Tuesday, 26 May 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) departed for overseas on 19 May on Government business and will return on 31 May. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will act as Minister for Trade during his absence. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the fact that the Government has now postponed debate on the Industrial Relations Bill. In the face of united opposition to and condemnation of that Bill by the Liberal Party, the National Party of Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the National Farmers Federation and small business associations, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that the Bill will be withdrawn and clauses which place unions above the ordinary courts of Australia totally deleted? Mr HAWKE —The Government's legislation had its origins in the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. Following the release of the Hancock report, very considerable consultation took place. The final form of the Government's legislation had features including significant increases in the penal provisions which went beyond what had been discussed earlier. There was a very considerable degree of approval among employer organisations. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —As always, the Opposition laughs at facts. It will not be laughing for very much longer-- Mr Hodgman —Have a go. Mr HAWKE —Let me finish-on this issue. The only intellectual exercise honourable members opposite get is in jumping to conclusions. Seeing that there has been such a wide degree of support for very much of what is contained in the Bill, and observing that on the side of both the trade unions and the employers there was concern about a number of provisions, in the continuing tradition of this Government, which has been a government of consultation rather than confrontation, we decided that it would be an appropriate course to allow this legislation to remain on the table so that there would be an opportunity for full and frank consultation with employers, trade unions and State governments. I am very pleased to say that, in the conversation I have had with the Business Council of Australia, the Council has welcomed the Government's move to follow this course. I understand that my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has had discussions with the CAI. The CAI welcomes the course of action that has been taken by the Government. So while I know that the spiritual home of those opposite is with those elements of the extreme right amongst the employer organisations-may I say that they are welcome to one another; they deserve one another-the two major employer organisations welcome this responsible course of action by the Government. Mr LANGMORE —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House about recent developments in relation to Libya in the South Pacific? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Fraser for his question. On 19 May I announced that Australia would expel the Libyan People's Bureau from Canberra-a bureau which, I remind the House, we inherited from the previous Government. As I say, I announced on 19 May that the Libyan People's Bureau must go. That decision was communicated to regional governments and it has helped to underline the strength and the validity of the views of my Government on Libyan activities. The House will be aware that a senior official of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr David Sadleir, who is, in fact, a Deputy Secretary in the Department, has recently concluded a tour of South Pacific countries during which he discussed this issue in detail with our friends in the South Pacific. I am very pleased to say that these talks were constructive and timely and have led to a clearer understanding between Australia and its regional partners on this issue. It is obvious from those discussions and from events such as the meeting of Melanesian leaders in Rabaul last week that security issues in the region are at the forefront of leaders' minds in Pacific countries at the moment, as they should be. I note that in Port Vila this morning Prime Minister Walter Lini, who happily was making his first public appearance for some time, announced that the Vanuatu Government had decided to postpone indefinitely the question of the establishment of a Libyan People's Bureau in his country. We welcome that statement. I finally observe that the Foreign Minister and I expect to have an opportunity to discuss these matters with regional leaders in Apia at the end of this week. Mr N.A. Brown —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I welcome him back. I remind the Minister of his answer to my question on the Libyan People's Bureau on 28 April when he said that the Bureau would not be closed and that that decision had been made on grounds that were, as he said, `sound' and which `continue to be sound'. I ask the Minister: What specific facts occurred between 28 April, when there were no grounds for closing the Bureau, and 19 May, when the Prime Minister announced that the Libyan People's Bureau would be closed because it had, to use his words, intruded `into our domestic affairs, causing dissensions and confrontation between communities', was `causing deep concern' and was `serving to facilitate Libyan destabilising activities'? With respect to each of these facts which occurred between 28 April and 19 May, when did they first come to the notice of the Minister? Mr HAYDEN —I thank the honourable member for welcoming me back to Australia. I also welcome him back to Australia. I seem to recall that in his own way he made his mark when he was overseas too. When I made that statement it was a properly based statement. There were a number of developments, some of which had been under observation but which extended beyond where they were at the time I made that statement. As the honourable member will appreciate, highly classified matters, including sources, are involved. With regard to the information on which we based the decision, I can only say that it is a decision that I strongly support. I believe that it has had a salutary effect and has demonstrated the firmness of intent of the Australian Government. I regret that I am unable publicly to say any more about the matter. Mr MILDREN —I direct my question to the Minister for Communications. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the comments on broadcasting licensing policy made by the honourable member for Deakin on the Sunday program? Will he explain to the House the Government's position on broadcasting licensing policy? Mr Donald Cameron —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The Standing Orders require Ministers to answer questions concerning matters for which they have responsibility. I suggest that any question asked about views expressed by an individual on this side of the House is not in accordance with the Standing Orders as they used to be practised. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I find it in order for the Minister to answer the question. Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Ballarat for his question. I have read a transcript of the rather confusing comments made by the honourable member for Deakin about broadcasting licensing policy-- Mr Beale —This is coming from Mr 43 per cent. You were rolled. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member has interjected about audience reach, and has referred to me as `Mr 43 per cent'. That may have been the position at some stage in my career, but I have matured from that. If honourable members opposite ever get to 43 per cent, they will be delighted. The honourable member for Deakin seemed to be saying that the current broadcasting licence regime will be radically altered so that-- Mr Spender —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The Minister cannot be asked a question about a matter outside his-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will stop for a moment. The question was in order, and the Chair has ruled the question in order. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I appreciate that you have ruled the question in order, and I am not canvassing that. I am saying that the Minister cannot be asked to comment upon what an honourable member has said outside the House. Those sorts of questions have been ruled out of order time and time again. We then come to the question of relevance, which is simply that if a Minister cannot be asked a question about or to comment on something that has been said outside this House, he cannot get in by the back door and say: `This is what he said; this is how I interpret his remarks'. I ask you to rule this interpretation out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has ruled that the Minister is in order. If the honourable member is challenging the Chair on that, he has every right to do so. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, the point that I was making related not to the question, but to the answer. The answer, in which the Minister is giving his interpretation of what the honour- able member for Deakin has said, is quite out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair will hear the Minister. The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Mr Hawke —Hopeless. Mr Spender —Hopeless? You are hopeless. Madam SPEAKER —Order! While the Minister has the call, the Chair would like to be able to hear the Minister. Under standing order 55, the interjections from both sides of the House are out of order. Mr DUFFY —Thank you, Madam Speaker. This Government-I am commenting on government policy- supports the current system of broadcasting licensing which, until recently, had bipartisan support. It aims to confer new licences on the best applicants as judged by an expert independent body. This is not the first time that the question of an auction system has been raised. It is a matter which has been considered and rejected. One of the reasons for that is that basically we would move from looking at applicants on the basis of their ability to provide a service and would decide to go for just the richest-that is, this sort of policy is for the big end of town. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I suggest to those honourable members who are consistently bringing points of order before the Chair that they read their Standing Orders. Honourable members are totally out of order while they are interjecting. I call the Minister. Mr DUFFY —Madam Speaker, I wonder whether there would be such forced humour from honourable members opposite if they were prepared at the moment to make these suggestions in the regional areas of Australia. The Government has recently released its policy on the expansion of frequency modulation radio into country areas and people out there are waiting eagerly for those hearings to start. In fact, there have already been four announcements for those applications. Of course many of those people have small and medium sized business interests and would be put in a position, if they went into an auction system, where they would not be able to apply for these licences. So we have seen a situation over the past few weeks where, first, we have off the top of the head a suggestion from those opposite that we call for a fourth licence in Melbourne and a fourth commercial licence in Sydney and then call for licences in other capital cities in a staged way. As I have already said, that indicates quite clearly that they do not understand the fundamentals of this industry and that in fact we have a situation where Australian production would be adversely affected. As I indicated previously, and as I will indicate again and again, it is difficult to know what those opposite have got against Australian producers and Australian actors-- Mr Hawke —They appear to hate them. Mr DUFFY —As the Prime Minister interjects, they appear to hate them. More importantly in relation to regulation of the industry the same applies to children-- Mr Charles —They hate kids. Mr DUFFY —As the honourable member for Isaacs interjects, they hate kids. I think they have now turned their guns on small business. As a matter of reality, so much for the Liberal Party's bleating about small business. I must admit that the proposal of licensing by auction is not inconsistent with many of the other ideas that have been recently espoused. It is not inconsistent with the view over there that more television should be given to the city areas while ignoring the rural people. There is only one thing that unifies this thought that they have that seems to go off in different directions every day, and that is the almighty market. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister was asked to comment about government policy in the area. He was not asked to comment about what might have come from other areas-from the Opposition or from anyone else. Therefore, he is clearly out of order and he should conclude his answer and sit down. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will bring his answer to a conclusion. Mr DUFFY —Madam Speaker, the Government's attitude is that we reject what are not just radical free market ideas but absolutely lunatic ideas. They represent a fundamental hostility to the present broadcasting system that has operated very well in this country and that has in fact been a very acceptable broadcasting system from the point of view of the Australian television production industry, to which I return in relation to government policy. The Government has been very concerned about breaking the two-station rule, about moving into an area where the medium sized players in the broadcasting industry in this country are able to expand and therefore to have a role in the production of television. These are things that are very important as far as this Government is concerned. I assure the honourable member for Ballarat that this Government will not go down the track of suddenly deciding that all that should be thrown overboard and that we ought to move into a situation where licences are auctioned. I have very grave difficulty in following what the policy of the Opposition-- Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will draw his answer to a conclusion. The Chair has advised the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion. Mr DUFFY —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have very grave difficulty in following what the Opposition's policy is in this area of communications or, for that matter, any other area. I assure the honourable member for Ballarat and other members of this House that we on this side of the House are not about to tear up a policy in this area which has worked very well for many years. Mr SINCLAIR —Madam Speaker, I ask-- Mr Young —Wait until Joh gets down here. Mr SINCLAIR —I would not worry about it. Mr Hawke —Yes, wait until Joh gets here. Mr SINCLAIR —You will have a long wait, my friend. You will be sitting over this side much sooner. I ask a question of the Foreign Minister. In light of the recent Fijian elections under the multiracial Constitution, do he and his Government recognise Dr Bavadra as the Prime Minister of Fiji? If so, what status does he accord the council of advisers appointed by the Governor-General of Fiji? Having properly put aside the question of military intervention, and presumably supporting his ministerial colleagues' opposition to the Australian Council of Trade Unions industrial bans against Australian-Fijian trade, what action does he propose to try to enforce his attitude towards democracy in that country, which is a former colony, an ally of Australia and a fellow member of the South Pacific Forum? Mr HAYDEN —There is an unstated assumption in the question put by the leader of one of the rump factions of the coalition that Australia is able to order around the affairs of countries in this region; that we can pick up the small island states by the scruff of the neck and the seat of their pants, give them a good shake and point them in the right direction. I assure the right honourable member that if that is the approach that is used by any country in the region towards another country-in particular, by Australia towards the small island states-it will be counterproductive. I want to make it clear, as the Prime Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions, that we do not and we will not interfere in the internal affairs of another country. What we do want to see, however, is the restoration of proper democratic processes. We regard the election of Dr Bavadra and his Government as part of that proper democratic process. They were properly elected according to the constitution and democratic processes. We want to see the restoration of proper democratic processes in that country. Beyond that, I have nothing more to say at this stage. Mr FREE —My question is directed to the Treasurer. What impact would a significant reduction in the top marginal tax rate, combined with income splitting and the abolition of all the Government's base broadening measures, have on the Budget deficit and fairness in the tax system? Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Treasurer has been asked to conduct a forecasting exercise beyond the wit of any person in this House and certainly beyond the wit of the Treasury. Therefore, it is quite clearly a hypothetical question and should not be allowed. Mr Young —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. The honourable member for North Sydney keeps raising frivolous points of order. As you have not objected to any of the questions being asked, the honourable member for North Sydney is posing as a sort of pseudo-Speaker of the House in trying to raise objection on every occasion a question is asked. The question asked, as ruled by you, Madam Speaker, is quite legitimate. The trouble with the honourable member for North Sydney is that he cannot think up a question to ask himself. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair finds the question in order. Mr KEATING —A significant reduction in the top marginal tax rate combined with the splitting of incomes and the abolition of the bulk of the Government's tax reform base broadening measures would, of course, have a disastrous impact upon the Budget deficit and an even more disastrous impact upon fairness in the tax system. At a time when this country's national income was declining we would find the Commonwealth Parliament seeking to lift after tax incomes. In other words, it could be accomplished only by adding to the debt which is the very problem to begin with. It is interesting that we are seeking now from the Opposition a taxation policy which would do this. We have seen today another leak in the Melbourne Herald of the Opposition's policy which would-- Mr Spender —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I go back to precisely the same point of order that I made before and which I understand that you upheld. The Treasurer has been asked a hypothetical question. He is now talking about so-called-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair ruled the question in order. The honourable member for North Sydney may dissent from the Chair's ruling but he may not criticise the Chair's ruling. Mr Spender —I am not dissenting from that ruling, Madam Speaker. I am putting a separate and distinct point of order. That separate and distinct point of order is that it is not open to the Treasurer in answering a question which you have ruled to be in order to start saying what is or is not Opposition policy. He has no responsibility for Opposition policy as yet. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for North Sydney. I will listen carefully to the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —The elements of this approach would be to introduce a 25 per cent tax rate on incomes between $5,400 and $25,000 and 30 per cent on incomes thereafter. What that would do on the costing admitted in the policy estimated by the Liberals themselves would be to add $6.7 billion per annum to the deficit-$5.7 billion in personal tax plus $1 billion for extra family allowances which is also included in the proposals. To that, in the abolition of the base broadening measures-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I again raise a point of order. The Treasurer, in allegedly answering a question put to him about certain matters, is now saying what Liberal policy is and how much it would cost. That is clearly out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will answer the question about what effect these policies would have on the Government's deficit. Mr KEATING —That is right, Madam Speaker. This is the impact of such a proposal on the Budget. The abolition of the base broadening measures, fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax, entertainment tax, negative gearing and tax on superannuation lump sums would add $2 billion to that. An alignment of the company tax rate with the personal tax rate would cost a further two and a half-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker,-- Mr KEATING —Is the honourable member running away from public debate? He is afraid of public debate. Mr Spender —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Treasurer is doing precisely what he was told in effect not to do. He is stating what our policy allegedly is-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will answer the question that was asked of him. He was asked to tell the House what the effect would be on the deficit if these cuts were introduced. The Treasurer is doing just that. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, the Treasurer was not asked to comment on what appeared in a newspaper. The Treasurer is now reading from a newspaper and commenting on what it contains. That is clearly out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has found the Treasurer to be in order in relation to the question asked of him. If the honourable member for North Sydney does not agree with that ruling, I suggest that he has procedures that he can take. Mr Spender —I understand quite clearly what the procedures are. The Treasurer should keep to-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr KEATING —If we were to look at the impact on the Budget deficit of the alignment of the company tax rate with the top personal rate of about 35 per cent, we would find a further $2.5 billion added to that as well. On top of that measures to repeal, for instance, the assets test and to have a wage freeze would be added. We would be looking at about $14 billion in commitments and, if there was a commitment to wipe out the existing Budget deficit, we would be looking at roughly $16 billion. Of course, there is no proposal around for the introduction of a consumption tax. We find that public debate is now free of a proposal to introduce a consumption tax. The only thing we hear in the public debate is that such a proposal as I have just mentioned `would be funded primarily from expenditure cuts and to a lesser extent by minor changes in the tax mix'. So we have heard all this major debate about a consumption tax-but, presto, she has vanished! What a surprise! Of course, the public may ask about such an impact on the Budget deficit. But where would the money come from? Mr Carlton —You aren't following standing orders. Mr KEATING —Members opposite are running scared-and well they ought to be. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will ignore interjections. Mr KEATING —Well, they are getting a bit noisy, Madam Speaker. Look at old Rosie-he cannot help himself. To fund such an irresponsible policy one would have to ask how many schools and hospitals would have to be closed. Why would anyone want to give tax cuts to the rich at 35c-virtually nothing for the people who are poor but 35c in the dollar for the rich, who are already picking up the benefits of the stock market and massive increments to their wealth? No; the proposal is: Take the capital gains tax out and do not have a fair tax system. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: The Treasurer is now talking about massive increments to `your' wealth. How under any interpretation of relevance can that be relevant to the question that was put? This is not a debating session. It is meant to be an opportunity to seek information. That is what Standing Orders provide. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer is answering the question. The Treasurer will resume. Mr KEATING —It would be indefensible to reward groups in the community who have had the benefit of economic growth for four years, a massive increase in the profit share and the lift in the stock market by saying to them: `Not only will you not pay capital gains tax but you can have a 35 per cent tax rate'. That is indefensible. The $14 billion that it would cost to do this those opposite could get by smashing the health system, smashing health support, breaking down the social security system and cutting education funding in half. They are the issues of greed in the public debate. That is the way that such a tax proposal would need to be funded-through outlays cuts. Two weeks ago we had the May statement. The Government sat the test and passed it. But we have heard nothing from the Opposition about changes to outlays. In this country we have a hidden agenda about the outlays cuts to fund greedy tax promises-ones that would decimate the public good and would impact harshly on the poor-only so that they could appeal to people on high incomes. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, there are many standing orders relative to what the Treasurer is now doing. He is tempting me and others to break the rules, too. I warn him that, if he does not get back to the subject, I will fix him, too. Mr KEATING —I conclude on this point: There would be a disastrous impact from such proposals on fiscal policy in the Budget deficit. There would also be a disastrous impact on fairness and social justice and equity, and the result would be a breaking of the nation's economic recovery, a pushing up of interest rates and no compensation for the loss of the terms of trade we are currently experiencing. In short, such a proposal would appeal to greed and be disastrous for the country. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the equivocal answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in answer to a question from the Leader of the National Party. Does the Foreign Minister's answer mean that, as far as the Government is concerned, a new election called by the present regime in Fiji would suffice to meet the Government's requirement for a democratic solution to that country's present crisis? Mr HAWKE —Before I answer directly the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I point out that he talked about prevarication in this issue. Madam Speaker, I believe that you will regard it as appropriate, the Leader of the Opposition having introduced the question of prevarication, and because of the difficulty in understanding the positions-- Mr Howard —I didn't mention it. Mr HAWKE —What is the real position? What I am saying is that, if the Leader of the Opposition is to introduce some suggestion of-- Mr Porter —Try to give us your policy. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Barker. Mr HAWKE —Further, the Leader of the Opposition linked that question with a question asked by the Leader of the National Party. By way of preface to my answer to the question, I remind the House about just what has happened on the other side of this place on this issue. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question asked of the Prime Minister was whether what was said by the Minister for Foreign Affairs was that new elections would suffice to meet Government requirements. The Prime Minister is not entitled to a preface; he is not writing a book. He should answer that question and no other question. Further, the Prime Minister is not entitled to comment on what has been said by members on this side of the House. Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my right are not assisting. I point out to the honourable member for North Sydney that the Prime Minister has some entitlement to answer questions asked of him in his own way. I further point out that the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and the Prime Minister have always had a certain indulgence from successive Chairs. Mr Spender —But not licence. Madam SPEAKER —I am not here to enter into debate with the honourable member for North Sydney. He will sit down. Mr Keating —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the seven years of Speaker Snedden's tenure of this House, when points of order were taken that were frivolous he replied: `If the honourable member stands on a frivolous point of order once again I will name him'. That was Speaker Snedden's reply. We have seen a tactic of mindless disruption by the members of the Opposition who cannot take the heat in public debate and wish to disrupt the House. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, before I continue my reply, I ask you whether you will tolerate from the honourable member-- Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —I want to put a serious question to you, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —I will first have to ensure that the House is quiet. The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat and the House will come to order. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr HAWKE —I wish to address a question to you, Madam Speaker, because I believe that you did not hear what the honourable member for North Sydney said. At the end of your observation-may I say, a perfectly proper observation-in a totally cowardly way-- Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Madam SPEAKER —The right honourable member will resume his seat. I am hearing the Prime Minister. Mr Hawke —I am now speaking on a point of order. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I wish to hear the point of order from the Prime Minister. Mr Hawke —In a totally cowardly fashion the honourable member for North Sydney-- Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, I ask that the Prime Minister withdraw that. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will withdraw that. Just give me the facts. Mr Hawke —Madam Speaker, after you had made your observations-- Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will withdraw the word. Mr Hawke —Yes, I withdraw. After you had finished making your observation he turned his back on you, Madam Speaker, and said `not licence'. He accused you, Madam Speaker, of giving licence. I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether you are going to accept that reflection on the Chair. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will resume his seat. May I point out to the honourable member for North Sydney that I did not hear his comment and, if he did make such a comment, I ask that he withdraw it. Mr Spender —I said precisely that it gave him leave, not licence. Madam SPEAKER —You will withdraw it. Mr Spender —If you ask me to do so, I will do so. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. It was a reflection on the Chair. I now call the Leader of the National Party. Mr Sinclair —I rise on a point of order. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that the interventions made by the Treasurer and by the Prime Minister reflect on you. The nature of your responsibility, Madam Speaker, is not to have people rise in this chamber and admonish you about the way that you exercise your judgment on matters relating to points of order. As the Leader of the House has so often told us, it is a matter of your being independent, impartial and not being in a position where members in this chamber, be they Ministers or other members, tell you how you should exercise your judgment. I suggest that neither the Treasurer nor the Prime Minister was in order in those comments. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the Leader of the National Party for his intervention and I hope that both sides of the House took note of what he said. I call the Prime Minister to continue his answer to the question from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HAWKE —May I remind the House that, in asking his question, the Leader of the Opposition related it to the question asked by the Leader of the National Party. Madam SPEAKER —I was aware of that. Mr HAWKE —I have no doubt that you are aware of it, Madam Speaker. I simply made the point in order to indicate that it is very interesting to note the intervention of the Leader of the National Party in regard to this question concerning the action of the Government in relation to Fiji, because the Leader of the National Party openly attacked the decision of this Government to dispatch a company of Australian soldiers to Fiji. His words were that this was an unnecessary provocative act and he accused the Government of bluff and gunboat diplomacy. I point out that the Leader of the Opposition has endorsed what this Government has done, because as recently as Saturday night-- Mr Sinclair —That's right. Mr HAWKE —It is all very well for the Leader of the National Party to say `That's right', but I am pointing out that the Leader of the Opposition disagrees with him, because on Saturday night-- Mr Sinclair —But I disagree with you nearly all the time. What's that got to do with it? Mr HAWKE —Yes, but you pretend to be partners. The Leader of the Opposition, as recently as Saturday night, in addressing a Liberal Party meeting in Queensland said: `Thus far the Opposition has not disagreed with the response taken by the Hawke Government to this crisis'. It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to invoke the Leader of the National Party here in Question Time. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition is in total disagreement with the Leader of the National Party. On the basis that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party totally disagree with each other on the question of Fiji, I simply say this about the recognition or non-recognition of a process in Fiji: My Government has consistently said, particularly in light of the fact that Dr Bavadra has indicated that in the circumstances he would agree to and participate in a new election on the basis of the existing constitution, that that is the position endorsed by this Government. In other words, if there were a new election in Fiji on the basis of the existing Constitution-the Constitution which has operated from 1970 and which has been totally acceptable to all parties and interests in Fiji-that would be acceptable to this Government and this Government would accept the outcome of such an election. Mrs DARLING —I direct my question to the Minister for Aviation. I draw the Minister's attention to the enormous interest of Queensland people in the tourism and job potential of the new domestic terminal at the Brisbane Airport. Given this interest, which was shown by the crowds attending the open day organised by the Queensland Cancer Fund, can the Minister indicate when the new airport will come into service? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for Lilley for her question. I thank her and our colleagues the Minister for Housing and Construction and the honourable member for Griffith for their co-operation in Sunday's exercise of an open day at the new Brisbane Airport which more than 100,000 people attended to see the work being carried out to provide Queensland with better air services and a much better infrastructure facility-- Mr White —What about the international terminal? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for McPherson has now interjected four times. I suggest he now keep quiet. Mr Donald Cameron —He said: `The international terminal'. Madam SPEAKER —That also goes for the honourable member for Moreton. Mr PETER MORRIS —We were happy to participate in the work done by the Queensland Cancer Fund, to assist it in its great battle against that dreaded illness in this country, cancer, and to assist it in raising substantial amounts of money. We are proud of the level of support given by the people of Brisbane in their attendance at the airport that day. I say to the honourable member for Lilley that I am somewhat nonplussed by the response of the Liberal Party of Australia. The Liberal Party's response, through the honourable member for Ryan, was to refer to the new airport facility, particularly the domestic terminal-I quote from an article, which was brought to my attention and which I happen to have in my pocket-as `the Taj Mahal standard'. Mr Spender —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. Once again a Minister who has been asked a particular question is now giving what he alleges is the response or policy of the Liberal Party. He is not, thank God, responsible for that, and should not be allowed to do what he has done. Madam SPEAKER —I find the Minister in order. I am listening-- Mr PETER MORRIS —On the point of order, Madam Speaker: The question was asked by the honourable member for Lilley in respect of the airport facilities. A subsequent interjection from the shadow Minister for Aviation-- Mr Moore —What did I say? Mr PETER MORRIS —I am sorry. The honourable member for McPherson asked about the international terminal. My comments relate to the international terminal, following the interjection from the Opposition, and to the domestic terminal. The answer I am giving is perfectly within the confines of the questions raised by the Opposition. The domestic terminal was referred to by the shadow spokesman for aviation, on behalf of the Liberal Party who said: `The Taj Mahal standard of Brisbane domestic terminal is disgraceful'. That was his response to it. We do not see it as disgraceful. We see it as an essential facility that will contribute substantially to the improvement of aviation facilities in Brisbane, and certainly will enhance the opportunities to develop tourism and job potential in Queensland. The honourable member for McPherson referred to the international terminal. The international terminal was enlarged-I think at a cost of $4.8m-by the previous Government, now the Opposition, in 1981-82 in preparation for the Commonwealth Games. At that time it was seen by that Government as perfectly appropriate. At the moment we are spending $1.7m to upgrade the existing international terminal to increase its passenger check-in capacity by 70 per cent. That work will be completed in a matter of weeks. It will be in operation by mid-July. The Liberal and National parties in government did not plan for a new international terminal to be built at the new Brisbane Airport. They are saying now that what they decided in the past, to expand the existing international terminal, was inadequate-that they were wrong. We will expand the existing terminal. At the same time, we have announced that we will be inviting tenders for the purchase of the existing international terminal, together with the site on the new airport for a new international terminal, and if it is considered desirable, the inclusion of an international hotel-motel. The Opposition parties seem completely unable to grasp the meaning of that statement. The existing international terminal will be upgraded. There will be an invitation for tenders to build a new terminal on a new site at the new airport, and to acquire the existing international terminal. Obviously that will go ahead. It could be done within three or four years, but it will be done on a timescale which the private sector sees as adequate to meet the needs of Queensland. I conclude with these words: The work being done by this Government to expand Brisbane Airport, to provide better facilities in Queensland for tourism and for development, is work of which we are proud. It includes the construction of a new terminal at Townsville. It includes the completion of a new terminal at Bundaberg. We will continue that work as evidence of the investment, faith and trust that this Government has in the future development of Queensland and of its tourism industry. It is work which we will continue to set and it is work of which this Government is proud. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the final report of the Merino Export Review Committee dated May 1987. The Government has agreed to the report's recommendations. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Housing Assistance Act 1984, I present the 1985-86 annual report on the operations of the 1984 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services) —For the information of honourable members, I present a statement of expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for April 1987. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to sub-section 63m (3) of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority, together with the Auditor-General's report, for 1985-86. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Government's response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation entitled: The Protection of Bungle Bungle. I seek leave to have the response incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION REPORT ``PROTECTION OF BUNGLE BUNGLE'' Bungle Bungle is an extraordinary rock formation in the southeastern corner of the Kimberley region in northwestern Australia. It consists of massed towers and gorges, sheer cliffs and waterfalls. A striking feature is a horizontal orange and black banding in the soft sandstone from which the landscape has been carved. In March 1985 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation reported on the need for measures to protect this fragile environment, and possible avenues of Commonwealth assistance. The Hawke Government has an excellent record in national parks matters. Among other things we have: increased the area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park from 14.5% to 98.5% of the Great Barrier Reef Region and provided the resources necessary for an accelerated program to produce zoning plans for the Park; maintained a high calibre of management in the Kakadu and Uluru National Parks in the Northern Territory, and protected them from the threat of mining; and entered into joint management arrangements with the Tasmanian Government to ensure that the Western Tasmanian Wilderness National Parks World Heritage Area is managed in accordance with its World Heritage status. The Government has already contributed $5 million, and will be contributing a further $2.2 million per year over the next 5 years, for management of this area. The Bungle Bungle, however, is not on land in which the Commonwealth has a direct interest as owner or lessee, nor has it been proposed for World Heritage listing. It is the Government's view that in these circumstances it is for the State to make decisions on declaration and management of areas as national parks, seeking Commonwealth assistance as appropriate. The Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation made a number of specific recommendations regarding possible avenues of Commonwealth assistance to Western Australia in relation to conservation of the Bungle Bungle. The first recommendation was that the Commonwealth Minister for Aboriginal Affairs discuss with his State counterpart assistance required from the Commonwealth to enable the local Aboriginal community to be provided with- advisory staff to gather information and coordinate meetings with traditional owners; funds to enable access to experts in areas of park management, law and anthropology; and funds to enable traditional owners to meet and make informed decisions. The Premier of Western Australia, the Hon. Brian Burke, advised the Prime Minister in June 1986 that the Western Australian Government is committed to declaration of the Bungle Bungle and the surrounding area as an `A' Class national park under Western Australian legislation. As part of interim management arrangements the Western Australian Government will conduct planning studies with a high level of input from Aboriginal interests and will allocate necessary resources to the community. The Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs in line with the recommendations of the Standing Committee, has assisted Aboriginals with an interest in the Bungle Bungle to establish the Purnululu Aboriginal Corporation. Assistance has been provided to the Corporation to obtain funds from the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management to employ a consultant and trainee resource officer who will assist with the development of the Bungle Bungle Management Plan. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS) has assisted members of the Warmun Aboriginal Community to study the systems of joint park management which have been developed between Aboriginal owners and national park authorities in Kakadu and in the Cobourg Peninsula area of the Northern Territory. The Standing Committee recommended that ANPWS in consultation with relevant Western Australian authorities and the Warmun Aboriginal Community offer assistance in developing Aboriginal ranger training programs for the traditional owners. ANPWS has already provided assistance for Aboriginal ranger training programs for the Millstream National Park, in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The Premier indicated in his letter to the Prime Minister that an Aboriginal ranger training program will be established as part of interim management arrangements for Bungle Bungle. The Committee's third recommendation was that the Australian Government provide assistance to the Western Australian Government under the States Assistance Program. This program was initiated in 1983-84 and is designed to develop, in co-operation with State and Territory nature conservation agencies, projects of national or international significance in relation to national parks and wildlife conservation. The total value of the program to 1985-86 was in excess of $1.65 million. A further $578,000 has been committed for the program in 1986-87. Over 60 projects have been supported, ranging from an inventory of the biological resources of the Nullarbor Plain to finalising a plan of management for the internationally important wetlands at Towra Point on the southern shores of Botany Bay. Several projects have been supported in Western Australia. Whether assistance is provided specifically for a project at Bungle Bungle is a matter of priorities to be determined between the Commonwealth and Western Australia. The Standing Committee proposed that the Commonwealth Government discuss with the Western Australian Government the provision of funds to enable the stationing of rangers in Bungle Bungle during the visitor season, and the commencement of essential minimum capital works such as erection of signposts and barriers. While the Western Australian Government has indicated that it is examining these matters, no request for funding has been received to date. If needed, assistance might be provided under the States Assistance Program. Finally, the Standing Committee recommended that the Australian Heritage Commission in consultation with ANPWS and relevant Western Australian authorities undertake investigations to establish the national and international significance of the Bungle Bungle. The Australian Heritage Commission has already partly funded a botanical survey in the Bungle Bungle and plans to follow this with studies of the cultural environment of the area when funds permit. Funding for research in the region may also be available under the National Estate Grants Program. Many projects relating to Australia's natural and cultural heritage are funded under this Program each year. It is clear that Bungle Bungle is a region of considerable conservation value. Since the early 1980s the increasing numbers of tourists visiting the area have resulted in a need for active management. This need has been recognised by the Western Australian Government, which is putting into place management arrangements which take into account the sensitivity of the area, the tourist potential, the interests of the local community and the special interests of traditional Aboriginal inhabitants. I congratulate the Western Australian Government on its commitment to declare this magnificent area a National Park, and thank the Standing Committee for its report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr TUCKEY —In the Australian Business magazine which is dated 27 May 1987 but was published last week an article was headlined `Another headache for Howard'. The article related to an interview with me in which I discussed, as shadow Minister for Housing, the special problems of industrial relations in the building industry. In no way does the context of the article support the headlines, nor am I in conflict with my Party or its leadership in regard to the Liberal policy on industrial relations; in fact, I was the prime contributor to its development. Nevertheless, I will continue to advance suggestions for the future development of the broad commitments of that policy in such areas as affect my shadow responsibilities. Such comments should not be interpreted to indicate any dissatisfaction or opposition on my behalf to the current policy, which I am delighted to support. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr SPENDER —On 14 May in this House, in the course of a debate concerning a procedural adjournment, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) stated: Yesterday he took five points of order on one question and then he goes crook that the 20 busiest people in Australia-the Ministers of the Government-cannot sit here for another hour and listen to him take points of order. I checked-I make no apology for taking points of order-the Hansard record for the day to which he referred. He said: . . . five points of order on one question. . . I in fact did not take five points of order on one question; I took one point of order only on one question. Either he was reckless as to the truth, or did not concern himself about the matter. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 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 Benefit 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 Beale,Mr Blunt,Mr John Brown,Mrs Darling,Mr Dubois,Mr Fife,Mr Fitzgibbon,Mr Grace,Mr Barry Jones,Mrs Kelly,Mr Keogh,Mr Millar,Mr Nehl,Mr Punch,Mr Sharp,Mr Sinclair and Mr Webster. 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 Beale,Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Saunderson,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. 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 decisions to defer the November pensions 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 in duty bound will ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr Ian Cameron,Mrs Darling,Mr Hodges,Mr Humphreys,Mr Langmore,Mr Lindsay and Mrs Sullivan. 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 proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Nehl and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Wilson. 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, the so-called Aboriginal War and anti-war activists and other left wing causes at the Australian War Memorial at 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 the House of Representatives acts 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 Fife and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned are deeply shocked by the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs not to renew the Grant-in-Aid for the continuation of the Australian-German Welfare Society's very successful program which benefits the German-speaking community. We, therefore, strongly protest against the decision of the Minister and ask that it be reviewed. With respect, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: That, as a consequence of the Hawke Government's decision to introduce a two dollar coin in 1988. Whereas the introduction of a one dollar coin was only a twofold increase in the maximum value of coinage, the elimination of the two dollar note represents a five-fold increase before a note can be used. It will have taken eighteen years from decimalisation to go from the fifty cent piece as the highest value coin to a one dollar coin, but only a further four years to replace the two dollar note with a coin. The lowest value paper note will be five dollars, forcing a dramatic increase in the weight of coinage carried and dislocation of the retail industry. Many people, particularly the elderly, will mistake the value of the coin for that of another lower coin just as many now confuse a one dollar coin with the ten cent piece. That the addition of two new coins in four years creates the biggest number of coins in circulation at any time in Australia's history and will lead to the removal of the one cent and two cent coins; this will accelerate the cost of living, particularly the cost of food where numerous items are involved and future price rises would need to be five cent increases on every item on every occasion. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the proposed two dollar coin not be proceeded with by the Hawke Government, and no future Government proceed with this proposal for several years. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephones and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices. 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 in Parliament assembled: This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and even more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australian Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray- by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore pray that: The Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvements of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray: by Mr Nehl. 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 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 Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned citizens respectfully requests that your Honourable House will: Ensure that, as well as continuing, at every opportunity, to protest to the Government of France against the testing of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific, most urgent protest is made against the proposed testing in French possessions to the south and west of Australia from which any escaped radioactive material would be carried over this continent by prevailing winds. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth: That the time taken of the last six to eight weeks to process applications for the Austudy Tertiary allowance in Brisbane is intolerable and causes severe hardship and distress to many students. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government take every action to minimise the delay in processing applications for the Austudy Tertiary allowance and your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Sullivan. 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 petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. that consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. that unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Bennelong wish to object to the decision of Australia Post to withdraw postal facilities from the North Epping area following closure of the agency at the corner of Norfolk Road and Malton Road after close of business on 13 February 1987. Our objections are based on the fact that alternative premises have been offered to Australia Post for conduct of a postal agency in the North Epping Newsagency. Your petitioners therefore pray that this decision be reversed. by Mr Howard. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled in 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 Administration Charge of $250 for higher education student in Appropriation Bill 1986-1987 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education System; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, 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. Petitions received. Assent to the following Bills reported: Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1987 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill 1987 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill 1987 Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1987 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for Discussion, namely: The absolute necessity for the Hawke Labor Government to retain and fully support sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act to ensure legal protection against unacceptable abuses of trade union power and equality before the law for all Australians. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr SHACK(Tangney)(3.03) —Two fundamental principles underpin a democracy such as we are proud to call our country, Australia. The first is that all citizens must have a right to equality before the law. All citizens, no matter who they are, must have a right to equal treatment under the law. No matter what their backgrounds, their stations in life or their vocations, all citizens must have equal access to legal processes to seek redress. All citizens must have confidence that the law, in its application, is predictable, certain and fair. That first fundamental principle underpinning a democracy such as ours in that the law must be an instrument for all, for the benefit of all. The second fundamental principle is that, under our system, any government-irrespective of its primary support base as a political party or its status as a political party-once elected, has an overriding responsibility to act in the interests of all. It has a fundamental responsibility to be a government for all Australians. Against the background of those two fundamental principles, the Opposition has moved to bring on this matter of public importance today. It is against the measure of both those fundamental principles that the Government stands condemned. In the area of industrial relations, the Government is seeking to have one law for one group in our society and another for another group. With regard to the Government's responsibility to govern for all Australians, in the area of industrial relations it has abandoned any pretence, given up any facade, of trying to so govern. The Government is seeking to bring about a system of industrial apartheid-with one law for one group and another for another group-in which it wishes to be the Government of one section of the community, and abandon to the ravages of that section the other groups in our society. I refer specifically to the industrial relations package introduced into this House two weeks ago. We were scheduled to debate it in this place today and tomorrow. I do not want to transgress Standing Orders by delving into that legislation. We heard the dissembling from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as to why the legislation has been withdrawn. Supposedly the Government is going back to the parties concerned with industrial relations in Australia, industry and commerce and the trade union movement, and seeking their further advice. Well it might. Let us hope that this time it listens, because this legislation, as it was introduced a fortnight ago by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), is overwhelmingly opposed by the Australian community. It is overwhelmingly opposed by industry and commerce and it is overwhelmingly opposed by the groups that represent both large and small business in Australia. It has been opposed by editorial comment from every media outlet around the country, and I perceive and discern that it is opposed by the vast majority of Australian men and women and by trade unionists themselves. If only they had an independent collective outlet for their views those trade unionists would be saying: `We oppose this legislation'. Hundreds of thousands of trade unionists around Australia are crying out for the Government to give them protection against trade union abuse. They are crying out for it to give them protection against the trade union power that forces them to go on strike when they do not want to; the trade union power that forces them to engage in industrial relations actions quite unrelated to the awards and conditions pertaining at their work place; and the trade union power which places their wages and salaries and their very living standards in jeopardy. I hope the Government is going back to taws. We have heard from the Prime Minister that the Government is going to consult again. In that process, as it examines its legislation, let there be no doubt as to the Opposition's attitude on behalf of Australia in respect of this industrial relations package. We will totally oppose the Labor Government's blind determination to return to the days when there was one law for employers and another for trade unions. We will totally oppose this Government's commitment to freeing the trade union movement in Australia from the normal and accepted rules which every other individual, company, association and club is bound and expected to observe. We will totally oppose this Government's efforts to unchain the militant unions in this country from the requirement that they be held accountable to the community for damage caused by their industrial action. We will totally oppose this Government's attitude whereby it wants to say to the unions: `Co-operate with the umpire if you want to, but if you do not agree with him, he is powerless to prevent you from beating up the other side'. That is the attitude that pervades this Government's outlook on industrial relations. We will totally oppose this Government's plans to neuter the trade practices legislation, which has proved itself to be the most effective weapon in Australia today in controlling secondary boycotts by unions. We take this stance of total opposition to the Government's industrial relations package because-I repeat again-of our absolute commitment to two fundamentals which underpin the very democracy which we practise. Firstly, for all citizens there must be equality before and under the law; and secondly, it is the role of government, irrespective of its political base, to govern in the interests of all Australians. To be specific, section 45d of the Trade Practices Act was introduced in 1977 by the honourable member for Bennelong, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who was then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. It acts to prohibit boycott situations arising from unions taking action against innocent third parties in the course of a dispute with someone else. Section 45e prohibits contracts, arrangements or understandings between a union and another person to prevent or hinder commercial dealings, whether the sale or purchase of goods or services, with a third party. Both these sections of the Trade Practices Act were introduced by a Liberal-National Party government in response to widespread concern over the irresponsibility of elements within the trade union movement, and the lack of any real remedy or process to check outbreaks of industrial madness. Before the introduction of section 45d it was common for unions in dispute with an employer to muscle that employer's clients, to try to cut off, obstruct or hinder the lines of supply and sale. We all remember what it was like before the introduction of sections 45d and 45e. Suppliers and purchasers were told: `This union has blackbanned Joe Smith Enterprises and unless you want to go broke as well, unless you want to have trouble with us, the trade union movement, you'd better not have anything to do with him; otherwise you'll be next on our hit list'. That is how it used to operate before the introduction of those sections of the Trade Practices Act. The secondary boycott threats remain one of the most disgraceful abuse of trade union power that we could imagine. It is a tactic which has no place in a democratic society. The former Liberal-National Party Government was absolutely correct and absolutely responsible in acting to make unions accountable and liable before the laws of this nation in regard to these destructive secondary boycott practices. These sections have been important and effective in containing secondary boycotts. It is vital to remember that, in common with many other laws, their deterrent effects is just as valuable as their effect when put into practice. The trade union movement, the Australian Council of Trade Unions elite, has never liked this legislation. It has never accepted that industrial action should be treated the same as other forms of action in the community. It has never accepted that the overwhelming majority of Australians respect free trade union rights, which are essential in a free society, but that they demand that such rights be exercised responsibly and in a manner which is both fair and reasonable. The ACTU elite has never accepted that the laws of Australia should treat everybody equally. We should not be surprised about this, because if we look back through the records we see that the current Prime Minister at the 1977 ACTU Congress, attacked section 45d. When he was President of the ACTU he described the outlawing of secondary boycotts as a double standard. He said it was a crippling constraint and penalty. He said it was discriminatory anti-union legislation. He then let go with one of the most infamous threats with which he has been credited. I quote: Should the Government move against any union under the new trade practices provisions, that union will be able to call upon the resources of the whole trade union movement. There we have in a nutshell the bully boy tactics employed under the secondary boycotts provision which are directly struck down by section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. If we are not surprised about the Prime Minister's attitude, we should not be surprised by the Minister's attitude, because in those days he was the research officer to the President of the ACTU. We should not therefore be surprised that now, in ministerial office, he is attempting to neuter sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act. It is a pay-off to this Government's political base. This Government has abandoned any attempt to act genuinely in the interests of all Australians. Honourable members can imagine the late night deals with Simon Crean and Bill Kelty over the new wages system. They can see Simon Crean saying to the Minister: `Well, Ralph, I think we can get George Crawford and John Halfpenny to go along with this system, but you will have to give them something in return. What about scrapping 45d and 45e? What about it, Ralph?'. The pay-off is in this legislation. There will be a hot time in the old town on the night that this Government scraps sections 45d and 45e. The champagne corks will be popping at the offices of the ACTU elite and the trade union executive around the country. We know that the union thugs do not like this legislation; they do not like it one bit. They do not like it because it has worked, and it has worked effectively. I refer to the Mudginberri dispute and the plumbers and gasfitters dispute. The provisions work. They hate them because they work as effectively as they do. Eighty-odd injunctions have been obtained under the Trade Practices Act since it was first introduced. In every case they have ensured a speedy restoration of industrial sanity and a return to work. The sections of the Trade Practices Act are effective in containing the extremes of trade union power. These provisions have ended the days of union standover tactics. They have restored some sanity to the economy and they have been vital to improving our poor image as a reliable trading partner. If the Government weakens these trade union provisions any hope of securing our balance of payments situation for the better will be dashed. For example, the Government is well aware of the transport sector-international shipping and aviation in particular-which is most vulnerable to secondary boycotts. Let us look at what one individual in those industries had to say. He is one of those people who understand exactly what it is like. When the Government tried to scrap section 45d in 1984 a representative of the Australian Chamber of Shipping warned the Government and said of section 45d that it was `without question the single most important piece of legislation in Australia relating to overseas cargo shipping'. The Government's industrial relations package is the most anti-democratic, economically bankrupt and blatant sell-out to union power that we have ever seen. It is the framework for a new regime of industrial apartheid in Australia where there will be one privileged law for the union movement and the elite and another law for everybody else in the community. This Government is committed to freeing the union movement in Australia from the normal and accepted rules which every other individual, every other company, every other association and every club is expected to observe. This Government is preparing to unchain the militant unions in this country from the requirement that they be held accountable to the community, and before the community, for the damage they cause by their industrial action. That is why we brought forward this matter of public importance. Attention to these sections is absolutely vital. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.18) —The speech we have just heard from the Opposition shadow spokesman for employment and industrial relations, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), typifies what this Opposition is about. The Opposition is extraordinarily long on rhetoric and very short on substance and logic. The fundamental problem which Opposition spokesmen have in talking in this House about industrial relations is that they start from the position of great failure when they were in government and the fact that, since this Government has been in office, there has been a dramatic improvement in the level of industrial relations. The last thing that this Government needs is lectures from members of the Opposition on how we should run industrial relations in this country because, unlike them, we have been able to provide a greatly improved industrial relations framework and to dramatically lower the level of industrial disputation so that the amount of time lost per person employed has in fact dropped by 60 per cent in the four years of the Hawke Government compared to the amount of time loss experienced under the Fraser Government in its seven years in office. A 60 per cent reduction in the level of industrial disputation is a very substantial reduction in anyone's book. Quite clearly, that has come about because this Government actually knows something about industrial relations, is able to handle industrial relations well and is able not to fall into the hopeless mire of industrial relations as the previous Government did when it stumbled through all sorts of confrontationist approaches and pieces of legislation over which it beat its chest as it introduced them, waved them around and then applied them to no effect or improvement in the industrial relations situation in this country. That proved that, if we want good industrial relations, it helps enormously if we know something about it. This Opposition, by its performance in opposition and by its performance in government, shows quite clearly that it has no idea how to run industrial relations, what kind of environment to provide or what kind of approach to take to individual disputes or to the overall framework. That is the basic problem the Opposition has-total lack of credibility in the area of industrial relations. The converse of that is that this Government has enormous credibility because it has been able to demonstrate an enormous improvement in the level of industrial disputation-a 60 per cent reduction. It cannot be argued that that has been achieved by buying off the unions, by providing some kind of easy access to unions to get much more out of the system than before. The reality is that the level of wage increase per annum under this Government has been well below the level of wage increase which occurred under the previous Government. Under the previous Government, the Fraser Government, the per annum rate of wage increase was 11 per cent; under this Government the per annum rate of wage increase has been 7 per cent. So there has been a very substantial reduction in the level of wage outcomes at the same time as a 60 per cent reduction has been made in the level of industrial disputation. Yet honourable members opposite have the audacity and the effrontery to seek to lecture us about how to run good industrial relations in this country. Can anyone take seriously an opposition which has that kind of effrontery? Obviously, we cannot. The speech of the honourable member for Tangney showed how hopelessly lacking in substance honourable members opposite are. All we heard from the honourable member was a multitude of cliches and flowery rhetoric about how this Government was caving in to union power and providing unions with the basis upon which they could trample over the rights of everyone else-blissfully ignoring the fact that the record of the four years we have been in government shows completely and totally that that rhetoric is not applicable to the real situation. Honourable members opposite have no credibility. The real situation is that this Government has brought about that improvement in industrial relations because it has given industrial relations an extremely high priority. Rather than working up some ridiculous industrial relations policy in isolation, the way the present Opposition is doing this Government worked up an effective industrial relations policy before it came to office, a policy encompassed in the prices and incomes accord. Therefore, when it came to office the Government was well armed to apply a policy which would work. Of course, it was rubbished by the previous Government, the now Opposition. The reality is that the policy did work. It provided a basis for a co-operative approach from trade unions, and we have shown that co-operation rather than confrontation can result in a very substantial reduction in the level of industrial disputation. What we have done with that improvement is to say, `Very well, we are very pleased about that', but we do not say by any means that that is the end of the line. Indeed, we are very concerned to try to overcome the various deficiencies which still exist in the system and further improve on our record. That is what the Industrial Relations Bill which I introduced on the last day of the previous sitting period and debate on which has been postponed until the next session of Parliament, is about. It is about making further improvements in the industrial relations situation. Of course, the last thing that a government which has come into office determined to greatly improve on industrial relations outcomes in this country will do is introduce a Bill which will throw all those gains to the wind and cave in to unions, allowing them to run riot all over the country in the way that the honourable member for Tangney asserted was the case. That is a nonsense proposition which has no basis in any realistic assessment of the facts. The Industrial Relations Bill, which will be debated in this Parliament at a later date, provides a very substantial basis for improvement in the industrial relations framework because it addresses the basis framework. Most industrial disputes are not resolved by the Trade Practices Act; they are resolved by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at the Federal level and by the State industrial commissions. The vast majority of disputes are reported to, and resolved by, those arbitral bodies. The framework that we seek to implement is designed to enable a more efficient resolution of those disputes and to redress some of the weaknesses that have developed. I do not think it is appropriate to go into a substantial outline of what is in the Bill, as that has been done already. In our view a fundamental aspect of that improvement is the need for the Arbitration Commission to have some restoration of its authority. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! I do not think the Minister can anticipate discussion on legislation. Mr WILLIS —I am not going into any detail on the debate; I am talking in general terms. I simply make the point that there is a need for improvement in the authority of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and the Bill is designed to bring about that improvement. I will not go into any detail as to how that will be achieved. That is the fundamental way in which we believe, along with many other changes brought about by this Bill, we can make further gains in industrial relations. In addition, we have brought about an attitudinal change, that is, a change of attitude by the parties, by the union movement as a whole. The unions are now infinitely more prepared to take a co-operative approach and to bear in mind the economic consequences of their actions. They are prepared to co-operate with the Government to achieve responsible wage outcomes in a way that was simply unknown under the previous Government. Those attitudinal changes, along with the institutional framework changes, are extremely important in ensuring better outcomes in the future than were achieved in the past. We have brought about those attitudinal changes-they are in place. The framework changes will be brought in with the passage of this Bill through the Parliament. It is in that context that we are debating the Trade Practices Act. The Opposition asserts that this is some wonderous piece of legislation that is crucial to good industrial relations outcomes. Let me say that it has been in place for about a decade, and during those years 129 cases involving trade unions have been taken to court under sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act and 64 injunctions have been issued. That is an average of about 13 cases and six injunctions a year. Thus we see that we are talking about a very minute proportion of the disputes that occur every year being affected by this legislation. Of course, that is not to say that some of those disputes are not important; they are important, but they make up a very small proportion of the total number of disputes. That puts the issue in context. It is a nonsense to suggest that the Trade Practices Act is the be all and end all of the industrial relations system in this country. It impacts on a very small proportion of total disputes. However, it is not just a matter of saying: `We have the Trade Practices Act and, therefore, the Government must keep it. We condemn the Government for its efforts to get rid of it'. The Government is not getting rid of the legislation. Anyone who listened to the address of the previous speaker would believe that this Government is abandoning sections 45d and 45e. Mr Spender —It is neutering those sections, and it knows it is neutering them. Mr WILLIS —That is not what is proposed, and the honourable member knows it. There is no change to the remedies available under sections 45d and 45e. Mr Spender —You don't understand what you are talking about. Mr WILLIS —I understand very well; I know much more, apparently, than the honourable member knows. The honourable member knows nothing about it. Sections 45d and 45e continue to apply, with the remedies unchanged. All that is changed is access to those remedies. Cases must go to the Arbitration Commission prior to going before the Labour Court to obtain an injunction. Mr Spender —That's right-while you bleed to death. Mr WILLIS —It is interesting to note the accusations by members opposite about bleeding to death and so on. Let me point out a couple of facts. First, most employers, when hit by a secondary boycott-and this is the action that is primarily affected by the Trade Practices Act-do not rush into court on the same day. They try to negotiate a resolution of that action, and they seek to do that by negotiation. Often, the case is before the Industrial Commission because it is an industrial matter. The primary dispute of which the secondary boycott is a facet, is being dealt with before the Industrial Commission in any case. The reality is that the average time taken by employers who actually file applications for injunctions under sections 45d and 45e is about two to three weeks-that is between the application of the ban and the action being taken to court. Employers do not rush into court; they seek to resolve the dispute. Of course, without traversing the detail of the legislation, I simply say that what we are doing-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I believe, from what the Minister said, that it is intended that the matter will not be introduced this week; so I consider that the anticipation rule does not apply. The Minister may canvass the matter. Mr WILLIS —I did not intend to go into detail. We sought to provide a process of conciliation in the Commission and, if the Commission could not conciliate the matter, to provide access to the court for seeking an injunction. Given the fact that employers almost invariably do not rush into court anyway but seek to negotiate a resolution of the matter, this legislation provides a process by which to attempt to reconcile the matter in the Commission and, in effect, it formalises what, in practical reality, happens today anyway in the vast majority of cases where employers try to resolve the dispute by negotiation. It provides also that, if the matter comes before the Commission and the Commission believes that a substantial injustice would be done to an employer if an injunction could not be obtained immediately, under this process the injunction could be obtained immediately and he could have a fast track into the court. Surely that is a sensible approach. The legislation should not clobber the daylights out of the union, but should resolve the action and get the secondary boycott removed. This legislation formalises the negotiation process and provides, in extreme cases, a fast track into court where an injunction process would seem to be the only way to resolve the matter. That is a sensible course of action. I believe that this legislation would be seen by any reasonable person to be appropriate, but the Opposition has jumped up and down and said that it is totally unfair on the employers. I totally refute that statement. I believe that the actions that this Government has taken in relation to this aspect of the Bill, which will be debated in this House on a subsequent date, when put into practice will demonstrate quite clearly that it is an appropriate course to adopt and that any employers who are really being hurt will not be denied access to injunctions when they need it. Sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act will not be removed: they remain in the legislation. The remedies are unchanged. The comments made by the honourable member for Tangney in relation to unions being put above the law are an absolute nonsense. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(3.33) —The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), to his eternal credit, is the author of sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act. I make a point at the outset, because the dissemblers on the Government benches seek to camouflage or to ignore that simple fact. It is easy to understand their reasons for not giving credit where it is due to the Leader of the Opposition. One of the reasons is that sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act have, more than any other single measure, redressed the outrageous quantum of power increasingly exercised over the past 20 or more years by Australian trade union leaders. The naked power of union leaders, sustained as they are by compulsory and coerced membership of unions and a captive political arm, which is the Australian Labor Party, has been wielded ruthlessly in the most selfish and self-serving way; in ways, I emphasise, not be be found anywhere else in the democratic countries of the world. I say that confidently now that industrial sanity largely has been returned to the United Kingdom under Mrs Thatcher. At the behest of its masters in the Australian Council of Trade Unions this Government would eliminate the most effective legislative tool at its disposal in ensuring legal protection against unacceptable abuses of trade union power and equality before the law for all Australians. During the past couple of weeks this already tainted Government has plumbed new depths of deception and hypocrisy as some of its most senior people, such as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), have sought to portray the legitimate concerns being expressed throughout the business sector, and indeed throughout Australia, about the Government's well rehearsed attempts effectively to misrepresent sections 45d and 45e, by using words and terms like `nonsense', `dishonesty' and `grossly misrepresentative'. The public is now left to judge how dishonest, how misrepresentative, the reaction of the business community and the Australian community is in the light of the Government's craven act in removing this legislation from the consideration of the Parliament because the Government sees that it is in political trouble with the legislation. But despite all the Government's best efforts at evasion, distortion and misrepresentation, the facts of the matter are perfectly clear and have been so ever since the Government came to office, headed by a former President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions-who still has the same mentality of one-and with a former ACTU industrial advocate as Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The ACTU and ALP accord signed in 1983 had something to say about sections 45d and 45e. I add that this was after the consummation of the political assassination of the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). The 1983 accord states: The Government will encourage the settlement of disputes between employers and unions by conciliation and without recourse to legislative or common law penal sanctions. It is all very well for the Minister to come in here today and say; `We were not going to remove it'. Either he is going to remove or emasculate the provisions or he is going to break his undertaking to the ACTU. At the end of the day I know which course he will follow, and so does everyone in this chamber. The ground rules in this matter were well and truly set in 1983. In pursuing this directive from the ACTU, the Prime Minister said on 6 October 1983 that sections 45d and 45e would be repealed. On 22 November, Senator Gareth Evans, QC, the unlamented former Attorney-General, academic lawyer and apologist for industrial compulsion, said in a speech to the Victorian branch of the Common Law Association that the ALP was `firmly of the view that trade practices legislation should exempt from its operation industrial relations issues more properly resolved within the framework of the conciliation and arbitration system'. That was another cop-out by the then Attorney-General. It was more evidence of a sell-out to the ACTU. Unable to accomplish their disgraceful aim of complete abolition of those provisions, because of the Senate's action in 1984, this craven collection of fellow travellers and agents of the irresponsible in the trade union movement would, if they could have their way, develop a structure so elaborate, so byzantine and so bureaucratic that few employers would face any chance of surviving long enough to utilise what few, if any, legal remedies will continue to exist. The union movement, having been unable to obtain abolition for the time being, is now attempting to ensure the emasculation of sections 45d and 45e, making them so difficult to use as to render them meaningless. Dr Harry Edwards —It is neutering them. Mr ROCHER —Yes, they have been neutered; I thank the honourable member. Having failed to gain parliamentary acceptance of its attempt to repeal sections 45d and 45e, the Government will now resort to shuffling the deck of cards which consists of all but one trick for employers in the industrial relations game. In truth, all but one card in the pack are trumps in the hands of irresponsible union leaders, including those leaders paramount in the ACTU. Having tried to tear up legislation-thankfully defeated-the one effective trick available to employers, it is the Government's stated intention now to stack the deck and permanently shuffle that card to the bottom of the pack. The section 45d and section 45e card can be played by employers only in the event that they are not parties to a dispute. The employers must be suffering loss because of a secondary boycott arising from disputes in which they are not players and therefore are unable to directly influence the outcome. It seems that, in line with this Government's twisted logic in deciding its unique version of fairness, unions are again to be insulated from the legal processes which apply to all Australians-all Australians, that is, except irresponsible union leaders who demand of and get from this Government a privileged position not open to others to enjoy. Once, this Government boasted that it governed for all Australians equally and without favour. Then it became rightly identified as the representative of big business and big unions. At the same time, it was itself recognised as the epitome of big government. Today, it has been reduced to merely a government of, for and by big unions, to an extent that precludes any pretences to the contrary. It is a meek, mild and motley group, unable to carry out any longer its charter to govern for all Australians. In its attitude to sections 45D and 45E, this Government turns its back on Australia's future and embraces outdated, destructive and divisive notions that will impoverish us all. That attitude prevails despite the fact that, in September 1986, 78 per cent of Australians thought that trade unions had too much power and that 68 per cent of trade union members thought the same. It prevails also despite the fact that at least 25 per cent of unionists are members against their will and despite the fact that, the Australian values study conducted in 1983 found that, while 80 per cent of Australians had confidence in companies, only 25 per cent had any confidence in unions. These polls merely reinforced years and years of public opinion research and thus cannot be dismissed as mere aberrations. If the Prime Minister wants to call yet another early general election, I will welcome it. If he wants again to cry havoc and let loose his dogs of war, I will welcome it. If the Prime Minister insists on creating scapegoats for his Government's failing and goes to the polls, I will welcome it. If he wants to lead the lambs on his back bench, including the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), to electoral slaughter, I will welcome that also. The Prime Minister and his Government, confronted with the reality of equal time and space from a generally unsympathetic media hitherto, will find the Opposition parties ready to expose them as the political card sharks they really are. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(3.43) —This House has just been treated to the wild thrashings, yet again, of a desperate, divided and sinking Opposition, without policies of its own, which sits on the other side of the chamber and settles for nothing more than a cliche-led scare campaign as a substitute for policy. The Opposition has cited today the employers' opposition to the Government's proposed legislation. There is little wonder that there is some opposition from business in some quarters with so many misleading and inaccurate claims being made, chiefly by honourable members opposite. In this House this afternoon there has been yet another attempt at a scare campaign by the Opposition. This afternoon we have seen, once again, plenty of cliches and even quotations from the 1970s. However, not once was there a reference to the actual intent or substance of the Government's proposals. Like so many past scare campaigns of those opposite, this one will not last long. Like so many others before it, this one will prove to be false. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) claimed before the last election that the gold fillings in pensioners' teeth would be subjected to the assets test. This scare campaign on industrial relations legislation has as much credibility and basis in fact as that campaign had, and it will be consigned to the dustbin of misleading accusations as that one was. The Government's intention is effectively to replace the old bans clauses, which both sides of the House would agree, have never worked in industrial relations, with an effective process. The Government's intention is to bring legislation before this House whereby each member of the proposed Industrial Relations Commission will be empowered to order a direction befitting an industrial matter and whereby any party aggrieved by the process can seek enforcement of that direction, whereupon a certificate can be issued leaving the new Labour Court to grant an injunction. Far from curtailing employers' rights, this is a codification of rights of all parties in industrial relations. Substantial provisions relating to penalties for non-compliance are in the legislation and have been announced publicly. What this all means is that where an industrial action can be dealt with by a Labour Court injunction and, therefore, by definition, is an industrial matter equivalent to a common law injunction for enforcement, an employer will be excluded from seeking a civil injunction for the same industrial action in a State court. That is the basis of the change as it relates to common law. There is no great conspiracy in it. It must be said that all of it is common sense. It stops the double legalism and, it must be said, employers do not miss out. The only people to miss out in this exercise will be the lawyers. It has been the intent of all parties in industrial relations for decades to reduce excessive legalism and to concentrate on dispute resolution. That is the objective of the Government's changes and that will be the result. Two things must be said at this stage. They are matters which the Opposition has refused to acknowledge. Nothing in the intended legislation curtails an employer's ability to seek compensatory damages under common law, that is, the traditional tort, where economic loss is sustained. Two matters must be attached to that. The publicly declared intent of the Government is that penalties for non-adherence will be up to 10 times greater than those applicable now and that common law injunctions, which historically have been of little use to employers, simply because they have been inadequate in their processes, will be codified in this legislation. As it relates to sections 45d and 45e, the Government's accent is again an intent to remove the various processes from the Trade Practices Act and transfer them to the new Labour Court. On the face of it, this should be logical enough. If sections 45d and 45e are to be used in an industrial relations matter it follows by definition that they should be before a court whose charter relates to industrial relations. It is a basic question of accent between the Government and the Opposition. The Opposition is content, once again, with nothing more than cliche, rhetoric and union bashing. The Government's intent is to put into practice, by way of legislation, further and better proposals for dispute resolution. The record speaks for itself in that regard, as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has already said. The simple difference between the Government and the Opposition in terms of sections 45d and 45e is that the Government is seeking to build into the process a pre-litigation conciliation step, once again to remove excessive legalism and to underlie the accent on the need for dispute resolution. In a nutshell, it means that, far from removing employer accessibility, the Government's proposal codifies existing practice and makes it much more workable. It must be said that this will suit the vast majority of employers in this country once they are aware of the process-once they are aware of the intent and what it is all about. The vast majority of employers in this country are not backed by New Right slush funds. They do not have hundreds of thousands of dollars for Queen's Counsel and solicitors to run end to end for years at a time and they do not go rushing off to the Federal Court. Rather, they are more intent on seeking a lasting dispute resolution to any matter that is affecting their business and thereby this country's economy. In other words, the vast majority of employers in this country are not interested in another break-out of ideological warfare between labour and capital that those on the other side of the House are totally preoccupied with in these times. Rather, they are interested in dispute resolution; they are interested in a continuation and an enhancement of the now spectacular decrease in industrial disputes that this country enjoys under this Government. What those opposite have been saying about the removal of penalties under sections 45d and 45e in these changes is, again, a lot of hogwash. Let there be no doubt, and let it be underlined in this House today, that all parties, including the unions, will continue to be subjected to the penalties under the Trade Practices Act, notwithstanding the removal of those sections from the Trade Practices Act and placement under the Labour Court. Those opposite, instead of standing in this House with cliches, ridicule, rhetoric and all the rest they go on with as a substitute for policy should refer to clause 63 (2) of the Industrial Relations Bill. It is readily available. They will find that the provisions for penalties that now exist under the Trade Practices Act are being transported to this legislation. In short, once again we have seen the Opposition intent on the old ideology of conflict, contrasted with what this Government is about in trying to get all Australians, unions, capital and government working together in one direction. It seems that those opposite are intent on restoring excessive legalism to the industrial relations system to the detriment of all parties concerned, to the detriment of logical dispute resolution in this country and to the benefit of no one except those with New Right slush funds of hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy justice, as they would see it, and the lawyers concerned who happen to be fortunate enough to get the briefs. I conclude by pointing out the results of the business poll conducted by the Business Review Weekly and the Hyatt Hotel last week. It stated that nearly 56 per cent of the top managers of Australian corporations described this Government's performance as either quite good or very good. In fact, the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), such as he is, could not even manage to run first on his own side of politics. He was behind Mr John Elliott. Is it little wonder that such a poll comes out when those opposite know nothing of industrial relations. They relate nothing of the industrial relations proposal in specifics in the debate in this House today, but rather they attempt to divert the public's attention with a whole lot of misleading statements? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 274th report of the Committee, the response to the report on the Auditor-General's reports-1982-83 and September 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr TICKNER —by leave-The Committee presented its 233rd report on the reports of the Auditor-General for 1982-83 and September 1983 on 29 May 1985. This report, the 274th from the Committee, sets out the response to its findings in report 233. The items raised in the Committee's earlier report have largely elicited a satisfactory response. Of the outstanding matters, the most significant were the administration of aspects of the Bankruptcy Act by the Attorney-General's Department and the collection of dividends and interest withholding tax by the Australian Taxation Office. In its earlier report the Committee was concerned that there had been delays in the Attorney-General's Department implementing the bankruptcy official receivers information system, a computer-based accounting and statistical system. The delays have been raised in successive reports of the Auditor-General. However, the Department has indicated that the system is now operational. Despite this there still appear to be problems in securing the filing of accounts of registered trustees and delays in the distribution of dividends. The Committee will continue to keep this matter under review. The Committee was also concerned at the reported inefficiencies in the administration of dividends and interest withholding taxes. The Committee remains concerned at the response by the Taxation Office to several of the matters raised. In respect of the reliance on voluntary compliance, the Committee considers that the Taxation Office should institute procedures to provide an independent check, and make greater efforts to determine statistically what level of compliance with the legislation can be expected. The Committee is currently examining the proposed computer acquisition by the Taxation Office. The Committee expects that the dividend and interest withholding tax system will be greatly improved as a result. This matter will also be kept under review by the Committee. I commend this report to honourable members. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purposes of the Family Law Amendment Bill 1987 are to amend the Family Law Act so as to reinforce the principle that parents, not the taxpayer, bear the prime responsibility for the maintenance of their children. As we all know, the Family Law Act brought in sweeping changes to the laws of divorce and to the attendant rules which deal with the questions of custody and maintenance. Fault in the breakdown of a marriage became irrelevant and I think that is quite right. The only issue for the purposes of dissolution of a marriage by a decree of the court for divorce is irretrievable breakdown. Since the Family Law Act was enacted, society has become accustomed to high levels of marriage breakdown. Perhaps those levels were inevitable. Around 35 per cent of marriages end in divorce and for many, marriages are simply a contract. After 12 years of experience with the Family Law Act, I believe it is time to re-examine that Act, how it operates, its effect on our society and whether we can do better. It may be that it is too easy to get married. It may also be that divorce is too easy and that some sort of cooling off procedure should apply both to marriage and to divorce. Every day we see evidence of the truth of the old maxim: `Marry in haste, repent at leisure'. Certainly, for a society that treats marriage and the family unit as its foundation stone, the rate of breakdown of marriage, with all the associated misery, is all too high. Just as many treat the institution of marriage casually, so do many treat responsibilities for maintenance of their children and former spouses with equal casualness. Those who suffer are the children, the custodial parent-almost invariably the mother-and the taxpayer. The majority of custodial parents either receive no maintenance at all, or what they get is manifestly inadequate so that many live in poverty and suffering from which they cannot escape. There is an overwhelming need to address this problem and the defects to the maintenance system under the Family Law Act. The Bill before the House was presented to the Senate by Senator Durack in 1985. It reflects his real concern that parents should meet their responsibilities to their children and that the taxpayer and the social security system should be called to help only when the financial resources of the parents are inadequate. At present, in considering what maintenance the parties to a marriage should be ordered to pay, the court is required to consider the eligibility of either party for social security benefits. This means that responsibility to support children can be shifted from the parents to the taxpayer. That is not acceptable. Parents should bear the prime responsibility for the maintenance and well-being of their children. Manipulation of the social security system should be stopped. The cost of maintenance of children or of custodial parents should be borne by the taxpayer only in cases where hardship and justice so require. As a matter of history, at the time that the Family Law Act was brought into force, the Government of the day had recently introduced the supporting parent's benefit. Since that time, there has been an astronomic rise in the cost of that benefit to the Australian taxpayer-from $40.6m in 1974 to $1,238m in 1986. There is a great deal of evidence to establish, and a wide recognition of the fact, that there is a close relationship between social security outlays for parents with custody of children whose marriages have broken down and the practices under the Family Law Act for dealing with maintenance questions. Although there is good justification for a court to have regard to a social security benefit available to either party where, for example, both parties are of low income or one party has no income and the other has either a low or moderate income, there can be no justification for a court taking into account the existence of such a benefit in the case of parents who can afford to pay for the maintenance of their children. Unfortunately, that seems to happen all too often, and it is not restricted to low income cases. The problems of settling maintenance orders are exacerbated in many family law cases by the assumption by one or both parties to a marriage or other responsibilities of a family nature-for example, a new marriage and more children to support, either children of the new spouse or of the new marriage. At present, in cases where a former spouse is cohabiting with another person, the court is required to have regard to the financial circumstances relating to that cohabitation. In practice, a parent who has remarried, and who otherwise would be liable to pay an adequate and, perhaps, substantial sum for the maintenance of his children-and, indeed, of his former spouse-may pay far less because of the assumption of new obligations. These are complex questions because one is dealing with how to divide a limited amount of money between various fundamental obligations-for example, children of the first marriage and children of the later marriage. It would be a great help if some sort of priority system could be given as a guide-subject, of course, to the general directive to the court under the Act to take into account any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case so requires. The Bill proposes three specific changes to the law. First, it amends section 75 of the Family Law Act, which sets out the considerations that the court must take into account when fixing maintenance. As I have indicated, those considerations include the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under any Commonwealth law. The first amendment adds a further sub-section to section 75, which, in the words of Senator Durack: . . . prevents the court taking into account the eligibility of a party of a marriage who is claiming maintenance for any benefit under the Social Security Act or the Repatriation Act. It is necessary to go further than simply deleting the present requirement that the court `shall' take into account such eligibility because the court may well decide to do so of its own volition in the absence of a clear signal from the Parliament in the terms of this amendment. This should not result in any injustice to a person who is on a low income and being sued for maintenance by a former spouse who is in fact receiving a social security benefit because other provisions in sections 72 and 75 make it clear that the court must have regard to the relative financial circumstances of the parties. Section 75 is further amended by, again in the words of Senator Durack, making: It is clear that the court in determining the amount of maintenance to be paid shall give priority to the needs of the party or children for which provision is claimed in accordance with the sequence of time when those responsibilities were attained. This is based upon the view that the acquisition of responsibilities for children during a marriage should take precedence over the acquisition of subsequent responsibilities acquired by either a subsequent marriage or a subsequent de facto relationship. That does not mean that maintenance should not be paid for such subsequent obligations but simply provides a means by which the court can determine the priority. Any injustice which in the particular circumstances of a case may seem to arise from these new sub-sections can be rectified by the general directive to the court to take into account any fact or circumstance which the justice of the case requires. Thirdly, the Bill seeks to amend section 87 by inserting a new sub-section. Section 87 deals with agreements between the parties with respect to maintenance that can be approved by the court. Such an agreement may provide that it is to operate in substitution for any rights of the parties under the Act. Thus, where an agreement makes such provision and is approved by the court, the parties are prevented, except in extreme circumstances, from going back to the court to seek to vary maintenance obligations. The proposed new sub-section prohibits such agreements from dealing with the rights of a party in respect of the maintenance of a child of the marriage. Thus, maintenance obligations in respect of children of the marriage are to be dealt with in accordance with the rights and obligations set out in the Act. That will prevent parties from entering agreements that limit the right to obtain proper maintenance for a child by a responsible parent. The eventual cost savings of those measures will be significant. I wish to say a few words about maintenance collection. Senator Durack, in his second reading speech in 1985, made it clear that the amendments he proposed to the Family Law Act were not to be regarded as the be all and end all solution. Of course they are not, they are simply proposals to improve the way in which the Act operates. He urged the Government to change its policy of not enforcing recipients of supporting parents' benefits to take reasonable steps to enforce their right to maintenance under the Family Law Act. I second that sentiment. Senator Durack also said that the Government should be giving urgent attention to the problem of maintenance collection. Then-in 1985-as now, it was obvious that the legislation did not provide adequate machinery to enforce maintenance orders and that a vast proportion of orders were, in fact, either ignored completely or complied with only partly. That has obvious consequences for the well-being of the children involved and for the many many women who, after marriage breakdown, are the sole parents who must support those children. Since December 1985, we have seen a discussion paper on child maintenance prepared for the Government by Dr Meredith Edwards and also the Government response delivered in this House by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) on 24 March 1987. Speaking about the Government's proposal to implement maintenance reform, the Minister said: Stage 1 in 1987 will introduce legislation to establish the child support agency to collect child maintenance, and to amend the Family Law Act to assert the priority of child maintenance, to make sure that court orders put the financial position of children ahead of everything except the essential commitments of the parents, and to remove reference to social security eligibility to make clear that child support should not be treated as a `top-up' to social security pensions and benefits. The current system has for too long awarded inadequate levels of child support. The Social security system has been burdened with this responsibility. I agree with what the Minister said, but the very purposes of the amendments introduced by Senator Durack, which were opposed by the Government in the Senate, were to meet the problems to which the Minister referred. In short, the Opposition is providing the Government with legislation in accordance with its policy. It is a great pity that the Government has been so dilatory in dealing with this problem and in introducing legislation. Indeed, we have yet to see the legislation. The plight of women and children is often extreme. They find themselves in poverty traps from which they cannot escape. The day to day grind of their lives is very great. The tension is considerable. Much can be done to alleviate these problems if we have a better system for determining what levels of maintenance should be paid and for making sure that maintenance which has been ordered to be paid is in fact paid. If the Government had good sense it would support the changes that we propose to the laws. It is, I suppose, a matter of pride to the Government that it should not do so for the simple reason that the proposals do not come from the Government's side, even though they are directed to dealing with precisely the kinds of problems that the Minister for Social Security has identified. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! Is the motion seconded? Mr Ruddock —Yes. I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(4.12) —Here we are once again increasing tax. Once every week during parliamentary sittings, I think since about 19 September 1985, it has been my melancholy duty to stand up here on behalf of the Opposition and comment on further tax measures put forward by this Government. It is extraordinary that since 19 September 1985, when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced what he was pleased to call his reform of the Australian taxation system, otherwise known as RATS, we have had an additional 800-odd pages of taxation legislation. We have had an increase of about 70 per cent in the volume of tax Acts and here today we have two additional increases in taxation. There are two elements of this Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1987. The first is the removal of sales tax exemptions from Telecom Australia, Australia Post and some other minor Commonwealth authorities. The second is further restrictions on duty free concessions for overseas travellers and migrants. Both these elements of the Bill are counter-productive, and I will indicate exactly why later in the debate. They take in a lot of revenue. They are revenue measures as part of the mini-Budget statement of 13 May. The Opposition's overall position in relation to the mini-Budget is that, although we strongly disapprove of many of the measures taken in it, and we certainly strongly disapprove of these, we are in the position where, if we block revenue measures in the Senate, we will be expanding the Budget deficit. We have absolutely no power, as an Opposition, to initiate in either House legislation which would narrow the government deficit. So we are in the unfortunate position of having to decide whether to block revenue measures which are wholly objectionable and which as a result will increase the size of the Budget deficit-that in itself would be an appalling thing to do in the present economic climate-or alternatively we have the option of letting these measures through and causing grave harm to the Australian community. On balance, after considerable thinking about this, we have decided that the overriding economic consideration, in view of the appalling economic mess that this Government has got us into, is that we simply must try to close the Budget deficit because that is the only way we can move towards lowering interest rates. Of course this has nothing to do with reducing tax. This Government has not come anywhere near cutting expenditures enough to reduce tax. In fact the whole history of this Government, as I have pointed out, has been to increase tax at every level. The Opposition will not be voting against this measure. However, on behalf of the Opposition I move the following second reading amendment: 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 wishes to draw attention to- (1) the adverse impact on ordinary families and on business and farm costs of increases in telephone and postal charges which will flow from the withdrawal of the sales tax exemption from Telecom and Australia Post, and (2) the fact that the Government's decision to impose further restrictions on duty free passenger concessions: (a) is contrary to the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendations contained in report No. 374 of 1985, and (b) will result in further inconvenience to international travellers, divert the attention of Customs officers away from essential narcotics surveillance activities, impact adversely on the duty free industry in Australia and will damage the tourism industry generally'. I think that will be seconded by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). Let me deal with the first section of this Bill, which is the proposal to remove the sales tax exemptions from Telecom and Australia Post. The Treasurer, in his mini-Budget, suggested to the Australian public-and he was certainly suggesting it to the financial markets which needed to be impressed-that he was going to reduce the Budget deficit by $4 billion. If we examine that statement closely we will find that there will not be a genuine reduction in expenditures. One billion dollars of it will come from the sale of assets, which would not have the economic effect of cutting expenditure, as my friend the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), who lectured students in economics, would well know. That is the first part that is deceptive. The second part which is totally deceptive is that $400m of it is in fact an increase in taxes. So $1.4 billion of the $4 billion has nothing to do with a genuine cut in expenditure, and of the remaining $2.6 billion supposed expenditure cuts, we find that $1 billion has been unloaded on to the Premiers-and they have to bear the burden of that-and about $600m is from cuts in defence and in roads or in deferrals. The Treasurer reserved for himself the easy job of cutting $1 billion in expenditure out of the $4 billion and shuffled all of the other bits off into areas which were somebody else's problem or which would not have the same economic effect. Mr Cobb —The thimble and pea trick. Mr CARLTON —That is right. This measure is part of the extra $400m loaded on to Telecom's and Australia Post's charges. What was the reaction of Telecom and Australia Post? When they found that they would suddenly be lumbered with an additional bill of $400m they put up their charges. If there is one thing we do not want at this time in Australia's economic history it is increases in prices. Heaven forbid! The price of everything has been going up in Australia under this Government at about four times the rate of that of any other country. Inflation in Australia this year rose to almost 10 per cent, and it is still over 9 per cent. The Treasurer said that it was going to get down to 6 per cent, but we noted in the statement that he made two weeks ago that he had revised that estimate upwards to 7.25 per cent-still three or four times the inflation rate that is enjoyed in other competitive countries. Australians are already fed up to the back teeth with rising prices. None of the buffoonery of the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices (Mr Barry Jones), who was appointed to this position as a window dressing exercise a few weeks ago and from whom hardly anything has been heard since, no appointments of that sort and no window dressing exercise will disguise the fact that this Government, by its own actions, contributes to increases in prices. The direct effect of increases in telephone costs and postal charges is felt by every family in the country. In addition, they affect every business in the country. Businesses that have to compete internationally must put up their prices to cover these costs-or they try to, but they sell less-and people in the domestic markets push these increases in costs through to the customers and they finish up being reflected in the consumer price index. That is merely the fancy term for the figure which is published by the Australian Statistician to indicate that prices are going up, which is something that every housewife understands only too well. Only a day or so after the Treasurer's announcement Telecom spilt the beans on the whole matter. The Chairman of Telecom, Mr Bob Brack, is the chairman of a public authority which comes within the general purview of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). He is one of the heads of statutory authorities who have to report to the Minister for Communications. Presumably, he would have warned the Minister before this statement was put together what the outcome would be. I have here a copy of a Press statement which he issued and which appeared in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 May. It states: Telecom will increase the price of local calls, rental and connection fees and cut staffing levels by as much as 3,000 in response to the mini-Budget. Local phone calls will rise by 3c to 21c and STD charges will go up from October 1, after approval by the Prices Surveillance Authority and the Federal Government. The Prices Surveillance Authority is the cream puff organisation that comes under the administration of the Minister for weeties or whatever he is called, the so-called Minister assisting the Treasurer to increase prices; that is his job. The article continues: However, the Telecom chairman, Mr Bob Brack, warned that if the tariffs had not been approved by June 30, Telecom faced a cash outflow which would push prices higher. He really spilt the beans on the Treasurer: `We have been forced to take these measures because of the decisions made by the Government, which would cost Telecom nearly $500 million in 1987-88,' Mr Brack said. He said the rise in charges was needed to cover the removal of Telecom's exemption from sales tax and Customs duty- that is covered by another Bill which will be debated shortly- and the now compulsory repayment of an $81 million government loan. That is another little bit of the mini-Budget. So there we are. The article continues: Other changes outlined by Telecom include . . . And listen to these; they will hurt hard: A $21 rise in the cost of basic rental to $120. A $20 rise in the cost of connection fees to $210. And what about the bush? The article continues: Cutbacks on the Rural and Remote Areas Program-- Mr Cadman —That is $4 a week for a young married couple. Mr CARLTON —That is exactly right. It is a lot of money. The article continues: . . . which planned to provide telecommunications to rural areas by 1990. So if people in the bush are expecting to get new telecommunications by 1990, they should forget it as a result of this mini-Budget. The article continues: Scaling-down of plans to improve congestion in country areas and to modernise switching equipment in central business districts. In other words, people in the bush will not be provided with plans to improve the congestion that they suffer and people in the central business districts-who are already finding it hard to get through by telephone, who are finding a lot of blockages and who need changes in the system-will find plans for improvements delayed. This will add further to industrial costs. The article continues: Mr Brack said Telecom's ability to serve new customers would be affected in areas such as new housing estates and fringe urban areas. Heaven forbid! Under this Government and with the interest rates we have, it is impossible to buy a house these days in one of the fringe urban areas or new housing estates referred to by the Chairman. They hardly exist. But when a person somehow manages, with interest rates at 15 1/2 per cent, to build a house in one of these areas, he cannot get a telephone installed. The article continues: It is likely that the number of applicants (for new telephone services) experiencing serious delays will rise very significantly . . . So people on a housing estate who are struggling to meet their mortgage repayments cannot ring their mum because they cannot even get a telephone installed. The same article reads: A spokesman for Australia Post, which will suffer a similar fate to Telecom's, said that the authority was examining in depth the mini-Budget's impact. A letter takes a little longer to arrive than a telephone call. It took another 10 days for Australia Post to make its announcement. Nonetheless, it was made eventually by Mr Bob Lansdown, the Chairman of Australia Post. A report of 25 May reads: Australia Post has announced that it would apply to the Prices Surveillance Authority to lift postal charges by 1c from July 1. The price rise was a consequence of the Federal Government's decision in the mini-Budget to apply Customs duty and sales tax to Australia Post and direct it to repay $9 million in advances, the Chairman of the Australian Postal Commission, Mr Bob Landsdown said. `The moves would add some $40 million to Australia Post's outlays in 1987-88,' he said. In the absence of access to external borrowing facilities, Australia Post had no option but to apply for an early increase in charges, he said. Here is the sting: Rises in other postal charges in line with the 1c increase will also be sought. So there we have it. The two principal communications authorities of the Commonwealth, reporting to the Minister for Communications one day and 10 days after the announcement by the Treasurer, indicated what a foolish decision it was for the Treasurer to increase taxes and charges paid by statutory authorities by $400m instead of making genuine cuts in Federal expenditures. The Treasurer quite deliberately, in order to make up the $4 billion cosmetic windowfront figure for his so-called cuts in government expenditure, has added to Australia's already high inflation rate. Prices in Australia, which are rising at four times the rate that they are rising in comparable overseas countries, will be given a further boost by this ridiculous proposal. If one adds to the tax burden of statutory authorities, of course, they either absorb the costs if they can, by cutting staff and services, or pass on these costs in the form of rising prices. It is quite clear that they have decided to do the latter. What sort of a lead is this to the State Premiers? The Treasurer, in this chamber yesterday, at the Premiers Conference, offloaded the hardest part of the expenditure cuts to the States. He announced a $1 billion expenditure cut for the States and a cut of $1 billion in their borrowing limits. The States were asked to wear that. He then had the infernal hide to lecture the State Premiers not to increase State taxes and charges to make up this difference. Mr Gear —And they won't. Mr CARLTON —Listen, my friend, the Premier of New South Wales has already said that that is precisely what he will do. The honourable member had better read the Premier's statement. The New South Wales Labor Premier, Mr Unsworth, has already said that he will push up taxes and charges. Why would he not? The person who was lecturing Premier Unsworth in this chamber, telling him under no account to do that but to make genuine cuts in State services and expenditures had, by his very example, indicated the direction that Premier Unsworth ought to take. Of course, if the States raise taxes and charges instead of cutting expenditure, there will be a further boost to inflation. Australia's inflation rate, instead of being four times that of our competitors, will rise to five or six times that of our competitors. There will be no hope of interest rates coming down. Therefore, this is a counterproductive measure. It is a stupid measure and it is a measure of the weakness of the Treasurer and this Government in their failure to cut government spending at the Federal level to the extent necessary to reduce the deficit and interest rates. Mr Gear —Are you going to oppose it? Mr CARLTON —If my friend had been here earlier he would have heard what I had said. Since he has come in here he has not listened at all; he has talked continuously. Therefore, he should read Hansard tomorrow to find out what I said. Let me go to the second part of this Bill. The second part is a monumental stupidity. The Treasurer wants to bring in an extra $20m or $21m the following year in revenue by abolishing or reducing duty free concessions for travellers. It is an additional tax of $20m or $21m. Let us examine the chaos that will result from this particular measure. It is chaos that we can look at very clearly, because we happen to have had a full public inquiry into this business, the results of which I have here. The Industries Assistance Commission of the Commonwealth was asked to report on passengers' duty free concessions at airports and other ports. I have with me its recommendations and its report of 6 November 1985. It received evidence from just about everybody, particularly from officers of the Australian Customs Service, who made a very useful input into the inquiry. It received input from the people in the duty free areas, from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Territories and Local Government, and from people from the travel industry who have a very definite interest in the way passengers come through Customs and whether they are received nicely or are held up. The general burden of this report was that there was a need to do something about duty free concessions at airports. Most people do not get an enormous amount of duty free goods through. Under the existing arrangements one could bring in personal effects-I will come back to that in a minute-$200 worth of goods duty free and goods to the value of $180 above that at a duty rate of 20 per cent. There were some rorts in the personal effects area. Some people were bringing in extremely expensive equipment, such as camera and video equipment and that sort of thing, under the personal effects section. The report basically said that this was developing into a bit of a rort and that there was a case for doing something about it. Some very wise considerations were taken into account by the Industries Assistance Commission. I will quote from the summary and conclusions of its report. It said: In the era of mass air transport, there is a need for people to move smoothly and quickly through the barrier. Long delays are not only costly to the community in terms of the value of time and the frustration to which passengers are exposed, but may also impose additional administrative costs. There is a trade-off between minute examination of passenger baggage and enforcement of tariff and tax laws on the one hand, and passenger facilitation on the other. That is perfectly reasonable. Further on the Commission said: All goods (except those duty free goods purchased prior to departure) taken out of the country by Australian travellers should be eligible for concessional entry when they have been re-imported . . . On their trips, most travellers make modest purchases which they bring home-travel requisites, souvenirs, gifts etc. The value of such imports by most travellers is so small that the costs of assessing and collecting duty and sales tax would be greater than the revenue received. . . . . Concessional entry should therefore remain for such articles. The Commission is concerned to recommend changes to the passengers concessions which achieve the facilitation objective and allow free importation of re-imports, goods to be re-exported, goods covered by treaty obligations and a reasonable value of general imports. This will involve removing the open-endedness of some of the existing concessions, simplifying the concessions so that they could be more readily understood by the travelling public, and removing those concessions which do not make a significant contribution towards the general objectives. . . . It recommends that if the Government wishes to achieve, on average, an unimpeded flow of 90% of Australian residents through the Customs barrier, together with a restriction on usage (once every three months) and a review at lengthy intervals (say every 5 years), the limit be set at $1,000. That is what the IAC said in its report. It went on: If the Government wishes the concessions to be available on each and every occasion of travel, a limit of $750 may be more appropriate. That is what this expensive Government inquiry recommended after a wide-ranging set of hearings and submissions from all sorts of people. When it put out its draft report it was given a response by the Australian Customs Service, which after all has the job of policing these things. The Customs Service said: ACS considers that the proposed concessional limit of $1,000 is the lowest practical amount and ensures a reduction of the existing concessions in real terms. In other words, Customs said that that limit would ensure a closing off of the rorts. The House will note that Customs said that $1,000 was the `lowest practical amount'. It also said that it saw no reason for imposing a limit on the imports of wine. It considered that there should be no restrictions on the numbers of times the general concession can be utilised in any one year. In other words, the Customs Service does not want to keep a record of whether people come in every three months or so, that not enough people do that to make it important. From its experience of processing these people every day it quite sensibly has said that a $1,000 general limit is the minimum practical to ensure a flow of people through airports. This is of immense importance to us in tourism alone. Who the devil, after looking at a Hogan advertisement in the United States of America, wants to spend all his money in getting a tourist package to come to Australia and take two hours trying to get through Customs? When the Customs people who have the problem of dealing with that have told us that $1,000 is the minimum practical amount, what has the Treasurer put in this Bill? Four hundred lousy dollars. It is only about half what the IAC suggested if there were no restrictions, 40 per cent of what the IAC suggested as its preferred option, and 40 per cent of the very minimum practical amount put forward by the Customs Serivce. I have not seen anything so stupid in all my life-except, of course, the other 800 pages of tax legislation that this Treasurer has brought in since September 1985. If I had not read all that, I would be surprised. What will this do to small business in the duty free shops? Heaven forbid, an enormous amount of their business is in Australians buying goods from Australian businesses, taking them overseas and bringing them back under the duty free concessions. That has meant that an enormous amount of money stays in this country which would otherwise be saved up and spent at duty free places overseas. So this legislation will have a bad effect on small business in the duty free shops. It will reduce sales in the duty free shops and it will reduce their capacity to service overseas customers with a wide range of goods. Obviously, they can expand their range of goods if they have enough domestic business. Therefore, the base business that we can offer these businesses, through the sale of opals and the like to Japanese tourists, will be cut back by this ridiculous measure. The Customs people say that this legislation will have a severe effect on their capacity to police narcotics. Customs people are not there to rifle through people's handbags. It is not their job to look into small suitcases. They are going around with sniffer dogs to see whether drugs such as heroin and hashish are coming in. They say quite clearly that if they are required to police these sorts of limits their capacity to do their real task of stopping deadly drug runners coming into this country with their poisonous baggage will be dramatically reduced. That is an absolute scandal. I simply cannot understand why, for a miserable $20m in additional revenue, the Treasurer would put at risk our surveillance of incoming narcotics. But that is not enough. What else does he put at risk? We have an improvement of over $2 billion to our current account with the rest of the world because of inward tourism. This Government has talked no end about how much it has been promoting tourism overseas with Paul Hogan and God knows what. The Minister skites about this every day. We go all around the world spending taxpayers' money through the Australian Tourist Commission and inviting people to come to this country. Qantas releases advertisements in the United States to encourage people to come here; it does a wonderful job. However, when these people get to Sydney Airport or Melbourne Airport they join a queue and have Customs officers look through their bags to see whether they have in their possession more than $400 in duty free goods. Mr Rocher —Preposterous! Mr CARLTON —It is preposterous, as my friend the honourable member for Curtin correctly says. This will happen in all Australian international airports. Of course, it will hurt not only the duty free shops themselves but also Australian artisans, jewellers and people who make things for this trade whose main points of sale are the duty free shops which have grown up. I think there are now about 130 of them. According to an Industries Assistance Commission report, in 1985 they transacted more than $100m in business and that figure is rising. That is of enormous importance to our economy. Basically, this stupid restriction ignores the sensible recommendations of the Customs Service on two grounds: First, it stops it doing its narcotics surveillance job properly; and, secondly, it involves the Customs Service in additional processing and delays and of course additional administrative costs which will desperately hurt our foreign tourism industry. It will also impede the progress of foreign businessmen who come to this country wanting to buy our goods, indirectly hurting our export trade in that sense as well. It will also cause immense human frustration as more people of modest means travel overseas; and all this for a lousy $20m. Is this cost-benefit? Where did this sneak in? Was this at the fag end of the Cabinet meeting which considered the mini-Budget? It must have been. I suggest that the Government should withdraw this measure, which will make it a laughing stock. The Government should withdraw it and cut $20m in some other area but not through a tax increase. This Bill increases telephone costs and postal charges and makes absurd changes to the concessions for incoming travellers, which will damage the tourist industry and the duty free shop industry. It will also increase administrative costs and, more seriously, prevent adequate surveillance of incoming narcotics. On all those grounds I suggest that the Government should withdraw the measure. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Cobb —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(4.43) —I find the amendment just moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) quite astounding for a number of reasons. In his closing remarks in this debate the honourable member for Mackellar suggested that the Government should withdraw the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill and start again. The Opposition has proposed an amendment which refers to what it calls the adverse impact on ordinary families and on business and farm costs of increases in telephone and postal charges which it claims will flow from the provisions of this legislation and which, as the member for Mackellar quite correctly said, amount to the application of sales tax on many of those public authorities which previously have been exempt from sales tax. One of them is Telecom and another is Australia Post. I think that stands in remarkable contradiction to the position pursued by the Opposition in relation to public authorities generally. The Opposition has made it perfectly clear that in government it would privatise-as it calls it-some of our great public authorities. The Opposition is referring to its intention to sell off to a select group in Australia-that is, to those people who can take advantage of the opportunity to buy profitable sectors and sections of our public authorities-assets which belong to the Australian people. The other thing I find quite strange about the Opposition's amendment is that, as a result of its privatisation proposals in connection with Telecom, it has now been well documented that the cost of telephone connection to people in rural areas in particular would be so exorbitant-and many people in the great outback and rural areas of Australia and in the great rural industries of Australia are in urgent need of telephones-that they simply would not be able to afford them. They would be left without the fundamental and important means of communication which is so generally available throughout the Australian community. They would be left without it because we would not have, as we have at the present time, a national Telecom system which allows cross-subsidisation. So the great metropolitan cities of Australia, because of the profit that they show on the operation of telephone service, subsidise through part of that profit the installation of telephones and telephone services in the great rural areas of Australia. Who is seconding the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar? Mr Gear —Not the National Party? Mr ROBERT BROWN —Exactly-none other than a member of the National Party. I am sure that my colleague the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) in his contribution shortly will draw attention to some specific examples of the extent to which those services are now being cross-subsidised. The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), who has seconded the amendment of the honourable member for Mackellar, may well be encouraged to reconsider his position. It is very likely that when the honourable member for Parkes rises to speak to the amendment people in his own electorate will be tuned in. They may not have a telephone but almost certainly they will have a radio and they will hear what the honourable member for Parkes has to say about their prospects of getting telephones in the future. They are some of the reasons why this amendment is quite extraordinary. Another reason is that it appears from the wording of the amendment that the Opposition proposes that any government should accept without question recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission. I do not know whether members opposite understand that the Industries Assistance Commission is not a regulatory body and is not a legislative body; it is and advisory body. Its purpose is to inquire into and investigate various types of protection within the Australian economy, make recommendations and report to the Government. It is then the Government's responsibility to determine whether, and to what extent, it will accept those recommendations and act on them accordingly. (Quorum formed) I want to advise my very good friend, Jim Curran, and the people of Gilgandra that, very shortly, the honourable member for Parkes will be speaking, attempting to justify his seconding of the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Mackellar, to which I have referred. The honourable member for Mackellar made it perfectly clear that honourable members opposite believe it appropriate for a government to accept without question recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission. I believe that this Government will do no such thing; it will consider the recommendations and, in the light of those considerations, determine its own position. Mr Hand —As we did in connection with textiles, clothing and footwear. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As the honourable member for Melbourne quite correctly reminds me, we did so in connection with textiles, clothing and footwear. What a magnificent result the Government achieved on that occasion, not by accepting the recommendations of the IAC but by constructively building on those recommendations. We will continue to do that in the future. The third reason why this amendment is quite strange is that honourable members opposite criticised the fact that the Government proposes to amend the entitlement for people who are returning to Australia bringing goods back with them, in particular, very large and expensive or complex and sophisticated forms of electronic devices. It was acknowledged by honourable members opposite that that practice has tended to explode and that something had to be done about it. The Government has chosen to do something about it and it should be applauded. Not many people from my district, when returning to Australia bring back, in addition to their personal effects-that is, the clothing that they may have bought overseas-equipment worth more than $400. It is about time, and the Government has accepted that it is about time, that a ceiling was placed on that practice. This Bill proposes to amend both the Sales Tax Assessment Act and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act in order to do the two things to which attention has already been drawn. The first is to withdraw the entitlement to exemption from sales tax for certain Commonwealth authorities. I have referred to two of those authorities-Telecom and Australia Post. In addition, there are the Army and Air Force Canteen Service, the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority, the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, and the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. Honourable members opposite have claimed on other occasions that the public authorities in Australia are being feather-bedded as a result of concessional treatment provided to them by successive governments. I make it perfectly clear that one of the reasons why we have decided to withdraw exemptions from sales tax is to ensure that any type of concessional feather-bedding that occurred in the past will cease in the future. We do not believe that the great public authorities and enterprises of Australia need that sort of treatment. Simply because they belong to the public sector, it is sometimes considered that that type of concessional treatment is necessary. It is not necessary at all. As a result of these legislative changes, we will indicate that it is not necessary. We do not want to see the great public enterprises in Australia, which belong to the Australian people and which fulfil extremely important social and national purposes, treated in a wimpish fashion by this Government or by any other government. Those bodies are capable of standing on their own feet and of proving to the Australian community that public enterprises can be just as efficient and successful as enterprises in the private sector. A particularly good example is the operation of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission which, unlike many of the other public authorities, has not been subject to the types of concessions that have been provided for other bodes. Traditionally, it has paid all Commonwealth taxes and duties, including corporate income tax. Despite that, in the five years prior to the presentation of its 1986 annual report, the OTC made income tax payments and paid dividends to the Commonwealth totalling more than $267m from pre-tax profits of $341m. That is an outstanding example of the way in which public enterprises can not only fulfil their social responsibilities but also, in a very positive way, make profits and, in the process, ease the burden of taxation on the community. We must see this legislation in the context of the total package that the Treasurer announced in the May expenditure statement. The Treasurer indicated on that occasion that, without any remedial action by the Government, Commonwealth Government expenditure in the next financial year would have increased by $7,000m. As a result, the forward estimate for the Budget deficit next year would have been about $6,000m. In the light of that, quite clearly it was necessary for the Government to take action to ensure that the level of the projected deficit would continue to decrease, as has occurred in consecutive years under this Government. I remind honourable members of the situation that we inherited when we came into government in 1983; there was a projected Budget deficit of $9,600m, more than 5 per cent of the gross domestic product. That would have been the position had the previous Fraser-Howard Government still been in office when the Budget was brought down in 1983. In fact, in the last three years of the Fraser Government, the Budget deficit positively exploded. For example, in 1981-82 the Fraser Government Budget deficit was $548m, or about 4 per cent of GDP. In the next year-the last year for which the Fraser Government had the responsibility of introducing a Budget-that $548 Budget deficit exploded to $4,473m. Had the Fraser Government been in office for another 12 months, that deficit would have more than doubled to $9,600m, or 5.1 per cent of GDP. (Quorum formed) That is probably the best indication of the appalling abyss into which honourable members opposite have fallen. The best that the Opposition can do at the present time is try to use up the time available to members of the Government to present legislation. In relation to some of the more responsible responses to the May economic statement, Bryan Frith from the Australian stated: This mini-Budget is positive and courageous. In an editorial the Australian also stated that the May economic statement was `a serious and impressive attempt to cut public spending and to reduce Australia's budget deficit'. That same editorial finished by saying that it was an admirable contribution to the struggle for Australia's economic recovery. The Canberra Times stated that it was `a step in the right direction' and that last Monday's statement was `a step toward getting the Australian economy back on the rails and the Government deserves some credit'. The Business Councils of Australia stated: These reductions are another important step in the process of restoring the Australian economy to health and, as such, they deserve the support of the community. We have to see this legislation in the context of the May economic statement and the general objectives which that statement hopes to achieve. We have to understand also that, the battle lines are now being drawn between the Government's concern for moral, social, economic and political reform and responsibilities and the Opposition, and the great mass of the Australian people should know that those lines are being drawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes)(5.04) —The Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill has two sections, the first of which gives effect to the May 1987 mini-Budget statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that sales tax exemptions will be withdrawn from certain Commonwealth authorities which carry on commercial functions. Also, any Commonwealth authorities that may be established in future would be denied exemption from having to pay sales tax unless they belonged to already exempt categories. Commonwealth bodies like Telecom Australia do not have to pay sales tax when they buy equipment. Of course, this gives them an advantage over private operators who are sometimes allowed to compete with them. Commonwealth authorities that will now cease to be exempt from sales tax include Australia Post and Telecom as well as the Army and Air Force Canteen Service, the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority, the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. The Government says that this will provide another $310m of indirect tax revenue 1987-88 and $395m in the following year, 1988-89. This Bill is all about increasing tax revenue for the present Government. However, where Telecom's total payment of sales tax and Customs duty in 1987-88 exceeds $360m, the amount of excess will be refunded to Telecom, up to a refund ceiling of $100m. While the National Party of Australia opposes the manner and timing of this action, it supports the principle that these Commonwealth authorities should not be exempt from paying sales tax on their purchases. The decision will put them on the same sales tax footing as private sector commercial authorities and, to that extent, will bring bodies like Telecom and Australia Post one step closer to operating in a real world situation. It is, I suppose, one of the essential first steps that have to be taken in the process of privatising these bodies. On that point it is worth remembering the vehement criticism which the Government heaped on the Opposition when it suggested such steps some 12 months or so ago. Of course, the Government is taking this step not because of any sound reason, such as it would increase the efficiency of these bodies, but because it is broke. The current account deficit is running at record levels and the overseas debt has tripled in the past four years to in excess of $105 billion. When the Government came to office in 1983 the overseas debt was only about $30 billion. It had taken 83 years since Federation to get to that level and, in the last four years, it has more than tripled to $105 billion. The Australian people should never be allowed to forget that fact. Government spending has reached heights undreamed of in this country and, as a consequence of this record spending, tax collections, despite being at the record highs they are in Australia, are falling further and further behind, chasing the spending gap and creating larger deficits. As the Government clearly refuses to cut expenditure, the pressure for more and more tax collections increases. Hence, we have this Bill before us today. This is an area where, I guess it has been pointed out to the Government, it can in effect increase its tax collections by about $400m per annum-but it can do so by the back door. That is $400m extra in the Government's coffers without its receiving the odium associated with that collection, because Telecom and Australia Post will have to raise their charges to their customers to recoup the money. Telecom and Australia Post are being forced to collect the tax for the Government to the tune of $400m. Naturally, Telecom and Australia Post cannot pluck these extra dollars out of the air. Telecom is already talking about sacking 3,000 staff. The Chairman of Telecom, Mr Brack, had already issued a statement to that effect. I would like to see Telecom undertaking radical surgery on many of its outrageous work practices which have been built up over the years by the unions exploiting the monopoly situation of Telecom. However, in typical Telecom fashion, the Chairman has announced that, as well as sacking staff, it will jack up its prices. We have heard from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) that the price of a local call will rise by 3c and that the charges for rent and for connection fees will rise by about $20 in each case. In addition, the remote areas program, whereby country telephones were to be switched over to automatic, is to be delayed for another two years. City people have had this service for years-in some instances for decades-but, despite Australia's supposedly being an advanced country, country people have to wait. What a warped sense of priorities! All the fancy, prestige-building, whizz-bang schemes will continue while the neglected people in the bush wonder whether they would be better off by trading their pedal telephones in on a carrier pigeon or attending smoke signal lessons at the local reserve. Australia Post has indicated also that, as a result of this imposition, it will probably have to raise the price of stamps. With this Government's addictive hunger for more money, services will drop and taxes will go up all round. The Government has the hide to criticise us for not having released the nitty-gritty details of our tax policy, but what was the Labor Party's tax policy at the last election? It did not have one. Its tax policy was simply that it would hold a tax summit some six months down the track in 1985. We know what came out of that. But the Government's tax policy has now been brought down. What is it? Mr Cadman —More tax. Mr COBB —Exactly; it is more tax, as the honourable member for Mitchell said. It involves a capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, superannuation tax, entertainment tax, assets tax, and more sales tax, such as we are seeing today. The next step in the Government's grand plan is a wealth tax. Mr Cadman —That is right; that is next. Mr COBB —That will be next, and we will be hearing more about that. The sales tax legislation we are debating could not have come at a worse time, arriving as it does on top of all these other taxes. It will have inflationary consequences and will be especially damaging for exporters in this country. Already we have to compete against overseas competitors in countries whose inflation rate are only one-quarter to one-fifth of Australia's. It appears that this gap will widen, partially as a result of this legislation. With every piece of legislation introduced into the Parliament by this Government, it seems that our cost of living goes up and our standard of living goes down. I do not have to tell honourable members that this sales tax Bill will increase even further the complexity of tax legislation, especially sales tax legislation. I wonder whether anyone realises just how many sales tax Acts there are in Australia governing indirect tax. I found just 25 on a preliminary search. Goodness knows how many more there are. This will be at least the twenty-sixth. We have 11 Sales Tax Assessment Acts, 11 Sales Tax Acts, one Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, one Sales Tax Procedure Act, one Taxation Administration Act dealing with sales tax offences and, on top of those, this sales tax Bill here today. The red tape, paper work and bureaucracy associated with sales tax alone keeps whole tribes of timber cutters, public servants and accountants and whole bevies of other bureaucrats occupied on a full time basis. Debating this Bill is even keeping me employed this afternoon. Even a superficial look at our sales tax legislation shows how the country is crying out for less. A provision in this Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill and in a Customs tariff by-law Bill to be debated today concerns varying the amount of goods passengers arriving in Australia can purchase both sales tax free and duty free. From 1 July 1987, inward passengers will have the existing concessions replaced with legislation providing that one can bring in, free of sales tax or duty, goods to the value of $400, or $200 for persons under 18 years of age. In addition, all items of clothing, except furs, for personal use will be allowed free entry. However, free entry of migrants' motor vehicles, which has existed in the past, will now be abolished. The quantitative restriction on alcohol of one litre will remain, and one will be allowed to bring in 250 grams of tobacco or 250 cigarettes. Articles for personal hygiene, excluding perfume, will be exempt from sales tax and duty. On average, these changes represent somewhat harsher restrictions than before as they will raise another $20m in revenue for the Government. So, again, it is a question of the Government collecting more tax. To have remained revenue neutral with the present situation, the limit would have needed to be set between $500 or $600. As we heard earlier in the debate, the Industries Assistance Commission's preferred option was for the limit to be set at $1,000. It should be noted that if someone brings in goods of a value in excess of $400, the exemption will apply to the first $400 of value and full sales tax and Customs duty will be payable on the remainder of the goods. It is still not totally clear what these changes to the revenue will achieve, apart from making the pleasure of taking an overseas holiday a little less, and bringing the Government another $20m in taxes. Most people would be of the opinion that changes should not be made unless there is good reason for doing so, because of the hassles and disruption that such changes will bring, particularly these ones. For example, an estimated 50,000 Australians are today abroad on short term trips, most of whom will have no idea, until one or two days before they re-enter Australia, of how these new restrictions will apply. We can imagine the chaos that that alone will create. Many of these people will purchase items that they believe to be free of these taxes and duties, only to find that they are caught out when they return home. To police all this, the Australian Customs Service is planning to install computerised duty collection facilities at each processing point to collect the duty that travellers will have to pay on that portion of their purchases which exceeds $400. However, family units, which comprise the bulk of travellers, will be able to combine their limits, where they wish to do so, to bring in articles costing in excess of $400. It is to be hoped that there will be some mechanism to identify couples where the female of the twosome has retained her original passport in her maiden name. Duty free stores in Australia are concerned that items costing more than $400, which at present make up about 25 per cent of their sales, will now be bypassed because of this legislation. No doubt this will occur to a considerable degree, although some of those items will still be bought due to the combining provision that I mentioned earlier and also due to the first $400 being exempt. There is a saying that one man's meat is another man's poison. While duty free stores will be caught out to some extent by this legislation, other stores will benefit. A camera salesman in a town in my electorate of Parkes told me at a function the other night of his frustrations with people who go into his shop asking him to explain and demonstrate which is the best camera to buy. After he spends half an hour or so going through the procedures, they happily thank him for all his time and trouble and announce that they will buy the camera of his recommendation, duty free, when they go overseas the following week. He claimed to me that some 70 per cent of such big ticket purchases are made overseas. No doubt this part of the legislation will give some pleasure to my camera selling constituent. Ideally, I would prefer that no Customs duty or tariff were placed on any goods into Australia. Although these duties are supposedly put on to help the competitive position of industries in Australia making similar goods, I am firmly convinced that these duties actually harm the industries that they are supposed to help. Certainly, they are damaging to our overall economy. The protection given to our car industry is a good example of this. Not only has our car industry become uncompetitive because of this protection, but also all Australians buying cars have to pay almost twice as much as they would if this protection did not exist. As I have already indicated, on top of this, the sales tax regime in Australia has become hopelessly complicated. The potential indirect tax base in Australia extends over about $140m of goods and services. However, the wholesale sales tax system that we have is applied to only about $40m of that base. To collect the amount that is collected, of about $7 billion, what we have in place is a higgledy-piggledy mess of 10, 20 and 30 per cent levels, with no rhyme or reason determining which good goes into which category. For example, different snack goods are taxed at different levels for no logical reason. Even different brands of similar biscuits are taxed at different levels. Toys incorporating a musical movement are taxed at a higher level than toys without one, even if that music is played by means of an electronic chip. Individual maps attract tax but books of maps are exempt; towels made of cloth are taxed at a lower rate than towels made of paper; biros and pens are taxed at a higher level than pencils and highlighters; ornaments are taxed at a higher level than souvenirs; and so on. Whole armies of people are employed to determine which article goes into which category. Quite clearly, the sales tax area needs drastic revision. I happen to be one who believes that this form of indirect tax should be scrapped entirely. It could be replaced with an across-the-board flat indirect tax at the consumption level. The mass of people in Australia today say that the progressive direct income tax levels should be flattened out. The company tax levels are already flat. They should remain so and should be lowered. So it is only logical that indirect tax levels, which are higgledy-piggledy and progressive, should also be flattened. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) himself toyed with that idea and rejected it at the Tax Summit to which I referred earlier. He was, of course, dictated to by the unions. However, his bull-headed approach, the fact that he had not explained the issue thoroughly and the fact that he tried to pitch the level far too high, at 12 1/2 per cent, caused him to lose the whole idea. A broad-based consumption tax is not a new tax; it is merely a replacement tax. It is no more a new tax than a flat tax is a new tax in the direct tax area. We could bring in such a tax and it would be revenue neutral if it came in across the board at 5 per cent. We could fiddle with it and bring it in at a higher level, such as 8 per cent, which would collect an extra $4.2 billion. If we exempted articles that already have other indirect taxes placed on them, such as the excise tax on alcohol, tobacco and fuel, we would end up with a net extra collection on what we have now of $2.2 billion. We could use that either to lower direct income taxes or pass them back by reducing the fuel excise by 9 1/4c a litre. There are many advantages to such a system. The tax would be placed on the final consumption product only, so all business inputs and exports would be exempt. It is a very simple system. The tax would come in at a low rate because it would be on a broader based area than the sales tax which we are debating today. The system would be more equitable. All items would be taxed at the same rate. Therefore, investment decisions would not be made according to the level of tax on each item. The price of many goods would actually fall. For example, this legislation talks about a 20 per cent sales tax on motor cars. If we brought in a broad-based consumption tax of 8 per cent, the price of an average family car would fall by about $1,000. That would do marvels for the motor vehicle industry. We could abolish the customs duty legislation which we are to debate later today. We would not have to worry about sales tax as the rate would be so low. Business costs would be lower. For example, a businessman with $100,000 worth of spare parts in his shop has to pay a 20 per cent sales tax on those goods. Therefore, he must outlay another 20 per cent just to stock his premises. If we had a consumption tax, he would not have to pay that tax because it would not be paid until the consumer purchased the article. Therefore, it would benefit business, particularly small business. Most importantly, people with the same incomes would pay the same amount of indirect tax, which does not apply today. The legislation before us serves only to highlight the absurdity of the present sales tax situation in Australia today. The legislation will have a high inflationary effect and it will impose a tax increase on Australian consumers. It will increase the complexity of the present system. The Government stands condemned for walking away from proper indirect tax reform in this country and for introducing this Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill without taking into account the overall effects it will have on the economy and the people of Australia. Mr GEAR(Canning)(5.24) —Mr Deputy Speaker, in your time in the chair you will have noticed that the debate on the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill has been a very wide-ranging one. Before proceeding to the substance of what I have to say today, I wish to pick up a couple of points that the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) made, and in particular his concluding comments on the broad-based consumption tax which, I must say, coming from a member of the National Party of Australia, were very brave. While I agree with many of the points he made, he left out a few. A broad-based consumption tax is better for the export market in that it is not built into the export market price as are many other taxes. On the whole, I found his defence of the broad-based consumption tax a very eloquent one. Coming from New South Wales as he does, I think that he would have trouble convincing his colleagues from Queensland about the virtues of a broad-based consumption tax. The Joh Nationals are dead-set opposed to it. I am not sure whether the wets and dries in the Liberal Party are for it. That will all come out in the future. Earlier in his contribution, the honourable member talked about the overseas debt growing under this Government, and that is true. One of the main reasons is due to the fact that when the Opposition parties were kicked out of government, they left the economy in a state of collapse. They conveniently forget that. They never debate their record in government, mainly because it is indefensible. Whey they left office, there was absolutely nothing left of the manufacturing industry and there was very little hope for Australia. Then, as now, we relied on commodities to sustain us, or to earn us export income. This Government's policies have moved us away from that. Last month we saw, for the first time in a number of years, an actual decrease in the size of our national debt. That will continue as this Government's policies are put in place and as they start to work through the economy. The honourable member also talked about complaints of delays regarding Telecom Australia and the fact that there are no automatic exchanges in his electorate. One has only to consider which party was in government for 30 out of 35 years and ask: What priority was attached by the former Government to putting those facilities in country areas? The former Government did nothing about that. It has been left to this Government. This Government has a much more rational policy towards putting communications facilities in place. What I can say to the honourable member for Parkes is that, when it is time for people in the country to get automatic switching facilities, they will get them. The honourable member also said that this Government is hell-bent on collecting more tax. What the Opposition parties conveniently forget is that this Government has raised tax in a number of areas. For instance, we have received about $500m from the fringe benefits tax. Before we introduced the fringe benefits tax, a very small proportion of the Australian people were able to dodge paying their full amount of tax. According to newspaper reports yesterday, the capital gains is raising $1,000m. When the Liberal Party talks about knocking off the capital gains tax, it should digest the quantity of the capital that is flowing into the system. It underpins the reasoning of this Government for bringing in a capital gains tax, and that is to put a floor under the income tax base. Although we have raised taxes in a number of areas that were crying out for reform, the Opposition parties forget that we are giving the tax collected back to taxpayers. We have given tax cuts amounting to $4,500m, the second instalment of which will be brought into effect on 1 July. The Opposition parties conveniently forget that when they were in government the top tax rate was 60c in the dollar and it stayed at that rate throughout their period in government. This Government has got the rate down to 49c. Whilst the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was Treasurer, the bottom tax rate was 30c. This Government has brought that down to 24c. So this Government has not kept all the money that has been collected from the new taxes. We have actually given it back to the people in the community who were subsidising people who were dodging their obligations. Like the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), I am absolutely amazed that the honourable member for Parkes has seconded the amendment. The amendment talks about `the adverse impact on ordinary families and on business and farm costs of increases in telephone and postal charges'. If the honourable member for Parkes follows the espoused policy of the Liberal Party to privatise Telecom, I would ask him: What would be the effects on the people in his electorate? The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has given me a breakdown of the cost. For the Parkes electorate the cross-subsidisation is $508 for every telephone subscriber. Everyone in the honourable member's electorate currently is being subsidised at a rate of $508. Yet, what the honourable member for Parkes is doing in seconding the amendment is saying that we should have a much more rational basis and that this cross-subsidisation should not continue. As I have said, with a privatisation policy, each of his constituents would be disadvantaged to the tune of $508. (Quorum formed) It really does speak volumes for members of the Opposition that they have to call quorums continually and interrupt the proper procedures of the House in order to waste time. What they are concerned about-I would be too if I were on that side of the House-is the fact that every time a Government member gets up to speak on any Bill it always highlights the deficiencies of members of the Opposition. One thing we have never got from them-I do not think we ever will-is any matter of policy. When we talk about sales tax amendment Bills or any tax Bill at all, we never hear them deal with the following points: Firstly, we never hear them defend their record in government and the shonky tax system they used to peddle while they were in government; and, secondly, we never hear them talking about what they will do should they ever be returned to Government. The main reason they will not talk about the first point is that they are so ashamed of it. The system was so full of holes that the people of Australia eventually kicked them out because of it. The reason they will not talk about the second point-that is what they will do in the future-is that they do not know. As John Howard says: `We have got the policy, we just cannot make the numbers add up'. We know that members of the Opposition cannot make the numbers add up, because we know what the costings are. One of the great things about the Leader of the Opposition is that he can turn the inability to come out with a tax policy into a virtue. It is his big, new, secret tax policy. We all know that the Leader of the Opposition is holding off on the tax policy because once it sees the light of day and gets shot full of holes he will not be sitting in his seat very much longer. We are used to all these tactics and the calling of quorums. They show the basic deficiency in the Opposition. One thing that is upsetting the Opposition parties is the action of the Government following the May economic statement of which this legislation is just one part. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know that when the economic statement which was made very eloquently by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) hit the international money scene the dollar went up and interest rates went down. The money market accepted that this Government was taking the hard decisions that the Opposition had shirked for seven years. Not only that, the people in the electorate saw what the Government was doing; they saw that we were dinkum about getting government spending down; they saw that we were concerned about those people who could not look after themselves, such as pensioners and people on low incomes; and they saw that we were very constructive about the way in which we brought in changes to our policies. I cite the replacement of the unemployment benefit for 16- and 17-year-olds with the job incentive payment. It was a very much more constructive way of using taxpayers' money. That decision was accepted in the community. I received only two telephone calls and they were both to congratulate the Government. No wonder members of the Opposition are upset, no wonder they are calling quorum after quorum-they cannot stand having the facts spelt out to them. Let me just quote back some of the things members of the Opposition said about the size of the cuts demanded by them. These were the hairy-chested comments before the May statement. Mr Sinclair said that we would have to take at least $4 billion off in expenditure in the May statement. Mr Carlton, the Opposition spokesman on finance, also said that the cuts would have to be around $4 billion. Senator Short-I have never heard of Senator Short, but for some reason he has popped up in these quotes-also said the cuts should be $4 billion. What did the Government deliver? It delivered in excess of $4 billion. This Government has actually delivered what members of the Opposition were asking for. They are real cuts, not the shonky cuts that were brought in by members of the Opposition when they were in government. Let us talk a little more about the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill and some of the things it does specifically. First of all, it recognises for the first time that government instrumentalities run as business; they are commercial enterprises. Back in the good old days-I say `the good old days' for those people who can remember back that far-to when the Opposition was in government and no one cared much about spending-the Government could blow Budgets out. Nowadays, we have to bring Budgets back. Back in those good old days the Postmaster-General's Department looked after Telecom Australia and Australia Post. It was a government department, that is why it had a tax exempt status. The deficiency in its changeover to a commercial status was that it kept a tax exempt status. We have removed that to make sure that when it operates as a commercial enterprise it does so in exactly the same way as any commercial enterprise in the business community. I thought the dries at least would recognise the interference in the market of the policy of allowing a commercial enterprise to have a tax break over its would be competitors, but, no, we have not heard one word from the Opposition about that. A cross-subsidy was operating. Let us take Telecom and Australia Post-- Mr Ian Cameron —There is no cross-subsidy in Maranoa. Mr GEAR —The honourable member for Maranoa pops up. He is renowned for some of the most outrageous statements. When a person has a seat as safe as his, he can make the outrageous statements that the honourable member makes. When we talk about cross-subsidies he would know that everybody in his electorate who has a telephone is subsidised to the extent of $1,080. If he wants to tell people in the Maranoa electorate that he does not believe that they should have $1,080 subsidy from the taxpayers of Australia, he can go right ahead. If he will not do it, I will do it for him. This legislation will remove another cross-subsidy. Not everybody in Australia has a telephone or uses Telecom facilities, yet everybody in Australia through the taxation base is subsidising people with telephones. The effect is that 100 per cent of the population are subsidising a smaller percentage of the population using Telecom facilities. That is exactly the same for Australia Post. Businesses are big users of Australia Post compared with the average pensioner or people on low incomes who only post a Christmas card or one of two letters a year. We can see who is getting the cross-subsidy there. The proposal has some social progressivity if it is looked at in that light. The domestic producers of equipment bought by Telecom, Australia Post and other government instrumentalities benefit from the cross-subsidy effect. Overseas suppliers have benefited because Telecom and Australia Post do not have to pay sales tax on imported goods. This proposal will give domestic producers a much better chance of gaining the business of enterprises that are publicly run by the Government. This Bill also introduces a duty free shopping aspect. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has been swanning about the disadvantage of the poor old people who go overseas. We all know who goes overseas-it is not pensioners or people on low incomes, it is people on high incomes. They swan around Europe and all over the world two or three times a year and take advantage of all the tax rorts of duty free shopping. The people who are buying diamond rings, the big sparklers, are not pensioners. The honourable member for Mackellar was talking about the thriving, duty free jewellery industry. I will tell honourable members who was subsidising it-the taxpayers of Australia were subsidising it for the more affluent who were going overseas all the time and coming back with outrageous amounts of duty free goods. For the first time the Government has recognised that it should make the laws equal for everybody. Four hundred dollars to me seems an adequate amount. Mr Goodluck —Oh! Mr GEAR —There are moans from members of the Opposition. We expect moans from the Opposition. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) who claims to represent people on low incomes is moaning. Why is he moaning? The people down in Tasmania-- Mr Goodluck —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I take offence at that remark. I am allowed at least to sigh. Mr GEAR —The honourable member moans because I am telling the truth. Pensioners who pay their taxes are, through the income tax system, subsidising the people with the big sparklers-those who swan around Europe in Mercedes Benz cars. They get the benefit from duty free shopping, not pensioners and those on low incomes; yet the Opposition is moaning. We would not expect anything else from the Liberal Party of Australia. At least the proposed move is socially progressive; it recognises that when people go overseas there should be a limit on the amount of goods that they can bring back to Australia. Another aspect of the policy is that it provides an incentive for people to travel within Australia. One of the real advantages of going overseas rather than taking a holiday in Australia is the large amount of goods that people can buy duty free, at the expense of the taxpayer. Mr Blanchard —They can go to Tasmania. Mr GEAR —I have to point out to my colleague the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) that, unfortunately, Tasmania is still chained to Australia. There are no duty free concessions there, much as I would like them-and as would the Liberal Party because there are a few people down there with big sparklers. This policy is an incentive for people to spend their money in Australia. The House knows that this Government has, above all, put the highest priority on selling Australia overseas. Unlike the previous Government, we are proud of Australia. We honestly believe that people should see Australia and should not swan overseas because of the inducement of duty free goods. Mr Gayler —Hear, hear! Mr GEAR —I note that the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) is in the chamber. He comes from Cairns, one of the great tourist spots. He represents it very well. He knows that, above all else, this policy will ensure that more Australians see Cairns. Yet what does the Opposition say? It says: `Make it $1,000; lift the limit; give back all the benefits to the people on high incomes'. I am surprised that the honourable member for Franklin should go in to bat for people on high incomes and say: `Aah'. He should be saying that all the pensioners in Franklin, all the battlers, are subsidising the high earners. He should be voting with us to end the rort and to ensure that those who go overseas cannot rip off the system. The goods that they buy in the duty free shops are not Australian, they are Sanyo and Seiko and the other high quality goods from Japan. Mr Robert Brown —They all break down. Mr GEAR —Actually, they do not break down, because the Japanese produce very good goods. However, the fact is that that does nothing for Australian industry. At least now there will be social progressivity. The Government is ensuring that Australian money stays in Australia, and I do not know why the Liberal Party is opposing that. We have heard nothing from the Opposition about what it would do in government. It is nothing but a political jellyfish-no guts, no brains and no backbone. We will never hear anything from the Opposition about anything that it intends to do. It is reduced to calling quorums and hiding behind dubious statistics. I have no doubt that when the next Opposition member speaks, he will not tell us what the Opposition will do, but will bring up airy fairy statistics in an attempt to prove that the Government is the highest spender and the highest taxer. The Opposition can say that until the cows come home, but the facts speak for themselves-this government has done more than any other Government to ensure that the tax system is fair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I did not wish to interrupt the honourable member while he was speaking, but on a number of occasions he endeavoured to compromise the Chair by involving it in approval of the points that he was making. I do not think that that is an appropriate technique to use during debate. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.44) —I thank the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) for his invitation to prove, apparently with some airy fairy figures, that the Government is the biggest spender and biggest taxer in the history of Australia. The simple figures are that, in the last Fraser Budget-the only Budget inherited by the Government because it had to administer it for three months-expenditure was about $49 billion and taxation about $44 billion. The Budget about to be concluded four years later is raising $71 billion in taxation and is predicting expenditure of about $74.5 billion, but as is traditional with this Government-- Mr Gear —It is a bigger economy. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, it is a bigger economy-the Government borrowed $2.4 billion to make it a bigger economy. It has created a debt-led recovery for which every ordinary Australian is now paying the price of 20 per cent interest, when people in Japan are paying 3 per cent and 4 per cent and in America and the United Kingdom 6 per cent or 7 per cent interest for their home loans, compared with 15.5 in this country. That is the legacy of this Government's big spending. It is a pity that the honourable member for Canning has chosen to leave the chamber rather than be assailed by further statistics. Mr Gayler —What about the figures for local government? Mr TUCKEY —Is the honourable member talking about Mr Grace and his air conditioners? I will talk about that. If the honourable member keeps talking about local government, I will tell him how the Ombudsman treated one of his members. Let us return to the comments of the honourable member for Canning. He lectured us about pensioners. He suggested that this legislation, which will apply sales tax to returning passengers, would help them. I refer to `passengers' because I think that the honourable member is of the view that the only people that will be subject to the sales tax measures for overseas travellers are returning Australians. Of course they are not. As the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) made quite clear in his second reading speech, the effect of the legislation will be to allow passengers arriving in Australia a sales tax exemption for duty free goods up to a value of $400 for those aged 18 and over, and $200 for those under 18. In other words, under this legislation every person entering Australia cannot bring in goods to a value of more than $400 or they will be subject to the taxes of Australia-in this legislation, the sales tax. That will be quite interesting. Those passengers may be able to afford it-they may not be pensioners; they may be the rich sparkler-wearers which the honourable member for Canning mentioned. I have been a passenger to a foreign country and I wonder how much those visitors will welcome the bureaucratic nightmare that they will have to go through to get into this country. The honourable member for Canning said that the Government had been out selling Australia overseas. I suggest that passengers will be confronted with a barrage of computers. Their cases will be inspected not for drugs or the other items in which decent people do not deal, but to discover the value of their watches and whether they propose to leave them in the country. They might be forced to give numbers and other evidence in case they try to take them out of the country. I am not sure about the regulations because we have not yet been told how they will work. Those passengers will be confronted with a bureaucratic nightmare. The one thing that annoys incoming passengers, especially after long flights from countries such as America, is a queue to get into the country. We have all learned about those queues and millions of dollars have been spent trying to alleviate them. The Industries Assistance Commission, when considering the issue, said that the value of a visitor is what he spends when he is here-get the visitors through the turnstiles as quickly as possible. There will be a search for a mere $20m out of $7.5 billion expenditure-in fact, $8 billion next year. How can the proposed policy be applied without time delays? I remind the honourable member for Canning that I am referring to the visitors to Australia to whom he and his colleagues have supposedly been selling Australia, and who will be very cranky about the queues. They may decide to go to the very close duty free areas that they can walk through speedily, provided that they can cover the normal quarantine arrangements. Those are the issues that this Government overlooks in its grasping for the last cent to try to overcome the problem that it represents to Australia as expenditure cutting. That is not all that the honourable member said. He said that we were actually going to give back some taxes. How can taxes be given back when taxation collections have been increased by 61 per cent? He said something about a growing economy. The population of Australia has not increased by 61 per cent, and nor have the wages of the average Australian. He knows what his taxation position is. When we left office the average weekly earner with a couple of kids was paying 17.5 per cent of his wages in taxation. After all these tax cuts he is going to pay 20.5 per cent. Mr Gayler —What about the unemployed? Mr TUCKEY —The interjector asks me about the unemployed. His government's policies dealt with them. It has told 16- and 17-year-olds that they will not get any money any more. That is the Government's answer to the unemployed. It has given them that with these very measures. The honourable member for Canning was at pains to talk about the cross-subsidy and taxes on telephones and the ogre of privatisation. I am not here to debate the ogre of privatisation, but every time that I, as a rural member, hear people talk about cross-subsidy on telephones, I am reminded that it requires two telephones to make a phone call. All the revenues of capital cities would be substantially reduced if people were unable to phone country areas. We have these ridiculous figures brought forward, based purely on the revenue of competing city and country areas, without the recognition that the revenue is calculated at the point of making the phone call. Numerous long distance and expensive metropolitan phone calls are made to people in country areas, and that creates considerable revenue for the metropolitan areas. There is obviously a cross-subsidy, but there would be a heck of a lot less revenue for Telecom if it were unable to provide a service into country areas. The Liberal Party has no intention whatsoever of destroying that arrangement, whatever its plans for Telecom are. I personally think that the first stages of privatisation in Telecom will be to get more private activity within the organisation, more contracting and more encouragement of existing employees to become small businessmen and to earn a decent quid-to have the right for the first time in history to practice their skills as private businessmen. A worker who wants to leave Telecom, with its monopoly, and give himself a chance to have a bit more for his retirement by taking his superannuation and investing in a business is by law denied the right to practice his skills in private business. He has to buy a newsagency, a corner grocery store or a delicatessen, because he cannot get work in his trade other than as an employee for Telecom. I am not sure that that is what all the Telecom workers want, although I know it is what their trade union wants, because everyone who leaves to become a private businessman no longer provides a membership to swell the trade union coffers. The honourable member for Canning spoke a lot of rubbish. He complained about quorums. Quorums are applied by the Opposition in retaliation for the abuse of Question Time. Question Time is abused by this Government because it has no good news left. It has to come up with every question asked from its own side. Its whole back bench is regimented. The other day I congratulated the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) because he actually asked a question about some people, about some Vietnam veterans. He actually sought some information to help somebody. We rarely hear that from the Government's back bench. It is always serving up questions inviting the Government to attack the Opposition-never asking it to explain to Australia the benefits of the policies that it pursues. We know why that is. This Government has no good news left for Australia. It is purely trying to use the power of the numbers that it has in this place to divert public attention from its failings. Its failings are that it is still borrowing money and still spending too much money. This legislation is one of the greatest frauds of all, and that is the point that I wish to make. These Bills are part of the mini-Budget, the initial Budget measures for May 1987, presented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 13 May. These measures are very interesting because their basic plank, as the Treasurer explained, is that the Government is to save $4,000m by expenditure cuts. That is a pretty simple statement. Most Australians could understand that. But when we read the fine print how do we find the $4,000m is made up? Firstly, we are to sell some of the family jewels. One thousand million dollars of Australian's assets, paid for by their taxes, are to be sold to finance current expenditure. I have already pointed out that the Government has borrowed an additional $24,000m, but we are not going to use the $1,000m to pay any of that debt; we are going to use it to finance next year's current expenditure-that is, if we can get the money in. That is $1,000m out of $4,000m. The next $1,000m, as was established yesterday, is to be gained by reducing the grants to our State governments. I am not necessarily complaining about that. I think if a government genuinely reduces its expenditure it is entitled to ask other levels of government to take a pro rata cut. But what we do not know yet is what the State governments have to do. When I have to pay my taxes to the State Government or to local government, it hurts just as much as when I have to pay them to the Federal Government. The dollars are equally real. It is a joke to suggest that, this Government having taken all that away from the State governments, if they go out and raise additional taxes to finance things they will be better off. We do not know about that as a tax cutting measure or, for that matter, as an expenditure cutting measure, because the State governments may go on spending the money and in fact, in the end, raise more money by imposing additional taxes. That accounts for half of the Treasurer's $4,000m. We have not struck any genuine cuts in expenditure yet. Then we deal with the provisions of this legislation. This legislation proposes to impose sales tax on certain Commonwealth authorities, of which the most notable are Australia Post, Telecom Australia, the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority, the Army and Air Force Canteen Service, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island and the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. I do not say that those particular organisations should not be taxed. Particularly where they compete with other organisations that are taxed, I think it reasonable that they be asked to be taxed on an equal footing. The point I make is that they are consumer based organisations that happen to be owned by the Government and they will naturally have to pass that tax burden on to the consumer, namely the Australian taxpayer. Of course, the telephone is now not a preserve of the wealthy. It is argued that a telephone is something unemployed people must have, if only to gain an opportunity to get employment. We are told by Mr Brack of Telecom that Telecom needs an extra 3c a telephone call, a 17 per cent increase in revenue, to handle this situation. We are told that the Government is not sure whether it will get that. It will probably be a 2c increase, which is still a very substantial increase in the cost of a telephone call. I put it to the House that it will have an additional relative effect on people in rural areas because they infrequently have the opportunity to make a `local call'. Many of the calls charged at 30c are monitored to just three minutes, after which the caller pays an additional cost even if it is a form of local call. These people will pay dearly for that. We are told, in these measures that the cost of this increase is of the order of $395m in 1988-89 and $310m in 1987-88, but there are additional measures, not referred to in this legislation, which take that tax burden up to $500m. I have not yet listed any expenditure cuts for which the Treasurer and this Government have any responsibility, and we are down to $1,500m. Then we find how some of the cuts are to apply. There is a substantial cut in defence spending of $350m. I might say, considering the volatility of our region, as demonstrated to us in recent weeks, that now may not be the time for the Australian Government to be reducing the manpower and the operations of our defence structure. We are told that defence expenditure is not going to be cut in the capital works area. We are apparently going to have our you-beaut new FA18s and our you-beaut new submarines, but there is some doubt as to whether there will be any diesel to put into the submarines or any fuel to put into the FA18s. As we confront our highly skilled servicemen with these sorts of problems, they are leaving in droves. The next problem we will have is to design some sort of auto-pilot for our FA18s so that we can get them out to confront the enemy. I do not think that that is a very wise cut. As honourable members can see, the mini-Budget is a fraud. I am astounded to hear the big business community of Australia lauding it when the simple facts are that we are looking at $1.5 billion of cuts against forward Estimates. The cuts have not been made against the relative figures for this year. As I have just identified, we know that we will have increased taxation. Of course, the Treasurer is pretty cunning. He talked about the deficit that we would have next year. A deficit is the money that a government borrows, using our kids as security, to fund the difference between what it spends and what it taxes. He says that we will only have a Budget deficit of less than one per cent of gross domestic. That is very helpful to all Australians, and the Treasurer knows it. People do not know what GDP is, and one per cent does not sound like very much. I tell those who are listening tonight that one per cent of GDP represents a figure of about $3,000m. That should be compared with the $3,500m that the Treasurer said he would borrow in this current year and the $4,500m he said he would borrow for the previous year. Let me tell honourable members that those figures that he gave us were only indicative. The reality was that whereas last year he estimated he would borrow $4,919m, he actually borrowed $5,726m-an overrun of a mere $807m. Of course, this year we are told that his estimate of $3,500m of borrowings has increased to $4,000m-an increase of $500m, most of it represented by interest costs. Why is this so? It is because this Government's policy has made Australia unique in the world regarding its interest costs. We have never been in this situation before. Previously, when international rates were up, our rates were up; and when the international rates were down, ours were down. At this time they are down internationally-the world is awash with money-but ours are sky high. That is due to this Government's policy. That is the point we must make. It is absolutely ridiculous for the Government to try to tell us that these measures represent some sort of price cutting. They are additional taxes on Australians and, to a limited degree, on visitors coming to Australia. That does not sound very smart. I repeat in that regard that the worst problem is the inconvenience that this mechanism will apply to Australians. Of course, we should therefore oppose it. The Government is foolish. The Opposition is not opposing it. We have moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading, which I support wholeheartedly. Let me also tell honourable members, in the last couple of minutes remaining to me, about the growth of indirect taxation in this country under this Government. In 1983-84-it is a pity that the honourable member for Canning is not present to hear this-we raised $14,848m in indirect taxation. Of course, this sales tax adds to indirect taxation. This year, in 1986-87, we are raising $20,080m-a substantial increase. Of course, this means that over 30 per cent of all taxes raised in Australia are now raised by indirect means. When we look at fuel excise, in particular, we find that the growth has been dramatic. Over four years fuel excise has increased from $1,293m in 1982-83 to an estimated $5,644m in 1986-87. I believe that, if we add other forms of taxes, the cost of fuel this year-the stuff that ordinary, poor people have to use to gain their entertainment-will be about $7,000m. Excise growth alone over those four years has been 186 per cent. People have been taxed through the back door. Of course, this is just another mechanism. The Government taxes the statutory authorities and then says: `Blame Telecom because it has put its prices up'. The Government does not have the courage. It tells people that it is reducing taxation when it is increasing it dramatically. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(6.05) —We are tonight debating the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1987 which effectively increases the rate of tax paid by Australians-Australian businesses and Australian families. Mr Porter —No wonder the Government cannot find speakers on it. Mr BLUNT —As the honourable member for Barker has rightly pointed out, there are no more Government speakers. A couple of Government members are having a chat, but the Government benches are empty. The place is devoid of Government members. It cannot even supply a matching of speakers for the remainder of the debate. That is not surprising. I do not think if I were a member of the Government that I would be too keen to defend legislation which will have the impact of instantaneously, almost, increasing Telecom Australia charges and the cost of a postage stamp, and reducing the ability of Australians travelling overseas to bring in duty free goods. They are really fairly petty taxes. It is a technique that has been perfected by the Australian Labor Party throughout this country-that is, to introduce tax measures which are disguised in the way in which they impact on the consumer and on the business community. This is a continuation of a totally unsatisfactory tax system. If we cast our minds back to the bold and, might I say, hairy-chested statements of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) before the so-called Tax Summit a couple of years ago, he talked about option C, the need to rationalise the Australian tax system, to have consistency and a comprehensive policy. Simon Crean and Bill Kelty nobbled him. He did not get option C. He did not get anything that could be described as a coherent tax policy. He got a bit of option A, a bit of option B and not much of option C. For political reasons he had to do something about the oppressive and incentive destroying rates of marginal income tax in this country. There was a need somehow to prop up the revenue, because this Government is profligate in its expenditure. Despite the mini-Budget and despite all the rhetoric, it is not capable of reducing government expenditure. We have had what the Treasurer euphemistically describes as a progressive broadening of the wholesale sales tax base. That really means that business and consumers will pay more for things, that taxes will be indirect, and that they will be disguised. This Government several years ago adopted a leaf out of the book of the then Premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran, who decided that the best way to raise revenue for his Government was to do it in a way that the average voter did not see. He decided that one of two things could be done: One could index rates of government charges and taxes so that every time the consumer price index went up, so did the State Government's revenue. Treasurer Keating, who comes from New South Wales and is a keen student of political technique, if not sound economic practice, decided that if it was good enough for his colleague and friend in the New South Wales Right, as part of the ALP machine in that State, it was good enough for him. We had the indexation of a couple of Commonwealth excises. The first excise that was indexed was the excise on fuel, followed very closely by the excise on beer. The excise on beer hits the average Labor voter. I am told that statistically more Labor voters drink beer than do people who vote for parties on this side. That may not be true of National Party voters, but it could possibly be true of Liberal Party voters. The impact of the automatic indexation of the excise on fuel was absolutely horrific. It was the precursor of what we are debating tonight. The automatic indexation of the excise on fuel fed into the system an increase in the CPI. Fuel is a very important cost component of the Australian economy. It affects people throughout the community, particularly people who live in country areas, because freight is a very large component of the cost of goods that they buy, and fuel is a very significant component of the cost of freight. We now have an ever increasing spiral in the CPI, because the Government has taken one CPI indexed figure and has said: `We will increase the cost of fuel by that amount'. So the cost of fuel goes up. It is an extra cost to the productive process. It has to be passed on because there is a limit to what business can absorb. The final consequence is that the consumer pays more for it. Of course, when we measure the CPI we measure the increase of the cost of goods that is caused by the indexing of the excise. That is contained in this legislation. There has been a decision to impose sales tax on government instrumentalities. The most notable ones are Telecom Australia and Australia Post. The cost of making telephone calls is significant, not only for consumers-end consumers, people who buy telephone services as a retail product-but also for business, particularly businesses which need to make STD calls. The proportionate increase in Telecom charges for businesses which make STD calls will be perhaps greater than for the average family. It will have two impacts. One impact is that the cost of doing business in Australia on the telephone and on other Telecom provided services will go up. Business has already felt the `tax business and hide it from the consumer' approach of this Government. We have seen it with the fringe benefits tax, we have seen it with a number of other taxes, and now we are seeing it with this wholesale sales tax. So the cost of doing business will go up; the cost of telephoning charges will go up. The cost cannot be absorbed because business profitability is under pressure; so it will go to the consumers in terms of increased prices for goods and services. The consumers will pay it there and they will also pay it when they make their own private calls. The cost will go up considerably. People who are on limited fixed incomes will also be affected disproportionately. The Government has made great play about how the pensioners of Australia have made enough sacrifices and how they can confidently expect that their pensions will go up in line with consumer price index increases. That CPI index for pensions is in arrears and pensioners will, from the very day that this Telecom increase comes into effect, be paying a higher rate for their telephone charges. As a proportion of their expenditure, the cost of a telephone for pensioners and low income people in Australia is significantly higher than it is for people on average weekly earnings or higher. It means that for at least three and possibly six months they will be paying a higher rate of tax than they normally would have been and their standard of living will be reduced significantly. There is a fundamental problem with taxing on the basis that this legislation proposes. Australia is an exporting nation. We have a significant balance of trade and balance of payments problem. The Government talks about the J-curve and the need to restore competitiveness and our capacity to export. But it persists in introducing taxes on business which distort the allocation of resources in this country and increase the costs of production. Until we recognise that there is a need to have a tax system in this country that does not distort the allocation of resources and does not increase the cost of the goods produced by Australian businesses that either have to be exported directly or are part of an input to another company's export process, we will never achieve competitiveness. We have to have a tax system that is truly neutral in terms of resource allocation. Until we get to that system we will not be able to compete effectively on an international basis. There is a need for a review and a rationalisation of, and a consistency within, our tax system. There is, of course, a need to move away from the reliance on direct taxes, but we have to move away on a rational basis. I am told that there are only six people who understand what the sales tax law in Australia is all about and what it means. That does not surprise me because I am told that there are some 25 pieces of legislation which impose sales tax in Australia. Anyone who has seen the Income Tax Assessment Act knows that that in itself is complex enough. The complexity that must be involved in 25 individual pieces of legislation imposing sales tax in Australia is beyond my comprehension. I certainly do not profess to understand how it works. But I do know that it is riddled with inconsistencies and inequities. My colleague the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) who spoke before me highlighted-- Mr McGauran —An excellent member. Mr BLUNT —He is an excellent member who is doing a first class job. Although his time was limited, unfortunately, he highlighted some of the inconsistencies. The wholesale sales tax applies tax at 10 per cent, 20 per cent and 30 per cent. There are arbitrary applications of that tax right throughout the system. Different snack foods are taxed at different rates. Different brands of similar biscuits are taxed at different rates. Toys incorporating-this is a classic-musical movements are taxed at a higher rate than are toys without musical movements. What I find most interesting is that individual maps attract tax but books of maps-maps bound together-do not attract tax. Towels made of cloth are taxed at one rate and if they are made of paper they are taxed at a lower rate. Biros and pens are taxed at a higher rate than are pencils and highlighters. Ornaments are taxed at a higher rate than are souvenirs. The list goes on and on. Until we address the inconsistencies of the system and recognise its impact on the business economy generally, we will never achieve any sort of rationality in our tax system. When talking about the cost of Government decisions on business it is appropriate to consider the approach that this Government has adopted in the mini-Budget. It has said that there is a need for expenditure restraint. I agree wholeheartedly. It is a pity that we did not see any from the Government. What we saw was a very careful manipulation of figures and a very clever passing of the buck. There was a Premiers Conference in this chamber yesterday at which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer called upon the State Premiers to exercise restraint. They said something along the lines of: `We will cut the amount of funds to which you will have access and we want you to tighten your belts two or three notches. The one thing we don't want you to do is to increase taxes or charges because that would not be fair and it would have an impact on standards of living and on the consumer price index. We want you to take a leaf out of our book and show restraint'. We see an example of the Government's restraint in this legislation. It has passed the buck on to Telecom which will now pass the buck on to consumers and businesses. I will show the House how much influence the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have on the Premiers. Today in the New South Wales Parliament the Labor Premier of New South Wales, Mr Unsworth, talked about the decisions his Government will take as a result of the cuts imposed upon him and his fellow Premiers at the Premiers Conference. He said that transport fares will have to go up, that electricity charges will have to go up, that business tariffs will have to be reviewed at a different rate from domestic rates. That again is an example of the Labor Party's approach. I think it is very anti-business. It charges one rate of electricity tariff in New South Wales for domestic consumers and a higher rate for business users simply because the business users can then pass on that extra cost in extra retail prices. It will not be seen as a Government tax or charge. It will be seen as a business cost, a cost of buying a particular good or service and not what it really is, a differential rate of tax. We also see that with Telecom. Telecom charges one rate for private telephones and another rate for business telephones. If that is not a tax on business and on profit I do not know what is. The Premier of New South Wales announced-and it is no surprise to any of us-that hospital charges will have to go up. I do not know what that will do to average Australians in detail, but I know what their reaction will be. They know that Medicare is a disaster. They know that they are paying 1 1/4 per cent of their incomes on Medicare. They know that in New South Wales one cannot get into a hospital so one has to have private health insurance to have any sort of security in terms of providing medical care or health care for one's family. The Premier of New South Wales knows that underpinning any decision he takes in terms of health charges will be an increase in hospital charges in New South Wales. That is the way this Government goes. It takes decisions. It tries to hide the impact of those decisions and slips them in under the rug. It tries to get business to pass on the cost of its decisions to consumers because it knows that in terms of the ballot box impact it is better to hide the tax underneath a price rather than expose it for what it really is, which is a tax imposed by Government. The legislation which we are also considering tonight changes the entitlement of Australians to bring duty free goods back into the country when they have been overseas. As my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) moved an amendment to this, I say, on behalf of the National Party, that we support that amendment. We want to make a few observations about it. The recommendation is contrary to an Industries Assistance Commission report. The IAC recommended that the concession should be fixed at $1,000. The Government has brought in legislation that fixes it at $A400. That is roughly $US280. That does not buy one very much overseas. It includes the tobacco and liquor concession. There is an exemption, of course, for clothing because officers of the Australian Customs Service have said that they will not be able to determine whether people bought the clothing in Australia or overseas. I add that that will apply to many things. I do not know how they will determine whether a watch was bought in Australia or overseas, particularly if the box that it came in is thrown away. It can apply to jewellery and quite a number of other goods. It will also provide an incentive for people to do a deal in Hong Kong, or wherever they buy their goods and services, to get a receipt that writes down the value of purchases. Customs officers will be turned into tax assessors. They will have a book of assessed values, and if receipt values do not line up there will be the spectacle of travellers who get off overnight flights arguing about whether their receipts are valid and whether they have paid fair prices for the goods that they are bringing in. That will do one thing: It will increase the delays of getting into this country. We have inadequate airport terminals already. Anyone who has arrived at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport early in the morning when six or seven 747 aircraft arrive and who has to wait in the queue going back into the tunnel to get through customs and immigration knows exactly what sort of greeting we offer tourists coming into Australia. People die in that tunnel. People have actually died while waiting to get into Australia after getting off their plane. The stress of flying over the ocean overnight places some pressure on them. They get off the plane, walk down the tunnel, see the queue and some of them never put foot on Australian soil. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) smiles, but it happens to be true. I have actually resisted putting a question on notice about this because I do not want to highlight the fact. It is a fact that, because this Government has failed for many years-it has been in office now for four years-to do anything about access to Australia by upgrading terminals, by not allowing people who want to do that work to do it and by not addressing the question of curfews and more runways at Sydney Airport, we have a major problem building. This decision to restrict the amount of goods in dollar values that people can bring into the country will exacerbate the problem. It will also have another impact. I mentioned earlier that Customs officers will be de facto tax collectors. I thought that one of their main jobs was to prevent the introduction of contraband into Australia-not only narcotics but also goods which threaten our quarantine laws. If Customs officers are busy checking the value of a watch being worn by a tourist or assessing the value of a compact disc player or cassette player, how much time will they spend looking for illegal products, dangerous goods and narcotics-the things which are corrupting our country? While making changes to inbound duty free shopping, why not do it properly? There is an Industries Assistance Commission report which makes a number of recommendations. Some time ago-and I agree with this change-the Government decided that people could buy certain goods duty free after leaving their aircraft but before going through Customs. Initially the goods were limited to alcohol, tobacco and perfume. It was decided that at a later date these would be expanded to the full range of duty free goods. While the Government is fiddling around with duty free concessions, why does it not make a wholehearted change? It would be far more significant to allow people to purchase on leaving an aircraft in Australia some of the hi-fi and hi-tech equipment, bringing jobs associated with the warehousing, selling and servicing of those goods in Australia rather than require people still to buy them overseas. It is logical, if the Government is to change duty free requirements, to be consistent. However, this Government does not do anything consistently-it does things on an ad hoc basis, with an eye to the revenue, and it makes changes because it feels that it can raise an extra $20m here or $5m there or that it can impose another tax which can be slipped into a price to be paid by the consumer. The reality is that at the present time the average Australian family, as a result of this Government's economic policies and its tax policies, is $31 a week worse off than it was in March 1983. As a result of the mini-Budget and the legislation that we are considering tonight consumers will be even further behind. If we go out into the street or into a supermarket and ask the average person whom we meet-the average woman pushing a shopping trolley, the average person having a drink in a hotel-whether that person is better off under the Hawke-Keating Government than under the previous Government, we will hear a resounding answer: `No, we are worse off and we know we are worse off'. People know that petrol and cars cost more, that interest rates on mortgages are higher and that rents are up, and they know that they cannot afford to take a holiday or go overseas-with these changes it will probably not be worthwhile going overseas any more. This Government has launched a wholesale attack on the living standards of Australian families. The first target was pensioners through the assets test, and then it moved to families. It is all done to finance the Government's expenditure policies which are designed to buy votes, to curry the favour of the interest groups, to give a sectional advantage and to try to convince some kinky, off-beat group that, if it votes Labor, it will receive a grant and will be able to continue to indulge its personal idiosyncrasies at the expense of the average taxpayer while the average Australian family and average Australian workers pay higher taxes-not just income taxes but taxes which are showing up more and more in the cost of the goods and services that they buy every day. Sitting suspended from 6.25 to 8 p.m. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(8.00) —I am pleased to resume the debate after the dinner break. This Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill represents another horrific increase in taxation that this Labor Government has brought upon us. The Government seems intent on having an early election. I note that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr Brown) has just arrived-and just in time, because otherwise we would have called for a quorum. I challenge the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-in the House today he threatened to call an early election-to take us to the polls, and the sooner the better. The people can decide who should be governing this country, whether it be the high tax party-the Labor Party-or the National Party and the Liberal Party, which are prepared to reduce taxation and government involvement in private enterprise in this country. They are prepared to smash taxes and get Australia back on the rails, to get it going again. I know that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism is doing a good job in tourism; he is the sort of person who would support these sorts of ideas. But what do we we see? We see this Government introducing new taxation measures that will affect people who wish to bring into the country a few little duty free goods when they return from overseas trips. Once in a lifetime they go overseas. They save up for 30 years, they travel overseas, and they want to do a bit of shopping. But what do we see the Labor Government introducing? It is imposing higher duties on the average Australian. People want to get into a jumbo jet and do a bit of touring, but what do we see? When they come back, they can bring in goods to the value of only $400. What would $400 buy? It would not buy one transistor radio at today's prices. What a disgrace! The limit has been reduced from $1,000 to $400. Australia Post, Telecom Australia, Aussat Pty Ltd, Qantas Airways Ltd, the Australian Wool Corporation, the Australian Honey Board, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the Australian Wheat Board, the Australian Tobacco Board and the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation-all these government instrumentalities will now have to pay sales tax. Is it not ludicrous that governments impose sales tax on their own corporations? That is the ridiculous situation that this Government has got us into. The Government is indirectly collecting taxes through its own corporations. The Government puts out its tentacles into the community to raise taxes. Telecom and Australia Post are two of the instrumentalities that will be hit hardest. In addition, there will be an increase in duty on the importation of goods by tourists coming into Australia. I point out that there are actually no duty free shops in Australia, because it is not duty that we pay on goods but sales tax. It is high time that both sides considered changing the names of those shops. I often question so-called duty free shop proprietors about the fact that no duty is paid and that they receive an exemption from sales tax. It is interesting to see that the only member of the Government in the House at present is the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, who is sitting at his desk. Mr McGauran —There are no others. Mr IAN CAMERON —No other Labor member is prepared to come into the House and support this new taxation measure that the Government has introduced, yet those opposite want us to campaign and to go to the polls. Not one member opposite is in here supporting this measure. It is absolutely ridiculous! I also wish to offer some praise. On Sunday I was fortunate enough to attend with my family an open day at the new Brisbane Airport. I must say that the planners, the workers and those involved in building that enormous structure should be congratulated. I suggest that the Brisbane international airport be moved to the new domestic terminal, because there will be plenty of room at one end to operate the international terminal for, I foresee, at least the next 20 years. The airport is a huge building and will cater for many years for the domestic needs of people in and around Brisbane. Mr Gear —That is because the Minister-- Mr IAN CAMERON —I am not saying it was the Minister; the airport was started under the Fraser Government. I do not know for how long this Government has been in office. The airport took seven or eight years to build, so obviously it was the Liberal-National Party Government that decided that Brisbane needed a new airport. Brisbane needed something better than the igloos that are presently there. We have been pushing for a new international-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I am reluctant to interrupt the honourable member, but I bring him back to the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill. I cannot find a reference to the Brisbane Airport in that Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —I agree with your ruling, Madam Speaker, but I point out that the Bill covers the duty on goods that are brought into Australia through international airports. Madam SPEAKER —It is a long bow that the honourable member is drawing from duty on goods to Brisbane Airport. Mr IAN CAMERON —Madam Speaker, you know that I always draw a long bow, but I usually hit the target, and that is the important thing to remember. One must have a strong right arm. As long as the bow comes back and one hits the target in the end, that is the main thing. I am pretty good at getting the numbers. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair would not like to have to consider a point of order on the grounds of irrelevancy. Mr IAN CAMERON —Madam Speaker, I will continue by referring to Telecom. This Government has imposed more horrendous indirect taxes on Telecom. The Government is continuing to use the corporations that have been established over many years. Once upon a time Australia Post and the telecommunications service of this country were paid for entirely from Consolidated Revenue. Since then all these corporations-- Mr Gear —Do you want to go back to that? Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, I would like to, because we paid an awful lot less tax in those days than we pay at present. With taxes at about 25 or 28 per cent of gross domestic product-and that is now up to 45 per cent-we could finance those bodies 100 per cent from Consolidated Revenue. We now see the Government using corporations that have been established for a number of years-Telecom, Australia Post and all the other corporations to which I have referred-to raise more income. I must say that the so-called May mini-Budget was an absolute farce, because it represents nothing but an approximate $3.5 billion increase in taxation. We have seen the State Premiers, after the Premiers Conference on Monday, return to their respective States to raise another $1 billion. Mr Hand —What is Bjelke-Joh doing? Mr IAN CAMERON —He will have to do the same thing; the honourable member should not worry about that. He will have to go back and raise taxes in Queensland because of the policies that this Government in Canberra is imposing. That is what the Premiers have to do; it applies not only to Sir Joh but to every Labor State. How honourable members opposite think they can go to an election in July and win is beyond my thinking. They will not do it, because the States will have to turn around and collect another $1 billion in tax because of the mismanagement of the economy. Honourable members opposite say that this Bill, which represents part of the May statement, will reduce the deficit by $4 billion. That is a lot of hogwash! It will not do that at all. These Bills represent new taxes totalling approximately half a billion dollars, which all Australians will have to pay. I am here to represent the electors of Maranoa and to express the concerns of my constituents and of many other electors from districts such as Farrer, Gippsland and other rural areas that still have not been provided with STD telephones. The Government has increased Telecom's taxation by $81m; loan repayments that Telecom must make to the Government have been increased by $81m. Sales tax will be applied to a level of $360m. Telecom will have to increase its charges for telephone calls and rents. Even worse, it has to cut back on its capital expenditure. These are the areas which affect electorates such as Maranoa in Queensland, where an STD program is in operation, but where many people do not have any telephone at all. Yet this Government has seen fit to impose charges which will restrict the capital works of Telecom Australia. It will have to go out and borrow more funds in order to keep this program going. Even the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has told Telecom that it cannot do this and that its borrowings will be restricted. Of course, the STD program has been decreased quite markedly. Although the present program will continue, the completion time for the new program, which both governments promised would be completed by 1990, when everybody would have an STD telephone, has been extended by this Government. I think that that is a disgrace. The telephones are a matter on which I would like the Government to go to the polls. If it thinks that it can defer this program for two, three or four years, it has no hope of winning Maranoa. I do not care when those opposite go to the polls; they have no hope of winning Maranoa. How could the Government win at the next election when, having made promises to the people in relation to the telecommunications system of Australia, which is operated by a monopoly, the people now find that they have to wait another two, three or four years to get an STD telephone? I believe that that is a disgrace. Telecom is doing a good job in my electorate. It has STD in certain areas such as the Bungunya and Talwood areas, which recently received the service. The first digital concentrator program opened in the northern end of my electorate around Springsure. Those telephones are working very well and I believe that Telecom should be congratulated. The digital concentrator system, which was developed in Australia, is a very good system and is being manufactured and exported to other parts of the world. On the whole, I think that Telecom does an excellent job. Obviously, there is room for improvement in some areas and it is the intention of the National Party of Australia to put out to contract some of the cable laying and other work performed by Telecom. I do not think that it hurts to privatise some of the sectors. Mr Cobb —A bit of competition. Mr IAN CAMERON —A bit of competition. Telecom is now one of the biggest employers of personnel in Australia. I suppose that Telecom and Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd would rank on the same level. In 1975 a three-minute call from Brisbane to Melbourne cost $2.70 and in 1987 that same three-minute call from Brisbane to Melbourne cost $1.80. I think that is a very good indication of how Telecom has managed to keep its costs under control. Government, and in particular this Government, is using Telecom as a tentacle for increased taxes in this country. This year the Australian Labor Party intends to raise $1 billion from Telecom through taxation. This will be achieved by the sorts of measures that I have mentioned. In addition Telecom has to pay the Government $600m in interest on loans, and other changes in the mini-Budget or May economic statement raise the figure the Government will receive from Telecom to $1 billion. These are the sorts of indirect tax measures which this Government continues to impose. It is the highest taxing and highest borrowing government that this nation has ever seen. It is beyond my imagination how it thinks that it can go to the polls in July and win. I believe that when it goes to the polls-we would welcome an election, and the sooner the better-it will be defeated. There is no way that it will win the coming election. If it continues to impose the sort of taxes which are contained in this legislation it will lose. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.16) —As is the tradition of this House, I thank all honourable members who have taken part in the debate. The Government rejects the Opposition's second reading amendment. There are many good reasons why this should be done. The amendment refers to the adverse impact on ordinary families and businesses, as well as on farm costs, of increases in telephone and postal charges. As the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) pointed out in the debate, this Government does not believe that public enterprises need in any way to be feather-bedded. They do not need to receive an advantage that is not available to any enterprise of a commercial nature in the private sector. They can, and should, provide their share of the taxation revenue to the Government, and this measure does just that. The Government is progressively ensuring that public enterprises compete on an equal footing with private enterprises. I repeat that we believe that a public enterprise with duties and operations of a commercial nature should not have any advantage over a similar enterprise in the private sector. We believe in public enterprise. We believe that it is efficient and can be even more efficient. We do not believe that it needs feather-bedding. As the honourable member for Charlton and the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) pointed out in this debate, it is the ultimate hypocrisy for members of the Opposition to talk about increases in farm costs arising from this Bill. They would privatise many of our public enterprises, enterprises which provide substantial amounts of revenue to the Government and which serve the community rather than a small group of private vested interests. Those opposite would eliminate the cross-subsidies to rural users of telephone and postal services. Under the policies of honourable members opposite telephone and postal charges would rise to prohibitive levels. This gives some indication of the needless nitpicking of the Opposition's second reading amendment and some idea as to why the Government rejects it. As a government we want to end on a positive note. Obviously, the measures in this Bill must be seen in the context of the May economic statement. The Government recognises that the current economic situation requires budgetary restraint. There has been a $9 billion body blow to our country. A sum of $9 billion has been written off our export income because of factors that are totally beyond our control. The May statement has reduced the Budget deficit for 1987-88 by more than $4 billion. That has been necessary not only to reduce the pressures on the Australian capital market and to reduce the long term rate of interest, but also to make some impact on the onerous interest charges which are now accruing from the large amount of borrowing that the Government has had to undertake over recent years. Indeed, a cut in government spending at this time has also been necessary in order to have an impact on imports-to reduce imports-and to play a part in stimulating exports. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said, these measures mark the culmination of the most intensive and exhaustive review of Commonwealth programs in living memory. The measures in this May statement reduce the growth rate in government spending to its lowest level in 30 years. We recognise that some of these measures are tough and difficult. But any other budgetary policy would be economically irresponsible at this time. We are obliged to follow the responsible path. I repeat that we have had $9 billion written off our export income. The process of economic reconstruction which is now under way requires tough measures such as the ones contained in this Bill. By contrast, the Opposition has no economic policy whatsoever. What a tragic event was the response from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to the May economic statement. It is tragic for the country that we have such paucity of thought emanating from the Opposition at this time. I believe that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) is looked upon as the intellectual base of the Opposition. If that is so, it is no wonder that we have so little coming from that side of the House. Opposition members say that they would cut expenditure further. But they refuse to tell the Australian public where they would cut it. In his reply to the May statement, the Leader of the Opposition refused to present any kind of alternative strategy. The measures in this Bill will lead to reductions in the Budget deficit of $330m in 1987-88 and $416m in 1988-89. The Opposition's amendment is merely a smokescreen to hide the lack of any kind of alternative policy. Opposition members are quite happy to come into the House and shed crocodile tears about various measures that the Government has the responsibility to introduce. But they do not tell us how they would reduce the Budget deficit. In short, the measures contained in this Bill give effect to two decisions announced by the Treasurer in the May economic statement. The withdrawal of the sales tax exemption for certain Commonwealth authorities carrying on commercial functions will ensure that those authorities are not placed at a commercial advantage over their private sector counterparts. Changes to the sales tax law to vary the concessions available to passengers arriving from overseas are complementary to changes being made to the customs duty passenger concessions. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Carlton's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— 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, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. 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. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Conquest, B. J. Shack, P. D. Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F. Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC. Drummond, P. H. Slipper. P. N. Edwards, Harry Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, D. J. H. Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C. Hawker, D. P. M. Hayden, W. G. Webster, A. P. Staples, P. R. Moore, J. C. Dawkins, J. S. Fife, W. C. Gorman, R. N. J. Everingham, P. A. E. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PORTER(Barker)(8.31) —The Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill implements decisions announced in the mini-Budget. That mini-Budget came about as a result of this Government's gross economic mismanagement. The mini-Budget is evidence that the chickens are starting to come home to roost. The Government has implemented a massive spending program. As a result of its economically incompetent management, inflation has increased greatly; interest rates, the deficit and taxes are up, and there has been a general economic slow-down. The international community has passed its judgment on this Government's economic management. It has downgraded our credit rating from AAA to AA. When this Government came to office, the dollar was worth $US1 or thereabouts. It is now worth 70-odd cents. Now, after all that we have said to the Government-that it cannot undertake this massive spending program without its having an inflationary impact, without its increasing taxes and the deficit-at long last the message has got through. The Government has now said that it realises it was wrong and after years of extravagance it introduced a mini-Budget to cut spending. What does the Government target to cut? It targets families with children, the young unemployed, the sick, invalids, sole parents, widows and other welfare beneficiaries. The Government says that they are the ones who should suffer because of its previous incompetent economic management. Did the Government cut funds from the Commission for the Future, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Constitutional Commission? No. The Government is much more interested in taking money away from families with children, the young unemployed, invalids, widows and sole parents. This Government has been cutting incomes of families and widows instead of the Commission for the Future. Where is the social justice in that? The Australian Labor Party pretends to stand for social justice. It pretends to stand for social justice and equity. It is quite clear from the mini-Budget brought down a week or so ago that there is no social justice emanating from this Government. It has cut benefits to those in most need. The result of the Government's policies is a very inequitable situation where the poorest members of our society, those least able to look after themselves, now have the worst health service they have ever had. One hundred thousand people are queuing for public hospital beds. More than 160,000 people are waiting in queues for public housing. Those people, more than ever before, are seeking public housing accommodation as a result of this Government's policies. The Bill introduces, for the first time, a means test on the family allowance. The Government said that, initially, the means test will apply only to families with incomes over $50,000. What is in store? What does the future hold for the family allowance? Real Commonwealth Government cuts in the recent mini-Budget were around $1 billion. The Government talks about a $4 billion saving, but many of the cuts will occur in other areas, such as cutting funds to the States, selling assets and delaying next year's expenditure to the following year. The real cut in Commonwealth spending is about $1 billion. It is quite clear that more cuts are needed. The Government has started by means testing the family allowance for families earning over $50,000. Inevitably, in the Budget-if the Government is still in office at the time of the Budget-it will have to make further cuts. There is no doubt that the means testing of the family allowance is the thin end of the wedge. When the Government needs more money, and indeed it will if it maintains its stupid spending programs on things such as the Commission for the Future, it will have to find it. It is odds on that the family allowance will be in for more cuts. The measure clearly indicates this Government's social objectives. From 1 July the Government is to bring in tax cuts. After the massive increases in taxes, the Government says that it had better give a bit back, so from 1 July it will introduce some tax cuts. It is interesting to consider the impact of those tax cuts on families when the cut in the family allowance is also taken into account. After the tax cuts on 1 July, a married couple without children earning $28,000 each will receive a tax cut of $10 a week. A two-income family on the same income, $28,000 each, with two children will receive the same tax cut-that is, $10 a week. However, that couple will lose $13 a week as a result of the means testing of the family allowance. In other words, after the tax cuts on 1 July and as a result of the recent mini-Budget, families with children will be $3 a week worse off, whereas married couples without children will be $10 a week better off. I ask Government members: Where is the social justice in that? Why has the Government decided to discriminate against families with children? Why are they having to carry the burden for the Government's economic mismanagement? I remind the House that the family allowance is not a welfare payment. It was introduced by the Fraser Government in recognition of the cost of raising children. It is paid to the caring spouse-more often than not the mother. The fault with the Labor Government's policies-its tax, economic and welfare policies-is that they look at total income; they fail to take account of capacity to pay. This first go at means testing the family allowance-it is the thin end of the wedge-is a classic example of that. As a result, two-income couples without children will be better off, whereas two-income parents with children will be worse off. The Government has failed to recognise that bringing up children costs money. It just does not care about families with children. I remind the House that the Institute of Family Studies has clearly identified the cost of raising children and the fact that married couples with children need to earn more income to be in the same position as individuals without children. For example, a married couple with one income and two children need to earn $42,900 a year to have a disposable income similar to that of a single person on average weekly earnings of $24,000 a year. A married couple needs substantially more income to take account of the cost of raising children, yet the move in this Bill is the thin edge of the wedge; that is, taxing or removing a benefit which is paid to families with children. The Labor Party has taken no account of the fact that families with children have greater costs to bear. It is interested only in total income; all of its tax policies have been aimed at total income. It is disadvantaging families with children and relatively advantaging families or married couples without children. I ask again: Where is the social justice in that? As a result of four years of Labor there has been an unremitting attack on families. Taxes have gone up; the benefits paid to families have gone down; the costs for families have gone up; the costs of food and clothing, as a result of inflation, have all risen; and interest rates have gone up. Just let us look briefly at the evidence of the difficulties confronting families trying to make ends meet as a result of four years of Labor Government. In the area of housing the average mortgage repayment for the Australian family has increased by $150 a month. This increase in mortgage repayments has absorbed half the pre-tax increase in the average weekly earnings over the same period. Average weekly rents for those who have been forced out of their homes or for those not able to purchase their own homes have also skyrocketed. Average weekly rents in Melbourne have gone up $42; in Perth, $55; in Canberra, $59; and in Sydney they are up $75 a week as a result of Labor Government policies. These increases are a direct result of those policies. Spiralling interest rates, the introduction of the capital gains tax and the removal of negative gearing have all pushed up rental rates. They have also pushed up housing repayment rates. This Government says: `In this mini-Budget we want everyone to share the burden'. But what does it do? Where does it apply the tax? To families with children. It is no wonder that, as a result of this Government's economic policies, there are more people now waiting for public housing than there have ever been in this country. There are 160,000 families on the public housing waiting list. That is the record of the Labor Government. It has put 160,000 people on the public housing waiting list. As I have said, other necessities of family life have also been the victims of Australia's spiralling inflation rates. Under the Hawke Government the cost of food has gone up 29 per cent; the cost of clothing has gone up 28 per cent; and the cost of transportation has gone up 30 per cent. Mr Cohen —It is better food. Mr John Brown —It is better food though. It is better clothing. Mr PORTER —Those are typical interjections from the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who are at the table. They interjected: `Better food'. A lot of Australian families cannot even afford to buy the food, clothing and housing that they need. The Government has put more people under the poverty line than any government since Federation. The Australian people ought to understand the fickle nature of this Government. It is just not interested in the Australian family. `Better food', the Ministers say. People cannot make ends meet and the Ministers are talking about better food. It is all right for the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and his wife on their big incomes and a champagne and caviare diet. There are a lot of people out there who can hardly afford to live, let alone buy champagne and caviare like he does. At the same time as the family has been under pressure from the inflationary forces of this Government's economic policies, the Government's tax policies have continued to lock the family into more and more tax increases to try to fund its bureaucratic big spending programs. The tax for a person on average weekly earnings just highlights the impact of this Government on the family. In 1983 a family on average weekly earnings had a marginal tax rate of 30 per cent. In July this year their marginal tax rate will be 40 per cent. Their marginal tax rate has increased from 30 per cent to 40 per cent. The average tax rate for a family on average weekly earnings has increased over the period of this Government from 17.5 per cent to 20.5 per cent-and that is after the supposed tax cuts. In other words, the average tax rate a family is paying now has risen from 17 1/2 per cent to 20 1/2 per cent. Extraordinary! The tax, net of the rebate-for example, the spouse rebate and allowance for a family-in March 1983 was 14.1 per cent of average weekly earnings. It is now 18 per cent. These tax rates have obviously had an effect on a family's disposable income. A family's disposable income on average weekly earnings in March 1983 was $412.60. In December 1986 their disposable income was $381.30. In other words, Australian families are now $31.30 a week worse off as a result of this Labor Government's policies. At the same time as Labor's tax policies have substantially cut the incomes of Australian families, the Government's traditional assistance programs for families have also been plundered. Under the Hawke Government, family allowances have not been indexed. As a result, families have lost $513m. The spouse rebates have not been indexed and families have lost $394m. The Government has abolished the concessional expenditure rebates and families have lost $170m, and the Government has now applied restrictions on the family allowance, costing families $79m. In other words, over $1.1 billion has been taken from family support by this greedy Government. The result of this Government's disregard for the financial situation of families with children is that it is now generally recognised that the most consistent indicator of poverty in Australia is the presence of children. Twenty per cent of all Australian dependent children live in families receiving means tested payments. Families with children are being forced towards the bottom of the economic ladder under the Hawke Government. For a nation founded on traditions of the family and family values, this reality is a travesty. There are no statistical aberrations in the figures that I have been citing, no seasonal adjustments to be made, no externally imposed terms of trade to blame-not even any macroeconomic explanations are necessary. The plain facts are that as a result of four years of the Hawke Government families with children have been seriously discriminated against and are now in a relatively worse off position than for at least 11 years. This has not come about through some drastic or sudden change in the tax law or some massive reduction in a particular benefit program; it has resulted from the underhand, slow, relentless, inexorable erosion of family living standards as a result of this Government's policies. Labor has forgotten-indeed, abandoned-the foundation on which this nation has been built, that is, the family. One has to look no further than the Department of Social Security's own publication to find evidence of this erosion of the incomes of families with children. Let me point to one of its works. Its review issue paper No. 1, entitled `Income Support for Families with Children', states the issues quite clearly. It says that in 1976-77, as a result of such things as the spouse rebate, et cetera, a single income married couple with two children had 13 per cent more disposable income than a single wage earner with an average weekly income. In other words, there was an acknowledgment that families with children had a reduced capacity to pay tax. In 1985-86, that same family had only 10 per cent more disposable income than the same single income earner. In other words, the relative position of families with children has declined under this Labor Government, according to the Government's own Department of Social Security. The decrease in the disposable income of the family with children, compared with the income of single wage earners, is a direct result of the Hawke Government's annual Budgets. Since 1985-86, the figure for which I quoted from the Department's own publication, the position has deteriorated even further. The 1986-87 Budget and the 1987 mini-Budget have undertaken further attacks on the financial viability of families with children. Under the Hawke Government, the value of the family allowance has declined by almost 30 per cent because the Government did not index it, and increases in the consumer price index have seriously eroded the family's financial viability. The family cannot make ends meet. However, that was not the result of an oversight; it was the result of deliberate choice. For example, the Government failed to index the family allowance while many other Commonwealth benefits were indexed. It took a decision not to index the family allowance to assist families with children. In addition, the dependent spouse rebate has not been increased. During the Hawke Government's administration, it has remained constant at $1,030, while the much-touted tax reforms have gone ahead without regard to whether the wage earner is supporting a family. As a result of those three factors, the disposable income of single income families with children has declined more rapidly than that of other income earners. This means that the Hawke Government's tax coffers have been filled more and more by families with children to support. That is an undeniable fact. It is not socially just, it is not a policy direction that we as a nation should espouse and it is certainly not the policy preference of those who put this Government into office. The Opposition condemns this determined Government policy to undermine the financial viability of the family. We believe that the family is the primary unit of our society for the birth, nurture, growth and support of the individual. The family is a microcosm in the larger society in which the individual must be allowed to grow, to be educated and to take on those social, patriotic, ethical, moral and religious values on which our society depends. No government can ever hope to replace the family, nor can any society ever hope to survive without the individuals that families issue into society. The family is the most important unit in our society, and the Government will rue the day that it condemned families with children to the scrap-heap, as it has done. The legislation deals with a number of other welfare benefits. Firstly, with regard to unemployment benefits, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said in his response to the mini-Budget, we support the removal of eligibility for unemployment benefit for under 18-year-olds and the removal of the incentive for young people to go on unemployment benefit instead of continuing with their education program. It is interesting to note the turnaround in the Government's views on unemployment benefits for the under-18s. The Prime Minister, in a report to his electorate last week, headed `Bob Hawke reports to the electorate of Wills-May 1987', deals with the supposed achievements of the Labor Government and the supposed dire consequences of a conservative government. The report states: A future conservative government could even scrap the dole for the under 18-year-olds. That is what the Prime Minister said last week in a statement to his electorate. Is that not exactly what he has done now? Can this man be believed? What hypocrisy it is. We are glad that the Government has picked up our policy, but why did it have to be dragged screaming to the barrier? Why did it not act before? Why has it not picked up our proposal, which has been universally acclaimed-namely, our work for the unemployment benefit program? Why has the Government taken so long to act on welfare fraud? This legislation is a classic case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The Government has now admitted that its slack administration of welfare benefits is costing the taxpayer almost $140m a year. In announcing moves to tighten administration of social security benefits in the mini-Budget, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has claimed savings of almost $140m. After four years of grossly incompetent administration that has allowed welfare fraud to flourish, the Government has belatedly acknowledged the need to act. Labor's open door welfare policy has resulted in a massive increase in welfare abuse, including the payment of welfare benefits to people in gaol. It is outrageous. It is time that the Government acted; it is acting too late and with a scatter-gun approach. My colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), when he moves his second reading amendment, will highlight some of the Government's failures in acting against welfare fraud. Some other changes in the legislation are rather strange. For example, the Government intends to introduce a waiting period for unmarried education leavers. Those under 21 will be required to wait for 13 weeks before becoming eligible for unemployment benefit. That is an extension of the current six week waiting period. That is interesting because those who voluntarily leave a job will, under the legislation, have to wait for between only four and 12 weeks to obtain unemployment benefit. Under this legislation, someone in a job who voluntarily leaves will have to wait for a shorter period to obtain unemployment benefit than will someone who leaves his education course and cannot find a job. I again ask the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe): Where is the social justice in that? It is ludicrous. This legislation is full of inconsistencies. A voluntary job leaver is faced with only a two or four week postponement before qualifying for unemployment benefit. The legislation is also inconsistent with the rigorous application of a work test for voluntary job leavers on unemployment benefit-that is, if the Government enforces a work test. The legislation also alters the entitlement for invalid pensions. That has to be the most hypocritical, two-faced, deceitful exercise that the Government has ever undertaken. In altering the eligibility for invalid pension, the Government is doing what the coalition attempted to do-and in some respects did-in 1980. It is interesting to read what the then Opposition spokesman, Senator Grimes, said about those changes. He said: This is all part of the Federal Government's harsh and unconscionable review of invalid pensioners, using very tough new criteria. Is it not interesting how things change? Even the Australian Council of Social Service came out screaming against the changes at that time, but we have not heard from it this time. The Press at that time, day after day, carried headlines stating, for example: `Government continues crackdown against invalid pensioners'. Where are the headlines today? There has been an extraordinary change in attitude. The Government has also changed the entitlement to the class B widows' pension. In fact, class B widows' pensions will be phased out. The class B widows' pension is for women over 50 who have received a class A widows' pension, or a widow who is over 45 years of age but who no longer has a dependent child. Again the Government is acting against the woman who marries young, raises her children and stays at home to care for those children. Once the mother reaches the age of 50 or 55 and has little or no income-her children have grown older and her husband has died-the Government says that she should not receive a pension. She is expected to go back into the work force. Of course, she will have few skills to enable her to go back into the work force and, if she does not, she will have to go on the dole. It is interesting to see the priorities of this Government because, by changing the entitlement to the widows pension, it will save next year, 1987-88, the same amount as it is spending on the Commission for the Future-an outrageous set of priorities. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(9.01) —What a hide the Opposition spokesperson on social security matters, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), has to call on this Government-I read his amendment-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! No amendment has been moved as yet. Mr SNOW —I have been given notice of an amendment that will be moved by the National Party of Australia. I completely forgot that the two Opposition parties are in complete disagreement on this, as they are on most other issues. But the National Party apparently intends to move-- Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I stated in my speech that the honourable member for Richmond would be moving an amendment with our support. It really is outrageous that Government members just get up and totally misrepresent the situation, even though it has been stated quite clearly in this House only five minutes ago-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! That is a point of information, not a point of order. I call the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. Mr SNOW —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is interesting that apparently both the Opposition parties do agree that this amendment should be accepted by the Government: to undertake necessary and major reform of the unemployment benefit and welfare system in Australia to limit fraud and overpayment and to implement a work for unemployment benefit scheme, . . . What a hide honourable members opposite have to ask us to undertake necessary and major reforms of benefits in the welfare system when they have rejected one of the most effective means of doing just that-introducing the Australia Card with photo. Each of us could carry identification-the Australia Card with photo-to show our identity. It would then be much harder to defraud either the taxation system or the social security system. Countless people come to talk to me and to the Department of Social Security about people who are incorrectly receiving benefits and countless people are asking for acceptance of the Australia Card. Someone came to me and told me that her ex-spouse was earning $40,000 a year and yet she was forced to be on the sole parent benefit. Another person's spouse was on $100,000 a year, and she was forced to be on the sole parent benefit simply because the Government could not get at him. We need to have the Australia Card. In the second part of the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Richmond, he asks that we: integrate effectively the social security and taxation systems to overcome poverty traps, restore incentive and break the cycle of dependency. That is just what the Australia Card will do, integrate the two systems. What is this Government doing if it is not integrating the two systems with the proposed child protection agency? Mr Blunt —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order or, more accurately perhaps, a point of information. The Australia Card does not address the integration of the tax and social security systems. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr SNOW —How many people on that side of the House told us, when we introduced the Australia Card without photo, that they would support it if it had a photo and then, when the photo was included, they rejected it? The honourable member now tells us that we have discriminated against families with children. What did the present Opposition do during the years of the Fraser-Howard Budgets? Child care places dropped substantially and community health funding dropped substantially. Two million people had no health insurance whatsoever. I deplore the trickery that was involved in the speech made by the honourable member for Barker. He made great play about reducing family allowances, but of course he did not mention that the reduction in family allowances will apply to a family with a total income of over $50,000. How dare he talk with crocodile tears and syrupy words about low income earners with the sort of record that the Fraser-Howard Budgets have. Any reduction in expenditure that is being confronted by a government, particularly a Labor government, needs to take account of the needs of the poor. If there has to be a reduction in expenditure the Government needs to target the well off. It needs to reduce careless expenditure and to reduce fraud. As far as I can see, the only three business people in this chamber at the moment are all on this side of the House. We have a very successful clothing retailer in the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), a very successful wholesale butcher in the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and, of course, in myself, a very successful retail pharmacist. It is well known in business that when things are going well we do not worry quite so much about the extra costs, and we can get careless about them. But when times get hard, we have a look at our costs and at where we can save; and it is the same with any householder. When times are good the householder does not worry quite so much about some of the extra costs, but when bad times come he or she looks at where they can save. This Government is faced with up to $9 billion less coming into the country through reduced income from exports. This means that there is less being spent in Australia, and that there is less available for the taxation system. This is why we have had to come up with expenditure cuts to obtain a $3 billion drop in the deficit. This is why we have had to sell some assets to the value of $1 billion. I compliment the Government on the way in which it has performed that very difficult task. (Quorum formed) What are the Opposition and National Party alternatives for a reduction in social security spending? They call for a reduction, but let us look at some of their alternatives. They would abolish the assets test. This would not reduce expenditure in social security; it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. We should not abolish the assets test. What we should be looking at is the alternative of a national superannuation scheme, which Opposition members have failed to support. What would be their alternative to reducing the unemployment benefit? They say that people should work for the dole. This would not reduce the cost of the unemployment benefit; it would cost money. Work for the dole would cost at least an extra $700m. I have asked council officers and quite a lot of community leaders what they would require if they were to use unemployed people to do community work. There is no question that for every 1,000 people who were given work for the dole one would need to employ at least 50 supervisors on full wages. One would need to set up a bureaucracy to police the scheme. Uniforms and transport would often need to be provided. These are solutions which would cost more money, not save money. Some Opposition members have even talked about national service. This would not save $4 billion in unemployment benefit payments. It would cost more than twice as much-at least $9 billion. Of course, the defence chiefs do not want it. Honourable members opposite have also told us that they will freeze benefits. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) told us that pensioners would be squealing like stuck pigs. He was speaking for the Premier of Queensland. In 1978-79 we did not have a six-week delay in the payment of pensions; we had a six-month delay. This would obviously happen again. Honourable members opposite have asked us to toughen up. How far do they want us to toughen up? Do they want us to toughen up in the same way as the United States has toughened up? I visited New York only last year. In two days in New York I came across a person sleeping under scaffolding in the streets. It was raining heavily and the weather was cold. He was hanging his trousers over the scaffolding. I saw countless people wheeling shopping trolleys which contained their worldly possessions-far more people than we have seen in those circumstances in Australia. A family in Chicago had lived in a car for four years. I was told this by the President of the United States Conference of Mayors. There were lines of people outside soup kitchens. That is the sort of manner in which honourable members opposite are asking us to toughen up. We do not want to toughen up on those most in need because it would be unfair. It would also cost money because it would transfer pressures to voluntary organisations such as the Salvation Army, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Smith Family. They would have to find the money somewhere. Of course, more people would be placed in government funded refuges. More people would end up in gaols as they were forced into crime, and more people would have to be placed in psychiatric hospitals. The alternatives of honourable members opposite are not targeted properly. They are targeted at the poor. I believe we need to be careful about how our limited funds are targeted. Under any Federal Labor government there would not be a six-month delay in payments. There would be full consumer price index adjustments. Pensioners and persons in receipt of social security benefits have received an 8 per cent increase in real terms in their benefits during the four years of the Hawke Labor Government. Under Fraser-Howard Budgets the increase was one per cent-one-eighth of the amount-in seven years. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was quite right when he complimented pensioners on the way in which they played their part in bearing the burden of the economic stringencies that were forced on to this country. He thanked them and said that they would be left alone in the forthcoming Budget. I believe that that is quite right. The legislation introduces changes to the family allowance for couples earning a combined income of $50,000 or more. If there is more than one child, a higher amount of income is allowed before the allowance is lost. The family allowance will not be affected in the case of handicapped children. There have also been changes to the unemployment benefit. There has been a change in emphasis to encourage people to move from the dole concept to the training concept. I believe that this is absolutely vital. This is an integral part of the changes which affect people aged 16 and 17 years. Training is working. I recently awarded 13 certificates in the Cooma-Monaro region to people who trained in the hospitality industry. I compliment the Government on including in the mini-Budget measures a $33m increase for training. It has worked. Approximately 60 people in the area have taken up traineeships in the clerical field. It has been realised that the receptionist who answers the telephone is really the shop window for the firm. Of course, people in the Snowy Mountains area have been asking for some years for people in the local area to be trained so that they do not have to bring people from Wollongong, Canberra or Sydney. They have been rewarded with a government sponsored scheme which has trained local people. Local people can now get jobs in local tourist industries. Under the legislation there is also a penalty for failure of the work test and dismissal due to misconduct. This penalty will increase with each breach. There will be a $25 job search allowance for a child leaving school. Another way of putting it is that the unemployment benefit will stay at the present level of $50, but it will be means tested. This will encourage young people to undergo training. There will be a testing for benefits. This is necessary because the community has asked for it. Only today I brought to see the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and a representative of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) some people who said that it was necessary for people to be tested for benefits so that fraud could be reduced. It is also necessary because the Opposition will not support a way of saving hundreds of millions of dollars which is stolen from honest taxpayers and social security beneficiaries by fraud. The Hawke Labor Government proposed an Australia Card with a photograph. It was supported by 70 per cent of the surveyed population, but the Senate rejected it. I am glad that the Opposition has supported this legislation, but I suggest that it should go a bit further and support the Australia Card. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(9.18) —I am glad I was in the House to hear the speech of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow). I make the suggestion that he obtain a departmental briefing before he speaks on a social security Bill again. I was absolutely astounded to hear what he considers to be the effective integration of the tax and the social security systems. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is trying to interject. Let me tell the Minister what the honourable member for Eden-Monaro thinks that the integration of the tax and the social security systems is. He thinks it is the ID card. I suggest that if the Minister wants to get his back benchers into the chamber to support the legislation-and I note from the speakers list tonight that they are not too keen to speak-he might at least tell them what social security policy is all about; that is, if he has some knowledge of a coherent policy himself. Integration of tax and social security is not the ID card, as he well knows. It is the interface of the withdrawal of benefits and the imposition of the marginal income tax rates. It would be a good idea if the Minister had his back bench briefed. The National Party of Australia does not oppose the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987. We believe that some of the measures contained within it are long overdue. Some of the measures are ill-considered. We earnestly hope that some of the measures contained within it will work. We are quite sceptical about whether some of them will work. We are concerned once again that this Government still does not have a consistent, coherent, comprehensive social security policy. After over four years in office we are still seeing piecemeal legislation, ad hoc amendments and bit-by-bit changes to the regulations and rules affecting social security in Australia. There is an ingrained reluctance on the part of this Government to address the problem of overpayment and fraud. Time and again the Government has attempted to convince the Australian people that it is fair dinkum about doing something about social security rip-offs. But again, when we examine what it proposes to do, we find it wanting. We find that it is more concerned with the public relations aspects than it is with effectively introducing a policy which will make it tougher for the cheats, the rip-off merchants and the thieves who are preying on the honest taxpayer in Australia at present. Let me highlight one issue about which the Government has made great play in its mini-Budget changes. It said that it will implement a postponement of eligibility for unemployment benefit for people who voluntarily leave employment. The paper circulated by the Minister for Social Security following the mini-Budget states: The minimum postponement period for voluntary job leavers to be increased-from July 1987, people who leave a job voluntarily, who are dismissed for misconduct or who fail the work test will have their unemployment benefit payments postponed by two weeks, increasing by a further two weeks for each subsequent occurrence in any three-year period to a maximum of 12 weeks. Thus, for example, three such occurrences within three years would mean a wait on the third occasion of six weeks for benefit payments. That sounds quite reasonable, but some people would say that is not tough enough. I note that my colleague the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) highlighted that the waiting period for people who for some reason are forced to leave employment is longer than the period for people who voluntarily give up a job. I do not understand the inconsistency of that. Perhaps more importantly, it is appropriate to look at what the Social Security Act says in terms of eligibility for people who leave employment voluntarily or who are dismissed for misconduct. Section 120 says that the unemployment benefit is not payable in certain cases. It states that it is not payable if: (a) a person's unemployment is due, either directly or indirectly, to a voluntary act of the person which was without sufficient reason; that is, someone quits the job because he does not like it. The section continues: (b) a person's unemployment is due to his misconduct as a worker; It further states: (2) In the case to which paragraph (1) (a), (b), (c)- the ones to which I referred- applies, the period in respect of which an unemployment benefit is not payable shall be not less than 2 weeks and shall not be more than 12 weeks. That is what the Act says. The Government, in an attempt to convince the Australian people that it will do something about cheats and rip-off merchants, with great fanfare, waltzes in here with a mini-Budget, dresses it up differently and says: `Two weeks for the first time, another two weeks for the second time, and another two weeks for the third time', so people can end up waiting six weeks. The Act says now `up to 12 weeks'. What is the big deal? How fair dinkum is the Government? It is just another con job. All that has happened is that the discretion exists within the Act for the secretary or the officer in the regional office to determine what the delay will be-and might I add that quite often there is no delay. One can walk in and say: `I am unemployed', and the benefit is immediately reinstated. All that has happened is that the discretion has been reduced and there is a so-called two weeks waiting period followed by another two weeks, compounding up to six weeks, with a total of 12 weeks over three years. That is the situation as it exists at present. There has been no change except that an arbitrary trigger has been introduced. That is so typical of this Government. It would have us believe that it is trying to stop fraud and overpayment, that it is trying to stop the cheats and the rip-off merchants. But that is exactly what is going on. It takes a provision, it fiddles around the edges, but there is no substantial change to it. This Government is not fair dinkum about doing anything about social security fraud and overpayment. It has progressively, over its four years in office, undermined the sanctions that exist within the social security system and has given an open door policy to people who want to rip off the system. It has reduced the number of field officers. It does not prosecute anybody. It ran an amnesty. It said: `If you are cheating the system, if you are getting a benefit to which you are not entitled, come in and tell us about it. We'll forgive you and all will be okay in the future. But if you don't come in and confess, if we catch you after that, we will throw the book at you.' Its record on prosecutions is absolutely appalling. In an entire year this Government did not even manage to prosecute 2,000 cheats on the social security system. Yet it would have us believe that it will, with the so-called hit squads it has wandering around the country, catch and presumably prosecute some 10,000 rip-off merchants. It took the Government a year but it did not even prosecute 2,000. It is now trying to have us believe that it will catch and prosecute 10,000. I do not believe it, and I will be interested to see the statistics for the end of this financial year. I know exactly what the Government will say. It is not fair dinkum. It is not committed to doing it and nothing will happen. The Labor Party, in all its years in opposition, lived and even believed its own rhetoric that it was the party which understood welfare and the party which would help people. When it got into office it did not have a policy. It did not know where it was going to go. It did not know what it was going to do. It came in and thought: `What can we do? How can we start changing the system?'. It went about it in a piecemeal way. The first thing we saw was the introduction of the assets test. The first assets test was an unmitigated disaster. It was followed by versions 2, 3, 4 and, now, 5. It still does not work with any equity and the National Party is totally committed to abolishing it. At some time in the future we will see a Bill which imposes an assets test-it is not in this legislation-on unemployment benefit. It will be triggered at the age of 25 which is a fairly arbitrary age. One could pick 24 or 26, but 25 is the age that someone grabbed out of the computer studies which said that over the age of 25 there may be some assets to test but that under 25 it is unlikely. Of course, the Government did not recognise that, because of the inadequacy of its policy, it actually had been paying unemployment benefit to self-employed people. Those self-employed people had low or non-existent incomes, but they may have had substantial assets. But because of the way the Act is constructed at present the benefit is invariably paid to the spouse. Because of the state of the rural economy many thousands of farming families in Australia are maintained through unemployment benefit. Under the assets test that this Government is proposing, if one has a young spouse under 25 it will not apply; if one has a spouse over 25 it will apply. Where is the consistency, the equity, the fairness and the logic of that sort of social security policy? It is absolutely stupid. One of the fundamental things that we need to do in having a social security policy is to make sure that it is consistent, simple and equitable. Nothing this Government has done in the area of social security in over four years that it has been on the treasury bench has done anything to introduce fairness, consistency, equity or simplicity to the social security system. We have the biggest mess this country has ever seen in social welfare right now after more than four years of Labor administration. In fact, the Government admitted that it did not have a social security policy when it established the social security review. Basically that review was told: `Go out and work out a social security policy for us and come back in a hurry because we want to implement it because we don't know where we are going'. To date, we do not know where we are. The Minister has never introduced a statement which outlines his intentions for welfare reform. There are consistently inconsistent statements between the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about the direction of welfare policy. There is continual brawling within Cabinet about what priorities will be attached to expenditure within this Government, and time and again we see last minute changes in the social security area which lead to the inconsistencies that I have highlighted. The National Party, supported by the Liberal Party, moves the following amendment which we believe sums up the problems that this Government has encountered in social security: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government has failed- (1) to undertake necessary and major reform of the unemployment benefit and welfare system in Australia to limit fraud and overpayment and to implement a work for unemployment benefit scheme, and (2) integrate effectively the social security and taxation systems to overcome poverty traps, restore incentive and break the cycle of dependency'. The Government understands the need to make those changes but it does not have the political courage or perhaps the intellectual capacity to do it. Instead of a work for unemployment benefit scheme we see a whole series of activity tests. The Minister knows that there is a need to ensure that people do not fall into sloth and indolence on unemployment benefit. He knows the psychological problems of being unemployed. No one more than the Government would know the consequences of its policies for the unemployed. When it came to power the average time of unemployment was about 30 weeks; it now has gone to 60 weeks. There were about 124,000 long term unemployed; there are now about 180,000 long term unemployed. This Government's policies for employment and for the unemployed in this country have been abject failures. As I said, we see a whole series of measures which are designed to force people to do something, but which do not address the problem of working for the unemployment benefit. The reason the Government will not address- Mr Cohen —Why didn't you do it when you were in government? You were there for seven years. Mr BLUNT —I invite the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, whose microphone may be on now, to look at the handbook and see when I was elected. Mr Cohen —I am talking about the coalition. Mr BLUNT —I do not care what the Minister is talking about. The fact of the matter is that the Government has failed in the area in which it claims to have some expertise. We have a whole series of activity tests and reporting to the Commonwealth Employment Service to try to make sure that people do not cheat on unemployment benefits. The simple answer is to require them to do something for their benefits; to restore the work ethic; to teach young people that there is no such thing as a free lunch; to build self-confidence; to increase self-esteem; to remove the stigma of unemployment; to bring people back into the work force; to improve their employment chances by giving them something to do; to do something to give Australian taxpayers confidence in the system; and to do away with the stigma that currently applies to this Government, which is known increasingly as the `Hawke handout Government'. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is known as the chief dole operator who hands out money to anyone who will stand up and ask for it. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I think that the last comment might be withdrawn. I think it reflects on another member and I would like it withdrawn. Mr BLUNT —I withdraw. Our amendment addresses the problem that the Government has created for itself by having a very lenient and extremely generous social security policy without any sanctions applied to it. The introduction of a work for unemployment benefit scheme would go some way to fixing the problem this Government created by not enforcing the work test and not having effective liaison between the Department of Social Security and the CES. Our amendment also highlights the Government's failure to do anything to integrate the social security system and the tax system. Many Government members do not understand what that is about. I will explain by way of example what it really means to people on unemployment benefits. Only the other day I spoke to a supporting parent with two dependent children who was receiving a benefit and working casually as a teacher. I will explain her circumstances and then speak about the significance of the Government's hypocritical approach to poverty traps in a moment. By working one or two days a week over a period of months this person had earned $901; the tax on that was $309, so the net benefit to her was $592. The Department of Social Security, as a result of assessing her circumstances, reduced her pension by $524.55. A couple of days work a week over a period of months gave her a net income of $68.45 after tax and after reduction of her social security benefit. We hear frequently from Government members in this House about the need to restore incentive in the social security system. Well, $68.45 is not much incentive. The effective marginal tax rate for that person is absolutely horrific. That is not the end of it. She then lost concessions available to her for rates and other concessions because she had gone below the trigger point for them. In 1985 the Government introduced an amendment which proposed to do something to alleviate what is known technically as poverty traps. It was introduced 12 months in advance of when it was to be brought into effect. It was then deferred by six months and it is yet to come into effect. In that time the Government has reduced the marginal income tax rates applying to wage and salary earners in Australia. What sort of priority, consistency and humanity does that indicate on the part of this Government? We also hear this Government talking a lot about the need to encourage people to undertake training to get back into the work force. The Government introduced what it describes as a $250 administration charge or tertiary education fee. There is a provision which says that, if one is receiving social security benefits, one can obtain an exemption. However, I will tell the House about another case, involving a woman who wants to complete her training as a teacher to give her an opportunity to get back into the work force. Her husband is unemployed and she is an unemployed student with two dependent children. Because the benefit is paid on the family rate to the husband the Government says that she cannot obtain an exemption from the $250 tertiary education fee because the benefit is not paid to her in her own right; the benefit is paid to the husband in respect of himself, his wife and the two children. This Government's incredibly tight policy-incredibly inequitable policy-says that that woman cannot have the exemption from the $250 administration charge. How fair dinkum is the Government about getting that woman some extra training and extra skills so that she can get back into the work force? Today I received a telephone call from a person from Mount Morgan who wants to get back into the work force and wants to borrow some money to set up his own business. He asked the Department of Social Security whether it would reduce his unemployment benefits level while he gradually got back into the work force as he tried to give his business a go. Under this Government's policy that cannot be done. The Government introduced the national employment and training system on a trial basis in the western suburbs of Sydney, but it has done nothing to provide an effective taper to get people back into the work force. This Government does not really know where it is going. Only a couple of weeks before the mini-Budget the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) circulated in his own electorate of Wills a pamphlet stating that there would be no cutback in unemployment benefits for those under 18 years of age. That is what the Prime Minister said. This shows how far in advance the Government works out its social security policy. A couple of weeks before the Treasurer came into this Parliament and announced a mini-Budget which does away with unemployment benefits for those under 18 years, the Prime Minister, in a pamphlet circulated in his electorate to promote himself, his policies and the policies of his Government, said that there would be no cutback in unemployment benefits for those under 18 years of age. If that is not a last minute ad hoc change to the system, I do not know what is. While the National Party of Australia does not oppose this legislation, it believes that it has been poorly considered. Some of the consequences of the changes which have been introduced and which in many cases are long overdue will mean that some people will find themselves in pretty difficult circumstances and that there will be a need for extra emergency cash relief. We have seen the hassles that this Government has had in the past with State governments about the provision of emergency cash relief in the administration of that scheme, but where have we seen any comment from this Government about the possible and, might I add, probable increase in the demand for that sort of relief? What funding provisions have been made by the Government to ensure that emergency relief is available to those people who, because of changes introduced by the Government in this Bill and in future legislation, will find themselves caught without any cash, without any other option and in need of help? Where is the budgetary allocation for that? As I have said, this Government continues to operate on the basis of an ad hoc social security policy. We see one change after another change followed by more changes to compensate for the changes that were made in the first place, but overall we see no effective measure to stop fraud and overpayments and to introduce simplicity, consistency and equity into the social security system. Not only that; the Government has also lost control of the Department of Social Security. Even today Department of Social Security offices were closed because work bans over the withdrawal of flexitime had shut most of them. They were shut today and will be shut on Wednesday afternoon when the telephones are not answered-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tim Fischer —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(9.39) —I rise, as is often the case, to follow the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). I do not know whether the honourable member for Richmond is the National Party of Australia's answer to the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), but he seems to me to be a person who fits the bill. The honourable member for Richmond talks about poverty levels in this country, yet in a proposal he circulated he said that he wanted to freeze pensions, to tighten the supporting parent's benefit, to introduce the phased removal of pensions for women under 65 years of age, to tighten eligibility for widows' pensions, to cut back the Medicare rebate to 75 per cent, to increase charges to pharmaceutical benefits for pensioners, and so on. The member for Richmond came in here and bled all over the place, but he is on the record as having an incredibly harsh set of policies which he would hope to implement if he ever represented the Government at any time in his political life. But that is not likely to occur. I believe that during the coming months people in Australia will see through the honourable member for Richmond more clearly than they do now, particularly if he stands front on. The point I make at the outset is that some of the measures in this legislation are harsh, as the Government has admitted. Last week in my electorate I had visits from a number of community based groups from all around Victoria and from my own electorate. We held a joint meeting last Friday and many concerns were expressed about aspects of the legislation. Last Wednesday there was a protest by a number of young people at a social security office in my electorate. They contacted me and I agreed to see them on Thursday. They expressed concerns about some of the measures dealing with young people, particularly the 16- and 17-year-old unemployment benefit question, which will be dealt with later. The groups I saw were made up of concerned young people, students, the unemployed and employed workers. Among them were the Inner Urban CYSS network that includes Carlton, Kensington, Elwood, Collingwood, Brunswick and Glenroy, the Inner Urban Community Youth Workers group, the inner urban youth housing groups and other housing groups, the North Melbourne Community Youth Work Project, Dignity Financial Counselling Service and other inner urban financial counselling services, community legal services, the Coalition Against Poverty and Unemployment-(Quorum formed) Honourable members opposite are so terrified of free speech that they will not even let a person read out the names of community groups. They should wait until I get stuck into the legislation; that will give them something to weep about. The People's Budget Project, the Unemployed Worker's Union and the Melbourne Municipality Association of Community Children and Youth Services group were also involved. They reflected the views of a wide range of community groups within my electorate. As all honourable members know, my electorate is unique in the sense that a wide variety of people live in it. These community groups represent only a small number of the excellent groups that operate within my electorate. As I said, the legislation, as described by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and others, is harsh. Let us not fool around. Some of the measures in this legislation are particularly harsh. I will address the Bill clause by clause in response to views expressed to me by people in my electorate. I come here tonight to put the views of people who are concerned about some of the measures, as reported in the media. Perhaps when the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) sums up the debate there will be some answers to some of the queries I intend to raise. There will be new rules relating to people who live under the one roof. Clause 8 of the Bill inserts a new sub-section 6 (5a) in the Social Security Act 1947. This new sub-section treats people who are separated but living together under the one roof as married if they live in such a way for more than six months. If the co-inhabitants are currently disputing property, the period is extended to 12 months. The measure is harsh and possibly counter productive. There would be many situations where people who have no financial or emotional ties reside in the same residence together, often because they have no choice. The impact of this measure is likely to cause substantial hardship for women in particular. They are more likely to be the losers. Mr Goodluck —Hear, hear! Mr HAND —The honourable member should not `hear, hear' me, clapping his hands with glee. He is a phoney. He should not come in here and be a phoney. Also, in the case of a property dispute, the 12-month period is likely to put extreme pressure on couples to settle. Actions before the Family Court of Australia usually take far longer and, again, women are likely to be the losers. There are lots of people living under the one roof in a bona fide arrangement and who should be entitled to be treated as separate individuals. I refer now to changes to the widow's pension and supporting parent's benefit. Under clause 12, class B widows' pensions will be phased out. At present, a class B widow's pension is paid to divorced, separated and widowed women aged 50 and over without dependent children. A safety net is provided so that those women who are currently eligible by age but not yet by circumstance will be protected in the future and will be eligible to receive the class B pension. Protection is also provided to a person currently receiving a supporting parent's benefit or a class A widow who is aged 45 or older and who, because of changes to the definition of `dependent child', will lose that entitlement. Clause 12 (b) of the amendment Bill changes the definition of `dependent child' in the principal Act so that a woman whose youngest child is 16 years of age or over will no longer be entitled to receive the widow's pension. Clause 13 makes the same change to the eligibility requirements of supporting parent's benefit by amending sub-section 83aaa (1) of the principal Act. These changes are of major concern. They are very harsh measures, especially for women in the 40 to 44 year age bracket. Several thousand women will possibly be affected. Women in this predicament will have no alternative but to go on unemployment benefits. No other safety net is provided. An age pension is not available until a person is 60 years of age. Women who are younger will probably, but not certainly, have some work skills, but there will be a significant number of women in the 40 to 44 age category who may never have worked. The Government is intending to provide special training for these women, but this is yet to be worked out, even though the provision is to take effect from 1 September 1987. There is a lot to be done to ease the concerns that these people put to me in terms of their future. Even with special training, many women will just not be able to cope and will be unsuited to seeking employment. At the age of 42 with no employment history, no recent work experience and/or no skills, is someone in this predicament really expected to find employment immediately? We need perhaps to bring in some transitional measures. Perhaps in the first 12-month period after the youngest child turns 16 a less onerous income test could be applied, as applies to pensions rather than benefits, so that women could take on more temporary or part time work without losing their benefits. While supporting the Government's general policy of making income payments more labour oriented, I believe that this measure again is unintentionally very harsh and unfair in that it unfairly penalises this group of women. I repeat that there is provision for training, but I ask the Government perhaps to consider a phase-in period. In relation to changes to the invalid pension, clause 10 of the Bill repeals section 23 of the Social Security Act. It inserts a new section 23 to tighten eligibility for the invalid pension. (Quorum formed) This is an unprecedented move. Two quorums have been called during the speech of a member. It just shows that the Opposition is afraid to hear somebody speak on this Bill as opposed to listening to a lot of hot air which has come from the other side. The basis of this change to section 23 is that a person must be 85 per cent incapacitated, as is the case now, but at least 50 per cent of that permanent incapacity must be medical impairment, either physical or mental. As it reads, this provision is unclear and it could be interpreted to read that, if a person is classified as 95 per cent permanently incapacitated, then at least 47.5 per cent must be medical, whereas the person who is 85 per cent permanently incapacitated has to prove only 42 per cent medical impairment. Clearly, that is not the intention of the legislation, but the section needs to be clarified. I ask the Minister for Social Security to clarify that matter in order to ease the minds of people in the electorate. I think that this can be achieved simply by fixing the amount of medical incapacity at a given percentage, but some people working in this field believe that 40 per cent rather than 50 per cent would be fairer. In relation to the unemployment benefit and the 13-week payment delay for school leavers, a number of people in my electorate have raised this matter with me because they are worried about its effects. I refer particularly to clause 21 which amends section 120a of the principal Act. Again, I say that this is harsh. It relates to a single person who is under 21 and has no dependants. The waiting period is increased from six to 13 weeks from the date of registration at the Commonwealth Employment Service or, if a person registers within four weeks of leaving education, from the date that the applicant actually left education. It is unclear as to whether a person who left education and then found temporary employment for less than 13 weeks would have to start his 13 weeks from the date that he ceased employment or from the date that he left education. I would like the Minister to answer that question in his reply. If it is the former, then this obviously would penalise the education leaver who sought employment and who may then lose the job through no fault of his own. The 13-week period also is to apply where someone has finished a course. This is plainly ludicrous if the rationale behind this move is to provide young people with incentive to remain in education. Obviously, in relation to a person who has finished a course and is looking for work, the normal waiting period should apply. I understand that there is a safety net provision relating to hardship cases. Such people will be eligible for a special benefit, but this area is causing a lot of concern to constituents in my electorate and I think that some of the problems associated with the legislation need to be clarified and made easier for people to understand. Then perhaps those fears which exist within our community will be removed. Before this decision impacts, we have some time to make those changes and, if the problems remain, perhaps to rectify some of them in the autumn session. In relation to family allowances, a means test has been imposed with a threshold of $50,000 plus $2,500 for each additional child. Given the circumstances, I think that this is a fair decision. Although some people in the community do not like this decision, given the circumstances and the situation in which we find ourselves, I believe that this decision is fair when compared with some others. I want to refer also to some other areas, but I will not have time now and I will have to raise them in the Committee stage. I refer briefly to the recovery of overpayments and the changes relating to unemployment and sickness benefits. I believe that these two areas need explanation and discussion and that will be undertaken in the Committee stage of the Bill. I am somewhat disappointed in the Deputy Whip who has seen fit to call two quorums on me. I do not mind one quorum, because that is fair, but I think it is a little rough to call two quorums when we are discussing legislation which is of such importance to people in the electorate. I thought that the honourable member was a person who normally had some compassion for people suffering hardship and that he would at least pay me the courtesy of allowing me to complete my contribution. I, along with some of my colleagues, have had a lot of contact in the past week with community groups in my electorate. We were present at a meeting where they expressed some concern. I speak tonight as the local member in order to put those concerns to Parliament and also to reflect their views. I hope that the Government can rectify the problems which they see existing as a result of the announcement in the May economic statement. I have no doubt that, given that some of these decisions will not take effect for some months and given the Minister's commitment to this area and his work over many years, even prior to entering Parliament, he will ensure that adequate consultation is undertaken with what is termed the welfare lobby groups. I know that already there has been discussion between the Minister and sections of that group. He and his officers, I am sure, will work to overcome those problems before some of the decisions are implemented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(9.59) —I focus my remarks on the changes that are proposed to the family allowance arrangements. Contrary to the comments made by the last speaker, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), I think that the abolition of universal benefits in respect of children is an unfair move. It is unfair because those who support children should be given an effective tax concession-- Mr Hand —All you are prepared to talk about are people with incomes of over $50,000. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. Mr WILSON —That is not so. I am talking about a large number of women who have no income of their own but the family allowance which is now to be denied them. Mr Hand —That is not what you just said. Mr WILSON —It is. I said that the effect of this legislation is to deny a significant number of women with no income at all any benefit in recognition of the support of their children. Furthermore, it removes the tax concession, the tax adjustment to high income families who are supporting children compared with those high income families who are not supporting children. This legislation will save $71m. I think the Government has gone about it in the worst possible way. The way in which it should have saved $71m was to give those high income earners a lesser tax cut and to allow families with children to maintain their present level of family allowance. In fact, the present level of family allowance for all families is meagre, absurd-- Mr Hand —You are doing it now. All you are concerned about are wealthy people. You don't care about the poor. I have never heard you speak in defence of the poor. Mr Tuckey —Gerry, you haven't heard a thing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne and the honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr Hand —You shut that ratbag up over there. Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the honourable member to withdraw that most scurrilous observation. Mr Tuckey —You've picked the wrong bloke. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I doubt whether the word `ratbag' is unparliamentary. Mr Hand —I say to the honourable member for O'Connor that I have not picked the wrong bloke. He is a ratbag. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, apparently the reference was to me and I ask that he withdraw immediately or we will start a proper slanging match. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. He has not withdrawn, and I do not want to delay the honourable member for Sturt. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am not aware-- Mr Tuckey —I will tell you what the word was. It was `ratbag'. It is wrong, it is untrue, I am offended and I want that ratbag to withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I do not know whether the honourable member for O'Connor is helping himself by identifying himself with an interjection. I agree that the word used by the honourable member for Melbourne was unfortunate. I am not aware that he was addressing it to any particular member. Mr Downer —He just said he was. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not need any assistance from the honourable member for Mayo. I am not aware that he was addressing it to any particular member. I call the honourable member for Sturt. Mr WILSON —Even the Government's adviser, Professor Cass, has emphasised that the major objective of the family allowance is `to provide tax equity for families with dependent children, recognising the increased costs incurred in the period of child rearing and the parents' subsequently decreased capacity to pay tax'. This legislation provides that a person can reach a certain level of income and, at that level of income, can treat the expenditure of rearing children in the same way as all other consumption expenditure. That is a retrograde step. As I said a few minutes ago, if the Government had to save $71m, in my view it would have been better to have given a lower tax cut to the families who now are to be deprived of the family allowance and to the other taxpayers who have the same level of taxable income, and to have adjusted the equity of the tax system to ensure that, while taxpayers have dependent children, they continue to receive the family allowance. Indeed, as I was also saying a few minutes ago, I would have gone much further. I would have recognised the real cost of rearing children. I would have given tax cuts in the form of a substantial family allowance rather than tax cuts to single taxpayers and to two-income families with no children. I believe the community would have recognised the fairness and equity of that. We now face a situation in which under the present tax and social security arrangements we provide to a family that is intact and supporting its children a level of tax relief which is less than one-fifth of the support that we provide to broken families where the non-custodial parent is failing to support either the children or the former spouse. In a debate such as this we should be focusing with concern and compassion on the very low income families to whom the honourable member for Melbourne referred. We should regard it as a national disgrace that so many children are living in poverty. In large measure that poverty is a consequence of the low level of family income support provided through the social security system to all families, the low level of collection of maintenance from non-custodial parents and the low level of the dependent spouse rebate. Let me remind the House that the Australian Labor Party was elected to office on a commitment to increase the dependent spouse rebate. It has frozen it. It has speculated and toyed with the idea of abolishing it. I suspect that this means testing of the family allowance for families with a joint income of $50,000 or more is the first signal that the next move in the Labor Party's anti-family policy will be to introduce an income test for the dependent spouse rebate. If the marriage certificate is used as the test to determine eligibility for the dependent spouse rebate or the family allowance, the intact families-the families who are doing the right thing by the Australian community-will be penalised by any income testing of either the family allowance or the dependent spouse rebate. In fact, those families supporting a dependent spouse and dependent children relieve the taxpayers of a very substantial burden. The Labor Party is trying to claim great credit for the substantial tax cuts that will be introduced on 1 July. It is true that they are big tax cuts. But those tax cuts do nothing to introduce family equity into the tax system. In fact, since the Labor Party came to office it has progressively penalised families with children. It has punished single income families by keeping the dependent spouse rebate fixed at its 1983 level. It has punished all families by maintaining the family allowance at its 1983 level. It has done nothing to increase the real purchasing power of families with dependent children. To some extent it has increased the benefit provided to pensioner families with children. But although those increases are sometimes presented in percentage terms as though they are substantial increases, in most instances they do not increase the spending power of those families to a level which has kept up with the rate of inflation. Those families who have not received an increase in the family allowance to maintain its purchasing power and who have not received an increased spouse rebate to maintain its value have had additional costs imposed upon them. Additional costs have come through the increased Medicare levy and through increases in indirect taxation. Most Australians believe that the cost of government should be shared according to the capacity to pay. But everyone knows that inadequate allowance is made for the effect on this capacity of maintaining a dependent spouse, dependent children and other dependants. The tax rebates and cash allowances to taxpayers who have dependants are substantially less than the pensions and allowances payable to dependants who are the responsibility of the Government and the public sector. The tax relief available to people supporting dependants is much less than it was five years ago. Over this period no adjustment has been made for the effect of inflation. The insensitivity of the tax system to tax paying capacity discriminates against families with children, but most severely against single income families. The tax system is especially harsh on those who live in single income households or those households in which one spouse has a smaller income than the other. Now, if the single breadwinner happens to have an income of $50,000 or more, the spouse with no income, very often the carer of children, is to be denied any payment in the form of family allowance. The tax burden becomes heavier the greater the difference in the proportions in which husband and wife contribute to household income. At the last election, the Liberal Party undertook to allow families to split their income for tax purposes, allowing those with unequal incomes to be taxed on a partnership basis. This results in all families with similar incomes bearing similar tax burdens. Under the rate scale that is to operate from 1 July, single income families with household incomes as low as $19,500 will be liable for about $10 a week more in tax than two-income families with the same household income. Looked at another way, the tax burden of a single income family will be 24 per cent higher than that imposed on a two-income family. By far the greatest majority of single income families are families with young dependent children where one parent has chosen to stay at home to look after those children. For those families earning $19,500 we find that, under the scales that are to come into operation on 1 July, for every additional dollar they earn over $19,500 they will pay 16c more in the dollar than a two-income family with the same total household income. For families with household incomes of $35,000 single income families will pay nearly $50 a week more, or nearly 40 per cent additional tax, than a two-income family with the same income. On each additional dollar earned by the family with the single income, the tax liability will be 20c in the dollar more than that payable by a two-income family earning the same additional dollar. Yet it is those families who are to be denied the family allowance. It is those families who will pay far more tax than a single person supporting no dependent spouse and supporting no children. The single income family with a dependent spouse will be paying the same amount of tax as a single person. Yet it is argued that there has been tax reform. Tax reform is not achieved by tax cuts alone. Tax reform is achieved only if the tax system is made more equitable. What is needed is a more equitable tax system. What is needed is something to protect the incomes of families. There was a time when, under the wages system operating in this country, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission set wages at a level that took account of the support given by a breadwinner to a dependent spouse and dependent children. However, it is years since the Commission went on the record and said that it would set an adequate living wage related to the wage earner himself or herself. The Commission said that it must be up to governments, using the tax and social security system, to make appropriate adjustments to provide equity, both in a horizontal sense and a vertical sense, for families supporting dependent spouses and dependent children. In my view, it is vital, as tonight we are talking particularly about families with dependent children, that the family allowances be increased to the real value introduced in 1976 and that the family allowances be indexed and adjusted regularly to maintain their real purchasing power. It is also vital that we take steps to change the relativity between the allowances paid in respect of children under the age of five years, between the ages of five and eight years, eight and 11 years, 11 and teenage, and teenagers. These adjustments should be made to take into account the increased costs of rearing a child the older that child gets. The levels should then be raised to a level of family and child allowances payable in respect of children wholly dependent on the social security system, so that all families, whether they are dependent on the social security system or whether they are supporting their own children, receive, either as cash social security payments or through tax rebates, the same amount so that the tax social security system does not distort social behaviour. Then we should increase the allowances to take account of the-- Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.16) —Tonight I wish to refer to the Albury mail strike, which has enormous national ramifications. I notified the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), as a matter of courtesy, that I would raise the subject tonight. The strike, which commenced on 6 and 7 May, involved the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union proceeding with a tactical and political strike which was unwarranted and unjustified and which led to hundreds of individuals and small business operators becoming the innocent victims of this ugly union action. The strike had nothing to do with conditions which Australia Post might have laid down as the employer involved. In many ways Australia Post was the innocent party, as were many postal workers at Albury. The strike had everything to do with a political campaign over the Federal Government's workers compensation legislative intentions. The union decided to impose bans, including a total ban on all mail going to the Albury mail centre, which quickly led to a situation in which there was no mail over much of southern New South Wales, and particularly the city of Albury, from anywhere outside that region. I can give many examples of the consequences of that action. Passports, urgent medical reports and notifications of operations were held up in the mail. People missed out on having those operations as a direct consequence of the mail strike. Also, a large number of small business operators-- Mr Hand —Weren't you on the front bench before? Are you on the back bench now? Mr TIM FISCHER —Would the honourable member support the strike? The honourable member is interjecting and he is not even in his correct seat in the chamber. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne is not sitting in his own seat and he is interjecting. I ask him to cease. Mr TIM FISCHER —We now know that Labor members support the action of the APTU proceeding with a political strike which had nothing to do with Australia Post's conditions. I am pleased that the honourable member for Melbourne has indicated his support of the strike, because I will see that that fact is circulated throughout my electorate where many people are recovering from the fact that 400,000 individual items of mail and over 6,000 bags of mail have been held up for over a fortnight, creating very acute individual hardship as well as wrecking the cash flow of many small and large business operators. That has occurred as a direct consequence of this unjustified and unwarranted APTU strike. I called a public meeting on this issue to be held in Albury last Friday. A very large cross-section of the community came forward. My door was open to the postal workers involved. Indeed, representatives from all sectors of the community were present. A number of key resolutions were passed to bring pressure to bear on the Government if there was no settlement by today to commence deregistration proceedings, to intervene and to circulate information on the strike throughout the capital cities so people would know that, if they posted mail to Albury, it would be strikebound. The strike has many other implications, not the least of which is credit bureaus and Bankcard operators applying defaults and penalties on innocent people who are not aware of the liabilities involved. Again, that is a direct consequence of this tactical political strike which had nothing to do with the direct conditions of employment of the postal workers involved. The APTU workers in Albury were the pawns in that the Australian Council of Trade Unions laid down an edict on supporting the workers compensation campaign and sent an APTU union organiser down to cause trouble. People were sent out to other centres also. Of course, they got a raspberry throughout most of country New South Wales and indeed most of Australia. Eventually, this morning, the unions said that it had been dumped by the ACTU and the Government on the matter. It deserves to be dumped. It has certainly been dumped by the people of Albury and the people of the electorate of Farrer, who have suffered greatly because of the strike. I ask the Minister to confirm in the House today or tomorrow that he has circulated notices on the strike. Mr Hand —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. It deals with a remark made by the honourable member about three sentences ago when he said that that union had been dumped by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That is totally untrue and he knows it to be untrue. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr TIM FISCHER —Indeed, I support the claims by the Albury City Council which have been conveyed directly to the Minister's office and invite the Minister formally to advise the House of the circumstances arising from the end of the strike. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.21) —On Wednesday, 6 May 1987, George Henry Neilly died after a long illness. George was a former long-serving State member for the New South Wales electorate of Cessnock. He was a former member of the New South Wales Legislative Council, former General Secretary of the Miners Federation, former Northern District President, former Lodge officer and former serviceman with the Royal Australian Navy whose war service included the battle of the North Sea and the battle of the Coral Sea. He died during Coral Sea week. George Neilly was born in Kurri Kurri on 3 March 1917. His mother died shortly after his birth and he was reared by his grandparents in Abermain. He attended Maitland Boys High School. George obtained employment at the Abermain Colliery in 1934 and remained employed there until, like all junior mine workers, he was paid off when he turned 21. He joined the Royal Australian Navy in 1939. From 1939 until 1944 he served in the Royal Australian Navy. After his discharge he resumed work at Abermain No. 1 Colliery, was elected Secretary of the Miners Lodge and later became an industrial advocate for the Miners Federation. In 1950 George was elected Northern District President of the Miners Federation and four years later he became General Secretary of the Federation when the Australian Labor Party was attempting to reassert its position in the trade union movement. George's son, Stan, has a 1952 letter to George from the Secretary to the New South Wales Governor, offering him the Order of the British Empire. George Neilly was elected as a Labor member of the Legislative Council in September 1954. He had also served as a member of the New South Wales State Executive of the Australian Labor Party. George was campaign director for the late Dr H. V. Evatt when he stood for the Federal electorate of Hunter in 1958 after transferring from Barton. In 1959, at the request of Premier Joe Cahill, he sought and obtained ALP endorsement for the Cessnock State electorate. He resigned from the Legislative Council and in the ensuing State election he succeeded the late Bill Crook as State member for Cessnock. He held that seat until he resigned in 1978. During the time that George Neilly represented Cessnock it became one of the safest seats held by the ALP in New South Wales. George had a reputation for never turning anyone away. There are hundreds of families on the northern coal- fields which were assisted in some way by George Neilly. George was recognised throughout the trade union movement as an outstanding advocate. His speaking talents were impressive. He was a forceful, logical and effective debater. In his later years George did not always enjoy the best of health and he became quite ill in July 1986. That period of illness persisted until his death. George was proud of his contribution to the Labor movement. He was proud of his community, he was proud of his family, and he was proud of the fact that he was born in Kurri Kurri, reared in Abermain and lived most of his later life in Cessnock. These towns tied George to the South Maitland coal fields. George's widow, Lola Neilly, is an outstanding and gracious woman who provided immeasurable support for George. He married Lola Wood when he was serving in the RAN. They both displayed in many ways their warm affection for the people of the coal fields. They have always defended them passionately. Following George's retirement in 1978 I had the honour of representing the coal fields in the New South Wales Parliament before I transferred to this Parliament. I, in turn, was followed in Cessnock by George and Lola Neilly's son, Stan, who continues to represent Cessnock with that well known Neilly vigour and commitment. George is survived by his wife Lola, his son Stan, his daughter, Mrs Noelene Fletcher, Noelene's husband, Norman, and the three grandchildren, John, Alina and James. George's funeral was held on Saturday, 9 May. He was laid to rest in Kurri Kurri cemetery. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.26) —During the closing part of the debate tonight on the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill I found myself in a debate with the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). I took some exception to the words he was using. I was also quite surprised because I picked up a newspaper in Melbourne recently when I was passing through the airport. There was a photograph of the honourable member's office daubed all over with graffiti, spray can variety, attacking the honourable member for his role in allowing the passage of the various mini-Budget measures that have struck down on his constituents. He has come in here tonight to attempt to square off with those people. He is standing up now after the Caucus has committed the Government to the measures that have, for instance, removed the dole from 16- and 17-year olds, who no doubt represent a large percentage of his electorate. Ms McHugh —And providing them with the $50 they got before. Mr TUCKEY —The point is that the measures that are hitting young people are measures of the Government, and they must be borne by the back bench, the interjecting member included. Nobody from the Government will cross the floor to vote against this legislation. The reality is that it will be supported. I thought it was the height of hypocrisy for the honourable member for Melbourne to come in here tonight and start to tell people, after the horse has bolted, that he was upset about it, that he was worried and that he was looking for change. We all know the rules in this place. When the Bill is printed, it is to go through the House. It is no good the honourable member for Melbourne coming in here and bemoaning the fact after the event, but it was even worse when he interrupted the honourable member for Stuart (Mr Wilson), who I am sure all members of this House will agree is a man of great compassion and concern. He would work tirelessly for people in the electorate of the honourable member for Melbourne or in another electorate. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I draw the honourable member's attention to page 457 of the House of Representatives Practice. It states: . . . no allusion may be made to any debate or proceedings of the current session . . . unless the allusion is relevant to the matter under discussion. As there is no matter under discussion, I suggest the honourable member is out of order. Mr Connolly —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. With respect, this is the adjournment debate. The purpose of the adjournment debate is to enable all members the freedom to say what they like about any subject of their choice. Madam SPEAKER —I will read the passage again: . . . no allusion may be made to any debate or proceedings of the current session . . . unless the allusion is relevant to the matter under discussion. As there is no matter under discussion, I again say that the honourable is out of order. He is alluding to a debate of the current session. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, I am on my feet to protest about the activities of the honourable member for Melbourne. If I have to give an example-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will not allude to any proceedings in the debate in the House today. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Madam Speaker. The message I will continue with on this occasion-I have made my point in that regard-relates to the conduct that we are still perceiving in the Parliament at Question Time. Question Time today was very disappointing to us all. Again the Government, with its no good news, was aided and abetted by the back bench. I made remarks earlier today regarding the honourable member for Melbourne. He is the only back bencher in the Government ranks who in recent times has risen to his feet on a matter of importance relating to people. His question related to Vietnam veterans. There is not another back bencher in the Government ranks who puts the sort of questions that I well remember used to come from the government back benchers when the Fraser Government was in operation. Members on the back bench then had the right, which is the right of back benchers, to ask questions as they wished. They used to stand up 20 at a time. Ministers found it extremely difficult to get dorothy dixers asked by back benchers. But members of this back bench are totally regimented. All they do is spend their time asking questions of Ministers to give them the opportunity to slate the Opposition. As I have said before, that is the no good news syndrome. I have seen it all before. When governments run out of steam, they turn their attention to the Opposition and hope to goodness that will save them. But the reality is that the fault lies with the back bench. As in the other example I have given, those opposite are letting down their constituents. They are not getting the opportunity to do the job for which they were elected. It is a shame. If honourable members opposite go back through the Hansard and look at the record of a time when they were in Opposition they will see that that record is better than theirs. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I just point out to the honourable member for Bradfield, who raised the question that the House is debating the adjournment, that House of Representatives Practice, on the same page from which I quoted earlier, goes on to say: The application of this standing order most often arises when the question before the House is `That the House do now adjourn' or `That grievances be noted'. The scope of debate on these questions is very wide ranging . . . The standing order applies more strictly, or as strictly, in those areas than it does in others. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.31) —It has been brought to my attention that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has just made some comments about me, which I would like to address. Madam SPEAKER —Perhaps I should interrupt the honourable member for Melbourne here and point out that I pulled up the honourable member for O'Connor for alluding to debates in the current session. I ask the honourable member not to allude to any debate in the current session. Mr HAND —Would it be fair to ask whether I will be able to address those remarks on a future occasion? Madam SPEAKER —Why does not the honourable member make his remarks, and I will tell him whether he is out of order? Mr HAND —I understand that the honourable member for O'Connor said that I was squaring off because some people painted the front of my building. Perhaps the honourable member might know who did it. It would be in keeping with the sort of company that he keeps-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must not cast aspersions on any other honourable member of this House. Mr HAND —Well, I would not wish to cast aspersions on the honourable member for O'Connor, who is someone who has been convicted of a crime-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not cast aspersions. He will withdraw that comment and will not further cast an aspersion on or impugn any honourable member of this House. I suggest that he take heed of the Chair. Mr HAND —I would like to say that perhaps the honourable member for O'Connor-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member please withdraw the comment first? Mr HAND —I withdraw the comment. Madam Speaker, I am often confused, when I ask for your guidance and state a fact, about why I have to withdraw it. Madam SPEAKER —It is because the honourable member speaks under the same Standing Orders as everyone else in this House, and he may not cast aspersions on another honourable member. Mr HAND —May I just say that the honourable member for O'Connor seems to have cast a few aspersions on me? I am trying to address the fact-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor was making comments, not casting aspersions. Mr HAND —I shall return to the comment that I was squaring off with someone. I am not squaring off with anyone. What I did tonight was what I thought was the appropriate thing to do as a member elected to this House by a wide cross-section of the community and as one who represents all of his electorate, as I assume other members do when they come into this place. Any time that the honourable member for O'Connor wants to have the knock-down, drag-out brawl that he talked about today, I will tell him that, quite frankly, I am sick and tired of his thuggery both inside and outside this Parliament-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that comment. Mr HAND —I withdraw the word `thuggery'. However, the intimidation by and threats of that individual-a person who, if he could, would get out of this room without even opening a door because he is that low-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw those comments. He is quite outside the Standing Orders. Mr HAND —I withdraw the comments, but I take offence-- Mr Tuckey —The honourable member has not withdrawn. Mr HAND —I withdraw, you fool; sit down. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that comment. Mr HAND —I withdraw the word `fool'. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member that he is trying the Chair's patience. Mr HAND —I am trying to get back to the point, but I am being somewhat provoked again, as is normal, by the honourable member for O'Connor's intimidatory action-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member was not so provoking, he might not be provoked. Mr HAND —The point is that I came into this place to represent my electorate. I raise points that are of concern to people living in my electorate, which is something that I undertook to do. I also asked the Minister whether, in the time between the passing of legislation in this place and the time of its implementation, some of the problems could be addressed. I have no doubt that some of the concerns felt by people, some of the hardships that may appear to occur as a result of the legislation, will be rectified. There is nothing hypocritical about that. I was elected by the Australian Labor Party and I would never rat on the Labor Party and vote against it. I will stick with the Labor Party because it is the only salvation for the people of Australia. The people in our electorates know that, and that is why the Party will be re-elected in the coming months. The Opposition's thuggery, brawling and ratbaggery are not going to put me off doing my job-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Donald Cameron —The honourable member said `thuggery'' again. Madam SPEAKER —Yes, he did. I ask the honourable member to withdraw it for the record. Mr HAND —I withdraw it, Madam Speaker, but I seek your guidance on how I can answer the criticisms of people-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Sit down. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.35) —On 30 April, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said: In South Australia the age of consent is 17, while other states have generally put the age of consent at 16. Different treatment of a 16 year old in South Australia as compared to a 16 year old in the same circumstances but living in Victoria, for example, is seen as undesirable. Payments to under-age de factos have highlighted the Government's hypocrisy in discriminating against Queensland school children in the payment of Austudy and is typical of the Government's distorted attitude to the needs of young people. The Australian Labor Party Government is trying to justify payment of social security benefits to de factos as if they were married even if they are under the age of consent on the basis that `Commonwealth payments be made equitably throughout Australia'. I quote again the Minister for Social Security. The payment of Austudy is far from equitable and is discriminating against thousands of Queensland school children. Austudy pays benefits to students of 16 years and older, whereas previously the benefit was paid to students in years 11 and 12 even if they were only 15 years of age. I ask the two National Party members who are about to leave the chamber not to go. The scheme may well suit students in New South Wales and Victoria, where only 3 per cent to 4 per cent of year 11 students are still 15 years of age. In Queensland, however-my great State-a staggering 43 per cent of year 11 students are still 15 years of age at the start of the school year. This means that there are thousands of 15-year-old Queenslanders going into year 11 who will now not qualify for the benefit but who would have qualified under the old arrangement as put in place by the Liberal-National Party Government. It is not reasonable for children in New South Wales to qualify and for Queensland children to be penalised. So much for the Australian Labor Party's avowed `concern that Commonwealth payments be made equitably throughout Australia'. If the Hawke Government can find justification for giving taxpayers' money to de factos regardless of their age, even if they are committing a criminal offence by being under the age of consent, it should be able to find reasons to pay study allowances to year 11 students regardless of their age. They have done nothing wrong. Even for those Queensland students lucky enough to qualify, the total shambles in the Austudy section of the Department of Education has meant that many have still not received any payment. This is despite the fact that people who qualified to receive Austudy had any other Commonwealth payment they might have been receiving stopped at the beginning of the year. Many, therefore, have had little or no income to live on for several months. In the remaining moments available, I want to repeat the final two sentences of the statement by the Minister for Social Security: In South Australia the age of consent is 17, while other states have generally put the age of consent at 16. In Queensland almost half the number of the students start year 11 at 15 years of age, whereas in other States most students start year 11 at 16 years of age. The Minister went on to say: Different treatment of a 16-year-old in South Australia as compared to a 16-year-old in the same circumstances but living in Victoria, for example, is seen as undesirable. It is totally unfair and discriminatory for the Government to have a policy which works against Queenslanders who start school at an early age. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.40) —I would like to refer tonight to the adjournment speech made by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), on 30 April 1987, in which he criticised my comments in an adjournment speech of the day before in relation to the abduction of Mr Mordachai Vanunu by Israeli authorities. It seems to me that the honourable member missed the whole point of my speech. I do not deny that Israel is surrounded by enemies, but so far as the Palestinian people are concerned the enmity is the result of the inhumane policies which the Israeli Government is perpetrating against Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. I also acknowledge that the trial is now proceeding at long last. I do not accept that the background conditions for Israel are analagous to those which existed when Australia was at war with Japan way back in the 1940s. It is rather more analagous to Australia abducting an Australian from Rome Airport because he had revealed details of the Maralinga atom bomb test site and the effect on Aboriginal people and subjecting him to secret trial proceedings. It is interesting to note that the honourable member for Wentworth made no reference to my comments about Israel's collaboration with South Africa on the provision of war weapons and the sharing of nuclear weapons information. South Africa's evil racist policies are condemned world wide, and it does nothing for Israel's international image that she is prepared to collaborate so closely in military preparedness with a country which uses the colour of a person's skin as a reason for oppression and exploitation of the majority of the South African population. Again these matters do not go to the heart of the issue we are discussing tonight, and that is the question of the civil rights of Mordachai Vanunu. It is an undeniable fact that Mr Vanunu was abducted from Rome Airport and taken to Israel on 30 September 1986. Let me make it clear, he was not extradited but kidnapped, terrorist fashion. His many supporters, both here and in Israel, have indicated their anger and concern, and I quote from one letter I have received in relation to the abduction as follows: This in itself makes his imprisonment in Israel and all judicial proceedings against him subsequent to his abduction, absolutely illegal by international law and a very serious case of basic human rights denial. Israel's Government chose to ignore the extradition treaties, to which it is a signatory, and now has the audacity to claim, in effect, extra territorial jurisdiction over Mordechai Vanunu. As for the unfairness of the trial, leaving aside for a moment the illegality of the proceedings, there are at least 3 reasons why such a trial cannot be fair. Firstly, the lynch campaign, orchestrated from the top, against Mordechai Vanunu ever since the disclosure of his imprisonment in Israel (something denied for almost 6 weeks by Israel's Government) has brought about his `conviction' by the print and electronic media in Israel several times over. Secondly, the trumped up charges brought against him, and in particular the charges of alleged `espionage' cannot be seen other than an attempt to discredit him and the cause of nuclear disarmament in the eyes of the public in Israel. Thirdly, the main guarantee for a fair trial is in its exposure to public scrutiny. In Mr Vanunu's case, his request for an open trial was rejected by the court, and as a result nobody could ever know if it has been a kangaroo court or a fair trial. The secrecy of the trial has no justification whatsoever, since it is clear for all to see that if he had known any secrets they have all been published by the world's news media. Furthermore long before Mr Vanunu's revelations the Press was full of rumours and news items relating to Israel's nuclear bombs production and stockpile. I have quoted from the letter virtually in full because it conveys the points so well. I would also like to point out to honourable members that Amnesty International has asked Israeli authorities for assurances that the trial will be fair, and has stated intentions of sending a delegate to observe all or part of the trial. Since Mordachai Vanunu is facing charges which could carry the death penalty, Amnesty International has urged the Israeli Attorney-General, as prosecuting authority, to not seek that penalty. If the Israeli system of justice is as fair as the honourable member for Wentworth maintains, why is Amnesty International so concerned? Finally I would like to quote from an extract of the March/April issue No. 13 of Politica, which is an Israeli political journal. The extract has been translated for me and is headed Israel's Nuclear Policy: The Intolerable Poverty Of The Discussion; and it makes very clear that Mr Vanunu's so-called crime is that he revealed facts which were completely unknown to the general public in Israel. The quotation I will make is from an article by Zeer Shif, a military correspondent of ``Ha'aretz'' about nuclear weapons. He has written: `. . . This is not a public debate of substance, only its beginning, the buds of the debate. To this day the subject has not reached a serious debate, despite its concern with the essence of our existence, and its far reaching implications to security and internationally. Censorial bans and psychological repression which is the likely result of the dread which is associated with nuclear weaponry, has left the subject in the darkness of the security labyrinth'. I submit to honourable members that the honourable member for Wentworth is not correct in describing Mr Mordachai Vanunu as an unhappy man. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.45) —We on this side of the House remain deeply suspicious about the Government's intentions in the field of industrial relations. The mere fact that the Government today refused to go ahead with its industrial relations legislation makes no difference to the fact that we are deeply suspicious about its intentions. I am quite certain that I speak for the majority of Australians; the majority of people out in the community are also suspicious of what this Government intends to do. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) spilled the beans when he brought down his second reading speech when presenting the Industrial Relations Bill to the House because in that second reading speech he revealed to all of Australia what this Government intends to do in the field of industrial relations, if given the opportunity. We know now that this Government intends to give more power to the trade union movement, to its mates in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. But what we do not know is the full extent of this Government's strategy in the field of industrial relations. I will just make one significant quotation from the Minister's second reading speech. He said: The Bill now before the House is not, therefore, to be seen in isolation. It is part of a comprehensive industrial relations strategy which has already demonstrated its effectiveness. The measures contained in this legislation will ensure that the effectiveness of that strategy is further enhanced. What the Minister said there was that that Bill presented to the House was not an isolated incident. The measures contained in that Bill were not to be taken in isolation. The Government, in conjunction with the ACTU, has a grand strategy to give vastly increased powers to the trade union movement. It is on that basis that we on this side of the House, and the people of Australia, remain very deeply suspicious as to what this Government will do. Let us think of some of the things it intended to do. Let us look at what did the Government intend to do in the field of common law? Mr Cadman —Scrap it. Mr BURR —As my colleague says, the Government intended to scrap common law remedies for employers. It intended, in fact, to create legal classes of citizens in this country-unheard of in a democracy. This Government intended to deny common law remedies to certain classes of people-the employers of this country-so that they would not have access to common law remedies. Why did the Government want to do that? It was simply to give its mates in the trade union movement more power, to stymie the remedies available to employers. Why did it want to do that? It was because of the Mudginberri case. Mudginberri changed the whole industrial relations climate. Using the Fraser Government legislation under the Trade Practices Act, employers proved in the Mudginberri case that unions are subject to common law. It is this Government's determination to remove those common law remedies that are at the very heart of its industrial strategy. We condemn the Government for that approach. We on this side of the House say that every person, every organisation, must be subject to the same law. There are not two laws in Australia; there is one law for all and all must be subject to that law. We deny, and will never accept, that trade unions should be above the law. We will never accept that trade unions should not be subject to common law, but that is precisely what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and this Government want to do. They want to make the unions above the laws of this land-above the common law. They want to deny employers access to common law remedies. I assure Government members that when they go out on the hustings during this election campaign that they now appear intent on, we will expose their strategy to every person in Australia. We will make it one of the central themes of this election campaign. I assure you, Madam Speaker, and my friends on the other side of this House that when we are finished we will prove to the people that this Government is governing only for its mates in the ACTU, that it wants to give its coalition partners in the ACTU complete power over the functioning of government. It wants to make them above the law. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.50) —The existence of nuclear weapons creates an almost intolerable burden for us all-that is, the possibility of their use in a nuclear war. Those who work for nuclear disarmament, an end to the nuclear arms race, and, we hope, the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons understand that the very presence of these weapons, their very existence, also creates an intolerable danger-that is, the risk of accidents. The passage of nuclear-armed vessels through our oceans and air space, the visits of nuclear-armed ships to our ports, expose us to that very danger. Yet we are constantly assured that there is no risk; there will be no accidents. There have already been very many accidents. I would like to quote from the journal of the Scientists Against Nuclear Arms entitled Sana Update. It contains a list of some of those accidents. I will refer to as many as I have time to read. The sources of this article are a 1981 issue of Flight International and a report in Jane's Defence Weekly on Soviet nuclear accidents dated 19 January 1985. These are very reputable authorities. The accidents I will refer to have occurred in the United States of America, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. Let me refer to some that have occurred in the United States: On 7 June 1960 a nuclear-tipped Bomarc anti-aircraft missile in `ready-storage' configuration was destroyed in a fire which followed an explosion. The nuclear warhead was destroyed and there was localised contamination. On 24 January 1961 a B52 on airborne alert and carrying two nuclear weapons experienced catastrophic structural failure of the starboard wing and broke up in mid air. One weapon fell free and broke up on impact with the ground. Part of the weapon containing uranium was never recovered, even though the water logged farmland in the vicinity was excavated to a depth of 50 feet. On 8 December 1964 a B58 crashed on takeoff at Grissom Air Force Base, Indiana, with five nuclear weapons on board, killing one of the three crew. Parts of all the nuclear weapons were burned in the ensuing fire and there was contamination in the immediate vicinity of the wreck. This was subsequently removed. On 11 October 1965 a C124 transport aircraft carrying nuclear weapons components caught fire during a refuelling operation on the ground at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. On 5 December 1965 a United States Navy A4 Skyhawk nuclear-capable strike aircraft loaded with one nuclear weapon rolled off the elevator of an aircraft carrier at an undisclosed location in the Pacific. Just as well it was not Sydney Harbour. The pilot, the aircraft and the nuclear weapon were not recovered. On 17 January 1966 seven out of 11 crew died when a B52 strategic bomber and a KC135 tanker aircraft collided over Palomares in Spain. An accident is listed for the United States for 21 January 1966, when a B52 crashed on approach, seven miles out from Thule AFB, Greenland. On 21 May 1968 the submarine USS Scorpion was lost with all her crew. On 19 September 1980 a fuel tank of an LGM25C Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile was ruptured when a mechanic dropped a wrench down the silo during servicing. I refer to the Soviet Union. Information is very sparse, but there is still plenty around. On 12-13 April 1970 a nuclear-powered November class submarine, possibly equipped with nuclear tipped warheads, sank after a reactor accident 170 miles south-west of Land's End. In October 1970 another November class boat suffered a fire in the Atlantic leading to its loss and that of many of the crew. In August 1980 an Echo II class submarine was reported disabled in the western Pacific near Okinawa, probably after a major fire. Crew members wearing anti-radiation suits were reported on deck after the incident. In December 1972 a nuclear weapon accident on a nuclear-powered submarine off the North American coast led to a leak of radioactive material from a nuclear-tipped torpedo. Most of the crew were affected by radiation sickness and several died. I refer to the last of the reported accidents. In the United Kingdom on 20 June 1985 vehicles in a Royal Air Force nuclear weapons convoy were involved in a collision in the middle of Helensburgh, Strathclyde. Two nuclear weapons carriers collided, causing a small fire. That is the sort of accident we can expect as long as nuclear weapons even exist on this earth. Mr GOODLUCK(Tasmania)(10.55) —Tonight I interrupted a government member, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), who was speaking on the mini-Budget. I probably should not have interrupted him. All I did was agree with a couple of the sentiments that he was making. He then verbally attacked me. I interpreted that attack as an inference that we, on this side of the House, do not care for the poor, the needy and the elderly. I take offence at that. Earlier today I interrupted another member and perhaps I should not have done so. If I get a whiff or a smell that I have been misinterpreted I fight back and, incidentally, I do not give a hoot who it is. I spoke to another member about the duty free goods that one can buy. He said to me: `You are all for the rich, you are all for the ones who are wealthy. You are not for the pensioners as you purport'. I take offence at that also. We on this side of the House have to be very careful not to be tarred by honourable members on the opposite side of the House who are saying all the time that we care only for the rich and that we purport to represent only the rich. I won my seat as member for the electorate of Franklin in 1975 with a swing of 15.2 per cent-the biggest swing from Labor to Liberal in Australia. I did not do it because of my good looks or my intelligence as the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is seated at the table, would say. I did it by sheer hard work and by saying, dedicatedly, that I care for the poor, the needy and the elderly, and I have stuck to that all the way through. So I do not want the honourable member over there-- Mr Hollis —Not me! Mr GOODLUCK —Not the honourable member for Throsby, the honourable member for Melbourne who represents the left wing-to look at me and say: `Fancy you interrupting me and agreeing with a sentiment of mine because how the dickens could you care for the ones you say you represent-the poor, the needy and the elderly?'. I take offence at that and I take offence at what another government member said, incidentally, that we are only for the rich. A lot of pensioners have saved money all their lives to travel from Australia and if they want to buy a few duty free goods that is their good luck as far as I am concerned. At least I am not a damned hypocrite who says one thing and then does another. At least all my life I have practised what I preached and I will not move away from that. So if any honourable member on the opposite side of the House interrupts me when I agree with his or her sentiments as if to say: `A Liberal member-what would you know about the poor, the needy and the elderly?'-- Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member that he speak into the microphone. Mr GOODLUCK —Madam Speaker, I am sorry about that. Let me turn now to petrol. Tonight I was going to say that I am absolutely disgusted with the oil companies. I have said this on many occasions. The oil companies have said: `We will disregard Tasmania'. We in Tasmania know that, for various reasons, we are paying the highest possible price for petrol and my colleague, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), would agree with that. We are paying a high price and we know that. But I have watched with great interest what has been happening in Melbourne and in Sydney where the largest market for petrol is. There are three million people, a lot of motorists, in Sydney and Melbourne. I have watched what the oil companies have been doing. They cannot get away from the fact that it is their fault. Petrol was selling in Melbourne at 48c a litre and a couple of weeks later it was selling at 58c. I have watched the same sort of thing happening in Sydney. The petrol companies can talk about the market, they can talk about everything else in the world such as politics, et cetera, but they cannot get away from the fact that they are hoodwinking the motorists of Sydney and Melbourne if they are charging a low price one week and then changing that price the following week by going to the Prices Surveillance Authority and asking for an increase in prices. The Minister for Science is nodding his head in agreement. He understands exactly what I am saying. It is useless for the Australian Labor Party's price watch committee to talk about prices when its own instrument, the Prices Surveillance Authority, is just not doing its job. It hurts me to think that people in Tasmania are paying 34c a litre for liquefied petroleum gas when it can be purchased in Melbourne for 17c a litre. There is something wrong with the system. The maximum wholesale price for petrol is charged all the time in Hobart. In Melbourne and Sydney the price has moved from side to side to suit the whim-- Mr Barry Jones —What about State charges? Mr GOODLUCK —I have taken into con- sideration State charges. Queensland, for example, does not have a State charge at all. I know what the State charge is in Tasmania. We could argue that there was a shortfall in funds for Tasmania but the pure and simple fact is that if people in Tasmania see the price moving so markedly in Melbourne and in Sydney from a high price to a low price there is something wrong. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Connolly to move- That this House- (1) commemorates the 20th anniversary of the national referendum held on 27 May 1967 by which the Australian people voted overwhelmingly to give the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate concurrently with the States to make special laws for the Aboriginal people; (3) reaffirms- (a) the right of Aboriginals to equality of opportunity, and (b) the continuing need for special programs to overcome disadvantage caused by poverty, distance and deprivation, and (2) notes with pleasure the considerable achievements of Aboriginal Australians in many fields of endeavour over the last 20 years. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 26 May 1987: Family Law Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 74. Foreign States Immunities Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 77. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of Ministerial determination made pursuant to section 106aa, dated 20 April 1987. National Health Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 76. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 79. Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 75. Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 78. Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing 7 July 1987 as the date on which the Patents Amendment Act 1984 shall come into operation. Public Service Act-Determination-1987-No. 24. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1987/8-Executive Director, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and holders of public offices or other bodies. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances-1987-No. 17-Parole Orders (Transfer) (Amendment). No. 18-Dangerous Goods (Amendment) (No. 2). Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 77. Telecommunications (Community Calls)-Amendment No. 48. Telecommunications (Digital Data Charging)-Amendment No. 40.