural processes; unrestricted competition and defense of the status quo were in accord with biological selection. The poor were the `unfit' and should not be aided; in the struggle for existence, wealth was a sign of success. At the societal level, Social Darwinism was used as a philosophical rationalisation for imperialist and racist policies, sustaining belief in Anglo-Saxon or Aryan cultural and biological superiority. As numerous twentieth century philosophers have made clear, although not apparently for the elucidation of some modern day academics, evidence shows that natural selection does not necessarily favour the most competitive or aggressive individual and that a distinction must be made between learned and inherited characteristics. Social Darwinism has now been given some new semblance of academic respectability as a result of the work of the Centre of Policy Studies based at Monash University. Initially, the Centre of Policy Studies was financed by the Commonwealth Government as a research centre of excellence, the aims of which were to generate meritorious research work at the frontiers of knowledge. Let me quote from the 1981 report of the Commonwealth Research Centres of Excellence Committee which states: The centre will undertake analysis of aspects of economic and social policy relevant to Australian conditions. A number of studies on key issues of policy have already been undertaken by Professor Porter and his colleagues but with additional funding it should be possible to maintain a core research group of international standing able to explore wider problems of national interest. Mr Reith —Quite right. Mr MILTON —The honourable member says: `Quite right'. Perhaps he would like to listen to some of the points I am about to make. He will find that, disappointingly, that has not been quite right. It is interesting to note that the Centre of Policy Studies failed to continue to meet the necessary standards of academic objectivity required by a research centre of excellence and, I am pleased to note, it is no longer funded by the Commonwealth Government. It is the Monash University Centre of Policy Studies that has now produced a publication entitled Spending and Taxing, Australian Reform Options. This book is based on the findings of the national priorities project which was commissioned by a whole range of employer organisations, many of which have proclaimed themselves in support of reducing government expenditure on public service, reducing the influence and strength of trade unions and increasing the wealth of business enterprises. The academics who have produced the book have claimed that there was no political motivation or bias in their work. Such claims are laughable but, unfortunately, the professors concerned, and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) who is at the table, are deadly serious and therefore their claims and their work must be treated seriously despite their obvious lack of compassion or understanding of how even the present unequal distribution of resources adversely affects average Australians, let alone those two million Australians who live in poverty. I would like to spend a few moments examining the reform proposals made by the worthy professors to see whether they can be described as politically neutral. They have proposed $12,100m of aggregate savings in 1986-87, involving cuts in education, health, labour market programs and social security and welfare. The major cut is in the health budget, involving $7,000m of cuts which is achieved by the abolition of Medicare. In this way the average Australian family will be forced to pay for private insurance, with public hospitals charging full cost recovery fees as a transition to full privatisation, and the addition of national health scheme drug listing and government control over drug prices. If these proposals are accepted by the Opposition-indeed the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), is supporting cuts in government expenditure of $12,000m-how will pensioners and other low income earners manage to meet the high cost of ill health? The next major cut proposed is in education, involving $2,500m. Spending on government schools would be reduced by $1,000m; on higher education by $1,200m; and on specific assistance for students by $300m. If such cuts are made, how will we ensure that the general education level of the school leavers who are new entrants to the work force is sufficient to provide the necessary skills for the work force which Australia needs for our vital new export industries? Do the professors of the Centre of Policy Studies or Opposition members really believe that we are likely to obtain the appropriate level of skills in our work force by cutting the funding for our government schools? Finally, there is a proposed $2,200m cut in social security and welfare funding. These proposals by the Centre of Policy Studies are Social Darwinism of the most calculating and callous kind. Reducing minimum award wages and cutting benefits to the long term unemployed, thus forcing them into below poverty wage levels, would save some $600m. Cuts in the family allowance, the supporting parent's benefit and superannuation deductibility would provide the remaining $1,700m. What these cuts really mean is that those people who are already in poverty, including those for whom no work is available, will fall even further below the poverty line. I am only sorry that in the short time available in a speech supporting the Government's Supply Bills I do not have time to analyse in more detail the Centre for Policy Studies' publication which will be the basis of the Opposition's policies at the next election, as the honourable member for Flinders, who is at the table, has indicated. Finally, let me point out that the $12,100m worth of health, education and social welfare cuts are to be distributed to those who are already comparatively well off. There are proposed tax cuts of $5,000m which would predominantly help the more wealthy income earners of our society. Another $2,400m of company tax cuts would result in lower company tax at a reduced rate of 30 per cent. The balance of moneys would be used for balancing the Budget and softening the general impact of the cuts. Kenneth Davidson, an economic commentator for the Age, commented in last Thursday's edition of the Age: The Porter centre offers nothing, apart from their ideology of unrestricted freedom, to support their view that massive cuts in the provision of public services would result in a more equitable and efficient private provision of these services, or that the rich would use their windfall gains in socially productive ways that would provide a net benefit to the economy. It is also interesting to note how divided the Liberal Party is on these matters. In an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Four Corners television interview on 4 May, Senators Puplick, Hill and Peter Baume and the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) expressed their concern about the influence which the New Right is exerting on the Howard-led front bench. On that program Senator Puplick stated: I mean, it's no doubt that trade figures and balance of payment figures, overseas debt and all the rest of them are enormously significant issues, and they're enormously significant figures. But simply changing the figures around is not good enough for people who want to know what is the outcome of policy decisions in terms of how they impact upon individual people. And that's the real characteristic. What is even more telling is that Senator Peter Baume went on to say: Particularly if the outcome is misery, is worse living conditions, less opportunity, exactly what Chris Puplick is saying. Now, can I go further and say processes are not social goals in themselves. Privatisation, I think, can often do some good. But it's not a social goal. It is only a way of getting you to a social goal. We can't allow people to sell deregulation or privatisation or smaller government as social ends in themselves. The Supply Bills are an integral step in the process of democratic government. I point out that Opposition-the National and Liberal parties-members are at odds with each other. Mr Hollis —And their factions. Mr MILTON —And the factions within those parties are at odds with each other. In fact, there is a second XI on the back bench. Those people are constantly disagreeing with each other, as the interview on the Four Corners program from which I quoted shows. Let us not forget that it was the ability of the Senate to refuse to grant Supply which enabled the Opposition parties, aided by the then Governor-General, to mount the coup which toppled the Whitlam Labor Government in 1975. Mr Hollis —Backed by the CIA. Mr MILTON —As the honourable member for Throsby has pointed out, at the back of it all was the Central Intelligence Agency. Unfortunately, the Senate still has that power. We on this side of the House will never forget the infamy of that coup; nor will we trust the Liberal and National parties which, when occasion presents itself, as with Premier Robin Gray and the present crisis over the Tasmanian Senate vacancy, are prepared to sabotage our democratic system in order to satisfy their born to rule syndrome. I reject the amendment put before the House by the Opposition and support the Supply Bills. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(12.30) —The Supply Bills which have been introduced for the customary purpose of providing funds for the Government for the period from 1 July to 30 November give us an opportunity to comment on the Government's economic policy at this critical point immediately preceding this evening's economic statement. The economic statement is testimony that the imperatives of Australia's very serious, indeed quite critical and, in the event of a sudden change in the international financial climate, dangerous economic position-without being alarmist that climate is not without parallels to 1929-have gotten through to the Hawke Government. Mr Reith —About time. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —As the shadow Minister says, it is about time. There is a good deal of complacency about this. Lately things appear, on the face of it, to be looking better. The Australian dollar is firmer and interest rates have been easing, although they are still at crippling levels. That fall is to be welcomed. Without wishing to seem to be a knocker, those outcomes are the result of a combination of good luck, to which the Government is welcome, and some wrong reasons such as, in the case of interest rates, the widespread running down of stocks in the Australian economy due to a lower level of activity and the associated reduced demand for finance. But the economic fundamentals have not changed. The parlous state of the Australian economy, due largely to the wrong-headed policies of the Hawke Government-tonight's mini-Budget is an attempt, and hopefully it will be a serious and major effort, to bend policy on to a proper course-remains. However complacently the Hawke Government, until recently, appears to have viewed the position, that parlous state of the economy has gotten through loud and clear to the average Australian. Australians know, from hard and often bitter firsthand experience, that their living standards, particularly those of the one income family, have fallen drastically under the Hawke Labor Government. The cri de coeur comes from every side, including the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. I have in front of me a pamphlet outlining a campaign it is running to try to encourage the Government to take action about falling living standards which, it says, have placed extreme financial pressure on Australian families. Australian families are coping with higher taxes which are taking a greater proportion of their income-even after the so-called reforms by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) are put in place-than was the case when the Hawke Government took office. They face crippling interest rates-the repayments on a typical home mortgage have increased by up to $50 a week. The prices of items in supermarkets increase visibly every week. That is the story of this decline in living standards and, in particular, the devastation of the situation of the ordinary family. What that reflects is the wrong-headed economic policies of the Hawke Government, exacerbated, it is true, by the adverse movement in the terms of trade-but that latter only to a certain extent. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) keeps on saying, with Goebbels-like intensity, that the change in the terms of trade has knocked $9 billion off available national income'. It does not amount to anything like that, as the technical literature makes clear. However, if it is said often enough, Goebbels-like, it becomes received truth. Much more important have been the failings of the Hawke-Keating economic management, starting with the cumulative massive Budget deficit situation to which my colleague the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) referred a short time ago, reflecting the reckless overspending of this Government during its four years in office. That has been a major factor, indeed, a quite central factor. The essential point is that it piles up debt and vast interest obligations. In turn, the deficit situation in the Budget is reflected in deficit in the balance of overseas payments. What happens is that when one adds this excessive government spending to continued private spending, this country has to suck in, so to speak, resources from overseas, financed by overseas savings, money, to meet the excess of domestic spending-government plus private spending-over the Australian domestic output. Along with other factors, notably faster wages growth than overseas and slower productivity growth, what we have is a situation of the country living beyond its means to the tune last year, and again this year, of the order of $13 billion to $14 billion. That piles up debt overseas and vast interest obligations to foreigners which subtract directly from living standards here. Further, this yawning balance of payments gap undermines the Australian dollar. We have the very large depreciation of the order of 35 per cent-the fall in the value of the dollar which has been visited upon us. That was not purposeful policy, as the Treasurer often implies, though of course, when it has happened it does help in restoring the situation. But that very fall in the Australian dollar itself spells reduced real product, reduced real income for the nation, reduced real goods and services available for Australian living standards. And then the yawning balance of payments deficit calls for crippling interest rates to attract the money to finance our excessive purchases, plus interest, over our exports. Those crippling interest rates, apart from being an instrument of enforcing the fall in living standards through higher mortgage repayments and so on, hold back the productive investment in new plant, in new factories and production facilities so necessary to enable expanded production at lower cost, which would then support and begin the process of restoring Australian living standards. The Hawke Government has got the country into one heck of a bind, one heck of a mess. As is apparent from what I have said, the focus of concern and policy is the vast balance of payments gap and the massive and still increasing overseas debt in excess, as everybody knows, of $100 billion. The dimensions of this mess are such that there is no quick fix, no easy, overnight solution. Mr Rocher —They could start by admitting this. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I hope and believe that the Government has begun to admit that there really is a problem. As I said the other day, the position is one where it will require the toughest of budgetary policy-that is, really axing government spending; the mini-Budget tonight is just the start of the process-and a really tough line on money income increases, preferably a wage freeze. It will require that, plus a good deal more of the luck the Government-and good for it-has recently enjoyed. It will particularly require an expansive international environment-currently under threat; witness the pessimistic assessment of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in the Press earlier this week. It will need all this to enable us just to stabilise-not to reduce-Australia's overseas debt at the order of 40 per cent of our total national product, and a similar order of drain on our export income. It will take all that just to stabilise it-and that over five years. That is the dimension of the problem that confronts us. Getting responsibility back into government spending begins, hopefully, tonight. The mini-Budget tonight will be the beginning of the process of, in the first place, matching our demands to the available national production with spending reductions that are genuine and lasting-and the Opposition will be looking for that-- Mr Rocher —I'll believe it when I see it. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —As my colleague says, we will believe it when we see it. It is the beginning of that process of matching demands to available product. In the second place, it is the beginning of the process of taking the load off interest rates and thereby encouraging the investment in new production facilities which will enable an expansion of the nation's production to provide the basis for restored higher living standards. This will be assisted also by improving confidence in the Government's willingness to come to grips with the problem, if we find that, and by the cutting back of government expenditure freeing skilled labour and other resources for investment. The new investment is the major factor, but other important approaches are needed to increase production, in particular, getting rid of restrictive work practices and lifting production that way. I conclude by saying that this is the challenge to which the mini-Budget tonight, hopefully, will provide an adequate response. The Hawke Government has left its run pretty late. I can only hope that it will not be too little as well as too late. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(12.39) —I am pleased to speak in this debate on the Supply Bill (No. 1), the Supply Bill (No. 2), and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. Obviously, the Government rejects the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). As previous speakers have said, the debate enables us to make some comments on the state of the Australian economy and, indeed, to contrast the approach of this Government-an approach which we will see tonight with the May economic statement, to which we are looking forward-with its rational economic policies, with that of those opposite, with their grab-bag of promises. Indeed, the political parties will be on show both this evening and tomorrow evening-the Treasurer (Mr Keating), on behalf of the Government, bringing down the May economic statement tonight and the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) replying tomorrow on behalf of the Opposition. Many of us are waiting to hear what the honourable member for Bennelong will say. It will enable a contrast to be made between the rational economic promises of this side and the grab-bag of promises on the other side. Those on the other side-we have heard it in some of the preceding speeches-keep talking tough about cuts. Indeed, the honourable member who has just left the chamber, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), was talking very tough-about a tough economic statement, and a tough Budget. But the record of those opposite on taking tough economic decisions is not so good. Over the years they have had the majority of control of the treasury bench. We came to government after seven years of their management of the economy. We just have to look at their record, which is there for all to see. We are making our record. We know what their record is. The Australian people know what their record is. The Australian people rejected the previous Government on its record, and members of the Opposition will be rejected when the next election comes, whenever that may be. For some obscure reason-I am not quite sure why-the Liberals are targeting the seat I occupy and will continue to occupy after the next election. Ms McHugh —Hear, hear! Mr HOLLIS —The honourable member for Phillip agrees with me. I keep having visits in my electorate by shadow Ministers. I do not know whether the shadow Minister who is at the table, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), has yet visited. He has not been in that position long. Obviously he will visit shortly. The latest visit was from the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). He visited my electorate, and came to where my office is located. Outside my office he made a whole host of promises of what the Opposition is going to do. It is really interesting that the shadow Ministers visit my electorate. The honourable member for Ryan came down there and he promised all these things-which are the responsibility of the State Government. Those opposite really do not know what is a Federal matter and what is a State matter. They cannot have it both ways. It is no good their coming into electorates such as mine, promising the world, and then coming to this Parliament and making hairy-chested tough statements, because they are not fooling the people. If these promises are made, the people will ask, and we will ask, where the money is coming from. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the honourable member has not completed his address to the House, he will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Did the Minister for Trade know 12 months before the collapse of tin trading on the London Metals Exchange that the International Tin Council was buying buffer stock, well in excess of member country contributions? Was he also told five months before tin trading collapsed that the Council's debts would have to be met by member countries including Australia? Why did he not give specific instructions to limit Australia's liability for purchases by the Tin Council in excess of member country contributions? Does the Minister bear responsibility for the writ and the possible $45m claim on Australia? Mr DAWKINS —The views and activities of the honourable member for Dawson on this matter are quite extraordinary. He has sought to admit Australia's liability whereas Australia's position, and my position, has been to leave that matter to be resolved through the normal court processes. The honourable member is fully aware that this is a matter which is being currently litigated. It is a matter which the Australian Government is obviously involved in as a member of the Tin Council. I do not intend to prejudge what might be the results of that court action which has been taken. However, at all times we acted responsibly. Of course, we could not act unilaterally. We are members of the Council, and we acted in concert with the other members of the Council. I think that in every way we have acted to limit Australia's liability. But if, in the end, it comes to the point that there is a liability established for Australia in relation to this matter, we will have to consider the position at that time. Mr CAMPBELL —Has the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to the recent reductions in beef support prices in Japan? Will these changes be translated into a stronger demand for beef and, in turn, more imports? Mr KERIN —The honourable member is pointing out that Japan has reduced internal beef support prices. The beef stabilisation price bands have been lowered and the ceilings of the bands have been reduced by 2.2 per cent for wagyu beef and 6.7 per cent for dairy steer beef following periods between 1982-86 and 1982-85 respectively when the price bands were held constant. In addition, the Livestock Industry Promotion Corporation-that is, the government agency which controls imports-has reduced its reserve selling out prices for imported beef by around 10 per cent for their 1987 fiscal year, which runs through until the end of March next year. There are a few points I would like to make about these Japanese actions. The first is that the price adjustments are a step in the right direction, although a small one. It will reinforce the very strong demand for beef by the Japanese consumer. The second is that the scope for lower support prices is much greater than has been demonstrated by the pricing decisions. The Japanese beef industry is now extremely profitable with its feed grain import prices much lower now because of the yen appreciation, and lower feed grain prices in international markets. The scope for beef price reductions in Japan is very substantial and a recent reduction in the price stabilisation bands reflects a start to that process. The third point is that the pricing decisions will not, of themselves, lead to a higher level of imports. This is what should happen, and that was the view put at the Australia-Japan Ministerial Committee meeting in January of this year. Honourable members will recall that one of the central planks of the Prime Minister's initiative on international agricultural reform launched earlier this year was a reduction in the price differential between internal support prices and international prices. After all, it is those internal support prices which are at the heart of the problem. Clearly, the recent Japanese action on beef prices is a step in the right direction, but much bigger steps are needed. I will be in Japan from 12 to 18 June and beef will be one of the priority areas for discussion. I conclude my answer to the question by the honourable member, who takes a great interest in the beef industry, by indicating that Japanese action on domestic price supports is a step towards rationality. Action with respect to imports is also required, and by that I mean a substantial liberalisation of the Japanese beef market, effected on a basis that does not discriminate against Australian suppliers. This aspect will be addressed in the new agreement to be negotiated in the second half of this year. Mr PORTER —Does the Minister for Social Security agree with the Institute of Family Studies that a single income family with three children and a dependent spouse requires an income of something over $40,000 to live at the same standard as a single taxpayer with an income of $24,000? Is it a fact that the value of the family allowance and the dependent spouse rebate has declined in real terms by 25 per cent under labor? Will the Minister assure the House that single income families will not be further harmed in the forthcoming mini-Budget? Mr HOWE —I am afraid that the honourable member will have to be patient and wait until he hears the contents of the May statement, which the Treasurer will deliver tonight. Let me make it clear that the Government has, in its approach to this particular statement, as it has in its approach to economic policy during its period in office, been consciously aware of the needs of families, especially the needs of the low income families to which I have referred frequently in this Parliament, and generally of the needs of Australian families. As the Prime Minister has made clear on a number of occasions, if one is to make any kind of impact analysis of government policy in relation to families, one has to look at a whole range of policies. Certainly one has to look at the taxation policy. I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, and the House are aware that the Government has met its commitments to Australian families by ensuring that it has delivered, over a period, significant tax cuts. Further tax cuts will be delivered on 1 July. It is also clear that the needs of families have been taken into account in a range of policy areas. In terms of education, no government has done more to improve the possibility for families to have their children complete secondary education than the present Government. No government has had a more attractive first home buyers scheme to help families who have been locked out of housing get into housing and become home owners than the present Government. No government has done more to protect the health of families and provide their health needs through a comprehensive insurance policy than this Government. As was made very clear by the Economic Planning Advisory Council in its recent report, if we are to look at the real disposable income of Australian families we need to look at wages policy. I think we know what the wages policy of the Opposition has been. It has opposed increased wages at 18 of the last 20 national wage cases. We need to go to tax policy. We have delivered very significant tax cuts. We need to go to social security policy. This Government's performance is significant in terms of delivering income support both through the social security system and through the education system. We need to go to our housing policy, and, above all, we need to go ultimately to our employment policy. Ultimately, the craw in the Leader of the Opposition's throat is that he knows that when he was Treasurer unemployment doubled in this country. Nothing has done more harm to Australian families, either then or since, than that massive increase in unemployment during the years 1980 to 1983. I am quite sure that when people tonight hear the May statement they will be clear that we continue to be very conscious of the need to ensure equity for Australian families. Mr HAND —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It concerns the appointment of Mr Bob Hogg as a consultant to prepare a submission regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. In view of the common belief that Vietnam veterans did not receive adequate independent representation during the Commission, will the Minister assure the House and all Vietnam veterans that their views on the findings of the Commission will be received and taken into account in the preparation of the Government's response? Will representatives of the thousands of Vietnam veterans who are not represented by the Returned Services League or the Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia be entitled to the same access as those groups? Can the Minister inform the House whether the Minister for Veterans' Affairs intends to meet with such representatives, and particularly, when he will meet with Victorian Vietnam veterans groups, such as the Victorian branch of the Vietnam Veterans' Association? Mr HOLDING —As the honourable member knows, Mr Hogg is a man who has always considered all views put before him, and I think that that will be his approach in this very important matter. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has never refused to meet any representative leader of veterans, and that will continue to be his position. Mr HOWARD —I address my question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer the Minister to his claim made in answer to a question by the honourable member for Barker that the Hawke Government has delivered real tax cuts to Australian families. How does the Minister justify that claim against the fact that in March 1983, when the Hawke Government came to power, a single income family with children paid 17.5 per cent of its income, at average weekly earnings, in tax, yet when the so-called Keating tax reforms are completed in July, that same family will pay 20.5 per cent? Mr KEATING —Prior to the income tax cut of November 1982, a person on average weekly earnings faced an average tax rate of 23.1 per cent. The tax cut of 1982 reduced that to 20.9 per cent. I must add that that tax cut was not paid for or bought with the deficit coming down, it was with the deficit going up. Mr Carlton —You tried that before. Mr KEATING —I can understand the honourable member's embarrassment. The tax cut, which was essentially given for an election, was at a cost to the deficit-which, of course, was not published in the out year, as I mentioned yesterday. It went from a projected $1.4 billion to $9.6 billion over the next year. Following the income tax cuts of November 1984, the average tax rate faced by a person on average weekly earnings fell to 19.9 per cent-below the 23.1 per cent prior to November 1982, and lower than the rate after the 1982 cut. The tax cut that this Government delivered in 1984 was not of the Howard variety, where someone on $12,500 would have got about $1.30, and someone on $60,000 would have got about $18. We delivered $7.60 throughout the income range of $12,500 to $28,000. It reduced the 30 per cent rate to 25 per cent for that group. In other words, it was a highly redistributive tax cut. The further reductions in the marginal tax rates in December last year should reduce the average rate to 19.7-something to which my colleague the Minister for Social Security referred earlier. I repeat the points that he made about Medicare and about the social wage-wages as they would be under a coalition government, the social wage in general, Medicare, $1 billion for the first home owners scheme, 200,000 people owning their homes, and about the 780,000 people, who are also members of families, who are now back in jobs. Those are the elements of the social wage. We have achieved that by reducing the Budget deficit, not by blowing it out irresponsibly, as the Opposition did. We understand that the Leader of the Opposition, as Treasurer, squibbed all the big fights and that he could not get anything through the Cabinet, just as he could not get his television policy through his shadow Cabinet yesterday. He has never, ever, been able to deliver. He could not deliver as Treasurer and he cannot deliver as Leader of the Opposition. If we talk about deliverance, I must say that all that he could ever deliver would be another domestic recession, high unemployment and smashed incomes. That is why the people in the country understand where the quality lies, and will continue to support this Government's policies. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I wish to tell the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) that he cannot continue to interject at will. Mr MARTIN —I direct my question to the Minister for Trade. Is the Minister aware of the answer given during Question Time in the Senate on Monday by the Minister for Resources and Energy about the establishment of a national coal marketing authority? Does the Minister concur with that statement? Is that view consistent with the views expressed by the National Liaison Committee of the combined mining unions and the Australian Coal Association? What implications exist for Australia's trade in coal through the implementation of such an authority? Mr DAWKINS —I especially acknowledge the work of the honourable member for Macarthur on the Caucus coal committee. That committee has been doing invaluable work in maintaining a dialogue between all aspects of the industry as the industry works its way through a very difficult trading environment. The honourable member and his colleagues on that committee have done a great deal to maintain a kind of order in the industry which, of course, the Queensland Government seems determined to disrupt. In relation to the question answered by my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy, insofar as Senator Gareth Evans was talking about the domestic arrangements for the industry, that is a matter for him. He has responsibility for, and certain powers in relation to, the conduct of the coal industry in its domestic operation. I know that, taking note of the work of the Caucus coal committee, he is looking at a number of options for how the existing arrangements might be reviewed and, possibly, be reorganised. I know that the committee is currently considering that matter in conjunction with all aspects of the industry. I, like Senator Evans, would not wish to prejudge the outcome of those discussions. I simply make the point that it is not our intention-and certainly not my intention-as a consequence of any arrangements to interfere with the marketing arrangements of coal companies in Australia. Mr COBB —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that when the Prime Minister's Government came to power in 1983, Australia's gross overseas debt was about $30 billion? Is it also a fact that at the end of 1986, Australia's gross overseas debt had risen to about $105 billion, a three-fold to four-fold increase? What Government policies have caused that debt-which took 83 years since Federation to reach the high level of $30 billion-to be more than tripled in a very short period of just three and a half years? Do the reasons include excess government spending and borrowing domestically, so forcing local private sector borrowers to source funds off-shore? Finally, will the Government play its part by at least cutting out the hundreds of indefensibly silly grants, such as $3,100 to study the ritual significance of bark cloth in Fiji, $5,750 to study the songs and dances of the Chinese New Year and $88,000 as a community employment program grant for two Aboriginal women on the Gold Coast to learn the total concept of breastfeeding? Mr HAWKE —I believe that the question which has just been addressed to me is indicative of the quality of economic analysis on the other side of the House. It is nothing short of pathetic. It is little wonder that the honourable member for Goldstein had some salutary words to direct to the Leader of the Opposition this morning on AM. He was asked about the polls-`I do not want to go to the polls because I do not like to talk about them.--.' Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. On the point of relevance, before the Prime Minister manages to convert the national debt into some response on polling, might you instruct him, Madam Speaker, to be relevant and to explain to Australians why he has got the country into the state it is in? Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the House that the question was fairly broadly framed. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for Goldstein directed himself to where the question of credibility is an issue. He was not saying-this is a bloke on the Opposition side-that the Government had to establish its credibility in matters economic. He homed right in, when talking about credibility, to where that issue lies. He said that it lies right with the Leader of the Opposition. He was asked about the polls and why we were a country mile ahead of the Opposition. He was asked: . . . how does John Howard win back support? He answered: I think the most important thing is to make a credible response to tonight's mini-Budget. That is the important thing he said. He was not questioning the Government's credibility. He was saying that the Leader of the Opposition has to establish his credibility. He was asked: That's a big test for John Howard? His reply was: It's a very big test for him and for the Opposition. Mr Connolly —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. Whatever your limitations may be under Standing Orders, the fact remains that the honourable gentleman is not being in any sense relevant to the question, which is: Why is Australia's national debt at the level it is in such a short time under his Government? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Chair is listening carefully to the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I will come to the question of credibility on external debt. As far as credibility on the Opposition's side of the House is concerned, the honourable member for Goldstein said of John Howard: It's a very big test for him and for the Opposition. The test is not of our credibility. The test, tomorrow night, is of the Opposition's credibility on matters economic. Mr Cadman —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker, again on the question of relevance. The Prime Minister was asked about government waste and about what he had done in regard to the deficit. He has said nothing. Madam SPEAKER —I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for Goldstein said: We have to have a position which is economically credible, at the same time socially acceptable. With that background I come to the question of this Government's credibility in the area the honourable member for Parkes talked about. I do so against a background where not only more than half the members of the Opposition say that the Opposition is lacking in credibility but also the officials of the Liberal Party and the people of Australia are saying so. Let us consider the question of credibility in regard to the external debt. The first point I make is that, according to the statistics that have just been released, over the December quarter of 1986 Australia's net foreign debt fell by $1.5 billion. I know that the Opposition does not like that. This transient Leader of the Opposition, when he was writing his country down, liked the fact that Australia's external debt was rising. He liked all the bad economic signs that had been forced upon this country. Honourable members will recall his memorable phrase: `The times will suit me'. That was a clear statement by the Leader of the Opposition that what he wanted, and what the miserable, motley collection of people behind him wanted, was a situation where Australia's interests were going down and our external debt was going up. He thought that in those circumstances he would get some benefit. It was in those circumstances that the Leader of the Opposition made the quite remarkable statement, which he will be haunted by, that he was the messiah of conservative politics in this country. Do honourable members not remember what he said? He said: `I am the messiah of conservative politics in this country'. He was the messiah in a situation where he thought Australia's position was going down. He does not like and the rest of the Opposition does not like, the fact that, as a result of the continued and persistent application of relevant economic policies, we are turning the situation around. As I said, over the December quarter Australia's net foreign debt fell by $1.5 billion. The Government welcomes the December quarter outcome but we recognise-as Opposition members would if they applied a few hours to thinking about economic matters, instead of fighting one another as they do every minute of the day-that the present situation cannot be turned around overnight. They would also realise that a very significant part of the increase in Australia's external debt was a result of the significant devaluation that occurred. They would understand that. The policies of this Government are aimed at the correction of the external imbalance and the stabilisation of our external debt over the medium term. I remind the honourable gentleman who asked the question, and the rest of those opposite, who never spend a moment thinking about rational economic analysis-instead, they think about how they are going to get rid of this leader or that leader, how they are going to promote the honourable member for Kooyong and how they are going to promote the honourable member for Goldstein-that if they stopped and thought about matters economic they would realise that we are addressing the problem. I remind honourable members opposite about the policies we are following that are relevant to it. We are following a firm-- Mr Tim Fischer —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the precedent you created on 12 February 1986 when you ruled, in similar circumstances: The Prime Minister will finish his answer. Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to the length of time the Prime Minister has taken to answer the question and I ask you to apply the same ruling. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member does not have a point of order. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —In regard to the honourable member's question, I am pointing out what the Government is doing in terms of responsible and relevant economic policy to remedy the problem in the external debt area that has arisen for this country through no fault of this Government. These are the things we are doing: We are following a firm monetary policy of reduced Budget deficits and very considerable wage restraint, all of which has been directed to the objective of dampening domestic demand. This country could not afford to sustain the level of imports after having $9 billion slashed off the nation's economic capacity. So we have had the relevant monetary policy, the relevant fiscal policy and the relevant wages policy to reduce the level of domestic demand. In the more fundamental sense of industry restructuring, we have gone about the process of a gradual reduction of industry protection. I contrast that with the pathetic performance of the mob opposite when they were in government. If there was one section of the conservative forces in this country which had the opportunity to do something and which should have done something to dismantle gradually the level of protection it was cockies corner; it was the National Party. But what did the National Party members do? They sat there, quiescently with the Liberals, and did nothing about reducing the levels of protection in this country. As the Treasurer has frequently said, they acquiesced in an overvalued exchange rate which made Australian industry grossly uncompetitive. But this Government has had the guts and the economic wisdom gradually to lower the levels of protection of Australian industry and to float the exchange rate so that we got an exchange level in this country which would give the opportunity to Australian industry to become competitive. If honourable members opposite are really concerned about Australia's competitive position, I point out that in order to be able to attack the fundamentals of our external position, those are the things that have to be done. We have done them, and at no stage in seven years did honourable members opposite have the courage, the wit or the wisdom to attack those fundamentals. We will continue to do it. The continuing recognition of the Australian people is that, in looking to a government or a party to rectify these fundamentals, it is to this side of the House that they look, and not over there. Mr Donald Cameron —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Three points of order were taken on the question of relevance in relation to the answer just completed, and in the third minute the Prime Minister said: `Now I come to the question'. I ask you, Madam Speaker, how long you are prepared to accept matters that are not relevant before bringing the Prime Minister to order-when he confessed after the third minute that he was then coming to the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister has answered the question, and we shall proceed. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. John Trainer, MP, Speaker of the South Australian House of Assembly. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr ROBERT BROWN —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. In view of some quite outrageous claims which have been made by Opposition spokesmen on the Australia Card and the quite dramatic change in the personal attitudes of some of them towards the card, will the Minister advise the House why the Government remains committed to the Australia Card as a weapon against fraud on the public revenue? Further, has the Government assessed the impact which the adoption of the Australia Card proposal would have on the black economy? Mr Tim Fischer —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I draw your attention to standing order 144 (c) and (d) which provides that questions should not contain inferences of imputations. I put to you, Madam Speaker, that the terminology of the honourable member for Charlton, `outrageous claims' and the comments which flowed immediately after that, are in fact out of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Madam Speaker, the point of order is clearly quite frivolous. Could I-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member repeat the question. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The question was: Will the Minister advise the House why the Government remains committed to the Australia Card as a weapon against fraud on the public revenue? Further, has the Government assessed the impact which the adoption of the Australia Card proposal would have on the black economy? I am seeking a factual response to that question, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The question is in order. I call the Minister for Health. Mr Spender —On a further point of order, Madam Speaker and it is a very simple one: It has become the practice in this House for Labor members to ask questions about the future. We are all interested in the future, but when a Minister is asked to tell us what effect a particular policy will have on, say, the black economy over the next five years, or whatever it may be, clearly that is asking a hypothetical question, and on that basis it should be ruled out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The question was quite in order. Mr Young —Madam Speaker, on the point of order: Honourable members on this side of the House cannot apologise for being interested in the welfare of the Australian people in the future. We thought that it was one of our responsibilities. We are very sorry-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I point out to the House that very many points of order are raised during Question Time, but at the same time many standing orders are being broken at Question Time. There is a fairly wide selectivity about which standing orders are being adhered to. I suggest that all honourable members have a good look at the Standing Orders. I also remind honourable members that interjections are out of order. Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Charlton for his question. Let me deal immediately with the present. This Government remains committed to the Australia Card for the single reason that it remains the single most effective and potent weapon against welfare fraud, tax fraud and illegal immigration. I stress the word `single', because this one weapon will be usable in all those three fields. I point out that my colleague the Minister for Social Security has made major advances in dealing with welfare fraud, but both he and his officers increasingly recognise that their task would be much facilitated by an effective identification system. My colleague the Treasurer knows full well that the weapon that he needs above all others-and this is supported by the Commissioner for Taxation-in dealing with taxation fraud is an effective Australia Card. Equally, my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs recognises the usefulness of such a weapon in that field. With this one act we can deal with the fraud against the public revenue across the board in those areas. I say quite frankly to members of the Opposition that all their whinging about social security expenditure, about illegal immigration, and about taxation fraud, will not be taken seriously by the Australian people when they deny the government the single most effective weapon against those problems, when it denies the Government the nearly $900m a year that could be saved from tax frauds and welfare cheats. As to the second part of the question, the Government has examined and assessed the Australia Card in relation to the black economy. We have always made the point that it would have only an indirect effect on the black economy; that is, as moneys from the black economy moved into financial institutions we would be given a much more effective weapon in relation to the money trail. Eric Risstrom, of the Australian Taxpayers Association, pointed out yesterday that his Association's estimate of that black market economy is some $7 billion. He went on to say: I believe that perhaps half of that money can be caught through the Australia Card and I have still got faith that one day the Liberals will see the light and vote for it, but without the Australia Card, I think, as the vote went against the Australia Card, I believe that particularly the Opposition and the Democrats gave a green light to the cash economy, saying, you know: `Go your hardest, we are not going to chase you with the best weapon that we could have'. I endorse the arguments put forward by Mr Risstrom, but I do not share his expectation that the Opposition is likely at this stage to change its mind, because its agenda is dominated by the white shoe brigade and the pin-striped hucksters, and the last thing that they are interested in is an equal and fair taxation system. Dr WATSON —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that when he introduced the capital gains tax he informed us that this tax would yield virtually no revenue in 1986-87, $5m in 1987-88, and only $25m annual revenue by 1991? Is it now a fact that in the forthcoming financial year the capital gains tax will yield the Hawke Government between $125m and $160m? Given this enormous discrepancy, how does the Treasurer justify the current rates of his capital gains tax? Finally, in view of the magnitude of this error in forecasting, how is it possible to accept Treasury forecasts in other areas of far greater difficulty, for example in relation to the ID card? Mr KEATING —I must say that why someone who boasts some economic understanding would ask me why I support the current rates because the projected collection of the tax in question is up, really leaves me behind. Mr Porter —Because it is a farce. Mr KEATING —I will tell the honourable member. We have introduced a capital gains tax with full marginal rates of tax, but on the real gain. In other words, we are not out there taxing great slabs of inflation as were being taxed under the former Government's capital gains tax provision-the Russian roulette of section 26a. The reason why the collection is up is that many assets have been transferred, particularly in the frenetic activity on the stock exchanges, since September 1985. When the Government introduced the capital gains tax it did so fairly, grandfathering all assets in before September 1985. A lot of property and assets have been transferred since then to the extent that they are, to use an expression, ungrandfathered and taxed. Therefore, being taxed, those who have taken the benefits of that take the benefits as income, as other persons take the benefit as income in their weekly wage. Therefore, these people are paying the appropriate rate of tax. That is the answer to the central point of the question raised by the honourable member-they pay the appropriate rate of tax. If they hold the property, asset or shares over a period of time, the inflation adjustment takes from the calculation that inflationary component, and the real gain only is taxed. Then there is an averaging provision in case all that income happens to come in one particular year so as again to make the application fair. This is probably the fairest capital gains tax in the world, but it is reasonable one. The Americans are now moving to a capital gains tax at full marginal rates of tax on the nominal gain, not the real gain. There is no inflation washout. This notion that we should give people on wages and salaries taxes on their full income at marginal rates but let off with no tax those who take it through the stock market is about looking after people in a way that only the Opposition parties could disgracefully defend, as they did over the years. We are not about letting people slither through the tax system any longer, and that is why the capital gains tax is catching some of this income. That is why it has made the tax system patently fairer. Instead of sitting there protecting those with assets and trying to make them larger as they have become naturally over the years, particularly in the 1970s with inflation, members opposite should be barracking for a bit of tax justice and equity, a bit of common sense and tax decency. But all those principles were left well behind by the Opposition when it had to be dragged screaming in the 1970s into even cleaning up the tax evasion schemes. That is why the capital gains tax is collecting more money, that is why it should collect more money and that is why the rates are structured properly-to make the tax system decent and fair. Mr GRACE —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer the Minister to the management and investment companies program set up by the Government some three years ago to stimulate a venture capital market in Australia to invest in the growth of innovative businesses. Can the Minister report on the effectiveness of the program in encouraging the success of young, export oriented firms? Has the program assisted small business firms. Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for his question. The management and investment companies program was set up by the Government some three years ago, following the presentation of the Espie report-which, to be fair, was commissioned by the previous Government when my predecessor David Thomson was Minister-to stimulate a venture capital market in Australia to invest in the growth of innovative businesses. The scheme has been a very considerable success. Last week Senator Button announced that the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board had passed two significant century marks. $100m has now been invested and been committed to over 100 Australian businesses. In the 33 months that the MIC program has been running the 11 management and investment companies have invested and firmly committed $102m, $91m in equity and $11m in loans. In total, 104 businesses have received MIC funds as well as vital management support in areas such as marketing, production, financial control and quality control, all of them necessary for a successful business. Often such support was the vital factor missing in setting up new innovative firms. The MIC Licensing Board was set up by the Government to promote the establishment of a private sector venture capital market in Australia and to encourage the provision of management skills and equity finance to young, innovative, export oriented, fast growing businesses. The one hundredth business to receive MIC support was Photo Advertising International Ltd, makers of advertising display panels. It has started a world-wide sales drive for its `day/nite display system' which displays high quality photo images under lit and unlit conditions in ultra slim light boxes. The company has won an Australian industrial design award and holds patents for the product in 26 countries. The Bureau of Industry Economics is currently reviewing the venture capital market in Australia and the MIC program. The review will assess the extent to which the venture capital market in Australia has developed since the introduction of the MIC program and the role of the program in addressing any deficiencies in that market. The review is to be completed by July of this year. The Government deserves some congratulations for what I believe has been an outstanding success. Mr BEALE —My question is to the Minister for Communications. Does the Minister agree with his State colleague the Premier of Victoria, Mr Cain, who said this morning that a fourth television station in Melbourne would be-and I quote him-`terrific'. Mr DUFFY —Following the emergence of the honourable member for Deakin, the Premier of Victoria is now added to the new experts in the area of communications. I have not seen a report of what the honourable member alleges, and I doubt whether the Premier of Victoria said that. If he did say it, I am very surprised and disappointed. It is only in the past few days that the Liberal party has come to any conclusion about this matter. Mr Hawke —A tentative one. Mr DUFFY —Yes, a tentative conclusion. The Liberal Party has suggested issuing a fourth commercial licence in Melbourne and Sydney within a period of about two years and then a further licence in other capital cities about 18 months or two years later. The Liberal Party now opposes the 75 per cent audience reach and, of course, that opposition is entirely different from the proposal put forward by the Opposition in late January when the Leader of the Opposition was saying that 75 per cent was acceptable although the cross-media rules had to be looked at before the Liberals came to a decision. That is probably one of the few sensible statements the Liberals have made. We did not expect them to adopt the cross-media rules until they had had a chance to examine the legislation. It is flattering to all of us on this side of the chamber that people of the enormous capacity of members of the Liberal Party, having examined the cross-media legislation, find no fault with it. They indicated last night that they do not oppose it. However, that is not shared by their learned colleagues in the National Party of Australia who have a concern about cross-media ownership because they do not see anything wrong with somebody owning newspapers, radio and television, particularly in regional areas and particularly when that person treats them favourably. They do not see anything wrong with that at all. In relation to the specific matter raised by the honourable member for Deakin, one of the things that I cannot understand about those opposite is why they hate Australian productions and why they hate children. One of the things that struck me very starkly when I came into this place in October 1980, and then had the pleasure of coming back in 1983 as part of the Government led by the Prime Minister who is at the table here, and who will be here for as long as he wants to be, was the way that we had to put up with the sanctimonious psalm-singing nonsense that those opposite used to go on with, about how they stood for everything decent-for the family and all of that-while the terrible socialists over here were attempting to destroy all that sort of thing. I have always found that one of the most nauseating stances that those opposite take. It is very difficult to be able to pick out that one specific aspect, because there are a lot of them, but that is the one that is the worst. They try to say that we do not care about those standards, that they are standards that they have but that we do not have. Let us just look at the proposal that was dreamt up in the mind of we do not know who in the Liberal Party. Suddenly, with no consultation or anything, those opposite plucked out of the air a policy to introduce another commercial station in Melbourne and Sydney, and ultimately in other capital cities. One thing that they had better start getting through their heads-they had better do it pretty quickly-is that one requirement, among many others, in this country is that 104 hours of Australian drama be produced per network. It is enormously important. The cost of it per network is about $50m and I can tell honourable members that not much of that is spent by regional television. Despite what those opposite say about the networks, they spend that money on Australian drama. Also, the vast majority of the money spent on the eight hours of children's television is spent by the networks. Mr Ian Cameron —What about the SBS fellows? Mr DUFFY —Madam Speaker, I will digress for a moment. For a long time I have wondered what the honourable member for Maranoa was on about. Years ago I recollect-the honourable member for Kooyong may not remember this because in those days he was probably able to grace the members enclosure at Flemington while the rest of us were, I confess, going down a lane in Carlton and having a starting price bet-that SP bookmakers had what they used to refer to as a cockatoo, who used to scream `police' when the police arrived at the opening to the lane. There were springs on the betting boards and when they were hit they used to go into neighbours' houses so that when the police arrived everyone was standing around having an afternoon conversation. Jake was the name of the bookmaker; I do not know the name of the cockatoo. I have often wondered why I have that memory. The fact is that that cockatoo could have been the honourable member for Maranoa. At that time he would have been a young man but the sounds that emanate from over there are very similar. To return to the issue of the third station, what I am saying-I said it here last night-is that it may well be that, in looking at the question of television in this country, we need to look at some stage at what other television may be available. There may be community television at some stage in the sense of public access. There may be a need to look at that combined with something like the Channel 4 concept in the United Kingdom. But to be talking about a fourth commercial television station in our capital cities-- Mr Ian Cameron —What about giving us one out in cockies country? Mr Duffy —There is he is again. Mr Hawke —Police, police. Mr DUFFY —As the Prime Minister has indicated, the police have arrived. I must say that, in relation to that proposal, people talk about the need for more of this and more of that in Australia. We have a population of about 16 million and we have three networks. The United States has 280,000 million people and three networks, and one attempting to get off the ground currently. Mr Beale —There are 36 stations in Europe. Mr DUFFY —If the honourable member wants to watch reruns of I Love Lucy night after night on some of the television stations, as happens in the United States, he would be better occupied to take a trip over there and learn a bit about the matters that he has been prattling on about over the last week or so. It would not do him any harm to look at the quality of that programming. In closing, I must say that I am extremely disappointed-I say this with absolute seriousness-at the party opposite which has always stood for Australia, Queen, country and all that is good in this nation, and for children and for families. For two years this debate has gone on. For two years there was a public opportunity for those opposite to make their views known when an inquiry was set up through the method of a forward development unit within the Department of Communications. An enormous number of submissions were made to that inquiry, but from my recollection there was nothing from the Liberal Party. That report was published with options-not recommendations-for this Government to consider. The Liberal Party floundered around for two years and then all of a sudden it had the sharp light come to it and say: `Let's have another television station in Melbourne. Let's have one in Sydney and let's have one in the other capitals'. All I can say to those opposite is that if they want to destroy what we on this side of the House consider to be important in television in this country they can continue with that sort of nonsense. They will have no opportunity ever to implement it as policy but they can continue with it for as long as they like. I finish where I started: It is very difficult to understand what those opposite have against Australian producers, Australian actors and children. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 80 of the Australian Broadcasting Act 1983, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to sub-section 63h (3) of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board, together with the Auditor-General's report, for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 12 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance 1939, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Co-operative Societies for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 63m of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Canberra Public Cemeteries Trusts, together with the Auditor-General's report, for 1985-86. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr HOWARD —I claim to have been misrepresented by two Ministers in Question Time. Firstly, I was misrepresented by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) when he said, incorrectly, that some months ago when I made a statement on behalf of the Opposition I said that the Opposition supported the 75 per cent proposal in relation to Australian television without any qualification. I read to the House an extract from the statement that I made on 30 January: The Opposition sees merit in the Government's proposal to remove the existing two-station rule. At this stage we are disposed to support the Government's proposal that any television network should have the right to reach 75 per cent of the viewing audience. However we shall be looking carefully at the report of the Senate Select Committee, established at the initiative of the Opposition, as we are particularly keen to ensure that the introduction of the 75 per cent rule does not unfairly disadvantage regional television stations. The next paragraph is really relevant for the Minister to consider: The Opposition also believes that as part and parcel of the removal of the two-station rule and the introduction of the 75 per cent principle there should be a removal of the existing barriers to entry into both television and radio. That means, at the very least, the provision of one additional licence in terms of the amendment to the legislation that has been moved by the Opposition. That statement was made on 30 January and it is contrary to the Minister's assertion. What we have done is on all fours with that section of the statement. I also claim to have been misrepresented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) who, in answer to a question from me in relation to the tax burden on Australian families, falsely used some figures in his reply, not in relation to the subject matter of my question but in relation to single taxpayers. My question was based on a comparison of the 17 1/2 per cent tax paid by family breadwinners with one income and two children in March 1983 versus the 20 1/2 per cent that they are liable to pay under the Keating reforms as from 1 July. The figures used by the Treasurer related to single taxpayers. Family taxpayers were treated better by the Fraser Government than single taxpayers were, as they should be, because they have greater responsibilities. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable members is now getting into the area of debate. Mr HOWARD —I conclude in pointing out where I was misrepresented by saying that even if one looks at the rates cited by the Treasurer on single taxpayers one finds, interestingly enough, that the highest tax rate for a single taxpayer under the Fraser Government was 20.1 per cent which is slightly below the rate which married taxpayers with children will have to pay from 1 July. 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to show restraint with equity. In particular, the decision to defer the November pension adjustments has resulted in a loss of $25.62 for a single pensioner and $21.36 for each married pensioner. The prospect of a further deferral of the May adjustment will result in the loss of another $35.10 for a single pensioner and $29.10 for each married pensioner. When you are scrimping to make ends meet, as is the case with many pensioners, you can't afford such a cut in living standards. Pensioners are looking for a new deal from politicians-more of the same is not good enough! Your petitioners request an immediate return to payment of May and November C.P.I. increases, and as is duty bound will ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr Adermann,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Conquest,Mr Everingham,Mr Hodges,Mr Gayler and Mr West. To the Honourable The Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 86 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown,Mr Burr,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Fitzgibbon,Mr Langmore and Mr Miles. To the Honourable The Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: any proposal to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs would be of grave concern to ex-serviceman, ex-servicewomen and their families, because it would renege on clear and unequivocal commitments for various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House urge the Parliament to ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department, servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Jull and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Milton,Mr Scott,Mr Staples and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: The costs of raising children are rising and the value of government provided economic assistance to families is declining. Families raising children are providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependant Spouse Rebate to $1,851 per annum, and convert it to a cash payment given directly to the non-income earning spouse. 4. Amend the Family Income Supplement Scheme so that its value is increased, its eligibility provisions widened and its withdrawal provisions eased. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen,Mr Charles and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office Agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Rocher. 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 benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefit Tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. 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. 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament, assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that the proposed legislation to allow the treatment of food with Cobalt 60 gamma rays should not take place. Food irradiation, we believe, can only be a backward step as to the health of the community at large. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government not allow the irradiation of food to become legal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That we are opposed to the proposals to change the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act and humbly pray that you reject any such changes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duncan. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposal to establish Memorials to Peace, Memorials to the so-called `Aboriginal War' and to anti-war activists and other like causes at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra would desecrate the Memorial as a fitting and solemn monument to those who served in Australia's Armed Forces and to those who died in defence of their country. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will act to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's memorial to Australia's former servicemen and women and war dead. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members in the House of Representatives assembled, the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and other recipients of Social Security benefits and to Commonwealth Superannuants and to cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Government. We call upon the Prime Minister and his Government to take the following action when considering the budgetary changes to be announced in May this year. 1. They ensure there is no further erosion of existing benefits to Pensioners and other Social Security recipients and further that they honour their promise to Pensioners made before the last election that pensions be increased to a level equal to 25% of average weekly earnings. 2. That the Government reconsider its action in reducing by two per cent the level of superannuation paid to the Commonwealth Superannuants, retired members of the Defence Services and other eligible Commonwealth Superannuants. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- That Australians are now burdened by ever increasing medical costs and that no further decreases in the benefit paid under Medicare be entertained by the Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jull. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the undersigned believe freedom of thought, expression and choice is in jeopardy by the action of minority groups, to ban the sale and hire of video movies with a rating of ``R'' classification notwithstanding that such ``R'' movies could be shown at cinemas and on television. 2. That examples of titles of video movies with ``R'' classification includes such well known movies as: ``One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'' (Jack Nicholson) ``First Blood'' and ``Cobra'' (Sylvester Stallone) ``Dirty Harry'' and ``Sudden Impact'' (Clint Eastwood) (`Make my day!') ``Midnight Express'' ``The Godfather'' ``Apocalypse Now'' (Marlon Brando) ``Crimes of Passion'' (Kathleen Turner & Anthony Perkins) ``Mad Max'' (Mel Gibson) ``The Deer Hunter'' (Robert DeNiro & Meryl Streep) 3. That we the undersigned believe that very little thought has been given to the devastating consequences of the economic impact on the video retailing industry of banning the sale and hire of ``R'' rated movies. 4. That we the undersigned are concerned video library members, all over the age of 18 years, many of whom are parents who believe that they should retain certain basic freedoms namely: (a) the right to view video movies of their own individual choice and not that imposed by Governments or minority groups; (b) the right to exercise their own discretion and control over their own children's viewing habits in lieu of the control sought to be imposed by Governments and minority groups. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That all legislation proposed to the banning of the sale of hire ``R'' classification video movies be immediately stayed pending: (a) an informed public debate on an issue which in essence involves freedom of thought, expression and choice; and (b) a thorough review is made of the economic impact of banning ``R'' classified movies on the video retail industry. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. 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 of Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian national flag can only be changed by a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scholes. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We, the undersigned petitioners, call upon the Australian Parliament to set up strong national Aboriginal land-rights legislation. We call upon Parliament to establish this legislation in line with the five principles of ALP Party Policy and to use its powers to override states which do not comply with the legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a Moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would: be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to : 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the Moratorium on Nuclear Testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition of the following residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That we Australian young people wish to grow up without the threat of nuclear war hanging over us, now and in the future. President Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative (Star Wars) which will have weapons systems in outer space, represents a new and most serious danger to the whole world. It will step up the arms race and greatly increase the risk of nuclear conflict at a time when the reduction of armaments is the most important thing for all of us. We believe that the `Star Wars' project will waste billions of dollars on the unnecessary militarisation of outer space which could be better used for the peaceful exploration of outer space and for the solution of humanity's pressing problems on earth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House publicly condemn the `Star Wars' plans and take every action to ensure Australia is not associated in any way. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the wake of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government close down the Lucas Heights reactors immediately and permanently. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, wish to register our opposition to the recent introduction of the administrative charge for higher education students because: 1. the annual administration charge will inevitably 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 charge is ill-conceived and unfairly penalises part-time students, age pensioners and Austudy/Abstudy beneficiaries-who, in many cases have to wait for months for reimbursement of the charge-amongst others. 4. the imposition of the 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 be immediately withdrawn and that subsequent funding shortfalls be met from general Government revenue. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever humbly pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully: Condemn the Hawke Labor Government's high tax policies and state our total opposition to the introduction of any new taxes including a wealth tax on the net wealth of individual Australians and Australian business. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Not introduce an investment destroying wealth tax into the House of Representatives. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the 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 Benefits of War Widows have been altered, and they no longer receive Pharmaceutical Benefits from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This is causing great concern and hardship, as quite a lot of their medications are no longer available, and nothing to replace them on National Health. They are now required to pay large amounts to obtain their medications, just to stay alive. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Honour its commitment to these War Widows by: Returning their Veteran Affairs Pharmaceutical Benefits to them immediately, and to refrain from worrying these ageing widows any further by tampering with our Veterans' Affairs Act and breaking all promises made to our husbands. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Mortlake showeth concern for current and future funding for road construction in south west Victoria. Your petitioners therefore pray that- The Commonwealth Government increase the monies allocated to the Victorian State Government for road funding, so as to allow adequate funding for the construction and maintenance of roads within south west Victoria. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the Northern Territory draws to the attention of the House the discrimination contained within the Commonwealth Social Welfare Act which unfairly penalises certain pensions by the assumption that married aged pensioners require lesser financial support than single aged pensioners. This discrimination also assumes that married aged pensioners have little freedom of choice. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Commonwealth Social Welfare Act be amended to remove the discriminating provisions and apply the same level of support to all pensioners, regardless of marital status. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: That the tariff of pile fabric imported into Australia currently at 2% duty should not be increased to 25% as proposed by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Miles. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at La Trobe University, Bundoora, in the Federal Electorate of Jagajaga, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administrative Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume 1, Page 98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Advice has been received from the Opposition Whip nominating the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) to be a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in place of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Madam Speaker has received letters from the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 107, Madam Speaker has selected the matter which, in her opinion, is the most urgent and important, and that is the proposal by the honourable member for Dawson, namely: The urgent need for a change in Government policies, which are affecting adversely small businesses and family farms, as evidenced by the record bankruptcies now occurring throughout Australia. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.10) —This matter of public importance arises from natural circumstances. Only yesterday there was a report in the Australian Financial Review which emanated from South Australia through the efforts of the South Australian Small Business Corporation, which has carried out a survey of financiers and found a steep rise in personal bankruptcies in all States. It says that the worst is yet to come. This comment was made on the same day as the Department of Social Security in South Australia admitted that it was giving advice to its clients to transfer from the productive sector to the welfare sector, to wind up their businesses and to become recipients of welfare. It seems strange that the cause of this particular problem that we see around Australia has an agency in the Department of Social Security, which is prepared to advise its clients on how to go about it. We have up to date statistics on bankruptcies in Australia which are far from favourable reading for anybody who would claim to be trying to be productive in this country. The Library figures show that in 1984-85 there were 4,664 bankruptcies. That increased to 5,539 bankruptcies in 1985-86-a 19 per cent increase. In the nine months to March of this year, it has already reached 5,478-a 33 per cent increase on the 1985-86 figure, but a 57 per cent increase on 1984-85. Mr Hunt —How much? Mr BRAITHWAITE —A 57 per cent increase on the former year. We have a farcical situation of this Government trying to propound economic theory to this country. The bankruptcies, which I have just mentioned, are a reflection of the policies it has adopted. They are not the statistics of a caring government-far from it. Every day we get a sermon from the other side of the House about how caring and everything else this Government is. Certainly, these statistics do not show that. In fact, the statistics are a morbid testament of the failure of government policy, a testament to those policies that affect all businesses throughout Australia, all communities, all States and all the people who would be proud, in the normal circumstances, to call themselves Australian. It is rather enlightening to realise that only this week in an adjournment debate the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) gave an indication that a company that the Department of the Special Minister of State is dealing with for computers to be used by members of this House is in liquidation. Mr McGauran —Is it a Saffron company? Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is not a Saffron company. The company, HRC Technologies Ltd, on the night of 26 March, filed for liquidation in Tasmania, and yet this Government is going into this arrangement. The liquidations and bankruptcies are right on our doorstep. The extent of these bankruptcies affects small business and farmers. There is a domino effect that also has its fall-out on personal bankruptcies. The domino effect is, surely, that if businesses which were thriving before this Government got into power are forced to reduce their capacity or even go into bankruptcy, that means lost opportunities for employment. I will give an indication of that. A company that I know very well in my own home city four years ago, at the time the Hawke Labor Government came to power, had 150 employees. At the moment it has 90 employees. That is lost opportunities for 60 people. In between that its bad debt experience is greater than the profit it is able to make after a year's trading. All of these-the bad debt experience and the lost opportunities-are part of the sad story of the economic plight of Australians. There is also the domino effect of mortgages foreclosed on homes. We see that on a daily basis. Again, I suggest that any honourable member representing his electorate in this chamber has such cases brought to him on a daily or weekly basis. The claim by the South Australian Small Business Corporation showed that the increase in interest was a major contributor and also the fact that people were spending more on their credit cards in advance of their income. I suggest to honourable members that if these people are taking their example from this Government, it is a fair reflection that they should be spending in advance of their income, because this is precisely what this Government has done over the last four years it has been in office. It is a matter of do as I say, but not as I do. Let us look at the excess expenditure which has produced the deficits under the four Keating Budgets. Keating No. 1 deficit, $7,932m; Keating No. 2 deficit, $6,720m; Keating No. 3 deficit, $5,726m; and Keating No. 4 deficit, if it runs to plan, $3,503m, but we expect that it will be overrun. The forward Estimates for next year give rise-- Mr Ian Cameron —This is a sham. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It will give rise to this sham that we are going to have tonight, as my colleague says; it is about to produce $6,000m. The populace is spending like crazy because they are taking their example from this Government. At Question Time today I asked a question in connection with the commitment on tin-$45m. Again, this Government has from time to time overlooked its responsibilities in the world market and its world organisations and was not prepared to intervene or issue instructions to get out of that. As a result, we are faced with a greater liability. Let us look at table No. 10 of the last report on the Bankruptcy Act. Unfortunately, it is for 1984-85. This table shows the major causes of business bankruptcy. Of a selection of 1,284 such bankruptcies, 596 are listed as having economic reasons for failure; that is 46 per cent of the total failure for business bankruptcies. I will just mention what they are. There were 262 bankruptcies due to lack of sufficient capital-in other words, they could not borrow in the current climate to do what they wanted to expand; economic reasons, 247; excessive interest, 40; and bad debt experience, 47. I mentioned before what the bad debt experience is-it is just another experience in this bankruptcy situation. Forty-six per cent of the total claimed that there were economic reasons for their bankruptcies. If we go back to published figures, in my own State of Queensland, it is suggested that 26 per cent are bankruptcies of businesses and 73 are personal but, as I said before, it is due to the domino effect brought about by the policies of this Government, to a large extent. What we do need is a change of policy and a change of direction in order to assist the small business, farmers and the families of Australia which are at the production end. I have already stated what the effects of the deficits will be. The expenditure cuts which are part of that problem will be addressed tonight. We have all got to ask ourselves the question at the moment: Will those expenditure cuts be sufficient? I draw the attention of the House to table 3 of the 1986-87 Budget Papers on page 380. It indicates the real increases that have occurred in expenditure under the Keating Budgets. From 1982-83 to 1986-87 there has been a real increase in expenditure of $5,961m. That has been a 16 per cent increase in real terms. In monetary terms, it is $25 billion-almost a 50 per cent increase. If the Treasurer is fair dinkum and he wants to revert-- Mr McVeigh —He is not. Mr BRAITHWAITE —He is not fair dinkum; but if he were fair dinkum, I would suggest that he go back to the last Budget of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), then Treasurer, and try to seal the expenditures on that basis. If the present Treasurer is fair dinkum, he has got $5,916m to get back. We are being faced with the suggestion that $2 billion is going to be too much in that respect. I just happened to notice that in those figures the interest on public debt from 1982-83 to 1986-87-that is turning over the debt-has increased from $3,378m to $7,514m. Again, that is what this Government says we should do, but it is not what it does. The Government has bypassed the major fundamental business principle that one should not borrow to pay one's interest. This is precisely what the Government is doing. I suggest that the Government has a greater capacity than $2 billion in cuts if it returns to the 1982-83 standard. The effect of the rate of interest on bankruptcies has been listed previously. I want honourable members to look at the history of borrowing rates that every small business and farm in Australia has faced since 1984. I obtained from a major bank this morning a list of the prime bank rate changes that occurred between September 1984 and April 1987. There were 48 changes during that period. Interest rates went from 13 per cent-a rather modest figure-to a peak of 21 per cent on 23 December 1985. What a wonderful Christmas present that must have been for every small business and every primary producer throughout Australia at that time. Interest rates surged to 19 per cent on 3 September 1986 and currently stand at 17.5 per cent. If one is a good borrower one can get that prime rate of interest. There are no small businesses in Australia, and very few primary producers, who can get interest at that rate; it is normally one or 2 per cent higher. Imagine the effect those rates have on businesses and on the economic environment. Other policies will have to change if small businesses and farms are to cope. There are on-costs resulting from the fringe benefits taxation, which is estimated to bring in $325m this year. I understand that we have already gone well over that figure. As a colleague at Question Time said, the capital gains tax is likely to bring in between $130m and $160m this year, following an estimate of $5m. Mr Slipper —How much? Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is an increase from $5m to $160m. That is not a bad effort. Again, this has a very telling effect on small business in Australia. I now refer to the costs involved for taxpayers. We are about leaving enough money in the hands of taxpayers so they can pay for and consume the goods available on the market. It does not matter what sort of investment recovery we have or what type of businesses are provided, unless there are consumers with enough money to spend on those goods there will not be any business resurgence. Today, a person has to earn only 1.6 times average weekly earnings to get into the highest tax bracket. In 1970 one had to earn 14 times average weekly earnings to get to that same high tax bracket. So the consumer today is left with less money in his pocket than before. I suggest that there is very little equity and fairness in this, and we depend on those people to come through. These economic policies have very sad results-results which can be counted on the scrapheap of bankrupts and liquidated companies. Another policy the Government has pursued is the famous prices and incomes accord. Mr Rocher —Infamous. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is infamous-- Mr Tuckey —Mark which one? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am not sure mark what. That policy has allowed a portion of the population to have some semblance of the same level of income. But the people who have suffered are those in business. They have suffered in the way I have mentioned earlier, and also the Government has allowed some of the worst work practices to remain. Nowhere in the prices and incomes accord has productivity been stated as the means by which increases should be given. It is interesting to note that only yesterday ICI Australia Limited paid out $1m in bonuses in an effort to scrap such practices as overtime payment for work not undertaken and other such practices. It seems to me that this comes a little late. The strike factor over the last 12 months has risen by 17 per cent. This has been particularly so in the coal industry. While the prices and incomes accord affects such major businesses as ICI and industries such as the coal industry, the service industries, the smaller industries, also suffer because of it. It affects families because of jobs that are lost, and the effect on the unemployed is major. Tomorrow we will see the Hancock legislation come into this House, and that will reflect this Government's complete subservience to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Mr Howard —Yes, a scandalous sellout that is. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Of course it is, it is a scandalous sellout to the rest of Australia. We will be walking away from civil court remedies and will be establishing union leaders as leaders of this country and they will have no consideration for real Australians. Expenditure restraint and a return to balanced budgeting is required. We have to reduce interest rates. There has to be a repeal of taxes and charges which are in no way reflected by the income of the taxpayer but are-- The DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(3.25) —It is obvious today that in the fragmented Opposition-- Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Surely, considering his oft expressed interest in bankruptcy, the honourable member for Charlton ought to be fielding this particular-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr GEAR —That trivial point of order sums up what I was about to say. The hopelessly fragmented Opposition has decided that it is the turn of the Queensland National Party members today to bring on a matter of public importance. As usual, the speech by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) continued the trend that we have come to expect from the Opposition parties. The opening sentence of the MPI begins with the words: The urgent need for changing Government policies . . . Those listening to the debate today will find one thing missing. They will find missing what those parties opposite would do if they were in power. We have been waiting a long time, in fact for four years, for an Opposition taxation policy. We cannot find it. Is it any wonder? It cannot get its act together. We can shoot the matter of public importance down in flames easily. It is amazing that the Opposition has picked on a National Party member from Queensland to bring it on. The matter mentions bankruptcies. Some of the statistics cited by the honourable member for Dawson came from the article he referred to yesterday. The Opposition operates on the fact that one looks through the papers to find something to hang an argument on. What do we find when we get down to the bankruptcy statistics for the first nine months of this financial year, from 1 July 1986 to 31 March this year? Let us compare the number of bankruptcies in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory with those in Queensland, where the honourable member comes from. (Quorum formed) The one good thing about quorums is that they bring intelligent people into this House and keep out the dopes. As I was saying before I was interrupted, if we compare the number of bankruptcies in Queensland with the number in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory for the nine months of this financial year, we find that New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, which has a population of 5.8 million, has had 1,283 bankruptcies. In Queensland, where the honourable member comes from, there were 1,295 bankruptcies for a population less than half of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Therefore, the rate of bankruptcy in Queensland is twice what it is in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Yet the honourable member has the gall to poke up his head on bankruptcies. The one thing that we know about bankruptcies in Queensland, is that the escalation started with the Joh for PM campaign, and has taken off as that campaign has gone down. Let me put that another way. In percentage terms, bankruptcies in Queensland have gone up by 43.5 per cent, while for the rest of Australia the figure is a mere 6.3 per cent. If the Opposition wants to put up someone to talk about bankruptcy, for heaven's sake, it should not choose someone from Queensland. The honourable member poked up his head and it has just been blown off. In the matter of public importance, the Opposition also spoke about farmers. I did not hear the honourable member for Dawson say too much about farmers. We know that the Australian Labor Party represents farmers as well as every other Australian. We are here for all Australians. The Government accepts that a number of farmers are facing considerable financial difficulty, but there are a number of major qualifications. Firstly, only a small proportion of farmers are in this category. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates that 5 per cent of farmers are at risk in 1986-87. That is a fall from 7 per cent in 1985-86. At risk is not the same as going broke, as the Opposition should know. At risk is defined as a farm with less than 70 per cent equity and insufficient income to meet living expenses and debt repayment. Only 8 per cent of farmers considered at risk-that is, 8 per cent of the 5 per cent-actually leave the industry, and only a small minority of them are bankrupt. Most would leave with enough resources to establish themselves elsewhere. That is nothing new, it has been going on for a long time; some farmers are getting out of farming. There are very few farm foreclosures. Each major trading bank has advised that the number of foreclosures in any one year can be counted virtually on the fingers of one hand. Yet, to listen to the Opposition, one would think that there were widespread bankruptcies in the rural sector. The simple fact is that there are not, and the statistics prove that. Secondly, there is a great diversity in the situation, according to commodity, region and individual. The proportion of farms at risk varies from virtually zero in sheep and beef-and in recent times, wool has hit 750c a kilo, a record price, so not all farmers are feeling the pinch-to 17 per cent in cropping, including 53 per cent in cropping in New South Wales. Those are the wheat growing areas that have been adversely affected by world trade. That diversity demonstrates that the cause of farm problems does not lie domestically, but lies in the international agricultural trade war-our allies, the United States and the European Economic Community, are dumping their wheat on our markets. Prices have gone down because of our allies. The question that faces the Government is the appropriate policy response. That is something we heard nothing about from the honourable member for Dawson. The Opposition is always long on rhetoric and light on detail. We will never get an answer out of the Opposition. Tomorrow's exercise by the Leader of the Opposition will just be one more sorry episode in a long saga of blaming this Government for everything, but saying nothing. As I said, the question that faces the Government is the appropriate policy response. As the international grain price decline is a major part of our terms of trade problem, the Government's entire macroeconomic policy, including this evening's economic statement, is directed at adjusting the economy to that reality-something the Opposition never did in 30 years in power. More specifically, the rural adjustment scheme has been wound up to record levels. The proportion of rural debt being funded under that scheme is now estimated to be 10 times the level of 1982-83. So do not say that we are not doing anything to help farmers at risk; this Party stands for all Australians, not just one section. The other policies for the rural sector that the Government has implemented include reducing costs through fully rebating the diesel fuel excise, abolishing tariffs on machinery and reducing tariffs on chemicals. Those are all aimed at helping the man on the land. There have been increasing returns and improved marketing through our active trade policy, reform of the statutory marketing authorities, increased wool promotion funding and the establishment of market innovation programs. All that the Opposition failed to do, this Government is doing. It is helping the rural sector. We have secured the long-term resource base of the sector through upgraded arrangements and funding for research, soil conservation-the first government ever to do that-and fisheries and forestry management. I do not have to remind the House that the all-party delegation led by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) is leaving this weekend to put our case directly to the Americans. The terms of trade collapse has exposed weaknesses in our economy that have not grown up during the period that we have been in office. It is the fault of the neglect of the conservative parties that ruled this country for a virtually unbroken period since the second World War. It sat on its hands and watched industry collapse around its feet, but its members now get up in the House and blame us for the problems. The high interest rates that we are experiencing today are a direct result of the Opposition's failure adequately to give Australia the economy that it needed in the 1980s. It has been left to this Government to restructure the economy. What we are doing now is paying for the Opposition's past failures-and is not the Opposition glorying in that? It brings up mindless matters of public importance, yet it is really taking comfort in the misery produced by its past policies. It blames us for high interest rates, but it well knows that interest rates are going down. The thing that really sticks in the craw of Opposition members is that, at the next election, interest rates in the community will be even further down than they are now. Does the Opposition reckon that it will have a show next time? Everybody in the community knows that the Opposition is a joke, and the next time that the public has a chance to pass judgment, the Opposition will find itself further down the gurgler than it was last time. It has been left to this Government to restructure the Australian economy, to ensure that the deficiencies that the Opposition brought into the economy do not last. I shall give some examples of some of the action that the Government has taken. It has floated the exchange rate to give farmers, our primary producers and our miners a decent return for their products. The former Government overvalued the Australian dollar, and we know what happened to industry. Not only did it cause the collapse of industry, but the farmers that the Opposition purports to represent were adversely affected. We have deregulated the financial industry. It is now easier to obtain a loan for high risk ventures than it has ever been. There has been unprecedented wage restraint by the unions because we believe that working with people is a great deal more productive than working against them. The tax cuts that we have given to the population-and the honourable member for Dawson talked about the consumer having more in his pocket-have meant more in people's pockets. If they were ever mad enough to put the Opposition back into power, it would freeze their wages immediately. But do not worry, they are not mugs; they have woken up to the Opposition. Whether talking about small or large industries, we should have a look at the imputation system that the Treasurer has brought into the House and which will operate from 1 July this year. Industry was on its knees. Out of every $100 profit, all the shareholders received was $22. Under our proposals, they get $51. That will mean more investment in enterprise that creates jobs and wealth for Australia, and not the paper-shuffling schemes that went on under the Opposition because there was no capital gains tax. The May statement tonight is just another chapter in the fiscal responsibility of the Hawke Labor Government. It will be very interesting to see what the spotlight on the Leader of the Opposition will produce tomorrow. We all know what will happen. (Quorum formed) Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(3.41) —Over many months the National Party of Australia has been endeavouring to get this Government at least to acknowledge the serious economic problems facing the farming and small business sectors of rural Australia and to do something about them other than throwing rural people on to the social welfare regime. The combination of low commodity prices, rising costs, declining farm incomes and massively high interest rates has created an urgent need for a change in Government policy. The Government-in particular the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin)-has been telling us for months that its only option is to get the economy right. It has failed dismally. We now see a spate of bankruptcies occurring in small business and rural sectors. We also know that financial institutions are not foreclosing on many clients who have grave liquidity problems. As a result there are many undeclared bankruptcies throughout rural Australia. Farmers are just sitting on their farms, unable to obtain carry-on finance, unable to operate machinery, unable to take any action to work their way out of their present difficulties. Many small business closures have been directly related to the circumstances in the agricultural communities. Chemical firms, farm machinery firms and motor vehicle dealerships were the first affected. This year the impact is broader. All types of small businesses, particularly those in the retail outlet area, are finding that their bad debts are increasing and that their credit ratings with suppliers in the city are being denied. The Hawke Government has shown a total lack of understanding of rural problems. Its rhetoric and actions display enormous ignorance and a lack of compassion for agricultural industries and small businesses. I remind the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear)-although he has quickly left the chamber-that the Federal Government is responsible for economic policy, not our State governments. This Government refuses to change policy direction, to cut interest rates and reduce the massive cost burden, particularly the degree of taxation it applies to petroleum products. Not only has this Government refused to come to grips with the major economic problems, but also it has continued to heap burden after burden in the form of new taxes on small business. The fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax-exceeding all Government expectations of collection-the family-destroying assets test, the tax imposed on the dairy industry, the wine industry and the citrus industry and the totally disastrous indexation of fuel and add to the intolerable cost structure under which small business and farms today are suffocating. The Minister for Primary Industry may know that changes are necessary but the philosophy of the Labor Party makes him a lame duck. He can only repeat ad nauseam that the future of our rural industries depends on getting the economy right. Mr Cobb —We are being crippled. Mr PETER FISHER —We are being crippled. The Government is not getting the economy right. With the decline in export earnings and the criminal escalation of our national debt, our future is bleak. Our major economic statistics are stark. Australia's economic situation has worsened. The Budget strategy for 1986-87 is no longer sustainable. There should not be any need for tonight's mini-Budget. In itself the mini-Budget is an indication of the failure of this Government. Mr McGauran —The total incompetence. Mr PETER FISHER —As the honourable member says, it is total incompetence. The Government should have as its key targets the impossible current account deficit and our continuing foreign debt. Too much reliance has been placed by this Government on a tight monetary policy to support the Australian dollar and to slow economic growth. We recognise that the States have also contributed to the large public sector demands. Our nation today faces a huge adjustment task which must be shared among all sectors of the community and not just forced upon the rural sector. I accept that adjustment for farmers and small business to rapid technological and social change is a continuous process. However, this Government must realise that the crisis we are experiencing today, resulting from both external and domestic circumstances, is of such a magnitude that it cannot be met in either social or economic terms by normal commercial processes. Assistance has to come forward now to provide funds for rural and debt adjustment, for carry on funds for farming and small business to cope effectively with the diverse financial problems being faced by regional communities. The honourable member for Canning also mentioned how the level of adjustment funds is the highest it has ever been. Of course it is, but the funds are not being placed in the right perspective, which is simply an indication of the tragic situation that this Government has got us into. The adjustment funds that are being provided are not being directed to small business and farmers in the form of carry on funds. As I said earlier, many families on rural properties have no finance to plant this season's crop. They have no alternative but to go under. Not only are our farmers suffering; our service industries are suffering also. This is having a serious socio-economic effect on our country towns. Last week the Minister for Primary Industry visited my electorate and saw the effectiveness of communities helping themselves and supporting each other through social and financial counselling services. But he also saw the emotional and financial stress that is permeating the level of morale and having a major bearing on the ability of individuals and families to function properly. Lack of hope and the necessity for families to separate as husbands look elsewhere for work and as young people and young families look for work in the city is having a disastrous effect on families and communities. It is eroding the population of country towns and challenging their viability as a community unit. Sporting and church groups, hospitals and schools are struggling to survive. At the same time, governments, in particular State governments, are relocating people through regionalisation programs to large rural cities, exacerbating the exodus through the closure of court houses, State electricity commission offices, Telecom depots, rural water commission offices, a run-down of transport systems-and so it goes on. The National Party stresses that agricultural production must remain a major element in our trade and is therefore a vital factor in this nation's prosperity and living standards. We are not seeking hand-outs or subsidies to solve these problems but simply an alleviation of Government-imposed burdens, restrictions and rigidities which are threatening the loss of home, heritage and livelihood. Mr Ronald Edwards —The agrarian socialists! Mr PETER FISHER —I hear the honourable member for Stirling in Western Australia laughing about the problems rural people are facing. I ask him to go out into the rural areas of Western Australia and ask the constituents out there the same questions. Our productive people in business and on the farms are being ground into the dust. Immediate major policy changes are necessary to halt the tragedy that is taking place across rural Australia. Nothing better indicates this feeling of frustration and despair than a letter I have received from a Mallee farmer's wife. It states: I wonder how many people really understand the situation or do they merely gloss over all the facts and figures presented, like so many of our politicians now in Government: politicians with tunnel vision seeing every farmer as a rich farmer, who must be slugged with every conceivable tax. We are not incompetent muddlers, but proud of our farm and what we have achieved through soil conservation and re-afforestation. We love this land this area and its people, sharing their bad spots and good. All this-and we are to calmly move out? Is my husband to be written off as a failure? After having lived on his land for 60 years, serving four years of his youth in the Army fighting for his country and then successfully farming for the past 40 years in an 80 hour week without benefit of overtime, sick leave or holiday pay and rarely a holiday? What of our young son, now an apprentice farmer, and many other young farmers? Are they to be denied the opportunity of ever working their own farm and in all likelihood having to join the list of the unemployed? All incentive to work is being destroyed. One has to ask: Is that all part of the great socialist dream? It is high time that every true Australian in both city and country stood up to be counted. We all need each other to pull together for the common good of all. These same sentiments, I believe, could be expressed across the nation, as longstanding profitable businesses go under and as skilled and valued employees are retrenched. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures are inadequate, but they do show that for 1985-86 and the first three quarters of 1986-87, there has been a large increase in bankruptcies-to 5,478, an increase of some 33 per cent. I remind the House that for the full year 1981-82 there were 4,575 bankruptcies. Those figures are a stark example of the failure of government policy, and this is affecting all businesses, all communities and all States. My colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) has adequately referred to these issues. What an opportunity this nation has to harness the skill of small business and the productive capacity of the farm sector. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(3.51) —We have just heard from another of the tired and dispirited members of the National Party of Australia, who, cloaked as agrarian socialists, are basically seeking all the time to subsidise various sectors of the community that they purport to represent. Unfortunately, when in government, the National Party conspired to sit upon a massively over-valued exchange rate, an exchange rate that meant that our rural sector could not export as competively as it wanted to. (Quorum formed) I thank my colleagues for supporting the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) and me in dealing with this tired and dispirited National Party. It is one of those organisations which recently has kowtowed to the Premier of Queensland. For an indication of how members of the National Party are lacking in morality and principle, one has only to hark back to Monday night's Four Corners program to realise what a decrepit and potentially corrupt party it really is. I think we must recognise that members of the National Party put up this matter of public importance today believing it to be an important issue, but when it comes to the Government's time to contribute to the debate they are not able to take it-they call quorums and interrupt the proceedings. The honourable member for Canning has already substantially demolished their position in terms of their integrity, their lack of policy and their lack of leadership. However, I would say to the people of Australia who are listening to this debate that members of the National Party sitting over in that corner are members of a party that now takes its directions from the Premier of Queensland. It has no Federal policy at all and in terms of its leadership it is unable to stand up to the Premier of Queensland. They have no leadership, no principles and no policies. When they are put to the test-as the honourable member for Canning indicated-and asked to come up with some policies, such as a tax policy, and industry policy or an exchange rate policy, members of the National Party are totally unable to respond. They are totally bereft of policies. As we have said frequently on this side, their chance will come tomorrow night. They can then see if they can prop up the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). They can see if they can hide their past-and I am referring to the time when they protected the tax dodgers, and so on. They can try to do that, but we do not think that they can. When recently challenged about what they would do in terms of their economic policy and a small business policy, referred to by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), it became clear that members of the National Party do not have a policy on those matters. They come in here day after day and whinge, but I point out that the Australian community knows how to deal with whingers-they are pushed off into one corner and left as being irrelevant people. That is what those honourable members are. The National Party is irrelevant and certainly as individuals members of that party are irrelevant. The thing that I find most entertaining around this place at the moment is talking to various Opposition members in the different factions. There are now many factions that exist; in fact, there are five factions. I remind everyone who is listening to this debate at the moment that they have before them a united Hawke Government. The Labor Party is the only party capable of governing this country. It is the only party which has policies, and a further statement of those policies will be made tonight. We have come to grips with the real questions of the economic management of this country. Honourable members opposite form a rag-tag bunch who clutch at principles pertaining to the flag and the Queen, and so on, without any idea of how to go about putting those principles into policy. Honourable members opposite talk about families, but they were members of a government under which an extra 250,000 people were added to the unemployment list. That occurred in the last year when honourable members opposite were in government. What did they do for Australian families? They guaranteed that many people would have to face unemployment. The Liberal and National Party government was incapable of facing up to the double taxation of company dividends. As the honourable member for Canning and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have said, the Government is facing up to that issue. With the abolition of the double taxation on company dividends, small businesses in this country will have the greatest chance to do something productive in terms of reversing the economic situation that they face. Honourable members opposite were never interested in addressing that issue; they were too busy doing deals with their mates from the Gold Coast, the white shoe brigade of the Gold Coast, all those people who could go around and put money in their bags. Honourable members opposite were incapable of dealing with the real issues. The unfortunate thing is that the Australian people know this, too. They know that not only were honourable members opposite incapable of doing this when they were in government but that in fact their capabilities have dropped away even further since they have been in opposition. Without the lure of all those glittering prizes of being in government, they have nothing to hold their ranks together. As I said earlier, one of the most entertaining things to do in this place is to talk to various members of the Opposition factions and to find out how far apart they are. If the Government were to call an election, honourable members opposite would be incapable of putting up policies to the electorate. They certainly could not put up combined policies. They are incapable of developing even a single policy-on tax, for example. On the other hand, the Government has before the Australian people a substantial record of economic achievement. Reference was made to bankruptcies but, as the honourable member for Canning very eloquently said, a big problem in relation to bankruptcies has occurred in Queensland. We know why that has occurred in Queensland-perhaps those involved have not done the right sort of deals with the Queensland Government and they have not got the right sort of contacts with the State Government departments. In other States, under labor governments, where there is free and open competition, business has not had that difficulty. The honourable member for Canning spoke very tellingly about that. Honourable members opposite must address this matter. Why is it that Queensland has such a shoddy record in terms of bankruptcies? I now turn to the housing issue. Honourable members opposite were part of a government which presided over a disgraceful housing situation. In relation to house construction, commencements were at the lowest level for 20 years. The present Government has restored stability and profitability in the housing industry. When we go around our electorates-and honourable members on this side of the House are always working their electorate-we find that many people have obtained housing as a result of this Government's first home owners scheme and its commitment to public sector housing. That has meant that the small businesses associated with the housing industry have been able to benefit from an improved profitability in turnover. Recently, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) came to my electorate in Perth. We visited two businesses, Gemco Pty Ltd and ACET. One of the interesting things was the level of activity there. They were so busy; everyone was on overtime and turning out things. They were getting new markets, including export markets. That sort of thing was not happening when the Opposition was in government, and it is interesting that the people at those businesses, and in the wider community, understand that too. Opposition members are still not on top of this issue. They have had four years in which to get on top of it, and there have been changes of leadership and other problems. However, in those four years the Opposition has still not come up with any substantial policies. The word `incentivation' was created, but it disappeared very quickly. What are the Australian people supposed to do? The Opposition is being taken over by people such as the Elliotts, the Edelstens and so on. They think that politics is a bit like buying football teams, that they can just move in with a million dollars and buy a seat. They think that a seat can be bought and sold the same as beer. However, the Opposition's problem is that the Australian electorate is much more discerning than that. It understands that a party must have principles and be able to deliver. I advise members opposite, who are flirting with the likes of the Elliotts and the Edelstens, that politics is not like buying football teams. It is about delivering, caring about people, performing and having something substantial to show the Australian community. When we look back at our record we are pleased with what we have been able to do in terms of profitability and improving employment, with 782,000 new jobs since we came to office. What a record that is compared with the 250,000 jobs that were lost in the last period of the previous Government. I say to the Australian people: When they come to make a choice they should forget all these temporary bits of rhetoric from the Opposition; look at the record of the Government and the choice will be clear. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The time for the debate has expired. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the first report of 1987, relating to the redevelopment of migrant accommodation facilities, Wacol, Queensland, and I seek the leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —I thank the House. The Committee believes that a need exists to reduce migrant centre costs, while maintaining the level of support services required. The proposed conversion of accommodation units to self-contained, self-catering units should assist in refugees remaining at migrant centres for longer periods than at present, thus enhancing the prospects of effective assimilation. The Committee recommends that the concept of self-contained, self-catering accommodation should be adopted for migrant centres throughout Australia, subject to the satisfactory evaluation of the Pennington Centre in South Australia. The Committee also recommends that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs take follow-up action on how to address the wider issues involved in the premature departure of refugees from migrant centres, often occasioned by an understandable sense of isolation from their own kind. Although redevelopment of the present site is cheaper in capital cost and in long term operating costs than the alternatives considered by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Committee is not convinced that Wacol is the best location for the migrant centre. A site closer to pubic transport and community facilities may be more conducive to refugees staying at Wacol for longer periods of time. The Committee recommends that the project should not proceed at Wacol and that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs further investigate sites closer to public transport and facilities as possible alternatives. The Committee is concerned over the redundancy of the five-year-old kitchen/dining facility. The Committee believes that it may be premature to convert this facility to other uses before the new concept has been fully tested. The Committee recommends that further consideration be given to the future use of the kitchen/dining facility. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill represents one of the most significant initiatives to counter the underground cash economy, tax evasion and money laundering. It is notorious that the underground cash economy provides great scope for tax evasion, both domestically and internationally. It is clear that traditional investigative techniques have been ineffective in identifying financiers of major crime, because of the ease with which such persons are able to distance themselves from the actual criminal conduct. However, experience both in Australia and overseas has shown that the financiers are more closely associated with the profits of crime. That experience also shows that cash is an important part of financing criminal activity. This Bill will give law enforcement agencies the ability to monitor the movement of large amounts of cash and thus to identify the recipients of proceeds of crime. The legislation is consistent with calls by a number of royal commissions and other inquiries in recent years for stronger measures to deal with the widespread abuse of the facilities of financial institutions in relation to tax fraud and other criminal activities. The Bill implements a scheme for the reporting of certain large currency transactions conducted through various institutions and certain transfers of currency into and out of Australia. The reporting of large scale cash transactions conducted through certain types of cash dealers, the reporting of the export of foreign currency and the reporting of the import of foreign and Australian currency, together with the verification of the identity of persons who open, or operate, accounts with certain financial institutions, are essential measures to enable the cash economy to be controlled and to minimise tax evasion. The reports will also be of great value in following the money trail in relation to proceeds of all criminal activities, including tax evasion, and in detecting financiers of criminal activity such as drug trafficking. The thrust of the scheme is broadly similar to the successful scheme in operation in the United States. My recent visit to the United States has confirmed my conviction that the ability to monitor the movements of large amounts of cash, both domestically and internationally, is an essential aspect of the fight against organised crime and has very substantial benefits in the effective collection of revenue. United States officials informed me that several hundred million dollars were recovered last year from their export/ import reporting requirements alone. Objects of Bill The principal object of the Bill is to facilitate the administration and enforcement of the taxation laws. Further objects of the Bill are to facilitate the administration and enforcement of laws of the Commonwealth, and of a Territory, and to make information collected under the Bill available to State law enforcement authorities to facilitate the administration and enforcement of State laws. Content of Bill The Bill provides for the reporting of certain cash transactions and transfers, establishes the Cash Transaction Reports Agency and, in addition, imposes certain obligations on financial institutions in relation to the opening and operation of accounts. Cash Transaction Reports The Bill requires cash dealers to report to the Director of the Cash Transaction Reports Agency. These dealers include financial institutions and others, such as bookmakers and casinos, who have the capacity to receive and co-mingle large amounts of cash. They will report cash transactions to which the dealer is a party, and which involve currency in excess of $10,000. All transactions, other than exempt transactions, must be reported. Exemptions may be granted to certain high cash flow businesses, to employers for payroll withdrawals, to Government agencies, and may relate to individual transactions or to certain classes of transactions. Financial institutions will be required to maintain an exemption register. The Director of the Cash Transaction Reports Agency will have access to any exemption register and will have power to direct a financial institution to remove or amend any entry in the exemption register maintained by the institution. Reports Relating to Import and Export Currency The Government considers it essential to be able to monitor the movement of funds into, and out of, Australia and has therefore provided the Cash Transaction Reports Agency with a monitoring role in relation to the export of foreign currency, and the import of any currency, in excess of $5,000. At the present time, tax clearances are required before certain types of funds can be moved overseas and the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations contain a prohibition on the export of Australian currency in excess of $5,000. No other checks are maintained on the movement of funds into or out of Australia. As a further check on the movement, and destination, of funds any person in Australia who receives Australian or foreign, currency from a place outside Australia will be required to report the receipt of those funds to the Cash Transaction Reports Agency if the value of the currency involved exceeds $5,000. The Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations confer on Customs and police officers wide-ranging powers to question persons leaving Australia and to inspect their luggage for the purpose of ascertaining currency violations and the Bill provides those officers with similar powers in relation to ensuring that relevant cash transaction reports have been filed. Access to CTR Information The legislation provides that all CTR information is to be provided to the Director of the Cash Transaction Reports Agency. The Agency is to make the information available to the Commissioner of taxation on a direct and unrestricted basis. Other law enforcement agencies including the Australian Customs Service, the National Crime Authority and State law enforcement agencies may also seek access to CTR information. All CTR information may be utilised by relevant agencies for both evidentiary and investigative purposes. Obligations in Relation to the Opening and Operation of Accounts Following the recommendations of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and the continued failure of the Senate to pass the Australia Card legislation which would provide an effective weapon against tax evasion and fraud, the Government considers it essential to include in this Bill provisions dealing with the verification of the identity of persons opening, and operating, accounts with financial institutions. The system for the verification of account holders provided in this legislation places some obligations on financial institutions and their customers but it should be borne in mind that banks already require similar information before accounts can be opened. The Bill has been drafted to allow for the use of the Australia Card as a means of verifying accounts. However, given the Senate's failure to pass the Australia Card legislation, it has been necessary to provide alternative means of verification pending the passage of the Australia Card legislation. Enforcement Part IV of the Bill creates offences of structuring transactions and transfers to avoid the reporting requirements, failure to comply with, and providing false and misleading information in purported compliance with the Bill. An injunction mechanism in relation to breaches of the legislation, particularly where there is a contravention committed by an agency which would otherwise fall within the shield of the Crown, is also available. Financial Impact Statement The Bill will have only a modest impact on cash dealers required to report cash transaction information as the legislation provides sufficient flexibility to enable the Director of the Agency to develop the most cost-effective measures for cash dealers to record and communicate information to the Agency. In relation to the public sector, the legislation will require the establishment of a Cash Transaction Reports Agency and the purchase of sophisticated computer facilities for the Agency. However, the Australian Taxation Office projects an increase in tax revenue alone of some $30m. In addition, the United States' experience indicates that there will be significant criminal law enforcement benefits. Based on annual Agency running costs of $2m per annum, with an extra $1m for establishing computer facilities, the measures are clearly cost-effective. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, and the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(4.15) —Continuing what I was saying earlier-(Quorum formed) I thank the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) for calling the quorum and giving me such an attentive audience. In speaking to Supply Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, I would like to devote some of my comments to the allocations to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Like most honourable members, I have many veterans in my electorate and I always listen very carefully to their representations. A few months ago the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) stirred up the sub-branches of the Returned Services League in my electorate by saying that this Government was going to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs. He engaged in some political gimmickry by sending telegrams to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), demanding that the Department of Veterans' Affairs not be abolished. He claimed to be receiving 80 letters a day on the issue. As well, he called on me to state where I stood on the issue. I must say that I also received dozens of individual letters and letters from each of the RSL sub-branches. I wrote back to each of them, quoting a reply from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) which stated: The Prime Minister has given a firm assurance, not only to me personally- that, is the Minister- but also to the Parliamentary Labor Party that the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be retained. I suggested to each letter writer that he also write to Liberal members seeking an assurance on the future of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Mr Lee —How many did? Mr HOLLIS —I do not know how many did; I am coming to that. But what have we seen in the latest reshuffle? There is no separate shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the Liberal Party of Australia. Senator Austin Lewis has had that tacked on to his responsibility for local government and Territories. Even the National Party of Australia has given the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) the portfolio of veterans' affairs as well as immigration and ethnic affairs and Aboriginal affairs. There is no doubt that in the unlikely event of the Liberals ever gaining office-we know that they will not-they would amalgamate the Department of Veterans' Affairs with the Department of Social Security. Such a change would drastically affect the benefits and rights of veterans. Of course, what the conservatives are planning to do is a result of the pressures being exerted on them by the forces of darkness, that is, the forces of the New Right in this country which in various ways have published documents and made statements that there ought to be drastic reductions in the number of departments and in the role of the Public Service. Some have gone so far as to suggest the abolition of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Late last year a deputation from the RSL met with the honourable member for Bennelong who, according to the national newsletter of the RSL, refused to give a commitment that the Department of Veterans' Affairs would be retained. When there is disarray in the ranks of the conservative parties, documents seem to have the capacity to fall off the back of trucks with greater rapidity than in normal times. A document published in the Australian Financial Review suggested that the Department of Veterans' Affairs would be amalgamated with the Department of Social Security and would operate under one Minister. These policies coming from the conservative side of politics create a great deal of confusion and concern in the ranks of veterans. I might add that the honourable member for Gilmore has been very silent on the issue lately. Why is it that he is now so silent on the issue of the future of the Department of Veterans' Affairs? He was not so silent a few months ago. I repeat that the Hawke Labor Government-we can see it in the allocation for the Department in this legislation-will retain a separate Department of Veterans' Affairs while ever there is a need for it. I now turn to the allocation for the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. One of the real difficulties in this House is the dilemma faced by young, ambitious members who are keen to get publicity. Such an example is the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), who is now the shadow spokesperson for arts, heritage and environment. No one in this chamber has been more critical over the past two years of grants to the arts, especially community arts, than the honourable member for Mayo. He must now be burning the midnight oil reading his speeches. Time and again he made speeches just to get a bit of cheap publicity. Let me assure the honourable member that he is not the only one going through all the speeches he made in this chamber on the arts. Many honourable members on this side and many people in the arts community are going through his speeches and will be repeating them to him. Mr Downer —I'm flattered. Mr HOLLIS —The honourable member who claims that he is flattered at this attention might answer one question: What is the Opposition's approach to arm's length funding? Is it in agreement with that or not? Many people in the community want to know the Opposition's approach to that. Of course, the famous Waste Watch Committee, of which he was a member, wanted to direct attention away from the Liberals' lack of policies; just as they have no taxation policy, they have no arts policy. Perhaps if they came up with a policy and released it for public debate we would know where they stood on these issues. I now turn to some of the criticisms made by the famous Waste Watch Committee. Professor Scott, the Chairman of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, said that perhaps a project entitled `Uninformed criticism of ARGS grants 1987-88' would be a high priority for future funding so that these criticisms can be exposed for the shallow understanding of the world of research that they are. How can one judge the merits of a project by its title alone? Does one select a book to read purely by its title? If so, one is in for a shock. As You Like It would, no doubt, be a soft pornographic play; Sleeper Awake, possibly a book on religious meditations; and Paradise Lost, the sequel to a recent John Mortimer television series. Ludicrous it may be, but it appears to be the basis on which one per cent of the grants was labelled wasteful. Was any attempt made to discover the real nature of the despised projects? I suspect that the only reason that some of the scientific projects were not also categorised as wasteful was that the Waste Watch Committee could not understand the titles. A recent critical editorial stated: Australia's standing depends on the quality of our academic work, not just the subjects under research. How true that is. Every one of these despised projects has been assessed by experts in the field, often from overseas. The competition for grants is immense. A high proportion of applicants fail and the quality of the work of the successful is internationally recognised. The inference may be that such projects should be funded by research workers at their own expense. This is, alas, impracticable. Therefore, it must be presumed that the projects should not be attempted. Is Australia then to opt out of all research judged as irrelevant by groups such as the Waste Watch Committee? It is to be wondered whether Australia gets more credit from having the recognised world expert on the Greek vases of southern Italy quite literally feted wherever he goes and awarded dozens of prizes for his work, or from the disappointing performances of an athlete supported by tens of thousands of dollars of government subsidies. Mr Downer —You hate sportsmen, don't you? Mr HOLLIS —As was written, a research project must be judged by its quality, by a detailed examination of its merits and expert assessment, not by a political snap judgment based on its title alone. The former is what the Australian research grants scheme attempts to do. It would be tragic for the future position of Australia as a country of genuine influence in the world if this were the only type of research sponsored by government. The Waste Watch Committee's denunciation of research and, by implication, teaching, in classical studies would particularly upset Australians of Greek or Italian origin. Those groups in our community can rightly take a pride in the contributions of their forebears to the world's cultural heritage, and they strongly support the opportunities within our education system for the study of Greek and Roman civilisations. In conclusion: The honourable member for Mayo interjected that I must be opposed to sport. That is absolute rubbish. All we are asking for is a fair allocation of the resources that are available. If people, such as members of the Waste Watch Committee, are to criticise projects, they should at least get their facts right. They should do a little bit of research before they criticise research projects. They would benefit from doing so. There may well be room for criticism, but at least it would be justified. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(4.26) —It is a real pleasure to follow the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) in this debate when I now realise that he is a sportsman. When I look at him I say to myself: `There is no way in the world that he would make a Queensland team'. We do not have room for little, round fat fellas who run out of gas. Obviously, I can only presume that he would be a member of a New South Wales team which Queensland religiously beats. Being defeated will be good training for him because after the next election he will be sitting on this side of the House. However, I am glad to hear that he is interested in sport. We are debating the Supply Bills, rather ironically, on the day of the May statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), when all of us expect the Treasurer to announce severe but realistic and fair cuts in government spending. The National Party of Australia will be looking for substantial and meaningful expenditure cuts which limit government involvement in people's lives, which will rein in inflation and high interest rates and build confidence so that Australians can make the difficult decisions that are necessary to create a competitive Australia. We notice from share market and currency market activities in recent days that foreign investors also are expecting tough spending cuts in tonight's mini-Budget. On behalf of all concerned Australians, I make a plea, even at this eleventh hour, to the Treasurer not to disappoint us. In return, I request the Australian public to try to understand the difficulties our economy is in. All of us should accept the cuts which need to be made so economic prosperity can return to this country. All of us must realise that we have a very difficult task ahead. It has always disappointed me that, on average, Australians work only 231 out of the 365 days in a calendar year. I submit, without any fear of bitterness, that on the whole all of us need to work harder. We need to produce more at a given time. We need to have greater enthusiasm to regain our international trading position. I am delighted that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) is at the table, because I want to address a few comments to the sum of $25.4m allocated in the Supply Bills to the Australian Trade Commission, reflecting a higher provision for export market development grants. We need to realise that Australia has declined in importance as a world trader in the past 30 years. We are down from 2.6 to 1.3 per cent in terms of world trade in that period, which takes us from eighth position to twenty-third position. One of the reasons is that our emphasis has been on the export of raw materials at a time when strong growth in international trade was in manufacturing and services. Nearly 40 per cent of our export income is derived from just four commodities-coal, wheat, wool and iron ore. Moreover, in excess of 50 per cent of exports are directed to just four countries-Japan, the United States of America, China and New Zealand. The pressures that we have on costs, high interest rates and inflation bring into sharp focus the need for Australia to diversify its export base and widen its range of customers. I would like to see a great and growing manufacturing sector in Australia where, instead of selling wheat as wheat, we sell our wheat as flour, and instead of exporting iron and coal we export that as steal and motor cars, and then we would have a lot more job opportunities for people of all ages. We need to produce the best for less. That is the motto that Australians should be adopting because the market-place, overseas and domestic, is where people take cognisance of quality and costs. It is no use adopting a slogan of `Buy because it is Australian made'. Australians will only buy the best for the cheapest amount. It appears to me that the Australian Government has done a reasonable job on trade matters in very difficult circumstances. We are not going to overcome the problems of trade by merely being a little fox terrier running behind the heels of the Government, yapping and criticising. We have all got to work together to overcome this problem. It is no fault of the Australian Government that overseas countries have got highly subsidised programs and that they do, in many instances, adopt unfair trading practices. But provided that we produced the required article, that we deliver it on time and that it is a top quality article at the right price, we will be able to compete. I think that industry has to work with government. Some outstanding examples of entering into world trading markets come readily to mind. The kiwi fruit industry in Zew Zealand is paramount. It adopted a policy of exporting only quality fruit, making its packaging attractive and delivering on time. But that was not done through government intervention, and this is probably the different approach that we, in the National Party, take from that of the Liberal Party. It is our policy that the industry, as far as possible, should be self-regulating. It sets the standards. It carries out the penalties and imposes fines, et cetera, on people who try to break down the system and export an inferior product. We need to have an environment where we encourage people to get out and seek markets. I applaud the initiative of a young man in my own area, Ian Jones, from a well known family of pork producers. He has almost finalised a contract with the People's Republic of China to send people over there to build piggeries, to provide the expert technological advice for rearing and feeding pigs and also to supply the appropriate breeding stock on a continuing basis. It will cost approximately $20m, but it will be done by private enterprise. So the Government needs to set the parameters to ensure that private enterprise has the encouragement to go out and seek markets without too much government regulation and interference. Trade, surely, is the life-blood of a successful Australia, given our relatively small population. The second point I would like to comment on in the Supply Bills is the allocation of $26m for the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Sometimes Australians tend to downgrade themselves. We do not talk ourselves up; we tend to talk ourselves down. It is about time that that attitude finished. The Bicentennial celebrations will be a time of great celebrations for our country. It is a series of events in which all Australians should participate and should enjoy because it marks a period when we can come together as a nation and celebrate, with a unified voice, the greatness of our country and our confidence in its future. One should understand that not all Australians feel that the Bicentennial should be celebrated. They rather believe that it is time to have a wake, as it were, at the death of the nation they perceived should have remained. I can understand the feelings of our indigenous people. But I make an appeal to them, as in all things: Change is constant and nothing can be achieved if we continue to grieve over a loss or transformation. I appeal to those within our community who feel this way about the Bicentennial celebrations to join in and come up with us in our celebrations with the aim of making our nation unified. All of us have something to learn from one another. Europeans, Australians and our Aboriginal people-people from all corners of the globe have something to contribute, both culturally and historically, to this country. In that celebration I hope the end result will be that all people-our Aboriginal people, recent migrants and the descendants of original migrants-will come out of it with self-respect. One of the great problems facing our Aboriginal people is that those of my descent unwittingly have forced the Aboriginal people to lose their self-respect. It is only when our Aboriginal community feel that their contributions, their culture and their way way of life have a meaning to the rest of us that we will have a true multicultural nation. I hope that the Bicentennial celebrations are the method by which all Australians forget about the past and work together to make this a place which enriches the lives of each and every one of us. The next matter I want to talk about is the allocation of $123.7m to the new Parliament House. I suspect that when we originally decided to build the new Parliament House few expected that the tourist traffic through Parliament House would be estimated to be of the order of one million to one and a half million in the first year. I suspect that it is, therefore, a reasonable conclusion for us to adopt that the Parliament House will do for Canberra what the Opera House has done for Sydney. I applaud the Government. I believe it made a wise decision to restore some of the cuts in landscaping made in the last August Budget. If I had a choice, I would much rather see some of the fittings in the Parliament House not installed at the start. I would much rather have trees and more trees. One can understand the difficulties of finding finance for every conceivable object or fitting. It appears to me that the new Parliament House surely could be, in the years to come, a forest where all the known varieties and species of Australian trees are propagated. Unfortunately, many species of trees are almost extinct. Fortunately, we have a few concerned Australians who, at sacrifice to themselves, have gone out to the desert and other areas of Australia and have preserved and propagated these trees. This is just a thought: Perhaps every school in Australia could purchase a tree from its area, send it to Canberra and thereby make a contribution to the planting and propagating of that tree. I would very much like to see a forest of trees in the environment of Parliament House. A tree takes a lifetime to grow. It would be great if, on opening day, we could proudly claim that every variety of native Australian tree was growing and, hopefully, flourishing in the immediate environs of Parliament House. I note the allocation of $221.3m to defence. In the defence White Paper, which we debated recently in this Parliament, strong emphasis was placed on creating a self-reliant defence force. I agree with this premise because as a sovereign nation we are ultimately responsible for our own safety and security. This theme can be further expanded to include having more involvement by local Australian firms in certain areas. We should be producing the best for the lowest amount. There should be pride in one's job, and in the fact that we are competitive and that people buy from us because we can guarantee a quality product at the right price. I would like to see all our spare parts and replacement parts for our defence equipment manufactured locally. I would like to see local manufacturers supply boats, planes and surveillance equipment. The allocation of contracts for defence housing could be given to local tradesmen. These are just some of the things we tend to lose sight of when allocating macro-amounts of money. In the final analysis, government is about people. I agree with the remarks of the honourable member for Throsby about the Department of Veterans' Affairs. When the National Party is back in government it will insist on having a Department of Veteran's Affairs. This was announced by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), the National Party shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, at a recent meeting of Vietnam veterans in Melbourne. I am glad to know that the Australian Labor Party also gives that assurance to the veterans of Australia. We respect the valour and courage of our servicemen and women. We will continue our obligations to them. I note an allocation of $27.1m to the community care program. One of the disappointments I have as the member for Groom-no doubt that disappointment is shared by many people-is that we find it impossible to help people find places in nursing homes for their dependents and loved ones. There are nowhere near enough nursing home beds. It is about time all of us realised that modern medicine has the ability to make people old for longer. Unfortunately, it cannot make us younger for longer. People do live longer and in many instances it is necessary for them to have nursing home accommodation. I appeal to the Government, in its allocation of scarce resources, to allocate a significant amount to community care to increase the number of nursing home beds. To my mind-and I formed this opinion after discussions with many people-available nursing home accommodation is nowhere near sufficient to meet the demand. My final comment relates to the allocation of $290m under the Commonwealth-State housing agreement. The subject of housing has been in the news often in recent times. Again I express a personal disappointment that these issues of fundamental and vital importance to every Australian are always the subject of political fighting. It would be far more beneficial to the people and to the nation if all of these fundamentally important matters could be taken out of the political arena so we could all work together to solve the problems. After food, shelter is probably the most important thing for every one of us. As back bench members of this Parliament, it is disappointing for us to be continually reminded by constituents that they are finding it increasingly difficult to save a deposit to purchase a home or, having purchased a home, are finding it difficult, because of high interest rates, to meet the repayments and thus have to trade down by selling their house and buying one which is not as commodious or is not in as nice an area as their previous house. Obviously, if we had the right macroeconomic policies, interest rates would be much lower. People would be able to purchase their own homes. One of the great things about Australia is that we have the highest rate of home ownership, which includes people who own their own home outright and people who are in the process of purchasing one, in the free world. We can be proud of that. I suspect that it goes back to the early days of the development of our nation when it was settled by people from a poor background who did not know the value of their own private home in the country from which they came. It is this that has given people the desire to own their own homes. We need to encourage that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(4.46) —Mr Deputy Speaker-(Quorum formed) I indicate to the House that I support the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88. A considerable amount of money has been allocated to education. This provides me with an excellent opportunity to bring the House up to date on what has been perhaps one of the most momentous decisions of any government, affecting 1 1/2 million people who reside in the western suburbs of Sydney. Agreement has been reached between the Federal Government and the State Government to establish the Chifley University. Agreement has been reached that it should be given full autonomy status. I speak on this issue not to seek any credit but to indicate that I believe it is important that the people of Australia, including members of this House, understand the important role that a collective group of Federal Labor members played throughout the campaign to establish the university. Of course, we were very fortunate in having as chairman of the group, my colleague the learned member for Lindsay (Mr Free), whose interest in education is long standing. I was pleased to act as convener, and we had a number of Ministers. In particular today, I wish to pay tribute to two honourable members who I feel played a most important role. One is a colleague of mine, the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Gorman) and the other is the honourable member for Fowler (Mr Grace). Their contribution was significant and vital, and without the collective spirit and determination that they provided, we would not have succeeded. Therefore, I particularly wished to mention them. Of course, we could not achieve these sorts of results without co-operation across a great and wide field. It is true to say that State members worked closely with us-they were led by the Deputy Premier, Ron Mulock-as did local government bodies such as both Penrith Council and Blacktown City Council. Each organisation has made a unique contribution to, if I can say so, a decision of fundamental importance to 1.5 million residents of the western suburbs of Sydney. I am sure that the illustrious bearer of the name of my seat, the right honourable former Prime Minister of Australia, Ben Chifley, would derive a great deal of pride from the fact that, in a predominantly and overwhelmingly working class area of the western suburbs, we will create Chifley University. It is fair to say that some Opposition members lent their support. However, they have been placed in a most invidious position because the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), has, on each and every occasion, failed to say that he supports the establishment of the university. It is not stretching the imagination to say that if Australia were to change government, one of the first things to go would be Chifley University. While I and others have appreciated the support of a very small number of Opposition members in the campaign, they have been placed in the contradictory position of their leader denying them. Perhaps the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) will come into the House at some date and explain his position. Does he agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the Chifley University should not be supported? Does he agree with him that it should be one of the first things to go? Australian Labor Party members in the western suburbs have a reputation for being very active and diligent in the pursuit of the interests of their electorates. Of course, this is not the only educational issue that we have been pursuing. An equally important issue that has been as vigorously pursued is the establishment of pilot senior high schools in the western suburbs of Sydney and, perhaps, even in a country area. I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) that there will be a national goal to achieve a 65 per cent retention rate for year 12. I support that 100 per cent. However, I have high schools in my electorate with retention rates of 14 per cent, and that is unacceptable. No matter on which side of the education debate one sits, I tell the House that that is unacceptable. I regret that the Australian Teachers Federation has singled out not only me, but also the State member for Riverstone, Richard Amery who has had the temerity, and the courage, to raise this issue-and the Deputy Premier, Ron Mulock. We have been attacked in the local papers and in the union journals for supporting the concept of a senior high school. For those who do not understand what a senior high school is, I can tell them that it is a high school exclusively devoted to years 11 and 12. In supporting the concept of a senior high school, it has never been our position that where comprehensive high schools are working successfully they should be changed. All we say is that we accept and acknowledge the fact that comprehensive high schools are not working successfully in many parts of the western suburbs. Given the leaked figures on retention rates-and I regret that they are not published automatically in New South Wales-there are other areas with equally strong claims to a senior high school. Wollongong would be one area, and Newcastle another. I say to my National Party of Australia colleagues that, indeed, certain provincial cities and country areas would benefit from an approach other than the comprehensive high school. I am wedded, as are all of my colleagues on the Government benches, to the idea that the children of Australia have a fundamental right to equality of opportunity, and an important aspect of that is equality of educational opportunity. That is not the case in my area. In my electorate, the average number of students in year 12 is about 30. It is very difficult for the teachers to provide a comprehensive choice of subjects, let alone subjects of different degrees of difficulty. It sounds very logical to want to amalgamate all those students in one high school and provide a much greater variety of subjects and also a choice of subjects of different degrees of difficulty. That is one of the reasons why we support the concept of senior high schools. Let us examine what we are being accused of in supporting that. Firstly, we are accused of being elitist. People say that we want to set up elitist senior high school. Frankly, I think that it is far more elitist to allow a working class electorate in a working class suburb to have only 14 per cent of its students staying until year 12. That is the height of elitism, and I reject it. I will oppose it and fight it at every opportunity. The other suggestion is that we should not try out the high schools in a working class area. It is said that the concept has some merit, but let it be tried in the North Shore and the eastern suburbs because they are more academically inclined. Indeed, if we look at performance, perhaps they are more academically inclined. However there is one thing on which I would not backtrack as long as I am in this Parliament, and that is that there is anything inferior about the young people of my electorate or neighbouring electorates. When we talk about skills, ability, intelligence and what the students are capable of doing, I will take no backward steps. I will have no government trying to entrench the view that there is something different about those students. As I said earlier, the North Shore and the eastern suburbs are doing very well, so why change them? We should be looking for changes in areas where the system is not working. I would have liked to have raised other matters in my modest contribution, but time will not allow that. Therefore, I shall end by saying that I, nor anyone on the platform for a senior high school, have never ever suggested that there are single shot solutions to the problem. What we have said is that we must start somewhere, and this appears to be the most important and radical first step that needs to be taken. There will be other issues and other problems that we will need to work through with the parents, students and, most importantly, the teachers. I look forward to that co-operation; I look forward to working through the problems. However, if we are opposed on the concept of a senior high school, that is fair enough and we will fight it out in the forum of public opinion and decision making. I am encouraged to think that some of those forums might be the annual conference of the Australian Labor Party and New South Wales in June and the parliamentary Caucus in Macquarie Street. I have every confidence that Labor members whether members of parliament, members of the party or members of trade unions-will be as equally concerned and compassionate as are my colleagues and I on this side of the House, and I predict that we will be successful in the fight. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(5.00) —It is rather ironic that the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88 should be debated today, the day of the so-called mini-Budget of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). We all hope, however, that the mini-Budget will make a small start on the immense project of winding back government expenditure. There have been two false starts already-last year's mini-Budget and last year's Budget, both of which were supposed to reduce government expenditure. In neither case has significant progress genuinely been made. Tonight is the real opportunity for the Government to start winding back the dreadful national problem of government spending. Ever since the Government was elected it has talked about the need to reduce government expenditure. That is ironic because, in spite of the Government's rhetoric, the reality has been entirely the reverse. Government spending under this Government has increased year after year. Yet every year the Government talks about the importance of restraint and reducing expenditure. It is important when talking about government expenditure to understand it in its proper context in Australia today. When this Government came to power in 1983 Australia was in the midst of an international economic slump which had obviously done a great deal of harm to the economy. The Government at that time made no excuse about that and did not try to run away from it. It was a fact of economic life. We were also enduring the worst drought Australia has had this century. As a consequence, there was an increase in government spending in the 1982-83 financial year. The economic downturn made that increase an inevitability, as regrettable as it may have been. The tragedy of this Government is that when it came to power international circumstances and climatic circumstances within Australia had both changed, yet the policy of expanding government outlays continued at an accelerated pace. At a time when the global economy was recovering and the drought was coming to an end this Government should have wound back expenditure, not increased it. Yet in 1983, 1984 and 1985 the Government increased expenditure again, again and again. When one looks at the figures one can see the devastation caused by the big spending policies of the Hawke Government. For each of the four years of the Hawke Government the average figure for real growth in government expenditure has been 3.9 per cent per annum, whereas under the Fraser Government-including its last year, a year of grave economic difficulties-the increase in spending was only 2.1 per cent. The average figure for the share of gross domestic product taken up by Federal government spending, setting aside State and local government expenditure, is 29.9 per cent under the Hawke Government compared to an average figure of 27.7 per cent under the Fraser Government. In each of the four Hawke Government Budgets government spending has exceeded previous records. So every year the Government has been in power it has spent more money than any of the governments that preceded it. The cumulative deficits created by this Government's spending add up, in just four years, to nearly $24 billion, compared to a total of $17.6 billion over the seven years of the Fraser Government. It is not surprising that as a result of this significant, almost fantastic, increase in government expenditure under the Hawke Government the Australian economy and Australian society have encountered severe difficulties, structural problems and dislocation. The people today who are talking about reducing government expenditure are not ideologues. They are not people in the New Right, the new Left, the new Centre or whatever it may be. They are ordinary people who understand that this enormous increase in government expenditure is ruining this country economically and socially. The economic consequences of big government spending are all too obvious for everyone to see. The appalling growth in Australia's foreign debt since this Government has been in power was raised again with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in Question Time, but he chose not to address it. When his Government came to power in 1983 our foreign debt was $35 billion. Today it is $105 billion. It has tripled under the tutelage of the Hawke Government. There is no international excuse for this Government, no way it can run away from the fact that its policies of economic mismanagement have sent this country broke to the extent that every baby born today in Australia inherits a debt of $6,000. That is a shameful statistic and something all Australians should be worried about. When we look at the effect of this Government's spending on interest rates we see that not only have interest rates reached their highest level since the Great Depression but also that the ordinary Australian paying off his or her mortgage is paying $26 a week more than he or she was paying under the Fraser Government. The handmaiden of big government is high taxation. The same consequence has come about in regard to taxation as a result of this Government's spending policies. When this Government came to power the average single income family with two children was paying $65 a week in taxation. Today it is paying $102 a week-an increase in its weekly tax bill, even taking into consideration the so-called tax cuts which are to come next month, of an incredible $35 a week. Honourable members on the other side of the House ought to be ashamed of these statistics. They ought to hang their heads in shame when they go out into the community, given the record of economic devastation their big spending policies have brought on ordinary families. Their big taxing and big spending policies have drained incentive from this community, from entrepreneurs and from employees who might otherwise have worked overtime. We have ended up with an economy which in the last year or so has declined. They are the economic consequences of big spending. We know them well. But they must be understood throughout the community. Big government spending has also had severe social consequences. Big government spending by the Whitlam Government and the Hawke Government has developed a welfare culture in Australia. There is a generation of Australians now who have grown up expecting support from the Government and who have had the spirit of entrepreneurship driven away from them by cultural change brought about by big government spending. So many people are sitting around like junkies, waiting for their next fix of government grants. This big spending has undermined the sense of community responsibility that was once such an important part of Australian civilisation so that when there is a social problem in a local community people no longer ask what they can do to resolve the problem. All they do is ask which level of government is going to sort out the problem. That is sad and tragic. No government, State or Federal, with all the money in the world, can ever provide the same compassionate care for the elderly, the disadvantaged and the unemployed as neighbours, friends and local communities can provide. Yet big spending is destroying that form of compassionate care amongst individuals. When it comes to the creative parts of Australian culture one can see the same thing happening. In the area of the arts, for which I am the shadow Minister, we find once more that this welfare culture has developed. Race Mathews, the Victorian Minister for the Arts, said this about the attitude towards grants in the arts community as a result of the policies of this Government and the Whitlam Government: Looking back to the Whitlam years, I think we did the country a bad turn by introducing the concept of government grants to single interests groups. Many community groups are convinced they can't do anything unless they get a grant. I'm not sure that the number of groups allowed to do worthwhile things by grants is not outweighed by the number which are convinced they can't do anything without grants except criticise. They are very telling remarks. Elwyn Lynn, a very distinguished arts journalists and a former Chairman of the Visual Arts Board of the Australia Council, said this about the effect of excessive grants on the arts community: . . . one does have to acknowledge the view that the Visual Arts Board has fostered dependence on grants and has undermined self-reliance . . . Some aspects of art have become as bureaucratised as much as art behind the elastic and iron curtains. Such management may be necessary but it is replete with careerism. That is a damning comment, and one that the Government should take note of, and yet just recently the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) was quoted as saying: `Calls to reduce expenditure on the arts because of Australia's current economic conditions were nonsense'. So, apparently expenditure for pensioners, the elderly and the unemployed can be reduced but one should never reduce spending in the arts area. I do not want spending in the arts area to be destroyed and I am not arguing for that. I am arguing for equity and common sense when it comes to government expenditure in this area. It is something that we have lost. The Government boasts that it has increased spending on the arts. It boasts only in terms of quantity, but what about the quality of that spending? One finds that the quality of that spending is really quite extraordinary. The Australia Council gave a grant of $11,000 to the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union so that it could commission a painting of the Cockatoo dockyards, that painting to be hung in the union's own office. That is an extraordinary waste of taxpayers' money and yet is defined as being spending to assist the arts. It is not spending to assist the arts but spending designed simply to prop up a trade union. Over the past year or so the Waste Watch Committee has alluded to many other examples, but I will not repeat all of those as my time has certainly almost run out. In conclusion, I point out that this is a very small example of the way that this Government and its Labor predecessor, the Whitlam Government, have gone mad with spending and with providing grants. It has destroyed the economy because of its obsession with big spending. Equally importantly, it is destroying with big spending. Equally importantly, it is destroying the fabric of Australian society by changing attitudes and developing a whole welfare culture, matters in relation to which, apropos the statement to be made tonight and its Budget to be handed down later this year, the Government will find very hard to unravel. I hope that the Government has the courage to make the hard decisions tonight that it has failed to make in the past. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) agreed to: That the question be now put. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 6 May, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 6 May, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 May, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PORTER(Barker)(5.17) —The provision of services to care for the aged is a matter of real concern to not only the aged but also the families of aged people. I am sure that most if not all of us appreciate the need to ensure the provision of both care and accommodation for aged people in the community when they are no longer in a position to look after themselves. The real worry that elderly people have is not only that aged care and accommodation is provided but that it will be available when required. It is important that they know that it will be available. Elderly people want the security of knowing that they will be looked after and that when necessary they will be able to afford the care that can be provided. As we become older, minor decisions become major ones; minor problems become major problems, and the ability to cope with everyday decisions and needs diminishes more and more. It is therefore important that the aged in our population be provided with the security of knowing that they will have access to health services and aged care facilities and services when required. Regrettably, as a result of the Hawke Labor Government's health policies, aged people who rely on the Medicare system can no longer be guaranteed the provision of the health services that they require. The people most seriously affected by Medicare are those on low incomes, especially the elderly on low incomes, who cannot afford private health insurance. They are the people who are on the enormously long waiting lists for public hospital beds. At the moment some 100,000 people around Australia are in need of hospital treatment but are unable to get it under Medicare because they cannot obtain a public hospital bed. The only way that pensioners and other aged people in our community can be guaranteed access to health services is for them to take out private health insurances, to ensure that they can be provided with a hospital bed when they need it. The Government has argued that Medicare is the most fair and equitable system that we have ever had in this country. Yet, people are being hurt by Medicare, and those most affected are those who cannot afford to purchase private health insurance. One of the reasons why the Opposition is determined to provide the opportunity and indeed encouragement for people to opt out of Medicare and return to the private sector for health insurance is that by doing so we will reduce the demand for public hospital treatment, because more people will have access to empty private hospital beds. The result of that will be that those who rely totally on our public hospital system, such as age pensioners, will be able to get a bed when they need it. The Hawke Labor Government which purports to be interested in the aged, the poor, the sick and the needy has forsaken them. It has introduced a health system which treats the needy like second class lepers. In chasing votes in the middle ground, Labor has forgotten its roots. It has been blinded by its ideology, and middle and low income families are having to pay the price. The problem with Medicare is that the Commonwealth Government has endeavoured to control totally the provision of health services. As in the case in so many other areas, government control has resulted in a more expensive, more inefficient service which no longer delivers the goods to those who need them most. Regrettably, undue and inappropriate Commonwealth Government intervention in the provision of health services is matched by the disaster that has followed similar inappropriate Commonwealth Government intervention in the provision of services for the aged. How often do we hear people complaining that they are unable to get into nursing home or hostel aged accommodation? How often have we heard of people having to leave their own home, their friends and their family in order to get into appropriate aged care accommodation which may be available perhaps in another area, if they are lucky? As a member representing a country elector- ate, too often I am faced with the concerns of families who have had to take their aged parents away from the local town or area to some distant regional centre, or indeed to the city, to find appropriate aged accommodation and services. I should add a rider to that and explain that, under the previous Government, a substantial number of aged care facilities were built throughout my electorate, and no doubt other country electorates, and as a result of the building of those facilities the number of complaints is fewer now than I used to receive. Nevertheless, finding such accommodation is still a problem. A substantial number of parliamentary and other inquiries have highlighted the failure of our aged care policies. The rot really set in in 1973 when the then Minister for Social Security and present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) introduced increased government control over nursing home accommodation. In the Fraser years there was a change of direction and, in areas such as mine, a country electorate, not only was funding provided for nursing homes but also there was a move towards providing less expensive and more appropriate hostel care. Even so, at the end of that 12 year period, from 1973 to 1985, reviews undertaken by the Auditor-General and the Standing Committee on Expenditure of this Parliament, and subsequently by a Senate select committee, all concluded that changes needed to be made to the policies of the Commonwealth Government in the provision of nursing home, hostel and home care for the aged. This legislation significantly changes the funding arrangements for nursing homes. Before coming to the detail of the legislation, I want to consider the overall picture. At present nursing homes are totally controlled and regulated by the Commonwealth Government. Commonwealth approval is required before anyone can build a nursing home and provide nursing home care. Commonwealth approval is also required before anyone can enter a nursing home. Under this legislation, Commonwealth approval is required for people to continue to stay in a nursing home, the Commonwealth sets the level of fees to be charged by the owner of the nursing home and, finally, the Commonwealth sets the level of benefit it pays for nursing home accommodation. Given this total Commonwealth control over the provision of nursing home beds, it is hardly surprising that it is hard to find anyone who is satisfied with the current arrangements. Those who own and run nursing homes are continually dissatisfied with the level of fees and Commonwealth benefits. Those who are trying to get into a nursing home say that there are not enough beds and that the beds are not where they are needed. Even less surprising is the fact that the cost to the Commonwealth of per bed day expenditure for nursing home care has risen by 606 per cent in the 12 years to 1985, while the consumer price index rose by 233 per cent and average weekly earnings rose by 308 per cent. In other words, the cost of the Commonwealth controls of nursing home beds is far outrunning the CPI and average weekly earning figures. Given the general discontent with the existing arrangements, the Government's response has been to change the funding arrangements but to keep overall control. I have been asking a more fundamental question: Instead of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, why does the Commonwealth not consider its role in maintaining such intimate involvement in the provision of aged care? Could it not be better provided with less Commonwealth Government intervention? In my previous role as Opposition spokesman on health, before I became spokesman on family and community services, I visited a number of hospital and aged care facilities. The States have provided for their aged population a range of care that varies according to the needs of particular regions. For example, I recall visiting two towns in Victoria. One had a nursing home of substantial size, whilst a town about 100 miles away relied almost exclusively on domiciliary care for its aged population. That domiciliary care was provided from the local hospital. The range of services provided included transport, laundry, day care facilities, and some meals. That was an extended care service operating out of the local regional hospital. A great variety of services is provided for the aged between the States and within States. No doubt several factors have influenced the various types of aged care arrangements made, including, of course, the provision of Commonwealth funding in specific limited areas such as capital and recurrent funding for nursing homes and, more recently, hostel care. Given that we rely on the States to provide health care throughout an individual's life, why does the Commonwealth suddenly want to become involved with aged care? Indeed, we could ask why the Commonwealth interferes so significantly in child care. We seem to be concentrating on two ends of the health delivery system, yet we are quite happy to let the States deliver health care for the rest of the majority of people's lives. Why could not the Commonwealth funds currently provided be provided to the States or to organisations within the States so they could get on with the job themselves, without Commonwealth Government interference and control, thereby better meeting the diverse needs of the local community, as I referred to earlier? I was interested to read that the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee which reported in 1982 recommended the progressive transfer to the States of responsibility for both residential and community care. Although it has taken this government four years to do so, it is now starting to pick up some of the recommendations of that report but it has failed to act in relation to the particular recommendation regarding the transfer of responsibility. As so often happens, the Australian Labor Party is big on promises but short on action. Its policy speech in February 1983 embraced the Expenditure Committee report saying that fundamental rather than incremental changes were needed. In fact, the Minister for Health said at the time that sweeping reform rather than piecemeal tinkering was required. Four years later we are seeing some changes made to the funding mechanism of nursing homes, but there is to be an increase in the controls, not a relaxation, and, in direct conflict with the recommendation of the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee report, there is to be no transfer to the States. On behalf of the Opposition, I make it clear that I do not accept that the existing, or indeed the proposed, arrangements will result in the most efficient and appropriate delivery of aged care services in this country. It is time that we looked at whether some radical changes are needed, including a transfer of some of these programs to the States, the deregulation of strict controls that have been placed on the provision of aged care services and the targeting of available funds to those most in need. The Opposition does not accept that the current or proposed arrangements are the answer to the aged care needs of the Australian people. I will look at a range of alternative proposals to ensure that aged care and accommodation is available when it is needed and at an affordable cost. Under our health policy we will encourage people to opt out of Medicare and take out private health insurance. Under this Government's current aged care policy it would not be possible for a health insurer to offer a new whole of life insurance package. For example, at present it is not possible for a private entrepreneur to build a nursing home and offer beds in that home to those who are prepared to pay the total cost of care in that home. At present Commonwealth approval is required to build the home, a Commonwealth subsidy would be paid for the beds available in the home and the Commonwealth would set the fee. Mr Hurford —That is just not true. That is absolutely wrong. Mr PORTER —The Minister for Community Services will have his opportunity. Commonwealth approval is required for the building of a home. Mr Hurford —Only if it wants to be subsidised. You ought to do your homework. Mr PORTER —If the Minister talks to his Department he will find out that what I am saying is true. In other words, there is no opportunity for people to provide for their own aged care needs, even if they want to do so, without a Commonwealth subsidy. As I have said, this is an issue that I will be addressing in the weeks ahead. This Bill provides the mechanism for establishing the standards of nursing home care. It tightens the controls on approvals required both to enter and stay in a nursing home. It totally changes the Commonwealth funding arrangements and the means of setting the Commonwealth approved fees to be charged by nursing home proprietors. It is an extremely complicated and detailed Bill. Regrettably, the demands that the Government has placed on the processing of this legislation highlight the gross administrative incompetence of the Labor Party. Despite the fact that Dr Blewett said in 1983 that if the Labor Party got into government it would make radical changes to the delivery of aged care services in this country, some four years later we had detailed and complicated legislation presented to the Parliament last Thursday night and the Government has indicated to us that it is determined to push it through the House of Representatives today or tomorrow. In other words, the Opposition, and more importantly the industry, has had only the weekend to look at what are perhaps the most significant changes ever to be made to the funding arrangements of the nursing home industry in this country. The industry has been given a weekend to analyse the technical aspects of the legislation and advise the Government and the Opposition of any concerns it may have. Needless to say I and industry representatives have sought from the Government an extension of time to consider the legislation, but that has not been granted. I know that industry associations have referred the legislation to their lawyers for detailed analysis. It is only when they have a response from their advisers that they will be in a position to address adequately the issues in this legislation. Whilst I have been briefed by the Minister's office, in particular the Minister's Department, on this legislation, and I sincerely thank the Minister for his co-operation in providing that briefing, in the Government's obscene rush to push this legislation through the House it has not been possible for me over the last weekend to sit down with industry representatives and legal specialists in this field to analyse the detailed formula and other provisions involved in the new funding arrangements. I therefore indicate that we will continue to review this legislation in the next week or so before it is debated in the Senate. If there are amendments that we believe ought to be made, we will move them during the Senate debate. The Bill introduces new funding arrangements for the nursing home industry. Between 1 July 1987 and 1 July 1991 the cost reimbursement arrangement will be replaced with the phased introduction of standard fees and benefits for nursing homes catering predominantly for the aged. As from 1 July 1987 nursing home fees will be split into two parts. The first part is what is called the standard aggregate module and consists of infrastructure costs-that is, laundry, cleaning costs, food and so on-plus an element for return on investment, or profit. This component is about 45 per cent of the total average nursing home cost. The other component of nursing home fees will be the direct nursing and personal care costs, together with payroll tax and workmen's compensation costs. For the time being nursing homes will continue to be reimbursed for actual nursing and personal care costs because a new national uniform staffing standard is still to be agreed. But as far as nursing home infrastructure costs are concerned-that is, cleaning, foods and other costs-these will no longer be reimbursed on the basis of costs incurred but, rather, the Commonwealth will pay a fixed benefit of $27.65 per occupied bed day as from 1 July. This figure is what is called the SAM and it represents the average infrastructure costs for all participating homes in 1984-85 and it has been indexed by a weighted average of actual and projected movements in averaged weekly earnings and the consumer price index to give a figure for 1987-88. The $27.65 figure will continue to be indexed on that basis. There is a phasing in arrangement so that nursing homes will have the SAM component of their fees adjusted to the SAM level over a four-year period. The Government claims that the net result of this change is that 65 per cent of participating and deficit funded or non-government nursing homes will benefit and 35 per cent will be disadvantaged. Most of those disadvantaged are likely to be in Victoria, with some in South Australia. In summary, instead of the Government reimbursing nursing homes on the basis of the actual infrastructure costs incurred by each nursing home, the Commonwealth is moving to provide a set fee for all participating and deficit funded nursing homes across Australia based on the current average cost of providing such services. However, the Bill is not a total package. It covers only the infrastructure costs of nursing homes; the nursing and personal care component is still to be established. In fact, what will occur is that the Government will establish a standard level of care to be provided to each nursing home patient depending on the patient's classification. In other words, a certain number of hours of care will be approved depending on the classification of the nursing home patient, and then the cost of this level of care will be reimbursed to the nursing home on the basis of the State wage awards applicable for that number of hours of nursing and personal care. But, as I have said, that nursing and personal care component is yet to be finalised. Therefore, we are being asked to approve a Bill that is really only part of the total package. I am sure that honourable members listening will now appreciate the point I was making a short time ago when I said that this is extremely complicated and detailed legislation that the Government is rushing through the Parliament. While the Government has totally failed to confront the most significant issue-that is, why it continues to exercise this total control over nursing homes-it has however offered some explanation why it wants to change the method of funding. It has argued that the current arrangements provide little incentive for nursing home proprietors or managers to contain nursing home costs. In other words, the Government says that the existing reimbursement system, which provides for fee and benefit increases on the basis of cost increases, does not provide any inducement for greater efficiency. In fact, as I understand it, if a nursing home proprietor actually reduces running costs by moving, for example, to a more efficient means of operation, the Commonwealth will reduce the level of Commonwealth benefit and the fees which can be charged in that nursing home. So there is actually a disincentive to improve efficiency-a situation which is not surprising given the general inability of governments efficiently to regulate this sort of private sector activity. Nevertheless, the Government argues that reimbursing nursing homes on the basis of average cost across the country will provide an inducement for nursing home proprietors to keep their costs under that average level and, in so doing, earn a larger profit. In that respect, this new proposal is a step in the right direction. The Minister has also argued that the changed funding arrangements will reduce the current excessive regulation of nursing homes whereby proprietors have to seek fee increases for virtually every variation in cost and the Commonwealth Department is forever reviewing the books of participating nursing homes. Whilst there is an element of truth in the Minister's argument, his proposal really only replaces one set of regulations with another set. The reduction in the level of regulation is very limited. Just as important is the increase in the level of control. Another reason for the change, the Government argues, is the inequity in the current Commonwealth per capita benefit among States. For example, the Government says that currently it is paying, on average, $54.60 per nursing home patient per day in Victoria and $35.25 per nursing home patient per day in Queensland. It argues that the costs being reimbursed in Victoria are much higher than in other States and it gives the reasons. According to the Department, the big ticket item resulting in higher costs for Victoria is the use of contracted services. For example, it says that cleaning costs in Victoria are $1.88 per patient per day, whereas across Australia they are 75c. Laundry costs in Victoria are $1.83 and across Australia they are 95c; catering costs in Victoria are $5.02 and across Australia they are $3.17. Return on investment, or profit, in Victoria is $5.75 and, across Australia, the average is $4.03. There is great debate as to why costs in some nursing homes in Australia are higher than in others. The explanation may be that some nursing homes are contracted services to a greater extent than others or that some nursing homes have higher dependency levels than others. Regardless of the reasons, the Federal Government is saying: `We will reimburse you only on the basis of Australia-wide average costs. Those who are paying more will have to reduce their costs to the average level over the next four years'. We will be closely monitoring the impact of the Government's proposal on nursing homes. The changes being introduced by the Government in such a highly regulated and tightly controlled market could have a significant impact on existing legal arrangements which were entered into on a bona fide basis under the old Commonwealth rules. For example, an operator of a nursing home might have signed a lease agreement with the owner of the nursing home working on the basis of the existing reimbursement arrangement and now the Government has changed the rules. That could significantly affect the pre-existing legal obligations. The fact that the Government is rushing the Bill through the Parliament without providing an opportunity for adequate consultation with the industry on the actual legislation makes one suspicious that there could be some unintended or, worse, some intended dire consequences of this legislation which the Government is seeking to conceal. Therefore, as I have indicated, we will be closely monitoring the impact of the legislation. A number of other significant changes are made in the Bill which I shall deal with briefly. In addition to establishing a new uniform national staffing standard, the Government intends to introduce new quality of care and quality of life standards for residents. Once these standards have been gazetted, the Commonwealth, in co-operation with the States, intends to seek to ensure that nursing home proprietors comply with those new standards. The new standards can be enforced by the Minister refusing to provide funding for new residents to a nursing home which fails to comply with the new standards. Alternatively, if a home has infrastructure costs below the new SAM level of $27.65 a day, it will not be paid the higher benefit, under the phasing in arrangements, until the new standards have been met. In addition, a new nursing homes standards review panel will be established in each State. I understand that the job of that panel is to assist in reviewing departmental decisions to enforce the new standards and, as such, it will be a pseudo-appellant tribunal, or peer review group, for nursing home operators who are dissatisfied with the Department's decision in relation to the enforcement of the new uniform standards. The Government has provided no explanation as to why it should be the enforcing agency of these new standards and why enforcement could not be left to local authorities. New and additional mechanisms will be established for the approval of applications by people for admission to nursing homes and benefits will be payable only in respect of people who have been approved as requiring nursing home care. In addition, the Minister will have power to determine, in the case of a person who has been admitted to a nursing home, whether that person continues to be in need of nursing home care. If he determines that a person does not need that care and is satisfied that alternative appropriate accommodation is available, he can require that person to leave the nursing home, or at least determine that a benefit be no longer payable. There are a number of other technical amendments including the transfer of nursing homes catering, principally for aged people, which were covered by the Nursing Homes Assistance Act but which will now be dealt with under the National Health Act. The Bill also amends the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act to enable the value of donated land to be counted as part of the matching funds required by an organisation to be eligible for a Commonwealth grant for a home under that Act. The Bill also amends the 1986 legislation to remedy a problem raised by the Opposition last year. (Extension of time granted) Whilst the Opposition will not oppose the Bill, we may well propose amendments in the Senate when we have had the benefit of legal advice on some of the complicated and detailed provisions. In addition, we will be closely monitoring the impact of the legislation. In conclusion, I want to make some general comments about the provision of aged care services. There is no doubt that the trend in the delivery of such services should concentrate, first, on supporting aged people in their own homes, in their own communities, for as long as it is practicable, given the health and the ability of the aged person to cope in the circumstances. We ought to do everything possible to maintain and enhance the personal freedom and independent functioning of all aged people in their own environment. Assistance should be provided only for those who are in real need. There is, of course, always a danger that those who are called upon to give assistance to those at home will be asked to undertake all manner of tasks around the home which are outside their area of responsibility. For example, I have no doubt that the visiting nurse or people from Meals on Wheels could well be asked to do other jobs around the house, such as fixing leaking taps, cleaning out gutters and so on. Therefore, it is very important to maintain controls on such home and community program, to control costs and to ensure that the Government does not start becoming responsible for household chores which should be undertaken by others. Nevertheless, the Opposition supports the general need to provide a range of aged care services, including home and community care as well as hostel and nursing home care. The concentration in recent times has been on the upgrading of the provision of home and community care and hostel care rather than nursing home care. That concentration, or redirection, started in the latter years of the Fraser Government and has been continued under the Labor Government. The inevitable result of this change in emphasis is that people will tend to stay longer in hostels and, over time, are likely to require more intensive care. This is likely to lead to further increases in the cost of hostel care. When one considers that the cost per person per week in a hostel is, say, under $80 and the cost per person per week in a nursing home is around $350, it is quite clear that currently there is a significant increase in cost for what may not be a significant increase in care, depending on the level of care provided in the nursing home and the level of care provided in the hostel. These and a number of other issues are clearly in need of attention and will be addressed by the Opposition in reviewing the current arrangements. The time has come to reassess the Commonwealth Government's involvement in the delivery of aged care services. In undertaking that review, I should make it clear that the Opposition has a firm commitment to encouraging and supporting the provision of such services by voluntary organisations, which we believe have a central and vital role to play in the care for the aged. This legislation constitutes another step down the path of Commonwealth intervention and regulation of nursing home care in this country. In addition to the total control the Commonwealth has over the building of beds, the occupants of beds, the charges to be raised for beds and the benefit to be paid for beds, Labor is now establishing and will enforce new national uniform staffing standards, new quality of care and quality of life standards, a new nursing home standards review panel and new evaluation procedures regarding who can enter and who can stay in a nursing home. All this extra regulation and control is expected to cost $3m next year and $14m in 1988-89. I am not convinced of the need for this total control of nursing homes by the Commonwealth, nor am I convinced of the need for Commonwealth control over the enforcement of standards. I will be looking at a whole new approach to the important issue of the provision of aged care services and facilities which better reflects local community needs, priorities and practices. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(5.52) —Tonight we are dealing with the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill to change the funding for nursing homes. Like all members in this House, I am all familiar with people who have problems in getting an elderly relative or, even worse, a married couple into a nursing home. In any area there are problems with nursing home vacancies at any given moment. I was speaking recently to the member for Ryde, Mr McIlwaine, of the New South Wales Parliament. He said exactly that-that there are problems from time to time obtaining a vacancy in a nursing home. The problem is being considered tonight because the very issues that we are here to debate, particularly the public health and public safety of the community, are terribly important to our loved ones if they are in a nursing home, if they are very frail and if they are the most vulnerable people in the community. They are the people who often cannot protest. They may be ill or suffering from Alzheimer's disease or some other disease. The families, the husbands, the wives and the sons and daughters must be sure that their parents or loved ones are receiving the highest possible standard of care. This legislation is literally trying to get some uniformity in relation to the $1.2 billion of Commonwealth money that is paid for nursing homes and hostels throughout our nation each year. That is an enormous contribution considering that our Budget is only about $75 billion. An amount of $1.2 billion, some two or three per cent of the Budget, goes directly to nursing homes, be they nursing homes run for private profit and private gain or be they the non-profit nursing homes with which we are all familiar in our own electorates. There are some 75,000 people over the age of 65 in nursing homes throughout Australia. About 15,000 are in nursing homes run by State governments in various States. There is one in Newcastle I know of and others in the States and country towns, but about 60,000 old people are in nursing homes that are either charitable institutions or are run under the participating or deficit funding schemes. About a third of the 60,000 are in the deficit funding schemes. The funding schemes are being changed so that there is an encouragement to proprietors who can operate a nursing home efficiently to do so. At present there is no encouragement to operate on a cost saving basis. If a nursing home is run on a deficit funding basis, the taxpayer is at risk. The problem is illustrated by the fact that in New South Wales nursing home fees vary from $40 to $110 a day. There is often very little appreciable difference between the quality of care, the food or the infrastructure costs in these nursing homes. As the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) said, there have been many government reviews, government surveys and reports, including the McLeay report and the Giles report. All have pointed to the need for reform in relation to the funding of nursing homes. I was sorry to hear the honourable member for Barker say that the Liberal Party believes that the responsibility for nursing homes should be put back on to the States. The States are hard pressed for funds and always have been and always will be. The old people are the ones who would suffer. It should be left to the market-place-this was another inference to be drawn from the honourable member's speech-to let people pay the going rate. That is quite preposterous. Reports show that about 80 per cent of nursing home residents pay only the minimum resident contribution. That is, literally, most of their pension. It is great to think that of the 75,000 Australians who are living in nursing homes-old and frail people-80 per cent pay only part of their pension or most of their pension. The statutory basic rate that they are allowed to be charged if they are paying only this minimum resident contribution is 87.5 per cent of the basic pension rate, plus rental assistance. All of us know of the work that nursing homes do in our electorates. I recently attended a birthday party of a lady in an Enfield nursing home. She was 100 years old. A lady in another room was 102 years old. This shows the loving care and the way they are looked after in these nursing homes. I happen to represent an electorate in which there are nearly 2,000 nursing home beds. It is in a part of Sydney where there are many nursing homes in quite substantial dwellings. There are some 1,850 nursing home beds in the electorate of Lowe and some 41 nursing homes. I have got many more than my share in my area, and I am delighted. Most of the residents come from other parts of Sydney. People who live in Lowe say: `There are all these nursing homes and we cannot get a bed for grandma or my parents'. I have a very close attachment to nursing homes, particularly to Our Lady of Loreto Nursing Home in Strathfield, which is probably the largest nursing home in Australia, with 205 beds. That nursing home received Federal subsidy in 1985-86 of $2.6m. That money has been provided to just one nursing home. An uncle of mine, the late Jim Maher and a lot of residents in Strathfield were responsible for founding that nursing home and taking it over when the late Matron Cullen, who was running a small nursing home, became ill. Local residents from Strathfield found that the matron who was looking after the old people was, herself, sick. The St Vincent de Paul Society moved in, with the help of local women, and this nursing home now has 205 beds and is probably the largest in New South Wales; it is larger than any in any other electorate in Australia, as far as I can make out. I pay credit to the people of the St Vincent de Paul Society, which has run Our Lady of Loreto ever since. I have an aunt in that nursing home now, in the James Maher wing. The honourable member for Barker mentioned the work of the States. The States do have a role in nursing homes; they licence nursing homes and they run some nursing homes. But I must point out that any person can start a nursing home. There is no restriction. The restriction is only if that person wants federal funding. That is the only restriction on nursing homes. He may have trouble getting State approval to start a nursing home, and he would have to take that up with authorities in Queensland, in other non-Labor States, and in Labor States. The States licence nursing homes and supervise them very rigidly. When I was a State member, there were some appalling revelations in a local paper in Sydney called the Glebe about an elderly lady who could not pay her nursing home fees being put out on the footpath. She was left there on a chair with her bags around her. I was horrified by this revelation in my electorate, so I contacted the Department of Health. It said that despite the antics of the proprietor and his outrageous conduct the people were being looked after well. I was pleased to hear that. The bad publicity about the proprietor's conduct resulted in very close scrutiny of the nursing home. Health officials in New South Wales were quite pleased and happy with the treatment, conditions and care the patients were receiving. It shows that there is close scrutiny by State government authorities. I pay tribute to the nurses, the catering staff and all the people who work in the nursing homes in my electorate, and in other nursing homes throughout Australia that we visit. Two elements of the legislation will be phased in over a period of five years, from 1 July next: A standard daily resident fee and a standard Commonwealth benefit. (Quorum formed) The fundamental message that came across to me from the Liberal Party community services spokesman was the total abandonment of the aged and the deregulation of any involvement by the Federal Government in nursing homes. I find this policy a very sad policy. It is a policy which I know the Australian people will reject in toto. People in nursing homes are the most vulnerable in the community. They are people who cannot care for themselves, who must be looked after by other people, who must be cared for by day and night. It is a very sad day when the Liberal Party comes forward with a policy of deregulation for nursing homes. `Leave it to the private sector, leave it to the market forces, leave it to the States', it says. It wants the funding of and the responsibilities for nursing homes to be passed to the States. It is a policy that is quite inhuman; it lacks any compassion. I am sorry to hear such a policy espoused here tonight by the honourable member for Barker. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) referred in his speech to interesting provisions relating to admissions to nursing homes. People panic, particularly when a spouse dies. Sometimes the surviving partner is a little old and frail and feels that he or she must go into a nursing home. Often the best place for such people would be in a hostel. If one reads some of the reports, one will realise that there are enormous facilities for nursing homes in Australia compared to other nations. The number of nursing home beds in Australia is 46.8 per 1,000 of population over the age of 65 years. The United Kingdom has only 12 beds per 1,000 of the population over 65. It is only in the United States of America that we can find any comparison with our number of beds and nursing homes. The provisions of this legislation are almost in operation now. We all have constituents who have trouble getting people into nursing homes. The legislation will provide a guide for admission to nursing homes. There is also the notion in the second reading speech that people need not be in a nursing home forever, that with modern treatment they can recover from such diseases as Alzheimer's disease. I have known people who have had elderly parents in nursing homes and the parents have been able to come home to live the rest of their lives in a normal way. They may have had a stroke or some injury. There is no need to feel that being in a nursing home is a permanent situation. There is also provision in the legislation to assist with training proprietors to more efficiently and equitably manage nursing homes. The Government is setting aside money for this. I join with the honourable member for Barker in praising those people in this community who look after old people in their homes, those who volunteer for meals on wheels services, those who run the community care services, and those who run the home care services. How important home care is. It helps people manage in their own homes, so keeping them out of nursing homes and hostels. We all know the problems in the community of home care, of getting volunteers such as those who work with Meals on Wheels. Some of the volunteers tell us that they are as old as or older than the people they are serving meals to. I take my hat off to them. I praise the people who drive their own cars, who go to blocks of units and have to go up perhaps three floors to give a meal and a cheerio or pay a quick call to someone. These services are run in all municipalities and shires throughout Australia. They are run by public hospitals, private hospitals and religious hospitals. I commend the Bill to the House. I hope that I have misheard the honourable member for Barker espousing such an unfortunate policy of deregulating nursing homes, throwing the aged and infirm on their own resources and abandoning the poor and the pensioners. We must remember that 80 per cent of nursing home residents receive a part or full pension. We are dealing with some very poor people in nursing homes. The vast majority are pensioners and they cannot be left to face market forces. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(6.08) —We are addressing the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill. We should recognise it as a further step in the care of aged people in Australia. As Australians we have a wonderful record so far as care for the aged is concerned. The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) cited the number of people we accommodate at present in nursing homes compared with other countries. We must pay tribute to our own communities. Those of us, especially those living in the country, who have memories will certainly appreciate the initiatives of various church and other community groups which, over the years have instigated projects for the care of the aged in their communities. They approached the Governments of the day, both Commonwealth and State, and, after raising a certain amount of capital for care and administration, were responsible for establishing many centres throughout Australia. I did not hear the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) say anything about passing over responsibilities to the State. I thought that he was most fair and addressed the question of the care of the aged in a practical way. The National Party of Australia intends to do the same. The legislation before the House is long awaited. In 1983, when the Government came to power, it virtually froze the funding of nursing home establishments throughout Australia. It was not a complete freeze, as some beds and hostel accommodation were approved later. There have been two inquiries, the McLeay and the Giles, and we now see the legislation before us. However, we have waited a long time for some move to be made. I trust that those who administer the homes and hostels, who are experts in their field, have had the opportunity to advise the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and the Government on the necessary steps to care adequately for the aged. I do not wish to go into the statistics, but there are now well over 60,000 aged Australians accommodated in nursing homes, and it takes about 60,000 people to look after them. Therefore, it is an industry although we do not want to look at it from that point of view. It is predicted that, by the year 2000, an extra 44 per cent of Australians will be over the age of 65 years. While it may now be costing us $1,000m to care for them, we must appreciate that that figure will grow as the years go by. That is why it is so important that this legislation will be exacting, or close to exacting in the long term, in order to develop this particular aged care. The emphasis in the legislation partially turns away from nursing homes and towards hostels. We of the National Party do not oppose that, but we want to warn the Minister that there is a possibility-and it is certainly the case now-when all of us will tell him that there is a demand for extra nursing home beds in our electorates. The position must be the same throughout Australia. The legislation deals only with 80 per cent of the nursing homes, those owned by community groups or privately owned. The 20 per cent owned by the Governments of the States will not be touched as closely. I understand that it is thought that the standard of nursing home care is not what it should be. I am not aware of that being the case, but we must admit that, perhaps, when we go to the cities or elsewhere adequate accommodation is not available. I hope that the legislation will, in a sensible way, tackle that problem over a period of time. I know that the country people whom the National Party represent believe that the nursing homes, hostels and units associated with them are of a very good quality. That should be known generally, as all of them have very long waiting lists. Therefore, we talk about the future and the way to tackle the problem. We will not move amendments in the chamber, but I do not know what the Senate will do. After we have had time further to examine the legislation-time has been short as the Bill only came in last week and, as the honourable member for Barker has said, it is complicated-if we think that there are any anomalies, we shall move amendments if necessary. What we want to do is to point out to the Government the various necessities, the over regulation and the problems that arise with too much government control. As I said earlier, the emphasis in the legislation is towards hostels. There is a nursing home program which, over three to five years, will limit aged accommodation to 40 out of every 1,000 people over the age of 70 within a region. The new funding arrangements are very difficult to understand. I know that they are outlined in the legislation, but one has to be more or less an expert to work them out. I am sure the Minister would agree with that. There is a mechanism for the standard of homes, building of homes and the care of the people concerned. There is also the approval of patients who will receive the care and the benefits. There is a provision for 42 days for revision of fees. I am pleased about that because the fees should be kept as up to date as possible. There is also a provision to prevent proprietors from charging admission fees. Let us look at some of the operations in the care of the aged. We agree with the Government that there is a need, wherever it is possible, to keep aged people within their families. If the family is in a position to care for them-to give them the home and medical care that they require with outside assistance-we should certainly keep them in the home. We know that HACCS, meals on wheels and other groups are fulfilling a tremendous purpose in that area. Such services will have to be expanded. However, once we begin to expand some community groups within the home suburbs or towns, we must realise how far we can take that. Once a voluntary community group is set up, whether within the social security or other areas, it does a job within the community and eventually applies for funding from the Government. Almost always, the Government turns around and says `Right, we will supply the capital for a co-ordination officer', or something like that. Therefore, the money that comes from the taxpayers' purse goes on the payment of a person who is virtually non-productive. I want to emphasise that if there is to be care for the aged in the home, it must be done constructively with the involvement of the medical fraternity, district nurses, hospitals and, certainly, the voluntary organisations and individuals within the community. I believe that they hold the secret to the care of the aged, or any group, within the community. Australians are pretty voluntary minded in helping those who need assistance in the community. The various care services of HACCS in the home cost more than $17 per hour, but there is only a $2 assistance towards that. I spoke earlier about the units. I do not mind hostel care, but if the emphasis is to go that way I am concerned about the importance of that being flexible in order to cope with the demands. If we cut back the nursing home bed accommodation, we must allow the flexibility to admit a person who is old or frail and who needs care. There must be that flexibility within the hostel. The legislation provides that there must be qualified nurses in charge, and all the other paraphernalia. That is all right, so generally we support the hostel aspect of the Bill, which we think could be very effective. However, the person who will be admitted to a nursing home bed is someone who needs virtually 24 hours a day care. These people are frail. They are ill. There is a possibility that, after care, they will be discharged. However, they will require care. Let us consider how these people are admitted. At present these people are admitted to nursing homes upon the advice of a government medical officer, their doctor, the matron and maybe the board of the nursing home concerned. This system has worked very effectively over the years. But we are going to change the system. We are going to set up assessment committees which may be based in a town or in a region. I do not know who is to sit upon the assessment committees, but I hope that the patient's medical adviser, his personal doctor, will be consulted about the situation of the patient concerned. I would like the Minister to explain who will be on these assessment committees. There will have to be separate committees to deal with each nursing home or group of nursing homes in a regional area. These assessment committees must have a lot to do because, whereas the cost of the present admission system is $4m, the new system will cost $16m. That is a lot of money. What concerns me is that a bureaucracy will be set up. Many people will be paid allowances by the Government to perform these duties when perhaps they would be better carried out voluntarily by experts who really know the problems of the patients concerned. The manual entitled `Living in a Nursing Home' refers to many matters we would like to know more about. The relatives and friends of the patients concerned will have certain freedom to advise the administrators of nursing homes as to the care that is required for these people. Often a nursing home is like a primary school and it must have a certain amount of discipline. We are talking about old people. We may all reach the stage when we are not able. Mr McVeigh —Even the Labor Party will agree with you there. Mr COWAN —I will not offend the Government side. There are plenty of fellows on that side who are not bad chaps. We will all be old one day. As we study the manual we get a few shocks. We find out that inmates of nursing homes are entitled to things such as the nomination of their meal times and the frequency of their showering and bathing times. They can even select the colours of the walls and the carpets in their rooms. Mr Humphreys —So they should. Mr COWAN —Yes, but there is a big turnover. Nursing homes do not want to have to change their carpets once every six months or every month. That might be impractical. But under this legislation these things could happen. Therefore, the legislation has to be analysed very closely to see what it really means. I want to spell a few things out because I think they are very important. We do not want to see people hamstrung. We do not want patients to be worried about a relative or friend continually demanding things that might not be satisfactory for the patients concerned. I have great faith in the present administration of our nursing homes and hostels. Who is better able to say which patients they will admit or what care they will give within a nursing home than the matron and the executive of the nursing home itself, and the local doctor of the patient concerned? Mr McVeigh —That seems sensible to me. Mr COWAN —As the honourable member says, it is sensible that they should be the ones who assess prospective patients and decide on the care that is required. We are not against therapeutic care. We want patients to have the maximum of care. These people are good people who have fulfilled their duty to society over a long period. None of us would challenge the responsibility of the Parliament, or anybody in this country, to care for the aged. I emphasise that we must never overlook local community groups and voluntary organisations in the area of aged care. If we do so the cost to the taxpayer will be enormous. There are the churches. There are the Frank Whiddon masonic homes. Many groups are active in my electorate of Lyne. They are setting up institutions to care for the aged. We have to be aware of these things. Forty seven per cent of aged care accommodation in Australia is provided by private institutions, by people who have had the confidence and encouragement to build a nursing home to service those in need. The future demand for this care will be met by these people-people with initiative who are prepared to expend their money and invest. I am worried about some provisions of the legislation. I hope that no government will discourage community groups and private people from establishing nursing homes. A nursing home may not seek assistance from the Government either in the form of deficit funding or of a capital grant. It need not seek actual approval. Certain approvals are required, however, by both the Commonwealth and the States. The National Party is very interested in the legislation because we represent electorates throughout Australia in which many people from metropolitan areas retire, particularly along the eastern coast. This is where the demand is for aged care. We make it clear that we want to give full encouragement to anything which keeps the family together. Not only in legislation but in all issues concerned with Parliament, whether social security or health, we encourage the family to keep together as a unit, to look after its parents, its uncles and aunts. Where necessary in every way we shall encourage the provision of quality aged care, as in the legislation before the House this evening. We recognise the valuable contribution of churches and community groups in providing health care for the aged. I mention St Vincent de Paul and other community groups. Therefore, we are absolutely opposed to over-regulation and bigger bureaucracy. We believe in efficiency. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(6.28) —I am pleased to follow the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) in this debate on the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill as he has the name of my seat. Mr McGauran —Give him more time, then. Ms JAKOBSEN —I will not give him more time. I have a couple of things to say on this Bill. I would like to bring up the point made by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) about the comments of the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). The honourable member for Barker intimated that care for the aged should be handed over to the States. He did not actually say so explicitly but he intimated it. He was commenting on the disproportionate amount of Commonwealth involvement and regulation in aged care and child care. I also understood him to say that inspections of nursing homes could be left to local authorities. I would not be supportive of any such delegation of responsibility, as I believe that as members of Federal Parliament we owe it to the elderly in the community and their families to ensure that the elderly are properly cared for in nursing homes and hostels. I do not believe that we can delegate that responsibility. Further to the comments of the honourable member for Lyne about keeping the family together, I think that the Government would agree that that is a desirable way to handle these matters. That is why the Government has brought into effect the home and community care program in this country. However, it is a sad reality that most families in Australia are nuclear families. Often, for reasons of distance or work, various members of a family tend to live in different locations; therefore often elderly people have to be looked after in nursing homes. The need for nursing homes is a sad fact of life and it is something with which the Government must come to grips. My colleague the honourable member for Lowe said, quite rightly, that every member of this House should have an interest in the matter of the provision of nursing homes. Almost all of us would have at least one nursing home in our electorates-although I exempt members representing country electorates, because they are not so fortunate. A number of nursing homes are located within my electorate of Cowan, including one in Warwick run by the Church of Christ and another called the Villa Terrenzio, which is run for elderly people of Italian origin. On the subject of ethnic aged, I point out that the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review, tabled in April last year, made special mention of the needs of the ethnic aged. I think that the guidelines suggested for such specialist nursing homes are still valid today. It is an area in relation to which we will have to take a great deal more action. I am sure that the Government and the Minister realise that. The Nursing Homes and Hostels review states: The Government has established a number of guidelines for the assessment of applications for nursing home accommodation for the ethnic aged, and these are in accordance with the recommendations of the McLeay and Giles reports. In summary, the objectives are to: Ensure adequate and equitable provision within the overall objectives of moderating nursing home provision. Encourage appropriate alternatives to institutional care for all community groups. Address the problems of the past whereby access to general aged care services has been difficult and accessed services have often proved unable to meet special needs. Encourage some specialisation of provision while recognising that the range of ethnic groups, and their wide dispersion, make it difficult for the Commonwealth to meet all demands for ethno-specific accommodation. I am especially concerned about the welfare of ethnic aged people, as I am sure other members of this House are. This is particularly in view of the fact that as people get older they might lose any ability to speak English as a second language. It seems that senile dementia and some of the other problems experienced by people of ethnic origin does affect their ability to speak English, if indeed they have learnt to speak it at all during their time spent here. I accept that, although ethnic groups, per se, tend to have a better record than do Anglo-Celtic Australians in terms of looking after their elderly people in their own homes, this will now become more of a problem to them. I have spoken to some Macedonians who live in my electorate and they are very concerned that, although to this stage they have looked after their elderly people, they will require nursing homes in the future. They do not have quite the same need for hostel care because they look after their elderly for a longer time than do we Anglo-Celtic people. Contrary also to the claims made by the honourable member for Barker, this Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 is aimed at achieving greater efficiency in the nursing homes and hostels area, while ensuring uniformity of standards and an improved quality of care and quality of life for aged people. The Bill will amend the National Health Act 1953 and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 in relation to the introduction of new financial arrangements for nursing homes to commence on 1 July 1987. The Bill will also provide a mechanism for setting the standards of nursing home care to be provided in nursing homes approved under the National Health Act 1953. I think that the standard of care and the uniformity of care is a most important aspect of the Bill, as, of course, is the uniformity of payment on the part of the Commonwealth. The Bill will amend the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 so that it applies only to nursing homes where the majority of the patients are disabled persons who are less than 70 years of age. All other nursing homes approved under that Act will have their approvals transferred to the National Health Act 1953. Importantly, the Bill also will amend the National Health Act 1953 to provide for the payment of nursing home benefits to the proprietor of a home whose approval has been transferred to that Act, in respect of nursing home patients in the home. The Bill will also introduce new funding arrangements and provide a new method of determining the fees both for nursing homes currently approved under the Act-other than government nursing homes for disabled people-and for transferred homes. It will provide a mechanism for establishing the standards of nursing home care to be provided in approved nursing homes and it will give the Minister new powers to deal with cases of non-compliance with these standards. I think that that is a particularly important aspect of the Bill. The Bill will prevent nursing home proprietors from charging admission fees or soliciting other financial assistance in respect of the admission of persons to a nursing home. I am sure that all honourable members of this House would be aware that these types of practices have occurred. I do not believe that that is a good thing to allow to occur in our society; neither does the Minister and neither does the Government, and that is why this provision has been put in the Bill. The Bill will introduce a time limit of 42 days from the date of notification to the proprietor of a decision setting a scale of fees for a nursing home for the proprietor to request a review of that decision. It will also provide a mechanism to enable the Minister to approve the demolition and reconstruction of nursing home premises. As honourable members would realise, that is a very desirable provision also, because it does mean that we can upgrade the facilities that exist in certain nursing homes in relation to which there might not otherwise be any facility to do so. The Government will pay a Commonwealth benefit in relation to a nursing home patient, dependent upon the patient being an approved patient. Further, the Bill will enable the Minister to declare in certain specific, and I am sure limited, circumstances that a nursing home patient no longer needs nursing care. The Bill will rationalise the admission and emergency admission procedures under the Act and it will make other minor amendments. Furthermore, the Bill will amend the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 to enable the current value of donated land and other land acquired by an eligible organisation to be used in connection with an approved home under that Act to be counted as part of the matching funds of the organisation when calculating capital subsidy. I believe that this is an important clause in the Bill, as it does mean that those people who have land available and who wish to open a nursing home-and this applies especially in some senses to people in the ethnic communities, because they often have social responsibilities in a certain area-will be able to have a nursing home in the area of their choice. So, I think that this inclusion of land in the calculation of capital subsidies is a very important aspect of the legislation. The Government acknowledges that the achievement of improved care services for the aged depends very much on the co-operation and support of the community, the nursing home industry, and other groups. Accordingly, the Commonwealth has undertaken extensive consultations on the proposed changes with State governments, nursing homes and hostels representatives, consumer and welfare groups as well as other professional and staff organisations. I congratulate the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, on that endeavour. The reform comprises the two major elements that have been discussed throughout the debate, including the funding arrangements. Under these arrangements the Commonwealth will fund a specified level of service of nursing home care on behalf of residents and at a pre-determined price. It will no longer reimburse proprietors for whatever level of cost has been incurred. This arrangement is similar to that which has been entered into by the Commonwealth in relation to child care operating costs, although this involves capital costs as well. I think that that is a very important factor, as such a differential has previously existed in the provision of care and the cost of care across the States and between States. For instance, at present residents of nursing homes are confronted with unexpected fee increases every few months. The Minister wants to ensure that in future family members arranging accommodation for elderly persons in a nursing home will have some idea of what the fee will be. Many residents are required to pay amounts which are far above the minimum contribution, even though the standard of care may be no better than that provided in other nursing homes where the minimum contribution applies. Accountability is an extremely important aspect of the Bill. Furthermore, under the present arrangements cost savings by efficient nursing home proprietors do not produce increased profits and there is therefore no incentive to operate efficiently. Members opposite should consider that factor very carefully when they come to vote on the Bill. Commonwealth nursing home benefits are geared to the levels of expenditure incurred by nursing homes. Because costs vary widely between homes and States, this system has led to substantial per capita inequities in benefits paid in one State as against another, as I said earlier. Different funding and funding control mechanisms have not been able to contain the mushrooming costs of nursing home accommodation and have resulted in totally unacceptable and unjustified cost escalation. The funding system itself appears to be at fault and is therefore the aspect that requires change designed to provide for greater incentives for efficient operation. I refer honourable members to the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review, which contains a relevant report relating to the respective position of the States. That is an important aspect because the Commonwealth Government must not have differing costs across the country and differing expectations of the Commonwealth's being able to meet those costs, especially when the standard of care is so un-universal. The purpose of the legislation, then, is to provide a reasonable arrangement for funding. I congratulate the Minister for introducing the legislation, and commend it to the House. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(6.42) —The Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill, of 45 clauses, is a most complex and important piece of legislation. I am just disappointed that this socialist Government and one of its more approachable Ministers, the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford), have been forced into the position this week of debating so soon a Bill of such magnitude. It affects the Nursing Homes Assistance Act, the Aged or Disability Persons Homes Act and the National Health Act and should have been given two or three weeks to lie on the table so that various nursing home operators and people involved in the industry could have been consulted and so that the Opposition could have had a little more time to examine its very complex content. The way in which this Bill is being dealt with is typical of the Hawke Government legislating on the run. The Minister would not or could not allow the debate to be delayed until the week after next. It is all very well for him to say that his predecessor had mooted certain changes and that reports have been prepared along these lines, but the cold hard fact of the matter is that we have had six days from the time the Bill was introduced last week to consider it and talk to nursing home operators. To deal with the matter in such a short time is an outrage to owners, to nursing home proprietors, to the elderly, to the sick elderly and to the relatives of people who occupy nursing homes. The position in Australia in relation to providing nursing homes will reach a critical stage given the emphasis we are placing now on providing hostel beds. In the past there has been a maldistribution of nursing home beds throughout Australia, but much of this has been corrected by the operation of Commonwealth-State committees. If we consider some of the country towns and provincial cities in my State of Queensland, for instance, in a town to the west of Toowoomba it was accepted fact that if someone needed nursing home accommodation that person would have to go to Toowoomba or even Ipswich or Brisbane. Much of that problem has been overcome because of the concentrated effort to put homes into some of the smaller centres. It has not been possible to put them into all small centres, but certainly some of the larger centres have now been provided with these homes. I understand that this program is ongoing and the Community Services Department and the Government are to be commended for that. About 57,000 beds are subsidised in the Government and participating homes area. That covers government nursing homes, private nursing homes for profit, religious and charitable nursing homes not for profit in what are classified as participating homes, and a fourth category of deficit-financed or non-profit homes operated by religious and charitable organisations. In that latter category of deficit-financed homes, 20,000 are subsidised. I want to make some points about what I believe will be a serious shortage of beds in years to come. I understand the dilemma that the Government faces, because the recurrent cost of keeping these people in nursing homes causes grave concern. About $1.2 billion will be spent this financial year in subsidies to nursing homes. The Government will spend $56 million on providing new beds and quite a lot of that will go to hostel beds. That is where the emphasis is being placed now. At present, it costs about $50 daily in Queensland and Tasmania to keep nursing home patients and up to $70 a day in Victoria, with the Government subsidy being approximately $35 in Queensland and $55 in Victoria. The hostel bed subsidy is $1.95 a day, or $8.40 a day for the frail aged, and I understand that that will go up to $11 this month. I understand the thrust of the Government's approach, which is to provide more services, both hostel and in the community, to keep people in their own home environment through the home and community care program, or the HACC program as it is commonly known. There is no scope today for private enterprise entrepreneurs to enter the nursing home business and the Government should consider the possibility of such business-on a non-subsidy basis. Unless a person can afford to pay between $300 and $500 a week to keep a patient in a home, such a person must rely on government subsidised nursing home accommodation. Perhaps in the future there will be scope for some scheme whereby people can take out insurance in their younger days to provide a bed in a home should they so desire as they enter the twilight years of their lives. I want to warn the Minister and the Government in relation to care of the frail aged, a matter to which we give so much attention at present. It is true that more of those elderly people will end their days in hostels or in a home environment, but there will still be a considerable throughput of people in nursing homes, and that fact worries me deeply. Australia has a figure as high as any country in the world, per thousand of population, of people over 65 years of age who occupy nursing home beds. It is commonplace for Europeans and Asians to care for their elderly in the home environment. We have an aging population, and if we stop providing nursing home beds, as we have virtually done now, we will find after four or five years an enormous backlog that eventually will have to be faced. We will have to catch up. Let me turn to some of the main provisions of the Bill. The Minister, in his second reading speech, mentioned nursing and personal care costs that will be looked at in the future. I applaud him for the attempt to bring some uniformity of payment in this area of government subsidy to nursing homes. But he has not addressed the varying costs of staffing under different awards in the various States, which is a major problem. What he has done is address his attention to the infrastructure costs-those costs associated with cleaning, laundry and food-and that very important component for a private nursing home operator, the return on the investment. The cost of operating a home in Perth, Darwin, Mount Isa, Brisbane, Melbourne, Hobart or any other city in Australia will vary considerably. If one were to set out to build a new home in any of those centres, one would find that the building and land component costs would vary considerably. I ask the Minister whether he has considered economies of scale in setting his standard aggregate module that he has designated. There is no doubt that if one were operating a home of 100 beds, the economies of scale would be such that a competitor down the road operating a home with 35 beds would be at a disadvantage. In any case, it is not possible to put large homes in all of the centres. As I pointed out earlier there are a number of small cities and towns where nursing homes operate and in which it is not possible to have large numbers of people in the 60-plus age group. I ask the Minister to give some attention to and to tell me what the operators of these homes can expect if operators right around the nation are to receive this same level of $27.65 per occupied bed day in the first financial year that this new scheme will operate, with the extra $6 for the extensive care patient. The Minister tells us that 65 per cent of the homes are below the SAM level and therefore they will get more subsidy, and that 35 per cent of them are above the SAM and therefore will get less subsidy. There will be some winners and some losers in that. What I cannot reconcile is that, when wages and food costs vary considerably around the nation, operators will be expected to operate nursing homes, whether for profit or otherwise, receiving the same subsidy. Even on a State by State basis there will be grave difficulties. To expect someone to operate a nursing home in Mount Isa, Cairns or Darwin with the same subsidy as for those in Brisbane, Perth or Sydney is quite absurd. I would like the Minister to tell us how it will work. If we take average weekly earnings as a guide-after all, that flows on into many costs, quite apart from the costs for nursing and personal care that the Minister will address at some future date-we find that in Queensland average weekly earnings as at August 1986 were $350.70. The figure for the Northern Territory at the top end of the scale was $435.40, with the other States in between. That means the average weekly earnings in New South Wales are 10 per cent or $34.70 a week higher than in Queensland. It means that average weekly earnings in Victoria are 7 per cent or $24.10 a week higher than in Queensland. I have obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics the average retail price figures of 13 food items for the December quarter 1986. The food items are milk, butter, bread, flour, boneless rib beef, sausages, leg of lamb, chicken, potatoes, tomatoes, carrots, eggs and tea-not a comprehensive list but a cross-section of common food items that one would expect to be used in any nursing home. When I added up for the common quantity of those 13 items, I found that they could be purchased cheapest in Perth at $27.47, with the most expensive being the Northern Territory at a price of $32.17-a 15 per cent difference between the bottom figure in Perth and the top in the Northern Territory. I ask the Minister how people can operate homes when there is that sort of variance and when they are to be paid a common figure across the nation. Let us look at similar sorts of figures within a State. Let us take the weighted average of eight capital cities, with the mean figure at 100. Sydney is 99, Albury is 107, Bega is 114, Broken Hill is 113, Cessnock is 101, Deniliquin is 108 and Griffith 106. That is just a bit of a cross-section of New South Wales. But those figures vary up to 8, 10 or 14 per cent; some are even higher. I turn to Victoria, which is probably that State with the least variation. Melbourne is 101, Bairnsdale 103, Castlemaine 106, Portland 106 and Swan Hill 104. But they are still considerable percentages. In my State of Queensland Brisbane is 98, Ayr is 111, Bowen 114, Cairns 107, Dalby 105, Gympie 104, Mount Isa 111, Rockhampton 105, Roma 111 and Thursday Island 157. It costs 57 per cent more to run a home on Thursday Island. I admit that that is an extreme case, but I would like the Minister to answer how proprietors can be expected to run homes throughout Australia with a common subsidy. Today I spoke to one nursing home proprietor-of a deficit financed home, I add-of a home with 65 beds who told me that in four years he has had a turnover of about 400 people through his nursing home. Sixty-three of his patients are extensive care patients and two are ordinary care patients. The Minister, in his second reading speech, made reference to the fact that a number of people should be returned to the community. I would not quarrel with the suggestion that, if a person's health has improved and he has been rehabilitated, he ought to go back into the community. That ought to be constantly under the attention of the proprietors. But the proprietor to whom I spoke told me that only one of those 400-odd patients has gone back into the community, and only four back to hostel accommodation, in that four-year period. I also ask the Minister to address the fact that a number of these homes have young disabled people in them. I understand there are six at present in the home to which I have referred. What will happen to those people? Will those beds be categorised separately? The Minister makes reference in his second reading speech to 69 homes primarily providing accommodation for disabled people under 70 years of age. No doubt there are proprietors all around the nation who have one or more young disabled patients. That point ought to be clarified by the Minister. I want to refer to a few words in the Minister's second reading speech because I think they emphasise the rather critical shortage of nursing home beds in this nation, certainly in some parts of it. The Minister refers to the fact that the Minister has the right to withdraw a Commonwealth benefit if the home fails to bring its standard of accommodation up to a certain level. The second reading speech states: The principal existing sanction currently available to the Commonwealth is to withdraw approval of the nursing home, but applying this is difficult because of the immediate need to find alternative care for a large group of frail aged residents if a home is closed. The point is well taken. Even if the home was in a large community with several hundred other beds, there would be difficulty in closing down an old nursing home, even if it had only 30 or 40 beds. What would happen to those residents? There is a very real problem. The Minister's words underline the fact that a critical situation exists in many areas. Most of the nursing homes in my electorate have waiting lists as long as my arm. Often it is very difficult for relatives to get their aged and ill aged admitted. In another part of the second reading speech, the Minister referred to the fact that certain standards are to be gazetted. I ask the Minister to respond by answering whether they have been gazetted. If not, when does he expect them to be gazetted? Is there any mechanism of appeal for nursing home operators if they fail to bring their home up to the standards that the Department will require? It does not appear to me that there is an appeal mechanism. I am aware that the Minister referred to the nursing home standards review panel in each State. Does the Government intend to legislate for that, because it talks about a pilot panel to start with? I ask the Minister to respond to those questions. In conclusion, I wish to refer to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(7.02) —Mr Deputy Speaker--(Quorum formed) It is not surprising that the Opposition keeps calling quorums because it is desperate in its attempts to stop Government members from making comparisons between the Hawke Labor Government's record on aged care in the past four years and the abysmal record of the Liberal-Nationals prior to that time. The purpose of the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill is to enable the introduction of three very important aspects: Firstly, the introduction of new recurrent funding arrangements for nursing homes; secondly, the introduction of quality of care standards in nursing homes; and, thirdly, improved arrangements for granting capital assistance to non-profit organisations. I listened carefully to the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) when he made his second reading speech and I noted this point: These measures will improve the quality of care and quality of life provided for aged people and achieve greater efficiency in government funding of nursing homes. Those objectives are commendable. I note also that the measures before the House will achieve a uniform national system of funding. The new arrangements will apply to some 1,250 non-government homes caring for some 60,000 aged Australians. It is no wonder that we in the Australian Labor Party are concerned about aged care. It is excellent to see that this Government puts its concern into practice. It is in line with the Government's commitment to the aged, a commitment which was seen in the Whitlam era and which has certainly been met since the Hawke Labor Government came to office in March 1983. The major objective of the Government's policy has been to assist aged people to receive the services which are best suited to their needs-not what the so-called experts say and not what governments want to do in terms of funding, but to set down a type of service which is best suited to the needs of the people themselves and which allows them, most importantly, the maximum level of independence. Honourable members will appreciate that, since 1973, there have been numerous inquiries, investigations and reports into the aged care system. All sorts of recommendations have been made-recommendations of reform to the system to make it fairer, more equitable and more economical. Despite the fact that the reports began in 1973, it has been the Hawke Labor Government that has acted on the reports. It is the first government to do so. Australia has more nursing home beds per capita than almost any other country in the world. Yet we have one of the lowest averages and lowest coverages of domiciliary care in the Western world. We have done well in caring for people in nursing homes and those in institution-type care, but we have not done our best when it comes to caring for people who choose to live in their own homes. Currently we are spending $1,100m a year on aged care services, but only 7 per cent of this is spent on the aged people who prefer to live at home. When one realises that that represents about 93 per cent of the aged population, one starts to understand the reason why the Minister and the Government have acted to turn it around. It is no wonder that this Government has acted on those calls for change. The Hawke Labor Government has embarked on a program of change. The Hawke Labor Government has adopted a policy which will ensure that every aged person will receive the support he or she requires for the medical, social and emotional needs that he or she has. This has meant taking some hard decisions. It is hard for members of parliament to say: `We need more nursing home beds'. We realise that, at the same time, we must reverse the trend; we must put more money into domiciliary care. It has meant a brand new approach and a new approach to assessment. This Government saw the need to introduce a geriatric assessment program to assist elderly people to get the best possible care to suit their needs. In the past there has always been political and social pressure to simply shove mum and dad in the nearest home, regardless of the fact that that might not have been in their best interests. The Liberals and Nationals did nothing in this area. That can be seen not just from the fact that there was no real assessment program going but in the allocation of money. This year we are spending some $6.2m which will rise to $13m by 1988-89. Yet the Liberals and Nationals spent nothing on assessment. It has also meant a new approach to home care. I notice that the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) and other honourable members have mentioned this also. The objective of the Government's home and community care program, the HACC program, is to provide a better range of domiciliary services so that more elderly people can continue to live at home where they really want to be. We have done this by the provision of extra services to allow them to live in their own homes or to receive hostel care. We are now subsidising twice as many home care services as were available before we came to government in 1983. The expenditure has skyrocketed by 150 per cent in four years-from $53m to $132m this year. We are committed to an expenditure growth of up to 20 per cent a year. This means that over the next four years we will spend another $48m on new and expanded services for the aged in this area. Whilst I realise that we have the May economic statement coming on tonight and soon there will be a need to adjourn the debate for a while, I just want to make the point, before I seek leave to continue my remarks later, that people should think through all these measures that are being proposed by the National Farmers Federation and by the New Right organisations, where they want to slash welfare spending and are talking about cutting billions of dollars off the welfare funding program. One fellow was reported the other day as saying that they wanted to cut $13 billion off the welfare funding program. Let it be appreciated by those who have aged relatives in nursing homes, by those who are aged themselves, and by those who are concerned about aged people generally, that these programs are the ones that are under threat. Every time the National Farmers Federation and the New Right talk about welfare cutting, it will be the aged people who will be most affected. It will be the home and community care program that will have to go by the board. It will be the subsidies to hostels and nursing homes that will be slashed. It is time that people realised that it is people that are under threat by these programs. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I understand it would suit the convenience of the House for the sitting to be suspended until 7.30 p.m. The chair will be resumed at 7.30 p.m. Sitting suspended from 7.11 to 7.30 p.m. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —by leave-Madam Speaker, I shall outline to the Parliament and to the people of Australia measures which will reduce next year's prospective Budget deficit by more than $4,000m. These measures mark the culmination of the most intensive and exhaustive review of Commonwealth programs in living memory. They reduce the growth rate in Government spending to its lowest level in 30 years. They involve a massive reordering of Government spending priorities to meet the huge collapse in our terms of trade. They build on the process of national economic change which the Government undertook in the Budget last year. The savings in Government spending I will announce tonight centre on the abolition of unemployment benefits for 16- and 17-year olds, means testing family allowances, the abolition of the Community Employment Program, cuts in defence expenditure, sales of Government assets and cuts in Commonwealth payments to the States. Madam Speaker, many people may wonder why these savings need to be undertaken at all. The answer lies in the falling prices for our primary products such as wheat, sugar, coal and iron ore which have slashed our export earnings. This loss does not fall on farmers and miners alone. It falls on all of us. It comes by way of increased interest rates, a reduced capacity of the economy to afford pay rises and a reduction in the capacity of all Governments to spend. In other words, the loss of export income impacts on the living standards of us all. But the Government has not sat idly by and watched the nation's living standards decline. Instead we have acted decisively to turn the situation around. Tonight I can report that Australia is winning. Investment has begun to increase, especially in manufacturing. The wage moderation we have asked of Australian wage and salary earners during the past few years is working. We now have a competitive edge. We are exporting more. We are importing less. And more of what we need we are now making in Australia. The doubters and the knockers who said Australians could not do it are being proved wrong. For the first time in its history Australia now stands on the verge of breaking away from its precarious dependence on a narrow range of primary exports. In doing so we will free ourselves and our young people from the dictates of the international financial markets. We are clawing back Australia's financial independence. But to see this process through we cannot relax for a moment. To do so would risk slipping back down the slope of international indebtedness. Instead, we must invest more in new industries to lift exports and to recapture home markets lost to imports. The cuts to Government spending I am announcing will directly make this possible. By reducing the Government's call on Australian savings we free up those savings to go where Australia now really needs them, into plant and equipment for export expansion and import replacement. That is the whole point of the exercise. At this time we need money going into investment, not into increased Government works and services. In this way each dollar released from the Government sector can ultimately be put to work in combating our trade problem. Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset, tonight's Statement contributes more than $4,000m towards cutting the prospective Budget deficit for the next financial year. The measures fall into three broad categories. Ongoing spending reductions, receipts measures and asset sales. The recurrent expenditure reductions announced here tonight will amount to more than $2,600m. Reductions in Commonwealth general purpose payments to the States account for $1,000m of this figure. The second element, receipts, amount to about $400m, and mainly reflect the Government's decision to remove sales tax and customs duty exemptions from those remaining Commonwealth Government enterprises that still enjoy these privileges. This will bring the total recurrent, or ongoing, reductions in the prospective 1987-88 Budget deficit to over $3,000m, building to $3,300m in the year after. The third category of savings embraces the sale of $1,000m of Commonwealth assets. While not themselves a recurrent saving, these proceeds will be used to reduce the Commonwealth Government debt, thus providing ongoing savings in interest paid by the Government. Madam Speaker, updated forward Estimates of budget spending show that for the next financial year, had we not acted, spending would have risen by more than $7,000m, or 2 1/2 per cent in real terms. As a result of tonight's announcements, those forward estimates now show a real cut of 2 per cent in government spending-the biggest fall in 30 years. It is clear that tonight's statement will enable the Commonwealth to reduce very significantly its deficit in both money terms and as a proportion of gross domestic product. Already in four years we have cut the deficit from a prospective 5 per cent of gross domestic product to a likely 1 1/2 per cent this financial year. Tonight's decisions will enable us to go even further and bring in next year's deficit under one per cent of GDR. This achievement compares starkly with the United States where the federal deficit has hovered around 5 per cent of gross domestic product for five years. The Australian achievement is even more notable because at the same time we have lifted social security payments by more than $1,500m above what was required to keep pace with inflation.; This has been achieved by reordering priorities in earlier budgets and clamping down on cheating and fraud. Tonight we go much further in those directions. UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND STUDY ALLOWANCES We are undertaking a major restructuring of unemployment benefits and education allowances. Our competitors-countries like Japan and the United States-have placed a heavy emphasis on education and training. We must do the same. Already we have succeeded in increasing the number of our young people who stay to their final year of school by 39,000, a lift from 36 per cent to 50 per cent. But more needs to be done. Accordingly, unemployment benefits for 16-and 17-year olds are to be abolished. They will be replaced from 1 January with a job search allowance which removes the financial incentive for young people to leave the education system. It will be paid at the rate of $25 a week, half the existing junior unemployment rate. New applicants for it will have to wait 13 weeks after leaving school, compared with six weeks under the old system. The purpose of the allowance is to help defray the costs associated with finding employment. This new structure gives a positive message to those who leave school-either find work or undertake training. We recognise that if applied universally this new measure would place a particularly harsh burden on low income parents. Thus, subject to a strict parental income test, an additional payment of up to $25 per week will be made available. Besides focusing on unemployment benefits, the Government is concerned that study allowances for young people should provide a positive inducement to stay in the education system. Consequently, we have budgeted for increases of up to 33 per cent in the rates of Austudy-the Commonwealth study allowance for secondary and tertiary students-to take effect from the beginning of 1988. At the same time we will cancel the increase in the intermediate unemployment benefit rate planned for the beginning of 1988, so as to align it with the increased study allowance of independent and living away from home students aged 18 and over. This will bring that allowance to $91.20 a week, up 14 per cent. However, consistent with the requirement that Government assistance be directed to those in genuine need, access to the Austudy independent allowance is to be tightened. These far-reaching reforms will mean that from 1988 we will have virtually eliminated any financial incentive for young people to leave the education system and shift on to welfare. This is a dramatic change. Also, like their younger counterparts, 18-to 20-year olds leaving education will now have to wait 13 weeks before being eligible for unemployment benefits. In the current budgetary environment, however, this shift in favour of training to provide permanent employment can only be achieved if expenditure on temporary job creation is cut back. We have therefore decided to abolish the community employment program, saving $100m in 1987-88 and $200m in 1988-89. Already committed projects will be completed, but no new approvals will be given after 30 June this year. Similarly, our Jobstart wage subsidy scheme is to be wound back. The emphasis on training is to be extended to our approach to funding the technical and further education system. We have decided to reduce by some $30m funding in the form of general grants to the States for the TAFE system. Instead the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations is to spend an additional $32m on job training programs in 1987-88 and $63m in 1988-89. Most of these funds are to be redirected to TAFE colleges, which can also seek offsets by full cost recovery on hobby and short courses. We have also established a working group to consider future TAFE funding so that it better emphasises vocational and industry training. These measures are a substantial further step in our reform of the education, training and income support systems, to ensure that Australia's skills training remains progressive and relevant to our times. Madam Speaker, the Government is to take wide-ranging measures to crack down further on social welfare fraud and abuse. These measures-and the changed unemployment benefit arrangements I have just announced-will contribute total savings of $360m from Social Security. Whilst we will not flinch from Labor's commitment to the genuinely needy we must ensure that sponging on social security is systematically eliminated. Last year in the Budget tough new procedures were introduced. The special investigation teams which we established, together with tightened benefit eligibility rules, have contributed towards a cut of 27,000 in unemployment beneficiaries, saving $100m . These efforts are to be greatly expanded in the coming year by the permanent establishment of teams in each one of Australia's nineteen social security regions. The number of unemployment beneficiaries interviewed will more than triple to approach 100,000. A further six teams will be established to review sole parent and sickness beneficiaries and invalid pensioners. The crackdown will also incorporate the following measures: from December, an assets test is to be applied to all unemployment and sickness beneficiaries over 25 years of age. sickness benefit rates are to be reduced to the same level as for unemployment benefits, to remove an incentive for abuse. people who have left their job voluntarily will in future have to wait longer to receive benefits. recipients who cannot prove they have been actively seeking work will be subject to an extended penalty period. tightened administrative procedures, including more cross checking between Government departments and the Tax Office, will be implemented. FAMILY ALLOWANCE Madam Speaker, a fair social security system must be about providing assistance to those in need, not making payments to those whose incomes are substantially above average. It is clearly not reasonable that the taxes of low and middle income families should continue to fund benefits for the relatively well-off. For this reason the Government has decided that an income test on joint parental incomes of $50,000 a year and above will be applied to the family allowance. This extends to the family allowance the same income testing principle which is applied to other social security payments. To protect large families, a further $2,500 in income will be allowed for the second and each subsequent child before the payment begins to phase out. For example, for a family with four children the allowance will not completely phase out until their income exceeds $63,900. The test will apply from 1 October this year and will reduce family allowance outlays by $95m in a full year. PENSIONS Before completing my remarks on social security, I wish to make one final point. Last year we asked Australia's pensioners to make a sacrifice for the good of the country by deferring pension increases for six weeks. They have made their contribution, a contribution which should be appreciated by the whole community. We will not be cutting pensions in this statement or the Budget. The next increase in June will reflect the full value of indexation by the consumer price index, and will amount to nearly $12 per fortnight for a single pensioner. HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Madam Speaker, the Government has also made savings of $260 million in the health and community services portfolios. I stress that none of these changes will alter the basic concept of universal health care. The general Medicare rebate will remain at 85 per cent for all out-of-hospital services and public hospital care will remain free as now. However, the Government has an ongoing responsibility to ensure that the cost of the health system remains affordable to the Government and the community at large. Consequently, we will reduce costs by focusing on the areas of high growth, overpriced services. First, a number of schedule fees paid to doctors, but particularly for x-ray services, are to be reduced to contain costs and encourage better medical practice. Second, after-hours consultation fees paid to doctors are to be reduced in order to curb the excessive resort to this fee by some practitioners. Third, a smaller share of medical costs incurred by private patients in hospitals will be borne by Medicare. CHILD CARE The Government's commitment to create 20,000 new child care places over three years will be achieved. By 1988 this Government will have created more child care places than all other governments since Federation. By June 1988 all of these places will be either operational or under construction. However, in the current circumstances we cannot afford the high cost in prospect for this program. To curb its cost we have decided that more of the places will be provided by family day care and fewer by centres than was originally anticipated, contributing to a $33m saving. DEFENCE As defence is such a large part of Commonwealth outlays it must also contribute to the cuts required for Australia to successfully reduce its trade imbalance. Previous defence forward planning allowed for a 3 per cent real increase in the level of defence outlays. This will now be a 1 per cent real reduction next financial year, saving $350m. The Government has also decided that the forward planning guidance for defence spending will be reduced to a one per cent real increase in 1988-89 and a 2 per cent real increase in 1989-90. Over the three years these reduced forward outlays figures will save the budget over $1,400m. However, this will still allow for the essential capital re-equipment and planning needs of the defence forces as recently outlined in the Government's White Paper. ASSET SALES As I announced earlier, the Government is to realise $1,000m from the sale of assets by 30 June 1988. The sales will relieve the Budget of future capital commitments and, through a reduction in the deficit, ongoing interest payments. These sales are part of a sensible ongoing review of assets and holdings which the Government has been undertaking over recent years. They have not been motivated by any ideological view like some privatisation campaigns overseas. This program will include: the sale of long term leases on all of the Commonwealth's international airport terminals; the sale of the Williamstown Dockyard, a substantial proportion of the Government Aircraft Factory in Victoria and surplus defence property; the sale of part of our Embassy site in Tokyo, the Commonwealth Government offices in Sydney and Melbourne and other property. We have not priced individual assets so far as to protect the Commonwealth's interests in dealing with purchasers. OTHER SPENDING CUTS Other spending cuts of over $500m include reductions of $180m in roads, $27m in interest savings arising from changes in the timing of payments to local government and $20m off foreign aid. The level of Commonwealth project grant funds is being restrained and we are reviewing the approval criteria to ensure they are appropriately utilised. To date the allocation for grants in 1987-88 has been cut by $2 1/2m. PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING Last year we established an Efficiency Scrutiny Unit to review all sectors of the Public Service to identify areas for improvement. This will result in simplified processing of government accounts and Commonwealth travel arrangements being contracted out to the private sector, saving over $50m in a full year. The Government will be closely examining staff requirements before the August Budget and is committed to holding down staff numbers in 1987-88 to less than those budgeted for in 1986-87. The review process will include the Public Service Board itself, which will be restructured to maximise efficiency while preserving the independence of public sector staffing decisions. Wage movements also have obvious implications for the Commonwealth's staffing costs, as they do for other employers. The recent judgment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission provides for employers and unions to negotiate additional pay rises in return for improvements in work practices and productivity. The Government will adopt a rigorous approach to these additional pay claims. Consistent with the Commission's principles, Commonwealth employing authorities will respond to union claims by requiring the removal of restrictive work and management practices and reform of outdated classification structures. We will ensure that the gains achieved will be at least commensurate with the costs associated with any salary increases. CONCLUSION Madam Speaker, tonight I have described the Budget savings measures which the Government has taken to advance the process of economic change in Australia. That change is critical in overcoming our trade problem, lowering our dependence on overseas debt and recovering our financial independence. In making these decisions the Government has had to balance the absolute need for savings against its commitment to fairly share the burden of economic adjustment across the whole community. But above all else we have followed through our convictions that being in Government is about facing responsibilities, not squibbing them. The measures announced tonight will substantially lower the Budget deficit and the Government's call on Australian savings. This is the only way we can provide genuine scope for further falls in interest rates. This is the only way we can meet the challenge of Australia's trade deficit. It is the only way we can secure Australia's future. I commend the statement to the House and the nation. I present a copy of the following paper: 1987-88 Budget-Initial Measures-Ministerial Statement, 13 May 1987. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 23 minutes when the debate is resumed. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. House adjourned at 7.55 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Peter Fisher to move- That this House- (1) condemns the Hawke Government for its failure to- (a) acknowledge that the current economic difficulties being experienced by the rural sector are not entirely the result of low market prices or adverse climatic conditions, and (b) alleviate the escalating and crippling costs imposed on productive Australians through record interest rates, high inflation and the 6 monthly, indexation of basic inputs, and (2) calls on the Hawke Government to immediately- (a) abolish petroleum products indexation and radically cut fuel excise to achieve a rapid drop in inflation and interest rates, (b) hold discussions with financial institutions to develop joint arrangements that would allow waiving of interest payments in appropriate circumstances, and (c) amended the Rural Adjustment Scheme to ensure the flexibility and financial capacity to provide long-term low interest loans, and adequate rehabilitation grants. Dr Blewett to present a Bill for an Act to amend various laws relating to health, and for related purposes. Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act relating to Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements and other matters. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts in consequence of the enactment of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Act 1987, and for related purposes. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to establish an office of Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner, and for related purposes. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to provide operating standards for certain superannuation funds and approved deposit funds, and for related purposes. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to enact certain transitional provisions, and to amend certain Acts, in consequence of the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act 1987, and for other related purposes. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act relating to the prevention and settlement of certain industrial disputes, and for other purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 13 May 1987: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). Public Service Act-Determinations-1987-Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4739) Mr Price asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) What is the estimated annual value of the PABX market in the (a) private sector and (b) government sector. (2) Is there any PABX system currently available on the Australian market designed, developed and manufactured in Australia. (3) What is the (a) percentage and (b) value of components made in Australia used in the assembly of PABXs for the Australian market. (4) What is the value of PABXs exported from Australia. (5) Does the government have targets for Australian industry participation in this field of manufacture; if so, what are they. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) I do not have access to a detailed, authoritative assessment of the annual value of the Australian PABX market. Based on external studies, the estimate that Telecom and many in the industry work with is $130-160m per annum. The dissection of that amount between the private sector market and the government sector (Federal, State and semi-government) varies over time depending on economic circumstances and the budgets of the various governments concerned. As an approximation only, the purchases from the government sector vary from 25-40% of the total value. (2) There is no such PABX system known to Telecom. However, all PABX systems involve some element of design and development to meet Australian network requirements and market needs. (3) The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator John Button has informed me that his Department does not have available the information sought by the honourable member. However, his Department has received informal advice from an Australian supplier of PABXs to the Telecom Market, which indicates that on average a small PABX system with say 10 lines and 40 extensions assembled in Australia has Australian value added of between 15-20% with the Australian material and content consisting of: base printed circuit boards sheet metal parts, plastic moulding, extrusions; and a small number of electronic components. The above percentage excludes software. The value of this Australian value added componentry amounts to about $1100. (4) Telecom advise me that the value of PABX systems exported from Australia is very low or nil, basing its advice on the fact that no endorsed PABX supplier has claimed points for exports during 1986 under the PABX Supplier Endorsement Local Content Scheme. (5) The Government as such does not have targets for Australian industry participation in this field. In exercise of its powers under the Telecommunications Act 1975, Telecom has established a policy of only connecting PABX systems to the public switched telephone network that are approved in terms of compliance with technical standards, and that are supplied by endorsed suppliers. To be endorsed, a supplier must give formal commitments in terms of: (a) maintenance support and (b) local content. The local content commitment involves achieving, during the period of endorsement, at least a minimum threshold level of 550 points out of a maximum of 1,000. Points are available for local employment, local sourcing and production, investment, multi-State servi-cing, and exports. In order to gain any points at all for local sourcing and production, a supplier must achieve at least 30% Australian manufactured value. Under the Closer Economic Agreement, New Zealand content counts as local content for this purpose. Suppliers must achieve a minimum threshold of 550 points in a very competitive market. There are 10 endorsed suppliers at present-namely, AWA-Nortel, Siemens Industries, IBM Australia, NEC Australia, STC, Philips, Plessey Australia, Teletrade Australia, Datapoint, and L.M. Ericsson. In addition, there are many resellers, of which the largest is Telecom itself. (Question No. 4790) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) Has his Department undertaken any long term projections of the (a) likely growth in utilisation and (b) cost of medical services under Medicare; if so, what are those projections. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. (a) and (b) Yes. Forward estimates were published by the Department of Finance in December 1986. My Department continues to review utilisation rates and consequent assumptions on expenditure, and makes adjustments to the parameter assumptions in the course of the Budgetary process, in the light of those reviews. (Question No. 4800) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) When did the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) commence applying the Public Service Board guidelines on official conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants relating to the acceptance of business appointments on retirement or resignation. (2) When and in what circumstances have they been applied. (3) Have the guidelines recently been applied to the Senior Executive Service (SES); if so, which positions in the HIC are the SES positions. (4) Do the guidelines also apply to positions designated as sensitive; if so, which positions have been so designated and why. (5) Has the HIC now designated senior computer operators, with detailed access to computer files and knowledge of the Commission's method of detecting overservicing by doctors, as sensitive; if so, who has now been designated as having a sensitive position. (6) Has the HIC reported to him on the positions to be designated as sensitive; if so, what action has he taken on the report. (7) Has the HIC a record of the number of staff who have left the Commission to work in the private sector. (8) What action has been taken to change administrative procedures to overcome any misuse of information by former employees of the HIC. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Health Insurance Commission has applied guidelines consistent with the Australian Public Service Board guidelines on official conduct since 1980. (2) Since 1980, all officers in positions designated sensitive have been required to notify the Commission when taking up employment in the private sector where that employment could give rise to a conflict of interest. (3) The Commission does not have a Senior Executive Service (SES) classification. However, it employs staff at levels which correspond with some of the SES levels of the Australian Public Service and the guidelines apply to those positions. They are: CENTRAL OFFICE Assistant General Manager Audit & Investigations Claims & Membership Finance & Planning Marketing Personnel Secretariat & Property Systems Medical Director Senior Medical Adviser Manager Health Insurance Applications Branch Investigations Software Corporate Development Systems Operations Actuarial & Statistics Budgets and Investments STATE OFFICES State Managers Deputy State Managers New South Wales Victoria (4) Yes. The guidelines do apply to positions designated as sensitive, and a list of those positions follows. All are at a classification level of Principal Executive Officer (equivalent to the Australian Public Service classification level for Class 9 clerical/administrative staff) and/or have duties or functions identified as sensitive. Positions designated sensitive are those where the occupants have access to confidential procedural or policy information, and/or they have an intimate knowledge of the Commission's computer and data storage systems. CENTRAL OFFICE Audit and Investigations Manager ADP Audit Iternal Audit Operations Support Review Senior Auditor Investigations Co-ordinator Claims and Membership Manager Operational Policy Assessing Production and Control Development and Operations Support Medicare Development Medibank Private Development Policy and Eligibility Officer Legislation and Benefits Section Head Medical Assessing Officer Fault Investigator Ministerial Liaison Officer Freedom of Information Officer Research Officer Finance and Planning Manager Accounting Scheduling and Development Project Management Corporate Development Officer Marketing Manager Market Development National Marketing Medical Division Manager Analysis and Co-ordination Personnel Management Manager Personnel Development Staff Development and Training Organisational Development Industrial Relations Officer Project Officer Secretariat and Property Manager Property and Security Administrative Services Assistant Manager Administrative Services Systems Manager Network Control Computer Processing Data Administration Branch Change ADP Training Technical Services Change Co-ordinator STATE OFFICES New South Wales Manager Branch Operations Claims Property and Administration Marketing Finance Personnel and Training Investigations Customer Services Internal Audit Medical Processing Centre-Orange Processing Centre-Strathfield Procurement Officer Medical Adviser Victoria Manager Marketing Branch Operations Personnel Finance Claims Property and Administration Investigations Internal Audit Customer Services Medical Branch Medical Adviser Procurement Officer Queensland Deputy State Manager Manager Marketing Branch Operations Personnel Claims and Membership Finance Property and Administration Investigations Medical Internal Audit Medical Adviser Procurement Officer Centre Manager Ipswich South Australia Deputy State Manager Manager Administration and Finance Claims and Membership Finance Marketing Services Investigations Internal Audit Analysis and Co-ordination Personnel Branch Operations Medical Adviser Procurement Officer Western Australia Deputy State Manager Manager Investigations Internal Audit Finance and Administration Marketing and Information Branch Operations Claims and Membership Analysis and Co-ordination Procurement Officer Medical Adviser Tasmania Deputy State Manager Manager Administration and Finance Marketing Personnel and Training Investigations Analysis and Co-ordination Branch Operations Claims and Membership Services and Property Procurement Officer Medical Adviser (5) The Commission has not designated `computer operator' positions sensitive as these staff do not have access to Medicare files and are already subject to the provisions of section 130 of the Health Insurance Act 1973. Knowledge of the Commission's methods of detecting fraud or excessive servicing is not available to computer operators. (6) Yes. I have accepted the Commission's report and am confident that the current procedures are adequate. (7) The Commission does not have a comprehensive record of the number of staff who have left to work in the private sector as only people in those positions classified sensitive are required to notify the Commission of their post-separation employment intentions and then only where that employment could give rise to a conflict of interests. The Commission holds records in relation to these employees. (8) No action has been taken to change administrative procedures as I believe those currently in place are adequate. On commencement of duty with the Commission, all staff are required to formally acknowledge the following: ``Terms and Conditions of employment'' Condition 14: Officers not to Mis-use Official Information: Except with the express permission of the Commission recorded in writing, an officer shall not use, otherwise than in the discharge of his official duties as an officer of the Commission, any information which comes to his knowledge, or which is communicated or conveyed to him, by virtue of his office with the Commission. Condition 15: Information to be Secret: An officer shall not, except in the course of his official duty or with the written approval of the Commission, give information, directly or indirectly concerning the business of the Commission or any other matter of which he has knowledge officially. Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 Section 70: (1) Any person who, being a Commonwealth Officer, publishes or communicates, except to some person to whom he is authorised to publish or communicate it, any fact or document which comes to his knowledge, or into his possession, by virtue of his office, and which it is his duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence. (2) A person who, having been a Commonwealth Officer, publishes or communicates, without lawful authority or excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him), any fact or document which came to his knowledge, or into his possession, by virtue of his office, and which, at the time he ceased to be a Commonwealth Officer, it was his duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for two years. Note: The term ``officer'' used in Conditions 14 and 15 and ``Commonwealth Officer'' used in the Crimes Act includes a temporary employee. and sign the following ``Undertaking and Acknowledgment'' before a witness. I, ... of ... an officer of the Health Insurance Commission who will exercise powers or perform duties or functions under the Health Insurance Act 1973 or whose duties will or may be connected with the operation of that Act, hereby- (a) undertake that I will at all times well and faithfully perform such duties and functions and exercise such powers under the said Act as are from time to time to be performed or exercised by me to the best of my ability and in accordance with direction and instructions from time to time given to me in that behalf. (b) acknowledge that- (i) I am aware that Sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Health Insurance Act provides that a person shall not directly or indirectly, except in the performance of his duties, or in the exercise of his powers or functions, under the Act, and while he is, or after he ceases to be, an officer, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information with respect to the affairs of another person acquired by him in the performance of his duties, or in the exercise of his powers or functions, under the Act. (ii) I have read a copy of the circular relating to the unauthorised disclosure of information and the performance of work outside the Commission. (iii) I understand that all facts and documents under or in connection with the said Act which come to my knowledge, or into my possession, by virtue of my office as aforesaid are fact and documents which it is my duty not to disclose at any time while I am or after I have ceased to be an officer of the Health Insurance Commission, except to a person to whom I an authorised by lawful authority to publish or communicate them.'' The provisions of section 130 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 are circularised to Commission staff annually. All staff are given a copy of the Code of Conduct on commencement of employment with the Commission. Staff in positions identified as sensitive are reminded annually that they are required to declare the existence of an actual or potential conflicting interest to the appropriate State Manager, as the case may be. In addition, any knowledge a former employee may have of procedures for the detection of fraud or overservicing would only be relevant for a short period of time after ceasing employment with the Commission as the parameters of the systems used to monitor claims and detect abuses are subject to regular review and modification at random intervals. (Question No. 5033) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What sum was (a) collected through the Medicare levy and (b) paid out by Medicare to residents during 1985/86 in the Electoral Division of Ryan. (2) How does the ratio between these two figures compare to that in other Federal electorates. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Taxation Office advises that collections from Medicare levy in 1985/86 cannot be identified separately from total PAYE and provisional tax collections. However, an estimate has been derived from the 1985/86 income year statistics (the income year and collection year figures are generally compar- able). Estimated Medicare levy collections for 1985/86 for the Electoral Division of Ryan, the State of Queensland and Australia are $10m, $184m and $1335m. Data on the number of services, fee charged, and Medicare benefit paid to residents of the Electoral Division of Ryan, the State of Queensland and Australia in 1985/86, on a date of service basis are as follows: Electoral Division of Ryan Queensland Australia Number of Services... 649 608 19 592 741 121 935 433 Fee Charged ($)... 17 190 483 448 113 189 2 927 733 205 Benefit Paid ($)... 14 895 744 400 303 762 2 633 883 808 The ratio of Medicare benefits paid (on a date of service basis) to Medicare levy collected for the Electoral Division of Ryan, the State of Queensland and Australia in 1985/86 is as follows: Electoral Division of Ryan Queensland Australia Ratio of benefits paid to levy collected... 1.49 2.18 1.97 It should be noted that there is no direct connection between the Medicare levy and payment of Medicare benefits, for three reasons. Medicare is a national program, so that local variations will be evident as affected by the income levels and tax payments on the one hand and the levels of illness experienced, which are related to socio-demographic factors, on the other. Second, Medicare includes payments to State and Territory Governments in respect of public hospital services. Third, the Medicare levy was never intended to meet the full cost of Medicare. The Commonwealth Government was paying substantial sums in medical benefits and payments to States and Territories for health related purposes before the commencement of Medicare. (Question No. 5065) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: Is he able to give an estimate of the total financial cost of the Program of Cultural Cooperation between Australia and the USSR for the years 1987 and 1988. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The cost to the ``Australia Abroad'' cultural relations budget of my Department for the two year period 1987 and 1988 is estimated at $160,000. A range of government and private organisations and individuals also participate in cultural exchange and activities but it is not possible accurately to estimate the cost of that participation. (Question No. 5170) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: (1) Who (a) selects and (b) appoints the Australian delegates or representatives to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its committees and working parties, including the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI). (2) Are there any criteria which apply to non-departmental persons who may be appointed as delegates or representatives. (3) Are non-departmental persons appointed to ICGFI selected after the vacancy has been the subject of public advertisement or are these persons nominated by specific interest groups. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b). The process whereby Australian representation at meetings convened by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is determined is dependent upon the nature of the meeting. The Australian Ambassador in Vienna, who is also the Resident Representative of Australia to the (IAEA) is appointed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Resident Representative is empowered to represent the Australian Government at a range of IAEA meetings, normally those of its policy-making organs and related Committees. In this role the Ambassador may be supported by alternate representatives or advisers drawn from the Australian Mission in Vienna or, in some cases, from Australia itself. Such delegations are normally agreed upon at officials level following consultation coordinated by the Department of Foreign Affairs with relevant departments and agencies. Where such meetings or conferences involve formal negotiations on issues of substance for Australia, such as the IAEA General Conference, the Minister for Foreign Affairs normally considers and approves the composition of the delegation and signs the necessary credentials. As Australia is also the designated representative for the South East Asian and Pacific Region on the IAEA Board of Governors, it is current practice for the Resident Representative also to be appointed by the Minister as Australian Governor on the IAEA Board. Australian representation on technical level bodies convened by the IAEA is normally decided at officials level. The Department of Foreign Affairs coordinates such representation, taking into account the views and requirements of relevant Departments, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Australian Safeguards Office. On certain advisory groups and working parties, the IAEA itself invites particular Australian experts to participate in the work of meetings. Such experts may be drawn from outside the Government. Consistent with this practice, representation at the annual meetings of the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI) has been determined by officials following consultation. This has involved officials from the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Health and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (formerly the Australian Atomic Energy Commission). The pattern of representation to date is set out in the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy in his reply to Question on Notice No. 5082. Representation has had to take into account limitations on funds available for travel by Government officials to overseas conferences. (2) I have approved the following standing arrangements which govern the participation, by invitation from the Australian Government, of non-government representatives in Australian Government delegations. These are: (i) During the attachment, the representative will be subject to the authority of the Head of Delegation, and for the purpose of the conference or meeting will be bound by the policy directives determined by the Australian Government. (ii) The representative should not advocate publicly positions contrary to official policy, although this may be done within the Delegation. The representative may put views privately to other delegations, if desired, provided that it is made clear where these differ from those of the Australian Delegation. (iii) Except in circumstances determined by the Head of Delegation, the representative should not speak on behalf of the Australian Government in the conference or the meeting, with foreign representatives or with the press. (iv) The representative will normally be invited to attend delegation meetings, except those which the Head of Delegation might consider especially sensitive. (v) The representative will be given access to relevant official documents at the discretion of the Head of the Delegation. Should it prove necessary to his/her function, and provided he/she holds a current security clearance, access may also be given by the Head of Delegation to certain security classified documents. These must be treated in accordance with the Government's standing security instructions and must not be divulged to persons not authorised to receive them. Moreover, classified documents must not be copied, and must be returned to the Head of Delegation at the end of the meeting. Security clearance procedures will not be initiated without the consent of the individual concerned. The lack of a security clearance would not mean that the representative could not participate in the Delegation, but it would mean that he/she would be unable to have access to security classified material. (vi) The above restrictions do not, of course, preclude the representative from briefing other non-governmental organisations about the outcome of the conference or meeting, so long as specific references to matters regarded as confidential to the Delegation is avoided. (vii) The Government will not be responsible for any costs associated with the participation of the representative. The Chairman of the former Australian Atomic Energy Commission has served as Australian Representative and as Alternate to meetings of the IAEA General Conference. Otherwise, non-departmental persons have not been appointed in a representative capacity to meetings of government representatives in the International Atomic Energy Agency. Delegates to technical level meetings are normally selected on the basis of their expertise and availability, following consultation between relevant Departments and agencies, and having regard to the requirement for attendance in terms of Australian policy interests and the availability of funds. As set out in the answer to (1) above, the IAEA directly invites particular Australian experts to participate in certain advisory groups and technical level meetings. It does so at its own initiative on the basis of the known expertise of the expert involved, its relevance to the subject under discussion and, in some cases, the desirability of a spread of geographic representation. (3) Non-departmental persons who have served on ICGFI task forces have done so at the direct invitation of ICGFI. Representation at the annual ICGFI meeting is, as stated above, determined by officials following consultation. Further details are to be found in the reply of the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy to Question on Notice No. 5082. (Question No. 5178) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 18 March 1987: (1) What funds have been allocated by the Government to the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers (ATCV) in each year since 1982-83. (2) For what purposes have the funds been allocated. (3) What effect have current levels of funding had on the ATCV's activities in WA, including its involvement in the National Soil Conservation Program. (4 Is it a fact that the ATCV now is experiencing financial difficulties. (5) What action has the Government taken in response to the ATCV's need for additional funding. (6) Will the Government consider allowing donations to the ATCV to become tax deductible. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- 1982-83-$4,500 1983-84-$243,479 1984-85-$503,375 1985-86-$854,692 1986-87-$35,560 (2) Funds have been allocated for the purposes of (a) administrative support (b) providing additional work experience opportunities for Community Employment Program target groups which could enhance their employment prospects. These positions were made available on a number of environmental improvement projects administered by the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers in urban and rural areas. (c) restoration and conservation work at the National Trust property Barwan Park, Winchelsa, Victoria, and in the surrounding district. (d) restoration work at Fairbridge Farm Village, Western Australia, including revegetation work in the Kalgoorlie, Kambalda and Coolgardie areas. (e) providing salary and operating costs for a community contact officer to extend the activities of the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers and promote soil conservation throughout Western Australia. (3) Funding under the National Soil Conservation Program has assisted in increasing community awareness of land degradation and encouraging self help programs for resource conservation in Western Australia. Specific activities undertaken as part of the Program include tree planting, fencing, dune restoration, track installation, salt land rehabilitation and mining restoration. (4) Representations from the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers indicate that the Trust is experiencing financial difficulties. (5) Further applications for Community Employment Program and Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations funds by the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers will be given consideration through a comparative assessment process together with those from other applicants. This process will determine the most suitable projects for approval in terms of the aims and objectives of the respective programs. The Trust has been encouraged to seek donations from the community in an effort to enable continued expansion of their activities. (6) A request by the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers for access to the gift deduction provisions was considered during the deliberations preceding the 1986-87 Budget. Although appreciative of the valuable work done by the Trust, the Government was unable to extend the gift provisions to include it at the time. In reaching that decision the Government was obliged to take into account similar requests from many other very worthy organisations as well as the general requirement for restraint in Budget outlays. (Question No. 3829) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: When may I expect an answer to my question No. 2296 placed on notice on 12 November 1985. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to my answer to question No. 2296, published in Hansard of 17 February 1987, page 48. (Question No. 5012) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) What word processing or computer equipment has been introduced into the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister since 1982. (2) Why was the equipment purchased and were any specific targets set in terms of time or cost savings and improved efficiencies. (3) What has been the cost of purchasing the equipment. (4) Has the introduction of the equipment necessitated the purchase of new office equipment; if so, what have been the costs of the additional purchases. (5) Has the introduction of the equipment led to changes in work practices; if so, what has been the nature of the changes. (6) What has been the incidence of repetition strain injury (RSI) in the Minister's Department since 1982. (7) How many lost working days have been caused by RSI related illnesses since 1982. (8) How many persons have been forced to retire from the Minister's Department or statutory authorities responsible to the Minister as a result of RSI and what have been the compensation costs of this early retirement. (9) Has introduction of the equipment (a) saved money and (b) improved efficiency in the Minister's Department or the statutory authorities responsible to the Minister. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (3) The table sets out details and costs of word processing or computer equipment introduced into the Minister's portfolio since 1982. The information is provided with the caveat that, in some cases, it has not been practical in resource cost terms to research records to identify and to cost each item purchased since 1982. Portfolio Agency Purchases (1) Estimated Cost (3) $ Department of Resources and Energy Central Office -Wang OIS 140 with 26 terminals, 1,270,000 -40 Wang Personal Computers for use by keyboard staff -3 Prime Minicomputers with 67 terminals, -25 Microcomputers. Division of National Mapping (NATMAP) -3 Apple III PC word processors connected to two C.Itoh printers, 78,900 -2 IBM PC XT, -Business State Processing System, Business Computer Enhancements (Word Processing/Accounting System). Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics (BMR) -Scientific applications computer-Data General MV20 000, 3,571,000 -Seismic Processing System-Vax 11-780, -Graphics Workstation-Intergraph ``interview'' Graphics Workstation, -Dedicated Word Processors-22 various makes and models, -Personal Computers-52 various makes and models, -Australian Seismological Centre-1 Webster `Spectrum'', 2 Sun 2170s 1 Sun 250, 4 PDP11s, 1 HP150. Total Department of Resources and Energy 4,919,900 Statutory Authorities Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) 596,000 An extensive array of stand alone equipment has been purchased since 1982. The major purchases include 71 microcomputer systems plus accessories, and a Pyramid Based Unix operated text system. Word processing acquisitions have been a Phillips 5002/142 work station unit and 15 Olivetti ET300/ETV111 stand alone units. In additional to the equipment purchased, the Commission has also upgraded its mainframe computer by the acquisition, at no additional rental cost, of an IBM 4381/3 system to provide enhanced central computing facilities. Joint Coal Board (JCB) -2 ICL ME29/45 Mainframe processors with 2 400 1pm line printers, 6 180 megabytes disc systems, 2 magnetic tape drives, 1 graph plotter, 8 VDU screens for each processor. 1,398,900 -6 ICL DRS20 networks, with 37 VDU workstations, 12 matrix printers, 14 letter quality printers, 3 streaming tape units. The DRS20 has word processing facilities using the ICL DTM plus word processing package. Approximately 21 screens are used for word processing. -3 ICL DRS300 networks with 8 VDU screens, 3 matrix printers, 1 letter quality printer. The DRS300 has word processing facilities using either Wordstar or LEX. One network has been set up for word processing-using LEX with two VDU screens. -1 IBM PC/XT personal computer with 1 VDU screen, 1 matrix printer, 1 10 magabyte disc storage; -4 Adler Class typewriters, these are used for word processing. The Pipeline Authority (TPA) 1,820,000 +65,000 (pa) Eight minicomputers have been acquired since 1982. The IBM 4331 has been upgraded to the equivalent of an IBM 4361 system at an increased rental cost ($65,000 per annum). The SCADA system for monitoring and controlling the operation of the pipeline network totalling some 1500 kilometres of high pressure pipelines is in the final stages of being replaced by a new SCADA system. Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority (SMHEA) One Dual Station Word processor, 345,000 Microcomputer equipment in the form of a UNIX processor-based network, -A number of personal computers. (Costs not available) (2) The equipment was purchased to enable the Department and the Statutory Authorities to discharge effectively their many and varied functions, and responsibilities. It is the Department's policy to seek tangible cost benefit justifications for new acquisitions and to strive for greater overall efficiency through the increased productivity expected to result from the use of computing and office automated technology. Where practical, cost effectiveness reviews are undertaken before acquisition. However, the setting of performance/efficiency targets cannot readily be applied in cases where acquisitions of computer equipment are made for scientific research or engineering applications. (4) Throughout the portfolio the introduction of word processors and other computer equipment has necessitated the purchase of certain new office equipment to outfit workstations with ergonomic furniture, ie tables, adjustable terminal arms, gas lift chairs, printer tables and acoustic hoods for printers. The estimates of the cost of these purchases, where available, are as follows: Agency Estimated Cost $ Central Office... 100,000 NATMAP... 10,700 BMR... 20,000 (1986-87 only) Total Department... 130,700 AAEC... 20,000 JCB... 32,200 TPA... 9,670 SMHEA... (Not available) (5) The introduction of word processing and other computer equipment has led to a number of changes in work practices within the portfolio. Some of these changes include: diversification of keyboard work throughout the organisations requiring administrative, clerical, technical and professional officers to develop keyboard skills; reduction and, in some instances the elimination of repetitive clerical work in producing reports and documents, thereby optimising resource usage; reduction in the volume of text entry for the edit and presentation of documents and reports, thereby enhancing the quality of the end product; introduction of occupational health exercises for keyboard and VDU operators (rest-breaks and eye sight testing); (6), (7) and (8). Details of the incidence of repetition strain injury (RSI) since 1982, the number of working days lost that have been caused by RSI related illnesses since 1982 and the number of persons who have been forced to retire as a result of RSI and the compensation costs involved in this early retirement are provided in the following table: Agency No of RSI cases Q (6) No of working days lost Q (7) Retirees No. Q (8) Compensation Cost Q (8) $ Department Central Office... 59 1,873 2 9,562 NATMAP... 3 598 - - BMR... 6 342 1 9,316 Total Department... 68 2,813 3 18,878 Statutory Authorities AAEC... 5 360 - - JCB... 4 140 - - TPA... 5 461 2 59,693 SMHEA... 3 144 - - Total-Portfolio... 85 3,918 5 78,571 (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (Question No. 5142) Mr Wright asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 25 February 1987: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report published by the Metal Trades Industry Association in August 1986, in which it is claimed that the reason for Australia's economic problems today can be related to the Fraser Government when the country's manufacturing base was destroyed. (2) Is the Minister able to say why Australian business went offshore or desisted in manufacturing pursuits during that period. (3) What initiatives have been taken by the Government to assist manufacturers to establish and expand businesses since 1983. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) A number of factors contributed to the adverse performance of Australia's manufacturing sector in the period. In particular the sharp downturn in 1981/82, associated with the second world oil shock, saw a decline in the performance of manufacturing in most western developed economies. At the same time, in Australia, wage settlements were increasing sharply which also contributed to the very substantial reduction in the international competitiveness of our manufacturing from late 1981. Partly reflecting this loss of competitiveness and downturn in demand, manufacturing employment fell from 1.24m in 1981 to 1.11m in 1984, a loss of more than 130,000 jobs. Real manufacturing gross domestic product fell by over $600m over the same period. The economic opportunities of the so-called resources boom were unduly emphasised by the then Government. Restrictive monetary policy and the Government's policy of maintaining an artificially high exchange rate as a crude anti-inflation measure added to the loss of Australian competitiveness, jobs and business opportunities throughout the period. Overall, the environment for industry during the Fraser years was not supportive of new investment. Industrial relations were at a low ebb. Commonwealth and State Government policies for industry were unco-ordinated. Industry and technology policies had not been brought together. Trade and industry policies were often pursuing contradictory objectives. Regulation of industry was steadily increasing. These and many other disincentives to invest have since been addressed by the present Government. (3) The Government has put macroeconomic policy onto a growth path. It has floated the Australian dollar and provided Australian firms in the manufacturing and traded services sectors with a substantial boost to their international competitiveness. Through its unique accord with the trade unions, this Government has been able to accommodate strong economic growth without a wage explosion. The Government has developed a comprehensive set of positive and generally available measures to assist Australian industry to upgrade its performance. In this area the Government has given special attention to encouraging innovation and new industries. Already manufacturing research and development, as a proportion of GDP, has risen from 0.25% in 1981/82 to 9.45% in 1985/86. Projections suggest it may reach 0.52% in 1986/87. Positive measures have been designed to provide support for each link in the chain of innovation. Incentives for R & D activity, such as the 150% taxation concession for R&D expenditure and the Grants for Industry Research and Development Scheme, are complemented by programs to assist diffusion of new technology. Commercialisation of the results of R&D can be assisted by the Management and Investment Companies Scheme and the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Comprehensive assistance is available through the National Industry Extension Service to encourage improved production techniques and modern business practices. The Government also has programs to assist in marketing, particularly export marketing. Examples are the revised Offsets Program, Government purchasing policies, the Buy Australian Campaign and the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. Where such generally-available positive measures could not adequately address the need for adaptation by specific industry sectors, more specific sectoral policies have been put in place. Examples include the Steel Plan, Passenger Motor Vehicle Plan, the Textile Clothing and Footwear Plan and the Heavy Engineering Package. For industries with special growth prospects, other sectoral arrangements have been made, e.g. the Industry Development Strategy for the Communications Equipment Industry. The Government has been working to eliminate, wherever possible, obstacles to international competitiveness and barriers to change. Key achievements include the abolition of State Purchasing Preferences; the review of standards, accreditation and quality control; the special conference of restrictive work practices; and the establishment of the Business Regulation Review Unit. Similarly, it has been aiming to achieve coherence in the range of wider Government policies which impact on industry. Major initiatives have been taken in the area of taxation reform; financial deregulation; improved linkages between publicly funded research bodies, such as CSIRO, and industry; and the harmonisation of State and Commonwealth policies. Finally, the Government has been encouraging a sense of common purpose among Australians about future directions for the development of Australian industry. Specific achievements include the establishment by the Government of the Australian Manufacturing Council and industry councils, and the formation of the Commonwealth/State Australian Industry and Technology Council. Each of these bodies has since made major input to the Government's policy approach. (Question No. 5231) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 24 March 1987: (1) Does the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority operate an airstrip at Talbingo, New South Wales. (2) Has the airstrip recently been extended and its southern approaches modified; if so. (a) by what length was the runway extended, (b) what were the reasons for the extension and approach modifications, (c) how many cubic metres of excavation was involved in the extension and modifications, (d) were the earthworks undertaken by Authority staff or by private contractor, (e) what was the (i) estimated and (ii) actual cost of the project and (f) on what date was the project (i) commenced and (ii) completed. (3) What type of aircraft (a) currently use the airstrip and (b) will use the airstrip after its improvement. (4) How many aircraft movements occurred at the airstrip during each year since 1980. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes (2) The Authority has modified the southern approach to the airstrip. It has done this by: Building a culvert over a creek which crossed the southern end Moving material from the top of a hill which encroached into the 1:20 take-off gradient. The material removed from the hill was used to fill in the depression where the culvert was built. (a) The paved runway has not been extended beyond its existing 560 m. However the elimination of the creek and the reduction of the height of the hill have added approximately 100 m for terminating landings, and 50 m for take-offs, in the southern direction. (b) The work was carried out to increase the safety margins at take-offs and landings with the Authority's Nomad Aircraft. (c) Approximately 15,000-20,000m3 has been excavated from the hill and placed over the culvert in the creek area. (d) The work was carried out by Authority personnel, partly as a training exercise for new plant operators, such as dozer drivers. During December 1986 to January 1987, personnel required on standby for the Tumut 1 tunnel outage were utilised. (e) (i) Estimated cost of the work was $50,000. (ii) Actual cost charged to the project is $63,000 at the end of February 1987. (f) (i) The project commenced on 14 March 1986 and the work was carried out intermittently as resources permitted. (ii) The project is not yet completed. There is some re-seeding to be done. (3) (a) The Authority has one aircraft, a Nomad which uses the Talbingo airstrip on a regular basis. RAAF Caribous and National Parks and Wildlife helicopters also use the strip on occasions. (b) Only aircraft with short take-off and landing capability (STOL) can use the strip. The recent work on the strip will not change the type of aircraft that can use the airstrip, but it has improved the safety margins. (4) Aircraft movements: 1980-521; 1981-564; 1982-537; 1983-484; 1984-484; 1985-570; 1986-496. (Question No. 5244) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 March 1987: (1) Did a recently published report of the Federal Office of Road Safety conclude that it is possible to modify the traffic environment to provide greater safety for elderly pedestrians. (2) What action is being taken to bring the conclusions of the report to the attention of State transport authorities and to promote a national approach to achieving improved pedestrian safety for elderly citizens. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Federal Office of Road Safety Report on the Safety of Older Pedestrians did conclude that it is possible to modify the traffic environment to enhance the safety of older pedestrians. The modifications proposed include greater provision of median strips, more appropriate traffic signal timing, and better street lighting, especially near community facilities. The area in which the greatest immediate gains are to be made is in educating older pedestrians to use the facilities provided for their safety and to make sure they are aware of the traffic situation before stepping on to the road. To this end, the Federal Office of Road Safety is currently developing a public education campaign to alert older people to the potential dangers they face as pedestrians and how to minimise these dangers by e.g. the use of traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and median strips and the wearing of light-coloured clothing. (2) I have forwarded a copy of the Report to each of the State Transport Ministers who meet under the auspices of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. The conclusions will be considered by the relevant technical committees of this Council. The Report has also been circulated to many community groups with an interest in this problem. All local government authorities will also receive copies. Distribution of the Report has already led to productive discussion and community involvement in this issue. The Federal Office of Road Safety will continue to promote such discussion and co-ordinate a national approach to reducing what is a major safety problem for a growing group in the Australian community.