Monday, 1 June 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the text of the communique issued over the weekend by South Pacific Forum members conveying to the Governor-General of Fiji the Forum's `willingness to help' and requesting the Governor- General to `indicate the forms of assistance he considered most appropriate'. What help or assistance is being provided to the people of Fiji by the continuing actions of maritime unions in Australia in banning the shipment of goods and services into Fiji, actions which have jeopardised our $10m wheat trade with that country? As it is now five days since the Minister told this House that the bans were likely to be lifted in the very near future, will the Government take immediate action to end the bans? If not, why not? Who is running the country, the elected Government or the trade unions of Australia? Mr WILLIS —The bans which remain at this stage by the maritime unions are not in accordance with the position of the Australian Council of Trade Unions which, after I spoke to the House last week, said to the unions that they should remove those bans. The position of the ACTU was not accepted by all of the maritime unions. In fact, only one of those unions objected to or refused to accept the ACTU recommendations. It did so, I understand, after having discussions with the two visiting Ministers of the Bavadra Government who are in Australia and who advised the unions to maintain the bans. The economic bans are not part of the Government's response to the Fijian situation. We have made it clear to all of the unions that we believe those bans should not be applying. The position of the ACTU accords with that. There is a meeting this afternoon-in half an hour's time-at which the ACTU and the unions will be further considering that matter. I am hopeful that as a result of that meeting these bans will be lifted. If that is not the situation I will have further discussions with the Prime Minister when he returns tonight about our response in the light of those bans continuing. Mr PRICE —Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to the Economic Planning Advisory Council's assessment of Medicare as a highly progressive element of the social wage? Can the Minister inform the House which groups in Australian society gain most from Medicare? Dr BLEWETT —In response, I suggest that the Opposition in its proposals to cut Medicare read carefully the conclusions of the EPAC paper on aspects of the social wage. Mr Porter —How many pensioners did it say are on the queues? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Barker has just come into the House. He should not interject. Dr BLEWETT —That paper showed that the main beneficiaries of Medicare are age pensioners and wage earners and their families, particularly the less well off families. EPAC states: Since the share of health benefits received by the lower income groups is greater than the share of private income received by these groups, the redistributive effect is progressive. By contrast, what we are offered by the Opposition is highly regressive, that is flat rate private insurance whereby the poor and the less well off middle income earners will pay more and maybe the rich will pay somewhat less. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition said this morning: We will be proposing changes to Medicare that amount to its de facto dismantling. We will pull it right apart. That kind of statement shows that the Opposition has learnt nothing from the past 15 years in terms of health policy. Insofar as one can understand the Opposition's health policy, it is going back to its 1976 proposal. That lasted for 21 months and was followed by four different health schemes. Honourable members opposite have been in opposition now for four years. At the last election we had three health plans from the honourable member for Mackellar. On 12 April we had a health policy from the honourable member for Barker. He was almost immediately removed from the shadow health portfolio. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he will save $3 billion in the health care area. This morning the Treasurer and I released figures that show that, if you tried to save $3 billion from the Medicare budget, you would have a flat rate family insurance basic level of $27 per week. Even that would not produce the savings claimed by the Opposition because it ignores the moneys lost by all those people not paying Medicare levy. Indeed, if the Opposition went further and tried to have a tax rebate, it would lose all the savings. Those figures are now on the public record for people to debate. The Opposition's proposals would take us back to the late 1970s, another five health schemes, the same kind of soft option offered to the electorate and then change after change. Mr Spender —On a point of order on the question of relevance: The Minister for Health has been spending quite a deal of time on the proposals that he says `it makes'. The Minister has been asked a question about the Government's policy and not about our policy. In my submission, the Minister should be told not to refer to other proposals. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member has drawn my attention to Standing Orders; he should not then draw the conclusion. The Minister for Health will now resume answering the question. Dr BLEWETT —I was asked about Medicare's effect on the social wage. I referred to evidence from the Economic Planning Advisory Council and pointed out quite clearly that the Opposition's policies go in the opposite direction. Those policies benefit the rich at the expense of the poor and the less well off, and they would not in any way address the specific challenges in the health system. Mr REITH —My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the National Media Liaison Service costs the Australian taxpayer more than $1.3m per annum? In view of reports that the head of the Service will be based at the Australian Labor Party's campaign headquarters during the election campaign, does the Acting Prime Minister deny that the Service will be used by the Government for party political purposes? Does the Acting Prime Minister agree that this is an abuse of the Service and in contradiction of the statements by the former Special Minister of State in 1983 that the Service would not work for Labor? Mr JOHN BROWN —The National Media Liaison Service has the proper task of helping the Government to properly communicate its decisions and policies to the wider community. In fact, some people might say that it has a similar function to that of the Government Information Unit under the Fraser-Howard Government. That is a proposition that I would not accept. The National Media Liaison Service is concerned with the proper communication of government decisions and policies. The community has the right to be properly informed about what the Government is doing with its tax moneys. By comparison, the Government Information Unit, under the previous Government, had an entirely different charter. Let me give the House one good example. In May 1982, the Victorian Liberal Government had just been defeated and there was very lively debate within the Liberal Party as to what contribution Malcolm Fraser had made to that disaster. The honourable member for Kooyong-even then a humble back bencher-held a Press conference in his Melbourne office. There was widespread media speculation as to what the honourable member saw in the defeat that had something to do with Malcolm Fraser's leadership in Canberra and the defects of it. Even then the word `challenge' was in the air. While all this was going on, Malcolm Fraser was-- Mr Spender —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that the question was directed to what this Government is doing with the National Media Liaison Service. In my submission, it is quite irrelevant for the Minister to depart into what the honourable member for Kooyong or anybody else may have been doing or saying some years ago. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is listening carefully to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The question was fairly wide. Mr JOHN BROWN —While the honourable member for Kooyong was holding his Press conference, Malcolm Fraser was pacing the floor in his Melbourne office. Within minutes of the honourable member for Kooyong finishing his Press conference, Malcolm Fraser had a tape recording of all that had gone on supplied to him by a member of the Government Information Unit who was there to spy on the activities of a then back bencher, at taxpayers' expense. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, on a further point of order: This is nothing less than buffoonery. In my submission, it is not relevant and must be ruled out. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Chair is listening carefully to the Minister. He will complete his answer. Mr JOHN BROWN —When the Government Information Unit vacated its office in Canberra in March 1983, it thought that it had destroyed the files. It had not done so. One survived, and it makes very interesting reading. One of these days I might even bring it into the House. I now show the House the official handbook of the Liberal Party. It lists the Government Information Unit as a source of background notes on current issues for candidates: `Parliamentary reports, Senate Records Office, the Government Information Unit; fact sheets and background notes on current issues for your candidate'. Let us have no more hypocrisy about the National Media Liaison Service. The National Media Liaison Service has done its job very well. It has very properly served the people of Australia by disseminating, to the taxpayers, proper information on what this Government has done in all its programs. We make no apologies whatever. Honourable members opposite should be ashamed at the Goebbels-type propaganda unit that they ran. Mr FITZGIBBON —Can the Treasurer inform the House of the impact on the Budget deficit of cuts to health payments to the States by $1,700m, forcing families to opt out of Medicare, and the offering of a 30 per cent tax rebate for medical insurance expenses? Mr KEATING —There would be no saving to the deficit from such a proposal and, therefore, no free money for any party which wished to offer tax cuts with those proceeds. Such a proposal, saving payments to the States of $1.7 billion, would force the States to recover the added costs of health insurance by lifting insurance premiums through the funds. Opting out of Medicare for medical payments would cost the average family about $27 a week. The so-called savings of $1.7 billion in Commonwealth payments to the States would be offset by the Commonwealth needing to offer a rebate costing $1.4 billion. Against that, the savings from people opting out of Medicare would be about $1.3 billion, but the loss in Medicare levy receipts would be $1.6 billion. The sums on both sides of the ledger show savings of $1.3 billion in lower Medicare medical costs and of $1.7 billion in State health payments, giving a total of supposed savings of $3 billion, but the loss in Medicare levy revenue would be $1.6 billion and the rebate on medical health insurance costs would be $1.4 billion, also giving a total of $3 billion. In other words there is no net saving. The idea that $3 billion can be cut out of the health pudding, with that magic pudding somehow being left intact, and that that $3 billion could then be given in tax cuts to the wealthy, is absolute nonsense. Such a proposal, which has been touted by the Opposition, among others, would lift the costs of health insurance for a family with a current income of $18,500 a year from the existing Medicare levy of $4.38 a week to $27-an increase of $22.62 a week. For someone on average weekly earnings, the current levy of $5.63 would rise to $27 a week if people were forced to obtain private health and medical protection cover. It is simply a ruse to suggest that, somehow, excess money is lying around the health insurance system, so that $3 billion can be carved out and given to taxpayers at the top of the earning scale, and made up by increased medical costs for low and middle income families. It is the usual Liberal proposal-give the benefits to the rich and belt the poor. That is the gist of the supposed tax policy of the Opposition. As my colleague the Minister for Health has already mentioned, after 18 months of leadership by the honourable member for Bennelong, we still know nothing about his tax policy-only what we could glean from the John Laws program today. Mr Laws said: Obviously that means personal tax cuts. The Leader of the Opposition said: Personal tax cuts will be lower. It will be financed overwhelmingly by reductions in government spending. Mr Laws asked: Where are those reductions coming from? The Leader of the Opposition replied: They will be very major reductions in health. The Medicare system is a total disaster. We will be proposing changes to Medicare that will amount to its de facto dismantling. Mr Laws asked: So you will pull it right apart? The Leader of the Opposition replied: Yes, we will pull it right apart. Opposition members-Hear hear! Mr KEATING —Opposition members are shouting: `Hear, hear'. They want to break and smash a progressive system, with a flat rate levy whereby the healthy and wealthy subsidise the sick, pensioners and low income families. They will scrap that and move to a regressive system whereby a sick person on a low income with a number of kids will pay through the nose. Those on a high income will find their health costs reduced because the 1.25 per cent Medicare levy will be wiped out. That is Liberal equity 1987 style-as it was Liberal equity 1977 style, 1927 style and all the other styles, right back to when it all began. Honourable members opposite have always been about the same thing. They have always looked after the rich-as if they are not making enough now on the stock market, and as if they are not getting a decent tax cut by way of the 49 per cent rate. Honourable members opposite would break one of the social reforms of the Government by smashing the progressive health insurance system. Worse than that, they kid the nation that there is some sort of magic pudding of $3 billion to fund tax cuts. I have never seen such irresponsible behaviour from a major party in this Parliament. Good old fashioned fist-in-the-hand Howard wants to buy votes CIF-cash-in-fist-as he did in 1977. Do honourable members remember the 1977 tax cuts when people were told to ring up and find out what their tax cuts would be? Five months later he took them away. What about the 1982 tax cuts? He gave them, threw money around and then left this Government with a $10 billion Budget deficit which we have taken four years to control. Now, in the highest traditions of Ash Street, Sir Robert Askin's group, and in the highest traditions of his mentor, Senator Sir John Carrick-the downward thrust of China, the state aid debate, F111s, Petrov royal commissions-we see another fistful of dollars for the public. I think that the public of this country understands that Medicare is a fair and progressive system. It cares for the two million people who had no health insurance. It cares for low and middle income families who have children who often get sick, and who would otherwise be facing astronomical health bills. It is a piece of progressive social policy and it is not there to be smashed or torn asunder in order to give tax cuts to the burghers of Toorak and Vaucluse, as proposed by the honourable member for Bennelong. Mr HICKS —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the proposed horticultural marketing corporation which will subsume the existing dried fruits, canned fruits and apple and pear corporations. Does the Minister accept that producers who fund these bodies are strongly opposed to this loss of autonomy? Will he guarantee that these bodies will be excluded from the powers of this additional corporation in the unlikely event-I repeat, the unlikely event-that the Australian Labor Party is re-elected? Mr KERIN —I am glad that the honourable member is on the ball. I do not know which National Party he belongs to, but my colleague, the Minister for Transport, chaired the Australian Agricultural Council meeting in New Zealand in February and made an announcement that neither the Dried Fruits Corporation nor the Canned Fruits Corporation would be embraced by the proposed Australian horticultural corporation. The decision was taken at that time. It will concentrate on fresh fruits. That is why I have had continuing negotiations with apple and pear growers. We believe that there are very sound and sensible reasons for having an organisation that co-ordinates and maximises the opportunities for the marketing and promotion of our horticultural exports. I give one example of the need for such an organisation, putting aside the agro-politics and the need for the status quo, no matter what. The citrus industry last year-I had a letter from my colleague the Minister for Transport about this-ordered between 900 and 1,000 containers for citrus exports. In the event, fewer than 700 containers turned up and, of the fewer than 700 containers, 334 were not filled. That is not actually a dazzling performance. It shows that there is a need to co-ordinate matters concerned with freight and to co-ordinate marketing outturn to see that some of the State organisations get up and running. They are to be congratulated for the work they are doing, but we should make sure that we do not cut each other's throat. There is a great need for co-ordination and there is a great need for promotion. Above all, the horticultural corporation will give some of those smaller industries that do not have the avenues to develop research funds an opportunity to develop research and also some promotion. There is a great need for an Australian horticultural corporation. I know that honourable gentlemen opposite will be wound up by some of the status quo organisations and that they will never want to touch such things. The situation with the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation is that government legislation effectively prevents three canneries in this country from cutting each other's throat for the domestic market. In other words, it preserves a gentleman's agreement. Negotiations are under way at present that will possibly give us an amalgamation of the three canners. I do not think that honourable gentlemen opposite want to see government legislation to facilitate the continuation of a monopoly. The canners should be able to handle the matter themselves. There is a different situation with the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation. Basically, it wants to preserve an absence of competition in the domestic market. It wants to preserve consumer transfers such that the export market is subsidised- although, to be fair, there have been times when it has subsidised domestic consumers. It wants an entitlement scheme to protect the ADFA and it wants a vine pull scheme when things go bad. It also wants a few added extras. But I have already taken a decision that it would not be sensible to put it under the Australian horticultural corporation because I want it to be far more dynamic and outward looking-not backward looking like the National Party. Mr PUNCH —Madam Speaker-- Mr Howard —Bye bye, Gary. You can still barrack for the family. Mr PUNCH —I tell you what, John; you are welcome in Barton at any time. Bring all your friends. Bring Rosie, bring the aviation spokesman and the whole lot. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member have a question? Mr PUNCH —My question is to the Minister for Housing and Construction and I ask: How will the 30 March changes to the first home owners scheme help low and middle income earners into their first homes? Mr Downer —Hang on, he has to find the page. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mayo! Mr Hodgman —Put yourself on fast forward. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison! Mr WEST —Madam Speaker, honourable members opposite were making so much noise that I could not hear you call me. The House will be aware that the recent and most welcome changes to the first home owners scheme that the Treasurer and I announced on 30 March involve the raising of all income limits, including higher income limits for families with one child and even higher limits for families with two children. Overall, we expect about 26,000 additional families to be assisted as a result of the changes announced on 30 March. That would include approximately 13,000 households not previously eligible and a further 13,000 who may have been previously eligible but who will now get higher benefits. Some examples of the benefits now available in an increased form are that a household with one child with a family income of, say, $25,000 a year will now get a subsidy of $5,000 instead of the previous subsidy of $1,744. Similarly, a family with two children on an income of $26,000 per year will get a grant of $6,000 instead of $1,260 under the previous arrangements. In total, over one quarter of a million households in Australia have already been assisted by this scheme. As a result of the changes, it is expected that approximately 52,000 households will be assisted in the financial year 1987-88. I also draw attention to the Government's pledge, which was reiterated on 30 March, to continue the ceiling on the 900,000 savings bank loans issued at an interest rate of 13 1/2 per cent before April 1986. This involves 900,000 loans and about two million persons in Australia. So, very large numbers of people have very good reason to be satisfied with this Government's housing policy. But they do not have very good reason to be satisfied with what the Opposition might do. The Opposition has already said that it will abolish Federal funding for public housing and with one stroke it will wipe almost $2,000m from the housing arena. This would include Federal funding, nominated Loan Council arrangements and State matching and top-up funds. The Opposition cannot be trusted also to continue with either the first home owners scheme or with the 13 1/2 per cent interest ceiling on about 900,000 loans which were let out before April last year. The only aspect that we can see the Opposition seems to be parroting with regard to its housing policy is a vague promise to reduce interest rates by the remarkable strategy of blowing out the Budget deficit by billions of dollars. Its alternative to blowing out the Budget deficit by billions of dollars is to fund tax cuts for the very rich, to introduce a very heavy consumer tax, to slash programs viciously and to abolish programs such as the first home owners scheme or public housing. So it is little wonder that the Opposition's further tax cuts can be funded in only three ways: First, by blowing out the Budget deficit and destroying the gains that we have made on interest rates; secondly, by introducing a consumer tax; or thirdly, by viciously slashing public spending, such as the first home owners scheme or public housing, as it has already indicated it will do. It is therefore little wonder that the people of Australia cannot trust the Opposition. It is a split Opposition and it has a discredited Leader. They cannot trust him and it is little wonder that they treat him, his back bench and his front bench as a very bad joke indeed. Mr Hawker —Madam Speaker, I ask that the Minister table the three-page document that he was reading from. Madam SPEAKER —Is the Minister reading from a private document? Mr West —I am reading from personal notes. Mr Donald Cameron —Now you see it, now you don't. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moreton will not interject. Mr Donald Cameron —He is a-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moreton will heed the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —I refer my question to the Minister for Housing and Construction-I have a spare copy of the question for him to read-and I ask him whether it is a fact that housing starts during the seven years of the Fraser Government totalled 900,100 and that $440,343,000 per annum of taxpayers' money in constant 1979-80 dollars was spent directly on the housing industry. Is it further a fact that during the four years of the Hawke Government housing starts totalled 544,700 and that $1,308,275,000 per annum of taxpayers' money in constant 1979-80 terms was spent directly on the housing industry? Government members interjecting-- Mr TUCKEY —As the mean population during the seven years-it is a very serious question-- Madam SPEAKER —It is also a very long one. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, unfortunately it is a very long one, but it needs to be asked. Madam SPEAKER —And a very wide one also. Mr TUCKEY —During the seven years of the Fraser Government the mean population was 14,651,000 and it is now 15,709,000. Does the Minister agree-and I am getting to the end of the question-that these figures demonstrate that there has been an annual decline of the average of 8.776 housing starts per thousand head of population under Fraser to a still declining figure of 8.668 housing starts per thousand or, on a per capita basis, a decline of 23,830 residences per annum? Mr Uren —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that this is not a question. It is giving information and it is therefore out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has given a certain amount of latitude in respect of questions. However, I take the point from the Minister. It may be that the Chair will have to look much more closely at the length of questions and at the manner in which they are phrased. It has been the practice of various Speakers over many years to attempt to let Question Time flow rather than to pull the questioners on various points. However, it may be that we are getting to a time when I need to have a look at the matter. I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —To conclude my question, how does the Minister explain the need for his Government to expend 51.3c of taxpayers' money per head of population compared with $28.77 per head under Fraser to achieve an actual decline in per capita housing starts? Will the Minister now use proper objective criteria for comparisons and cease to measure excellence purely by gross dollars expended? I have a copy of the question for the Minister. Mr WEST —The honourable member has the audacity to ask us about the number of starts and also about housing policy. In the previous Government's last year of office it achieved 105,000 starts. Mr Tuckey —Don't tell us about one year; tell us about seven years. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor has asked a long question. He will now have the patience to listen to the answer. Mr WEST —In the previous Government's last year of office it achieved 105,000 starts. In the year before it got around 130,000. In our first year of office we achieved 135,000 starts. Mr Tuckey —Cut it out. You have built fewer houses for more money. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I intend to name the honourable member for O'Connor if he interjects again. Mr WEST —In our second year we got 154,000 starts. In our third year we got 137,000. We will get 120,000 this year, and I expect approximately 130,000 in 1987-88. We have done this by giving assistance to the industry through the scheme I have just described, the first home owners scheme, the best first home owners assistance scheme in Australia's history, which was worked out with the industry, with the Housing Industry Association and with the Master Builders Association. Already almost $1,100m has been pumped into that scheme and, as I have just explained, almost a quarter of a million families have benefited. This Government and my predecessor took over a public housing situation in which only $500m of Federal funding was given to the States as the result of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and nominating funding arrangements under the Loan Council whereby funds are made available to the States at 4 1/2 per cent interest over 53 years. The previous Government gave the States $500m and out of that they could only get fewer than about 8,000 extra commencements. This year they will get about another 18,000 extra acquisitions to the public housing stock. The honourable member talks to us about housing policy: The previous Government had brought the industry to its knees as a result of the low number of starts. It did not have a decent first home ownership scheme on the record and in operation. It had brought public housing to its knees. And the honourable member has the audacity to get up and ask me a long-winded question as to the results of our policy. The results of our policy are on the record for all of Australia to see. The Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Association, first home owners, and those on the waiting lists are all saying to us: `We want your housing policy, not the non-policies of the Opposition'. Dr KLUGMAN —Will the Treasurer and the Government be maintaining their commitment to fiscal discipline and responsibility during the election campaign? Will the Treasurer continue to provide specific figures and balance sheets and resist the temptation to follow others-I am sorry to say, such as the Opposition Leader-in offering just cliches? Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The last part of the question, which called upon the Treasurer to resist the temptation of offering cliches, or whatever were the words used, might have been thought by the honourable member to be funny but that is clearly out of order and should be ruled out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The latitude given to the honourable member for O'Connor will now be reciprocated. Mr KEATING —When this Government came to office it had two very large economic imbalances to deal with: One was the Commonwealth Budget deficit and the public sector borrowing requirement generally; and the other was the current account deficit, which had been growing since 1981-82. In 1981-82 it was already at 6 per cent of gross domestic product. Over four years the Government has reduced the Budget deficit from the 4.7 per cent in prospect for 1983-84 to under one per cent for the coming year, as a result of the May statement. In other words, we have done what very few countries in the world have done; that is, worked with great speed and effectiveness to reduce the domestic Budget imbalance so that funds could be better employed in the import competing and exporting sectors to deal with the second imbalance, the current account deficit. Through rational economic policies, such as the floating of the exchange rate, fiscal policy and wages policy, we have restored our competitiveness to bring that other fundamental imbalance, the current account deficit, under control. I am asked by the questioner: `Will the Government be maintaining the rationality of its policies? Will it be maintaining its discipline and responsibility?'. The answer is definitely in the affirmative. It will. To do other than this, particularly in these troubled times in the world, when Australia, as an agrarian exporter, has found it difficult to rely upon a narrow range of primary products, would be to show a cavalier disregard for the national good. At the weekend I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition said: We won't be going to the election campaign simply offering the Australian public some kind of balance sheet and some kind of piece of paper with figures on it, we will be going to the election campaign offering the Australian people a very precious commodity that is now missing in the political landscape, and that is hope. That is a little bit of gibberish for basically what has begun to be a policy grab bag of goods offered by the Opposition at an election. Of course, it sits very comfortably with other higher and more noble sentiments expressed by the Opposition Leader at other times. In the Age not long ago he is reported as saying: If we lapse into populism the future of this country will be at risk. Where has that statement gone? He is now in the middle of an orgy of populism. He said on the Willesee program in March 1987: I have never in my political life been unwilling to do a difficult or unpopular thing. How is that? He continued: I don't think anybody who aspires to be Prime Minister of this country, if they can't do difficult and unpopular things on occasions, then they are not worth the job. What he is saying is that he will not have a balance sheet-in other words, he will not have any fiscal responsibility or fiscal discipline. He will not be explaining where the money is coming from. All he will be doing is simply promising things that do not add up and talking about hope when he knows full well that such a policy would literally tear away all the work that has been done and tear away all the progress that has been made to date. In February he said: I am not prepared to put my name to any tax policy that doesn't add up. I'm not prepared, nor will my party be prepared, to suspend the laws of arithmetic in taxation policy, or, indeed, any other area, and the whole of the tax debate must be conducted in a rational fashion. Of course, that was in the days when a less desperate Opposition Leader was looking for office with responsibility. Now he is looking for office without responsibility and he has just dismissed out of hand balance sheets and pieces of paper with figures on them as being just so much political graffiti. He is saying: `Don't worry about that. We will be offering hope. In other words, what we are saying now is: ``Sell your country down the drain for a fistful of tax dollars''.'. He thinks the Australian public is so gullible that it will reach out and grab the fistful of dollars. He is saying: `What Hawke and the Government have been on about, about fixing our terms of trade, making sure we develop our secondary industries, pulling down our reliance on overseas debt-don't worry about all that. That was really only bunkum. All you have to do is just put out your hand and grab a handful of taxation dollars. Basically, we will solve your problem for you'. It is a national disgrace that the Leader of the other major party in Australian politics in 1987, when the rest of the world has brought down its budget imbalances, when the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries are focusing on economic responsibility, is wandering around this country talking about cheap tax bribes to try to deal with the lamentable political and intellectual position the Opposition is in. The Government will stick with its economic responsibility, its fiscal discipline and its economic discipline. It is not prepared to take a cavalier approach to this country's long running problems. Members of the Government are not prepared to say to their children that they will live in a country that is owned by foreigners and which can maintain a standard of living only on the back of overseas debt. We are about maintaining Australian control over Australian affairs, and we will reject the kind of grab bag of policies associated with the honourable member for Bennelong. Dr WATSON —My question is also directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that taxpayers earning $19,500 a year or $375 a week on 1 July this year would have received a tax cut of around $5 a week last December, but that they will receive no tax cuts on 1 July this year? Is it also a fact that the average tax rate paid by these taxpayers will be higher by Christmas this year than it was prior to 1 December last year? In other words, is it a fact that the 1 December tax cuts for these taxpayers will be more than lost in the next six months even though the Prime Minister and the Treasurer both claim tax reform is now completed? Mr KEATING —Let me freshen up the numbers for the questioner. For someone earning $350 a week or $18,249 a year, the tax cut from the November 1984, December 1986 and July 1987 tax cuts will be $12.61, or an increase in take home income of 4.65 per cent. For someone on average weekly earnings, which is $450 a week, or $23,463 a year, the tax cut will be $17.41. That is $7.58 from the 1 November 1984 cut plus $7.55 on 1 December 1986, plus $2.28 on 1 July 1987, which is an increase in take home income of 5.29 per cent. By contrast, somebody on $700 a week, or $36,498 a year, will receive an increase of 6.86 per cent. Unlike all the former Howard tax cuts, rather than giving nothing down the bottom end, the Government has given substantial increases by reducing the impact of taxation upon low income taxpayers, firstly by lifting the tax free threshold from $4,595 to $5,100 and by cutting the rate under $12,500 from 30c in the dollar to 24c in the dollar. The tax cuts have taken 130,000 taxpayers right out of the tax system; they do not pay tax at all. The Opposition has forgotten about that. Mr Hodgman —You took yourself out of the tax system! Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison! He need not look surprised; he has been interjecting throughout Question Time. Mr KEATING —I repeat: The Government has lifted the tax free threshold from $4,595 to $5,100. For taxpayers earning under $12,500 a year, the rate has been reduced from Mr Howard's 30c in the dollar to 24c in the dollar. For taxpayers above that level, the rate has been reduced accordingly to provide the kind of tax cut I just indicated. I will make this point: One never hears from the Opposition anything about marginal rates. When someone worked on weekends under John Howard's tax policy, one lost 60c at the margin of one's weekend income. That has been cut to 49c. The Opposition forgets to tell people that when it got the $3 billion slug in the hand out of the new money from Bass Strait the 60c rate was left in place. The Government has reduced the marginal rate from 60 per cent to 49 per cent and paid for it with a lower deficit. It has not made a promise that will blow out the deficit. However, 49 per cent is not good enough! The Liberal Party left the rate at 60 per cent and the Government has brought in 49 per cent and paid for it, but, oh, no, that is old hat! We now have to go down to 35 per cent. Of course, the honourable member does not mention that someone earning $19,500 was losing 46c at the margin on weekend overtime and that has now been cut to 40c. People will work on weekends and for the extra time. The honourable member does not mention that. He tries to put the position in averages. If the honourable member wants to take it on averages, I will give the averages. Prior to the November 1982 tax cuts a person on average weekly earnings faced an average tax rate of 23.1 per cent. The 1982 tax cut reduced that to 20.9 per cent, but it also blew the Budget deficit out to $10 billion. Following the income tax cut in November 1984, the average tax rate faced by a person on average weekly earnings fell to 19.9 per cent. In December last year further reductions in the marginal rate reduced this average to 19.7 per cent. So on the average rates and on the marginal rates not only has the Government dramatically reduced tax but it has done so not by blowing out the deficits and in fact has been able to reduce them. The previous Government in 1977 took away its promised tax cuts in the following May. By granting tax cuts in 1982 it added to the Budget deficit. Fancy the honourable member lifting his head and even daring to ask a question about marginal rates of tax. The previous Government left the 60 per cent rate stand. The greatest lark of all was the notion on the weekend that somehow women come out badly as a result of the Government's policies. Mr Carlton —They do. Mr KEATING —One of the empty heads opposite says that is right. Of the 800,000 jobs created by this Government, over 400,00 of them have gone to women. Participation by women in the work force is at its highest level ever. It is over 50 per cent. So it is not a matter of talking about the tax cuts women get under Labor; under the Liberals they never had a job. They were not given unemployment benefits because they were not formerly in employment; they were relegated to the labour scrap-heap. They could not get a job. Women in this community now have jobs. All the other policies which the Government has supported-child care, equal opportunities and others-have been supported exclusively by a Labor government and not by those opposite. So across the board-if one looks at marginal tax rates, average tax rates, tax in terms of the Budget deficit, tax in terms of fairness of the system, tax as it affects women, policies as they affect women-the Opposition does not have a leg to stand on. If I were the honourable member who asked the question I would go and hang my head in shame and try to win his seat at the next election, because the more he is seen the harder it will be for him. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, which relates to the Treasurer's answer. He was reading from a table. I ask that he table that table of tax scales. Madam SPEAKER —Was the Treasurer reading from a confidential document? Mr KEATING —I am quite prepared to table or incorporate the document. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you; the document will be tabled. Mr UREN —Madam Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the Chair to add to an answer I gave last week. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr UREN —Last Friday the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) asked me a question regarding the use of Commonwealth cars. I undertook to reply to the Parliament by Friday evening, but unfortunately time did not allow me to provide the details. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), other Ministers, Presiding Officers and certain members of the Opposition are entitled to the use of Commonwealth cars with drivers. A Ford LTD is provided in their home States and in Canberra. When their cars are not being used they are used in the general fleet. The Treasurer and one other Minister have private number plates on their vehicles because both Ministers have had personal threats made against them and their families. Tinted glass was also made available on the Treasurer's car for security reasons. The cost of that was $350. As stated by the Treasurer on Friday, his car was involved in an accident some weeks ago. The Treasurer was not in the car at the time. The Commonwealth driver was not in the wrong. An insurance claim is being made against the private party at fault. At the time of the accident no further LTDs were available in the Commonwealth fleet; so in accordance with the standard practice one was hired from one of the contractors. The hire cost of the car was $81.32 per day, which is less than the going commercial rate. The Treasurer's car has now been repaired and is back in action in the Commonwealth car pool. The hire car is being dispensed with. 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 `Protection of the Great Barrier Reef'. I seek leave to have the Government's response incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The response read as follows- GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION 1985 REPORT: PROTECTION OF THE GREAT BARRIER REEF Madam Speaker, the Government has reviewed the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation's report on ``Protection of the Great Barrier Reef'', which was presented to the House in November 1985. This report reinforced the most significant recommendations concerning the Great Barrier Reef that had been made to the Fraser Government by the Standing Committee in 1981, in its second report on Adequacy of Environmental Protection. Of course many recommendations in that 1981 report have been implemented already or overtaken by events, and it would be inappropriate for the Government to take up the time of the Parliament to respond to them formally. I have written to the Chairman of the Committee, Mr Peter Milton, about this matter. The principal issue addressed in the Standing Committee's 1985 report is the large numbers of crown of thorns starfish which have affected part of the Great Barrier Reef in the last two decades. The report also addresses briefly a number of other matters, including: the Cape Tribulation road in northern Queensland; the Ok Tedi gold and copper mine in Papua New Guinea; extension of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park northwards into Torres Strait; and regulation of offshore installations such as floating hotels. By and large the Government accepts the Com- mittee's recommendations on the crown of thorns starfish. In 1985-86 the Government appropriated $0.971m to fund the first year of a program of research recommended by the Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Committee (COTSAC). We have committed an additional $0.764m in 1986-87 and further funding for the program will be considered in the Budget context. COTSAC has been reconvened in a slightly different form as the Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Review Committee, to monitor and review the research program which includes resurveying some 60 reefs and investigations into biological control, as recommended by the Standing Committee. Amendments to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations gazetted last year enable the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to authorise collection of crown of thorns starfish in appropriate circumstances from all zones in the Park except Preservation Zones. No revision of zoning plans, as proposed in recommendation 5, is necessary to achieve the objective of the recommendation. Recommendation 6 concerns establishing a ``community based response to crown of thorns starfish population outbreaks''. In a December 1984 report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, COTSAC advised that ``until more information is available, direct management intervention in the crown of thorns starfish phenomenon should continue to be limited to tactical control measures designed to protect corals at specific sites of importance for tourism or scientific research'', and that ``attempted large scale eradication programs have limited value in controlling major populations''. The Government accepts this advice. However, there are well established diving clubs in towns adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is assessing the cost and feasibility of involving them in a community based control program at important tourist sites. I turn now to the Committee's recommendations on matters other than the crown of thorns starfish. Honourable members would be aware of the Government's concern over construction of the road from Cape Tribulation to Bloomfield in the Daintree region of northern Queensland. The Government refused requests to fund construction of the road and I have personally inspected the damage that the roadworks have caused. Responsibility for road construction and maintenance lies squarely with the Douglas Shire Council and the Queensland Government. An aspect of the road construction that has been of particular concern to the Government is the possibility that run-off from the road after heavy rain may threaten adjacent fringing coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In order to address this matter the Marine Park Authority is undertaking a comprehensive monitoring program to acquire precise information about these reefs and the impact of the road and other factors on them. As the monitoring program proceeds the Government will examine its findings and decide what action, if any, it is appropriate to take in relation to siltation from the road. At this time, the Government sees no benefit in additional studies concerning the road as recommended by the Committee. I think honourable members would be aware that the Ok Tedi gold and copper mine in the Fly River catchment of Papua New Guinea has been a subject of considerable debate. Environmental assessment of the project is a matter for the PNG Government, which has required the operators, Ok Tedi Mining Limited, to prepare an environmental impact statement and undertake extensive monitoring of waters downstream from the mine. On two occasions the PNG Government has closed the mine following leakage and spillage of cyanide associated with the gold processing plant. In June 1984 there was an accident involving loss of drums of cyanide overboard from a barge near the shipping terminal at the island of Daru, very close to Australian waters. Australia is concerned about any possibility of pollution from the Ok Tedi mining operation reaching the waters of the Protected Zone established under the Torres Strait Treaty or other nearby Australian waters, and has had consultations with PNG on this matter. As a result the Government is receiving data from the mining company's monitoring program and has been invited to observe the operation of that program. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, visited the mine site last year in company with PNG officials and an officer of my Department. The Government is designing a program to obtain baseline environmental data for Torres Strait and is assessing the need for a monitoring program in Australian waters. At this time there is no indication that pollution from Ok Tedi is affecting Torres Strait but the Government is conscious that we do not have adequate baseline data to enable us to assess the significance of any future pollution incidents in the area. The Standing Committee recommended that the northern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park be extended up to the southern boundary of the Protected Zone established under the Torres Strait Treaty. This recommendation appears to have been based on administrative rather than ecological considerations. The Government is committed to protection of the Barrier Reef and fully accepts its responsibilities under Articles 13 and 14 of the Torres Strait Treaty to protect the marine environment in and in the vicinity of the Torres Strait Protected Zone. As far as the Government is aware there is no current threat to the environment of the area, about 19 nautical miles wide, between the Protected zone and the Marine Park. The Government considers that the appropriate time to consider extending the Marine Park will be when the Far Northern Section Zoning Plan is reviewed in 1991. In the meantime, the Government affirms that oil drilling and mining are prohibited in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. These activities are also prohibited in the Protected Zone, under Article 16 of the Torres Strait Treaty, for an initial period of ten years from February 1985 which may be extended. It would clearly be undesirable to allow drilling in the 19 nautical mile wide gap between the two prohibited areas. I have no hesitation, therefore, in stating that this Government will not permit oil drilling or mining in the part of the area which is under Commonwealth control, which constitutes the vast majority of the area in question. I can also assure the House that if a threat to the area should materialise before the 1991 review of the Far Northern Section Zoning Plan, the Government will give immediate consideration to extending the Marine Park by regulation and proclamation, as provided for in sections 3 and 31 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. The Government is developing comprehensive legislation to regulate offshore tourist installations not only in the Great Barrier Reef Region but right around Australia. The legislation will comprehend those matters raised by the Committee. The Government has also amended the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations to provide additional interim protection to unzoned areas of the Marine Park until zoning plans and the offshore installations legislation are in place. The Government will also be proposing additional amendments to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act to allow more efficient and effective administration of the Marine Park, taking account of the increasing levels of activity which have developed in the Region since the enactment of the original legislation. The Hawke Government came to power with a high level of appreciation of the value and importance of the Reef, which was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981. The Government's record of achievement clearly demonstrates its commitment to protect the Reef and ensure the effectiveness of the Authority's administration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude by thanking the Standing Committee for its report and by reaffirming the Government's commitment to protect the Great Barrier Reef. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION 1985 REPORT: PROTECTION OF THE GREAT BARRIER REEF Committee recommendations Government response 1. The Commonwealth Government continue to provide funds above and beyond other research funding to allow full implementation of the program of research recommended by the Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Committee. Noted. $0.971m was provided in 1985-86 and $0.764m in 1986-87. Funding for implementation of the remainder of the program will be considered in the Budget context, and recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 6 are accepted subject to funds continuing to be made available. 2. The Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Committee be reconvened to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the research program. 2. Accepted. A Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Review Committee has been convened to monitor implementation of, and to review, the research program recommended by the Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Committee. 3. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority carry out resurveying and monitoring of some of the Reefs included in the 1985 survey by the Australian Institute of Marine Science. 3. Accepted. Resurveying of some 60 reefs by the Australian Institute of Marine Science is included in the research program recommended by the Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Committee. 4. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority give urgent priority to developing a research program to develop more efficient Crown of Thorns starfish population control techniques. Accepted. The research program recommended by the Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Committee includes research on the feasibility of biological control by predators and diseases, and non-biological controls eg. by chemicals. 5. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority review, and where necessary amend, its zoning plans to ensure identification of those reefs where special crown of thorns population control programs might be warranted. 5. Accepted. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations were amended in 1985 to change the interpretation of zoning plans so that crown of thorns starfish may be collected in all zones except Preservation Zones, with the permission of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. No further amendment to zoning plans is required. 6. (i) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority urgently assess the feasibility and costs of establishing a community based response to crown of thorns starfish population outbreaks based on teams of volunteer divers to hand collect starfish; and (ii) the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority establish and support such a scheme as soon as possible unless it is shown that the cost would be prohibitive or the community response inadequate. Accepted. The Authority is assessing the feasibility of organising a network of dive clubs in towns adjacent to the the Great Barrier Reef to make a community response in appropriate circumstances. However the advice of the Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Committee was that there is not sufficient information to warrant extensive destruction of the crown of thorns starfish, and that experience in Japan and United States of America Trust Territories in the Pacific Ocean suggests that large scale hand collection would have limited value in controlling major populations. 7. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment seek discussions on the importance of the fringing reefs with the Queensland Government and jointly sponsor an independent engineering study to determine ways of reducing the impact of runoff from the Cape Tribulation to Bloomfield Road on the fringing reefs north of Cape Tribulation. 7. Not accepted. Responsibility for road construction and maintenance lies with the Queensland Government. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is undertaking a study to assess the condition of the fringing reefs and the impact of the road and other factors on them. 8. The Australian Government consult with the Papua New Guinea Government on the need for an environmental assessment of the Ok Tedi mine giving particular regard to the possibility of the pollution of reefs in the Torres Strait and the northern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. 8. Accepted. Consultations with Papua New Guinea regarding Ok Tedi have already taken place and are expected to continue. Data from environmental studies and a monitoring program conducted in PNG waters by Ok Tedi Mining Limited have been made available to the Australian Government. 9. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority establish a monitoring program in the northern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Torres Strait to detect any pollution from the Ok Tedi mine. 9. Noted. The need for Australian studies in addition to an environmental monitoring program being conducted for the Papua New Guinea Government is currently under consideration. An announcement will be made in due course. 10. The area immediately north of the present northern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and south of the Protected Zone defined under the provision of the Torres Strait Treaty be incorporated in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. 10. Not accepted. The Government will consider the question of extending the Marine Park in conjunction with the review of the Far Northern Section Zoning Plan which is due in 1991, but will consider an earlier extension should a threat to the area materialise. In the meantime, the Government will not permit oil drilling or mining in the areas under Commonwealth control between the Torres Strait Protected Zone and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. 11. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority develop and promulgate a policy on offshore development and issue guidelines to prospective developers. 11. Accepted in principle. Policy on offshore tourist installations is being formulated in association with preparation of comprehensive legislation to control developments in all areas adjacent to Australia. In effect, the legislation will respond to the need for guidelines. Motion (by Mr Young proposed): That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WHITE(McPherson) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr WHITE —I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr WHITE —In this House last Friday the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) accused me of saying that the Liberal Party would repudiate a contract that the Government apparently intends to sign tomorrow with the Swedish corporation relating to the new submarine project. It is a cheap way to score political points. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to make his personal explanation and not to bring the politics into it. Mr WHITE —This is the first opportunity that I have had to make a personal explanation in this House as I was absent from the House last Friday. I have never said that we would repudiate such a contract. The matter has never been discussed or considered. In government, we would not, and we will not, repudiate such a contract. The Minister for Defence and the Premier of South Australia are cheapening the political process by making such claims. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his personal explanation; he may not go on now to debate the issue. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DOWNER —I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr John Brown —You called me Goebbels, you flea. Mr DOWNER —Madam Speaker, I ask that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism withdraw those particular words. Mr John Brown —I withdraw, but I still make the point strongly. Mr DOWNER —Last Friday, 29 May, the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) said in the adjournment debate: As a public figure himself- and he was referring to me- the honourable member for Mayo should know better than appear to condone or encourage terrorism. I think all honourable members of this House and all people in the Australian community who know anything about me at all would know sincerely that I would never encourage terrorism. I never have done and I never will. All honourable members of this House obviously know that. The honourable member for Bilney was referring to-- Madam SPEAKER —For Kingston. Mr DOWNER —Madam Speaker, I am doing him a favour by mentioning his name because he is not known. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will get on with his personal explanation without the little asides, which are not welcome. Mr DOWNER —The honourable member referred to the fact that during an answer given by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) to a question I interjected, but I did not condone or advocate an act of terrorism; I simply drew attention to the fact that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is a person who has overseen-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not impugn an honourable member when he is making a personal explanation. Mr DOWNER —I am not impugning him, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —If the honourable member is telling the House that he did not make such a statement, that is all right. He has told us that, he has finished making his personal explanation. He may not go on to debate the issue. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CADMAN —Yes, definitely. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CADMAN —Last Friday the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) deliberately misled the House in his answer to a question by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay). The Minister referred to the Government's policy on family reunion and said that it rests on different principles from those of the Opposition. That is not true. Mr Robert Brown —Madam Speaker, on a point of order-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Was the honourable member for Mitchell mentioned by name or was it a reference to his Party's policies? Mr CADMAN —The Minister referred in his answer to the shadow Minister. Madam SPEAKER —It is your policies, it is not you. You must show the House how you personally have been misrepresented. Mr CADMAN —I am responsible for this policy. Madam SPEAKER —No. We would be dealing with personal explanations all day if we adopted that course. Mr CADMAN —Does that mean that Ministers are not responsible for government policy either? They are not; it is obvious. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member must show how he personally has been misrepresented, not how his Party's policies have been misrepresented. Mr CADMAN —Even though the Minister referred to me in that speech? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Robert Brown —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Mitchell referred to the Minister as having deliberately misled the House. That comment is completely out of order and he should be required to withdraw it. Madam SPEAKER —The comment is out of order. The honourable member will withdraw. He may not say that anyone has deliberately misled the House. I ask him to withdraw. Mr Cadman —He did seek to lead the House to believe that there were differences between the principles in the policies. Therefore, he misled the House. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must phrase his comments in acceptable parliamentary language. I ask him to withdraw. Mr Cadman —I withdraw. Mr SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —Believe it or not, Madam Speaker, I too claim to have been misrepresented. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HUNT —The Weekend Australian attributed a paper produced by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) on a flat sales tax to `Ralph Hunt'. That is not correct. It is a paper that was worked through by my very knowledgeable friend the honourable member for Parkes. 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 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustment 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 Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen,Mr N.A. Brown,Mr Charles,Mr Cowan,Mr Fife,Mr Hand,Mrs Kelly,Mr McArthur,Mr Macphee,Mr Moore,Mr Peacock and Mr Shack. 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,Mr Kent,Mr Saunderson and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposal to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs would be of grave concern to ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because it would renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House urge the Parliament to ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department, servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown,Mr Tim Fischer and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 N.A. Brown and Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Dr Harry Edwards. To The Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Slipper. To the Honourable The Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to show restraint with equity. In particular, the decision to defer the November pension adjustments has resulted in a loss of $25.62 for a single pensioner and $21.36 for each married pensioner. The prospect of a further deferral of the May adjustment will result in the loss of another $35.10 for a single pensioner and $29.10 for each married pensioner. When you are scrimping to make ends meet, as is the case with many pensioners, you can't afford such a cut in living standards. Pensioners are looking for a new deal from politicians-more of the same is not good enough! Your petitioners request an immediate return to payment of May and November C.P.I. increases, and as is duty bound will ever pray the Government grant this request now. by Mr Hodges and Mr Gayler. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefit Tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the fringe benefits tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the fringe benefits tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- Our rain forests cover a tiny 0.1% of Australia's land surface. 75% of our rain forests have been destroyed in the last 200 years. After millions of years time is running out for these magnificent ancient forests. Our forests are home to an incredible diversity of plants and animals. They must be protected as part of our natural heritage by the Australian Parliament. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Chynoweth. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: (a) Aboriginal and Islander languages, which numbered approximately 260 when Europeans first arrived, are even more seriously endangered-already 145 have become extinct. (b) English-speaking population expansion and English-speaking mass media expansion threatens the survival of the remaining languages of Australia. (c) Aboriginal languages reflect an ethos that is truly Australian and unless steps are taken to implement language maintenance, this ethos will be lost not only to Aborigines but to non-Aboriginal Australians, and to the world. We humbly pray the Government to: 1. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide $300,000 per annum for a guaranteed period of 10 years to enable the Aboriginal community of Australia to establish a co-ordinating body to implement steps to prevent the extinction of the remaining languages, and to introduce programs which will enable these languages to continue into the future for the sake of all Australians. This body will enable us to maximise existing financial, material, and human resources, and is the least expensive way of implementing urgently needed maintenance programs. 2. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide finance for the establishment of regional language Centres-10 are urgently needed-cost $200,000 each. and we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purposes for our nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the assets test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair assets test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that the Hawke Government should; 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and 3. Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the import parity pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; and, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destablising nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. the Australian Government- (a) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapons states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. all Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Jakobsen. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia showeth: 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 United States Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia 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 justification 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: They are deeply concerned about the plight of the unfortunate people in Third World Countries, especially Africa, whose lives and human dignity are at stake and whose desperation cannot be compared to the degree of poverty in Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Kindly share the concern and compassion of the general Australian community in extending substantial foreign aid on humanitarian ground and by any means you see fit, whereby, it will reach the innocent victims before a larger number die from starvation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peacock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth that: we are greatly concerned about the increased amount of child rapists being granted bail pending trial, and that convicted offenders are given parole. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge that in view of the seriousness of the offences against our children, that bail be banned pending trial, and that upon conviction of the offender, a sentence of genuine hard labour (20 years minimum) with no parole be put in force. 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Mortlake showeth concern for current and future funding for road construction in south west Victoria. Your petitioners therefore pray that- The Commonwealth Government increase the moneys allocated to the Victorian State Government for road funding, so as to allow adequate funding for the construction and maintenance of roads within south west Victoria. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable 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 the 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. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth: That taxpayers with dependent children have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of recognition provided in the taxation system for the costs of maintaining a family, in particular. the failure to index family allowances which has resulted in an erosion of more than 50% in their real value since May 1976; the abolition of family allowances for dependents who have turned 18, even those still at school; the abolition of concessional tax rebates for education and other expenses. That this erosion in tax equity has placed an intolerable financial burden on many large families particularly those on middle incomes who fail to qualify for means-tested benefits such as TEAS but whose living standards are now well below average due to heavy expenses on necessities such as education, housing, food and clothing. Your petitioners humbly pray that: Family allowances be restored to the 1976 value (in real terms), and indexed according to the C.P.I.; The dependent spouse rebate be retained; The Federal Government take urgent measures to restore equitable provisions in the taxation system through the introduction of family income splitting. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: 1. That we, the undersigned, are totally opposed to substantial Federal Government funding presently being wasted on undesirable, inefficient and incompetently run Government projects that are unacceptable to the vast majority of decent Australians. 2. That Government grants should not be directed toward projects that are of no, or dubious, worth to the improvement of Australia. 3. That public funding should not be used in encouraging lifestyles contrary to the Australian family way of life. 4. That public moneys should not be given to minority groups to support projects that are of a direct political nature. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Halt forthwith the public funding for the abovementioned purposes. 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 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 acts 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The Government's actions in changing levels of pharmaceutical benefits will adversely affect the infirm and elderly and that it will cause further unnecessary economic hardship and suffering among all people who are currently dependent on existing benefits. The Government's actions are little more than yet another burden placed upon our Australian citizens. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Restore pharmaceutical benefits to their former level, therefore lifting this inequitable burden now being placed squarely on the infirm throughout Australia. Give a firm undertaking not to further desert those citizens in need of medical support. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Council on 26 October 1985. Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner. Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small businesses, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. 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: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware that it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change''. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Shire of Caboolture in the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The requirement for people receiving unemployment benefits to present their claim forms personally every two weeks to the Department of Social Security is causing considerable hardship for those people in the Caboolture CES District. The distance from the Caboolture Shire to the Redcliffe Department of Social Security offices imposes an unnecessary financial burden in the form of travel expenses on the unemployed. The time involved in the process reduces the time available for the unemployed to seek work actively. We the undersigned call on the Federal Government to implement measures that would allow unemployed people in the Caboolture CES District to leave completed forms at the Caboolture Job Centre for collection by the Department of Social Security. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received letters from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 107, Madam Speaker has selected the matter which, in her opinion, is the most urgent and important, that is, that proposed by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, namely: The critical need for reductions in inflation and interest rates to enable primary industry and family farmers to survive. 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 HUNT(Gwydir)(3.10) —Although Australian farmers, especially grain growers, dairy farmers and sugar producers have suffered from the irrational farm subsidy policies and predatory trading actions of the European Economic Community and the United States, the Government's economic policies have eroded their competitiveness on world markets. The Government and the Opposition parties have worked closely together to achieve a fair international trading regime for the Australian producers. We all know that it will take a lot of time to achieve that objective. The Government has given high priority to the international trading scene, but has failed to reduce inflation and interest rates. The great challenge facing the next Australian Government is to reduce the twin devils of inflation and interest rates back to world parity. We have interest rates 200 per cent higher than average levels of our trade competitors, and inflation 300 per cent or more higher. Our overseas debt has trebled to an all-time record. We have record trade deficits. We have lost our trading competitiveness. People are suffering falling living standards, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has admitted that. With the breaking of one of the worst droughts this century and the wages freeze in 1983, with the collapse of world oil prices, Labor had a chance of providing a competitive environment for our export industries generally and our farm industries in particular. It was an unprecedented opportunity to enhance our competitiveness on world markets. But Labor blew it with its wages accord and the highest taxing and spending policies since World War II. It has crippled our capacity to compete with our trading competitors. While our competing nations have reduced inflation and interest rates, the Hawke Labor Government has failed to do so. The balance of payments deficit has collapsed from an average of $4.6 billion a year over the term of the former Fraser Government to $14.4 billion today. Labor's accumulated balance of payments deficit has now reached a staggering $46.7 billion in less than four years. Never before has there been such a need for an improved export performance to slow down the explosion of foreign debt. While it took nearly 200 years to accumulate an overseas debt of $36 billion until 1983, this Government has trebled it to $105 billion in less than four years. It is growing at a rate of a million dollars every 20 minutes. The National Australia Bank reports-honourable members can be sure that this is another banking matter that the Government will not advertise-that inflation in Australia is `disturbingly high', these are its words, and `out of line with other Western economies'. Worse than that, it forecasts a chronic inflation imbalance which could trigger new devaluations and lead to a wages-prices spiral. I pose these questions: Why is the Labor Government rushing to the polls six weeks before its scheduled August Budget? Mr Braithwaite —It is scared. Mr HUNT —It is scared. Why has it not shown any confidence in the May economic statement by letting its impact work on the economy? The truth is that the economic disaster caused by the Hawke Labor Government is about to get much worse. A sharp cut in the inflation level is absolutely essential to encourage productive investment in order to turn this economy around and reduce unemployment. The Hawke Labor Government knows that it has blown it. It knows that its May economic statement has promised more of the same. Indeed, Mr Ken Crompton, of the Australian Chamber of Manufacturers, said: . . . it has become increasingly apparent that there is no likelihood of an investment miracle occurring by itself. He continued: Day by day business has seen the benefits of the devaluation eroded by high taxes, high interest rates, high inflation and high labour costs, especially compared with international trade competitors. At a time of falling world prices for many commodities, the future of the agricultural industries and export industries generally hinges on reducing inflation and interest rates. Yesterday the National Australia Bank delivered a critical message. While the bank identifies a number of factors contributing to inflation, it believes it is the link between wages, prices and future wages growth which threatens to institutionalise inflation in Australia. In other words, unless the wages nexus is broken, inflation will become institutionalised in this country. Mr Tim Fischer —It is the legacy of Labor. Mr HUNT —It is the legacy of Labor. Until future wage increases take account of Australia's economic problems they will add to our debt situation, causing living standards to fall; unemployment will not improve and the national productive effort will trend downwards. In the next six weeks voters need to ask themselves: Will Labor hold down the excesses of the Australian Council of Trade Unions for the good of all Australians? Mr Braithwaite —No. Mr HUNT —No. Will Labor proceed with its industrial legislation to place union leadership outside the common laws of this country? Opposition members-Yes. Mr HUNT —Yes. Will Labor change its spots and curb excesses of government spending? Let me refer to Labor's fuel taxing policy. The Industries Assistance Commission reports that every $1 billion reduction in fuel excise revenue reduces inflation by about one per cent. The Hawke Government has increased excise revenue from $1.3 billion to $5.6 billion a year. It was economic madness to intercept the fall in world oil prices by increasing fuel excise from 6c a litre to 20c a litre, inflating production and transportation costs in virtually every sector of the Australian economy. By halving this excise, inflation would drop about 3 per cent but the excise revenue would still be $1.6 billion a year more than when Labor was elected to government. Less government revenue should mean less government spending and lower taxes. Lower taxes provide the stimulus for economic investment and employment opportunities. A Liberal-National Party coalition government will attack inflation by cutting government expenditure to remove Budget deficits and adopt a more market-related wages policy to take pressure off monetary policy and therefore interest rates. We cannot go on slugging farmers, small business people and other capital intensive enterprises-or young people struggling to buy a home-with interest rates up to 10.5 per cent higher than those paid in the United States of America. The disparity between Australia and other Western nations is even wider. There was no such wide disparity between Australia and the United States when Labor was elected to government. Crippling interest rates in Australia will remain while ever Labor continues to prop up the exchange rate. Labor has failed to take the tough budgetary and responsible wages decisions and instead has relied on monetary policy to stabilise the Australian dollar. This policy has hurt the family farmer more than it has hurt those in most other sectors of the community. Last year's Budget was a total failure. The Government was forced to acknowledge its budgetary failure with its May mini-Budget. It would not have been necessary to have a May mini-Budget if the Government had taken the right decisions last year. But, once again, the Government has failed to take the tough decisions to reduce inflation and interest rates. All we have had is a litany of broken promises and understandings. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is on public record as admitting that high interest rates are the biggest problem facing low income family earners. Yet he has failed to influence his Government to take remedial action. We all remember his words of August 1985 when he said: This Budget will bring interest rates down. Mr Hawker —Who said that? Mr HUNT —It was the Minister for Primary Industry. We are still waiting. That was also the time when he said: We are bringing inflation down. No doubt in a flash of frustration, the Minister recently came out with this statement: Farmers have always chosen capital over income-they often live `income poor but asset rich'. But he knows that in the vast grain belt the value of farming assets has crashed by up to 40 per cent since Labor came to office while the average income of those farmers is just $1,200 this year. Mr McVeigh —They are the new poor. Mr HUNT —Indeed, they are the new poor, as the honourable member says. The Minister knows that those heavily indebted farmers, carrying up to $12 billion in debt, cannot survive with interest rates of at least 17 per cent; in many cases this means an effective rate of 20 per cent when bank charges, et cetera, are taken into account. An 8 per cent fall in interest rates would increase the average farm income by 36 per cent. On average an 8 per cent interest rate fall would increase wheat growers' incomes by a staggering 392 per cent. It is one thing to blame the predatory actions of other nations for forcing down commodity prices. It is another thing to come to terms with the domestic cost pressures that are killing the average farmer. Singlehandedly such a cut would restore the viability of tens of thousands of Australian farmers and help to overcome the hopeless financial position of grain growers despite the crash in world commodity prices. It would remove a crippling burden from small business. The means of achieving lower competitive interest rates lies in achieving a proper balance between wages, fiscal and monetary policies. The May economic statement was an attempt to make us believe that at long last the Government had bitten the bullet and slashed its outlays. Although cash rates and bank bill rates have fallen and there has been some reduction in the prime rate, many heavily indebted farmers are still paying more than 18 per cent for their money. The May economic statement has not cut the 1987-88 deficit by $4 billion. It has reduced a projected spending increase of $7 billion-that is, the bids by departments-by only $4 billion. The States will bear $1 billion of this cut, but the real reduction in Commonwealth outlays is not much more than $1.5 billion. No doubt the State governments will raise their taxes and charges later this year to make up for this loss of income. No wonder we are going to the polls in July. The Government has failed to create an atmosphere essential to inducing lower inflation and interest rates and a substantial recovery of the Australian economy. The Government has failed the farmers, the small businesses and the people living in regional Australia. I conclude by asking a few simple questions: Which government is the highest taxing, highest spending government in history? Opposition members-The Hawke socialist Labor Government. Mr HUNT —Which government has allowed the highest sustained level of interest rates over two consecutive years on record? Opposition members-The Hawke socialist Labor Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Whilst it might be in order for the honourable member to ask rhetorical questions, it is not in order for his colleagues to answer. Mr HUNT —Which government said that it would not introduce a new capital gains tax, but did so anyway? Which government allowed inflation to run four times higher than that of our major trading partners? Which government trebled our gross foreign debt to the point where our interest bill alone, at $7 billion, is as much as we spend on education or health? Which government lost Australia's top AAA international credit rating? Which government allowed Budget deficits to reach an all time record level? Which government promised to reduce fuel excise by 3c a litre, but increased petrol excise by nearly 14c a litre? Which government promised to keep the Medicare levy at one per cent and increased it to 1.25 per cent? Which government allowed bankruptcies to reach an all time record level? Which government wants to place union leadership above the law? Which government allowed the motor vehicle and housing industries to collapse and broke its promise to keep the 13.5 per cent ceiling on home loan interest rates and brought 40,000 protesting farmers to Canberra? Which government increased family taxation to the point where a family on average weekly earnings is $41 a week worse off than it was in 1983, and made the cost of owning a home a near impossibility for hundreds of thousands of Australians? If honourable members get the answers right, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) might even shout them to a free long lunch. We cannot wait any longer for Labor to slash expenditure or to reduce taxes, interest rates and inflation to competitive levels. The farming and mining sectors, earning 80 per cent of our foreign exchange, must be given a chance to help reduce our overseas debt and to give some hope to our children. Labor had a magnificent opportunity but it failed the nation. This nation is crying out for a courageous government determined to implement massive cuts to expenditure, to remove its imposts on productive industries and to reduce taxes so as to restore incentive. On 11 July the people of Australia will have a chance to give their children a fair go. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry (3.25) —I guess the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has just given us a bit of a run of what he is going to say in the next five weeks. A lot of what he has said concerned issues that have been addressed in this Parliament for quite some time. I will just pick out some of the double talk and double think in the honourable member's speech. All four parties in the Opposition are using the same tactic. They are regarding the family as some sort of abstraction, as if it is altogether quite separate from wage and salary earners. The Opposition is saying that because of all this terrible trouble overseas our standards of living are dropping, and that it is all due to the Hawke Government. It is saying that we will have to give more attention to wages and salaries and we will have to keep wages and salaries down. One species of the Opposition says that we have to have deregulation and another says that we have to have a reduction in wages. Another says that we have to have a freeze on wages and the New Right says that we have to have a basic wage of $171.30 a week. My experience is that many families have wage and salary earners supporting them. I think that would be the case for about 90 per cent of Australian families. On the one hand Opposition members are trying to criticise the Government because standards of living are dropping because of our external situation but on the other hand they are saying that we have to cut wages and salaries but somehow this will not affect the families of this country. That is double talk and double think. All the statements by the New Rights, old Rights, far Rights, League of Rights-all the people who drive the people in this House on the Opposition benches-are about a grab by the rich to take money from the less well off because they want a bigger share of a declining cake. We know what the situation is. The honourable member for Gwydir started off by saying some nice things about trade and how we are working together. Of course we are; we have to because Australia is at stake. He then said that we have failed to reduce inflation. What he and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) particularly fail to take into account is that because we have had a great devaluation, because the world does not want to pay us what is used to pay for our wheat-nearly $1 billion less-because the world does not want to pay us what we should be getting for our coal, this will have an effect on the rate of inflation. This morning I was engaged in discussions on coal as Acting Minister for Trade. We have had a devaluation of between 30 and 37 per cent. That has meant that the prices of goods that we import have gone up. Most of the inflation is coming from the imports. That is the problem. The honourable member talked about foreign debt. If we have a 30 to 37 per cent devaluation our debt goes up by 30 to 37 per cent. We cannot put aside what has happened in the external accounts from what is happening in the domestic economy. But again we get double talk and double think from Opposition members, as if these factors can be separated out, as they separate the family out as having nothing to do with wage and salary earners. As I said, these abstractions, these nonsenses, will be discussed ad infinitum during the current election campaign and we will see many amazing scenes in the weeks ahead. An election was called last week. The spokesman for one of the species of the National Party-he is no longer the shadow Minister-proposed this discussion of a matter of public importance today, and we welcome it. But whom does he speak for? Take just the announcement of the election. The Queensland Premier was in Disneyland. Apparently he is trying to find another car that runs on water, or something like that. His wife, Senator Bjelke-Petersen, said on radio last week: `Joh never wanted to be Prime Minister'. The reporter talking to her-I heard it with my own ears, and they are pretty big-asked: `But what about these green-and-white ``Joh for PM'' stickers'? She replied: `Oh, Joh didn't have anything to do with that. He doesn't want that at all'. But then I saw that the Queensland Premier had returned and he was with his adviser, Mr Stone, the man who when Secretary to the Treasury used to tell me that flat tax was a nonsense. He was also with Mr Copeman. Mr Copeman had already said that he was going to try to talk him out of it. But it is on again. Mr Elliott was in the Soviet Union. Mr McLachlan was awaiting the call and John Valder, Chairman of the Liberal Party, called both Mr Elliott and Mr McLachlan to get them on the team. No doubt he is doing this as a confidence building tactic for the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). It is a rather nonsensical proposition. The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) is now saying that we should get all the conservative parties, all the four species of Opposition parties, together again. The poor old honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh)-it does not matter whether it is a.m. or p.m.-does not know whether he has got his seat or not. What a travesty to envisage the Queensland Premier, who has split the coalition and who has enabled a situation to occur in which hard right Howard takes the opportunity to purge the wets out of the Liberal Party, and I guess we can expect a policy speech soon from Macphee, Hall and Peacock, their clique-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister will refer to honourable members by their electorates or by their titles. Mr KERIN —I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker. The National Party too is split. The reason why an outsider with a lot of hype from the New Right can split the two major parties in this House is that there is no consistency and no continuity of policy. There has not been for a long time. Opposition members go for anything. The Queensland Premier stands for flat tax. The Liberals want a broad-based consumption tax. But both species of the Nationals disagree with that. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) agrees that there will be new taxes under the Liberals. The National Party wants a lower value for the dollar. The Liberal Party wants a higher value for the dollar. Members of the Liberal Party run around the electorate saying that, `The Labor Party has reduced the value of the dollar'. National Party members race around the electorate saying, `We want a lower value for the dollar to get more money for our exports of primary commodities'. Look at the flat tax-they will go for anything! It is possible to get the taxation statistics by post code area and I had a look at my electorate. The average resident in Werriwa would pay $400 more a year tax with a flat tax and the average person living in the north shore suburbs, such as Turramurra and places like that, would get $1,100 more. That is the sort of nonsense! The wage earners have to subsidise the rich with the Queensland Premier's flat tax. That is what it is all about, nothing else. The Liberals want a new consumption tax; they do not know where they are. Who, on the Opposition benches, will decide agricultural policy? There is a Joh Nat running in Hume against the Liberal spokesman. The Queensland Premier has castigated the honour- able member for Gwydir, who normally talks a fair amount of sense. The Leader of the National Party-the one who sits in this place-the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) is a hollow shell. I do not know for whom he is speaking up. I do not know what portfolio he thinks he has. He does not even say much these days, he is so destroyed. The Queensland Premier's hold on the Queensland National Party members was so firm because of his control of their election funding. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) is not so happy now. He at one stage was the Queensland Premier's staunchest ally. Mr Ian Cameron —I still am. Mr KERIN —That is not what he is saying half the time. Sometimes he is for him, sometimes he is agin him. The honourable member for Maranoa simply does not know where he is. There could be at least four spokespersons for agriculture on the Opposition benches and the Queensland Premier is running a candidate against the Liberal spokesman for agriculture. That is the nonsensical situation we have in this place, yet the honourable member for Gwydir, dearly as I love him, brings in this matter of public importance today when he is in the most invidious situation in which any spokesman on agriculture has ever been in this House. He does not know what he can say to the people about whom he represents, what policies he is following or what guarantee he can give that any of those policies would be followed if his Party won government. The Government inherited a massively overvalued currency. That was the tactic of Mr Fraser. He had his big wages blowout-the de- regulation of wages-and brought down a wages freeze but to bring down inflation he overvalued the currency. Combined with this lack of wages policy was an 11 per cent inflation rate. This was ripping the guts out of all Australian industry, whether it was agriculture, mining or manufacturing. We have since been hit with an international agricultural trade war and falling commodity prices generally. That is why Australia has a balance of payments problem with the resulting accumulation of foreign debt. The Hawke Labor Government is fixing these problems and it will take time to wash the inflation out of the system. We will have a look at interest rates. Every week I get from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics movements in the bank rates. The 90-day bank bill rate was 13.95 per cent on 21 May and that is the lowest for two years. The 10-year Commonwealth bond yield was 12.64 per cent on 21 May and that again is the lowest it has been for a considerable time-I am not quite sure whether it is two years. The rates are coming down. As we all know, housing rates are sticking but overdraft rates are coming down, with some prime rates at 16.5 per cent, so we are heading in the right direction. We floated the currency, something no other government was ever prepared to do. We have accepted the discipline of a floating currency, a discipline the Opposition was never prepared to accept. As a result of the float, Australian industry is at record competitiveness. If the Opposition had its way and dragged the wage earners back to $171.30-the New Right wage-even that would not guarantee that we would sell another tonne of wheat when the United States of America is prepared to subsidise up to $44 a tonne at a time when no one else is in a position to supply-I am referring to the Soviet market. Wages and competitiveness are not the problem; the problem is the corruption of trade and the stock overhang in the world markets due to subsidisation as a result of domestic policies and farmer pressures in the countries with which we compete. This means that, as a result of the currency float, Australia's cost structure is lower than it has ever been when compared to other countries' ruling exchange rates. This is turning the balance of payments problems around. It has cushioned grain growers from the collapse in world grain prices and facilitated the strong rise in wool prices we are currently witnessing. Not all industries are in as much trouble as the wheat industry; the so-called rural crisis is really a grain crisis. Cotton has picked up, sugar has evened out, beef is holding, there is a strong rise in wool prices and the devaluation of the dollar has given a breather to our horticultural and dairy industries. Rice is worst affected and then wheat, barley, oats and, of course, grain. The process I have outlined has consequences, the first being, as I have said, an inevitable increase in the prices of imports. Even the Opposition should be capable of understanding the arithmetic that when imports account for 20 per cent of total supply in our economy and there is a 30 per cent currency depreciation, there will be a direct price effect of 6 percentage points. In other words, the current inflation rate of 9.4 per cent would be of the order of 3.4 per cent if the devaluation had not occurred. In the Government's first two years in office before the depreciation took effect, the Government got inflation down. It has gone up again-and even then not to the level the Opposition left behind-only because of the depreciation. At the same time, most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have benefited from low commodity prices and hence have been able temporarily to reduce their inflation rates. In other words, our bad luck is their good luck. They are using a new form of imperialism to hit those countries that have only basic commodities to produce because the legacy we inherited from governments that paid no attention to getting a balanced economy has left us in that vulnerable situation. As the currency stabilises-and there has been little movement against the trade weighted index since October-the currency effect on our inflation rate is washing out. That is why inflation slowed significantly in the March quarter and why it will slow further next year. The second consequence is that, until the balance of payments turns around, the external deficit must be financed. This means we have had to pay higher interest rates than is the case overseas until the currency stabilises. Now that the dollar has clearly stabilised, interest rates are coming down. The most sensitive rates, such as the 90-day bill rate I have already mentioned, are at their lowest level for two years. The prime business rates have already started to follow. But what would the Opposition do? It is hard to say because, as I have already said, there are four Opposition parties in this House. Will the Bjelke-Petersen Nationals support the policies of the Sinclair Nationals? How can anyone believe any- thing the totally divided and confused National Party has to say? The same applies to the Liberal Party. Not one Liberal has voiced any support for the bright idea of the honourable member for Gwydir of replacing fuel taxes with consumption taxes. The Howard Liberals want a consumption tax to replace taxes on the wealthy. Where do the Peacock Liberals stand? I read in this morning's Press that they had the numbers in the Liberal Party-37 to 36. Those 37 members have been gathered without one word of policy position being breathed to the public. Again, the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition is under threat. What a terrible indictment of the Liberal Party going into an election campaign in that mess due to this madman from the north who has split the coalition. The Deputy Leader of the National Party has made it clear that he wants a consumption tax. The Opposition likes to criticise every single indirect tax measure of this Government but then wants to go much further and implement a full scale consumption tax. Such a tax would push inflation right through the roof. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(3.40) —What a fascinating performance by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). He must be terrified of Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He spent half his speech denigrating him and running him down. In the last 15 minutes the Minister has been whistling in the cemetery. Most certainly this election will be about the Hawke socialist Government's mismanagement of the economy. An integral part of that folly is the tragedy of high inflation and fearsome interest rates. The Government will be reminded time and again during the election campaign about that folly. That is its indelible legacy. It is all very well for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Primary Industry to profess innocence, to wash their hands of the matter and to pontificate that interest rates must be set by the market without government interference, but the Government must accept the blame and the odium for the calamity we have in this country where home owners are having their homes repossessed, where family farms are being sold, and where small businesses are collapsing. In this very Parliament, not once but frequently, we have heard the Prime Minister proclaiming that interest rates and inflation would fall. We have heard the Treasurer boasting that his management of the economy is so sound that interest rates and inflation would fall. Those measures have fallen flat on their face. That is the only fall. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has been singing the same song. I will talk about the Minister for Primary Industry in a moment. The reality is that there has been no fall in interest rates and that interest rates in Australia by any comparison are disastrously high. Families acting on those bogus assurances have been betrayed and destroyed. The Minister for Housing and Construction in this House today made all sorts of statements, but the fact is that families which have contracted home loans in recent months are facing interest rates of 15 1/2 per cent, 16 1/2 per cent or even higher. Farm loan interest rates in many cases are much higher than those rates. I have on the Notice Paper a question asking the Minister for Housing and Construction not about the number of housing starts but about the number of repossessions. The same question can be asked about the farming community. In my electorate office-and I guess in the electorate offices of many honourable members-are being seen more and more families who are losing their homes or losing their farms because of one factor-the high interest rates that are putting repayments beyond their reach. It is all very well to advertise home savings grants, as was done here today in this House, to provide a deposit, but very few seem to qualify and those who do are very often unable to cope with the escalating repayments. All the Minister is doing is coaxing young couples into contracts that they cannot possibly manage because of the Government's legacy of high inflation and high interest rates. That is tragedy enough but let us look at the rural sector, where the scenario is even more disastrous. How does this Government project itself as competent in managing the economy when farms are being foreclosed, machinery is being repossessed and sold, and third and fourth generation farmers are ending up with nothing to sustain them and their families? That certainly boggles the mind. Of what value are the promises and assurances of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industry when the reality is so very much different? This Government, which has been the lackey of the trade union movement, has surpassed all other governments in their imposition of taxation. Yet despite this great harvest, its massively increased overspending has seen huge deficits and unsurpassed increases in the national debt. Of course, this has forced interest rates through the ceiling. That is the Government's fault. Interest rates have been kept high because of deliberate Government policy decisions. The harvest is tragic. A government which piously professes concern for the family has, by its own mismanagement, visited upon thousands of Australian families complete and unmitigated disaster. There has been a savage attack on and an indifference towards rural Australia. The specious alibi that the rest of the world is to blame, that commodity price falls are the cause, simply will not wash. The reality is that Australia's family farmers have been regarded as expendable and they have been betrayed. Not only is farm indebtedness increasing-and the predominant cause is not bad management but escalating interest rates-but also the capacity to survive is destroyed. Machinery is repossessed. Money borrowed to prepare the ground, to plant, cultivate and harvest the crops is subject to such prohibitive rates of interest that the proceeds are gone long before the harvest has even commenced. Farmers are used to fluctuations in commodity prices. They have experienced them for years. They can contend with droughts and bad seasons because Australia's farmers are the best and the most efficient on earth, but they cannot continue to exist while we have a government which is so insensitive that it establishes the environment for inflation and interest rates beyond any that most of the farmers in competitive countries have to face. Australian family farmers can compete, they can fight, and they can win if this Government does not tie their hands behind their backs. Tragically, this union-dominated Government neither cares nor understands. It even stands back and does nothing when the crops end up on the wharves and unions refuse to load them for export. That is the heart, or lack of heart, this Government has. There is no other conclusion to which anyone can come except that this Government is completely anti-rural, anti-farmer, and anti-family. How many times in this Parliament have we heard Australian Labor Party members pronouncing farmers as privileged, affluent, and even tax cheats? Honourable members cannot deny it. Every incentive and every assistance provided to help family farmers to survive has been attacked. Rural reconstruction has been slashed. Tax concessions have been annihilated, and capital gains and fringe benefits taxes have been levied without any mercy at all. No sector of the Australian community has had to bear so much. Interest rates have often delivered the coup de grace. Costs rise as inflation goes up unchecked. Our rate of inflation, which this Government promised would fall, is as much as four times higher than that of our competitors. How any government can claim that we have turned the corner when Australian family farmers are being destroyed by a combination of high inflation and high interest rates is incomprehensible. What corner have we turned? We have turned the corner and we are running madly downhill. Farmers are being destroyed. The blame must be laid at the door of this Government. Inflation will be unchecked and it will increase further while the massive spending and the deficits continue to proliferate. Pressures upwards on interest rates cannot be assuaged while we have to borrow to finance this prodigality. Even worse, we are not borrowing to increase our competitiveness or to strengthen our economic base; we are borrowing to finance Medicare, our social security scheme and our unemployment benefits-in other words, to finance our housekeeping expenses. What a saga of irresponsibility and mismanagement. What does the Government do? It makes another statement and it issues more promises. It brings in a Budget in August and by December it is obvious to all that the projected deficit will be considerably increased. It promises to make cuts and it erects a straw man of projected or forecast expenditure and then with great fanfare proceeds to knock it down. The May statement, which needed to reflect real cuts in expenditure of $4 billion to $5 billion, was a fiasco-a garage sale, if buyers can be found, shifting the cuts to State and local authorities, and deferrals of expenditure were indeed a sleight of hand; and the cuts, in reality, were a little over $1 billion. It will not even make a dent in inflation and interest rates. No wonder the Government has called an election before the Budget has to be produced. The cost of the annihilation of family farms and small businesses will become even more horrendous as the year goes on. The chickens have come home to roost. There is not one Australian family which has not been grievously hurt by the legacy of inflation and crippling interest rates which are the hallmark of this shocking Government. The people and the farmers are not fools. There is no doubt at all what their verdict will be. This Hawke socialist Government, the architect of this mess, will be thrown out of office. All Australian farmers want is a chance to work and to survive. We will give them that help which has been spurned and denied by the worst Government this country has experienced in the whole of its history. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(3.50) —The Government certainly agrees with the objective of reducing inflation and interest rates, which has been identified in this matter of public importance today. The Opposition, in its present multi-faceted divisions, has the problem that only the Hawke Government is capable of achieving these reductions. I think it is significant in this debate today that we have heard the lead speaker for the Sinclair-led faction of the National Party followed by a member of the Sir Joh-led faction of the National Party as the second non-Government speaker. Even more significant is the fact that not one Liberal Party member-not even the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife)-is prepared to participate in this most important debate today. The National Party talks about the critical need to reduce inflation and interest rates, but let us not forget that for seven long years in coalition-as it then was with the Liberal Party-the National Party helped rather unmercifully to tear our agriculture industry to shreds. What was the then coalition's record? Inflation was 14 per cent in 1976-77, and in the seven years between 1976-77 and 1981-82 it was an average of 10.25 per cent. Who insisted on an overvalued Australian dollar in the Fraser-Howard years in the absence of a decent wages policy? None other than the then Treasury Secretary, and now Joh's economic adviser, one John Stone. What were the effects of this advice? The effects were very clear and included the destruction of the competitive position of Australian manufacturing, and the rural sector was held back from reaping the advantages of a relatively buoyant prices period in the early 1980s. Remember what happened to the National Party in the early 1970s when the Whitlam Government cut tariffs across the board by 25 per cent? What did the then Leader of the National Party, Mr Anthony, have to say? He accused the then Government of cowardice. Between 1976 and 1983 there was no effective action against international protectionism by the then Treasurer the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is the current Leader of the Liberal Party. The Government welcomes this matter of public importance debate. On the two issues identified by the National Party it is clear that what the Government will do, and has done, is much better than honourable members opposite could ever hope to do-and their record is a sorry testament to that. They stand condemned from their own mouth on the two issues selected for this debate this afternoon. What does that leave? It leaves the sort of paranoia reflected in the wording of the matter of public importance about enabling `primary industry and family farmers to survive'. The fact of the matter is that, if the previous Government's policies had continued-if we still had farm cost inflation at 11 per cent and if we still had an overvalued currency-farm incomes would have been completely wiped out some time ago. In this context it is interesting to point out that a one per cent change in farm costs brings about a return of some $130m to Australian farmers, and a one per cent change in currency brings about an additional $100m in farm receipts. So most thinking farmers can see for themselves the beneficial effects of the currency depreciation that has occurred under this Government-a government which has had the guts to take the big decisions, including floating the Australian dollar. We all acknowledge that there are problems in Australian agriculture at present, but it is at least pleasing to see the honourable members opposite not using the term `rural crisis' as if to imply-as they have in the past-that there is some sort of broad brush problem in Australian agriculture at present. We know, as the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has indicated, and I am sure as the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) is prepared to concede, that there are problems of low prices for grains and some other commodities as a result of the international agricultural trade war. However, these problems are by no means universal among Australian farmers. Of course, there is a great deal of diversity in Australian agriculture across commodities, across regions and certainly across individuals. Even among the grain growers of Australia, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates that less than 20 per cent are at risk of financial difficulty. By July 1987 there is an expectation that the average farm in Australia will be worth $624,600 and the average farm debt will be $74,000. That leaves average equity of 88 per cent in Australian farming. As I have indicated, 35 per cent have no debt at all. However, the highest 12 1/2 per cent of farmers-mainly those in the grains industry, who are having extraordinary difficulty at the moment because of the international trade wars-have debts of $163,500 on average. However, other industries are doing relatively well because of the policies of this Government. We have seen wool prices at record levels and, as a result, no sheep farmers are considered at risk by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. While some farmers have very high debt loads, as the figures have indicated, and hence face some difficulties from the present high interest rates, the fact remains that the vast majority of farmers are in a very reasonable position as far as interest is concerned. It is not true that the future of the sector itself is at risk. We have this crisis mentality, this constant talk of crisis across the Australian agriculture sector from an Opposition which is just devoid of economic policies and policies in the agriculture scene that would do anything about it. The latest forecast from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, interestingly enough, is for a 30 per cent increase in farm incomes this year. That is certainly welcomed by this Government, which appreciates that there have been some difficulties, particularly with respect to Australian farm incomes, for some time. However, the sector will survive. It is a very resilient sector which will survive because the policies of this Government have given it a competitive position so that it will be able to survive. We recognise that there are individuals at risk-and that is why it is important that we have wound up the rural adjustment scheme to record levels. Most people concerned with the agriculture scene at present would recognise that the rural adjustment scheme is currently financing 10 times the proportion of total farm debt that was the case under the previous Government. However, we hear the Deputy Leader of the Sinclair faction of the National Party-and again this sentiment is echoed by his colleague from the Joh faction of the National Party who spoke earlier this afternoon-trying to suggest that this Government does not care for agriculture, that we have some sort of callous approach to people involved in the rural sector. I think actions speak louder than words. This Government has the runs on the board. The Minister for Primary Industry has indicated, and most reasonable people would accept, that there are good reasons to explain the present quite high interest rates in Australia. Many honourable members would recall the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other Ministers in this House making the very valid comment that no government in its right mind would have some sort of masochistic approach to keeping interest rates at a continuing high level. That is not good economics, and it is certainly not good politics if one wants to look at it in that sense. So there is no masochism. We are taking policy initiatives in order to reduce interest rates, but it takes time to do that. Unfortunately, there is no acknowledgment from the other side of the House of the steps that we have taken. Only this Government has been able to do something about unwinding the rather pathetic legacy left to us by the previous Government. We have a firm fiscal policy that will reduce the 1987-88 prospective deficit by more than $4 billion to ensure that the task of winding back the $9.6 billion deficit that was left to us by the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in 1983 continues. So much for fiscal restraint when compared with some of the Mickey Mouse actions of the so-called Liberal Party razor gangs in the 1970s. Our wages policy is adjusted for inflation and is actually creating jobs. We have created over 780,000 new jobs since March 1983, in contrast with the sorry record of our predecessors. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Mr Uren: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr REITH(Flinders)(4.00) —I shall commence my speech by referring to interest rates because they are relevant to the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill. In 1984, the Hawke Government promised the people of Australia a reduction in interest rates. The Government has put forward that promise again. No one will believe it. The Bill has been introduced to change the timing of payments to local government from annual payments to quarterly payments. Previously, payments were made in a lump sum, usually in September. After the enactment of this legislation, the payments will be no later than 15 August, November, February and May, except for this year when the first quarterly payment will not be made until September. I understand from my briefing that essentially that is for mechanical reasons. The fourth quarterly payment will include any necessary adjustment for the difference between the anticipated consumer price index figure and the actual CPI figure change. That is another feature of this Government with its continual need to up its forecasts for inflation, as we saw recently with the May economic statement. The actual cash amounts received by local government are not affected by the proposal. The benefit for the Commonwealth is in terms of its cash position. The measure will save the Commonwealth $27m in financing costs. That figure is based on the current interest rates prevailing in the market. Conversely, this $27m, or a substantial part of it, will be passed on to local government as part of its financing costs. The Opposition's attitude to the measure must be seen within the broader context. Prior to the May economic statement we called on the Federal Government to cut spending substantially. This Government has relied excessively on monetary policy to cover its policy mistakes. It has failed totally to provide and to produce an economic climate geared to providing incentive. Private capital investment has absolutely fallen through the floor under Labor. The industrial relations system is clogged, to say the least, thus preventing a flexible response to our balance of payments problem. The range of new anti-business taxes has been, again, another disaster heaped on business in this country. So much for the Government's claims that some aspects of these anti-business taxes were innocuous. The estimates of the amount which the Government will collect from the fringe benefits tax have been revised upwards. The capital gains tax was the classic of all time. The Government said that it would bring in $5m or thereabouts and now there are reports of the figure reaching $170m-odd this year and climbing well past that in future years. At the same time, inflation is ripping along at many times the rate of our international competitors. All this is happening whilst the clouds of international difficulties are gathering on the horizon. Given the vital national importance of moving away from monetary policy to a greater reliance on fiscal policy, the Opposition will not stand in the way of the Government's measures. However, let me say that we do so even though some of last year's measures and some of this year's measures are not measures that we would have introduced. In general terms, the May economic statement has much in common with last year's Budget. Honourable members will remember that in May 1986 we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) going off to see the pandas in China. Whilst he was there the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced to the country on a radio program that we were turning into a banana republic. The suggestion was that tough and hard decisions would have to be made. Before the Budget the Prime Minister returned to the theme and said that things were so crook we had war-like conditions and the Government would have to be very tough. In the 1986-87 Budget there were many one-off measures which certainly hurt. However, the bottom line was that expenditure was maintained in real terms. Mr Kerin —You want us to be a lot tougher, do you? Mr REITH —This year, we were told again how tough the Government would be, with the Grim Reaper and so on. One could say that the $4 billion figure has had a decent ring about it. But as John Stone said on television last night, the whole thing is an absolute swindle. One billion dollars of that $4 billion comes from asset sales. No one really thinks that that is a cut. No one in his right mind believes that that $1,000m will be received into the Government's coffers in the 1987-88 financial year. There were some tax increases, which were par for the course for this Government. It is the biggest taxing government that we have ever had. The States received a cut of $1,000m. So the $4 billion is not so much a cut as a reduction in the 1987-88 Budget deficit from between $6 billion and $7 billion to between $2 billion and $3 billion. In other words, for all the talk about cutting government expenditure the Government's own figures show that next year we will spend $2 billion to $3 billion more than we will receive. One does not need to be an economist to know that if one continues to spend more money than is coming into the household budget, in the end, one starts to go down the drain. That is exactly what has been happening under this Government. Again last night Mr Stone, the former Secretary to the Treasury-he knows what he is talking about-made the point that next year there will be a marginal increase in real government expenditure. We do not stand in the way of the measures introduced to cut expenditure. But that is not to say that the measures will not have adverse consequences for local government. I must say, in response to the interjection by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) a minute ago, that one of the really frustrating things that local members find when talking to people is that, whilst the Government talks about cutting expenditure, it maintains a whole range of wasteful government enterprises and activities. We still have the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Constitutional Commission and the Commission for the Future. How can the Government justify that when people-- Mr Langmore —Would you rather have an Australia without a future? Mr REITH —I can tell the honourable member that there is no future for a Labor government when there is such wasteful expenditure. What sort of a country is it when people come into my office and say `I need a hip replacement but I cannot have it done because there is insufficient funding of the health system' yet we see funds being provided for trade unionists and muralists and other wasteful expenditure. In Question Time today, the Government's expenditure on the National Media Liaison Service was revealed. An amount of $1.3m of taxpayers' money is going into a liaison service which is simply a propaganda unit for the Government. Apparently, the head of the Service is to work in Labor's campaign headquarters. Yet Labor members have the effrontery to come into this House and talk about cutting back expenditure. While the waste continues local government will feel the impact of this measure and it will add to the squeeze being put on local government through road funding cutbacks and the passing of the buck by State governments as their $1,000m cutback is fed through the system. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) is in the House. He is proud of his time in government. It would also be fair to say that one of the Socialist Left's interests in local government has been part of a wider plan to cut back the power of the States and to use local government and regional local government as a vehicle for centralised government. Federal governments have provided many carrots for local government to go into new areas-and I know, because I have been in local government for a number of years-but after leading them up the garden path, with the carrot in front of them, they have then cut back on local government's recurrent funding. I can tell the Minister that people in local government have had enough of governments that undertake a policy of asking local government to take on the chores of the Federal government-and, in some cases, the State governments-and then not backing that with financial resources to allow it to do so. Local government will have to adjust to a cut of up to $27m, either by reducing services in such areas as libraries, home help, kindergartens, infant welfare services and, in my electorate, beach cleaning, or it will be under pressure to increase rates. The Victorian shadow Minister for Local Government, Mr Robin Cooper, the member for Mornington-an excellent, newer member of the Victorian Parliament who has already made a great contribution-summed it up very well when he said: Every ratepayer in the State will inevitably pay more and receive less in the way of services and road funds. There is no doubt that that position will be reflected across Australia. To obtain an indication of the impact on councils, I had some discussions, through my office, with the chief executive of the Shire of Flinders. It has a turnover in expenditure of about $35m; so it is quite a substantial council and, I might add, a very well run council. The financial impact of the measure we are debating will be in the vicinity of $55,000 to $65,000. That is not peanuts by any stretch of the imagination. Those cuts are in addition to the impact of a number of other measures. Road funding is not a subject that often reaches the front pages of the local newspapers or the daily Press, but it is one of the prime responsibilities of local government, and a very important one. This Government has already overseen massive cuts in real terms in road funding. Expressed in constant prices, in 1983-84 the figure was $1,359m; in 1986-87 it was $1,152m; and in the May economic statement there were cuts in the forward Estimates of $180.3m for 1987-88 and $192.5m for 1988-89. All of that is in addition to the money that the Government pinched by way of the fuel excise. Honourable members will remember that a 2c levy was introduced by the Fraser Government on the Australian bicentennial road development program. It has been an excellent program, important for Australia's national infrastructure, and it has been funded by a levy of 2c a litre on fuel. The Government indexed that figure and it then snatched the indexed amount. On the latest figures, that amounts to $192m. There are roads in my electorate that have been part-made and no one can say when they will be finished because the Government has its hands in the till designated for funding important road projects. The home and community care project has sustained a cut of $6.9m in the forward Estimates, yet it is an important area of local government. Local government will feel the impact of the increased taxes and charges on Telecom and Australia Post, especially the rural municipalities that have such a great reliance on the telephone and are disadvantaged by their locality. Local government will also feel the pinch from the cut in the community employment program. By and large, it has been responsible for and the major participant in that program. The cut for 1987-88 is $100m and for 1988-89 it is 200m. The cuts generally come within a wider context, and I wish to make a few comments about that. Local government's share of public sector outlays has declined from 14 per cent in the early 1970s to about 6 per cent today. That has been accompanied by growth in both Federal and State Budgets and non-Budget sectors. The Government's contention that local government is a major contributor to growth in public sector deficits is not supported by the facts. In the early 1970s, local government was financing more than 15 per cent of its outlays from deficits or borrowings, but by the mid-1980s, only 4 per cent were being financed that way. It would be fair to say that, in effect, local government is shouldering a very considerable share-some might say an unfair share-of the burden of the Government's May mini-Budget, and this measure is part of that burden. The Opposition does not oppose these measures as there is a vital need to cut Federal expenditures if there is to be any chance of cutting interest rates and arresting our economic problems. But let no one be in doubt that these cuts will hurt local government, which will feel continuing concern as this Government adds to uncertainty about its financing arrangements. It was this Government that cut the 2 per cent base measure that the Fraser Government gave local government as a basis for certainty in its financing. In this measure today, there is yet another example of Australian families having to feel the fall in living standards either through fewer services from local government or increased taxes. I look forward to the election on 11 July. It will give Australians the opportunity to cast their verdict on this Government for its high taxes, falling living standards and economic mismanagement. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(4.15) —This Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill has only one purpose-to introduce a system of quarterly instalments for the payment of the Commonwealth general purpose assistance to local government. Previously, the payments were made annually, but in line with most other Commonwealth payments they will now be made quarterly. It is a reasonable amendment to procedures. The Commonwealth receives revenue continuously throughout the year, so there is no reason why payments should be made in one annual lump. Quarterly instalments will allow the timing of receipts and payments to be more closely matched. This is a short Bill, and I have only a few remarks to make. It is, however, a useful opportunity to reflect briefly on some of the Government's achievements and to make a couple of general remarks about local government. There has been a 50 per cent increase in local government funding during the four years since the last year of the Fraser Government. The Federal Government is investing substantially in the development of local government because of the cost effectiveness of local government expenditure. Local government receives about a quarter of its total revenue from grants provided by the Commonwealth and the States. Commonwealth outlays on local government now exceed $1 billion, relative to total net outlays of local government on ordinary services of $4 billion. In 1986-87, the Commonwealth is providing for local government about $590m in untied grants, $220m for roads, another $130m for community services, about $90m for employment projects and about $35m for special projects. All those special allocations are clearly in high priority areas, and should be strongly supported because they are very much desired by the community. The House will be aware of the revised arrangements for the allocation of untied grants among councils. The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986, which the Bill we are debating amends, provided for continuity in the provision of funds, including real terms maintenance guarantee for both this year and next year; that is, total funds provided by the Commonwealth under this allocation will be maintained in real terms in both this year and next year. That Act also requires a more open and accountable system for the allocation of funds and for a gradual direction of funds to the most disadvantaged councils. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services is currently consulting on the new principles to be adopted by State grants commissions. In some States these are close to being settled. Local government has been, or will be, consulted in each State about proposed changes, and the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) will consult with the Australian Council of Local Government Associations before finalising the Commonwealth's response. The Government, of course, would have liked to do more. I know that the Minister would have liked to do much more. But Australia is in the midst of a serious contradiction in the value of our exports. Everyone in the community should now know that the terms of trade have declined dramatically. A clear example of that is that the price of a tonne of wheat three years ago was $154. Now, all we can get for a tonne of wheat is $100. With a decline in the value of our exports as severe as that, there has inevitably been an increase in our current account deficit. Our current account deficit last year was about 6 per cent of gross domestic product; that is, 6 per cent of our national income. That means that in order to stop growth in our overseas debt, we must both reduce imports and increase the value of our exports. The May statement, which was criticised by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), was designed centrally to reduce outlays so as to reduce the total level of our imports. I was amazed by the previous speaker's comments because he appeared to be saying that these cuts were in some way irresponsible. I would have expected him to accept that they were responsible, that they were an absolutely necessary element of an appropriate strategy to reduce imports. The cuts not only were important overall, but also they were designed in such a way as to minimise the cost that they caused the community. They were concentrated in areas in which they would most effectively reduce imports. Cuts in areas which would contribute to increasing exports were minimised. For example, there was a cut in defence spending, but other areas of investment which are absolutely essential to build up our export base and our national productivity were either not touched or were cut only to a very small extent. The point about the Opposition is that it has a doctrinaire approach to slashing public expenditure. It simply wants to lash into the public sector so that it can increase the after-tax incomes of the wealthy. It talks about reducing taxes for the already well off, the already wealthy and high income earners, which is both an inequitable and an irresponsible policy. It is really guided by a doctrinaire approach to the economy which in some way sees the public sector as being less effective than the private sector, whereas the reality throughout Australian history has been that we have had effective public-private sector co-operation. Private sector investment grows fastest when public sector investment is also growing rapidly. In other words, the Opposition is closing its mind and its eyes to the empirical realities. It is not noticing what has happened in Australia during the last two centuries. It is simply proposing destructive policies which would have the effect not only of slashing essential services for the whole community but of stopping economic growth throughout the community. Such an approach is utterly irresponsible. It is important that the strategy of the May statement be continued. We must build up our national investment in both the public and the private sectors so that we can build up our exports and our national productivity. That is the way that we will restore balance to the external account. I am at present involved in chairing an inquiry into the national infrastructure by a sub-committee of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. An excellent submission to that inquiry was made by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations which entirely accepted this approach. It advocated the need for investment in roads and other important services in rural and urban areas. That recommendation, which it argued most cogently, will, I am sure, be accepted by all members of that Committee. I make just two other brief comments. I represent half of the Australian Capital Territory. In the Australian Capital Territory we do not have local government. We are the only part of any Western country which has no local control over its own affairs. This means that Commonwealth Government preferences and priorities are imposed on the Australian Capital Territory. Of course, the Commonwealth Government throughout the history of Canberra has been benevolent and relatively sensitive to community opinion in the Australian Capital Territory. Nevertheless, it is unsatisfactory that local government functions and most State government functions are not under the control of people elected by the people of the Australian Capital Territory. It seems to me very important that as soon as possible regional responsible government be introduced in the Australian Capital Territory. The Government tried to do that during the term of the present Parliament, but was stopped by opportunism and rigidity in the Senate. However, I am very hopeful that when Labor is re-elected at the next election another attempt will be made to get that very sound proposal for responsible regional government in the Australian Capital Territory through Parliament. That is essential not only to ensure that the preferences of the local community are reflected in local policy but also to ensure that the principles of democratic responsible government, which are so important and are embodied in Commonwealth, State and local government in every other part of Australia, are embodied in government in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister mentioned in his second reading speech that it was likely to be his final speech in this House as Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. I conclude by praising the Minister's strong commitment to local government in Australia. He has certainly struggled wholeheartedly and with strong commitment for local government in Australia. He has recognised the importance of accountable local governments in the best tradition of participatory democratic institutions. Contrary to what the previous speaker had to say, the Minister has always supported decentralisation and devolution of powers. That has been very much part of both his philosophical and his practical policy orientation. I congratulate the Minister on his fine achievements and on the length and strength of his struggle for effective local government in Australia, which goes back to the early 1970s, of course, as he was Minister for Urban and Regional Development in the Whitlam Government. He has been responsible for much pioneering work in the area of both local and regional government. He has made a fine contribution to equitable development in Australia, and I think it is important to recognise that point. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(4.29) —The Bill that is presently before the House-the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987-amends the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986 and will have effect from 1987-88. It will implement a quarterly system of instalments to be paid to local government. The instalments will be paid on 15 August, November, February and May respectively. However, due to the late presentation of the legislation, the first quarterly payment due on 15 August will not be paid on time and will occur around the same time as the previous annual payment, which has hitherto been before the end of September. From the 1988-89 financial year, local government will receive its first quarterly instalment approximately four weeks earlier than had previously been the case. The changes will not affect the amount being provided to local government under the Act nominally, but there will be a loss in revenue principally as a result of interest revenue forgone. The legislation is introduced to enable the Commonwealth to better match outlays and receipts, resulting in a saving in public debt interest payments. Over the past decade local government authorities have received Federal government financial assistance on an annual allocation basis calculated at 31 August and paid in a lump sum during September. Local authority budgeting is geared to receipt of that money at that time. Spending programs by local government are, therefore, geared to this budgetary system. Naturally, all moneys are not spent immediately, thus allowing local authorities to invest the balance of funds available and earn interest on such investments. The Federal Government has estimated that the cost of the present method of annual lump sum payments will be $27m in the forthcoming financial year by way of interest on its overseas borrowings. The introduction of a system of quarterly payments to local government is linked to decisions made at the Premiers Conference and Loan Council meetings on 25 May 1987 to cut back the Commonwealth's general purpose payments to the States. Of course, local authorities will suffer some financing problems this year due to the late implementation of the changes and may have to resort to borrowings through banking institutions to tide them over the change. At first blush it would appear morally proper of the Commonwealth Government to withdraw, if one likes, the potential of local authorities to earn an amount in the vicinity of $27m, based on the simple proposition: Why should not the taxpayers, through the Commonwealth Government, have the benefit of that facility rather than local government authorities? But, of course, the reality of the matter is that the Commonwealth has been fully aware of the interest earning capacity of local government through this annual funding and has therefore recognised it as part and parcel of moneys essential for the proper operation of local government. In short, local government is suffering a loss of $27m, though not necessarily sustainable in precise terms because, while the Commonwealth, naturally from a superior position, has the ability to best exploit the market-place in terms of interest offering and various machinations, local government may not necessarily be equally as well equipped. In fact we do not know just how the local authorities within Australia have arranged the investment or placing of the September payments hitherto to supplement their direct grants. The situation now is that the Commonwealth has elected to adopt a course of action; a benefit accrues to the Commonwealth and a disadvantage applies to the local government authorities. It is commendable that the local government authorities, in common with the States, have by and large responded to the Commonwealth Government's appeal-indeed, demand-that we exercise some financial restraint. But it is also food for thought that this notional across the board reduction of grants and available moneys does not necessarily pay any respect whatsoever to relative worth. Over the years there has been a drift in areas of government funding and community activity which establishes a disparity. Ideally, when restraint has to be applied across the board, we should in the first instance bring everybody up to par. The local government authorities are quite insistent that they have acted responsibly over the years. My colleague the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who preceded me in this debate, drew the attention of the House to the fact that the proportion of borrowings by local authorities to sustain their operations has reduced over the years from 15 per cent to 4 per cent, which is quite a commendable effort, whereas on the other hand, the Commonwealth has gone in the opposite direction. It is fair comment that, in this notional saving of $4,000m announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the May statement, the Commonwealth has fallen far short of bearing what may fairly be argued to be its responsible share of financial restraint. When it comes to it, that $4,000m is less the $1,000m restraint imposed upon the States, less the $1,000m raised by selling off the farm-with which I have no particular argument if our circumstances are so urgent that it must be done to maintain our solvency-and less the $400m extracted from statutory authorities, which leaves a fairly humble $1,600m for the Commonwealth to hold forth as clear proof that it has demonstrated the same responsibility as local government has over the years. I know that the retiring Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), who is presently absent from the House, has taken great pride in his contribution over the years to the well-being of local government. I know that he must have been taken aback slightly by the suddenness of the imposition of this measure. I noted that in his statement to the House in respect of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance he made the observation that he shared the concerns expressed by both the States and local government that any changes to be implemented should be gradual and not unduly disruptive to individual councils and the local government system generally. I think that comment could relate to this measure which is utterly deficient in meeting that criterion. That is probably the greatest fear of local government because it is not in a position yet to accurately measure the extent of this imposition. Within Australia, there are different financial year arrangements. I understand that New South Wales operates on a calendar year and that other States operate on a financial year. Of course, New South Wales will be in the position of expecting a 12-monthly lump sum payment in September and will have programmed and budgeted accordingly. It will find now that it will receive only 25 per cent of that amount. No doubt it will adopt measures to overcome that impediment, but presumably that will put it on to the loan market, which is totally in conflict with the philosophical and practical thrust of what the Government has been about lately, as emphasised to the Premiers at the Premiers Conference when they were told that the deficiencies that they will suffer should not be made good by going to the loan market, which would increase our indebtedness, to accommodate that short term requirement. The States were told that they should not seek to sustain the position that they have hitherto enjoyed and that in reality they have to accept a belt-tightening exercise. I guess it could be said that the local government authorities may even be relieved that they escaped some of the rigours that they perhaps feared in prospect and may feel that things are not as bad as they could have been. But presently they have great trouble in putting a dollar value on the effect of this new arrangement, it being so close to the time when local authorities would normally expect the first quarter to be paid. I am sure they will be comforted to know that the Bill will stipulate when the payments will be made, particularly in this transitional first year. I am mindful that there are some time constraints on debate. The Bill will not invite opposition from this side of the House, for the simple reason that it is a budgetary measure and is well within the entitlement of the Government that it pass both Houses so that the Government can maintain its budgetary commitment to the States. But we should not forget that the 838 local authorities in this country are served by in excess of 9,000 or 10,000 aldermen and councillors-volunteers in the main-who render a great service to this country. In much of this country, in the non-metropolitan and rural areas in particular, it could be said that local government is virtually the life blood of the community. If it were to suffer adverse circumstances to the effect that it could no longer maintain its position in the community, there would be a disastrous flow-on to the community. It is worth bearing in mind also that the proposal that local government activities could be relegated-I use that word advisedly-to a substantial extent to private contracting, while having some appeal, loses sight entirely of the critical role of local government authorities in rural areas. They serve an emergency role in floods, in tragedy-- Mr Nehl —Fire. Mr MILLAR —And fire. They are on the spot immediately to move in and contend with whatever has to be dealt with, whereas, if we had to rely entirely on private contractors, they could be 1,000 miles away. So we have to maintain them. They are a very important element within our national infrastructure. Whilst this Bill does not savage them to the extent that it could, it will have an effect on them. I applaud their responsibility, their general attitude to respond to the requirement that we must exercise some restraint at present. Without wishing particularly to introduce a discordant note, it is a sad fact that the situation we are presently in is aggravated by the tardiness of this Government and the preceding Government to get to grips with the problems which were emerging quite clearly in our country and which led to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) making a statement, unhappily only three months after claiming that ours was the most buoyant economy in the world, that our country was in fact facing a war for economic survival. I agree with him totally, and we should marshal our forces as best we can to deal with the main problems first, and we can fix up everything after we have won the war. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(4.41) —I rise to speak in support of this legislation. The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill will simply alter the method of payment of general purpose assistance to local government from an annual system to a quarterly system. As this is a budgetary Bill, it gives me the opportunity to make some reference to my constituency here in the Australian Capital Territory. I want to take this opportunity because in Canberra we have no other form of government except this Federal Parliament, and there are not many opportunities to speak about the impact of this Government's policy on the Australian Capital Territory. I also want to take this opportunity, as we have the impending retirement of the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), to pay tribute to the Minister's contribution to local government throughout this country. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), because in his role as Minister for Territories we have seen marvellous advancement in terms of job opportunities and community support in this electorate. He has been very committed to Canberra as the national capital and as a home for 267,000 people. He has worked with great dedication, with the support of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Hawke Cabinet, for the well-being of the people of Canberra. On behalf of all my constituents I thank him for his very considerable achievements in his role as the Minister for Territories. I also want to issue a word of warning to my constituents about the consequences that could occur to them if there were an Opposition victory on 11 July. An Opposition victory would be no joke for my constituents. The Opposition parties-and I can see some of their members sitting in this House now smiling; they are like vultures ready to attack my innocent constituents-because of their attitudes to public sector spending, would ensure that Canberra was sucked dry if, unfortunately, they ever became the government of this country. Mr Hurford —Services dismembered. Mrs KELLY —The Minister at the table talks about services dismembered, and there is no doubt about that, because the Opposition is daily increasing its credibility gap. It is now up to about $23 billion in promises. Where is it going to get the money from? On the one hand it says that there will be no new taxes, and on the other hand it says: `Well, there could be'. But where else would it get the money from except by cutting back services? Obviously the first place that will be attacked will be this Territory, because there is no buffer against the Federal Government. Here in Canberra we have no local government and no State government; we have only the Federal Government. Unless we have a Federal government that is committed, to a degree, to public sector spending, that is committed to providing community services and that is committed to a clear role for the public sector, there will be no future for this Territory. In government we have tried to diversify our employment base. We can see that Canberra of the future cannot rely solely on the public sector for employment. But at the same time we cannot cut that public sector base overnight, because if we do, we will see a return to those dark days of the early 1980s when I was elected to this Parliament and we were in opposition. What Canberra saw in those days will be nothing compared with what a return to government by the Opposition would mean to this Territory. One of the saddest things that I saw in 1980, when I was elected, was the very high unemployment. In those days we had one of the highest unemployment levels in Australia, particularly for youth. I suppose the sight that disturbed me most in those days was middle-aged men, often migrants, many of whom had been in the construction industry, coming to see me because they were unemployed. They were in their forties and they knew that they had no chance of getting a job. It was then that I made a commitment to my constituents that we would never have that again. I hope that I can abide by that commitment. While Labor is in government I am sure that I can live up to that commitment. Since those days we have seen Canberra go from the highest unemployment levels in this country to the lowest, and I am very proud of that record. But at the same time the quality of life of my constituents has improved considerably. I have given a priority to the newer parts of Canberra, to the Tuggeranong Valley, where 50,000 families now live. Ten years ago none of them lived there. Through our commitment to those people we have been able to provide community infrastructure which I think is an example to the rest of Australia. We have been able to provide schools for the kids on time. We have been able to provide community health centres and we have been able to provide child care centres and the sorts of things that a community needs. While the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) is at the table, I would like to thank him for his commitment, particularly to the child care centres, five of which have been built in the last three years in my electorate. That is an enormous financial commitment and it also shows the priorities of our Government. My main concern, if there were a change in government, would be the impact that it would have on the future of our young people in this Territory, because we do not want a return to those dark days when our kids leaving school had no future at all, when they were forced to leave the Territory because there were no employment opportunities for them here. My constituents must understand the consequences of a change of government. They are probably the most intelligent constituents in Australia. After all, three out of four of the Australian Capital Territory's representatives are Australian Labor Party members. I hope that the people return those members. However, it is important that we do not get complacent, that we understand that there is a clear alternative on 11 July. One course is to continue with the steady growth that Canberra is having now. Sure, there will be patches in that, for example, when the new Parliament House is completed, but we have a vision for Canberra and we have a commitment to Canberra. We have a vision because we understand that its long term future lies in diversifying its employment base. We have to put emphasis on tourism and we have to do something about our high technology industry. But we have heard no statement from the Opposition specifically about what its goal is for Canberra-- Mr Reith —Or sell it. Mrs KELLY —Except to sell it. That is the only comment we have from the Opposition. That does not surprise me. The next thing will probably be an auction for the new Parliament House and every other building around this town. But that is the only statement we hear from the Opposition; it will sell it. I am wrong; I must confess there is an Opposition spokesman on the Territories. Guess who? I bet nobody can. No- body knows who he is. It is Senator Lewis, a Victorian senator. He is the Opposition shadow Minister. We never see him and hardly ever hear of him. He did make one statement: He said that he would sell off the bus system. Who on earth would buy it? Mr Reith —That's a good idea. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member will remain silent. Mrs KELLY —Let them interject, please, Mr Deputy Speaker. It helps me in the campaign. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair will deal with the order of the House. Mrs KELLY —I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. Opposition members have said that they will sell off the bus system and abolish the Canberra Development Board. The Canberra Development Board was set up by the Fraser Government but we have restructured it on the advice of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, which I chair. I note that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), another member of the Committee, is here. The Board is now integrating high technology development and tourism development. It is acting as a united, very forceful board. The Opposition policy is to abolish it. Did honourable members opposite not know that? It has been announced. I understand that the Canberra Development Board has written to John Valder, the President of the Liberal Party of Australia, asking him to clarify that. A gobbledegook response which says nothing much at all has been received. Basically, that is the response of the Opposition so far. I suppose we could summarise it by referring to it as the sell-off policy. The Opposition wants to destroy the Public Service and at the same time drain Canberra of its vitality. It has no vision about where Canberra is going. It has a simplistic solution of selling things off. So on 11 July there will be a very clear choice. Before I conclude I should like again to record my thanks to the Minister for Territories, Gordon Scholes, who has been a very fine Minister to work with. He has been incredibly co-operative with the local members. One of his achievements is the recognition of Canberra's role in the region. He has shown a desire to diversify our employment base and he has had an enormous commitment to providing jobs for our young people in this Territory. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.53) —Whilst noting that the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) indicated in the second reading speech that this might be the last Bill that he would bring before this Parliament, and accepting as I do that the Minister enjoys a fair degree of affection in this chamber, I have to say in passing that I am appalled that once again the Hawke socialist Government has betrayed a firm and fundamental commitment to local government. The plain reality is that this is yet another breach of commitment by the Hawke socialist Government to local government in this country, and it is a significant one. Out of the $632m appropriated we see as a direct result of this legislation a 4.3 per cent cut in real terms. That will mean that Australia's 838 local government bodies will be $27m short as a result of a deliberate breach of commitment by this Government which has demonstrated that its word is simply not of any value whatsoever. Even more confusing is the contradiction between the second reading speech by the Minister and the explanatory memorandum. I will read it into Hansard so that everybody connected with local government in this country can see exactly what was said in the second reading speech by the Minister and the position that came out in the explanatory memorandum. Present in the chamber are the Honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith)-the last two are shadow Ministers-the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and my very good friend the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) from the National Party of Australia, all of whom have been directly involved in local government for many years. Let the words speak for themselves. They will be in the Hansard. I assure honourable members that I will make certain that all local government instrumentalities in my area, and specifically the Hobart City Council and the Glenorchy City Council, are well and truly aware of this blatant contradiction in terms. In the second reading speech-this part at least is correct-the Minister said: Previously, the Commonwealth has made a payment, usually during September, to each of the States and the Northern Territory, for distribution to local governing bodies of their estimated annual entitlements, that is, a single lump sum early in the financial year. The amendment provided for in this Bill will mean, so far as practicable, that annual entitlements will be paid in equal quarterly instalments. He continued: The Government proposes to make these payments no later than the fifteenth of August, November, February and May respectively. It will not be possible, however, to make a quarterly payment by mid-August in 1987. This payment will be made at the same time as in previous years, that is, normally before the end of September. I pause to say that this means that there will be a delay in relation to the first payment. It will not be in mid-August; it will be some time before the end of September. So once again we see this cribbing as we saw with the pensioners. Their increases were deferred for six weeks. The same thing applied with repatriation or Veterans' Affairs beneficiaries, the handicapped, the sick, the dying, the halt and the lame. The same thing is happening now with local government. The Minister continued: The new arrangements will mean that from 1988-89, the first payment to local government will occur at least four weeks earlier than had previously been the case. That is small consolation in 1987. Now listen to this: The Minister said: The changes in this Bill will not affect the amount being provided to local government under the Act, but there will be some loss of benefit to local government, principally as a result of interest revenue forgone. So the Minister is saying, I am sure in good faith, because I am sure that this was prepared for him in good faith, that it will not affect the amount being provided to local government. What does the explanatory memorandum say? It blasts a cannon shot, a rocket, through what the Minister said because in the section headed `Financial Impact' the following words appear: The Treasurer has estimated that the Commonwealth will save $27m- I repeat, $27m- from changing from a single annual payment to a system of quarterly instalments. The question is: Whom is the Government saving it from? The answer is that it is saving it from local government. It is ripping off the City of Ballarat; it is ripping off the city of Hobart; it is ripping off the city of Launceston; and it is ripping off the Shire of Flinders. It is ripping off every one of those 838 local government instrumentalities throughout this country. Worse still, in the Minister's second reading speech, he did not disclose that there would be a shortfall to local government; yet the Treasurer (Mr Keating) sees it as $27m. Well, I have news for the Treasurer: His mathematics are not right. I think he will find that the figure will be much higher than $27m. My personal feeling is that it will probably come up to around $35m-ripped off, blatant misappropriation. That is on top of the 2 per cent in real terms promised to the States and repudiated at the Premiers Conference. Of that 2 per cent increase in real terms to the States a significant proportion, varying from one State to another, would have found its way into local government. It is a comment which I have heard over and over again all around Australia. I do not think there is a person in local government who does not personally like the Minister and I think it is recognised by all those in local government that the Minister has had a commitment to local government for many years. The sad thing is that the Minister has been let down by his Cabinet colleagues. The Hawke socialist Government forced this Minister, committed to local government, to support the abolition of the the Advisory Council on Inter-governmental Relations, which was the only Commonwealth, State and local government forum in this country. It was brought in by the Fraser Government as a direct result of a clear electoral commitment given by Mr Fraser in the 1975 campaign. It followed the establishment of a similar body in the United States of America. It was a forum at which Commonwealth, State and local government could sit down to discuss their relationships one to the other. This Hawke socialist Government has seen that body destroyed. Secondly, the commitments given by the Minister in the area of local government both prior to the 1983 Federal election and repeated in 1984 have now been dishonoured. They lie in tatters at the feet of a Minister who genuinely believes in local government. I condemn the Hawke socialist Government for its blatant hypocrisy in pretending, on the one hand, that it cares for local government and, on the other hand, financially cutting the throat of local government. I repeat that the Minister in good faith told this House that the Bill would not affect the amount being provided to local government under the Act. The rabbit is out of the hat when one sees the financial impact section of the explanatory memorandum, where the Treasurer of this country-approaching his last weeks in that office, thank Heaven, and soon to be consigned, I hope, to perpetual anonymity-is rubbing his hands because he has ripped $27m off local government by changing from a single annual payment to a system of quarterly instalments. I repeat that I do not believe the Treasurer's figures. In my personal view, the amount is more like $35m. That will have an enormous impact right across Australia; $35m taken out of the appropriation for local government will affect every service provided by every council of every shire and every municipality in this country. The State of Tasmania-and I mention this particularly because the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and I are concerned, along with our colleagues, about continuing cutbacks to local government in our State-is likely to see a cut of the order of $1m from local government funding in this financial year. That might seem very small beer in Canberra but I assure the House that it is not small beer in Tasmania. I am sure that it is not small beer in Queensland and it is certainly not small beer in regional and provincial Victoria. The plain fact of the matter is that it is another broken promise by a government that has made so many overtures to local government and so many promises that it would do the right thing. It promised that it would have local government formally recognised in the Constitution; that promise lies in tatters. It promised that local government would have a continuing voice on the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. That promise has been betrayed because the Advisory Council has been abolished and now there have been two cuts to local government, one through a direct cut and the repudiation of the 2 per cent increase in real terms to the States and the second, now, through this legislation. If I had my way, I would see this become an election issue. The amount involved, according to the Government, is not much. The principle involved is enormous. Mr Goodluck —It is a betrayal. Mr HODGMAN —It is a betrayal. It is a betrayal of local government. The honourable member for Franklin enters the debate metaphorically and, as a former Warden of Clarence, which he served with very great distinction, he will know that what I have said is correct: That cut of $1m-plus-because it will be more than $1m-to local government in Tasmania will have an enormous impact. It will have an impact on the provision of all those services that local government is continually providing, and they are increasing rather than decreasing. I have to say on behalf of the five Tasmanian members of the House of Representatives that we protest and protest strongly about a further betrayal of local government by this Hawke socialist Government. We look forward with anticipation to an election on 11 July, at which we will guarantee this Parliament that the five Liberal members of the House of Representatives for Tasmania will be re-elected and re-elected with increased majorities. We will play our part in the incoming government, which will replace the dishonoured and discredited Hawke socialist Government that will be thrown out of office on 11 July. This Government, in the dying days of its shabby regime, is ripping off $35m-plus from local government in Australia, hitting everybody, as I have said, from Ballarat to Glenorchy, from Bendigo to Hobart. The Government may regard this as a matter of small importance but it is a matter of enormous importance because, once again, it proves that this Government simply cannot be trusted. Its promises are valueless. On behalf of my colleagues from Tasmania, the honourable member for Bass, the honourable member for Franklin, the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), I want to say that we are outraged at what has been done. The impact in our little State will be substantial. The hardship will be great and the Government will pay a big price for this mean and nasty piece of legislation that it is ramming through the Parliament in the dying days of its shabby and sordid regime, which, by the grace of God, will come to an end on 11 July next. It cannot come soon enough for me! Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(5.06) —The dire consequences to local government of this legislation forecast by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) will not come true and cannot come true, because not only the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) but also the Government, through the Minister, have an excellent record in funding for local government. I remind the honourable member for Denison that Australia is receiving approximately $9 billion less in funds from sales of our commodities overseas. This means not only less coming to every family and every business in Australia but also less in the way of funds being available to the Government to spread to other levels of government. I believe the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has done an outstanding job in insulating local government-which I agree has been a deprived area-from the necessary reductions in funding and in spending by governments of all levels. What local government has had to sustain is a drop in the interest it will receive because it will be receiving quarterly instalments instead of annual instalments. I ask honourable members to contrast this with the policies of the Opposition, which has relegated local government to one of the major areas of poverty in Australia, simply because it would reduce income taxes. That is the Opposition's stated aim, to flatten income taxes. Although this may have appeal to people earning more than $30,000 a year, I would ask even them to think again, to think about the effect of the reduced income to the national Government of funds that are necessary for spending by local government. If taxes are reduced to the extent forecast, the share local government receives from general revenue will have to drop. The Liberal party, in its policies, is looking for $16 billion. Where is the $16 billion coming from-the $16 billion it needs to balance the Budget it has put forward to us so far? The Opposition cannot find it. It will not find it and it will not tell us where it is coming from. I am absolutely certain that the share to local government will drop. If it maintains its present proportion of national income tax collection, local government will have to suffer a drop simply because of the drop in total collection. This means, of course, an exacerbation of the iniquitous, inequitable system of rating that exists in local government today, where people in many shires and cities are forced to pay high rates simply because local government is not getting an adequate amount of funds from other areas. The system of rating is a bad one. It is unfair and there are many anomalies, which I shall not go into now, but the system does not work. I ask the Opposition what it intends to do about local government areas. I instance the Bega Valley Shire, which has had to meet challenges of amalgamation, which has had to meet challenges of development, which has had to meet challenges of bad roads. The Bega Valley Shire is, through Federal assistance, able to take initiatives. It is able to take initiatives in child care. It has been able to open a nursing home at Pambula to supplement the nursing home at Bega, for which it has obtained increased funding from the Federal Government. It has been able to take initiatives. Members of the Bega Valley Shire have taken a major initiative along with me and my State colleague, John Akister, in obtaining for the shire a college of technical and further education which has only just been opened. Some millions of dollars of Federal funding have gone into the TAFE college in Bega, and it will vastly improve services to the community. What will the Opposition policies do for the Bega Valley Shire? They will reduce its income and force it into further inequitable rating increases and place further burdens on local ratepayers. The Bega Valley Shire has obtained an increase of 1,378 per cent in general revenue funding from the Federal Government between 1974-75 and 1986-87. What will happen next year in the unlikely event of a coalition government? I do not know whether it can be called a coalition, a Joh party government, a Liberal Party government, a National Party government or whatever it may be. It is unpredictable, but it is also unforeseeable. It cannot happen because there are so many different parties and divisions within the Opposition. The leadership is unable to bring the members together and the people will not vote for them. In the case of the Bombala Shire, there has been an increase from $31,000 to $464,000 in 1986-87. That is a 1,496 per cent increase in the 11 years between 1974-75 and 1986-87. In addition, the Bombala Shire has had the benefits of other funding from the Federal Government for its frail aged hostel, its highways-including the Monaro Highway to Cann Valley, which is gradually being developed through Federal funding-and initiatives that the shire itself has been able to take along with me to improve television services in the area. It is doing all these things. How well will it be able to do them under reduced amounts through the flat tax policies of the Opposition? Cooma-Monaro Shire has had an increase in funding of just over 1,000 per cent during those 11 years; it has increased by 1,033.7 per cent from $98,000 in 1974-75 to $1,013,000 in 1986-87. In addition, the shire has had the benefit of a community development officer who is shared with the Bombala Shire and the Snowy River Shire and who is funded by the Federal Government under a local government program. I thank the Minister for his support for that appointment. Funding has been received for the Monaro Highway and the full backing of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West)-who is also in the House-for the continuation of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation has been given. Under a conglomerate government, if it could ever eventuate, we know that the Corporation would be immediately privatised and lost from Cooma. The former shire president, Councillor John Field, came to see me and expressed his concern that the Corporation ought to remain in Cooma. Two Ministers, in addition to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), have supported the Cooma-Monaro Shire to their utmost. The Eurobodalla Shire has received an increase of 2,637.5 per cent in the 11 years to 1986-87. It now receives $1,055,000 in general revenue. That is a substantial increase. No one can say that the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has no say within the Government when that sort of increase occurs. He has recognised that the Eurobodalla Shire has a high proportion of low income earners; he has recognised that it needs to be given special consideration for funding. The new needs based funding being proposed will be far fairer to a shire such as Eurobodalla. In addition to the general revenue increase, there have been allocations to the retirement complex at Dalmeny-for which the Eurobodalla Shire has worked so hard-and new water and sewerage schemes at Narooma. Under the community employment program, there has been funding for a major youth stadium. Even now times are hard for the Eurobodalla Shire, but they will be much harder under the coalition policy of flatter taxes. There will be very few people in the Eurobodalla Shire earning $40,000 or more who will benefit from the flatter taxes. Local government will once again have to put up already considerably high rates and hit the ratepayers of the shire. The Queanbeyan City Council has had an increase of 1,338.8 per cent in the 11 years to 1986-87 from $80,000 to $1,071,000. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) has mentioned how Canberra has regained its prosperity with the advent of this Government. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services will know that when the Labor Party came into government in 1983, Morrisett House, a four-storey building in Queanbeyan, was empty. It is now full. At lunch time today I had the pleasure of doing some aerobics exercises on the top floor as it was the only place where there was any space, and that is why I am so flushed. Mr Smith —That would be a sight to see. Mr Braithwaite —It will stimulate the hair growth. Mr SNOW —It will do nothing for that; I have tried that before. What it does is reflect the fact that public servants, people from private enterprise and people from State government are now sharing the accommodation of Morrisett House in Queanbeyan. Queanbeyan is now prosperous along with Canberra. What happened in the days of the Fraser Government was not that there were fewer public servants; there were just fewer public servants in Canberra and Queanbeyan. The numbers certainly did not drop back to the same extent in places like Sydney and Melbourne. We do not want to return to the days of bust that we had under the Fraser Government when this area was discriminated against. Queanbeyan City Council endorses the need for continued prosperity. The business people of Queanbeyan will go further and will endorse the re-election of a Labor government, as will the people of Canberra. The City of Shoalhaven has received an increase in funding of 835.9 per cent in the 11 years mentioned; additional funding, not only increases in general revenue grants but also for coastal conservation where areas were vastly denuded, has been received. Under the community employment program, the coastal areas are now not only covered with greenery but also the erosion that was taking place has been turned around. The community employment program has also assisted the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, which I had the pleasure of opening yesterday when my wife had the pleasure of cutting the ribbon. The showground pavilion and basketball stadium were also funded by the community employment program. It has provided a beautiful pavilion and a great service to youth in the Milton-Ulladulla area. The Snowy River Shire, which has received an increase of 831 per cent, has also had to deal with the problem of rate increases. It will not benefit by the election of a government that would force the shire into increasing those rates. In 11 years Tallaganda Shire has had a 1,810 per cent increase in general revenue to $362,000 and it has also received community employment program funding, including funding for Doughboy Hill on the coast road. Lastly, the Yarrow- lumla Shire has received community employment program funding for water supplies for Bungendore and Captains Flat, and a range of other community employment programs in addition to a 1,173.3 per cent increase in funding in the 11 years to 1986-87. I believe that this is the last legislation to be introduced by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. I endorse the words of the honourable member for Denison and other members that the Minister has done an outstanding job, but I deny what the honourable member for Denison has said about the Minister not being able to move his fellows in the Cabinet. He has had some real victories. The August 1986 Budget would have been entirely different without him. I conclude by paying tribute to the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services for the work he has done for local government throughout Australia, not only in this period of his stewardship but also in his period as Minister for Urban and Regional Development in the Whitlam Government, which set a standard, a trend, for Australia which we have not gone back on, we will not go back on and no government can go back on. I thank the Minister and support the legislation. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) and other members who have spoken in the debate for their kind words. The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill is a loss for local government, and I recognise that. I want to correct the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), and that is one of the major reasons why I rose to speak. The sad thing about the honourable member for Denison is that he always cries wolf. When he has got a good case nobody ever listens to him. I am afraid that this is one of those occasions on which he has cried wolf. He does not know what he is talking about. There is no contradiction between the second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum. In the second reading speech I said: The changes will not affect the amount being provided to the local government under the Act. That statement is correct. There will be no changes in the sum provided under the Act. The cost to local government will not result from changes in the sum available under the Act, but from the fact that local government will not have the same opportunity to invest those grants under the Act as it did in past years. The savings to the Commonwealth, as stated in the explanatory memorandum, of $27m have been carefully estimated by Treasury. It is a result of public sector borrowing requirement savings within the year and is a complicated calculation. I am confident that the Treasury is right in its figures. The amount that will be made available this year will be $640m. I say with some pride-seeing that I was the Minister responsible for local government-that when the first breakthrough was made it was $56m. It has risen to $640m this year. During that period local government has moved from being a body responsible for kerbing and guttering, roads and garbage to a body responsible for broader human and community services. At the end of my second reading speech I expressed the thought that local government was the level of government nearest the people. I correct the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who intimated that in the years I have been in politics all I have tried to do as a socialist member of parliament in bringing forward policies is to centralise power. That is just the opposite. My whole philosophy is to decentralise power, to give people a greater say at the grass roots so that they can determine what they will spend their taxes on and the priorities of how it should be spent. As far as I am concerned, one of the delights of my portfolio is that it involves intervention in favour of the people at the grass roots level. This year we will be spending over $1 billion. This is a 50 per cent increase on expenditure at the local government level in the last year of the Fraser Government. I do not want to dwell on that matter. I have made the point. I thank honourable members for the moderate way they have received this legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill cognately with the Excise Tariff Validation Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(5.27) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will allow me the indulgence of congratulating the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), who is retiring at the forthcoming election. Mr Uren —Only as a Minister. Mr MOORE —That one has stumped me. He admitted that he was a socialist. That must be the reason he decided to come back. I thought socialists had gone out of favour. I have not found a socialist other than the Minister for a long time. I am sure that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) would be the only person to succeed the Minister. In the corridor the other day he said to me: `Good morning, comrade'. There is no one left here like the Minister. Mr Uren —I hope that the honourable member for Melbourne succeeds me, too. Mr MOORE —I must have an insight into the workings of the Australian Labor Party. I have picked it all in one. Mr Donald Cameron —He is standing down so that Joh can have a seat. Mr MOORE —That is it. The Minister is one of the few self-proclaimed socialists in the House. I do not know about the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who is also at the table; he came under that heading once upon a time. He might have been chucked out. Was he chucked out? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member will get on with the debate. Mr MOORE —I am sorry about that, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has done a remarkable job for local government. He got the money before the toe cutters came around and trimmed things up. I said at the time in the House that if he had introduced the Bill six months later he would not have got the money. He has been caught up with since in some respects. But he has to be congratulated on what he has done for local government. He has made a great contribution there as he has in many other places-and the Minister and I both know what I am talking about in that respect. The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) has just entered the House. He is another member who has had some difficulties with the ALP today. Mr Keogh —It has not been my best day. Mr MOORE —No, it has not been his best day. The honourable member for Bowman is going. The Minister is staying but he is going. That is what happens in the ALP. Mr McGauran —No honour. Mr MOORE —No honour at all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member should get on with the debate. Mr MOORE —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. When I saw the honourable member for Bowman come in I thought it was worth pointing out that today the National Executive of the ALP walked away from one of its old members and endorsed another member who has a doubtful reputation. The endorsed nominee could have nominated for the vacancy as candidate for Lord Mayor. Instead, the National Executive knocked off the honourable member for Bowman. That is appalling behaviour. One would only expect that of a faction ridden-- Mr Keogh —You are not being broadcast today. Try again tomorrow. Mr MOORE —The honourable member is quite right. This is not being broadcast. I am sorry about that. The Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1987 and the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1987 give effect to the Government's announcements on tariffs and bounties in recent times. The three principal areas of the Customs Tariff Validation Bill arise from, first, the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on vegetables and vegetable products; secondly, the Government's decision on the IAC report on luggage, handbags and similar containers; and, thirdly, consideration by the Australian and New Zealand governments on the duty free status of gas barbecues. There is a recommendation that gas barbecues be allowed into this country duty free. I point out that the Opposition does not oppose that. The new tariffs will have some impact on the baggage and luggage industry but in the overall economic sense the Opposition feels that the proposal in this area should not be opposed. However, the Opposition finds the decision with respect to vegetables to be fairly extraordinary. We all know that the Minister's recommendation was for a tariff level of 15 per cent, but he was rolled because of the continuing anti-rural stance taken by the Government. The recommendation by the experts in Cabinet was to go down to 10 per cent. As a consequence, the frozen vegetable area and the large area of vegetable production in Australia will come under enormous pressure. It is worth looking at what goes on in the vegetable growing areas of rural Australia. Taken as a whole, the vegetable industry is the second or third largest crop enterprise and the fifth or sixth largest in the agricultural industry. Mr Braithwaite —A lot comes from Bowen in my area. Mr MOORE —A lot comes from the Bowen area, including Bowen tomatoes. As the honourable member for Dawson knows, tomatoes will be affected significantly by the recommendations. The well known area of Bowen, which includes the Don delta, and the people of this area will be impacted upon. Their profitability will be shot to ribbons in the coming seasons because of this measure. Mr Braithwaite —They could be growing pretty big, too. Mr MOORE —If they are, I am sure that they will have a healthy glow on them. Vegetables have a particular significance, in some States more than others. Tasmania in particular has over 40 per cent of Australia's total crop value in vegetables; and for a State of that size to rely on one particular area is significant. In other States such as Queensland and Victoria the value of vegetables as a crop is in the order of 10 per cent. However, Victoria, for example, produces 27 per cent of all vegetables grown in Australia, followed by Queensland with 25 per cent, New South Wales with 18 per cent and the other States as a whole with 30 per cent. So if 40 per cent of Tasmania's total crop comes from vegetables, that is significant for that island State. Domestic consumption accounts for 97 per cent by weight of all Australia's vegetable production. Therefore, at the moment only 3 per cent of our vegetables are exported. That accounts for the highly domestic consumption orientation in which this industry finds itself. Until fairly recently, the potato industry had been subject to a total import ban. When this was abolished recently we saw a fair penetration of the Australian market by foreign growers, particularly from New Zealand and more latterly from Canada. As a result, we have seen a buildup in the use of dehydrated potato and certain other manufactured potatoes coming into this country. They have been subject to substantial tariff protection until now. This validation Bill gives effect to the recommendation of the IAC report that the tariff level on these items be dropped to 10 per cent over a five-year period and that special monitoring take place. The Liberal Party and the National Party-the honourable member for Dawson will move an amendment in this regard at a later date-see this as an extreme measure which will be harmful to many areas of Australian potato production and we recommend that the tariff level be 15 per cent rather than 10 per cent. Australian producers would then be able to have some confidence in relation to future production. There is a lot of talk about export markets. In this area the Japanese market was taken from Australian producers by the Unites States of America. There is a substantial export of vegetables into Europe, but it is very much on a one-off basis as a result of various crop failures due to climatic conditions. Therefore, spot operations are the order of the day. It is known that the major producers of processed vegetables in Australia, namely Edgells and McCain, were keen to maintain tariffs at somewhere between 20 per cent and 25 per cent, but they accept that 15 per cent can be achieved with higher levels of productivity and the like. What is of concern to Australian growers of vegetables, particularly potatoes, is that very substantial dumping of dehydrated products and other canned and processed products can occur. There would not be a member here who would not be aware of that, particularly the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) who has had enormous experience with the problem of dumping, and how one measures it and decides what is truly dumping and what is competition and what is monopoly trading in various markets. The answers to these questions are not readily available. Mr Barry Jones —You need to be a philosopher. Mr MOORE —Not only that, we also need to be very sharp on our feet. When we seek answers in some countries, we cannot get them. Therefore, a judgment must be made. By allowing the process that was recommended, not by moving on a gradual basis but by moving the full way to 10 per cent, opens these markets to very considerable penetration not only from legitimate competitors but also from dumped products from around the world. As a result, the Opposition will persist with 15 per cent while recognising that some people will have difficulty in this area. However, our view is that at that level the industry can survive. Also coming into this area are such industries as the pea industry in Tasmania. That is another large Tasmanian industry and I know that all Tasmanian members take an interest in it. Seventy per cent of Australian frozen peas come from Tasmania. The industry is subject to considerable competition. It will be most interested to ensure that the appropriate tariff level and administration is carried out. The current level of tariff protection for tomato paste is 48 per cent. As a consequence of this measure that level will come down and Australia's tomato processing industry, which has been highly protected, may suffer along with others. There is a consequent need to maintain a constant review of these industries to make sure that the disruption that will occur, particularly from dumping or monopolistic action, does not totally destroy some very viable areas of production that are well known to Australians. Those engaged in the tomato industry look constantly for the early tomatoes that come from Bowen and those in the potato industry look for potatoes grown around Australia. We in Queensland are always looking for the Tasmanian red eyes, I think they are called, which come to the north out of season. Such products are welcome in other States. It will be a great loss to Australia if such products are destroyed because of dumping or the other factors to which I have referred. The Excise Tariff Validation Bill gives effect to increases in the duty on crude oil and petroleum products which will take effect before 30 June and must be validated by this Parliament before it is dissolved. The Opposition does not oppose the measure. However, it is worth while pointing out again an area in which the Government has so badly let down the travelling public of Australia. I am sorry that this debate is not being broadcast so that motorists on their way home can hear some of the history of this matter. As the Minister for Science will be aware, everyone driving across the Harbour Bridge tonight will be charged $1. In 1983 the Government promised that nothing like that would occur. It promised a 3c a litre cut in the price of petrol. Mr Braithwaite —If they are going over the Harbour Bridge tonight they are paying $1 toll. Mr MOORE —A motor cyclist has done even worse; his fee has gone from 5c to $1. In 1983, people were promised a cut of 3c a litre. All those people who are driving alongside the Swan River in the electorate of Curtin tonight will look back to 1983 and ask: `What happened to my 3c cut?' When a person in Curtin pulls up at a petrol bowser he finds that, instead of paying an excise of 6.15c a litre, as he did in March 1983-less 3c a litre as promised; that is, 3.1c-he is now paying 19.84c a litre excise. That is why people are ringing the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) every day and saying: `Why have all the promises been broken? Why is it that in this coming election you cannot make all these things hang on the Labor Government so it can be seen for what it is?' There have been many broken promises, but that promise is the most material one. It affects everybody driving home. Mr Barry Jones —Are we going to have a revelation of Liberal Party tax policy? Mr MOORE —No. We are going to have a revelation of petrol prices. Everybody knows that not only were we promised those cuts in 1983 but also the world price of oil has dropped from $30-odd a barrel to around $10 a barrel in American dollar terms. While the world price has gone down from $30-odd a barrel to around $10 a barrel, and while we were promised a 3c a litre cut when the price was $30 a barrel, what do we have? Not only has the excise gone up from 6c to 19.8c but also the price of petrol-the oil price has gone down in that period-in Sydney went up from 43c a litre in March 1983 to 55c in December 1986. A skilled mathematician such as the Minister could readily discern that an increase from 43c to 55c is hardly a 3c cut. People in the suburbs of Curtin in Western Australia were paying 42c in March 1983 and in December 1986 were paying 57c. What an appalling record the Government has, and it asks us to trust it. While we do not propose to vote against the validations tonight, because they are part of the Budget process, it is worth pointing out the Government's true record in terms of its promises, fiscal responsibility and of making a judgment tomorrow on what it did yesterday. The Government has a shocking record. It is one which no one could be proud. I know that the Minister could not be proud of it. Therefore, I do not propose to embarrass him any further. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(5.45) —The Customs Tariff Validation Bill and the Excise Tariff Validation Bill have been made necessary as a result of the election being announced. Section 226 of the Customs Act and section 114 of the Excise Act provide for the collection of duties in pursuance of the proposals to ensure that they are protected against legal challenge for 12 months or until the close of the session of Parliament, whichever occurs first. This validation legislation is designed to provide a necessary machinery measure to protect the collection of the duties which have been introduced by the proposals. Essentially, the same types of considerations and provisions relate to both of these items of legislation concerned with the customs tariff and the excise tariff. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) made some interesting observations. He foreshadowed an amendment which, I understand, will be moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who will speak after me in this debate. The amendment which the honourable member intends to move suggests that, whilst the Opposition will not decline to give the Customs Tariff Validation Bill a second reading, `the House is of the opinion that the general long term tariff rate of duty on processed vegetables initially should be phased down to 15 per cent' rather than the 10 per cent as proposed in the legislation. The only point I would make about that is that, had the legislation proposed that it be phased down to 15 per cent, the Opposition would have suggested some higher percentage. That is okay, because it gives the Opposition the opportunity to-- Mr Braithwaite —John Kerin and John Button took it to a Cabinet meeting at 15 per cent. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Yes, but had it been introduced at 15 per cent, the Opposition would have chosen some higher percentage. That is the only point that I am making. Mr Moore —No. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Ryan knows that that is legitimate. I am not criticising it. I am just suggesting, as a statement of fact that, had the legislation proposed for it to be phased down to 15 per cent rather than the 10 per cent which it does propose, the Opposition would have suggested a higher figure. That is a perfectly legitimate approach because it would give the Opposition the opportunity to do precisely what it has done-that is, draw attention to some of the difficulties facing the Australian processed vegetable industry in order to have those questions canvassed. The very fact that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), the Government's committees, the Industries Assistance Commission and the industry have been concerned about this particular aspect is reflected in the provisions of the legislation. There is no reason why the Government's proposal should not be adopted. The seriousness with which the Opposition views this is indicated by the fact that it does not decline to give the Bill a second reading. If this were a matter of great moment to it, it would have opposed the Bill and indicated very strongly that it intended to oppose it. The Excise Tariff Validation Bill is intended to validate Excise Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1987), as the honourable member for Ryan indicated, which have the effect of increasing the duties on locally produced petroleum products because of the fall that has taken place in the price of indigenous crude oil under the Government's import parity pricing policy. The change in the level of excise is designed to offset the changes in revenue from crude oil excise and royalty. Everyone accepts and understands, although there may be some reservations about the appropriate level of petroleum and oil pricing in Australia at any particular time, the role of that import parity pricing system and the levy not only within the industry itself but also in terms of government revenue. Of course, it was the Fraser Government that first introduced the levy on oil and turned every petrol bowser in Australian into an office of the Taxation Office. One of the great opportunities that the Fraser Government lost was to take that $3.5 billion raised from the levy and use it to reduce its deficit. Instead, it took the money and spent it. All of the fiscal problems associated with that action were inherited by the Hawke Government. It was one of the principal reasons why we inherited a deficit in prospect of $9.6 billion for 1983-84. A magnificent opportunity was lost by the Fraser Government to consolidate the fiscal position of the Commonwealth Government through the revenue flowing to it from that petrol levy. In the light of that Fraser Government attitude, the deficit for which it was responsible literally blew out during its last few years-in 1981-82 it was $500m; the following year, 1982-83, it had blown out to $4.5 billion; and we all know that, had the Fraser-Howard Government remained in office, the prospective deficit for the following year would have been $9.6 billion, representing about 5 per cent of gross domestic product. As a result of fiscal discipline, fiscal restraint and fiscal responsibility, the Hawke Government has been able to haul back from the prospective deficit of about 5 per cent of GDP in its first year of office to less than one per cent for the 1987-88 Budget. That has been nothing short of a magnificent achievement by the Government. It is to the eternal discredit and shame of conservative parties in Australia that they took the $3.5 billion that came to them from the oil levy and used it, in effect, to buy votes. They used it not to haul back the deficit, but to finance recurrent expenditure. They did not even use it to finance capital expenditure. There was no significant improvement in public investment in infrastructure from that windfall revenue for the Commonwealth Government. It was picked up and spent; and as a result the Australian nation found itself in serious fiscal difficulties, which the Hawke Government inherited. It is important that we keep that in mind. It was a wasted opportunity, a squandered opportunity and probably one of the worst examples of fiscal irresponsibility that any country has ever witnessed from any government at any time. I absolutely understand the embarrassment felt by such people as the honourable member for Ryan, who is a man of some responsibility, and the honourable member for Dawson, a man with an accounting background. I do not have to convince him that those in the coalition Government responsible for those decisions made a very serious blunder. It is most appropriate that currently we should ensure that legislation goes through the Parliament to validate the revenue collections that will occur as a result of these proposals, and to ensure that there is no legal challenge to them for 12 months or until the close of the session of Parliament, whichever occurs first. It is necessary to protect the collection of the duty, whether under the customs or the excise tariff proposals. It is understandable that we should be especially careful about protecting the revenue because, currently, some political parties are making an appeal to the Australian electorate to give them some sort of political consideration. There has been an undertaking by the Liberal Party of Australia that, during its first 100 days-if ever it were to come to office-it would cut about $2 billion off the expenditure provisions of the present Government's Budget strategy. It has undertaken to do that within the first week. Mr Humphreys —What is Joh's policy on that? Mr ROBERT BROWN —I shall come to that question of Joh's policies as well; his are even more dramatic and unrealistic. The Liberal Party has assured us that within three months it will cut $5 billion expenditure from the Budget. It is especially important that, when considering this legislation to validate the collection of revenues, we keep those matters in mind. The secret agenda of the Liberal Party shows that it proposes to cut pensions; tighten the eligibility for pensions; abolish all the employment programs, the first home owners scheme, the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax; cut the Medicare rebate and end bulk billing; increase the charges for pharmaceutical benefits; increase the eligibility age for the female pension to 65; sell the most profitable sectors of public enterprise-the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas Airways Ltd, Telecom, Medibank Private-and abolish the lump sum superannuation tax and the assets test. All those provisions-- Mr Smith —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The speech of the honourable member for Charlton is very entertaining, but it is not relevant to the validation of tariffs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I hope that the honourable member for Charlton will return to the Bill very quickly. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I shall make two points about the relevance of my remarks. First, we are considering legislation that is designed to provide validation for the collection of revenue. I am attempting to put that into a broader context and to explain why it is absolutely essential that we validate the collection of any revenue that may come to the Commonwealth. The information that I have just provided is the background to my support for the legislation. All I am doing is putting it into context. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has given certain information. It is doubtful whether it is relevant, but I will accept his explanation if he returns to the subject matter. Mr Moore —But the 6c to 19c is pretty relevant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is interjecting incessantly. While the honourable member for Charlton does not really need the protection of the Chair, I find the interjections annoying and I think that they have gone on for far too long. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I was not appealing to you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I was waiting for some sensible comment from the honourable member for Ryan to which I could have responded. Unfortunately, that opportunity has not yet been provided. If the interjections continue-both from that honourable member and from the honourable member for Dawson-that opportunity may still well arise. Mr Deputy Speaker, of course I appreciate your advice about the limits that should be imposed on the opportunity that I have taken not only to provide the background to the importance of this legislation, but also to put the legislation into context. When we consider some of the proposals that have been floated which would cause very serious damage to the position of Commonwealth revenue, the importance of legislation of this kind becomes even more apparent. Credit should be given to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce for the amount of consideration that has been given to the whole question of tariff protection and the application of excise duties to various industries in Australia. A great deal of consultation has taken place between the Minister, the Minister's office and various interest groups and industry groups throughout Australia. This legislation has its origin in the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. It is also important in considering this legislation for us to realise that there are other matters which threaten Commonwealth revenue. For example, an undertaking has been given by the Queensland Premier to cut company tax rates from 49 per cent, which is the rate that will apply after 1 July under the Hawke Government's policies, to 25 per cent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member is roaming pretty widely again. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I submit that this matter is relevant because these proposals for both tariff and excise are payments which are made by Australian corporations and they will be made in the forthcoming election period when the revenue could possibly be threatened. It is important for us to again consider that in the context of the general contribution which is made by corporate Australia to the taxation revenue of the Commonwealth. The only point that I want to make about that is that there has already been a very substantial reduction and that is why it is important for us to validate any revenue collection which the Commonwealth Government undertakes. That reduction in the contribution of corporate Australia as a percentage of total taxation revenue fell during the seven years of the Fraser Government from 15.1 per cent in 1976-77 to 10 1/2 per cent in 1983-84. Mr Deputy Speaker, that represents-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his point and he has had the tolerance of the Chair. I ask him to come back to the subject matter. Mr ROBERT BROWN —In concluding my comments on that point, Mr Deputy Speaker, I emphasise that that represents a very substantial reduction, and for that reason it is important that the revenue base of the Commonwealth be protected whenever that is necessary. The final matter to which I make reference with regard to this legislation is that the tariff changes contained within the Customs Tariff Validation Bill arise from, firstly, the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's reports on luggage and vegetables and vegetable products, to which the honourable member for Ryan drew attention; secondly, the granting of duty free entry to gas barbecues and parts therefor of New Zealand origin; and, thirdly, the variations in customs duty rates on imported petroleum products in order to align those with changes in the excise duty on equivalent locally produced goods. This type of legislation is a necessary procedure in order to ensure, as we have indicated, that the collection of the revenue by the Commonwealth during a period in which an election is being held is validated and that the Commonwealth's revenue is protected. It has given an opportunity, of course, to canvass some issues that are broader than those which may be contained in the Bill. But as I have indicated, I was concerned only to put those items into context and to provide sufficient background for us to understand the importance of the legislation not only to the Government's legislative program at this stage, but also to the collection of revenue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(6.05) —In speaking to the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1987 and the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1987, I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Customs Tariff Validation Bill: 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 general long term tariff rate of duty on processed vegetables initially should be phased down to 15%'. The first comment I make is that the day on which the Australian Labor Party failed to validate the endorsement of the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), a long serving member of this House, is a memorable and shameful one in the history of the Party. It has endorsed some stooge of the Labor Party hierarchy in his place. I say that it is a shameful day; in fact, one might say that the associated dumping provisions of this legislation might also be pertinent. The Labor Party has dumped poor old Len Keogh and has endorsed in his place a right wing stooge of the Queensland Labor Party. If that were not bad enough, on the same day, the Secretary of the Queensland Labor Party was in Canberra to make sure that this act was undertaken and completed. Mr Robert Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. You will recall that I responded immediately to your request that I become relevant. I suggest that the same request now be made of the honourable member for Dawson. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have no such recollection of the honourable member for Charlton responding to the Chair's wishes. However, I ask the honourable member for Dawson to become relevant. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am mindful of your rulings and the great tolerance you showed the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) when he wandered widely over many subjects. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member that the Chair will not allow him to roam widely. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I feel that some comment is required in connection with some of the comments that the honourable member for Charlton made, on the rare occasion that he was relevant. He said that this legislation was required to protect the revenue of the Commonwealth. He talked about a prospective $9.6 billion deficit which the Labor Party and the Government have often heralded around the place. I refer to this in the context of what happened recently. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) told the House that there was a prospective deficit-as there may have been in 1982-83-of $7 billion. He then set about making the false expenditure cuts of a fortnight ago-there was only $1 billion of expenditure cuts, the sale of assets and a few other things-which amounted to $4 billion, which brought the deficit down to $3 billion. What I am saying-- Mr Robert Brown —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I know that this debate has been fairly wide ranging. By your skills, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have been able to contain it. I suggest that the honourable member would do himself and the House a service if he were to become relevant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I will extend the same tolerance to the honourable member for Dawson as the honourable member for Charlton assumed for himself. But I remind the honourable member for Dawson that this should not go on for too long. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was responding to some mischief which has gone on for a long time. It is a process that the Treasurer has adopted in bringing down what might be, hopefully, a deficit of $2 billion to $3 billion for this year. Yet the honourable member for Charlton and other Government members continually give the House a very false impression of the deficit figure. It does not do the honourable member for Charlton much good, as a prospective Treasurer in a Labor Government, if the present Treasurer fails to argue a point like that which is so blatantly-I will not use the word `dishonest'-hogwash. That is the barrel in which it should be put. I will not say anything more about that at this stage. The Customs Tariff Validation Bill arises from the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's reports on luggage and vegetables and vegetable products, the granting of duty free entry to gas barbecues and barbecue parts from New Zealand and the variation in customs duty rates on imported petroleum products to align with changes in the excise duty on equivalent locally produced goods. I want to deal with these separately. The luggage question has been mentioned. The Government has decided on a uniform general tariff rate of 15 per cent for most of the goods which were under reference. A range of goods, including non-leather cases, trunks and handbags will be dutiable at a general rate of 25 per cent until the end of this year, phasing to 20 per cent for all of 1988 and then to 15 per cent from 1 January 1989. I want to spend time talking about vegetables and vegetable products because they are a very important part of this debate. Amongst the provisions is a flat 10 per cent rate of tariff duty on all imports of processed vegetables. Even lower rates are set for fresh vegetables, at between zero and 2 per cent, with the exception of fresh mushrooms at 10 per cent. The changes were introduced following the IAC final report on vegetables and vegetable products, delivered in April 1986. While some products will attain marginally higher tariffs, others such as certain potato products, flour, navy beans and tomato paste will find tariff rates substantially cut. At the moment Italy exports a lot of tomato paste to Australia, and yet in our major tomato growing areas there is a lot of waste in supplying the fresh fruit market. An incentive should be given to Australian industry to compete against imports now the market has been established. The Australian industry could change into a major exporter, given some consideration and favour-which this cut in duty does not do. What I am saying is that our local industry should be encouraged, not discouraged, as is the case in this Bill. Mr Millar —Bundaberg tomatoes. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes, Bundaberg tomatoes. The Bowen area also is famous for having produced such great personalities in this Parliament as the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). He knows about the difficulties of tomato growing. They go well with the beef that he produced at Pretty Bend many years ago. It is relevant to mention the tomato growing areas of southern Queensland. In the case of dried, dehydrated or evaporated potatoes, flakes of potato, flour and meal, the tariff rate will drop 5 per cent a year from 45 per cent to 10 per cent by 1994. We support that gradual and phased reduction. The vegetable industry, represented through its newly formed Australian Vegetable Industry Council with grower, processor and union members, does not object to the tariff cuts but believes that the pace and severity will treat the industry unfairly compared with other sectors. I understand that the unions in this case stand firmly behind the industry in this view. Most other industries have average nominal and effective assistance of about 15 per cent, but the Government's package yields only between 3 and 10 per cent effective assistance for vegetables. A 20 per cent tariff would have provided effective rates of 12 to 14 per cent for frozen vegetables. The industry in Australia employs at least 10,000 people directly, with tens of thousands of indirect jobs also created. So it is a major employer in Australia. The industry further argues that it faces a domestic market eroded by imports over recent years; that it has high export potential; that it suffers price disadvantages of up to 63 per cent for canned and 51 per cent for frozen vegetables; that recent cost hikes have far outpaced overseas competitors; that the industry has shown price restraint; and that a 10 per cent tariff would not generate adequate investment incentive. When talking about the threat of imports, the Australian producer fairly compares the cost of producing articles in Australia with the cost to overseas competitors. I mention interest rates as an example. It is known that interest rates in Europe are substantially lower than those imposed on Australian growers-sometimes one-quarter of the interest rates paid by Australian growers. West Germany, a country from which these frozen vegetables could come, has an inflation rate this year just marginally above zero, and Japan has an anticipated inflation rate below zero. These are major costs for Australian industry. It is easy to see how overseas producers can export canned vegetables to Australia at a lower cost than would be the case here. They do not have our input costs. They do not have a centralised wage system. They do not have the huge taxes and government imposts that we have in Australia. It is very important to make the point that if the Government is going to kick the crutch away from under the industry it has to do its part in bringing about economic stability and a lower cost regime so that our growers can compete. The major supermarket buying groups or agents for supermarkets in Australia can give a very firm direction to the way that Australian consumers buy. I know of instances where superior Australian foodstuffs, which have to undergo the rigors of the health requirements and State requirements, are priced out of the market. Supermarkets go for the cheaper goods, those for which the manufacturers do not have to pay a price to put them on the supermarket shelves. I have heard of some manufacturers in Australia having to pay $10,000 just to find supermarket space for some lines. The goods that come from overseas are not faced with the same costs, and are much cheaper for the supermarkets. I want to stress that the imported goods do not have to meet the same health requirements as the Australian goods. One example is wine, although it is not included in this Bill. The State authorities make sure that the labels on Australian wine contain an exact description of the wine. But there is no State requirement for labels on imported wine to have that information. Again, what is being done is unfair on the Australian producer. Mr Millar —It would drive you to drink. Mr BRAITHWAITE —In that case it would drive one to drink-hopefully, Australian drink and not the imported product. The honourable member for Charlton talked about our motion for the rate of duty to be phased down to 15 per cent. What he does not know is that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) took a proposal for 15 per cent to the Cabinet, which was rejected in favour of the 10 per cent rate. They were rolled in Cabinet. I do not know what happened in the Caucus room, but they were rolled in Cabinet. The honourable member's argument was a spurious one. Other Labor groups, including the Caucus industry and services committee, have also endorsed the 15 per cent rate. The vegetable industry has acted with great responsibility on this matter, but it clearly stands to be damaged by the implementation of effective assistance rates down to between 3 and 10 per cent. This has been accepted by significant elements of the Labor Party, especially those Ministers that I have mentioned. However, it appears that Labor has once again embarked on its cheap food policy. I have already spoken about supermarket preferences. The National Party does not oppose the tariff adjustments but objects to such sharp cuts which take vegetables below the average level of assistance to other sectors while jeopardising millions of dollars of export investment. The industry competes against a flood of generic brands, many of which are not subject to the standards required under Australia's Pure Foods Act of 1937. The more equitable approach to these adjustments would be to halt the rates at 15 per cent, which will be reached for most vegetables within a couple of years and by 1993 for all of them. A review could then be conducted against the backdrop of the adjustment that has taken place within other industries to establish whether the rate should continue to fall to 10 per cent for vegetable products. I believe there should be mechanisms to ensure that the dumping of cheap tinned goods does not damage the Australian market. The National Party will seek an amendment from 10 per cent to 15 per cent in the relevant clause of the Customs Validation Bill. This will in effect halt the adjustment process for those vegetables at a rate higher than 15 per cent at that point according to the timetable proposed by the Government. Other aspects of this Bill, such as those relating to gas barbecues, barbecue parts and petroleum products, have been mentioned. I just take up the point made by the honourable member for Ryan that this Bill is necessary only to perpetrate the breaking of a promise given by the Government in the 1983 election campaign. It said that the cost of fuel would come down 3c a litre and instead it has gone up by 13c to 19c a litre. That is a broken promise. It has taken place at a time when the world price of oil has severely diminished. That advantage in the reduction of the world price has not been passed on. So over the four years that the price of oil has dropped from $30 a barrel to a bit more than half that amount, the price of fuel has gone up, as the honourable member said, from about 42c or 43c a litre to 55c a litre. It is one third again as expensive. I do not think that can be stressed often enough. I want to talk in more detail about the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act, which provides for an export duty on high quality coking coal. Because of a change in overseas marketing conditions the Act is having the unintended effect of making certain blends of coal currently being marketed as steaming coal liable for duty because they are basically good coking coal. The amendment removes this disability. The fact that it is necessary is an indication of what is today facing the coal industry throughout Australia. It is being pressed very heavily on international markets. We have heard of severe decreases in the market price being forced on Australian producers, particularly by Japanese buyers. This accommodates a situation where coking coal, which normally brings a superior price on the world market, is now being forced to be sold as steaming coal, and this amendment is being made accordingly. Other major difficulties-again they are imposed by the Government-keep the cost of coal up, in spite of the fact that the market in the outside world is falling. The coal export duty itself was introduced to hit the big company, Utah Development Co. Ltd, in the 1970s. Although Utah has now been taken over by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, it still suffers that major disadvantage. The coal export duty imposes an additional cost of about $50m to $60m per year mainly on that company. That is a major cost for a company which has to compete overseas. Another problem the coal industry faces is the Coal Industry Tribunal, a one-commissioner tribunal, which can award wage increases. I can recall it awarding a wage increase of $60 about 12 months ago for industrial peace. The industry today is suffering the additional cost of having more down time through strikes than any other industry in Australia. It cannot sustain such costs. We must also remember that it is an essential industry in that it produces about 15 per cent of the value of our exports. It is our major exporter. The Coal Industry Tribunal is a body that we, in government, would abolish. I wish to mention another area of concern about what the Government is doing to coal in the market today. I understand that a Cabinet committee was set up to look at visa presentations between Taiwan and Australia. I understand that the committee was appointed last December but that it has not yet met. I was in Taiwan a couple of months ago. A major concern is to pull the two countries together as trading partners. I also understand that more recently, because nothing has been done on this, one of our contracts with Taiwan, which would have been renewed in normal circumstances, has been suspended waiting for something to be done. There is the dead hand of bureaucracy and of this Government. It is not chasing our exports and making sure that we maintain them. It is absolute nonsense that when we trade with Taiwan we cannot produce a visa for Taiwanese officials as quickly as the Americans and the Europeans do. That those other countries have direct flights to Taiwan and that we cannot do the same through Qantas Airways Ltd is absolute nonsense. I know I am not being too relevant-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Smith —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr MILES(Braddon)(6.25) —This evening we are discussing the Customs Tariff Validation Bill and the Excise Tariff Validation Bill. I want to relate my comments on the Customs Tariff Validation Bill to the situation which is pertinent to the northern part of Tasmania, and in particular to potatoes as a vegetable product. It is in the electorates of Bass and Braddon that the overwhelming majority of potatoes are produced. In fact, in my electorate of Braddon we have the largest potato factory. The industry is of great concern to the people on the north west coast of Tasmania. It is a very important industry. One factory alone processes 150,000 tonnes a year of fresh potatoes, and that does not take into account the growing of the seed potatoes in that area to produce the commercial crop. It is recognised by the Industries Assistance Commission that the regions of Devonport and Ulverstone will be most severely affected by these tariff proposals. I will therefore confine my comments to the effect on those people and that industry. One of the real concerns which people in this industry have about the way in which the Government has gone about proposing a 10 per cent tariff is that so many different products come from potatoes which at present have quite a different range of tariffs. It seems to me and to many people that the Government is interested only in coming up with a single figure for all these different products. It does not realise that in industry different products need different competitive edges. Some products can be more easily sold in the market-place than others either without tariff restrictions or with them. I will outline a few of the different vegetables which at the moment have a different tariff rating. For example the tariff on dehydrated potato at present is 50 per cent, and the Government wants to bring that down to 10 per cent. Yet the Government wants to increase the tariff on peas and beans from 2 per cent to 10 per cent. It is of concern to us that the goal of the Government is to introduce a tariff of 10 per cent instead of looking at each product carefully to see whether different products need different tariffs. As I said, different potato products have different tariffs. The industry has spent hours and hours trying to get the Government to see its point of view on this issue. I was speaking to one of the members of the Australian Vegetable Industry Council only last week, who said that it seems as though they have spent all that time for nothing. The Government indicated that it would listen to the people involved but it went down an ideological track. It wanted to set a figure and it really did not matter how much representation there was or how much time had been put in by the people involved in this industry, whether at the processor level or at the grower level. Those people are concerned that the Government seems to be turning a deaf ear to any representation that they may make on these matters. As I said, the north-west coast is an important area in Tasmania for producing vegetables. These farmers in recent years have suffered severely due to the differences between costs and prices. Consequently, any possibility of increasing tariffs and reducing competitiveness is to be looked at very carefully. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr MILES —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was talking about the cost pressure squeeze on rural people in northern Tasmania and in particular people in the horticultural industry growing potatoes and other vegetables. I shall continue on that line. These people are faced with the Industries Assistance Commission report which proposes to reduce tariffs on potatoes to around 10 per cent. The cost pressure squeeze on those people has included such things as interest rates, which have increased from 14 per cent to about 20 per cent for commercial loans for these people. There has been a devaluation of the dollar which has put up considerably the costs for people purchasing tractors and other machinery. Diesel prices have increased substantially. Petrol prices, we know, have gone from around 42c a litre since this Government was elected to about 64c a litre. Of course, there have been the inevitable increases in government charges. According to the latest information we have, the average income in the horticultural industries in Australia will be around $3,900 per farmer and the real rate of return, including capital appreciation, is minus 13.5 per cent. So the industry is already struggling, already having great difficulty in making ends meet. The prices which rural people have received have not kept up with inflation over the last 10 years. The only way in which people in these industries have survived is by being much better managers, being more efficient and, in particular, increasing the productivity per hectare of their land. As the chairman of the vegetable growers in the northern part of Tasmania, Mr Max McKenna, said, it is ironic that the Government refused to protect the growers from potato imports but at the same time charged high tariffs on essential machinery. That really puts it in a nutshell. If the Government were prepared to reduce tariffs accordingly on the input side for the rural people in Australia I am sure farmers on the north-west coast of Tasmania would be prepared to look at accepting this reduction in tariffs. The burden has not been applied equally. The rural people of Australia are fully aware that people in other areas have been treated differently. Let us take the motor vehicle industry. People in that industry are subsidised by a tariff paid by taxpayers at the level of $16,000 per worker per year. Mr Andrew —How much? Mr MILES —I repeat, in reply to the honourable member for Wakefield, that it is $16,000 per year. It is a substantial amount. Yet the average income for farmers in the horticultural industry is only $3,900 a year. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics, in the IAC report, says that Tasmanian potato growers are virtually tied to the processing sector because they have fewer market alternatives than their mainland counterparts. So the processing industry in Tasmania is vital and it has ramifications throughout the community. A drop in the protection level to 10 per cent will mean that there will be competition from other parts of the world. McCain Foods (Australia) Pty Ltd said recently that it would build on the north-west of Tasmania a $15m potato processing plant but this is jeopardised and there is concern about whether it will go ahead with the project considering the reductions in tariffs. The rural producers know that McCain is a North American company and if potatoes can be produced in America at a cheaper price that will be used as a bargaining tool to keep down the price paid to growers in Australia. It is ridiculous that we cannot produce a product in Australia for domestic consumption. The industry is prepared to accept a reduction in protection but the reduction to 10 per cent is far too great. It would be different if there were an across the board cut in tariff protection in all sectors of Australia but that simply is not the case. The Opposition has moved that protection be phased down to 15 per cent. I believe that is a reasonable level of tariff protection for this industry but to go lower than that will seriously jeopardise several communities in northern Tasmania. Over the last seven or eight years they have had to deal with the effects of the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand and this reduction will put excessive pressures on the many families in this region. I ask the Government to give due consideration to the amendment which has been moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and trust that we can reach some reasonable compromise on this legislation. Mr SMITH(Bass)(8.07) —Tonight we are debating the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1987, which relates to several different matters, but primarily to changes to section 226 of the Customs Act 1901 whereby the collection of duties in pursuance of any customs tariff proposal is protected against legal challenge for 12 months or until the close of the session of Parliament, whichever occurs first. With the calling of the election the introduction and passage of this Bill is a necessary machinery measure to protect the collection of the duties which have been introduced by the proposals. The proposals relate to collection of duties or variations of duties with regard to luggage, vegetables and vegetable products; granting of free entry into this country of gas barbecues from New Zealand; and the variations of the customs duty rates on imported petroleum products. The comments that I wish to make relate to what I believe is the most important of those items and that is the rates relating to vegetables and vegetable products. The history of this issue goes back to Industries Assistance Commission recommendations to the Government which this Bill puts into place. It has been going on for some considerable time-well over 12 months. The original draft report prepared by the IAC was done in January 1986 and the industry then had the opportunity to refer to it. The IAC looked at the potential for the development of the fresh vegetable and vegetable products industry in Australia and in particular identify and report on significant factors that may impede the growth of the industries or in other ways affect their competitiveness and efficiency. The vegetable industry is certainly growing and at a time when we need exports we all ought to be getting behind it. Taken as a whole, the vegetable industry is regarded as being second or third largest of the crop enterprises and fifth or sixth largest of the agricultural industries. The total value of vegetable production in 1984-85 was $551m, which is 4 per cent of total Australian agricultural production. Vegetables are of major importance in my State of Tasmania and it is no coincidence that there are several Tasmanians speaking on this issue. Over 40 per cent of total Tasmanian crop value comes from vegetables whereas, for example, in States such as Victoria or Queensland the vegetable component is only 10 per cent. So one can see the very important role that vegetable growing plays in our State. Tasmania and Western Australia are major exporting States, too, with Tasmania supplying nearly 22 per cent of all vegetable exports, consisting mainly of onions. Potato exports represent in the vicinity of 6.6 per cent of total vegetables grown in Tasmania. They represent 35 per cent of all vegetable production-both fresh and processed. In my area we have a General Jones Pty Ltd factory, which is part of the Edgells concern, which is now producing frozen potato chips for export and for domestic use. There is certainly a great potential market available to it. The recommendation of the IAC report was to change the tariff protection from 50 per cent of the tariff on imported dehydrated potatoes and 20 per cent on processed frozen potatoes down to a single tier of tariff of 10 per cent on all imports. It is interesting that, in seeking the views of industry, a unique body was set up, called the Australian Vegetable Industry Council, which was made up of growers, processors and unions. When one goes back to the Press release that was issued way back in June, one sees that the people who made up AVIC had great hopes of what it would be able to achieve. I quote from that Press release: We are confident that such an initiative will promote a basis for stability in our industry, and for a meaningful industry development plan . . . We are now liaising with each sector of our diverse membership to ensure that the recommendations put to Government accurately reflect industry opinion. Indeed, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association also made comment, through Mr John Rich, its Executive Officer-an expert in potato growing, politics and the realities involved and also a man who has had vast experience with the difficulties in Tasmania with the dumping of peas in this country-who highlighted the grave dangers that would flow if there were a heavy reduction in protection. He made the point: We already know what can happen to an industry when currency fluctuations make the Australian market temporarily attractive to import product. That was certainly the case with peas. The Association signalled its deep concern about what could happen. What then happened, of course, was that AVIC, as it is called, prepared a draft report to the Government based on the IAC recommendations. The Council went into considerable detail. There is not time tonight to go into all the detail, but some of the issues raised were that a level of industry support consistent with that available to other manufacturing industries is what was being sought and that the industry is not a homogeneous one like some others that are available to be protected. The Council also made the comment that there would need to be assurance that the industry's base market is not disrupted by low priced and/or high volume imports of convenience from subsidised low cost sources and countries with unfettered access to the Australian market. Concern was also expressed about dumping. I shall comment about that a little later. The Council said about that: . . . the imperative that the industry increase its volume and value of output, not only of existing products but by developing and retaining expanded markets, including exports. Certainly, we could all feel some sympathy with that. We then get to the interesting political point of the whole exercise-that is, the recommendation that was made to the Cabinet. It is well known that the recommendation made to Cabinet by the two Ministers responsible-the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin)-was that changes in the tariff level should be at 15 per cent, which was recommended by AVIC, the all-industry body, after considering all the information that had been given to the IAC and also all of the discussions that took place within the industry. The two Ministers went to Cabinet and said: `That is what we want to do'. They were rejected and sent away and told that there had to be a 10 per cent, one tier, across the board reduction. It is quite interesting to look at what went on. I have talked extensively with people from the Food Preservers Union of Australia who came to the Parliament to speak to honourable members who had an interest in this area-people from the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association, such as Mr John Richens, and many others. These people also talked with the Caucus industry committee and I understand that the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) and the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) gave them a very sympathetic hearing. Everyone on that committee was united, I believe, in supporting the Ministers taking their representations to Cabinet, yet they got knocked back and have walked away from the industry recommendation of 15 per cent. If one has a look tonight to see who is on the speaking list, we do not see one Government member here to talk about, give voice to and express the concerns of the people whom they choose to represent. I think it is a dismal performance. They have just walked away from them again. Many people are out there working in potato factories. There are 6,500 people involved in the vegetable manufacturing industry. There are more than 6,500 growers around this country, and they have seen the Government turn its back on them. What the industry had to say about the new announcements when they were made is all summed up quite well in the response-and one has to remember that this body, the Australian Vegetable Industry Council, is made up of the growers, the unions whose members work in the factories, and the processors. We see tonight this measure being slipped through in a machinery Bill and there is not one Government member here to stand up and give some views on it. It is interesting to quote from the Council's response: The Government has ignored the reality of the situation facing the industry and more importantly has rejected an important element of the sectoral plan for the industry's development even though this plan was prepared through long consultation by growers, processors and trade unions with the Ministers and their Departments. Furthermore, the Council believes this will discriminate against the industry. It went on to say: Growers are devastated by the Government's decision and no doubt many will seek to redress what they see as a breach of faith by this Government through other means. They now have the chance, if they are really serious about what they say-and I am sure they are-to galvanise support against this Government and let their feelings be heard on 11 July because, if there ever was an example of a government trying to slip something through, we have it here tonight. Members of the Government have turned their backs completely on an industry that over a 12-month period put to government a position which the two Ministers responsible accepted and took to Cabinet and which has now been rejected. I should like to hear the Minister in his summing up give some reasons why this position has been taken. The last sentence sums up the Council's sentiments. It would be interesting to go into some of those marginal rural seats where the Labor Party is hoping to win and try to explain this one away. The Council says: . . . it is apparent that this Government is hell bent on constricting industry development-not enhancing it as it so frequently professes. So the Government, I believe, stands condemned. One issue that has been raised, and I raised it at the time the decision was taken, is the question of dumping. The Tasmanian vegetable growers and producers will come under greater pressure to survive as a result of the recent report and also, of course, of this Bill to reduce the levels of tariffs. If dumping does occur, the consequent loss of markets and income for Tasmanian vegetable growers and producers may place some jobs in jeopardy. That is undoubted. Staggered reduction in high tariff levels must be accepted-no one would disagree with that-for the long term benefits of growers, producers and consumers, but such acceptance has to be dependent upon the implementation of effective safeguards against dumping on Australian markets of overseas products. The Federal Government proposes-I believe it is somewhere in the Minister's statement-an anti-dumping authority aimed at ensuring fair competition with imports. That ought to be set up immediately. Of course, now we are in the election environment that will not take place. If the Minister bothers to inquire-perhaps he has already-he will know that there are several dumping actions on foot already. So it is no good the Government making such changes and then neglecting to move quickly to address the problems its decision causes. Indeed, it was interesting to see the response from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the concerns raised about the possibility of dumping which was published in the Launceston Examiner and, I am sure, in other papers as well. It is a fairly tame response to a very serious issue. I notice that the chairman of the rural task force has come in; I had hoped he would speak, but I see he has missed the opportunity. Senator Button said: It is unlikely to lead to dumping from overseas producers. That simply is not so. There are dumping actions on foot now, as the Department advisers could well tell the Minister, and my concern is that if we move these tariffs down in such a way as the Government has announced it will open the gate for further dumping to take place, as took place in the pea situation. At a time when we have growing export opportunities for processed potatoes, I think the Government ought to be doing something more than it is doing at the moment. The other concern raised is the effect this would have on regional employment and so on. This can be amply understood by reading the remarks made by my colleague the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), who pointed out that in his area a new factory is under threat. Honourable members on the other side of the chamber may be able to see this headline which says it all: `$15 million plan at risk'-because of this decision. Fifteen million dollars for building a new processing plant is not something to pass off and not worry about. It is of extreme concern. I wonder how much thought was given to the repercussions of taking this particular stance when the decision was made. Tasmanians are going to suffer. Mr Clements, the man in charge of McCain Foods (Australia) Pty Ltd, one of the biggest food processing operations in this country-who originally joined AVIC and who was very enthusiastic about what could be achieved by this consultation process-was certainly very disturbed and poured a lot of cold water on the possibility of the expansion going ahead. Tasmanians still do not know what is going to happen. In my area of Bass in the north-east of Tasmania, where there is a processing plant and many growers, concern has been expressed for a long period. In November 1986, letters expressing concern were sent to the then Senator Don Grimes, who was based in Launceston. There was a letter from the North Eastern Chamber of Commerce. Although it is not a body prone to react-it has made a sensible contribution to the problems of the regional economy over a long period-it said: Surely in this time of economic hardship this would be one area worthy of support for the Government's push to buy Australian. With growers already struggling to achieve decent prices on an already difficult market a drop in import tariffs must surely be the final nail in the coffin of the potato industry in Tasmania. That is the depth of concern that is felt in rural, regional Australia about this decision which is being sneaked through tonight and to which no Government member has spoken, other than the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), who spoke in an irrelevant fashion and did not raise any issues relating to the Bill. The final comment rests with the Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Evers, a man who is well regarded in agricultural circles for his expertise. He is only a recent addition to the Tasmanian Parliament and he is already a Minister. He has made his presence felt and has been involved in agriculture for a long time. He was formerly a diplomat and understands quite well the dangers of dumping. Mr Downer —Who is he? Mr SMITH —Mr Nick Evers. He said that the Tasmanian Government had made strong representations to the IAC, both in the original statement and at the subsequent hearing, for the retention of a 20 per cent tariff on frozen potato products. He also said: In addition, there was considerable new investment in processing facilities elsewhere in Australia which will considerably increase competition on the domestic market. The Federal Government's decision places the viability of this investment at risk. That is the key-the viability of investment is at risk. We now know that investment is declining. More green fields investment, as it were, is needed and new plant needs to be set up. A $15m operation is now hanging in the balance in Tasmania because of this decision. I see that I am getting the wind-up, but in any event the Minister understands what I am saying. I hope that in summing up he will answer some of the concerns and issues that I have raised. It gave me great pleasure to second the amendment that was moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) from the National Party. There is a united front on this side of the chamber on the issue that the rate be 15 per cent and not 10 per cent as is proposed by this measure. I have seconded the amendment and would like to see it passed. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.24) —The Government rejects the amendment proposed by the Opposition. I begin by dealing with the subject of vegetables and then I will go on to petrol prices. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) pointed out in his opening speech for the Opposition that he favoured a rate of 15 per cent rather than the 10 per cent proposed by the Government for processed vegetables. The Industries Assistance Commission recommended a 10 per cent rate for these vegetables. While the Opposition is opposed to a reduction to 10 per cent, it should be recognised that, in some instances, such a frozen corn and dehydrated products, the 10 per cent actually represents an increase. Of course, the increase will have to be deferred until tariff binding negotiations are completed. The honourable member for Ryan referred particularly to praties, and concern has been expressed by the industry about imports of frozen french fries from Canada. However, these imports were a response to a short term local shortfall in potatoes for processing. A dumping and subsidy inquiry into peas is already under way. If concern is to be expressed within the industry about dumping and other unfair practices, the industry has a responsibility to raise the matter with the Government, and it will be dealt with expeditiously. Overall, the duty reductions are being phased in over a period of up to seven years. I listened attentively to the speeches made by honourable members opposite, and I did not hear much regard being paid to that seven-year phasing in period. The Government is confident that it will give the industry time to adjust to the lower duties. I give an example. Flour, meal and flakes of potato have a 45 per cent general rate of duty on implementation. That declines to 40 per cent at the beginning of 1988, to 35 per cent at the beginning of 1989, to 30 per cent at the beginning of 1990, to 25 per cent at the beginning of 1991, to 20 per cent at the beginning of 1992 and to 15 per cent in 1993. The 10 per cent rate comes in on 1 January 1994. To hear a little of the horror stories around, one would think it was all happening overnight. However, an industry that cannot gradually adjust over a seven-year period is, I suggest, in very deep trouble. Similarly, dried, dehydrated or evaporated potatoes decline at exactly the same rate: 45 per cent down to 10 per cent in 1994. On the other hand, dried beans of the species phaseolus vulgaris-which I thought was scandalously neglected in the course of the debate-goes from 20 per cent down to 2 per cent. Tomato paste goes from 25 per cent down to 10 per cent. Canned whole potatoes go down from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. It should be noted that only potatoes and tomatoes are protected by relatively high tariff rates. Most other vegetable products are assisted at a rate that is closer to 15 per cent. Therefore, to provide a uniform rate of assistance of 15 per cent would not, in the Government's view, place the appropriate amount of pressure on most of the local industry to restructure and to improve its competitive position. That, after all, is the intention. We have heard some speeches in defence of the industry, and they have not been confined to the Opposition side. The Customs Tariff Validation Bill and the Excise Tariff Validation Bill are part of a series of measures to rationalise tariff levels right across the board. From a national perspective, the rationalisation and uniformity make a great deal of sense, but it must be recognised that sometimes a decision may be misunderstood and may generate unnecessary fears in particular regions. On the Government side, the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) has been a tireless advocate for the potato and vegetable processing industry, which is significant in his electorate. He has been active in the Caucus, Caucus committees, lobbying Ministers and expressing concern about the possible adverse effects on the potato industry. He is an effective spokesman for the growers and processors in Ballarat, including employees of McCain Foods (Australia) Pty Ltd. The Government recognises the need for a close scrutiny of the impact of changes to ensure that there is no detriment to the industry. I draw attention to the contents of a letter that Senator Button sent to the Ballarat Courier on this issue. He says: The potato sector has proved itself to be competitive and efficient and the Government was most conscious of providing the vegetable industry with an atmosphere of general confidence so as to enable it to continue to make judgments for the future which will ultimately lead to increased exports. Further it will be of interest that the tariff changes referred to were only one of a number of changes emanating from the decision. As part of the package, a number of tariffs were also increased. Uniformity will eliminate the considerable disparities between tariffs applying to similar goods. What is the view the industry takes of itself? In response to the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), whose speech could fairly be described as `potatocentric' in nature, I add that the IAC considered reduction in tariff from 50 per cent for dehydrated potatoes and 20 per cent for frozen potatoes to 10 per cent would be unlikely to cause significant adjustment problems. Imports are generally not significant and the industry certainly has not been affected in the past by world prices. Recently, $50m in new investment in processing plant for potatoes was made, after the IAC report came in but before the Government decision. We can interpret that as indicating a high degree of confidence in the industry. The tariff on canned tomatoes is reducing from a range of 17 per cent to 20 per cent to 10 per cent over seven years. The tariff on tomato paste is reducing from 25 per cent to 10 per cent over seven years. The IAC noted that of all sectors tomato growing and processing has been shielded by a high level of assistance from adjustments which have taken place elsewhere, and that such adjustments are desirable to improve efficiency. With great reluctance I turn away from potatoes and tomatoes, having barely mentioned peas, to the question of petrol pricing. Last Friday's debate on the Excise Tariff Validation Bill and the debate this afternoon and this evening raised the question of differential petrol pricing. The contribution of the Opposition emphasised how prices have increased generally over the years. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) addressed this issue very well. He pointed out the Government's increased use of excise on petroleum to reduce the inherited deficit that we derived from the Liberal era. Let me refer for a moment to the comparative price of fuel in Australia. It is often forgotten that although there has been a striking fall in the international price of oil per barrel as honourable members were told earlier, few countries have a lower petrol price than our country. I will give the indicative international retail prices of petrol in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. In Italy the price of fuel per litre is the equivalent of $1.48; in France, it is $1.13; in the Netherlands it is $1.11; in Japan it is $1.08; in Austria it is $1.05; in Norway it is $1.04-we must remember that Norway has tremendous access to North Sea oil-in Spain it is 95c; in Sweden it is 95c; in Greece it is 86c; in the United Kingdom-it also has access to North Sea oil and it is an election year too-it is 86c; in the Federal Republic of Germany it is 84c; in New Zealand it is 77c; and in Australia it is 57c. These figures are for March 1987. In Canada it is 46c and in the United States of America it is 40c. When I explain to people in Melbourne that the price of petrol is much dearer in, say, Milan many of them say `I do not often get my petrol in Milan', so there is not much of a basis for comparison. Mr Downer —Because it is more expensive. Mr BARRY JONES —There is a higher unit cost to get there. Occasionally-and I say this in the gentlest possible way to friends from Tasmania-we have to take not just a national position but an international position. Mr Hodges —Why did Bob Hawke tell us it would be cheaper? Mr BARRY JONES —Relatively speaking, if we look at what is happening to the economy, we have done very well in containing the price of petrol. Mr McGauran —Tell that to the motorists. Mr BARRY JONES —Look, it is always-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will not answer the interjections. The interjections will cease. Mr BARRY JONES —They are not worth responding to. Australians will continue to benefit under the wise guidance of the Hawke Government from petrol prices which are among the lowest of any comparable industrialised nation. When honourable members talk to their constituents do they ever point out to them where Australia ranks internationally? I suggest that when they talk to them they simply talk in terms of what petrol prices were X years ago without recognising the extraordinary change in world fuel prices over the last few years which reflect-- Mr McGauran —What about comparative interest rates? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Gippsland cannot hide behind Hansard. I can still see him. Mr BARRY JONES —This reflects the concern of this Government to ensure that we maintain some sort of balance. One of the important factors is the fear that if the bottom falls through the petrol market Australia will have a vast increase in the rate of usage. No doubt there is an element of trying to restrain demand. If we have to rely on our own resources at a time when very little exploration is going on, the long term future for self-sufficiency is threatened. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. It is with profound regret that we will be opposing the amendment. 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 Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 29 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.39) —The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1987 might be called an example of legislation by luck. We are lucky to have the Bill here. This Government, in the four years, two months and whatever number of days it is that it has been in power, has said a great deal about organised and serious crime. As an opposition it was frequently and virulently condemnatory of the then Government's work in the area of combating organised crime. Its rhetoric has been high and it has recently produced legislation to this Parliament which we have approved and which I have praised. It has taken over four years to get here. This Bill in itself is an object lesson of how legislation should not be prepared. Let us go back to some of the warnings about the need for electronic surveillance through interceptions. The report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking of 1983 came at the very beginning of this Government's time in office. What did Mr Justice Stewart do in his report on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking? He pointed out the need to increase interception powers. The interception powers then in existence were brought into being in 1979 by the Fraser Government and related only to serious narcotic offences. At page 659 the report states: The main criticism of the present legislation is that the circumstances in which telephone interception may be made are far too narrow. There should be a right to apply for a warrant when it is likely that a criminal scheme or a conspiracy involving organised crime is on foot. For convenience the Commission here sets out its proposals: 1. An officer of the ABCI or an officer of the State BCI should be enabled to apply to a judge for a warrant to carry out interception of telephone conversations. 2. A judge should be empowered to issue a warrant for the interception of telephone conversations where the activities of persons are such as to point to the likely existence of a criminal scheme or conspiracy involving organised criminals. It should not be restricted to the commission of certain narcotics offences as presently provided for by section 20 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 although similar procedures should apply to the issuing of such warrants. I pause to point out that this was said by Mr Justice Stewart in February 1983 at the dawn of this Government's entry into power. The report continues: 3. Within 30 days of the expiration of the period of the warrant a report should be made to the judge issuing the warrant containing details of all steps taken under the warrant and of the results obtained. 4. Conversations intercepted shall not be admissible in evidence unless the trial judge makes an order that the interests of justice require such admission. What happened? Nothing. On 2 April 1985 at a special Premiers Conference reference was made to the need to extend interception powers. What happened? Nothing. We then had Mr Justice Stewart's Age tape recommendations in April 1985. Honourable members will recall the relish with which this Government approached the inquiry into the Age tapes. It was rather as though Government members were being dragged individually to the branding irons. But eventually because of parliamentary pressure and public pressure, the Government, against all of its instincts and against all of its desires, set up the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions. I will quote to the House one or two things said by Mr Justice Stewart in his report. First, at page 337 he said: The evidence which the Commission has heard throughout this inquiry largely confirms this assessment of the police officers involved. I interpolate that the assessment referred to the reasons why those police officers had taken the course of action that they did, which was to engage in illegal interceptions. The recommendation continues: It also demonstrates that most of those involved experienced a deep sense of frustration arising out of the inefficacy of conventional methods of investigation unassisted by telephone interceptions. Many officers expressed particular dismay at the state of present legislation which effectively excludes State police from access to lawful telephone interceptions. Two pages later, when dealing with positive results that the Commission had found, a recommendation states: First, the material obtained by the Commission was of considerable value in identifying possible criminal offences. This is discussed in the confidential Volume Two of this report. Secondly, an appreciable amount of the material has considerable value as criminal intelligence, notwithstanding that some of it is rather old. Thirdly, the material obtained by the Commission has led it to the firm opinion that the present legislation governing the interception of telephone conversations is too narrow . . . Fourthly, the Commission believes that the present administrative system for lawful telephone interceptions is far too cumbersome. What happened? We had brought before this Parliament the Telecommunications Interception Amendment Bill 1986. Then what happened? There appears to have been some kind of Caucus revolt, but I do not know; I was not there. So what did the Government do? It did what every brave and determined government does-it set up a committee. What was the committee going to do? It was to examine the question. Why was it needed to have a committee to examine the question? No one knows, but it was one of those things which rather fits Senator Evans's description of what motivated him to send a F111 aircraft to spy on Tasmania-that is, it seemed like a good idea at the time. In any event, by doing this you just might bury the problem for a while. The committee was appointed on 4 June 1986 and it reported on 20 November 1986. The Government gave its response to the committee's recommendations and one year later, save about two or three days, we have a Bill before this House. We have four wasted years in which with the greater knowledge we have of the workings of organised and serious crime we know that crime has prospered. Why has it prospered? It has prospered because the law enforcement authorities were denied one of their prime tools against organised and serious crime. What is that? It is the tool of electronic surveillance of telephone conversations. There is nothing new about this. It did not take royal commissioners in Australia alone to conclude that it was a serious, usable tool. It is well known from overseas experience. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has made a number of trips overseas. I begrudge him not one of those trips but, in the course of those trips, did he not find that there was a great use of telephone interception overseas? Did he not, for example, visit the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as I did last year, to look at its practices; or the Federal Narcotic Bureau, as I did last year, to look at its practices; or the New York Police Department, as I did last year, to see what its practices were? Did he not look at the legislation which governs the way these organisations can conduct surveillance? Did he not ask them about the problems, as I did last year and as did many others? Whether or not he did, four years, two months and some days later we are now debating a Bill which should have been brought in a long time ago. Specifically, this Bill responds to the recommendations of Mr Justice Stewart. However, it contains significant defects because some of those recommendations have been rejected. I will now detail the recommendations that were rejected. Mr Justice Stewart brought in 12 recommendations, one or two of which are no longer relevant as they related to the transfer of documents so we need not consider them. However, the rest are relevant. Recommendation (3) states: The power to issue warrants should be restricted to Judges of the Federal Court and of supreme Courts of the States or Territories. The latter part of that recommendation is ignored: Judges of the Supreme Courts are not to have the power to issue warrants. I do not see that a major matter so long as Federal Court judges are accessible. There may be an argument for restricting the issue of warrants to, as it were, a board of judges. I know that in one of the jurisdictions that I visited that was done, and it was thought to be a very useful thing instead of having 30 or 40 judges empowered to issue warrants. Mr Justice Stewart's recommendation (4) states: The Act be further amended to give a discretion to a Judge to authorise telephone interceptions by warrant after considering: the gravity of the matters being investigated; the extent to which the privacy of any person is likely to be interfered with; and the extent to which the prevention or detection of the crime in question is likely to be assisted. What Mr Justice Stewart does is to lay down some broad tests which raise questions of public policy, of public interest. That recommendation has not been followed. Instead, under the Act two classes of offences are created to which the interception powers may apply. The first comprises murder or kidnapping or equivalent offences; narcotics offences-importing or exporting; offences ancillary to those offences such as aiding, abetting, being knowingly concerned in or conspiring to commit such offences; or, where the interception is at the request of the National Crime Authority, offences which are the subject of the National Crime Authority's special investigations power, that is, offences that involve substantial planning and organisation committed in conjunction with other similar offences that involve theft, fraud, tax evasion, currency violation, illegal drug dealings, illegal gambling, obtaining financial benefit by vice, extortion, violence, bribery or corruption, bankruptcy and others punishable by at least three years imprisonment. I emphasis the punishment: Three years imprisonment. That, as it were, is the cut-off floor for the National Crime Authority in the exercise of its special investigation powers. It is under those powers that it is able to use its coercive powers-its powers to compel people to appear before it, to give evidence and to present documents. The offences which I have just described are the class 1 offences. The class 2 offences are offences punishable by imprisonment for at least seven years, where the conduct involves loss of life or serious personal injury, or a serious risk of loss of life or personal injury; serious damage to property endangering life; drug trafficking; serious fraud; serious loss to government revenue; and ancillary offences including aiding, abetting and being knowingly concerned in or conspiring to commit any of those offences. Therefore, it will be seen that, in place of the broad approach that Mr Justice Stewart advised should be taken, the Government has taken a far narrower approach, although it has extended the interception powers. I welcome the extension that has taken place. Recommendation (5) of Mr Justice Stewart, which was rejected by the Government, stated: In appropriate cases the Judge issuing a warrant should authorise an interception to be made directly by a mobile unit without recourse to Telecom. This should apply to the Australian Federal Police . . . as well as State and Territory police forces and the National Crime Authority. The Government has not accepted that recommendation. Effectively, all interceptions are to take place through the telecommunications interception division of the Australian Federal Police and Telecom Australia is to be used for that purpose. Mr Lee —Hear, hear! Mr SPENDER —I hear a cheerful `hear, hear!' from the other side of the chamber. Therefore, I ask: What is wrong with the Government's proposal? What is wrong is this: Evidence before the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, which was set up by this Government, shows that there can be very substantial delays by Telecom in setting up an intercept. There was a delay of as much as 19 days in an intercept which was sought by the National Crime Authority. Sometimes interceptions are needed urgently. Criminals do not sit around and deal with business in a casual way. They do not pass the time away day by day calling each other up and saying: `Shall we still go ahead with it?' What they are doing demands speech and efficient use of resources. Time is of the essence. When I visited the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York I asked that organisation how long it took to put on a tap and was told that in urgent cases it could be done in 30 seconds. That shows an appreciation of the need for speed, an appreciation that seems to be totally lost on this Government. We are now confining ourselves to Telecom, to the delays that may be inherent in Telecom and to the concerns that some individuals in Telecom may have about being involved in surveillance of organised crime and the prospect of having to give evidence, and we are excluding direct interceptions which could be carried out with all the necessary safeguards. Recommendation (7), which was not accepted, stated: State Police should be empowered to make interceptions in their State independently of the AFP system. The Australian Federal Police is the national police force but it is not to be found everywhere. I repeat that interceptions are devices which are needed to be used with speed, efficiency and celerity; not slowly, not through some cumbersome bureaucratic apparatus-- Mr Martin —And legally. Mr SPENDER —Yes, and legally. It is essential that safeguards exist. Does anybody believe that the record of the State police forces will be worse than the record of the Commonwealth police forces? If the means are available to them to conduct interceptions legally and to use the evidence obtained in courts and if the sanctions are also there, they will be conducted legally because there is no reason to go down the illegal route. It is astonishing that the Government has not taken up recommendation (12) of Mr Justice Stewart, which stated: It should be an offence to sell or advertise for sale electronic devices designed for effecting telephone interceptions. Such devices should be made prohibited imports. So they should. It should not be open to people to sell electronic devices that can be used for surveillance purposes. We all know that it has taken place recently in this country. I suppose some honourable members have seen what I saw recently; that is, a transcript allegedly of a telephone conversation involving a Minister. That kind of document should not be around. Mr John Brown —I agree. Mr SPENDER —I had not observed the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism at the table. Such a document would not be around if the devices could not be bought and used. Mr John Brown —If one of your characters was not disseminating it, it would not be around as freely as it is. Mr SPENDER —Let me intercept the Minister and say that nobody from our side of the House made the document public and nobody would give credence to it. However, it is one of those things which we need to understand are an offence. It is offensive to decency in our society. That recommendation was not taken up. Let me go to the reasons for that. They were given in the Government response to the Joint Select Committee's report. The Committee's report stated: With respect to the problem of illegal interception, the Committee recommends that: (a) devices designed solely for effecting interceptions be declared prohibited imports, subject to control by Government licence for specific law enforcement purposes only;- I wholly support that recommendation- (b) the manufacture, importation, advertising, sale and possession, installation and use of such devices be made illegal, and subject to penalties in accordance with those prescribed for physically effecting interceptions . . . I entirely support that recommendation of the Committee. The Government's response was woeful. It stated: The Government will give further consideration to these recommendations. Is that not marvellous? I suppose the Government will give consideration to the recommendations at the same speed that it has given consideration to the recommendations made by Mr Justice Stewart over the years. The Government's response continued: The Australian Customs Service, while recognising the desirability of restricting the supply of interception devices, has reservations about the proposed import prohibition on devices designed solely for effecting telecommunications interceptions. The problems inherent in detecting such devices amongst the mass of electronic products at Customs control points, the lack of technical expertise to identify the specific task for which an electronic device is intended and the limited capacity of the Australian Customs Service to examine goods would make any import prohibition a cosmetic one only. It is for this reason that the Australian Customs Service has long argued that the only effective means of stopping trade in restricted devices is by measures applied at the point of sale in Australia. Therefore, the ACS is saying that it would be very difficult to detect the importation of devices by those who are minded to smuggle them into the country. So it would be-but why is the Customs Service in place, and what is it meant to be doing every day of the week? It is meant to be policing-at the point of entry-the entry of prohibited imports, be they narcotics or other goods. The argument that the Government has put in response to the recommendation from the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception about the inability of Customs to do a damned thing is equally applicable to smuggling narcotics. The truth is that the great majority of people who pass through Customs are honest Australians or honest foreigners visiting this country, who would not bring in such devices if they knew that their importation was illegal and subject to severe penalties. Mr Justice Stewart's recommendation No. 9 was that: The admissibility of such material- he was referring to intercept material- should be determined by the common law. The Government has also rejected that recommendation. Why? What are the common law rules about the admissibility of evidence? They have been laid down over the years and, essentially, the courts balance competing and important public interest considerations. On the one hand, there is the interest that guilty people be convicted; on the other, the interest that evidence illegally obtained should be treated with the greatest of concern and caution and that we should not provide an impetus or encouragement to the gathering of evidence illegally. The courts have been weighing those sorts of considerations for a long time. As I understand it, in all other cases where evidence is obtained illegally, the rule that will apply will be the common law rule. For example, where evidence is obtained by an illegal search, by breaking and entering or by intimidation, the common law rule will be applied; yet in this one case alone, that of telecommunications interception, a quite different rule will be applied. There is no basis in principle for a separate rule being applied to the illegal gathering of evidence by interceptions, any more than there is a basis for a separate rule being applied to evidence obtained by illegal search and by excluding, and treating quite differently, evidence obtained by intimidation, coercion or robbery. In Committee, we will move an amendment to overcome the specific rule that the Government wishes to introduce. While we believe that the legislation has significant defects, and while it sets up a cumbersome system for interception, it is certainly an advance on existing legislation. To that extent, we welcome it. However, all of us must understand that it has taken four years; that delay helps criminals; and that there can be no possible justification for the sort of delay that we have experienced. Therefore, I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `while not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for: (1) its delay in introducing the legislation, and (2) its failure to fully implement the recommendations contained in Mr Justice Stewart's Royal Commission report of April 1986 into Alleged Telephone Interceptions'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Ruddock —Yes, I second the amendment. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(9.06) —The Tele- communications (Interception) Amendment Bill has its beginnings in the desire of the Federal Government to introduce legislation that is all-embracing and that provides a legislative framework for a concerted attack on organised crime in Australia. However, it is important that we go back a little and look at some of the facilities that already exist, and also trace the history of how this legislation came to this place, what amendments have been made to it, what recommendations came from the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception established last year, and why the Bill has come to this place in the manner that it has. First, it is important that the House once again recognise that, essentially, the elements contained in the original legislation emanated from the drugs summit of May 1985, which was organised by this Government as a real attempt to provide for an input from the various State authorities and governments to the fight against organised crime, and specifically illegal drugs. Coming from that particular drugs summit was the unanimously expressed view, as I recall it, of the various State governments and police forces to the effect that they required an extension of powers, and the use of telecommunications interception powers, so that they could continue their fight against organised crime, especially drug trafficking. The Government was disposed towards that view-indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that he would ensure that legislation was introduced to provide those powers. Prior to that time-and, indeed, at that time-there existed a joint task force that had been specifically developed within the realms of the Australian Federal Police, but with State police force involvement, and whose role was to consider the question of drug trafficking as it was affected by Federal statutes and laws. Of course, it had the power to carry out telecommunications interception and it was proposed that those powers be extended. Because of the so-called Age tapes and the various developments in illegally intercepted material becoming public knowledge, and also because of the implications that therefore existed for State police forces, a cautionary note developed in the Government, and wisely so, and it did not wish to proceed down a particular track without first considering all the ramifications. The result was that Mr Justice Stewart was requested, through the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, to carry out an investigation into alleged illegal telecommunications interception. His report was tabled in Parliament in May 1986, and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) quoted its conclusions and recommendations extensively. Arising from that report, on 4 June 1986 the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) introduced the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986. Again, for a variety of reasons, and specifically because the recommendations of Mr Justice Stewart went far beyond just referring to illegal telephone tapping and the sorts of offences that should be picked up through the extension of powers, the Government rightly referred the legislation to the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, with two specific aims. I think it is important that the terms of reference of the Committee be read into the Hansard. They were as follows: . . . to examine and report upon: (a) the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986, and in particular, the appropriateness of the mechanism for conducting interceptions and the safeguards for their authorisation, recording, transcribing, dissemination and retention, and (b) the recommendation contained in Mr Justice Stewart's report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions to the effect that the power of interception be extended to cover all serious offences. So here we had a determination on behalf of the Government to ensure, firstly, that the existing Bill went far enough and also contained enough safeguards to protect civil liberties and other considerations; and, secondly, that at least one of Stewart's recommendations was also investigated so that the powers were extended to cover other serious offences. Again, I suggest that that was the proper course of action. I do not know whether it was some sort of a record in this place for joint select committees of the Parliament, but I would have thought that the fact that the first meeting of this Committee was held on 17 July, the fact that we reported to the Parliament on 20 November, we had taken evidence from a variety of people around Australia, we had conducted a number of hearings in Canberra and other places, and we had sifted through considerable amounts of evidence points to the determination of Committee members to see something concrete in place very quickly so that recommendations could be directed to the Attorney-General and then to the Government for implementation as quickly as possible. Of course, what came from that Joint Select Committee inquiry was a series of recommendations which have been in part adopted by the Government, but other areas have not been accepted for a variety of reasons. The honourable member for North Sydney referred to some of those recommendations. I agree with him on at least one of them. I will come to that in a moment. We must also utter a cautionary note here when we talk about the recommendations of the Stewart Inquiry. I do not think it behoves any government to accept every recommendation that is put in front of it from royal commissions of inquiry, interdepartmental inquiries, or whatever. I think that the appropriateness of various recommendations and how they are implemented in legislation or in whatever way the Government sees fit is the prerogative of the government of the day-the Attorney-General particularly-and I think this has been done in a very co-ordinated fashion, taking into consideration the further evidence that emerged from the Joint Select Committee's investigations. A number of issues emerged from the Joint Select Committee's investigations which I think are worthy of comment. There has been circulated with the Bill when it was reintroduced in this place a summary of recommendations of the Joint Select Committee and the Government's response to them. I would like to refer to some of those issues-some of them have been touched on by the honourable member for North Sydney-because I believe they are important. One issue to which he did not refer-I guess that this seems to be the lawyer's way of dealing with things, but being a layman I argued very strenuously during the Joint Select Committee's deliberations that this should be done-was the fact that a totally new Bill should be developed rather than a substitution of different clauses and amendments to the principal Act. I certainly hope that the Attorney reviews this position. I see in the Government's response that this will be done in about two years time. I would have liked the principal Act to be withdrawn and restructured to take into consideration many of these issues, because it is a lot simpler to understand and follow if one does not have to refer back to various amendments. As I have spoken to the Attorney at length on this matter, I am sure he has taken my concerns into consideration. With respect to the extension of the particular matters for which telecommunications interception can now be applied, or will be applied after this legislation is passed, I can only say that I believe that the classification into two types of offences-classes 1 and 2-is most appropriate. I do not believe that any member of the Committee was seriously against the possibility of employing telecommunications interception for the most serious of offences apart from drug trafficking and the other issues that we listed-certainly for murder and kidnapping. The whole question of organised crime was clearly of great concern to the Committee. We wanted to provide the Government with the opportunity to have in a legislative form powers so that white collar crime and so on could be well and truly tackled through the use of telecommunications interception powers. For my part I have no problem with the extension of those powers to those various offences, particularly as they pick up some of the things that were bandied around and discussed by the Joint Select Committee. I think they picked up the sorts of issues which are very important these days and in which organised crime obviously plays a very large part. We are talking specifically about white collar crimes, extortion, and so on. I think that most appropriate. I turn to the recommendation concerning illegal interception and the provision of devices, and the recommendation that these should be declared prohibited imports. I share the view expressed by the honourable member for North Sydney on this issue. I am pleased to see that the Government, through the Australian Customs Service, will monitor this issue and hopefully will come up with some strong recommendations on it. Quite clearly, during the Joint Select Committee's discussions on this issue and the evidence that was taken, it became painfully obvious that a lot of these illegal devices-I classify them as illegal devices-can be purchased from Dick Smith Electronics shops and other friendly neighbourhood electronics shops around Australia. I am sure that more than one or two honourable members in this place would not like these illegal devices, scanning devices and so on used on their home phones or car radio phones-of which we in this place have had experience in the not too distant past. I believe that this issue is also one that needs to be investigated a little further. I think our Government could be looking to the question of the manufacture of these devices in Australia and turning its attention to stemming that manufacture and the way in which it should work. The honourable member for North Sydney made some comment about the cumbersome nature of the processes that have been devised under the legislation to install telecommunications equipment and the operation of the whole mechanism for phone tapping. He talked specifically about the warrant application, getting the phone taps installed, and so on. I understood him to say that evidence from the United States of America indicated that it could be done in 30 seconds. My own conclusions based on evidence that was presented to the Committee-it was only Australian evidence, although some other foreign evidence was given to us by a number of embassies in Canberra, specifically to request-- Mr Spender-You should have had a meeting in New York. Mr MARTIN —I say to the honourable member that we did request that we look at the operations of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, but the request was turned down by the Special Minister of State. I understand why it was turned down, in this era of trying to save precious dollars. I believe that the mechanism which we have recommended and which has been adopted by the Government is the appropriate one. We have certainly included a recommendation that a fast track mechanism be put in place. The ability to do that has been included. A warrant can be applied for by telephone and the interception can be put in place very quickly. With respect to how the process actually works, from our investigations involving Telecom technicians and the operations of the Australian Federal Police to date, we have clearly been shown that in those areas involving some of the organised crime figures and those people suspected of being involved in a very serious offence, some of those telecommunication numbers are well and truly able to be intercepted with a moment's notice. That is an effective way of combating crime, provided that the safeguards are adhered to. I believe that that is a most important point which some of my colleagues on this side of the House will talk about. I am sure that the honourable member for North Sydney would agree with `safeguards to protect civil liberties' considerations and the fact that illegally obtained information is not used to the detriment of a number of people. Another factor about which we were particularly concerned was that where some intercepts are put in place information which certainly is not relevant to a particular offence but which could be embarrassing to the subject of the intercept could suddenly become freely available. We wanted to make sure that that did not happen and hence to build in a number of the safeguards. I believe our Bill does go far enough and pays credit to the Attorney-General for taking into consideration the report of the Joint Select Committee. It also takes into consideration what Mr Justice Stewart put forward in his recommendations. But, as I have said, I do not believe that everything that the good judge put forward is necessarily gospel; rather, it should be looked at in relation to much of the other information that was made available to us. In the time remaining I would like to comment about the need for legislation of this type, the need for phone tapping powers to combat organised crime and the desire of State police forces to have this sort of facility available to them, to be a useful weapon in the fight against crime. I do not think that anybody who is serious about the fight against organised crime would seriously say that telephone tapping is not a useful tool in that direction. However, what is of concern to me as a member of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception was that, whilst at the National Drug Summit a group of people representing the State governments were very gung ho in saying that, yes, they wanted the powers to do this, when it came time to collect that evidence from the State governments and police forces, they were not as gung ho in coming forward to present evidence of that to the Committee. I found that situation very difficult to reconcile. In fact, on page 107 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception Table 3.1 details responses from State governments and police forces to the question whether a submission was received by the Committee, whether it supported an extension to the State governments and whether it supported an extension in respect of serious offences. In those States where the police forces were enabled by their governments to make a submission to the Committee, almost to a person or a police force they said: `Yes, we want this tool. Yes, it would be a very useful tool in the fight against organised crime'. But my concern from some of the private conversations that I had with certain members of the police forces was that they would like to have telephone interception powers to fight almost any crime. That stretches the bounds of friendship a little far. The extension to serious offences as defined in clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill is an appropriate trade-off between those two situations. It was interesting to see which governments responded to our Committee's investigation. We did not receive one from the New South Wales Government; rather, a letter was sent from the Premier to the Prime Minister suggesting that the State Government wanted an extension of powers and supporting the extension to serious offences. The Victorian Government did not put in a submission and therefore it is not possible to know whether it supports anything. The Queensland Government put in a submission and supported the extension to the States but did not support the extension to serious offences. The Queensland police force was not allowed to make a submission to the Committee. The Western Australian Premier wrote to me, as Chairman of the Committee, but there was no submission. The Premier supported an extension to the States but not to serious offences. So, most were concerned only with drug trafficking. South Australia made a submission to the Committee supporting an extension to the States but only if the Australian Federal Police, not its own police force, carried it out-I guess that is an interesting comment-and did not support an extension to serious offences. There was no submission from the Tasmanian Government and therefore it is impossible to know whether it supports an extension or an extension to serious offences. Similarly, the Tasmanian police force did not make any submission. The Northern Territory Government did not make a formal submission but wrote in support of all the recommendations of Mr Justice Stewart. That gives the background to the response from the various State governments to what would be a devolution of very important Commonwealth powers to the States because, as the legislation stands, complementary legislation must be enacted by the State governments. That is a very important point. But, when given the opportunity to support strongly the case for extension of powers or to support the extension to serious offences, that opportunity was not taken. We should not lose sight of that fact. It made it very difficult for our Committee to make recommendations which fitted the bill, right across the spectrum. However, I believe that a reasonable compromise has been presented to the Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.26) —I am pleased to be able to join in this debate on the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1987, which is extremely important legislation and which, as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has said, is long overdue, given that recommendations for change stretch as far back as the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking in 1979, followed by the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs in 1980, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking in 1983 and finally, and probably the best known in this area, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions of 1986. It surprised me somewhat that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), devoted so much of his time slamming in an irrelevant manner the responses or lack of them from the various State governments, given that every police force of those State governments made a submission to the Committee. I believe there are far more important issues on which the honourable member could have concentrated in his final 10 minutes than something that is really not an issue, given that the police forces, through their associations or police commissioners, made quite extensive and strongly and vigorously argued submissions. His contribution to the debate tonight is not a hallmark of his chairmanship of that Committee which, all things considered and bearing in mind the different views brought to that Committee, was worthy of praise. Following the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, this legislation seeks to equip our law enforcement agencies with the necessary tools to combat organised crime. As honourable members will know, previously only the Australian Federal Police could apply for phone taps, on request from State police forces as well as the National Crime Authority, admittedly but only in relation to drug trafficking. This legislation will enable all police forces, the National Crime Authority and the New South Wales Drug Crime Commission to obtain warrants for phone taps in respect of not just drug trafficking but also a wider category of serious offences to which I will turn my mind a little later. I have three major concerns about this legislation, two of which to some extent have been answered. The first relates to the setting up of a central agency within the Australian Federal Police to apply the phone taps. The Special Minister of State, Senator Tate, approached me recently and asked me whether I would visit the AFP headquarters to look over the operations that have been established there in readiness for this legislation. I was impressed with what I saw. It overcame not just the fears I had about the cumbersome nature of a central agency but also those which were shared to the best of my recollection by every police force that gave evidence before the Committee, including the AFP. The fears of speed and access have been overcome because the phone tapping equipment within the AFP really is just a collection agency. At the same time as the wheels are running in the central telephone interception agency-I will put it in layman's terms, ignorant as I am on so many of these technicalities-it is translated almost simultaneously within a fraction of a second, by way of microwaves or some such technicality, to the agency which had applied for the taps. In other words, the AFP is not transcribing the information or even taking much notice of the phone taps that it is charged to apply. Instead it is the law enforcement agency, be it the State police force, the National Crime Authority or the Drug Commission, which is simultaneously transcribing, interpreting and disseminating the information. So I would not go as far as to say that the left wing of the Australian Labor Party has been circumvented, but it seems to me that the objective of the law enforcement agency bearing the responsibility as well as the financial cost of phone taps has been largely satisified. I find myself looking with some wry amusement at the cleverness of the Special Minister of State and those associated with him in setting up such a system. The second major fear I have is in relation to the definition of crimes for which warrants can be applied. Like the member for North Sydney, I am uncomfortable, to say the very least, with the definition of a class 1 offence and a class 2 offence, believing that codifying the crimes for which an application can be met in this way is to narrow-unnecessarily dangerously even-the fight against organised crime. Instead I prefer to look at, and I would ideally wish to adopt, the precedents from overseas. I take just one example, that of Sweden, often believed by members of the Government benches to be the home of civil liberties and all that is good about socialism. It has a very wide charter under which applications for phone tapping can be made. The following quotation from the Swedish code of judicial procedure sets out the conditions under which phone taps can be obtained: If a person reasonably can be suspected of an offence punishable by imprisonment for at least two years, and it is found of extraordinary importance for the investigation that the investigating authority or the prosecutor obtains knowledge of conversation- he can apply for a phone tap. Sweden believes that phone taps can be applied for from, naturally, a judge, if a person can be reasonably-not certainly but reasonably-suspected of an offence punishable by imprisonment for at least two years. I look now at Canada. The relevant provisions there state: An authorisation may be given if the judge to whom the application- for the phone tap- is made is satisfied: (a) that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so, and (b) that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, or are unlikely to succeed or the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see immediately that other countries entrust to the judicial system a discretion by which phone taps can be applied. The model which I would prefer to see incorporated in our legislation is that belonging to the United Kingdom, where a warrant can be obtained if it is: (1) in the interests of national security; (2) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, i.e., involving violence, resulting in substantial gain or conducted by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose, or where it could reasonably be expected that a person with no previous convictions would be sentenced to imprisonment for three years or more. (3) for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom . . . I am pleased that the honourable member for North Sydney, following my consultation with him, is to move a number of amendments which would see the category for which phone taps can be applied widened. In other words, despite the best efforts of some well-meaning Government members, particularly those who belong to the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, they have not expanded the category for which phone taps can be applied widely enough, and the reason for that is very simple. No matter how hard they try, they will continually run into the brick wall of the lunatic Left, which places civil liberties on an altar far and beyond what is necessary for a free society. In doing so, that lunatic Left hands over to organised crime the whole box and dice. I admire the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen)-- Mr Hodgman —Whose side are they on? Mr McGAURAN —Whose side are they on? I admire the Attorney-General for his attempts in this whole package of legislation to deal with organised crime to a certain extent. I have acknowledged this in previous speeches. I think in all of the circumstances he has done a remarkable job. In saying that, I do not believe for a moment, nor does the National Party of Australia, that he goes nearly far enough. It will always be a balancing act between civil liberties, freedom of the individual and the necessary equipping of law enforcement agencies with the powers and investigate techniques to deal with the extraordinarily complex and sophisticated animal that we term `organised crime'. Again, I fear that the balance has been tipped in favour of organised crime for far too long, frankly to the shame of not just so many of our law enforcement agencies, but of this Parliament itself. Now, when we have an opportunity given the awakening and the furtherance of our knowledge through a series of royal commissions, at least finally to get that balance on an even scale, forgetting about tipping it towards the law enforcement agencies, while this Government is in power we do not take that opportunity. The third area of concern that I have with the legislation-I was to move an amendment in similar vein to that moved by the honourable member for North Sydney but I am prevented from doing so by House of Representatives practice and I naturally support this-is to delete those provisions that will disqualify the common law discretion in deciding whether or not illegally obtained phone tapes will be admissible in a court of law. Under the legislation any illegally obtained phone tapes are inadmissible in a court of law. Previously the common law allowed a discretion to the judge to decide and to balance the differing requirements as to whether or not they should be admissible. Even the Law Reform Commission, in its 1975 report, argued that the common law discretion should remain, as did Mr Justice Stewart, in his recent report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions. In simple terms, the provisions in this legislation would not have allowed the Age tapes to be admissible in a court of law. I believe that the common law discretion, as outlined in a number of cases, the best known being Bunning v. Cross as well as Regina v. Ireland, is best summarised by saying that we must balance the public need to bring to conviction those who commit crimes against the public interest of protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual, as well as protecting, naturally, that individual from unlawful or unfair treatment. It is a matter that we should entrust our judicial system with. I very much fear that this blanket outlawing of illegally obtained tapes could in the future restrict our war against criminals. Is this Government so lacking in confidence in the traditions and precedents of common law that it would now strip common law and the judges of their rights as to discretion? Is this Government so certain that the probative value of illegally obtained tapes is of less importance than the need to convict criminals? For that reason I support the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney, and indeed will further support the amendments to be moved in the Committee stage, which will seek to extend further the category of crimes for which phone taps can be applied. The National Party generally supports the aims and the tenor of the Bill, whilst expressing, as I say, reservations in regard to those three basic planks of the Bill. Firstly, most of my fears concerning the central phone tapping agency have been allayed, but it is certainly a matter which we will continue to monitor very carefully. Secondly, I reject outright the doing away with the common law discretion and the making of illegally obtained tapes inadmissible in a court of law. Thirdly, the definition of crimes for which phone taps can be applied is far too narrow. Either we are serious in the fight against organised crime or we are not. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), the honourable member for North Sydney, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) are all distinguished lawyers in their own right. Indeed, the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for North Sydney are Queen's Counsel. They have all had a contribution to make in regard to this area. No Government members can accuse any one of those distinguished lawyers of not having as much regard for civil liberties as Government members profess. The honourable member for North Sydney, in numerous discussions both in the former coalition's Attorney-General's committee as well as in private discussions, I know brings a sense of balance to debates on measures to fight organised crime, always bearing in mind the need to maintain the freedom and the rights of the individual. If anything, I think the honourable member for North Sydney and I differ in that I would bring a much harder rod to bear on organised crime. But we will not argue about semantics. The National Party of Australia is certainly not concerned about slight differences. We save ourselves for the major differences. The civil liberties and rights of an individual are very largely protected because a judge, in reaching a decision on whether to grant a warrant for a phone tap, has to take into account the following factors. I am sure my colleagues will agree that these are very extensive. Firstly, he has to take into account whether the information would assist the investigation. That is somewhat self-evident. Secondly, he has to take into account to what extent other methods which do not involve phone tapping have already been tried by the agency applying for the tap. The third consideration is whether traditional methods of investigation and surveillance would not succeed. The fourth consideration is whether traditional methods of investigation would cause a delay. This is terribly important when dealing with drug trafficking, crimes of violence and crimes against property. He must consider whether a delay would be caused if a phone tap could not obtain the information speedily. The next consideration is how much the privacy of any person would be interfered with if such a warrant were issued. The final consideration is the seriousness of the conduct, the matter being investigated, for which a warrant is sought. The legislation also enables warrants to be obtained on application made by telephone instead of writing if urgent circumstances dictate. Generally, only Telecom can conduct the phone taps but in special circumstances a judge may allow the Australian Federal Police to apply the taps themselves. Furthermore, the legislation sets the maximum period of effect of a warrant at 90 days. So in no sense can a warrant, once obtained, and a phone tap, once applied, continue ad infinitum. The Commissioner of the Federal Police and the Chairman of the National Crime Authority must furnish to the Special Minister of State copies of all warrants. In addition, they are required to record in general terms the use and communication of information obtained under the warrants. These reports, together with reports from State and Territory Ministers, will form a report to be tabled in Parliament by the Minister. As if more independent or objective scrutiny were needed, the legislation allows for the Ombudsman to inspect the records of the National Crime Authority and the Australian Federal Police. Moreover, the Ombudsman may report to the Minister at any time about the results of his inspection. In drawing my remarks to a conclusion I reiterate that the National Party welcomes many of the provisions of this legislation. Like the honourable member for North Sydney, we are disappointed that it has taken this Government so long to bring such desperately needed legislation before the House. Like some of the distinguished lawyers I have mentioned, the honourable member for Denison, the honourable member for Dundas, the honourable member for Flinders and the honourable member for North Sydney, I have visited overseas some of the phone tapping operations of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. I notice that the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) has entered the chamber. He has a record to be proud of in the fight against crime. I have visited many overseas agencies and there is no doubt in my mind that phone tapping is the fundamental, if not the most important, single tool law enforcement agencies can employ against organised crime. We could spend several hours speaking about how phone taps can be so employed. Suffice it to say, we support the legislation as far as it goes but we sadly believe that it does not go far enough. Mr LEE(Dobell)(9.46) —I was greatly impressed by the declaration of members of the National Party of Australia that they believe that police need to have the powers to tap telephones so that they can obtain more information so that they can launch an all out attack on organised crime. They acknowledge that the police have great difficulty in obtaining information about illegal activities that are occurring. I suggest to members of the National Party who are in the chamber at the moment that they telephone the Deputy Premier of Queensland, who is responsible for the Queensland Police Force. The Deputy Premier of Queensland, Mr Gunn, has already admitted that each day he drives to his office he passes two brothels. He is driven by a chauffer who is provided by the Queensland Government. He said that he has never once allowed his eyes to be diverted from the road ahead; he has never once looked to the left or to the right and seen the brothels that exist in Queensland. If members of the National Party wish people involved in illegal activities and organised crime to be prosecuted I suggest that they ring the National Party Deputy Premier of Queensland and tell him to take some action about the brothels and all the casinos in Queensland which every Queenslander knows exist. We know that honourable members opposite are not prepared to take any action against these illegal activities. When they are prepared to take some action against them we will believe they are fair dinkum in their comments. Mr Reith —Where do you come from? Mr LEE —The honourable member for Flinders interjects and asks: `Where do you come from?' I come from New South Wales and New South Wales has not had the best reputation in years gone by. Honourable members may have read a book called the Prince and the Premier. When I first joined the Australian Labor Party, when the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) was first elected to this chamber, the Premier of New South Wales was Sir Robert Askin. According to that book a Liberal Party member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly was then taking regular bribes from people associated with illegal casinos and other illegal activities in New South Wales. What did the New South Wales Liberal Government do in the Askin years? It did nothing. Mr Spender —Are you talking about Neville Wran? Mr LEE —The honourable member for North Sydney interjects about the Wran Government. The honourable member for Gippsland said that all of the organised crime was exposed by the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking. Which party was in power federally when the Woodward Royal Commission results were tabled? The Fraser Government was in power at the national level and had the power to allow the Federal Police, the New South Wales Police or anyone greater powers to tap telephones. When the honourable member for North Sydney was on this side of the House he took no action to give the police greater powers to intercept telephone conversations. The Liberal Party did not take any action, and for the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) to get up in this House earlier tonight and suggest that organised crime has suddenly exploded since the Labor Government was elected in March 1983 is simply misleading the House. Organised crime has been growing steadily but surely in recent years, and I am very proud of the measures this Government, especially under this Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), has taken to ensure that organised crime is fought in every possible way. Mr Hodgman —You never catch anybody. Mr LEE —The honourable member for Denison says that we have never caught anybody. I suggest that he should ask for an appointment with Mr Justice Stewart of the National Crime Authority. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order. I was referring expressly to your failure to catch the people who rob. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr LEE —I reject the puny attacks of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) on the Attorney-General, on Commissioner Grey of the Federal Police and on Mr Justice Stewart of the National Crime Authority. I treat them with the contempt they deserve. This Government has introduced many measures to attack organised crime. In this session of Parliament we have had the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which will ensure that the assets of people involved in organised crime are taken from those people. The Government will pursue those people and ensure that their ill-gotten gains are forfeited to the Australian taxpayers. This Government is responsible for the establishment of the National Crime Authority and has given the Australian Federal Police additional manpower and staffing resources and also ensured that the Federal Police and other Federal authorities have the funds to ensure that the proper computer facilities are established so that the police intelligence is used to the greatest effect. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table on the responses from the various State governments and police forces to the proposal to extend telephone tapping powers for the States. Leave granted. The table read as follows- RESPONSES FROM STATE GOVERNMENTS AND POLICE FORCES* State or Territory Government Submission to the Committee? Supports Extension to States Supports Extension to Serious Offences? Police Submission to the Committee? Supports Extension to States Supports Extension to Serious Offences? Remarks New South Wales... No (Premier's letter to Prime Minister only) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Late response Victoria... No Not known Not known Yes Yes Yes Government acknowledged invitation but declined to submit Queensland... Yes Yes No No Not known Not known Government declined invitation to appear at public hearing Western Australia... No (Premier's letter to Chairman only) Yes (Premier's view) No (Premier's view) No Not known Not known No Government submission South Australia... Yes Yes, but AFP to conduct No No Not known Not known Government declined invitation to appear at public hearing Tasmania... No Not known Not known No Not known Not known No Government acknowledgment or submission Northern Territory... The Northern Territory Government did not make a formal submission to the Committee but wrote in support of all the recommendations of Mr Justice Stewart No (Letter to Chairman only) Yes Yes * At the direction of the Committee, the Chairman wrote to all State Premiers on 25 July 1986 and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on 21 August 1986, and to their respective Police Commissioners on 31 July 1986, inviting them to comment on the Committee's inquiry. Mr LEE —I thank the House. One other point made by the honourable member for Gippsland -and I am pleased to see that he is still in the chamber-was his claim that all police forces had made submissions to the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception that investigated the whole question of telephone tapping powers. He said that all State police forces gave evidence and that they supported an extension of powers. As this table clearly shows, the honourable member for Gippsland has a pretty poor memory because the police forces of Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania did not make any submissions and the Northern Territory sent only a letter to the Chairman of the Committee. So, the police force of the only Liberal Government in Australia, the Tasmanian Government, failed even to send in a submission. That certainly rebuts the remarks of the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr Martin —Was he on the Committee? Mr LEE —He was a member of the Committee. I know he would never seek to mislead this House, certainly so close to an election, so it would simply be the fact that his memory is a little faulty tonight. It is important, in debating this legislation tonight, that we remember the history and understand the various stages the legislation has gone through in its development. The Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions was established to investigate the Age tapes, which were a very dark and sad story. I know that no one in this House would seek to condone the action of the New South Wales, Federal and Victorian police who were associated with those illegal interceptions. Some honourable members in this debate tonight have suggested that perhaps those police acted with the best of motives. I do not care how good anyone's motives are; if he breaks the law, he really is doing something that is wrong and something that cannot be justified. Not only did those police break the law but they also lied on oath. They destroyed evidence when it became obvious that the Federal Government was investigating the stories that alleged that the New South Wales police were illegally intercepting telephone conversations and that does not reflect at all well on the people involved. Some people here tonight have suggested that the United States of America provides a good model, through the Federal Bureau of Investigation and various other Federal authorities, on how telephone intelligence has provided assistance to the various police forces. We should not forget that the United States also provides us with an example of where people have misused their powers to intercept telephone conversations. When Mr J. Edgar Hoover was head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States he intercepted the telephone conversations of Martin Luther King, the well-known civil rights activist, and, according to various books I have read, in his efforts to seek to remain in President Johnson's good books, Mr Hoover arranged for the telephone in Robert Kennedy's rooms to be tapped during the 1964 Democratic convention. Mr Griffiths —Shame! Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Maribyrnong suggests, that was a very shameful episode in the history of the FBI-a perfect example of where people have misused their powers and instituted telephone interceptions in areas that are certainly questionable. The legislation before the House seeks to extend the various offences for which telephone intercepts can be granted. It was the unanimous view of the Joint Select Committee that the offences should be extended to include murder, kidnapping, organised crime and the like. This legislation goes a step further and allows telephone intercepts to be granted for matters involving serious fraud and people who are seeking to avoid major tax liabilities. I am more than happy to support that extension of the offences for which telephone intercepts can be granted. Every honourable member on this side of the House and, I would hope, all members of the Opposition would support the Government in allowing the police to obtain more information on people who are seeking to break the law. It was the view of the Labor and Democrat members of the Joint Select Committee that a central authority should be established to carry out telephone interceptions. The Liberal and National Party members opposed that and, in several speeches given by the Opposition members tonight, they have again indicated that they believe the various State police forces should have had the power to carry out their own interceptions. The reason why I oppose an extension of telephone tapping powers to the various State police forces is simply that those State governments, when they were asked to give evidence to the Joint Select Committee that was established to investigate this question, simply failed to take the trouble to reply to the Committee's invitation to give evidence and were not prepared to come before the Committee to answer the questions its members had. The only government that has a proud record on this matter is the New South Wales Labor Government under Premier Barrie Unsworth, who has, in my view and that of the vast majority of the residents of New South Wales, in a very short time earned a great reputation in the fight against organised crime. I refer back to the table that was incorporated during this speech and point out to honourable members that the New South Wales Government was prepared to allow its State police force to carry out interceptions and to support an extension to other serious offences as recommended by Mr Justice Stewart. The only Liberal Government in Australia, the Tasmanian State Government, did not make a submission to our Committee and we simply did not know the Tasmanian Liberal Government's view on whether the Tasmanian Police Force wished to carry out intercepts to fight organised crime in Tasmania or whether the Tasmanian Government had any view at all on the range of offences for which telephone intercepts should be granted. The honourable member for North Sydney in his contribution tonight suggested that a central authority would ensure unavoidable delays in the implementation of intercepts after a judge had signed warrants. He quoted, I take it, some of the evidence presented with the Joint Select Committee report that it took up to 19 days for intercepts to be implemented. That was a controversial matter that came before the Committee and there was a disagreement between Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Stan Fish, I think, from Telecom. It became quite clear that the delays were certainly not due to errors on Telecom's part and it was quite clear to people such as the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and other members of the parliamentary committee who were able to see the procedures which Telecom follows to implement intercepts that Telecom could implement an intercept at reasonably short notice. The member for North Sydney said that-in some country which he had been lucky enough to visit recently-- Mr Spender —New York, last June. Mr LEE —In New York last June-under a Democrat Governor, no doubt, not a Republican-intercepts could be carried out within 30 seconds. I find that very hard to believe. Unless the New York telephone exchange is totally computerised and the relevant police authorities have a computer link into the New York telephone exchange's computer network, it would be impossible for an intercept to be carried out in 30 seconds. I do not deny that some telephone extensions may have computer exchanges where the police can get in quickly, but to suggest that the police force in New York can carry out intercepts on the majority of telephones in New York within 30 seconds is baloney. There is no way that that could be common practice in New York. I know that carrying out intercepts within 30 seconds is simply not on in Australia with the Telecom equipment that is installed. The legislation before the House seeks to ensure that intercepts can be carried out as quickly and as urgently as possible. This legislation will ensure that, for the first time, members of the police force will be able to contact judges by telephone and be granted a warrant by telephone. That power has never existed before. When the Opposition was in government, it did nothing about organised crime; it did not bring in legislation which sought to allow police forces to have intercept warrants granted by telephone. It did not do anything, and it is only this Government and this Attorney-General that has brought in legislation to allow these intercepts to be carried out as quickly as possible. It was the unanimous view of members of the Committee that intercepts should be carried out through Telecom. I note that the honourable member for North Sydney disagreed with this aspect of the legislation, and I point out that that was not the view of the Liberal and National Party members of the Joint Select Committee. They did not dissent from the recommendation that Telecom carry out all intercepts. This legislation includes a special provision which would allow, in special cases where Telecom cannot participate in carrying out an interception for technical reasons or where Telecom's participation would jeopardise the security of an operation, for the Federal Police only to carry out that intercept. That would have to be specifically authorised by the judge who issued the warrant. I am happy to allow that one exception where there might be special circumstances where Telecom should be bypassed on the condition that it would have to be agreed to by the judge and would be carried out only by the Federal Police. On the question of whether devices that can be used to intercept telephones should be allowed to be imported into Australia and sold, I have strong views. It is quite ridiculous for us to have on our statute books a law which says it is a serious offence to intercept someone's telephone and yet anyone can go to the local Dick Smith's electronic store and purchase a device that can intercept someone's telephone. I note that the Government has said it will keep the matter under consideration and that nothing was done during the Liberal Party's years in government. When this Government is returned on 11 July it will ensure that the Attorney-General will keep the matter under consideration. Lastly, I appeal to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to ensure that Telecom increases the work it puts into ensuring that the network is secure. Telecom has a greater role to play to ensure that illegal devices have not been planted in exchanges and, more particularly, in Telecom street corner pillars. Telecom technicians should take greater action in this area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.06) —The Opposition has moved an amendment that suggests that this legislation has been considerably delayed. The honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) who spoke before me was inclined to defend the Government against criticism that important matters relating to the investigation of organised crime in this country had been jeopardised by the delay that has occurred. I was somewhat surprised at the sensitive way in which he responded. I would have thought that, in the spirit of the discussion that took place in the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception and the way in which this debate has been taken, the honourable member would have participated in the debate in the same spirit in which the Opposition has contributed. I very much regretted those comments that reflected on those who have departed this world. If one were to look at the record of more recent times in New South Wales one would be more concerned about what has happened, or not happened, in the field of organised crime than about the points the honourable member wanted to draw out of the book to which he referred. There was a joint select committee examination of a Bill that had been introduced into the Parliament. After taking a great deal of evidence, and notwithstanding the expeditious way in which the Committee carried out its inquiry, there were not many matters of significant difference between the members of the Government and the Opposition who participated. One might have expected that there would have been a good deal more division among members of the Government, between its right and left wings, on this legislation than appeared in the ultimate report. The main reason for the delay was the inability of the Government to reconcile its differences without the committee examination. More significant was the time the Joint Select Committee had in which to undertake this examination to help out the Government with the problems that existed between the members of the Right and the Left. On a number of issues Government members, in order to try to get some degree of unanimity among themselves, moved further away from the view that was proposed by the Government in its original legislation. It is an interesting exercise to go through the dissenting report of Senator Archer, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and me. The Government has picked up many more of the dissentient views than one might have expected. I was pleasantly surprised when I went through the Bill and the statement that was tabled by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in relation to this set of recommendations and the comments made by those who had dissented. The first matter was addressed by the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin). He argued, and still argues, for the view that Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1986 should be withdrawn and that there be substituted a new Bill to consolidate and restructure the principal Act. He was putting the view again tonight that this is something that could be dealt with quickly and expeditiously tonight and that there should not be further delay occasioned by that. I must say that the view I came to was that it would not be reasonably possible to withdraw legislation of this sort and to consolidate it without occasioning a further delay. Interestingly enough, when we read the comments of the Attorney-General we find this statement-- Mr Martin —He's a lawyer, too. Mr RUDDOCK —I do not know whether the comment from my colleague was a reflection on the Attorney, but I certainly would not want to reflect on him. I regard him as a man of very considerable ability; at times he is misguided in some of the judgments he comes to and that is ably pointed out from this side of the House. In relation to the point that the Bill be withdrawn and substituted with another Bill he makes this point: Not Accepted. A re-structuring of the Act would delay introduction of necessary legislation. A review of the new provisions will be conducted in 2 years' time. That gives some idea of the amount of time that might have been involved in undertaking a major exercise of that type rather than looking at specific recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. The second matter I want to deal with relates to the form of the Telecommunications Interception Agency that has been proposed by the Government. In this respect it appears that the Government has accepted, except perhaps for the qualifications mentioned by the honourable member for Gippsland, the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, that State police, except where they make a request of the National Crime Authority or the New South Wales Drug Crime Commission, should not have direct access to telephone tapping facilities. The view was formed by the Government members that there ought to be a central agency that would engage in this tapping task when appropriate warrants were obtained and that if it received information that might be relevant, it should pass it on to those other authorities that were seeking it without directly intervening. It seems to me that the view that Government members came to was not based upon the evidence that we received but more on pique. I think that came out in the comments made by the honourable member for Macarthur and the honourable member for Dobell because each structured his argument on the fact that certain State governments had not responded to the Committee's invitation to seek evidence. It was based upon that view that they were not prepared to accept the validity of the arguments as to whether there should be a central body. I have looked again at this table to refresh my memory and I must say that one should not be influenced by the fact that some of the smaller States were not anxious to engage in telephone interception. I was not surprised that Tasmania might not put in a submission in relation to this matter because I very much doubt that there would be a demand in Tasmania for this facility. But the fact of the matter is that we have the view of the police forces in the two populous States, unambiguously expressed in table 3.1 of the Committee-- Mr Lee-Wrong. Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member says that I am wrong. I challenge the honourable member to look at the table again. The two populous States, New South Wales and Victoria, in their police force submissions to the Committee say, `Yes, yes'. When asked whether they supported extension to the States they said, `yes, yes'; and in respect of extension to serious offences they said, `yes, yes'. That is the view of the police in the two populous States of New South Wales and Victoria. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Howe-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I turn to the Government's views. The same table reveals that in the most populous State of Australia, where the need is most urgent and pressing, the Premier advised the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that his Government supported the extension. When this particular scheme came forward and the Government endorsed it we knew that the Premier was critical of the approach adopted by the Government and he sought for the Government of New South Wales the same facility. That is the fact of the matter and it clearly needs to be understood. In relation to the more populous States where the demand is required, it was certainly appropriate that they should be in a position, in the view of the dissentients, to put in place telephone interceptions. Their police were requesting it and in the case of New South Wales the Government wanted it. It was not a question of dismissing it out of hand on the basis of pique, as I submit that the honourable member for Dobell was suggesting in relation to his own comments. They did not respond. Therefore, it is a matter that should not have been pressed. We know that there were already delays being experienced by the National Crime Authority in having to have the interceptions handled by the Australian Federal Police. That was in relation to the system that was already in place. How much greater is it going to be when we have the State authorities seeking that same intervention? If the States want the Commonwealth to do it through the Australian Federal Police or through some other agency, of course it can submit to that. It is quite logical that the smaller States would seek to have it done in that way. I will deal with some of the other views that were pressed by the three dissentients-Senator Archer, the honourable member for Gippsland and me. We saw that it was appropriate that the extension of the power to institute telephone tapping to serious offences should be extended. The Government has moved part of the way in relation to this matter. For that I congratulate it. But it has not moved the full way to the view that the dissentients advanced. I do not think it looked seriously at the proposition that we were suggesting. What we were arguing, and I think quite soundly, was that one could well amend the proposed Bill to include that there be a regulation making power in relation to the nature of offences that could be examined with a view to using the telephone tapping power. I think it is instructive for honourable members to recognise that the range of important offences where one might want to use this facility could change over time and having regard to the nature of criminal activity that is being undertaken in this nation. If we look at the report of the National Crime Authority and at the investigations it is undertaking, the breadth of the nature of the criminal activity being undertaken can be well understood. I turn to page 19 of the 1985-86 annual report of the National Crime Authority where it deals with a particular matter that is under investigation. Matter No. 7 details some of the matters that the Crime Authority is investigating. It is instructive to look at that. The report states: The investigation concerns the alleged importation, cultivation, distribution, manufacture and supply of narcotic substances, widespread activities associated with illegal gambling, tax and customs duty evasion, extortion, bribery or corruption, fraud, murder and conspiracy to murder, violence and other activities on the part of a group or groups of persons and companies associated with them. That is the breadth of activity that is being undertaken by an investigation by the National Crime Authority. It is important for honourable members to recognise the seriousness of those matters. We have endeavoured to define the matters for which the facility might be used. We have narrowed it to class 1 offences which might be generally reviewed by telephone tapping without perhaps an extensive inquisition of the officers who might seek a telephone tap-a limited range of matters that might be investigated, if one looks at proposed sections 45 (e) (i) to 45 (e) (iii). In relation to class 2 offences, the broader range of offences for which, if one reads the Attorney-General's response, this facility might be used, one finds that those seeking a warrant are much more seriously constrained in the way in which they must present their case. I am not particularly enamoured of the further constraints that are suggested as to the form of class 2 offences, the lesser offences, for which this facility might be used. I turn to a further matter that we put a view on in relation to the communication and use of intercepted information. I am glad the Government moved partially to the position adopted by those who dissented, that is, that one ought not to simply ban that information which, as a result of a form of technical deficiency in the way in which the procedures are followed, might well lead to important information in relation to criminal activity where an offence might otherwise be proven were it not for technical breach. The approach taken by my colleagues on the Joint Select Committee in wanting to limit the use of illegally intercepted information might well have led to a situation where there were technical defects in the way the information was obtained which might ensure that offences could not otherwise be successfully prosecuted were it not for the fact that intercepted evidence of an offence was available. In my view, the Government and its people involved in prosecution should not be limited in that way. The Government has moved partially to pick up that matter, but the Opposition encourages it to move further in relation to that and to allow the common law position to remain in place. In the time available to me there is one other matter that I will deal with, and it is an area in which we dissented. I refer to the extent to which one requires reporting to the Parliament as well as independent auditing and scrutiny. I think the Committee formed the view that it was appropriate that the way in which this facility is used be the subject of effective scrutiny. We were certainly of the view that that scrutiny could be undertaken by two methods: First, by requiring more detailed reporting to the Parliament as to the way in which the interceptions are undertaken, the number of cases in which they are used and the way in which judicial warrants have been issued; and, secondly, to require a form of judicial audit by an independent party of the way in which this facility was being made available. It seemed to me-and it still does-that, if one seeks to fetter the people who are undertaking these sorts of investigations, one provides as many checks and balances as possible. If one seeks to provide a reasonable basis for satisfying the Parliament of the way in which this matter is administered, in my view one would have to use only one or other of the methods proposed. I was not particularly enamoured of one or other of them. It did not seem to me particularly important whether it was the reporting mechanism or the judicial audit that ought to be proposed. I believe that the use of both mechanisms is very unnecessary duplication and certainly not necessary for the purpose of obtaining adequate scrutiny. I believe that adequate scrutiny can be obtained by the use of one method. I will read from the concluding comments of the dissenting members of the Committee who came to the view that one method should be preferred. For the benefit of the House I will share my colleagues' view as to which method should take preference, as follows: We firmly believe that use of both mechanisms is an unnecessary duplication. Because public reporting may well make available to targets of interception, in an unintended way, information of the extent and methods of operations of law enforcement agencies, we believe the use of an independent auditor will ensure that the successful use of interceptions is less likely to be compromised. I hope those comments are helpful to the Attorney-General. I am grateful for the extent of acceptance of the views of those who dissented. The dissenting members were trying to be helpful to the Government to ensure that the attack on organised crime in this country is successfully prosecuted. This is an important matter which does need to be facilitated. I certainly hope that this important legislation, which will strengthen the armoury of those involved, particularly the National Crime Authority, the Australian Federal Police and the State police forces, can be proceeded with expeditiously, that it can be proceeded with this week and not delayed because of the early dissolution of the Parliament. I would hate to think that the attack on organised crime was to be delayed because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had determined that this was an appropriate time for the Government to run to the people on the basis that there may be some window of opportunity. If that is the case, I think it would be most unfortunate in the extreme. So I seek assurance from the Attorney-General, when speaking to this question of delay caused by the Committee investigation-and the Committee does not oppose the legislation-and occasioned by the redrafting that had to be undertaken, that this matter will not be further delayed by the early dissolution of the Parliament. If the legislation passes tonight, it will be in the Senate tomorrow and can be one of the matters dealt with during the remainder of these sittings. I think this legislation is important. I am sure that my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney would use his good endeavours to facilitate early discussion if that would enable this legislation to be put in place. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.27) —I must say that Shakespeare would have called that speech `much ado about nothing'. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) spent 20 minutes without saying a damn thing except raise mistruths, half truths and untruths. Firstly, the honourable member said that the Government did not want to devolve power to the States. Of course, the evidence is to the contrary. It is typical of Opposition members such as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the fascist from the south and the man who stands-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that comment. Mr CLEELAND —Well, I am called a socialist. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw. Mr CLEELAND —I will if the honourable member finds it offensive. Madam SPEAKER —Withdraw. Mr CLEELAND —I withdraw, Madam Speaker. We get this sort of rubbish daily from the Opposition-the `Hawke socialist Government' and the Government is looking after criminals. We have just heard another speech along much the same lines. It was a load of rubbish. Mr Hodgman —You haven't even heard my speech yet. Mr CLEELAND —You just wait. You are going. You will not be coming back, so do not sit there and smile. What the honourable member said, and what I will demonstrably prove to be false, is that this Government delayed this Telecommunication (Interception) Amendment Bill, did not give the States a chance to have an opinion, did not try to give the States the ability to have the power to telephone tap; and, what is more, the police forces agree entirely with the comments of the Government. Of course, the honourable member does not refer to the evidence, he does not read from the evidence and, typical of the honourable member for Denison, he never looks at the evidence. Mr Hodgman —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I have not even spoken in this debate. I am the next speaker. Madam SPEAKER —That is not really a point of order. Mr CLEELAND —That is typical of the honourable member for Denison-the mouth from the south. The reality is that, if the honourable member looked at the evidence and listened to Chief Inspector Delianis of the Victoria Police Force, he would know. I refer to the evidence of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, as follows: CHAIRMAN-You have indicated in your submission that the power to effect interceptions should be held independently-that is, independently of Telecom. Mr Delianis-Yes. CHAIRMAN-How would you react to a suggestion associated with that that there be established some central organisation to handle all telecommunication interceptions for all levels of crime investigation, whether it be the Australian Federal Police, State police forces, the National Crime Authority, perhaps even ASIO, included within that? Mr Delianis-Yes, that would have appeal. CHAIRMAN-The Victoria Police would have no objection to something like that? Mr Delianis-There would be no objections . . . I repeat: There would be no objection by the Victoria Police Force. That destroys the honourable member's argument, does it not? The Victoria Police Force says that he is wrong. Chief Inspector Delianis said: There would be no objections, providing security were not thrown down the drain, so to speak, because some of these investigations have to be secure and one leak could destroy the whole investigation. I am attracted by such a proposition. The central theme of the honourable member's speech is destroyed by those people who are aware of crime. Unlike the honourable gentleman, I do have some expertise in crime, having been a member of the Victoria Police Force and having spent many years as a lawyer in the criminal area. The honourable gentleman spent his whole life handling property matters. I will talk about crime, criminals and policemen with some expertise and I will talk about what policemen want. One thing that the Opposition cannot produce is people with expertise in any area. It has never been able to do so. The Government is able to produce expertise and experience in all areas. The police force is entirely happy with the concept of a centralised telecommunications interception system, as Chief Inspector Delianis's evidence clearly indicates. The honourable gentleman spoke for 20 minutes and said that the centralised system was not wanted. What is more, he did not remind the House that when the States were asked to say whether they would accept the devolution of powers the majority did not reply. Perhaps the honourable member for Denison will tell us, if he gets a chance, why Tasmania did not respond to the request to advise the Committee whether Tasmania wanted the power to intercept telephone conversations to attack crime. I would be interested in the answer, because no one on this side of politics knows why the majority of the States did not respond to the Committee. That is what it is all about. The honourable member for Dundas, in his speech, made much ado about nothing. No facts came out; it was full of carping criticism, the sort of criticism we get day by day from honourable members opposite. We hear nothing constructive, nothing positive and nothing that would help this Government to attack the serious crime problems in this country. The Government was very responsible in the way it handled the problem. Mr Hodgman —Ha! Mr CLEELAND —The honourable member for Denison-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member to ignore the interjections. Mr CLEELAND —It is very hard to ignore the honourable member. I know what his views are. I know that he would gaol people out of hand any time he wanted to. The Government is concerned about the rights of citizens, something the Opposition is not interested in. The Government is concerned that intercepting people's telephone conversations willy-nilly is a breach of natural justice. It is a very serious matter for this Parliament to pass legislation of this nature. Honourable members opposite are not concerned about it; they sit with glazed looks. They do not care about the rights of individuals and about natural justice. They will tap anyone's telephone at any time. We know what their attitude is. The reality is that the Government was very responsive. We should not, as a Parliament, automatically, without question, without serious consideration, without inquiry, pass laws which enable any person under any fiat or warrant to hook into private telephone conversations unless we can justify what we are doing, unless there are strong grounds for it and unless strong protections are built around the granting of that power. It is a very serious matter. Such laws are a total abrogation of the rules of natural justice and this Parliament should be very careful before it passes them; it should responsibly undertake the inquiry, as this Government did. I am astonished that honourable members opposite should criticise that process, the Committee and the steps that were taken to ensure that individuals' rights were not abrogated. That is what honourable members opposite have done. The honourable member for Dundas is saying that we should not take time to consider the issues and worry about the rights of individuals; we should pass laws, tap into telephones and listen to people's private conversations. The Opposition should have learned something. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) was burnt by an illegal recording of a telephone conversation, was he not? There was also the incident of the Age tapes. Has the Opposition learned nothing in the past five years about the illegality of intercepting telephone communications and the harm that it can do to people's privacy? The Opposition does not care about that. It does not care that this Parliament has taken time to find out when legislation should be introduced. It does not care that the Parliament is about to pass a law to prevent breaches of people's privacy. The Opposition does not worry about the fact that this Parliament is about to make it illegal to listen to a conversation such as that which occurred between Mr Peacock and Mr Kennett. The Opposition does not care that people will no longer be allowed to record such conversations and have their contents splashed around the newspapers of Australia. The Opposition did not raise that issue. Instead, there was the typical Opposition carping. It does not care about the rights of individuals. It never has and it never will. It does not care about the rights of individuals in its tax policies, union policies and family policies. It has never cared about individuals' rights in terms of telephone communications. The Opposition has no appreciation of the principles of natural justice and equity. Tonight's speeches have proved that point adequately. Opposition members should be ashamed of themselves. As I think I have said clearly, Opposition members should stand up and pat this Government on the back and applaud it for the fact that it took the time and the effort to inquire into what powers should be granted. It asked the States and the police forces to say at a public hearing what powers should be given to tap into private communications. The Opposition does not worry or care about that. It does not even tell us what the police force said about it; it ignored the evidence. It just sits back and carps. The honourable member for Denison is to follow me in this debate. I would love to sit back and listen to him because I know what he will say. He has only one speech. He changes the names and the dates and says the same thing-`Hawke socialist Government' ad nauseam. Perhaps one day he will say something original. He has only a few days of misery to go. We will dispose of him in the next few weeks and then we will not have to put up with him. Perhaps his electors will get someone to represent them. However, that is beside the point; I am straying from the relevance of the Bill. Madam SPEAKER —It would be good if you got back to the Bill. Mr CLEELAND —I will do so, Madam Speaker. This is a sad debate and it is a debate which is not necessary. The Opposition has said that it will support the Bill. This House has spent half the afternoon-- Mr White —Why don't you sit down if it is not necessary? Give us all a break. Mr CLEELAND —That is the sort of comment we get. The House has spent half the blasted afternoon debating a Bill which the Opposition supports. Opposition members have made carping, useless speeches and, when someone from the Government side gets stuck into them, they go right off. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is to wind up the debate when I have finished speaking, so I do not think that anyone else will get a chance to speak. However, let me say that the Government has taken the matter seriously. We have, as a government, gone through the proper and appropriate processes to ensure a say for all people, all bodies, all police forces and all States who had a contribution to make prior to this Parliament passing a law of the gravest kind, a law which will remove from individuals in this society a certain right they had, a law which will enable individuals to tap into private telephone communications of other people. There was a long public process prior to this Bill coming before the House. This Government should not be condemned for that. I would have thought that Opposition members, as they had an opportunity to participate in that process, would have applauded it, not criticised it. I would have thought that Opposition members, who have little or no knowledge or practical experience of crime, would have accepted that what was said by those who have some knowledge of crime, such as Chief Inspector Delianis of the Victoria Police Force, was said with deep knowledge of the system. If Opposition members had supported him, they would have agreed that a centralised system was fair. I would have thought that they would have agreed that if we are to give such a power, there should be not an ombudsman, but some audit. We do not give a power and allow people willy nilly to tap phones. This Parliament should have overriding control of that power, and I would have thought that the Opposition would have agreed with that, not criticised it. Because of the Opposition's so-called concern about individuals, I would have thought that it would have patted us on the back and said: `Look, it is a powerful thing, it is a breach of natural justice per se, it is necessary to stop crime-and to do that we must have strong controls'. But we have not yet heard a speech containing applause. Has the Opposition said: `You have done a good job'? No, it never does. It again stands condemned for its carping attitude, for not looking at the evidence, for not going through the report, for not telling the House the truth-for using half truths as it usually does-and for using those matters that justify its twisted view of society and of the way these things should be run. That, as is typical, is the sort of debate that we have had. We have had it for many years-the Opposition's view of the world, the born-to-rule people. That is a great pity as we are considering an important matter that deserves better. Indeed, Parliament deserves better than what we have heard from the Opposition tonight. I support the Bill and I hope that the House and the Opposition, despite its carping, will also support it. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.42) —The front page headline of last Tuesday's edition of the Canberra Times said it all: Axe Hardest on NT and Tasmania. The leading newspaper of the one area in Australia not directly affected by the Premiers Conference, Canberra, pointedly noted: The two regions with no Labor members of the House of Representatives, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, have been hardest hit by the cuts at the Premiers Conference. Emphasising the obvious, the Canberra Times article continued: The one Northern Territory House of Representatives seat is held by the Liberal Party, as are all five Tasmanian seats. Consequently, the Commonwealth has nothing politically to lose. An analysis of the attached table says it all, and I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. That has been agreed by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). Leave granted. The table read as follows- HOW THE STATES FARED Commonwealth grants to the States and State borrowings, 1987-88 Grants Borrowings Total Real change $m $m $m Percentage NSW... 7,472.9 1,539.7 9,012.6 -7.4 Victoria... 5,600.1 1,526.4 7,126.5 -8.4 Queensland... 3,956.3 1,160.5 5,116.8 -8.4 Western Australia... 2,529.3 584.0 3,113.3 -4.9 South Australia... 2,361.0 300.8 2,661.8 -6.4 Tasmania... 896.1 181.6 1,077.6 -9.0 TOTAL STATES... 22,815.7 5,293.0 28,108.7 -7.5 Northern Territory... 956.4 65.0 1,021.4 -10.1 TOTAL... 23,772.1 5,358.0 29,130.1 -7.2 Mr HODGMAN —Tasmania was slashed harder than any other State-a massive 9 per cent cut in grants and borrowings. This compared with a cut of only 4.9 per cent imposed on Labor Western Australia. Only the Northern Territory was hit harder than Tasmania with a cut of 10.1 per cent. The most cruel aspect of all was that Tasmania had already been severely cut by Canberra, prior to last week's Premiers Conference. Our State had been cut to the bone while New South Wales and Victoria still had plenty of fat to be trimmed if the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had mustered the will to do so. The stark figures prove the political bias of the Hawke socialist Government, and confirm the forebodings that followed the secret meeting held between the Prime Minister and the Labor State Premiers at the Lodge prior to the Premiers Conference itself. Let the figures speak for themselves, and let us note the chronology of deliberate fiscal discrimination against Tasmania. At the Premiers Conference in May last year, Tasmania's funding was slashed by $91m in real terms-a 6.5 per cent reduction. That followed the May 1985 mini-Budget when Tasmania lost $20m, and the Premiers Conference in the same month when Tasmania was cut by $28.7m If we add the $13m cuts to Tasmania in the August 1985 Federal Budget, Tasmania began calendar year 1986 a massive $61.7m behind the eight ball. By May of last year it had suffered a staggering $152.7m reduction in Commonwealth assistance and spending in just 13 months. In the last Federal Budget Tasmania lost a further $50m at the hands of Prime Minister Hawke and Treasurer Keating-and last week's Premiers Conference saw the final cut of $111m in real terms. Since May 1985-just two years ago-Tasmania has been slashed by Canberra to the extent of a mammoth $313.7m. That is the worst treatment our State has ever received from any Commonwealth government since Federation. It is not only unfair and unjust-it is cruel. Canberra has declared financial war on Australia's smallest State. It is clear that Prime Minister Hawke has written off Tasmania. That is his political judgment and he may well pay a heavy price for it. Abandoning any hope of the Australian Labor Party winning any of the five Tasmanian House of Representative seats is one thing. The Prime Minister seems to have overlooked the fundamental fact that the Senate vote in Tasmania at the 11 July Federal election may well prove crucial in the political history of Australia. In human terms the suffering deliberately imposed on Tasmanians by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will be substantial. As Premier Gray has correctly stated, 2,000 Tasmanian jobs are now on the line as a direct result of the cuts at last week's Premiers Conference. Significantly, nobody on the Labor side of politics has challenged this assessment, or even quibbled with it. Starkly, this means that 2,000 Tasmanians-many with families to support-are now headed for the unemployment scrapheap, thanks to the Prime Minister. In financial terms the cost in unemployment benefits can be measured. In terms of pain and suffering, the cost to individual Tasmanians cannot be measured. They will know, however, that they were innocent victims of the heartless political judgment of a Prime Minister who said he would be `for all Australians' who has now decreed that Tasmanians do not count. The case against Prime Minister Hawke is overwhelming. The facts and figures are all public and authentic, and speak for themselves. They eloquently confirm the validity of the Mercury editorial published the day after the Premiers Conference under the headline `Vicious blow for Tasmania'. The blow was vicious; the cuts are brutal; hardly an area of Tasmania's economic life will remain untouched. Fortuitously, the people of Tasmania are now to be given an earlier than expected opportunity to vent their rage through the democratic process of the ballot box. Time will prove that the Prime Minister has made the greatest political mistake of his life. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(10.47) —On 28 May the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) raised certain matters related to the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, a college of advanced education located in my electorate and an institution with which I am quite familiar. The substance of the matter raised by the honourable member related to a memorandum allegedly sent by the head of the Institute's School of Engineering to the Director of the institute. The management of the Institute is, to say the least, shocked by the implications and allegations made in the statement. The basis of the comments rests on a memorandum allegedly written by the Head of the School of Engineering. The head of school has signed a statutory declaration, which I seek to table, that he did not author the memorandum. The secretary, who is alleged to have typed the memorandum, denies all knowledge of it and has also signed a statutory declaration to that effect, which also I seek to table. The Director, to whom it is addressed, had no knowledge of any such memorandum before it was drawn to his attention as a result of the honourable member's statement to the House. Further, the memorandum purports to be a response to a memorandum dated 20 February from the Director to the Head of the School of Engineering. Neither the Director, the Director's secretary nor the Head of the School of Engineering has any knowledge of any such memorandum. The Academic Staff Association of the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education has for its part seen fit to respond to the allegations by advising the Commonwealth Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) in the following terms: The Executive of the Gippsland Institute Staff Association has confidence in the capacity of the Gippsland Institute to manage its own affairs and categorically rejects the implication that the matter of Dr Ron Hicks' tenure is being considered on the basis of ``personal vendetta, racial hatred or bigotry'' as suggested by . . . Federal Member for Hotham . . . The Executive confirms its view that the matter is being considered in the light of academic needs of students and defends the administration of the Gippsland Institute and Mr Peter Harwood in particular against the allegations . . . This Executive continues to support Dr Hicks in his attempts to secure confirmation of tenure through the established procedures. Part of the allegations in the honourable member's statement are to do with the Institute's method of handling its internal procedures. The Institute has advised me that these allegations are false and the procedure followed in relation to consideration of the tenure of the member of staff is strictly in accordance with the Institute council's policy on confirmation of tenure. I request the honourable member to make known the name of the person who provided him with the forged document which caused him to give the House such demonstrably false and malicious information about the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education. Failing that, and in light of the Staff Association's advice to the Minister of its confidence in the capacity of the Gippsland Institute to manage its own affairs, the honourable member should at least make the name of the person available to the Institute to allow it to take the appropriate action. The honourable member in his speech of 28 May also alleged, in quoting from the memo that he was dealing with, that a Peter Harwood, who was also at that time Chairman of the La- trobe Regional Commission, was in a position to earn two salaries-one from the Gippsland Institute and one from the Latrobe Regional Commission. Had he bothered to check, he would have found that Mr Harwood was seconded from the Institute to the Latrobe Regional Commission and, as such, appropriate adjustments were made to salary. There is no substance to that allegation. Whilst I appreciate that the honourable member for Hotham may have acted in good faith, there is not the slightest doubt that a person, or group of persons, set out to slander the executive and staff of the Gippsland Institute. The honourable member's call for an inquiry was based on forged and incorrect information. In view of the evidence now available, a full inquiry should be held into the source of this despicable action. I seek leave to table two documents-the statutory declaration by Wendy Jane Kempster of 4 Bailey Street, Yallourn North, who was the secretary involved, and a statutory declaration by Dr Ken Spriggs, the Head of the School of Engineering. Leave granted. Mr CUNNINGHAM —In bringing this matter to the attention of the House, I say that it is unfortunate that a member of the House has been presented with evidence of this nature. I hope that the inquiry that is held gets to the reasons and the causes behind the matter, as it has caused untold damage to the Gippsland Institute. I hope that it can be cleared up very quickly. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Moreton. Mr McGauran —Don, I have got to respond. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.52) —You are not the member for Hotham. Before I commence to speak on the subject that I intended to raise, I want to support the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) with reference to the raw deal that the present Government has given poor Tasmania. I notice that the shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), is at the table. I am absolutely positive that we on this side of the House will not agree to spy flights over Tasmania. It will not be on. I do not believe that in a democracy such as ours there is any justification for any government to use spy flights over a particular State. Mr White —That will cease in six weeks. Mr DONALD CAMERON —It will cease in six weeks. The matter I wish to raise this evening relates to tax. I refer to reports of the efficiency study conducted by the Australian Taxation Office, which has found that about 30 per cent of answers given by Taxation Office inquiry officers to questions from the public were either half wrong or totally wrong. That was the case for about one out of every three questions raised by mail or over the telephone. I suggest that if the Office's own officers cannot understand the Income Tax Assessment Act, how can the poor people of my electorate, my State and my country possibly understand it? If employees of the Tax Office cannot understand it, what chance does the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), who is in the House, have? Absolutely nil. Under the new system of self-assessment, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians will submit their returns in the belief that they have correctly interpreted the Act. I notice that the honourable member for Charlton is shaking his head. Maybe he has sympathy for what I am saying. Am I right? He is not allowed to speak, but I note that he is nodding his head. He is agreeing with me. Hundreds of thousands or millions of people will make genuine errors because of the way in which they see the Act as it stands. The only thing that I enjoyed about that article was that my favourite departmental head, Mr Trevor Boucher, who from time to time indulges in a little politics, acknowledged that this was simply not good enough and that he would have training sessions to improve the accuracy of the officers handling the inquiries. What will we do for the people? If Mr Boucher, who dreamed up a lot of the alterations that have been introduced in the past two or three years, has to run schools to train his own departmental heads after all this time, what hope have little people got? If they suddenly make an error they will face a penalty of 20 per cent of the annual interest charge on unpaid tax plus a 40 per cent surcharge. They will face both barrels-bam, bam. They will get the penalty and then the surcharge. Why? Because they have made a mistake. Mr White —You might get more people doing a Keating. Mr DONALD CAMERON —That may well be so; people just will not send in their returns. I submit that this Government, which is sitting on the treasury bench for the remaining six weeks of its term, came to power on the promise that it would simplify the taxation Acts. A person who came out of the jungles of Africa and had never before read the Bible would have a better chance of understanding that than Australians will have of understanding the taxation Act. The Government has expanded that Act to about 2,000 pages. Perhaps there are even more words in it than there are in the Bible. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.57) —I have been identifying some of the abuses in public and political life in Queensland. I identify item No. 29 as personal extravagance. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen claims to be a man opposed to extravagances and excesses. The reality belies this claim. Since he began his Canberra campaign earlier this year, Sir Joh has flown well over 20,000 kilometres within Australia in his executive jet by courtesy of the Queensland taxpayer. This amounts to more than $60,000. As well as visiting Wagga Wagga, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Darwin, Albury, Sydney on two occasions, Melbourne, Narrabri, Newcastle and Canberra, he also used his jet for his most recent foray to Japan. For the record, Sir Joh has made more than 20 visits to Japan in his capacity as Premier. The Premier is well known in Japan and to the Japanese. He is wined, dined and feted by companies such as the Mitsui Bank and Nikko Securities, and it has been alleged that he has sought loans at preferential rates for his family company, Ciasom, from the Japanese. When in Tokyo, the Premier likes to stay at the Imperial Hotel, which is Japan's most expensive. Joh likes this particular hotel because he likes the view from his hotel window. On his most recent trip his weekly accommodation bill approached the yearly earnings of the average Australian-$18,800. That is because Joh likes to have a suite. A sum of $570 a day could have had Joh a suite at the Imperial Hotel, but he wanted a suite with two separate bedrooms. He could have had such a suite for $1,140 per night, but Sir Joh wanted the Royal Suite with all its extras and a view of Mount Fuji, the cost of this being an astronomical $2,280 per night. As a further economy Sir Joh decided to fly to Japan in his executive jet. It has been estimated that it costs $2,520 an hour to keep Joh flying. As it would take more than 10 hours for the Premier to fly from Brisbane to Tokyo, the return trip would cost well in excess of $50,000. Sir Joh's staff-six in all, including his two pilots-also stayed at the Imperial Hotel. The staff rooms, without a view, cost $214 per night-collectively $9,000 plus 20 per cent tax and service charge for their one week's stay. Some economy! Just the room costs for the two pilots would have paid for three economy return tickets to Japan. Item No. 30 is referred to as the film studio case. With Sir Joh recently in Disneyland, it is perhaps opportune to have a look at his Government dealings with Dino de Laurentis, the movie mogul. On 27 January 1987 at the launch of de Laurentis's Entertainment Ltd, it was revealed that the Queensland Government had bought $1m worth of Gold Coast real estate for the new de Laurentis film studios and planned to rent it to the company for only $1 per year. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. Mr Ruddock to ask Madam Speaker- (1) Have you received a letter from Mr R. K. Cummins concerning the personal explanation of the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Recreation wherein the Minister asserted Mr Cummins was an expelled member of the Australian Labor Party and was a person of ill repute. (2) If so, (a) will you indicate the tenor of the letter, and (b) will you table the letter. Madam Speaker-The response to the honourable member's request is as follows: I have received a letter from a Mr R. K. Cummins concerning this matter. As the letter does not relate to a matter of my administration, I do not propose to indicate its tenor or to table it. The following notice was given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of air movements cargo hangar at RAAF Base, Richmond, N.S.W. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 1 June 1987: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 4400) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Has the National Drug Offensive stated that caffeine is a drug of dependence. (2) Is it necessary to advise the public, and especially parents, of the problems associated with caffeine. (3) What (a) foods and (b) drinks contain caffeine. (4) Is there a maximum limit for the amount of caffeine permitted in foods and drinks sold to the public including children. (5) Did the Food Science and Technology Sub-Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recommend in 1982 that the permitted level of caffeine in soft drinks be reduced from 145mg per litre to 75mg per litre and has this expert group repeated this recommendation on a number of occasions since. (6) Has the Food Standards Committee (FSC) of the NHMRC rejected this recommendation on each occasion. (7) What are the reasons given by the Committee for rejecting the persistent recommendation of the sub-committee. (8) Did the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO) write to him in December 1985 asking that urgent action be taken to prohibit the addition of caffeine to foods, especially those foods directed toward young children. (9) Did AFCO also ask that products, such as chocolate, which contain caffeine as a natural ingredient, be labelled with the approximate caffeine content. (10) Have Australian chocolate manufacturers advised that their chocolate contains 20mg of caffeine in each 300 gram bar and is this the same as about 670mg of caffeine per kilogram. (11) Does the caffeine content of chocolate overseas normally range from about 50 to 550 mg per kilogram. (12) Does Australian chocolate appear to have the highest caffeine content of any chocolate in the world. (13) Did AFCO submit a paper in February 1986 to the FSC setting out its position on caffeine. (14) Was this paper distributed with the working papers for the March and July meetings of the FSC; if not, why not. (15) If the submissions of AFCO, and possibly others, are not distributed with the Committee working papers, how can the NHMRC take full account of all views when making recommendations on important matters like food irradiation and caffeine. (16) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Adelaide News of 2 December 1985, discussing caffeine in soft drinks, where a spokesman for the NHMRC said that caffeine was permitted in both soft drinks and confectionery, that requests for a reduction in the caffeine content had been under discussion for some time, but soft drink companies had said they could not reduce it. (17) Is he (a) aware of and (b) satisfied with, the handling and progress of the inquiry or study by the FSC into caffeine. (18) Does the statement of the NHMRC spokesperson referred to in part (16) demonstrate that it is the food and soft drink manufacturers who set the standards for caffeine in food and soft drinks in Australia. (19) Are the high levels of caffeine in Australian food and soft drink in the best interests of Australian children. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The National Campaign Against Drug Abuse issued a media release on 14 May 1986 describing caffeine as ``probably the world's most popular drug'' and advising that there was ``no doubt that a certain degree of dependence developed towards beverages containing caffeine''. (2) Yes. As with any pharmacologically active substance it is desirable to avoid excessive caffeine intake. Hence the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse made the media release referred to in (1) and has included a caffeine ``fact sheet'' in the drug information kits available from the National Drug Information Line. (3) (a) and (b) I am advised that caffeine occurs naturally in minute quantities in more than 60 plant species. In practical terms, it occurs naturally in coffee, tea, cocoa and chocolate, and cola nut extract containing products. As a food additive its use is restricted to cola type soft drinks. (4) Food regulations control the use of caffeine as a food additive. Cola soft drinks may contain not more than 145 mg/kg of caffeine. (5) Yes. The Food Science and Technology Subcommittee (FST) of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) did recommend in September 1982 that the permitted level of caffeine in soft drinks be reduced from 145 mg per litre to 75 mg per litre. It repeated this recommendation in February 1986. (6) No. I am advised that following the FST's first recommendation the Food Standards Committee (FSC) decided to defer action until it had advised the industry of its intention to support the reduction recommended by the FST and obtained information on whether the proposed reduction would cause significant changes to current products. The FSC subsequently received submissions from the industry which it passed to the FST for further consideration. After further examination of the issue the FST reported in February 1986 that it considered its earlier recommendation still to the be valid. The FSC reported on the issue at its July 1986 meeting to the effect that it did not endorse the FST's proposed reduction. It did agree to an associated FST recommendation that the presence of caffeine in cola type drinks should be required to be declared in the ingredient list. The FSC also agreed that discussions with the industry should continue and that the subject warranted a watching brief by both committees. (7) I am advised that the FSC did not endorse the FST's recommendation because: Australia's maximum permitted level of caffeine in cola type soft drinks (145 mg/kg) is below that of most countries; cola type beverages contributed only 4% of the total caffeine intake. The FSC questioned whether a 50% reduction of the caffeine content of these soft drinks would be significant; the vast majority of the FSC agreed that the supporting evidence forwarded by the FST was not persuasive; and generally cola soft drink manufacturers currently identify caffeine in the statement of ingredients. As noted in (6) above, the FSC agreed that this practice should be maintained and endorsed the FST recommendation that it be a requirement. (8) Yes. (9) Yes. (10) Yes. (11) and (12) No. I am advised that the international data available to the NHMRC suggest that the average figures for caffeine in chocolate range from approximately 210 mg/kg-2115 mg/kg depending on the type of chocolate with the average for ``chocolate bar'' being 670 mg/kg. (13) Yes. (14) and (15) I am advised that members of the FSC were provided with AFCO's submission at the March 1986 meeting of that Committee. The issue was further considered by the Committee in July 1986. (16) My attention has been drawn to a copy of a newspaper article of 2 December 1985 to this effect. (17) (a) and (b) I am aware of differences of views on the issues involved. Various aspects of the caffeine issue are still being considered by the food committees and the Child Health Committee of the NHMRC. I have requested from NHMRC early clarification on the issue of caffeine in food and drink. (18) No. (19) See answers to (1) and (2) above. (Question No. 4999) Mr Duncan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) Will the Minister provide details on discrepancies on school retention and participation rates within each of the government and non-government schools sectors shown in Statistical Monograph No. 3 of her Department. (2) Can the Minister provide information in relation to the socio-economic mix of those schools with the highest and lowest participation rates if there is a large discrepancy in the participation rates of individual schools in the government school sector. (3) How are resources being allocated to redress the apparent imbalance in participation rates in (a) the government and non-government schools sectors and (b) those schools within the government sector which are significantly below acceptable levels of participation. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Differences between school participation rates within each of the government and non-government sectors shown in Statistical Monograph No. 3, reflect the different proportion of young people in each age group that attend the different categories of schools. The apparent retention rates represent the number of students who proceed through to Years 10, 11 and 12 expressed as a percentage of the corresponding group who were enrolled in the first year of secondary education. It therefore represents a broad measure of the tendencies of students to remain at school from the first to each of the last three secondary years. They can be used to show changes in retention within each sector over a number of years. Thus, the apparent retention rate to year 12 in government schools increased from 29.6 per cent in 1982 to 39.9 per cent in 1985. Apparent retention rates cannot be used to compare the relative performance of systems. For example, there is a net transfer of students from government to non-government schools especially between years 10 and 11. This tends to inflate the non-government school retention rate, and reduce the government school rates. Moreover, the major variations arise because of the background of students who attend different schools. It is not possible to draw conclusions from these figures about the likelihood of persons of equal ability proceeding through to year 12 in either government or non-government schools. (2) The retention and participation rates published in Statistical Monograph No. 3 have been derived from data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). It is not possible to obtain information on a school by school basis as data is provided to the ABS by systems in an aggregated format only. Other published data are available which provide information related to this question. The most recent is ACER Research Monograph No. 30, Participation in Education. I have arranged for a copy of this report to be placed in the Parliamentary Library. (3) The major program which the government has used to encourage increased participation to the end of secondary schooling or its equivalent is the Participation and Equity Program (PEP). In the allocation of resources within the government school sector under PEP, priority is given to a limited number of secondary schools, know as target schools, which have low participation rates overall or serve significant numbers of students from groups with traditionally low participation. As near as possible to 40 per cent of government schools are targeted in each State and Territory, using criteria which take account of the social, economic and cultural background of students and the level of participation in upper secondary education. At least 55 per cent of the State PEP allocation for government schools is directed to these target schools. (Question No. 5206) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: When will he release the details of his Department's inquiry into whether there was a conflict of interest with respect to Mr Somervaille's appointment as a director of a subsidiary of News Corporation at the same time as being a member of the ABC Board? Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: I have received advice on the matters raised by the honourable member. I am satisfied that there was no conflict of interest between his position on the ABC Board and as a Director of Votraint No. 275 Pty Ltd, and of News Ltd. In any event, I am advised that Mr Somervaille has resigned from the Board of those companies. (Question No. 5273) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 2 April 1987: (1) Why did Australia Post destroy 40 million commemorative stamps with a face value of over $14m after Australia's failure to retain the America's Cup. (2) What was the cost to Australia Post of destroying the stamps. (3) Why did Australia Post produce the commemorative stamps before the America's Cup took place. (4) Can Australia Post assure the public that the cost of this exercise will not be passed on to the users of Australia Post services. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) In anticipation of Australia retaining the America's Cup in 1987, Australia Post arranged for the production, in November 1986, of some 35 million stamps (about a two week supply) depicting a win. The stamps were not `new' but previously issued America's Cup stamps, showing the Cup held aloft, overprinted with a victory sign. These were subsequently destroyed because it would have been inappropriate to issue them after Australia lost the Cup. (2) Production costs were initially estimated at less than $100,000. The total cost of producing, overprinting, packaging and ultimately destroying the stamps was $120,000. (3) The stamps were printed to meet the anticipated large public demand in the event that Australia won the Cup. The potential philatelic revenue was very significant. (Australia Post was not prepared for the 1983 win and, when it issued a commemorative envelope some 6 weeks later, over 1 million envelopes were sold.) (4) Because the loss incurred was minimal considering Australia Post is a $1.3 billion enterprise, postal users will not be faced with increased charges. (Question No. 5277) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 April 1987: (1) When will the Government recognise and compensate Australian prisoners of war illegally detained in the Nazi concentration camps at Theresienstadt and Buchenwald during World War II. (2) Is the Minister able to say whether 2 of the 6 known survivors of Theresienstadt concentration camp have died since the documentary film on their plight was produced. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An Interdepartmental Committee which I established to consider the claims of Australian prisoners of war interned in German concentration camps during World War Two reported to me in May, 1986. It was decided that the matter be carried forward by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs submitting a proposal to Cabinet for consideration. I understand that such a submission is very near to completion. (2) I recently wrote to the honourable member in response to his forwarding to me a copy of a letter that makes such a statement. Although I have no means of verifying the claim I have no reason to doubt it. In my reply I gave him a firm assurance that every effort is being made to bring this matter to an early, just and equitable conclusion. (Question No. 5289) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 April 1987: Is he able to say how many (a) ICBMs, (b) SLBMs, (c) Surface to air missiles, (d) tanks, (e) submarines and (f) artillery pieces were constructed by the (i) Soviet Union and (ii) US between 1977 and 1986. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The USSR does not make this sort of information available. However the 1987 edition of Soviet Military Power, published by the U.S. Department of Defence, contains a table at page 121 comparing the levels of U.S. and Soviet weapon systems procurement over the period 1977-1986. According to that table, between 1977 and 1986 the Soviet Union constructed 3,000 ICBMs and SLBMS; 140,000 surface-air-missiles; 24,400 tanks, 90 submarines and 28,200 artillery pieces. Comparable figures for the United States are given as: 850 ICBMs and SLBMs; 16,200 surface-to-air missiles; 7,100 tanks; 43 submarines and 2,750 artillery pieces. The Government has no reason to dispute these figures. (Question No. 5343) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether (a) the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is encouraging Australian tourists to visit North Korea and (b) North Korea has informed Australian travel agents that it will not accept tourists who are Jews. (2) Has he made any representations to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea protesting at discrimination against Australian citizens who are Jewish; if so, what has been the response. (3) If he has not made any representations on this matter, will he do so now. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes; (b) My Department has contacted two travel agencies involved in tourism to the DPRK. Neither agency was aware of a DPRK ban on travel by Australian Jews. The DPRK Government informed one agency that it would not accept tourists from Australia who were citizens of countries with which the DPRK did not have diplomatic relations, such as the United States, Japan, Israel, South Africa and Taiwan. (2) No. (3) No. Australia's relations with the DPRK have been interrupted since 1975. The Australian Government cannot make representations to a government with which its relations are interrupted.