Thursday, 17 September 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.01) —I move: (1) That a joint standing committee be appointed to act for and represent the Parliament, as the client for the new Parliament House, in all matters concerned with the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House and all matters incidental thereto. (2) That the committee consider and approve the developed design for the building which, in conjunction with the revised brief for Parliament House, dated August 1980, shall be used as the basis for the design and construction of the new Parliament House, unless both Houses resolve to vary any section of the brief or have any section reconsidered by the committee. (3) That the committee determine user requirements for approved non-building items and consider other issues relevant to ensuring that the requirements of Parliament are fully met when transferring to the new building. (4) That the committee also consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 as may be referred to it by- (a) resolution of either house of the Parliament, or (b) the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957. (5) That the committee consist of- (a) the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (b) the Minister responsible for administering the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979; (c) 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips and 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and (d) 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (6) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (7) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (8) That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be joint chairmen of the committee. (9) That in matters of procedure, each of the chairman whether or not occupying the chair, have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman occupying the chair have a casting vote. (10) That in matters other than those of procedure, each of the chairmen, whether or not occupying the chair, have a deliberative vote only. (11) That 5 members of the committee, one of whom is the President or the Speaker, constitute a quorum of the committee. (12) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine. (13) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to act as chairman at that meeting. (14) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (15) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (16) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (17) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place. (18) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (19) That a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (20) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (21) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House appointed during previous Parliaments. (22) That the committee be authorised to provide, on behalf of the Parliament, all necessary information concerning the functional requirements for the new Parliament House and matters incidental thereto direct to the Parliament House Construction Authority as the authority responsible to Parliament to undertake or arrange for the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House. (23) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (24) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. This motion proposes the re-establishment of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. The proposed terms of reference are the same as those of the Committee which was appointed in the previous Parliament, although the opportunity has been taken to effect some drafting changes in the motion. With the double dissolution of Parliament, the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House has not met since 3 June 1987. As honourable members will know, construction and fit-out of the new Parliament House is proceeding rapidly, and it is essential that the Committee be re-established and meet as soon as possible to deal with a range of matters that affect the Parliament, members, senators and staff, in the new building. For this reason, this motion is being moved in advance of those proposed for the establishment of other committees of the House. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(10.02) —The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Young). With the projected move of Parliament to a new site and a new building early next year, it is both urgent and necessary for the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House to meet, for certain recommendations to be made, and for consideration to be given to decisions to be made in relation to the move. We give the motion warm support and send it on its way. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 16 September. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(10.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Ministers of State Act currently provides that there can be no more than 27 Ministers. As announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 14 July, the Government wishes to have a Ministry of 30, administering 18 departments in place of the previous 28. The total cost of Ministerial remuneration-salary and expenses of office allowance-in a full year would be $97,752. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 16 September. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(10.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend two Acts: the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, to clarify the scope of existing provisions of that Act in the light of the recent changes to ministerial and departmental structures; and the Public Service Act 1922, to abolish the Public Service Board and establish new arrangements in its place. A separate Bill will be introduced to amend the Ministers of State Act 1952, to increase from 27 to 30 the number of Ministers who may be appointed. As a result of the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) the introduction of revised arrangements for the administration by Ministers of departments, it is desirable to clarify provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act relating to the meaning of references in legislation to Ministers and departments. In particular, the amendments deal with situations where a Minister administers two or more departments or where a single department is administered by two or more Ministers. While the existing provisions of the Act are capable of application to the new arrangements, it is obviously desirable to put the matter beyond doubt and also to deal with the particular features of the new arrangements. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the May economic statement, announced that the existing structure of the Public Service Board was under review. Since then, the Prime Minister has accepted a recommendation from Mr David Block, in his capacity as head of the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit, that the Public Service Board be abolished. The amendments before the House repeal provisions of the Public Service Act establishing the Public Service Board and substitute provisions establishing an office of Public Service Commissioner. Further legislation will be prepared to give full effect to the Government's proposals for the distribution of the Board's powers. In the meantime the Bill provides for the continuation of the existing delegations of the Board's powers and functions to related management agencies, for example, the Department of Industrial Relations, and to Secretaries of departments generally. The Bill also provides for the establishment of an Australian Public Service Management Advisory Board comprising part time members who will include the Commissioner, the Secretaries of certain departments, a person with a trade union background and a person with private sector experience. The new body's functions will include the provision of advice to the Government on significant issues relating to the management of the Australian Public Service. The Bill includes a number of consequential and transitional provisions. It is estimated that the abolition of the Public Service Board will save approximately $8m in 1987-88 and $16.5m in 1988-89. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Debate resumed. Madam SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2) cognately with the Administrative Arrangements Bill. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.07) —These two Bills, as the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Mr Willis) has very briefly outlined, are, firstly, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2), which provides for an increase in the number of Ministers and, secondly, the Administrative Arrangements Bill, which provides for the scrapping of the Public Service Board and its replacement with a Public Service Commissioner. The legislation also amends the Acts Interpretation Act to take account of the appointment of more than one Minister to control a department under the reorganisation of the Australian Public Service as has been outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) prior to this debate. The two Bills relate to the reorganisation of the structure of the Commonwealth administration, including the establishment of 18 super- ministries out of the original 28 departments. There are a number of claimed benefits of these changes and during the debate I want to raise with the Government those benefits and seek from it an explanation or justification of them. I will deal firstly with the Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2). As I have said, this provides for an increase in the number of Ministers from 27 to 30. The Government has given no explanation to the House for the need to increase the number of Ministers. The Minister in this House responsible for the legislation, in his second reading speech just now, gave an explanation amounting to a whole five sentences. He stated merely what the Bill does with no explanation as to the reason for the increase in the size of the Ministry. The reason, of course, is that the Government is embarrassed when it comes to explain why the change is necessary because there is no good reason for the change other than the fact that it has taken place to placate, at enormous public expense of some $1m, the warring Australian Labor Party factions. The Prime Minister, with 27 ministerial places, did not have the intestinal fortitude to be able to select 27 Ministers over the claims of the various factions for more representations. Faced with this, for him, difficult task, the Prime Minister caved in, said, `Well, the easy answer is to squeeze the Australian taxpayer for another $1m', and appointed an extra three Ministers. The $1m is required to cover the extra salaries for the Ministers, their staff, office expenses, Commonwealth car entitlement, and so on. Certainly, there is a need to ensure that rigorous and effective control is exercised over the bureaucracy, but such control is not necessarily achieved just by the appointment of more Ministers. What is required is Ministers with the qualities and strength of character to be able to get on top of the job without submitting to the Yes, Minister syndrome. Mr Holding —Ha, ha! Mr PORTER —The Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs may well laugh. A little later he will hear about the Yes, Minister syndrome and he may be embarrassed. In view of the fact that the Government has totally failed to provide any cogent reasons as to why it wants to spend another $1m of taxpayers' funds to appoint an extra three Ministers, we will oppose the Bill; we will oppose an expansion in the number of Ministers. While the Prime Minister claims that 3,000 Public Service jobs will be cut in the restructuring-I will deal with that claim later-he is appointing more Ministers. Further, he has stated recently that the Government is reviewing opportunities to transfer some functions from the Commonwealth to the States. If that is the case, why do we need more Ministers to do less work? If we are to transfer functions to the States, surely that means that we can do with fewer Ministers. The whole exercise of providing more chiefs and fewer indians to placate the factions within the Prime Minister's Party is an outrageous abuse of the taxpayer and it will be opposed by the coalition. The second Bill in this cognate debate is the Administrative Arrangements Bill. Again, we have had very little explanation of the reasons for the proposed changes. The second reading speech explaining the reasons for the legislation to the House comprises all of eight paragraphs. Like the Prime Minister's Press statement and his statement to the House on Tuesday, many claims are made, but no explanation has been given as to how those claims will be fulfilled. The Prime Minister, in his statement to the House on Tuesday, said: The administrative arrangements . . . represented perhaps the most far-reaching reshaping of the Federal machinery of government and of public administration in our history. The number of departments has been reduced from 28 to 18, providing scope for savings through economies of scale and the removal of overlap and duplication across many areas of hitherto separate bureaucratic units. We ask the Minister: what economies, and in what areas has overlap been removed? What duplication has been removed? What is the extent of the expected savings? What is the cost of the changes to the administration? Where are all the details? There has been a bland statement that there will be many benefits but there has been no justification. The Government has had two months to explain the changes, the costings and the benefits. Nothing has been forthcoming. The Prime Minister continued: To provide for enhanced ministerial control over the new range of departments, many of which are significantly enlarged, I decided, following receipt of an opinion from the Solicitor-General, that it was time we adopted a two-level ministerial structure and increased the number of Ministers. Under the new arrangements, the burden of administering departments is shared, and portfolio Ministers are released from some detailed administrative work, enabling them to give greater attention to strategic directions of policy and priorities. All portfolios are represented in Cabinet without the need for the Cabinet to be expanded to an unmanageable size. In the Senate, where this Bill was first introduced, we sought the support of the Australian Democrats to have it referred to a Senate committee for further investigation in order to provide the Government with an opportunity to explain and substantiate its claims, both to us and to members of the Public Service, so many of whom are questioning the reasoning behind some of the changes. There is confusion, claim and counter-claim within the Public Service over competing areas of responsibility. There is still that confusion today, two months after the announcement of the changes. Nevertheless, I understand that the Senate did not agree to the reference to a committee for further investigation. Let me say at the outset that we do not disagree with the general thrust of the proposed changes. In fact, like so many of this Government's decisions, they come after the initiation of the idea by the Opposition. So often we see this Government, which is devoid of ideas, following the Opposition's lead. I need mention only a few such areas. For example the latest conversion of the Prime Minister to the privatisation goal is an interesting conversion to Opposition policy. This week the Government introduced a package for families-only after a campaign by the Opposition to highlight to the Government the impact of its policies on the family. Australian families are worse off after four years of the Hawke Government and are having more trouble in making ends meet than they have ever had. Again as a result of Opposition pressure the Government is trying to remedy that problem by introducing a family package. In the Budget we saw the reintroduction of negative gearing. Never have we seen a bigger backdown by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) as a result of Opposition pressure and initiative. This legislation again follows the initiative of this Opposition as outlined in our 1984 policy relating to the Public Service and administrative arrangements. In that policy document under the heading `Functional Organisation of the Ministry and Departments' we stated: . . . the need to increase the capacity for Cabinet Ministers to concentrate on priorities and set the course of Government; the need to improve effective co-ordination of key policy areas and to change the present system of competing departments working against each other; the need to improve the efficiency of the administrative functions of departments, especially when this can lead to cost savings. We believe that change was required in all these areas to overcome those problems. In a series of specific recommendations we went on to address those needs. We stated: Leaner, more efficient Government would result from a consolidation of existing Departments into twelve major Departments of State (including the Cabinet office) led by 12 Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister. Cabinet Ministers would be responsible for interrelated areas of policy. Most Cabinet Ministers would have one or more Junior Ministers reporting to them each being responsible for a group of programs allocated to their departments. We continued: While under the Constitution, it is necessary for each Minister to be responsible for a specific area of policy, the Prime Minister's Administrative Orders can require a group of Ministers to work for a member of Cabinet. We further stated: The objective of the organisational arrangement would be to relieve the Cabinet Minister of major day-to-day administrative responsibilities for individual programs, and thus ensure there was time for their primary role of shaping policy priorities, developing initiatives, identifying potential problems, evaluating policy implementation and participating in the full range of Cabinet work. Groupings of existing Departments and functions within the new group Cabinet structure would be designed to minimise the current interdepartmental conflicts caused by demarcation and accept the reality that many programs involve more than one Department. That was our 1984 policy. In 1987, three years later, the Government has picked up our proposal. Heaven only knows why on earth it waited for three years. There has been an overwhelming need to streamline Commonwealth Government operations and to free portfolio Ministers from some of the detailed administrative work so that they can concentrate on policy direction and development. So, the thrust of the changes is supported by the Opposition, but we question some of the details of the particular arrangements that the Government has made. For example, I refer to the distribution of areas of responsibility. As my colleague the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), our shadow Minister with responsibility for science and energy, pointed out recently, at a time when Australia desperately needs to push in a united way to increase its export earnings and increase its information technology and its research technology, the Federal Government has chosen to fragment the science portfolio. Mr Wright —Nonsense! Mr PORTER —That interjection just shows the intelligence of those on the Government side. Does the honourable member mean that the science portfolio has not been fragmented? Perhaps he would like to listen to this: responsibility for the Antarctic Division has gone to the Minister for Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories; research funding has gone to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training; and the elusive Commission for the Future has gone to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Even the National Science and Technology Centre has been hived off to the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories portfolio. Meteorological services have now been lumped in with the other responsibilities of the Minister for Administrative Services. The Government has provided no details of the reasons for or the logic of the distribution of functions in this instance or in many others. We believe that the public and the Parliament deserve an explanation. We need to have answers to a number of other questions of detail. For example, resulting from the amalgamation of departments we now have people called Associate Secretaries. Where do they fit into the administrative tree? What administrative structure is provided to resolve conflicts, of either personality or advice? Similarly, there are issues of ministerial responsibility which need to be resolved. We welcome the Solicitor-General's opinion regarding the appointment of more than one Minister to a department as a significant reversal of previous Attorney-General's Department advice offered to governments. In my view the current Solicitor-General's advice or opinion is more in accord with my reading of the Constitution. Nevertheless the question of ministerial responsibility within the new ministerial arrangements still has to be tested. The vagueness in the apportionment of ministerial responsibility as outlined by the Prime Minister is likely to lead to conflict, confusion and duckshoving. Let me quote from the Prime Minister's statement of 11 August. He said: The ultimate responsibility of the portfolio, however, rests with the portfolio minister. The portfolio minister will be accountable to Parliament for the overall operation of the portfolio. Accountability for any actions carried out by or at the direction of another minister, for which responsibility has been allocated, will rest with that minister in other than exceptional circumstances. Whatever that may mean. Later in the same statement he said: In Parliament, while the portfolio Ministers will be ultimately accountable for their portfolios, other Ministers will have a clear accountability for areas of responsibility allocated to them and will be required to answer questions in relation to those areas. With the agreement of the portfolio Minister concerned, other Ministers might also, in relation to the whole portfolio, take legislation through, and respond to matters of public importance and the like. Finally, the Prime Minister said: I am releasing a list of the functions to be performed by other Ministers- so we thought we might be given a pretty clear indication of areas of responsibility- but wish to emphasise that the list is indicative and will in no way prevent either portfolio Ministers operating within the nominated areas or other Ministers being given additional responsibilities over time. What does all that mean? Given that the list is only indicative the question remains as to how ultimate responsibility is to be established. I say to the Government that in the circumstances I have outlined the Opposition is of the view that given the vagueness of the Prime Minister's division of responsibility, those Ministers in the department concerned will be held jointly and severally responsible and will carry the burden of the conventional ministerial responsibility. Another significant issue is the net savings accruing from the changes. The Prime Minister claims savings from reduction in staffing levels of some 3,000 public servants. I ask the Minister at the table, the Minister for Industrial Relations: When will those savings accrue? When will the reduction in staffing levels of over 3,000 be made? At what level are the staff savings to be made? At what level, from Secretary down to clerk, are the savings to be made? Are they all to be clerk positions, middle order management? At what level? What is the cost of the changes to date? We have heard a variety of costings of the savings that are claimed. Last week it was $96m; in the Budget it was $107m. What exactly is the figure, Minister? We know that the Government has been promoting these changes as being indicative of its determination to deliver a smaller, leaner, more efficient government. But the Government has provided no details. The Opposition welcomed the Government's commitment to those goals and I have no doubt that the public did as well, but we were a little sceptical that the savings would actually be achieved. Certainly Labor's history in government over the last four years did not give us any reason to be confident that the reductions would be made. Over that period the Hawke Labor Government has increased the size of the Public Service by some 33,000 people. There are 15,000 more employed under the Public Service Act alone. When employees of statutory authorities are included the result is a figure of 33,000 extra public servants appointed in those four years. Suddenly the Prime Minister made the great announcement: `I am going to change all the arrangements of the Commonwealth Public Service-a great reorganisation-and we are going to reduce the size of the Public Service by 3,000'. Over four years it is a very small reduction, a reduction which does not even take us back to the levels of employment when this Government first took office in 1983. Nevertheless, as I said, we were delighted to see that the Government was at last starting to move down the road to smaller government. But regrettably the 3,000 staff saving did not last long; it lasted from towards the end of July when the statement was made to the night before last when the Budget was brought down. Last night's Budget shows that not only will those staff savings not be achieved but also, following the re-arrangement, extra staff will be employed. Page 82 of Budget Paper No. 1 contains the heading `Increases' in a section relating to the summary of staffing and administrative costs. Following references to the targeted savings of 3,000 staff as announced by the Prime Minister, the Budget states: The above reductions have been offset to some extent by staffing growth to provide for new or increased activity . . . What is the extent of that staffing growth? Where will the staff be located? We see that 1,000 new people will be employed by the Department of Social Security to administer, amongst other things, the means testing of the family allowance - one of the policy initiatives of the Government. The administration of the means testing of family allowances will require an additional 1,000 public servants in the Department of Social Security. Of course, more people will also be required in the Australian Taxation Office-another 641 people. The total number of new public servants to be employed by this Government is 3,077. So the Government is running around the country trumpeting a reduction in the size of the Public Service because of the new administrative arrangements and saying, `We're going to cut 3,000 jobs and reduce the size of government'. The Treasurer had the gall when he brought down the Budget on Tuesday night to say that the Government had saved $107m by cutting 3,000 Public Service jobs. We find no reference in the Budget Speech, but hidden in the small print of the Budget Papers is the appointment of 3,077 new public servants. The announcement by the Prime Minister of a reduction in the size of the Public Service would have to be the biggest political scam since the Government was re-elected earlier this year. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have set out blatantly to deceive the Australian public into believing that they will reduce the size of the Public Service. The Budget Papers reveal the extent of the deception. All the Government is doing is reshuffling the Public Service. There is no saving; it is just moving people around. There is no saving; the Government is engaging 3,077 new employees. I believe that, by running around the country trying to promote itself in this underhand way as being in favour of smaller government, it is being outrageously deceptive. It has undertaken what can be described only as a publicity stunt, trying to curry favour by saying that it is interested in the efficiency of government and in achieving smaller government when clearly it is not. I said last week and earlier this week that I did not believe this Government could deliver smaller government. On Tuesday night I was proved correct; it cannot. What is more, I do not believe it ever had any intention actually to reduce the size of the Public Service and of Commonwealth administration. The Prime Minister said recently that he agreed with our policy, put forward at the last election, that a number of functions ought to be transferred to the States, that the Government would pursue that course, and that, especially in areas in which there is joint administration of functions, such as housing, the Commonwealth ought to get out of the road of the States. That was our policy before the election. Members of the Government criticised us for it and ran around the country scaring people by saying that the funds would not be provided, that there would be no more public housing, and that the Liberal Party of Australia was going to cut funding to nursing homes. In all the areas where we said there was a need to get rid of the duplication between Commonwealth administration and State administration Labor ran the same scam campaign. Suddenly, after the election, the Prime Minister said, `We do see some need to get rid of this duplication and we will be looking at transferring some Commonwealth areas of responsibility where it is held jointly with the States'. One would have thought, in that circumstance, that where there is a transfer to the States there would be some room, even for this Government, to reduce the size of government and to reduce the size of the Public Service. Therefore, we thought that maybe, for the first time, the Prime Minister was being honest when he said, `We will reduce the size of the Public Service by 3,000'. But no; in the detail of the Budget we find that that is a fraud. There is no such reduction. All the Government is doing is shuffling the chairs on the Titanic. It is about time that this Government came clean and was honest with the Australian public. These publicity gimmicks are all well and good, but it does not do the economy of the country any good and it does not strengthen people's confidence in their Government. For the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to deceive the Australian public so blatantly, as they have, into believing that they were going to reduce the size of the Public Service when, in fact, they are going to replace with new appointments all the jobs that they said would be saved, is a scandal. It underlines our concern about this legislation. The claimed benefits have not been substantiated and we now discover in the Budget that the claimed benefits will not arise. The Government will not deliver on those benefits. That is why we sought to have these new arrangements further considered by a Senate committee. We regret that that did not occur. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.37) —The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) talked about honesty and about the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) not telling the truth and trying to hide the facts. It is a great pity that the people of Australia listening to this debate do not have access to the Budget Papers to which the honourable member referred, because he said that members of the Opposition discovered in the small print in the Budget Papers this hidden information about increases and decreases in Public Service staff numbers and how the Government was not presenting a true story. What baloney! What nonsense! If the honourable member were honest with himself, he would tell the people listening to this debate that the Budget Papers clearly set out not only the decreases in the Public Service but also the increases. If he had taken some time to read the Budget Papers himself, instead of depending on a research officer and on a written speech, he would have found on page 80 a section entitled `Summary of Staffing and Administrative Costs'. He would have found on page 82, set out line by line, the decreases, department by department, where the Government is going to save in Public Service costs. Following that, on page 83, the honourable member would have then found the increases. Nothing is hidden. There is no subterfuge here. The Government has been quite open about the fact that there are many areas where there shall be staff reductions. But obviously, if we are to have efficiency, proper reform and review, there would be areas where there would be need for staff increases. The honourable member argued about increases in the tax area, yet I recall members of his own Opposition standing up in this chamber and saying that the way to solve the problems of tax avoidance and evasion was not by an Australia Card but by increasing the numbers of people in the Australian Taxation Office. That is what he is saying. Mr Porter —So you are going to do both? Mr WRIGHT —Of course one does both. There is no singular solution to the many problems that beset this country. There is a need for a multi-approach and that is what this Government is taking. I note also that the honourable member makes claims and takes the credit for the reform of the public administration of the nation, for removing ministerial overlapping and for holding back the growth of the Public Service. That always surprises me. Honourable members opposite were in government between 1975 and early 1983. What did they do? Nothing! They took no action to reduce the size of the Public Service. Did they take any action to bring about greater efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of Commonwealth services to the people of Australia? Of course not. Did they do anything about restructuring the ministerial arrangements to ensure that there was greater accountability at a departmental level and greater ministerial control? Of course not. But now, when it is being done by the Hawke Labor Government, they stand up and take the credit. We ought to contrast what they say with what happens in other areas where there is a conservative government, such as Queensland. This Government has seen a very minor increase in the Public Service since it came to power in 1983, an increase of about 3 per cent per year, but in Queensland the increase has been 11 per cent. So what they say on one hand is not put into practice on the other. I will make one final comment about the honourable member's speech where he said that the Department of Science and Small Business was being fragmented. There will be a total review and reform of the activities of the Public Service and the various ministerial areas of responsibility to ensure their effectiveness. Despite what the honourable member for Barker says, the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) will be deeply involved, not only in the areas of science but also in small business. I note from material the Prime Minister presented that the Minister for Science and Small Business will be responsible for science policy and activities, including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and the encouragement of the effective linkages between research, the community and industry. If the honourable member for Barker thinks his position is correct, let him go out into the market-place and say that he disagrees with that because those in the industry areas have said to all members of parliament: `We need to get greater linkages between research and industry'. This Government is bringing that about. When the Hawke Government was originally elected to office in 1983 it clearly signalled its desire to embark upon a program of reform of public administration. It made it very clear at the outset that that was one of its objectives. Since that time it has put changes into place. It has been monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of Australia's bureaucracy. Regardless of that sometimes stated belief that bureaucrats are a burden on the community and that public servants in Australia are lazy at every level, I believe they are highly qualified, hard working and committed to carrying out their responsibilities in the most effective and most efficient manner. There will always be a few who do not do their job, but the vast majority, 99.9 per cent, are hard working, highly qualified people. But that does not put aside the need for governments to accept the responsibility to work towards reform which will meet the demands and especially the needs of modern administration. The Prime Minister made this very clear when he spoke to the House on Tuesday. He said that the Government has been concerned with two basic objectives. The first is to enhance ministerial control over the Public Service. Does anyone disagree with that need? Does anyone disagree that as the Minister is the person representing the Parliament he, or she, ought to ensure that he has, or she has the necessary control and is responsible and accountable to this Parliament? Secondly, the Prime Minister said there is a need to give departmental managers more responsibility for day to day management. He talked later about a corporate approach. I again question the Opposition's position on this. If we are to bring about efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of Commonwealth services to the people of Australia, surely there is a need to take that approach, to give the freedom of responsibility for day to day management to those who make those decisions but, at the same time, make those decision makers accountable to the Minister, to the Parliament and then to the community. In line with the objectives that the Prime Minister set down, this Government has upgraded the accountability of the departments through Ministers to the Parliament and the community. Likewise, there has been a devolution of management functions, allowing the greater freedom that I mentioned, to allow the public servants to manage the areas for which they are responsible, to achieve that efficiency and to improve the delivery of those services to the community. We have seen a revamping of budgetary processes, giving Ministers more direct involvement in the use of resources. There has been a tightening of the resource allocation and now we have seen the most far reaching change in the federal machinery of government and of public administration in the history of our country. It surprises me that there has been so much criticism in the other place, the Senate, and now from the spokesman for the Opposition. What has happened-the people of Australia need to realise this-is that the number of departments has been reduced from 28 to 18, and this will provide massive savings not for the Prime Minister of Australia but for the people of Australia, the taxpayers who ultimately pay for the services that they get. These savings will mean savings for them. The new approach will remove overlapping and duplication and give greater ministerial control over a new range of departments. It will allow for a broader administrative and decision-making process and, from my point of view, it will remove the narrow, parochial departmental approach to issues and policy making. I do not blame the departments for becoming parochial and getting involved in their specific realm, but so often there is a need for a broad approach to bring together all the various policies and the decisions to be made by government, and to take that macro approach. This is not a sudden decision that has been decided upon after the election. It is not something that was done for party political purposes. I note that the honourable member for Barker who has just resumed his seat, and other National-Liberal Party critics have made out that this was a post-election move. That is nonsense. Opposition members have short memories. If they could recall the economic statement delivered on 13 May they would remember that the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-this was before the election-said: The Government intends to restructure the Public Service Board so as to rationalise aspects of public sector administration. He talked about the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit that was to be set up. That was on page 51 of the May economic statement, which was made before the election. It was not made to accommodate factional needs in the Labor Party or because the Prime Minister could not make a decision about whom he should appoint. That shows something of the ignorance of the Opposition spokesman because, in a Labor government, the Prime Minister does not appoint Ministers. It is the Caucus, the parliamentary members, who elect them and the Prime Minister allocates portfolios. The comments that have been made are clear nonsense. I am pleased that, at least in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, has seen the importance of the changes being put forward by the Government, particularly as they relate to the reshaping of the Australian Public Service. It appears, from a sheer party political point scoring point of view, that the Opposition parties will oppose the restructuring of the Ministry. Again, they have very short memories. It seems that they have forgotten that, time after time, Liberal governments have tried to overcome the idea of work loads and burdens on one Minister. It is interesting that it was the Liberal Party Leader, Sir Robert Menzies, who introduced a system of parliamentary Under-Secretaries-members of parliament who took on a ministerial responsibility. He backed away from that because of a legal opinion. It was Sir William McMahon, another Liberal Prime Minister, who introduced the idea of Assistant Ministers. There are still two members, the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) and the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson), who were Assistant Ministers under a Liberal government. More recently, under the Fraser Liberal Government, we had the old idea invoked of having a Vice-President of the Executive Council without portfolio. I remember the humour at the time of Sir James Killen having a staff of six and a Department of three. He was virtually a Minister without portfolio, but it was done for political reasons to accommodate him. Yet we now have the Liberals and Nationals saying that this is a political recourse that the Government has taken. It is nonsense. We can go back further to something that the Liberal Party often put forward as a great moment in history, when the Liberal Party appointed Dame Enid Lyons as the first woman Minister in Australia. What was she? She was a Minister without portfolio. We have a history where governments have tried to accommodate the special circumstances that surround the Cabinet and the Ministry. Liberal governments have tried to do it, without great success, but this Government, because of the Prime Minister's initiatives and the backing of other Ministers, has come forward with an approach and a system that will achieve what everyone wants, and that is the best way to maximise ministerial responsibility, departmental accountability and, more importantly, the quality and the efficiency of the delivery of Commonwealth services to the people of Australia. Let us not forget that on 11 July this Government was given an overwhelming mandate to govern by the Australian people. That mandate involved putting in place changes and improvements in the present public administration. These are major changes and improvements. I expect some teething problems-one would be stupid to say that there would not be-but we are talking not about major problems but about a minor degree of testing and experimentation. We are not dealing with Assistant Ministers or junior Ministers, parliamentary Under-Secretaries or Ministers without portfolio. We are dealing with a dual Ministry system-a system, which the Prime Minister explained on 11 August, of dual administration of portfolio. The concept that the Prime Minister put forward will enhance ministerial control and enable portfolio Ministers to be released to a significant extent from detailed administrative work so that they can focus on the strategic direction of the relevant portfolio and on its contribution to Government priorities. The Prime Minister emphatically stated that the ultimate responsibility with this new structure would rest with the portfolio Minister, that the Minister would be accountable and remain accountable. He would be responsible for the direction of departmental policy and the public presentation of it. This is an excellent concept, and it is certainly worth trying. It should not be cast aside. The Opposition should be willing to experiment, to be different and to bring about change, and that is what this Government is doing. I see enormous advantage for everybody out there in the community because previously we had Ministers who where in Cabinet and those who were not. If there was an area that was important to many people, which could have been arts and tourism, which was in the overall Ministry but not in the Cabinet, there was always a question of whether due consideration was given to those issues. Using the portfolio approach means that every area of responsibility will be included, because we have a portfolio Minister responsible for every aspect of administration and every aspect of government. At the same time, there will be a sharing of work loads and of the huge responsibilities that Ministers carry. However, we will still allow specialisation. It seems to me that we have put together the important elements of administration, allowing, for example, a Minister for Veterans' Affairs to get on with the job, but still be part of the overall community services that the Government must supply. It will also allow for a corporate management approach to the administration of a portfolio, and surely this is warranted and should be supported by those on the other side who say that they support private enterprise attitudes. I am quite surprised by the opposition to this measure because during the election campaign in my region, I heard Liberals and Nationals saying that it was stupid to be talking about policies on education and not have them coinciding with policies in training and employment. They said it ought to be done, and this Government has done it. We now have a Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Why would the Liberal and National parties oppose it? There has also been a need for an approach to bring together all those community services. We have seen it in Queensland where the State Government has seen the need to bring all these elements together. We are doing it here. We have a Minister for Community Services and Health, incorporating Veterans' Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs. The system will allow for specialisation and at the same time bring together the administrative areas of like consideration and characteristic. I turn in the last few moments to the ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Time and again members of the rural sector have come to me-and I am sure they have spoken to other members-and said, `There must be a closer link between foreign aid and trade. We have to come together and ensure that when we are giving aid we try to use some of our commodities, the things we produce'. There has also been enormous pressure to tie in foreign affairs and trade negotiations. The rural sector, the private sector and the manufacturing sector have been urging this. The Government has acted. We now have a Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. It is almost impossible to separate trade negotiations from foreign affairs. I agree with the rural sector: there is a need to link more closely foreign aid and trade. That can now be achieved. In the portfolio area of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, we are accommodating the ministry of science and small business. We are bringing together all those aspects that affect industry, technology and commerce. Those obviously relate back to small business. I appreciate that there are some difficult links. It is easy to see why we link immigration and ethnic affairs but some might question why local government should be included. Local government is mainly a State responsibility, but in that same portfolio we have linked regional development. It is always easy to criticise and oppose but the responsibility of any Opposition is to put forward some alternatives. Earlier we heard the honourable member for Barker speak and criticise but not one alternative suggestion was put forward, and this has not occurred in this House or in the Senate. I suggest to all those people interested in the debate that all the Opposition is doing is playing party politics. Those opposite realise that they have to try to lift their game. They know that unfortunately Parliament is not held in the highest respect by the people out there. So those opposite are out to denigrate, condemn and attack Ministers and other parliamentarians. I regret what they are doing because there are so many advantages in the new approach that the Prime Minister and this Government have introduced. It will allow greater ministerial control and the enhancement of decision-making processes. It will remove overlapping and duplication and create a new type of accountability from the departmental point of view. It will allow for better policy co-ordination, better budgetary processes and better government. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.57) —Today we are debating the Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Administrative Arrangements Bill. Their net effect will be to increase the size of the Ministry from 27 to 30, to create 18 new super-ministries and introduce revised arrangements for the administration of departments by Ministers. The first point I make in relation to these two pieces of legislation is that the Government has no mandate to introduce them because this subject was not mentioned in the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or in the election campaign. That point is very much worth making because when the Prime Minister made the announcement about changes to the structure of government, he said that there would be a reduction of 3,000 public servants. That was not mentioned in the campaign; if it had been it would have become an important issue. A number of other matters were not mentioned during the election campaign but have now become important issues in the nation. I refer to the size and nature of the Ministry, the privatisation debate and the changed government position on Aboriginal affairs. There was no mention of these things in policy speeches or during the election. There is no doubt that the increased size of the Ministry in large part is due to a factional deal to increase the numbers of the socialist Left faction in the Ministry. That is the basic reason for the increase in the size of the Ministry. There was no mention of that, either, during the election campaign. So the Government cannot claim to have a mandate for its changes. Notwithstanding that, I and others on this side of the House are prepared to be objective and look at the changes in the light of what is needed for a proper reorganisation and restructuring of the growth of government. There was no mention in the second reading speech of the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Mr Willis), or in the Prime Minister's announcement, of the role of the Parliament. I will come to that later. There is no explanation by the Government of the need to increase the size of the Ministry. I can understand that there can be a number of good reasons. There is the factional deal that I spoke about. There may be other good reasons but we have not heard about them. I have no doubt that the structure of government in Australia needs to be made more efficient. My own belief is that it needs to be made leaner, smaller, more accountable and more responsible because government has to be effective to serve efficiently the people and the nation. There is also a need for the Parliament to monitor and check effectively the growth of government and the Government itself. One of the major problems in Australia today is the growth of government and bureaucracy. There is no mention by the Government in these changes how that is to be tackled. There was an initial announcement that there would be 3,000 fewer public servants; so we assume that that would mean smaller government but even that has now been forgotten. As the Budget documents show, there will be an increase over and above the loss of the 3,000 positions that the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement after the election. There will be a net increase in public servants. So the Government has forgotten that part of its statement. We have seen an endorsement in the Budget and by the Government of these changes in the ministerial structure accompanied by an increase in the bureaucracy, the Public Service. It is certain to me that as the size of the government in Australia grows, as more public servants are added to the Australian Public Service-and the Budget documents say that there will be new and increased activities of government-that is, as the growth of the public sector is occurring, the standard of living of Australia is falling. The more demand there is for the Government to do something about a problem the greater the problems seem to be. The more government intervenes, the more bureaucrats are created and the more the standard of living of Australia falls. Surely there must be a message in that. There is no mention of the effectiveness and efficiency of government in these ministerial changes. There is a challenge to government, and certainly to parliament, to increase the effectiveness and improve the structure of government in Australia. I accept that the Government has taken a step along the road in these restructuring proposals. I made the point that it has no mandate for these changes. It did not mention them in the election campaign but I am prepared to look at this matter with an open mind. However, the House and I need to be guaranteed that there will be effective control in these new arrangements by Ministers over the bureaucracy. There has been no statement about that. The challenge to government is really to increase control by the Executive over the Public Service, the bureaucracy. There is a need for Ministers to be on top of their departments, actually to know what is going on, to have systems to know what is going on and to control the growth of their departments. There is no guarantee in the proposed arrangements that this will occur. There is no guarantee that each Minister will not want to build an empire, to have an alliance with the Public Service to increase his authority by having a bigger department. There will be competition among junior Ministers, on the one hand, and junior Ministers and super-senior Ministers on the other. The proposed changes could develop a momentum of their own and, by their very nature, increase the size of government. No controls have been put in to ensure that Ministers have smaller, leaner departments and can control those departments effectively. That is one of the major issues facing the nation today. We need economies of scale. I welcome the Prime Minister's statement that the changes will achieve that. However, there is no evidence of it. There needs to be control over the bureaucracy and a removal of duplication, but, again, there is no evidence of that in the Minister's second reading speech and the Government's announcement. We need details on how economies of scale will be achieved and how overlapping of departments and bureaucracies and duplication of government can be stopped. One of the great challenges is to increase ministerial control over bureaucracies. There is a need to free up senior Ministers of any government, especially as Australia goes through a period of restructuring and it is a restructuring crisis. There is a need for the senior Ministers of government to concentrate on what is needed for the future Australia and not be bound down to their desks day by day with minutiae. There is a need for them to concentrate on the broad policy issues facing the nation. If the proposed changes achieve that in part, I will welcome them publicly in this House. I welcome the small step that has been taken, although we have no details of the arrangements, to have senior and junior Ministers. I think that that is a step in the right direction. Government needs to be restructured. However, as I have said, there is no explanation or guarantee of how it will work. There is no guarantee that junior Ministers will not be competitive each with the other and that they will not want to expand their empires. There is no guarantee that there will not be great rivalries between them and senior Ministers. We need a statement from the Government as to how the arrangements will be more effective, how efficiencies will be achieved and how there will be the co-ordination necessary for efficient and effective government. Control by the Executive over the bureaucracy is vital because the growth of government does not improve the standard of living of ordinary Australians. As the size of government has grown, the standard of living of Australians has fallen. The Government's announcement and the legislation represent a challenge to the Westminster system. I think that the Westminster system as it has developed in Australia is failing. Mention has been made of the growth of executive government. Hopefully, the proposed changes represent an effort to control the growth of the bureaucracy. However, at the same time there is an increasing growth in the Executive's power. With the combination of the Ministry, that is, the Prime Minister and Ministers and the Public Service, that is, bureaucracy, the two elements of institutionalised government are growing. The Executive has been overwhelmed by the bureaucracy. Ministers have not controlled it and it is growing out of hand. We are moving more and more to a presidential system of government in which, during election campaigns, the media focus only on the party leaders. Under the Australian system, Prime Ministers are becoming more like Presidents in the United States presidential system. Once the Caucus or the party leaders, whatever the case may be, have chosen the Ministry, the Ministry, with the bureaucracy, runs the nation. The party rooms and the Caucus have very little control over the day to day details of government. Also, the parliament has become less and less relevant, and that is worrying. Mr Price —Look at what Joh was able to do. Mr SHIPTON —I am prepared to be open-minded and to look at the growth of government federally, in Queensland-I respond to the honourable member's interjection about the growth of government in Queensland-and in any other State, as well as at the growth of local government, because unless we as a nation get on top of the issue of the never-ending growth of government, we have no future. I will not go into the economic arguments today. The biggest challenge to our Westminster system is the growth of an executive government with a presidential-style overlay and the combination of the Ministry and the bureaucracy. That is what leads me to say that the future role of this Parliament is a major issue. The role of honourable members on both sides of the Parliament is a question that must be addressed for the future of democracy. The role of individual members is lessened day by day. One example is that Ministers do not have to answer the questions which members can place on the Notice Paper at any time on any issue. Indeed, a member of the public can have greater access to the Government under the freedom of information legislation than a member of this House can through the Notice Paper and the Parliament. That question needs to be looked at. I raise that just as an example; it is not a major point. We must look at the role of parliament in checking and monitoring the growth of government and ensuring that Ministers are accountable. As we know, governments are formed by the party with a majority in this House. In the case of the present Australian Labor Party Government, the Caucus elects its Ministry and the Ministry goes off and does its own thing with the Public Service and the bureaucracy. The emphasis has moved from this chamber to Caucus, when Labor is in power, or the party room when the Liberal Party-National Party coalition is in power. I do not think that there are effective measures in either of the party's systems to control the growth of government. The emphasis must move back to this chamber. The Government has to put in place a new committee system that can monitor the new departments about which we are talking today. In the time available to me I will refer briefly to the development of a new committee system and to an excellent paper which is one of a series that has been produced by successive Clerks of this House over the last 19 years. The paper quotes a former Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Glenamara, who said, in relation to the House of Commons in the United Kingdom: The balance of advantage between Parliament and Government in the day-to-day working of the Constitution is now weighted in favour of the Government to a degree which arouses widespread anxiety and is inimical to the proper working of our parliamentary democracy. That could not be more true. It is certainly the situation which we face as we debate the legislation today. There is a greater challenge for the Government and the Parliament to do something about it. I will go back to the opening speech of the Thirty-third Parliament in 1983, two parliaments ago. As we know, the Governor-General's Speech outlines the Government's program. In 1983, the Government promised us, through that Speech, that the committee system of the national Parliament would be strengthened to give members of Parliament a more effective role and participation in the great affairs of this nation. In the intervening period nothing has been done about that. Something needs to be done urgently. As a corollary to and not withstanding the deficiencies of this legislation an effective committee system needs to be put in place. I acknowledge, in fact, that the Government is still thinking about this and that it first thought about this in 1983. I understand that the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) who is in the House at the moment has had an opportunity in the parliamentary Labor Party Caucus to do something about it. He is chairman of a Caucus committee. I think the honourable member for Fraser has a great responsibility to persuade the Government to put in place a new committee system. Some of the comment in the Press about what the Government is doing in restructuring both the Senate and the House of Representatives committee systems has concerned me. Undoubtedly, the Senate will have its own say but, as I understand it, the Senate Estimates committees will be abolished and committees of both chambers running side by side will monitor the newly established departments. I think that there is a role for the Senate Estimates committees, for which I have great respect. I think also that there is a need for this House to develop its own Estimates committee system. It is a pity that the Estimates committee system that the Fraser Government introduced and later abolished was not continued-although there was a particular reason for its abolition that I will not go in to at present. There is an urgent need for committees to be put in place to monitor what is happening in government. I say to the honourable member for Fraser, who I understand is the chairman of that Caucus committee, that it is important that those parliamentary committees have power to determine their own references. As I understand the Press reports I have seen, the committees will have the power to act only on references given to them by the Government. That would make them an adjunct of, firstly, the Government and, secondly, the Government Caucus room. That would be a shame. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(11.17) —I am delighted to follow the words of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) because it gives me the chance to comment on the proposals for a parliamentary committee system. I am glad that he has been reading the Press and has noticed that the Government has taken action already to establish a new committee system. When the honourable member first began his speech I thought that he had not been reading the papers at all and had not noticed that these changes were well and truly under way. The Government has already announced that a new committee system is to be introduced into the House of Representatives and that changes to be made in the Senate will streamline its committee system. It is proposed not to abolish the Senate Estimates committees but to combine them with the Senate standing committee system. This will be a much more effective way of handling the Estimates because it will mean that the senators who are building up expertise in certain areas will be the ones who study the estimates for those areas. A parallel committee system is being proposed for the House of Representatives and the Senate which will ensure that there is good co-operation between the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is expected that these changes will be introduced into both chambers within a week or so of having been negotiated with the parties. It is quite clear that these committees will strengthen Parliament, a matter to which I will come back in a minute. The Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Administrative Arrangements Bill have four central features and it is on those features that I will concentrate my comments. The four features are ministerial restructuring and consequential departmental restructuring; the devolution of responsibility for personnel practice from the Public Service Board to departments; the effects of those changes on staff numbers; and some changes in the way employment policies are implemented. The first of those important aspects concerns ministerial restructuring. As the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) said earlier in his speech, that restructuring was very carefully planned-it was not pulled out of a hat a day or two after the election. A lot of work was done by Mr David Block and the group associated with him to prepare very carefully for that restructuring. Certainly that restructuring was introduced decisively. No doubt it had to be introduced quickly in order to ensure that the changes proposed did not become bogged down in interminable debate. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) explained the rationale for those changes in his speech to the House on Tuesday. It is quite clear that honourable members on both sides of the House are supportive of the main elements of those proposals. Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in his response to the Prime Minister said that he supported the idea of senior and junior Ministers. The idea has been around for a long time. It is the practice in the House of Commons and some other parliaments. There are very good reasons why it is an appropriate system to introduce here. For example, it enables senior Ministers to keep an overview and to concentrate their attention on policy matters rather than getting bogged down in the minutiae of administering their departments which tends to happen if they do not have support from junior Ministers. The junior Ministers will be able to relieve senior Ministers of some of the vast volume of paper that they have to handle. They will also be able to share in the demanding process of explaining to the public what is going on by being able to take a share of public engagements. It is a very valuable system and one which I think will improve the quality of government. I think it will be very interesting to see how the system evolves now that it is in place. Also of course, this system ensures that all departments are represented in Cabinet-a very substantial advantage. It was a real problem for some smaller departments-the departments that were regarded as junior departments by previous Ministries-as they did not have access to Cabinet and were not represented directly. Under the new system every part of the Public Service and all areas of Public Service responsibility will be represented by a Minister in Cabinet which will ensure that their concerns are taken seriously. The change also ensures, of course, that Cabinet is of a manageable size. It simply is not possible for the total number of Ministers of 30 or so to meet effectively and to have effective discussion. This change will ensure that every ministerial responsibility will be represented in Cabinet but all those ministerial responsibilities will be covered by a group of manageable size. This represents an improvement, although some people may argue that even 18 Cabinet Ministers are too many. Obviously, it would be easier if the number were smaller but it would not be possible to have Cabinet representation of all parts of government if there were only, say, seven members of Cabinet. The administrative changes also have increased the total number of Ministers and for some strange reason the Opposition seems to have found this controversial. It seems to me absolutely desirable to increase the number of Ministers because that is one way of ensuring that the vast volume of work involved is spread across a larger number of people and that the complexity of policy is handled by a larger number of people. It ensures better scrutiny of every aspect of the Public Service and public authority activity. Surely that is what the Australian popu-lation wants. As the Prime Minister said, it really will enhance ministerial control over the Public Service. I think that is the central reason why the change is important. It also increases the accountability of the Public Service. The honourable member for Higgins said earlier that in some way these changes undermine the Westminster system. On the contrary, it seems to me that they enhance the Westminster system of government. They ensure that the Executive and the Parliament will be more directly in control of what happens in the public sector. Some people have raised the question of whether a system of junior Ministers is legally appropriate. Fortunately, an opinion on this was given only yesterday by a Federal Court judge. Mr Justice Beaumont handed down a judgment in the Federal Court of Australia yesterday upholding the appointment of more than one Minister to administer a department of state. He said that there is nothing in either the language of section 64 of the Constitution or the idea of responsible government which precludes the appointment of more than one Minister to admi-nister a department. So the way the Government has chosen to have senior and junior Ministers also seems to be legally appropriate. It is quite clear that combining departments into a group of 18 will enable economies of scale. The honourable member for Higgins questioned where those economies of scale would come from but it is not difficult for anyone to imagine that if we have 18 departments rather than 28 there will be economies of scale as they share administrative and personnel functions, libraries, travel organisation and a whole host of administrative tasks that have to be done in every department. If those tasks are being done by 18 groups of people rather than 28, certainly there will be economies of scale. That is why the Prime Minister was able to announce an expected reduction in the number of public servants of 3,000 in order-- Mr McGauran —He then hired another 3,000. Mr LANGMORE —Of course, to handle additional government initiatives. I will come back to that point in a minute. The new structure of departments and Ministers contains many logical links. I do not want to go through them in any detail, but a very important one is the linking of the areas of foreign affairs and trade, as the honourable member for Capricornia has already mentioned. It will strengthen the recognition of the economic dimensions of foreign policy; it will ensure that our foreign affairs and trade officials are co-operating effectively in the way they try to promote Australia's interest overseas. That is an entirely desirable amalgamation, and the need for such a change has been crying out for a long time. In fact it was one of the recommendations of the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, which reported in 1976. It is very good to see that the Government has accepted that recommendation. Of course there has been considerable turbulence within the Public Service during the restructuring phase. As the member for Fraser and the representative of many public servants, I am well aware of that. It is absolutely inevitable. It is to be regretted in some ways because there are personal costs. During the stage of the transfer of those departments, as they combine, there will inevitably be some insecurities and uncertainties and, even in the very short term some inefficiencies. But is seems to me that the long term benefits of these changes are so substantial that they far outweigh that initial turbulence. I think most people in the Public Service accept that, and certainly most of the people I have spoken to do. It is obviously too early to assess the impact of these changes as they were introduced only two months ago, but it seems to me highly likely that the new structure, provided it remains in place in the long term, will have substantial benefits for the whole of the Australian community. The second part of these changes involves the devolution of responsibility for personnel practices from the old Public Service Board to departments. That proposal was made by the Coombs Royal Commission. That Royal Commission was the most important inquiry into the Australian Public Service ever made. It handed down a superb report which was immediately neglected by the Fraser Government, to its everlasting shame. The implementation of the recommendations of that report would have led to improvements in the effectiveness of the Public Service at that time. We have had to wait another 10 years for the recommendations of that report to be taken seriously. David Block, the head of the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit of Proposed Successor Arrangements of the Public Service Board, set up by the Prime Minister, has paid high praise to the Coombs Royal Commission and said that many of the Unit's recommendations were based on its work. It is very good to see that that fine, careful and thorough work completed over a decade ago is now bearing fruit. Clearly there will be substantial benefits to the quality of personnel administration as a result of this devolution of personnel policy to departments. It is not difficult at all for people to understand that giving departments responsibility for recruitment, promotions and a whole host of other aspects of personnel policy will enable them to ensure that they are handling their personnel in ways that increases the effectiveness of service delivery. That will be the goal. It will simplify personnel administration, and I think it is one of the most important and valuable aspects of the administrative re-organisation. I do not think it in any way undermines the support for impartiality and equity and fairness in the way personnel policy is administered. A few people have expressed concern that it might. The Merit Protection and Review Agency is being maintained. Departments will have structures carefully built in to ensure that there is no special treatment or preference given to particular people on absolutely subjective bases. So the benefits are great indeed. As well, of course, the special government policies for equal employment opportunity are to be maintained. I will come back to that in a minute. The central aspects of the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit's proposals which are being implemented, to summarise them quickly, are: firstly, they devolve responsibility for operational personnel matters to the maximum extent to departments; secondly, they transfer responsibility for arbitration, pay and conditions to the Department of Industrial Relations; thirdly, they maintain equal employment, industrial democracy and occupational health and safety programs; and, fourthly, they devolve responsibility for management improvement programs to departments. So there are many very good initiatives. The third element of these changes concerns consequential reductions in staff numbers. The Prime Minister said in his initial announcement that it was estimated there would be staff savings totalling about 3,000 over three years. That demonstrates a clear commitment to improving efficiency, which everyone in the community clearly wants. The Government has guaranteed that every member of the Public Service whose job is affected will be transferred to another appropriate position. That process is now well under way. For example, the Public Service Board, which is one of the organisations most directly affected by these changes, has now nearly completed that process for non-Senior Executive Service people. Most staff members were transferred to other departments, but of the nearly 200 non-Senior Executive Service staff all but just over 20 have now been placed in other departments. That means that only about 10 per cent of people remain to be placed, which, given that it is only about two months since these changes were made, is a very substantial achievement. Of course these changes are entirely different from the wholesale destructive policies which the Opposition was proposing in the election campaign. It was proposing massive cuts in the Public Service. Opposition members could not seem to agree on exactly how many positions would have been lost, but it was somewhere between 18,000 and 54,000. Even if it were only 18,000, that would have had an enormously destructive impact on the quality and the range of services that the Government could have provided. It was a quite unprecedented and vicious attack on the effectiveness of the whole Public Service. It seemed to be motivated by a quite conscious hostility to the Commonwealth Public Service. It is one of the major outcomes of the election that the Opposition was not given the opportunity to make those destructive changes. In my electorate, I am glad to say, the vote for Labor went up quite substantially. Mr Price —You are a very good member. Mr LANGMORE —No doubt that was part of the explanation but I am sure also that part of the explanation was that people were protesting in the most effective way available to them against the wholesale destructiveness the Opposition was proposing. Mr Price —They have not got a heart. Mr LANGMORE —And Opposition members do not really care about the effectiveness and quality of public sector administration. Inevitably, all governments want to take new initiatives. Despite the severe constraints the Government has imposed upon itself in this Budget a small number of new initiatives will lead to some increase in recruitment of new staff, so the overall impact of a fall in staff due to the restructuring and the increase in staff due to new initiatives will be a very small fall in total staff numbers. All of these new initiatives are entirely desirable and I am sure supported by the great majority of the community. For example, one of the largest areas of recruitment will be in the Department of Social Security, where people will have to be taken on to administer the new family package and to ensure that social security fraud is avoided. Similarly, in the Australian Taxation Office several hundred people will be recruited to clamp down more effectively on tax fraud. There cannot be a single member of the community, except those who are involved in tax fraud, who would not applaud-- Mr Price —And in the Opposition. Mr LANGMORE —And in the Opposition, exactly, who would not applaud that change. These are very important initiatives. That is why there has been some increase in recruitment announced and why the net effect of tax cuts and increases will be a very small fall. I conclude by emphasising that these changes do not mean any undermining of the equal employment opportunity provisions. There was some uncertainty about that initially but it has now become absolutely clear that the Government is committed to maintaining equal employment opportunity. The Prime Minister has endorsed the maintenance of a monitoring capability for equal employment opportunities within the Public Service Commission. There is to be an identified equal employment opportunity unit and the Commissioner of the Commission has already made announcements to departments to ensure implementation of that policy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.37) —There are two Bills before the House. The Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2) will have the effect of increasing the Ministry from its former number of 27 to 30. The Administrative Arrangements Bill has two major effects. The first is to allow the appointment of more than one Minister to a department and the second is to amend the Public Service Act to abolish the Public Service Board and replace it with a commissioner. I wish to address my first remarks to the Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2). The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), to the complete surprise of his Cabinet, announced very quickly after the election on 11 July major restructuring of government departments and the Ministry. We are told, both privately and publicly, that it left a number of Ministers with something of a sour taste in their mouths. `What price the system of Cabinet?', I think Senator Button was heard to proclaim, when the Prime Minister can unilaterally declare changes in the portfolios and responsibilities of Ministers. One of the saddest, if not the funniest, stories to come out of that sudden change, without any forewarning by the Prime Minister to his Ministers, was the pitiful sight of the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) at the Prime Minister's Press conference asking journalists at the back of the conference room, `Well, do I still have a job? What are my responsibilities?'. It is rather remarkable that the Prime Minister should in such cavalier fashion destroy the concept of Cabinet solidarity and Cabinet consultation in a single stroke. Be that as it may, let us get to the substance of the changes. It has to be said at the outset that the increase of the Ministry from 27 to 30 is just part of this Government's obsession with big government. The Executive has been enlarged. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) has previously spoken about the consequences of that on the parliamentary system and the further encroachment of the Executive on the Parliament's rights. The enlargement has a number of practical consequences, one being the financial impact. The supposed financial impact, as stated in the memorandum accompanying the Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2), is that it will cost a further $97,752. Madam Deputy Speaker, who is kidding whom? Three new Ministers have been appointed and the Government is trying to tell us that it is going to cost $97,000. That $97,000 is simply their extra pay and allowances. What about all of their staff? What about their new entitlements to ministerial cars? What about their new travel arrangements and overnight allowances? It is an insult to the intelligence of members of this Parliament to be told that the cost of three new Ministers will be $97,000. Opposition members have estimated that the cost surrounding one Minister and his personal staff, including their travel entitlements, is about $300,000 minimum. The extra cost to the taxpayer for the appointment of these three new Ministers is about $1m. What are the taxpayers going to get for this $1m minimum? All they are going to get is a government which has been able to pacify, at least for the time being, the warring factions. That is the bottom line of this whole enlargement of the Ministry; to pacify the factions and to give jobs to the boys-excuse me, jobs to the girls, as we know that in the criteria laid down by the Prime Minister was a requirement that there had to be a certain number of women sitting on the front bench, regardless of their ability. This would allow some sort of political landscape throughout Australia encompassing sex or gender and territories. This is a con by the Government and it amazes me that the Press has not made more of it. What are these ministerial responsibilities? It is rather extraordinary. It escapes me how the Government can in good conscience hand out some of these responsibilities to some of these Ministers. The first and most obvious of these Ministers is Senator Ryan, the former Cabinet Minister for Education. Mr Sharp —What does she do? Mr McGAURAN —In reply to the honourable member for Gilmore, she has the responsibility in Cabinet, not the outer Ministry, of assisting the Prime Minister in relation to the status of women and the Bicentenary and generally across the portfolio. That must occupy all of five hours a week. Because of the avalanche of criticism that followed her token appointment as a Cabinet Minister, she was then given a number of responsibilities to assist the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). It is a long list which amounts to very little. Senator Ryan is from the Centre Left; that is part of the factional deal. The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples) is a junior Minister to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). He is from the Left. That has to be taken into account. What are his responsibilities? They are consumer affairs alone, which is largely a State responsibility with a tiny Federal involvement. For heaven's sake, Madam Deputy Speaker, one only has to read his responsibilities to realise what a mickey mouse portfolio he has, and what an extravagant cost to the taxpayer for the buying of factional peace. I pluck out another mickey mouse ministry-although there are several I could concentrate on-the ministry of Senator Robert Ray, who is the Minister for Home Affairs. His responsibilities rival in time, pressure and demand those of the Special Minister of State, Senator Susan Ryan. His responsibilities include electorate matters, the fixing of the boundaries no doubt; parliamentary ministerial services, which is just really the paying of salaries and allowances to parliamentarians; information co-ordination, whatever that means; the Australian Archives; and honours and national symbols policy. If Senator Ryan is going to be occupied for five hours a week with her responsibilities then Senator Ray is going to be occupied on his for two hours a week. It is an extravagance by the Government. The Ministry has been enlarged only to satisfy the factional competitiveness within the Government which at one stage threatened to break into open warfare. The cynicism of the Prime Minister, his political opportunism, came to the fore very clearly-mind you, after the election-when he demanded that women, Queenslanders and different factions all have representation in his Ministry. So the Ministry was not chosen on ability, by any stretch of the imagination. No member of the Government, either on the front or back bench, would pretend that to be the case. Why else would a person like Senator Reynolds be included in the Ministry? It has led to people of genuine ability within the Government being left out. Right wing members, such as the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), who are men of some ability-limited ability, but some ability-have been left out. Because the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), being a woman, had to be included, the poor old honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), who was tipped to be included, was left out. The honourable member for Bendigo or the honourable member for Maribyrnong could have been selected in her place. So the honourable member for Canberra will be a Minister purely because of her gender. I wonder how her colleagues feel about that. Of course Senator Ryan, being a woman, had to be included in the Cabinet. How does Senator Peter Cook, the convenor of the Centre Left faction, feel about that? He should be a Cabinet member. It is sad that those Ministers have been held up to ridicule. They have been described as being token Ministers. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I refer the honourable member to the fact that we are debating the Ministers of State Amendment Bill and the Administrative Arrangements Bill. I suggest that he not refer any further to personalities whilst debating this matter. Mr McGAURAN —With respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are debating the Ministers of State Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend the Ministers of State Act 1952 by increasing the maximum number of Ministers of State from 27 to 30. I submit that I am perfectly entitled to speak about the reasons for that enlargement and to put forward my views as to the competence or otherwise of those Ministers. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member can submit whatever he likes. The Chair is aware of the title of the Bill which we are debating. I again refer the honourable member to the fact that he should not go deeply into personalities. Mr McGAURAN —Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to your advising members of the Government of that same ruling not to go into personalities. It has been argued by Government members, in support of the enlargement of the Ministry, that there will be better scrutiny of the Public Service and that it will enhance the control of the Executive Ministers over their sibling public servants. How will that be done? We are not told. No argument has been made out in support of the fact that there will be greater control. It is simply argued that, as a natural consequence of having more Ministers, there will be better control. That is the oldest trick in the book, as every junior public servant would know. The explosion of the size of government in this country remains unchecked under this Government. The Public Service will always let the Government think it has control, but whether, in reality, it has is a different matter. So the Government should not insult the intelligence of Opposition members by asserting in this Parliament, without any evidence, that because it will increase the size of the Ministry it will have greater control over public servants. In fact, I could assert just as easily that the reverse applies: the more Ministers there are, the less control the Government has, because there is more hiding away in all of the corridors of our Public Service. It is simply a matter of throwing good money after bad. I welcome, of course, the reduction in the number of departments from 28 to 18. That is a step in the right direction. But I do not support for a moment-nor does the Opposition-the need for further Ministers. It calls into question the whole approach of this Government towards the reduction in the size of government. I turn to the second piece of legislation that we are debating. This will have, as I said earlier, two effects. The first is to allow the appointment of more than one Minister to a department. We now have this system of senior Ministers with overall responsibility for a portfolio who are assisted by a junior Minister. It seems that there is no real legal question as to the constitutional validity of the proposal. There has been some discussion and a number of opinions have been put forward, but it seems that the question can be resolved under section 64 of the Constitution, to allow more than one Minister to administer a department. Therefore, a junior Minister can be appointed to assist a principal Minister. I wish also to look at the second change that this legislation will bring about. It will, of course, amend the Public Service Act 1922 to allow for the establishment of an office of a commissioner in place of the Public Service Board. There have been a number of concerns in recent months over the size of the Public Service. They have been voiced largely in the media as well as in this Parliament. As always, the Government has sought to act quickly because of the mountain of criticism that has built up; so much so that about two months ago the Prime Minister made a statement that over the next couple of years the number of public servants would be reduced by 3,000. In fact, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech on Tuesday night maintained this fiction, or better still maintained this lie, because at page 7 of the Budget Speech he stated: The Prime Minister recently announced a major restructuring of Commonwealth departments. These changes are estimated to produce savings of $107 million in a full year and to cut 3,100 off staffing levels by 1988-89. That is a very worthy objective and one that would have the total endorsement of the Opposition. Pages 82 and 83 of Budget Paper No. 1 show a decrease in the number of public servants over the next couple of years to the tune of about 3,000. But immediately following that, under the heading `Increases' one sees an increase of 3,077 public servants. There has been no net loss to the Public Service. How the Treasurer can lie about savings of $107m is beyond me. Mr Willis —Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the expression being used by the honourable member. It is quite unparliamentary. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -The honourable member will withdraw the unparliamentary expression. Mr McGAURAN —I withdraw my charge that the Treasurer is a liar. I say instead that the hypocrisy of the Treasurer's statement is mind boggling. He maintains that savings of $107m can be obtained by a reduction of 3,100 in the number of public servants. Yet buried deep inside the Budget statements-far removed from the bland, straightforward, short Budget Speech-is the evidence of another 3,077 public servants being hired. So there is not a net gain and not a net loss. Mr Ian Cameron —What about the ID card? Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Maranoa interjects, the hiring of these 3,077 public servants does not take into account-- Mr Sharp —The 2,000. Mr McGAURAN —The minimum 2,000 public servants required to be hired to administer the ID card, the data processing banks and all the fraud associated with the proposal. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is again out of order, this time on the point of relevance. We are not discussing the Australia Card Bill. In fact, that Bill is not before the House and must not be debated at this time. Mr McGAURAN —Madam Deputy Speaker, I make only that brief reference to the ID card to demonstrate that further public servants will be hired in the near future. Mr Porter —Hear, hear! You are quite in order to do so. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —He is out of order to do so, and I will thank honourable members-- Mr Porter —With respect, the Bill before the House is the Administrative Arrangements Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to speak to the Chair? Mr Porter —I certainly do, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill before the House has to do with the administrative arrangements of the Public Service. The honourable gentleman is referring to just that-the administrative arrangements of the Public Service and the fact that the Government has already indicated that it intends to employ not only 3,000 public servants under this Bill but also another 2,000 public servants. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is out of order. He is trivia-lising the Standing Orders of this House. I have ruled on the matter regarding the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr McGAURAN —I am concerned that the apparent euphoria with which the media has greeted the Treasurer's Budget Speech of last Tuesday has obscured the true implications of Government policy. I am at a loss to understand why the media has not picked up this one aspect. Honourable members will remember that when the Prime Minister made his statements two or three months ago and put forward the proposal to reduce the size of the Public Service, we even had the Australian Council of Trade Unions calling for a diminution of the role of the Public Service. So the Prime Minister reacted to the public criticism. Now that he has put forward, in classical Yes, Minister style, a series of proposals and inquiries, the media goes to sleep. Here we have evidence of the duplicity of the Government staring the media in the face. Over the last 4 1/2 years the Government has increased the number of people employed under the Public Service Act by 15,000. When we take into account the increases in statutory authority employment, we find that the total Public Ser-vice has increased by at least 33,000. This is not an exercise in attacking public servants. All of us know that the majority of public servants are engaged in dedicated work. But we will not bury our heads in the sand. Is anybody saying that over 4 1/2 years we needed an extra 33,000 people to administer government in this country? Is anybody to trust or believe the Government when, for political reasons, it announces changes to the Public Service structure, but in reality none occurs? Is anybody to believe that the increase of a Ministry from 27 to 30 was on any basis other than to pacify the factions and to satisfy a political agenda? I say to the Government: Do not come into this chamber with this manufactured exercise in deceit. If it came into this chamber with real reforms in the Public Service and with real changes in government administration, it would find this Opposition more than willing to support it on every aspect. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(11.57) —It is not surprising that the Government is concerned about the structure and operation of Commonwealth administration as it exists today, particularly given the size of the Federal public sector as it now exists. At the time of the last Federal election, total Commonwealth employment was some 433,000 people. Of those, 174,000 were in the Australian Public Service, with another 259,000 employed in the various Commonwealth statutory bodies. Of course, that is a very substantial proportion of our total work force of six million people. If one measures the growth of the Federal public sector under this Labor Government, one finds that since the Government was first elected in March 1983 through until the last election, total Commonwealth employment grew by 31,800 people, or 8 per cent. This contrasts very markedly with the total growth of the Federal public sector of only 2 per cent under the last Liberal Government. So we have 2 per cent over seven or eight years compared with 8 per cent over only four years. It is not surprising that the Labor Government is now very concerned to do what it can to improve the operational efficiency of the Commonwealth public sector. Of course, the Opposition supports certain aspects of what is being proposed in the Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Administrative Arrangements Bill. One has to say that, in the notion of departmental rationalisation or the creation of mega-ministries, certain benefits will accrue to the Commonwealth and, thereby, to the taxpayer. There are also a number of considerable dangers in these proposals. The most fundamental danger is how political and, for that matter, proper administrative control will be exercised over the new mega-ministries. Australia is not the first country to try this approach. We always seem to pick up these sorts of proposals about 10 or 15 years after someone else has tried them and quite often failed in adopting them. The United Kingdom picked up the mega-ministry approach many years ago. It certainly worked effectively in that country in certain regards. But as any episode of Yes, Minister or, more latterly, Yes, Prime Minister clearly indicates, there are significant problems in actually controlling and managing those mega-ministries. Certainly the additional number of Ministers might help to a degree in that management task. Nevertheless, when we substantially increase a single unit of Commonwealth administration at the top level, it becomes a much more difficult exercise to run that organisation. The other area that I wish to address in the debate today is the matter of fragmentation of the personnel and finance functions of management that is proposed in the set of Bills now before the House. I remind the House that what is proposed in these Bills and in some of the announcements that were made prior to the bringing down of the Bills is that the Commonwealth Public Service Board will be abolished and will be replaced by an Office of Public Service Commissioner. It is expected that that Office of Public Service Commissioner will handle recruitment and certain other general aspects of personnel policy; that the Department of Finance will take over a number of elements of classification and organisation; and, finally, the industrial relations function in relation to personnel management will go to the Department of Industrial Relations. I must express some disquiet about the fragmentation of these functions. The whole essence of what the Government is supposedly on about in this legislation is adopting what has been called in this debate by a number of speakers preceding me a more strategic approach to the overall structure and running of the Commonwealth Government. But I see the fragmentation of those functions as being something different. There is nothing new about the matter of establishing an Office of Public Service Commissioner. In fact, that is turning the clock back several decades. Before the Second World War we had an Office of Public Service Commissioner with much more limited authority than the Commonwealth Public Service Board has. In that regard I think the proposals are reactionary rather than moving into the future. Of course, the Opposition fully supports the notion of delegating a number of minor or routine matters in the personnel and financial management area to the various departments. There is much merit in that. If honourable members go to the policy that we put forward to the Australian people prior to the last Federal election, they will see that we too have taken that approach. But to break up and to shatter the macro-functions of personnel and financial management in relation to the Federal public sector has to be something of considerable concern. If honourable members look carefully at what we put forward to the Australian people prior to the last Federal election, they will see that, although we accepted the notion that the functions of the Commonwealth Public Service Board had become outdated, we thought that those functions should be concentrated in a new department of finance and management. We saw considerable benefit in bringing together a number of aspects of personnel management and financial management in the one department, because they have been separated for a long period. Of course, it leads to a number of structural difficulties in the Commonwealth Public Service in resolving personnel and financial problems when the financial side is in one area and the personnel side is placed in another. We certainly see considerable merit in bringing those together. But we believe that fragmenting the overall personnel and financial functions between three bodies-that is, the Office of Public Service Commissioner, the Department of Finance and the Department of Industrial Relations-will create considerable problems. In fact, we see those problems arising in two particular areas. First, it is fundamental to the operation of management in the Federal Public Service that we cannot separate a number of the functions that are currently being broken up. For instance, there is an intrinsic link between the classification and organisation function and the industrial relations function. Much of what is determined and laid down in the classification and organisation area is a direct result of negotiations that may take place in the industrial relations area. It is quite artificial to think that these two functions can be separated. By fragmenting the functions in this way we run the risk of developing over a period differing standards and approaches about things within the various departments of Commonwealth administration. At the micro level there can be much benefit in that in some of the bonus schemes that have been tried out in various departments, such as the Department of Transport and Communications. When we develop quite differing standards at the general level over a period we may well find that there is a breakdown of the whole concept of a unified career service. That will make the task of moving people between departments extremely difficult and it will add substantially to the problems of management in the Federal Public Service. It breaks down further the whole strategic approach. It is not, in fact, a strategic approach; it is a spaghetti approach because we are breaking up all these functions between a number of different organisations. The other area I have to express concern about is the placing of industrial relations functions in relation to Commonwealth administration in the Department of Industrial Relations itself. That Department has a very long history of close association with the union movement, including the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), and has generally been notorious, over a period of several years, for going soft in discussions and negotiations with the union movement. I have no doubt that it has been one of the long held objectives by the ACTU to break down the vigour and force with which the management side of the argument is put on industrial relations matters as they affect Commonwealth administration. In fact, by placing the management of the industrial relations function in the Department of Industrial Relations one is setting up almost an incestuous arrangement between people who, to my mind and to the minds of many other people, are far too close to the union movement. To take up the option that was proposed in the policy put forward by the Opposition in the last Federal election, which was to re-establish the Public Service Arbitrator in that particular role and allow the proposed department of management and finance to take the management side of the argument in industrial relations matters, would be a far more effective way of looking after the interests of the Commonwealth and the taxpayer in industrial relations matters. Setting up this strange, incestuous relationship where the Department of Industrial Relations, with its close links with the union movement, will also be putting the management side of the argument in industrial relations matters as they affect the Federal Public Service and statutory authorities, is quite dangerous. I think the interests of the Commonwealth and the taxpayer will suffer accordingly. Although we see merit in a number of things that the Government is proposing in the Administrative Arrangements Bill, we have to express grave disquiet about a number of those proposals. Firstly, the workability and practicability of actually setting up these mega-ministries, though desirable in some respects, will add to the problems of political and administrative control over these major departments. In relation to the fragmentation of personnel and financial management functions we should be very concerned that if those arrangements are spread between the new office of the Public Service Commissioner, the Department of Industrial Relations and the Department of Finance it will break down the cohesion of those functions. Where as a major personnel problem within the confines of the Public Service Board previously may have been resolved by one set of decision makers or, under the Opposition's proposal of a new department of management and finance, resolved by the decision makers in that department, the personnel involved will now have to stumble through three Commonwealth organisations, that is, the new office of the Public Service Commissioner, the Department of Finance and the Department of Industrial Relations, to try to fix up the one matter of general personnel policy. I think that will lead to a lot of confusion and a waste of time and it will not help the overall functioning of the Service at all. In fact, it departs from the strategic approach the Government is supposedly taking in this area. I reiterate, finally, that there is special concern about putting the representation of the Commonwealth's point of view on industrial relations with the Department of Industrial Relations. I think that is an incestuous arrangement and it will operate to the detriment of the taxpayer and to the detriment of the interests of the Commonwealth. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(12.11) —in reply-In concluding this debate, I thank honourable members for their contributions. I will respond to a couple of points that have been made by the Opposition. I think a number of points that have been made have been very effectively responded to by speakers on this side of the House. I congratulate the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) and the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) for their contributions. The major point that has been made by the Opposition relates to staffing matters. But before I get to that let me say, firstly, that clearly the intention of the Government in undertaking the measures involved in both the Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Administrative Arrangements Bill is to achieve two crucial objectives: one is to increase the efficiency of the Public Service in Australian Government employment and the other is to increase the capacity of the Ministry to control the bureaucracy and the output of Australian Government employees. Those are both extremely important objectives. No one in this debate has opposed them. However, I find it curious in the extreme that members of the Opposition have supported those objectives and have then seen fit to announce that they will oppose the increase in the number of Ministers involved in the Ministers of State Amendment Act. The increase in numbers is part and parcel of the process of trying to ensure that the Ministry has a greater capacity to control the bureaucracy and to ensure that it is achieving the objectives established by the Government. It is, I believe, a small proportional increase in the number of Ministers. There was a time under a previous conservative government when there were 27 Ministers and six Assistant Ministers. We are not going back to 33 Ministers; we are increasing the number from 27 Ministers to 30 Ministers. Those additional Ministers are important in enabling us to achieve our objectives. The reduction in the number of departments from 28 to 18 is a very substantial change in the administration of the Australian Public Service. In our view it will produce very substantial efficiencies. Along with the abolition of the Public Service Board it is very much in line with steps that are being taken internationally and, indeed, within this country in both the public and private sectors. The process of reducing centralised control and devolving responsibility to managers has become a very strong development in the private sector with many corporations seeking to diminish the size of their central offices and to run very lean central management organisations despite the fact that they control huge empires. That is also something which we believe is capable of application in the Australian Public Service. Indeed, that was very much the view of Mr David Block in his review of the Public Service Board and the structures which could replace it. The whole approach is built, as the honourable member for Fraser mentioned, on the logic of the report of the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, which was a major review of the Australian Public Service conducted during the period of the Whitlam Government's administration. Unfortunately, that report was not carried through by the Fraser Government which came into office soon after that report was produced. It is a major report with which the reforms now being undertaken are in line. As Mr David Block mentioned in his review of the Public Service Board's restructuring, Dr Coombs and his Commission were years before their time. I think it is highly appropriate that some of the directions that that report was indicating should be followed are, indeed, being followed by the steps which the Government has taken through the announcements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about the restructuring to which this legislation relates. The major point that has been made relates to staffing. The Opposition has been saying through a number of speakers in this debate that there is some duplicity by the Government in saying that it will achieve savings of some 3,000 personnel through the changes to the administrative arrangements by reducing the number of departments. At the same time, we are increasing staffing numbers for a number of departments so that the overall saving is much less than 3,000. Let me say a few things about that. Firstly, the fact is that in 1987-88 there will be various factors bringing about reductions in the size of the Public Service. One of those is the changes in the machinery of government, that is, the changes in the number of departments and the rearranging of departments. That will produce savings in 1987-88 of 1,335 staff years. The rest of the 3,137 will be realised in the subsequent financial year. There are other factors which will also bring about reductions in the size of the Public Service. The efficiency dividend which we have implemented, which we began at the level of one per cent, is a requirement on all departments to become more efficient in the course of the year, to show a productivity dividend or an efficiency dividend and to make do with less. That is an appropriate requirement by Government to impose, and we have increased that from the original one per cent to 1.25 per cent. This year, that will lead to aggregate savings of 1,600 staff years. That is an ongoing process. The efficiency dividend will be there next year and the year after, and it is something which the Government sees as an important means of ensuring that managers specifically put their minds to becoming more efficient and ensuring that the Service demonstrates efficiency increases year by year. We do not say that that is the only way in which efficiency can be achieved, but it is an important way. Separately from the efficiency dividend, we require that efficiency gains from major automatic data processing (ADP) and other investments will continue to be brought to separate account. As the Budget Paper indicates, efficiency gains from any second tier increases-the trade-offs-will be separately taken into the account. We are looking at a number of factors that will produce staff savings. We have not taken account of the number of efficiency savings from trade-offs in the second tier specifically for that or for the ADP savings, but the efficiency dividend factor is there of 1,600. There are also the efficiency scrutinies which are being undertaken by Mr Block's Efficiency Scrutiny Unit. That will provide significant staff savings in 1987-88 of 550 staff years, rising to 1,200 in 1988-89 for the efficiency scrutiny that has been undertaken so far. Other scrutinies will be undertaken, and so we have these ongoing processes which are bringing about a leaner, tighter, more efficient administration. The machinery of government changes-the changes to administrative arrangements-is only one of a number of factors which the Government has instituted and which are bringing about a far more efficient Public Service than we inherited from the previous Government. This is enabling us to arrest the growth of the Public Service, and to reverse it and start to achieve some reduction. We are not dedicated to reducing numbers by specific proportions each year. Obviously, one has to take account of what needs to be done by government and what it is appropriate for government to do. If there are cost effective steps to be taken by the Government in a particular year which involve additional staff in particular departments, we shall have to get that additional staff. So it is the case-there has been no attempt to hide it at all in any statements that have been made by the Government in the Budget Papers or anywhere else-that there will be some areas of staff increases and those are in the areas where we believe that the activities involved are appropriate for the Government. A number are relevant to achieving greater efficiencies. For instance, in relation to the child support scheme, we are here introducing a major change to maintenance arrangements which I think all parties would agree is an appropriate change to make, but it simply requires a lot of staff to introduce. The same is true also of Australian Taxation Office staff increases. Those staff increases which have already occurred there, and those which are proposed this year, in our view are highly cost effective. They will produce far more revenue than they will cost in terms of the salaries of those employees. One of the major features of this year's Budget is the immense dividend that this Government and this nation are achieving from the base-broadening measures implemented by the Government in respect of the Taxation Office. These are bringing about a large increase in revenue as the people who were previously able to avoid tax can no longer do so as a result of the base-broadening measures. They involve some extra staff, but who could argue that this is not a cost-effective approach? The overall situation for this year is spelt out in the Budget Papers and it is that there will be decreases of almost 3,500 through the machinery of government changes, through the efficiency dividend and through efficiency scrutiny measures which will apply this year. However, there will also be some increases of just over 3,000 through the various decisions to increase numbers in some departments for necessary purposes. Overall, we have a reduction in the number and, very importantly, if we had not taken the machinery of government changes and introduced the efficiency dividend or the efficiency scrutiny process, we would not be reducing the numbers by a few hundred but increasing them by a few thousand. That is the real situation. There is a genuine saving of over 3,500 through the measures taken by this Government in those three areas to which I have referred. There will be no gainsaying the fact that those are highly appropriate steps that we have taken, all of which will produce further savings next year and therefore will produce substantial benefits in terms of efficiency and cost savings for the Government and the nation. I reject completely the Opposition argument that there is any duplicity or deception about the numbers. The reduction of numbers is there. The efficiencies are being achieved. As the honourable member for Fraser mentioned, in the Public Service Board area, where there are 350-odd to be redeployed, some 250 are already redeployed, and we expect that the other 100 or so will be redeployed in the very near future. The process of putting in train the very complex changes involved in restructuring the Australian Government's administration is going ahead in an effective and efficient way. We are quite sure that the efficiencies and staff savings set out in the Budget will be achieved. We shall have a better, tighter, more efficient Public Service as a result of these steps and of the steps involved in the Ministers of State Amendment Bill, which is part and parcel of the overall approach. All this is undoubtedly, in our view, very much in the interests of the Australian people. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Prosser, G. D.Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Webster, A. P.Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hewson, J. R. Woods, R. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Brown, Robert Macphee, I. M.Morris, Allan Sullivan, K. J.Hayden, W. G. McVeigh, D. J.Duffy, M. J. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Consideration resumed, on motion by Mr Willis: 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 Willis) read a third time. Debate resumed from 15 September, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Privacy Bill 1986 with the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr REITH(Flinders)(12.34) —The House today is resuming debate on the privacy Bills. The first Bill, the Privacy Bill 1986, sets up certain principles in regard to privacy and the second Bill, the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill, deals with consequential amendments particularly relevant to some changes to the freedom of information legislation. The title `Privacy Bill' really does not tell the full story because the reality is that these Bills are not about privacy; they are about hypocrisy. Someone once said that if a person told a lie that was big enough then that was the way to proceed-propaganda, and this legislation is all about propaganda. The Bill is part and parcel of the Australia Card Bill-a Bill which was introduced to bring about the identity card. The Privacy Bill is part and parcel of that legislation, which takes away people's rights. My predecessor as shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), said so well when this matter was debated last year: . . . the Government speaks of the need to protect privacy while it legislates to destroy it. That is what the Bills are all about. They are just a farce, a mirage-a suggestion that this Government is interested in privacy when it has the Australia Card on the agenda for discussion and debate. The Privacy Bill is just an appendage to the Australia Card Bill. This Bill has been brought back so it can be debated this week, immediately after the Australia Card legislation, because it is just that-an appendage to the Australia Card Bill. Last year, when the Australia Card Bill went through for the second time, the debate was guillotined. The debate on the Privacy Bill was guillotined straight afterwards. We have not even debated the Privacy Bill twice, as we did the Australia Card Bill. That is how subsidiary it is to the main legislation. The whole thing, the Data Protection Agency in particular, is just a bureaucratic front; it is just part of the political process to try to persuade people that everything will be all right with the Australia Card Bill. The legislation provides for the appointment of people to the Data Protection Agency. A clause in the enabling legislation suggests that a judge may be appointed as the head of the Agency. The clause is inserted on the basis that people would expect a judge or someone of that status in the community to hold the position. I was amazed to find, at the bottom of one of the Government's Press releases announcing its Cabinet and Public Service reshuffle, the announcement of the appointment of the head of the Agency. I would have thought that, if the Data Protection Agency was so high on the Government's list of priorities and so important as a means to protect people's privacy, the Government would have searched the world for the best possible person to put up as the head of the Agency. But, no, the reality of this came through, because when the Cabinet reshuffle took place and the departmental arrangements were rearranged, the Government found that it had someone who was excess to requirements. Some bright spark said, `Do not worry; we will just shove this departmental person in as the head of the Data Protection Agency'. That was all too convenient, and it is a very clear statement of the real attitude that this Government has to the importance of the Data Protection Agency. The Government's hypocrisy knows no bounds. I go back to 15 June 1984. The Attorney-General at the time, Senator Gareth Evans, said that the Government had looked at the Australian Law Reform Commission's report on privacy and would introduce a Bill or would make a statement to the Parliament. That was three years ago. There was all that pomposity and talk about great reforming Ministers, and what was the result? There was no legislation on the issue of privacy. There was no legislation whatsoever until the Government needed it to give a human face, a face of concern, to the Australia Card legislation. People such as the then Attorney-General parade their concern about law reform, but, quite frankly, the Attorney-General in the Fraser Government, Senator Durack, ought to leave those blokes speechless. He introduced legislation in respect of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and freedom of information-which this Government has pulled back on and restricted-and he introduced the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Bill. Those measures are concerned about people's real rights, not the airy-fairy promises and rhetoric but no action which we get from this Government. When the Bill was debated earlier, the debate was guillotined. The Government rammed the legislation through the House. That is an indication of how interested the Government was in privacy. I dare say that if the Government had other things to talk about, it would ram the legislation through on this occasion. Only two members of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) spoke on the last occasion. Having read their speeches, I doubt that they had even bothered to read the legislation. Yesterday we had a debate on the ID card. The debate took place yesterday because only the Senate's debates were broadcast then. The Government did not want the debate on the Australia Card to be broadcast to the people-and I do not blame it. Some members of the Labor Party, particularly those who are known to oppose the Australia Card, would have been embarrassed. It is no wonder that they did not want the debate to be broadcast publicly yesterday. That hypocrisy is no greater than the hypocrisy of the green and gold of the Australia Card. What an absolute disgrace to put the name `Australia' to that proposal. I will read from the ALP's 1984 policy speech, which, I dare say, is of only passing interest to honourable members opposite: The right to privacy to be protected by the laws of the Australian state and territory parliaments, and vigilant administration of those laws. That is just another ALP policy that went out the window. The ALP chucked out its own policy on uranium. Privatisation is another policy which the ALP has ditched in a masterful stroke of hypocrisy. Changes to the Public Service is another example. During the election we were criticised for our proposals to do something about the Public Service, yet, on the Monday after the election, many of the measures which we had put up and promoted were announced by the Government. The Government's reversal this week on negative gearing is another example. When the Government brought in negative gearing, it went up and down the country attacking the tax cheats. Yet this week it backed off. The Press says that that is smart politics and that the Government is clever. What I say is: hypocrisy is hypocrisy and it should be seen for what it is. Even though some honourable members opposite are opposed to the legislation, according to their public remarks, we know that they will vote for it. I think that the Australian people have some serious questions to ask of our parliamentary institutions and the rules which apply, particularly in the Labor Party. We all know as a matter of fact that if there were a free vote on such an issue, the Australia Card legislation would have been thrown out. It is as simple as that. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) and the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) have made their views pretty clear. They are ALP members. The letters from Senator Bolkus to his Caucus colleagues have been falling off the back of a truck and we know what his views are on this matter. The ALP Left had a meeting in the last few days to talk about its tactics to undermine the Government's strategy on the ID card legislation. Where is democracy when an ALP member who stands up and speaks for the constituents in his electorate who are strongly opposed to the proposal loses his endorsement and thus his seat? Honourable members opposite should wake up and take notice of what is going on. Their Caucus rules are a barrier to democracy in this country, particularly on this subject. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, will be absent from Question Time today and tomorrow. Mr McGauran —Why? Mr HAWKE —Because he is in Perth attending the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General of Australia. Even the honourable member may understand that that is an appropriate thing for Mr Bowen to be doing. I trust the honourable member can understand that, but probably that is beyond his comprehension. In the absence of the Attorney-General any questions relating to his portfolio should be addressed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Mr Staples. Questions normally directed to Mr Bowen, representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, should be addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin. Mr PEACOCK —I preface my question to the Treasurer by reminding him that in his Budget Speech, among other things he said: . . . we will be repaying $1,000m of Commonwealth overseas debt this year and the same amount of domestic bonds. In other words, the Treasurer is saying that he is repaying $2 billion of debt. I ask: In view of the fact that the Budget is allegedly balanced, how can the debt be retired? Mr KEATING —That can be achieved by the rollover of existing overseas debt which will not need to be refinanced and, in the domestic market, the overfunding of last year's Budget when we had a bond selling program to accommodate a Budget outcome in the course of the year which, at the end of the year, proved to be higher than we needed. Ms JAKOBSEN —I ask the Minister for Social Security whether he has seen today's Press reports that the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) is opposed to the planned child support scheme. Can the Minister inform the House how the scheme will affect employers? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for her question. The Confederation of Australian Industry has claimed that it is not part of the employer's role to co-operate in the automatic deduction of child maintenance from wages and that it discredits the garnishee orders system. It is true that there have been problems with garnishee orders with employees resigning to escape the orders. Under the current system the custodial parent must go back to get a new order-to garnishee the new wage from the new job-every time the parent who wants to escape his or her legal responsibility makes a move. The child support scheme will overcome that problem. Every time parents paying child support get new jobs, the Australian Taxation Office will be in contact with them. The new scheme is about making sure that separated parents pay their fair share towards the support of their children. The new scheme will be careful to avoid work disincentive. Child support will be determined on the basis of ability to pay. The collection system will operate in exactly the same way as the pay as your earn (PAYE) deductions. Employers will have the same legal obligation to deduct child support as they have to deduct pay as you earn tax deductions. Deductions will be made each pay day and will be the same amount each pay day. Employers will forward a cheque to the Tax Office each month on the same day that they send off their PAYE cheques. Employers will know only that an employee has a maintenance obligation and the amount of that obligation. They will not have the details of the identity or the number of children, the identity of the former spouse or any other personal information. In terms of employer resentment about involvement in private matters the child support scheme is really very little different from cases where, for example, employers make deductions from wages to cover items of a personal nature, such as loan repayments. The CAI claims that the scheme will be costly to set up. The scheme will not be costly when compared with the huge cost presently carried by the taxpayer in supporting children in cases where a parent has refused to do so. This, of course, is the whole point. I remember that when the Government first announced the child support scheme large organisations such as the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry made supportive statements because we were taking action to save taxpayers' money and to cut back on government spending. The Business Council of Australia still supports this scheme. Even though the Confederation of Australian Industry maintains, in principle, that employers should not be responsible in this matter, my information is that it has not identified any significant matter of concern in the planned operation of the new scheme. The Tax Office has been holding meetings with business around the country, including Coles, Myer, Westpac, the State Bank and Qantas, over the last three months and has not reported significant problems. I conclude by saying that this scheme is being introduced, on the one hand, to ensure that taxpayers do not have to carry the whole burden of support of sole parents in the community and, on the other hand, to attack a problem where 65 per cent or two-thirds of non-custodial parents have not been paying regular and effective maintenance. It will make a contribution to the Government's objective of seeking to eliminate child poverty within this country. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that average weekly earnings are projected to increase by 6.5 per cent in 1987-88 and that this is based in part on the assumption of: . . . second tier increases of up to 4 per cent flowing to the bulk of wage earners, but associated with negotiated productivity offsets. I ask the Treasurer: How can the expected poor productivity performance be reconciled with this rise in average weekly earnings? Mr KEATING —I answered that question yesterday, but for those honourable members who did not understand it I will go through it again. I made it clear yesterday that the implied increase in productivity by the simple deduction of employment from output-that is, making the broad national accounts assumptions about productivity-in fact hides much of what is happening in the economy in respect of productivity performance by individual industries. It assumes, as has been assumed in the past, that there is little or no productivity in some important sectors such as defence and finance. Given that in the course of the last couple of years we have seen extremely strong growth in service industries, particularly in the tourism industry, where productivity is low and pulls down the national average, one is in a sense seeing some distortion of the productivity measure. One can measure it only on a long term trend basis As I indicated yesterday, at this stage less than 10 per cent of the wage earners in the economy are receiving the 4 per cent increase determined in the national wage case. Therefore, there is not an implied full 4 per cent in the figures. However, as well as that, many of the restrictive work practices are being unwound and that will benefit the economy over time. That is coupled with the fact that this will be the fifth consecutive fall in real unit labour costs. It is one of the reasons why last year we saw a greater substitution of labour for capital maintaining the higher level of employment growth and which, of course, has been maintained this year as well. Obviously, in many of these industries in which there is implied low productivity there is no large capital base behind each unit of employment. Last year we saw a higher level of employment because of the five consecutive years of decline in real unit labour cost. That is a very good thing for the economy. Mr KERR —I draw the attention of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training to the fact that there is no senior secondary college located in the northern suburbs of Hobart and that the absence of such a college imposes considerable barriers to the children of the northern suburbs and the surrounding districts continuing their education after completing high school. I also draw the Minister's attention to the election promise made by the Gray Liberal Government during the 1986 Tasmanian election campaign to build a senior secondary college at Claremont in the northern suburbs. I ask: Is it a fact that the Tasmanian Minister for Education has recently written to the Minister seeking to transfer the cost of this election commitment to the Commonwealth? If so, has the Minister replied to that request, and in what terms? Can the Minister explain the policy of the Government? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for Denison for his question and make the observation that he is already performing brilliantly his functions of representing Tasmanians in this House. Mr Hawke —He is a big improvement on his predecessor. Mr DAWKINS —Yes, he is a very distinct improvement on his predecessor. This matter emerged because, as the honourable member said, during the last State election campaign the Gray Government promised to provide this secondary school in the northern suburbs of Hobart. During the recent Federal election campaign the President of the Tasmanian Teachers Federation raised with the Prime Minister the deficiency of secondary education facilities, and the Prime Minister simply expressed his concern about the matter. This was taken up by the Tasmanian Government and I have received a barrage of requests from Mr Peter Rae, the Minister for Education in Tasmania, suggesting that the Prime Minister's expression of some concern about the lack of secondary education facilities in Hobart was tantamount to a promise to provide $30m for such a secondary school. The important point here is that the provision of primary and secondary school facilities is essentially a State function. We will this year provide to Tasmania some $4 1/2m in capital assistance for the schools program, but it is up to the Tasmanian Government to determine the priorities for its capital program. It is very surprising that that Government has not accorded any priority to this particular project. It is perhaps worth noting as well that Tasmania does have the lowest secondary retention rate of any State, and of course we are concerned to work with the Tasmanian Government to try to improve the retention rate in that State. I have replied to Mr Rae, saying that it is about time he accepted his responsibilities and got on with providing this important facility in accordance with the Tasmanian Government's pre-election promise. I have written to him in those terms and I take this opportunity to table a copy of the letter. Mr HOWARD —My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the statement by Senator Ryan that there will be amendments to the identity card legislation, will the honourable gentleman advise the House what they are? Mr HAWKE —No. Mr BALDWIN —My question is to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to developments in the case of Mordechai Vanunu, currently undergoing trial in Israel, specifically: first, the claim that information provided by Vanunu has led some experts to calculate that as many as 200 nuclear weapons may have been assembled by Israel from weapons grade material produced at Dimona; secondly, allegations that the circumstances under which Vanunu was brought to Israel involved serious breaches of international law; and, thirdly, allegations of complicity by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) in Vanunu's abduction? Can the Minister provide any information bearing on these allegations, and has the Australian Government taken, or does it propose to take, any action in regard to these matters? Mr KERIN —The facts are these: a former technician, Mordechai Vanunu-an Israeli citizen who worked at the Israeli Dimona Nuclear Centre-made allegations in the London Sunday Times of 5 October 1986 that Israel has developed an arsenal of 100 to 200 nuclear weapons. We have no information to corroborate these allegations. The Israeli Prime Minister at the time these allegations were published, Shimon Peres, and more recently President Herzog, during his visit to Australia, both repeated that Israel would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East region. Australia has for many years consistently opposed the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Australia is concerned by the existence of unsafeguarded nuclear facilities in Israel as well as the existence of such facilities elsewhere in a small number of other States. We have consistently urged Israel and other non-signatories in the Middle East to join the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or at least to accept full-scope safeguards on their nuclear facilities. The Prime Minister raised the non-proliferation question with Israel during his visit to that country in January. Vanunu is now on trial in Israel for espionage and treason. As a matter of general policy, the Australian Government does not normally comment on the trial of a foreign national in his own state. We do not have reliable information concerning the circumstances under which Vanunu was brought to Israel, but obviously questions do arise about those events. Accordingly, we are not at this time in a position to comment on the propriety of Israel's action. There have been media allegations that ASIO was involved in passing on information which led to Vanunu's alleged abduction from Britain. The Director-General of ASIO stated on 10 August: I deny absolutely that ASIO provided information to any foreign agency on Mr Vanunu's departure from Australia. Mr HOWARD —In the light of the Prime Minister's answer to my previous question, will he confirm that there are to be amendments to the identity card legislation? Mr HAWKE —I am very happy to confirm here what I have been publicly reported as saying on many occasions: the Government has reintroduced the legislation which was previously passed by the House of Representatives on two occasions but not passed by the Senate. I have made it quite clear that for constitutional reasons that is the way in which the legislation will be presented to this Parliament, and I have made it quite clear that once the legislation is passed, as it will be after the Joint Sitting, the Government will be prepared to consider amendments which, on consideration, may even further strengthen the capacity of the Government to ensure the total privacy and security of the system. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for McEwen. Mr CLEELAND —Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is probably the first time that you have had to call a Government member to ask a question from this side of the House. It is a nice place to sit, I might add. My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the Minister assure members of the defence forces that the sale of the loan portfolio of Defence Force housing will not affect rentals currently being paid by serving members and their dependants? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. He is assiduous in the defence of the interests of his constituents. I think there is a mixture of two programs here. One program relates to housing loans and the proposed Government action which is currently being discussed with the Returned Services League and others. I think we will see emerge a very good scheme indeed and a very attractive one to serving personnel once that process of consultation has been completed. The upshot of that should, to some extent at least, relieve the burden of providing rental accommodation to a number of service members, as I suspect that many more of them will choose to purchase their own homes. But that is a separate question from the question of rentals for housing under the control of the Department of Defence. I suspect that the honourable gentleman's constituents were concerned about some Press reports that suggested that on a reading of the papers associated with the Budget there was an intention by the Government to charge serving personnel in defence houses full commercial rentals. That is based on a misreading of the relevant Budget paper, which said that the new Defence Housing Authority would charge Defence commercial rentals. Some people thought that meant defence personnel. It in fact means the Department of Defence and it is the basis on which the new Housing Authority will be funded. That is its operating capital. To the service personnel themselves the housing will continue to be rented on a subsidised basis as it has been in the past. Mr CADMAN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. If, as the Minister knows, his Department is up to 12 months behind in following up suspected illegal immigrants, how can the identification card expedite the apprehension of illegal immigrants? Also, are immigration officers prohibited from requesting the production of the identification card? Do officers face a fine of $5,000 or gaol if they make such a request of a suspect? Mr YOUNG —Obviously officers of my Department have no right to demand the production of an identification card. The Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs is not the department which will be in charge of the identification card, as the honourable member well knows. Employers will be requested to ask for the production of an identification card when a person is seeking employment. If the person does not produce the card, as the Minister for Community Services and Health said, he will be charged a higher rate of tax. That is the way it will operate. By matching the number of people who enter Australia with the number who leave we have an estimate-basically the number under the previous Government was the same as it is today-of between 50,000 and 60,000 people who are in this country illegally, not taking into account people who are overstaying visas issued to them. It is found that 60 per cent of those apprehended have been working illegally in this country. This shows that 30,000 people are working illegally in this country. The system of the employer demanding the identification card will give us some idea of whether these people can continue in employment. If we take away the basis of their support, which is their opportunity to work here illegally, we may take away also their opportunity of staying here any longer. Mr BLANCHARD —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the concerns in the community about the decision in the May statement to remove eligibility for a class A widow's pension and supporting parent's benefit for recipients whose youngest child is 16 years or over? What is the Minister doing to allay those concerns? Mr HOWE —These changes were introduced because, as the social security review had already pointed out, the only way in which sole parents can be sure of getting acceptable levels of income is through employment, especially if they do not have the care of young children. Women of work force age should be encouraged to plan for proper training and education to make a place for themselves in the work force. Secondly, the new limit was placed at 16 years in recognition of the substantially increased assistance for 16- and 17-year-old students from low income families. Austudy payments for 16- and 17-year-old students in secondary schools have increased from $22 a week in 1983 to $40 per week and the amount will be increased in January 1988 to $50 a week. The Government took action at the time of the May statement to protect women on benefit and in full time Austudy approved courses before 1 September 1986. That measure retained their entitlement to both Austudy and social security income support. On 28 August my colleague the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and I announced two additional measures to give those sole parents immediately affected by the May statement more time to adjust their plans for the future. Sole parents who lose their pension between 1 September 1987 and 31 December 1987 because of the May statement changes will retain eligibility for fringe benefits until the end of 1988. Sole parents in full time study and receiving a pension before September 1987 will be able to stay on the pension until they complete their current course. I am sure that it is understood-certainly by the honourable member for Moore-that the decision taken by the Government will cause some concern in the community, particularly to sole parents during the transitional period. That is why the Government has brought about these two additional measures particularly to assist in a time at which a new approach is being introduced. The approach is a somewhat sensitive one compared with that proposed by the Opposition in the course of the election campaign when it was suggested that a coalition government would reduce to 10 years the qualifying age of the youngest child for the sole parent to be eligible for benefit. The Government understands that if we are to achieve a situation in which sole parents are much less in poverty in the future than they have been in the past in this country we need to increase and improve access for sole parents to the work force. That is the policy direction in which this Government has set its face. We have done more in terms of child care-crucial for sole parents-than any previous Government. We have eased income tests, particularly with respect to poverty traps, again of major benefit to sole parents. We have introduced a family package which will result in very significant improvements in income support for sole parents with young children. We are giving sole parents a priority in a way they have never had before in terms of education and training programs. We are introducing a child support scheme, which I referred to earlier in Question Time, which will mean that non-custodial parents will be required to pay effectively maintenance at an adequate level for the first time. The Government is very concerned about sole parents. It is concerned about the transition to these new arrangements. I have indicated we will monitor them very carefully, but we are also tough-minded enough to believe that without policy changes perhaps the vast majority of sole parents in future will be living in poverty. That is unacceptable. We believe that sole parents deserve access to a decent standard of living and that is what the Government is about. Mr McGauran having addressed a question to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The question is out of order. The Minister is not responsible to the House on that matter. Ms FATIN —Can the Minister for Community Services and Health tell the House how women in Australia will be affected by the Budget proposals for mammography and cervical cancer screening programs? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Brand for her question, which reflects her continuing interest in the development of health policies for women in this country. As honourable members will probably know, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in women in this country, affecting one in 15. Therefore, mammography screening is a vital preventive tool in dealing with this form of cancer. In association with the States, we will be developing cost-effective and properly targeted programs to develop the best ways of providing mammography screening in this country. We have put aside money in the Budget this year which will be used in co-operation with the States to evaluate such programs. Cervical cancer is another major health concern. The pap smear screening system is a vital preventive weapon. Our concern is the apparently limited use of such screening, particularly in rural and isolated areas. We will develop, in co-operation with the States, teams to move around rural areas and provide such screening for women in more isolated situations. Again, money has been provided in the Budget to work with the States to develop such screening programs. Mr BEALE —My question is directed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. Is it a fact that within the last 18 months a tender application by Amann Aviation for the supply and operation of two aircraft to the Victoria Police was rejected on the grounds that the company was unable to meet police requirements? Will the Minister confirm that the Australian Federal Police strongly cautioned his Department in early August that Amann, the successful tenderer for the coastal surveillance contract, and its associates would be completely unsuitable to operate Australia's Coastwatch? If so, why did the Minister not act immediately to terminate the contract and ensure that the nation was not placed in jeopardy? Mr DUNCAN —I understand that information of the sort that the honourable member has suggested in relation to the Victoria Police is around the place, but my Department was not aware of any such matter at the time that the tendering process was being undertaken. Certainly, that matter was not brought to the attention of the tender board and the other officials who were involved in that process at the time. At that time the Australian Federal Police were represented in the process-- Mr Beale —Did they caution the Department at all? Mr DUNCAN —My understanding of the situation from what I have seen of the documents is that they were part of the tender process, that there was not a caution of that sort-- Mr Beale —In August? Mr DUNCAN —There was not a caution of that sort during the time of the tender process. The result was that the Australian Federal Police were in favour of the recommendation that was subsequently made to the Cabinet which was acted upon. Mr Howard —You have not answered the question. Did your Department receive a caution in August? Madam SPEAKER —The Minister does not have to heed the interjections. Mr DUNCAN —At the time of the tendering process that was not known by the Department's officers. Mr JOHNS —My question is directed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. In light of the Government's goal that by 1990 no Australian child need live in poverty, what action is being taken in the consumer affairs area towards this objective? Mr STAPLES —I take this opportunity to welcome the honourable member for Petrie to the House. Mr Tuckey —How many suits have you got? Mr STAPLES —He is one of the many new Government members from Queensland; and one of many more to come. I thank him for the question. Mr Tuckey —Is that a ministerial suit? Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member for O'Connor that he has interjected about 10 times. The Chair is giving the honourable member a certain degree of latitude. I assure him that it will not continue. Mr STAPLES —As we all know, a wide range of factors contribute to the level of poverty in our society. These include family breakdown, indebtedness, low education levels and unemployment. Unfortunately, children are the most innocent victims of poverty in this country. Often they grow up without the means or skill to escape from the poverty cycle in which they find themselves. In the consumer affairs area it is proposed to combat poverty through greater attention being given both to consumer redress mechanisms and to consumer education, targeted specifically at disadvantaged consumers. The first proposal will ensure that those in receipt of low incomes obtain the easiest, the best and the cheapest resolution of disputes with the providers of goods and services. In co-operation with the relevant State and Territory authorities, consumer groups, community groups, business and unions, we will conduct a study to identify the success or otherwise of formal and informal mechanisms to provide more effective consumer redress, focusing particularly on small claims tribunals and consumer tribunals. Education activities will also be targeted at disadvantaged groups. These include the production of plain language material on the provision of credit, finance, interest rates and insurance. Emphasis will also be placed on the production of school curriculum material-again, in co-operation with State agencies. Information and access to information is obviously the key to effective consumer awareness. The people who most need this information and access to information are those in receipt of low incomes, those with a language disadvantage, particularly in literacy and non-English speaking backgrounds, and young people, who have least experience in this area. Much of the action directed at low income people will therefore be directed at information, such as a booklet in various languages on credit and money, curriculum materials, Aboriginal community videos and a directory of Commonwealth Government consumer services. I know that the Australian community supports this Government's commitment to the abolition of child poverty by 1990. The Government's commitment in this Budget of $500m in a full year means that there will be a lot of money in the community for these people. I hope that the Opposition will join the Government and support that commitment to abolish poverty and also ensure that the objectives to which I have just referred will mean that families in poverty get the best value and use for their money so that no Australian child will live in poverty by 1990. Mr HOWARD —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, is supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for Deakin. Will the Minister confirm that the Australian Federal Police strongly cautioned his Department in early August that Amann Aviation, the successful tenderer for the coastal surveillance contract, and its associates would be completely unsuitable to operate Australia's Coastwatch? If so, why did the Minister not act immediately to terminate the contract and ensure that possible unfavourable consequences to the country did not ensue? Mr DUNCAN —To put it quite simply; because at that time the Government had signed a binding contract with Amann-- Mr Howard —Answer the question. Mr DUNCAN —The result was that we were bound at that time-- Mr Howard —So they did? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr DUNCAN —Until such time as the matter which has given rise to the court proceedings- Mr Howard —Weren't you warned? I would just like a straight answer. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition cannot keep interrupting across the table. You have asked the question; you will await the answer and keep out of it. Mr DUNCAN —The Government was subjected to a binding contract which was not able to be breached or broken at that stage. Subsequently the Government was in a position where that could be done. Those matters have now led to the court proceedings, and I do not intend to say anything specific about that. Mr GEAR —Has the Prime Minister heard of calls for a referendum to decide whether an Australia Card should be introduced? Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether this is a common practice? What is the Government's response to it? Mr HAWKE —I have heard of these calls. They will not be heeded. Quite clearly, as I said this morning to some sections of the media, if people want to talk about introducing decibel democracy in this country, they are talking to the wrong Prime Minister and the wrong government. I remember two years ago that this motley, irrelevant collection opposite was leading the pack-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask for that remark to be withdrawn and I warn the Prime Minister: do not do it again! Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —Test me; test me. Do it again. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease shouting across the chamber. Mr HAWKE —As I was saying, I remember over the past few years this collection opposite leading the pack in this country with their hysterical propaganda against the assets test, against the fringe benefits tax and against the capital gains tax. As far as the mob opposite were concerned, those three issues were going to spell the end of freedom and democracy in this country. They led the pack with their irresponsible nonsense. If they had been successful and if we had then responded to this concept of decibel democracy-when honourable members opposite make a noise government stops governing and they run off to a referendum-we would not this day have a balanced Budget. We would not have a situation where the people of this country were being protected against the cheats and the frauds that the people opposite have so consistently protected. Honourable members opposite can make all the noise they like and they can go ahead with all the hysteria and misrepresentation they like. This Government has been to the people and it has had its majority increased. We will pass the legislation in regard to the Australia Card, and in the result, as the Australian people have been protected by our determination in regard to fringe benefits, in regard to the assets test and in regard to the capital gains tax, so they will continue to be protected by the determination of this Government. We will not give in to the Opposition's hysteria. Mr HOWARD —I ask the motley Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support to answer the question that he was first asked by the honourable member for Deakin. Will he confirm that early in August the Australian Federal Police cautioned his Department that Amann Aviation, the successful tenderer for the coastal surveillance contract, would be completely unsuitable to operate Australia's Coastwatch? Will he confirm that that advice was given to his Department, and not talk about what subsequently happened to the contract? Mr DUNCAN —I certainly do not intend to sink to the level of the Leader of the Opposition with his personal abuse. The way in which he sinks to personal abuse is an indication of why the Australian people have chosen to leave him on the Opposition benches. My understanding of the situation is that some time in August a minute was received by the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, or his Department, from the Australian Federal Police indicating-- Mr Beale —Why didn't you say so two questions ago? Madam SPEAKER —Do not interrupt. Mr DUNCAN —This minute indicated that the police had some concerns about Amann. I understand that that was one of the considerations upon which the Minister for Transport and Communications subsequently gave notice that time was of the essence in the contract. Quite clearly, at that time we did not have grounds for tearing up the contract. Mr Beale —With national security as grounds? Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Deakin. Mr DUNCAN —I presume that the honourable member has not seen the document from the Federal Police. Mr Sinclair —Well, table it. Mr DUNCAN —I do not have it to table it. Quite clearly, we have acted with propriety, within the law, to terminate the contract at the earliest possible time. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Treasurer. How do the economic and Budget outcomes for 1986-87 compare with the 1986-87 Budget forecasts? Mr KEATING —The Budget deficit for 1986-87 came in at $800m lower than the forecast. Growth was 2 per cent-slightly down on forecast, but for the right reason, which was a fall in domestic demand. The unemployment forecast was spot on. Our assumptions about world growth were dead right. The unemployment benefit recipients parameters were wrong the right way-we did 21,000 better than forecast. Last year the Leader of the Opposition, in his reply to the Budget, made the following criticisms of that Budget's projections, and I shall quote them: . . . the Budget deficit will blow out above the estimated figure of $3.5 billion. . . . heroic forecast for economic growth, the strength of the world economy and unemployment levels . . . . . . absurdly optimistic projections of economic and employment growth. As I said, we were slightly lower on economic growth, by a quarter of one per cent, and we were spot on on employment growth. He said: Unemployment is likely to rise well above the current level of 8.3 per cent. In fact, it came in at 8.1 per cent. He said: We are technically in recession. Yet the Government expects the world to believe that our economy will grow by over 2 per cent this financial year. The fact is that it grew at just on 2 per cent. So, despite the Leader of the Opposition's fervent hopes, Australia did not slump into recession in 1986-87, families were not cast into poverty through rising unemployment, and we continued to make major progress in overcoming our balance of payments constraint. In other words, the times did not suit the honourable member for Bennelong. It will be interesting to see what brave and heroic forecasts he has in his reply tonight to this year's Budget. Madam SPEAKER —I present, pursuant to statute, the report of the Auditor-General dated 17 September 1987 on audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit and other Acts-September 1987, and (2) That the paper be printed. Mr DUNCAN —(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)-For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Postal Commission's report on service and business review and outlook. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr DUNCAN —(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)-On behalf of the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, I present the explanatory memorandum to the Loans Bill 1987. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PEACOCK —I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PEACOCK —In the Melbourne Herald dated 16 September-namely, yesterday-in an article headed `Catching Libs off balance', Ms Kate Legge makes a number of allegations about me which I will not bother referring to-- Mr Brumby —They are all true, Andrew. Mr PEACOCK —I would not engage in that if I were the honourable member. He should listen to what is being said here. Madam SPEAKER —I will not have any interruptions, thank you. Mr PEACOCK —Among a number of allegations, Ms Legge alleges: But instead of doing the rounds like a bloodhound, Mr Peacock hosted drinks in a parliamentary committee room for at least part of the night. The clear implication of this article is that I did not do interviews with the Press, that I was attending a party after the Budget. I regard that as not only untrue, but also defamatory. There is a convention in this Parliament that after the Budget both the Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer host a function. From 8 p.m., after the Budget, until 11.10 p.m. I went from one side of the House to the other, on occasions with the Treasurer (Mr Keating), doing radio, television and newspaper interviews, including with the Melbourne Herald, at the request of Ms Legge. I broke off at 11.10 p.m. to attend the party and apologise for not having been there and remained for less than 20 minutes. There is no mention of this in the article, no mention of the convention regarding these functions and no mention that the Treasurer naturally and properly attended his function. As I say, the statement is untrue, it is biased and it is defamatory. 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 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 upon 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 Kent,Mr McArthur,Mr Milton,Mr Saunderson,Mr Scott,Dr Theophanous,Mr Tickner and Mr Uren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia and (2) Ban the import of cobalt-60 and Caesium 137 and Caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Wright. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Hawker,Mr Jull,Mr Miles,Mr Peacock,Mr Rocher 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 we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 Oct 86 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government. 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 Oct 86 to 1 Jul 87 so that pensions are restored to the 9 Oct 86 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 Brumby,Mr Cowan,Mr Dobie,Mr Hawker,Mr Reith and Mr Shack. 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 taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Millar,Mr Shack and Mr Webster. To the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Lyne Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient 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 taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID Card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it.. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled-The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-86 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan,Mr Dobie,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Fitzgibbon. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb,Mr Reith and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Government by persisting with the Australia Card Bill has wilfully rejected the advice and recommendations of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia's ``Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card'' which unequivocally rejected the Government's proposal in these words: ``The majority believes the creation of a new bureaucracy of 2000 public servants within the HIC [Health Insurance Commission], with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors, and updates information on every person in Australia.'' (Report, 4.55, page 148). Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government now withdraw the Bill as being contrary to the Common Law and traditional freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed in Australia, and should the Bill be nevertheless re-introduced, that the Members of the House without regard for party should unanimously reject the Australia Card Bill as being contrary to our personal liberties and the national interest. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Prosser,Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of 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 the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Andrew and Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; that we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for the possession of child pornography, and has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X rated videos (and ER) and END the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia Connections. Because 98 per cent of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and it's availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Because anyone can have these tapes in their possession for private use. Because the Government does not intervene in that. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the following residents of Australia respectfully sheweth: We citizens of Australia, concerned to preserve world peace, reject the concept of `Star Wars'. Therefore we request the Prime Minister and his Government to take all steps necessary during and beyond the United Nations International Year of Peace (1986) by declaration and demands to: Save Space for Peace. By denying all Australian facilities, material and scientific resources for the development of `Star Wars'. To join with all peace forces throughout the world to ban deployment, testing and development of all weapons of war in space. By supporting the initiatives for the elimination of all nuclear arms by the year 2000. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House publicly condemn the `Star Wars' plans and take every action to ensure Australia is not associated in any way. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows that the petitioners are concerned that the Minister for Health proposes to delete from the Medical Benefits Schedule those item numbers covering the treatment of sun-damaged skin and warts by specialists. They fear that those patients suffering chronically from these problems cannot always be treated successfully by a general practitioner. They protest that they will be financially disadvantaged. They also realise that their problems require early detection and expert treatment, if the petitioners are not to be exposed to increased risk of skin and other cancers. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the abovementioned items in the medical schedule to be reinstated. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to ACT legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia-wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And you Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedom; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action Hospitals, Doctors and Nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ``community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including moral development of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities e.g., boys cricket team, boys football team, etc. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable, the Speaker, and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable house direct that the existing 4 (C4) zoning on the Kurnell Peninsula, in New South Wales, be removed and that this be replaced by a zoning more appropriate to the unique ecology of the area and to the historical significance of the Kurnell Peninsula, being the birthplace of the nation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That Telecom Business Offices provide a valuable service to their respective local communities; 2. That they should not be closed by Telecom on arbitrary commercial grounds; 3. That Telecom should be prevailed upon to reverse its decision to close the Business Offices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephones and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned do respectfully showeth that pornographic material relating to children is deleterious to the health and welfare of children and society as a whole. We respectfully urge the Government to ban all child pornography from entering or from being produced in Australia. And your petitioners in duty-bound will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. That, as a consequence of the Hawke Government's decision to introduce a two dollar coin in 1988: Whereas the introduction of a one dollar coin was only a twofold increase in the maximum value of coinage, the elimination of the two dollar note represents a `five-fold' increase before a note can be used. It will have taken `eighteen years' from decimalisation to go from the fifty cent piece as the highest value coin to a one dollar coin, but only a further `four years' to replace the two dollar note with a coin. The lowest value paper note will be five dollars, forcing a dramatic increase in the weight of coinage carried and dislocation of the retail industry. Many people, particularly the elderly, will mistake the value of the coin for that of another lower value coin just as many now confuse a one dollar coin with the ten cent piece. That the addition of the two new coins in four years will lead to the removal of the one cent and two cent coins and this will accelerate the cost of living, particularly the cost of food where numerous items are involved and future price rises would need to be five cent increases on every item on every occasion. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the proposed two dollar coin not be proceeded with by the Hawke Government, and no future Government proceed with this proposal for several years. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House our total dissatisfaction with the telephone rental charges imposed by Telecom Australia given Telecom's monopoly over Australia's telecommunication's system. Your petitioners therefore ask that Telecom be directed to abolish telephone rental charges. by Mr Lee. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. We consider that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. We therefore ask the House to take action to prevent the implementation of this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: The Hawke Government's Australia card will be an attack on the civil liberties and privacy of all Australians, will not achieve the claimed results, will provide a boost to organised crime and will be an enormous burden to the private sector, especially small business, already snowed under with government charges, taxes and red tape. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to: Abandon legislation for any type of national identity system and work toward building a society based on trust not suspicion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should- pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices. not increase or extend fuel taxes; and 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 Reith. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we the undersigned are totally opposed to the Government's policy to tax pony club income. Your petitioners urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to allow tax exempt status for pony clubs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable 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 Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposal to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concerns ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representative in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will consider the plight of the father in the family court. Fathers, according to the laws of Australia, should have equal rights to their children, in both custody and access applications before the family court. Immediate amendments to the Family Law Act should be implemented for the inclusion of parental rights as distinct from children's rights. It should be made possible for fathers to be able to continue to be involved at all times throughout every stage of their children's development, thus being in the best interests of the children themselves, without incurring exorbitant legal costs. We do also humbly seek that a private members Bill be introduced on an urgent basis to consider the plight of John Zabaneh a father of four young children whom he has had no access to for over two years. John Zabaneh has been denied any input in his children's development or upbringing and has very little knowledge of his children's progress and well being. As this subject is of paramount importance it is specifically requested that this petition be read to parliament assembled in full. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Saunderson. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the withdrawal of landing rights in Australia for South African Airways is an unwarranted action that would be detrimental to the economy of Australia; that would deprive us of a democratic right of choice; and that would cause undue hardship to those of us wishing to maintain communication and links with friends and family. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this decision be revoked, and that South African Airways be allowed to continue this air link. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shack. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That whereas the Federal Government has reduced Australian aid to impoverished overseas countries, the following residents of Australia urge the Federal Government to restore in real terms the amount of Australian foreign aid being granted to the agencies of the United Nations and directly to deserving countries, and that the overall aid commitment to assist those people throughout the world who are suffering more than Australians be increased in the 1987/88 budget. Furthermore, that the Federal Government make a commitment to reach a target of 0.7% of the Gross National Product of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the wake of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government close down the Lucas Heights reactors immediately and permanently, and that no new nuclear reactors be built within Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Your petitioners respectfully sheweth: That the introduction of an Identity Card, to be called the Australia Card, and a National Identification Numbering System, is not in keeping with the established rights, privileges and customs of the Australian people. It is, therefore, the will and desire of the said petitioners that the proposed legislation be neither introduced in its original form, nor amended in any way, but totally withdrawn. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Industrial Relations Bill will increase industrial disputation, bankrupt companies, and give the union movement total and absolute power over the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's Industrial Relations Bill to save Australia from the actions of militant unions and give our economy a chance of recovering. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. An your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Northern New South Wales, and other concerned citizens, do humbly pray, that the Joint Defence Space Research Facility, known as Pine Gap, be closed forever on 19th October 1987. We understand that the agreement between the United States and Australia can be stopped on 19th October 1987, by the Federal Government. We submit the following reasons; 1. Pine Gap plays a central role in U.S. war fighting strategies. The arms race is taking on insane proportions. By having such military bases in Australia, we are contributing to the nuclear arms insanity. 2. Pine Gap is run by the C.I.A. Pine Gap is a crucial part of the U.S. spy network. Australia does not know what functions Pine Gap has. It is not a `Joint Facility', our sovereignty is at stake. 3. Pine Gap is a nuclear target. The best defence for Australia is to close this facility. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, do ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House, the Federal Government's proposal to legislate in favour of the introduction of the I.D. Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will vote against this legislation, and oppose it with every means at your disposal. by Mr Peter Fisher. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The increased tax burden on Australian individuals, families and businesses resulting from the 1987 Budget. 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 MOORE(Ryan)(3.57) —The Liberal and National parties stand for small government. We stand for less government and less taxation as a consequence. I want to compare that with the enormous hype and nonsense that has gone on about the Budget that was presented on Tuesday night. A great euphoria went up about what was occurring with the great balanced Budget, what the impact was and what the newspapers and some political commentators said about that particular event. There are some unsung heroes in the Budget. They are the small taxpayers of Australia, the taxpayers generally of this nation. They are the ones who are carrying the can. There is no glory for them. No Victoria Cross has been struck by the honourable member for Blaxland, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), for the taxpayers of Australia, but there is plenty of glory and hype over there for that great man, the new leader of the future, the honourable member for Blaxland, although he cannot find the electorate. Let us turn to the role which taxpayers have played in balancing the Budget, a feat which has been proclaimed by the Treasurer in the current exercise. The Hawke Government is still the highest taxing government in the history of Australia. No other government has spent or taxed Australians so much. The Budget Papers clearly show that tax as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP), in the period 1986-87, reached a record high of 24.8 per cent. In the projections for this year it falls only marginally to 24.5 per cent, the second highest figure in history. No other government has placed such a huge tax burden on Australian individuals, families and businesses. This Government taxed Australians more last year when it set new records for tax collections and no one can deny that this is still the biggest taxing government in Australia's history. After this year, despite what the Treasurer and most of the political commentators would have us believe, taxes will again be increased by more than the inflation rate. I take those figures from Paper No. 1 of the Treasury Papers. Since this Government took over from the last Liberal-National Party Government, it has increased the amount of income tax collected by a staggering 78 per cent. In the last year of the Liberal-National Party Government, income tax receipts represented $28 billion, but this Government has collected nearly $50 billion in the most recent collection period. What the Government had done over the past five years has been to increase taxes at such a rapid rate that it has been able to fund its huge spending programs. When the Hawke Government came into power in 1983, the average Australian income was $15,500. At the end of June 1986 it had risen to $18,300, an increase of 17 per cent. While the average tax paid on the 1983 income was $3,400, by June 1986 the tax had risen to $4,400, an increase of over 30 per cent-the unsung heroes of the balanced Budget. Since June 1986 the position has got worse, and Australians are paying an even greater share of their income to the Government. The 1987 Budget is a confidence trick to mislead the Australian people, who are now paying more and more of their income in taxes than ever before. The 1987 Budget attempts to mesmerise all Australians into a false sense of security-the great historic Budget as the egocentric Treasurer refers to it. Everyone is talking about how the Treasurer achieved the mystical notion of a balanced Budget instead of concentrating on how to get taxation down in the hands of the individual Australian. The average worker is still far worse off than he ever was before the socialist Hawke Government came to power. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer in this regard have acted like a couple of unscrupulous discount store operators. They have heavily marked up the product price and then offered a 10 per cent discount in relation to these matters. The Keating-Hawke company must well be phased in with the wonderful record of the Prime Minister in relation to Bourke's store. The average wage earner, who would have been there, is now paying taxation at the marginal rate of 40c in the dollar, plus Medicare levy. These higher rates, when combined with increased salaries, result in a massive hike in the tax take and under the Prime Minister the marginal tax rate has peaked at a high of 47c in the dollar for the average wage earner. That is even worse than it was under the Whitlam peak of 44c in the dollar. On top of that, an average weekly earner with no deductions will, in this financial year, pay over 28 per cent of his or her income in tax. That is 28c in every dollar earned. It compares with less than 23c in the dollar before the Hawke Government came to office and just 15.6c in the dollar 20 years ago. The same average weekly earner will this year be on a marginal tax rate of 40c in the dollar. This is well above the 30c in the dollar marginal rate paid in the last years of the Fraser Government and the 27c in the dollar paid 20 years ago. An average weekly earner with deductions-the average family with one dependent spouse and two dependent children-will pay a record 24c in the dollar in taxes. That is a huge jump on the 14c in the dollar paid in the last years of the Fraser Government and the mere 6c paid 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, the average weekly wage earner faced a marginal tax rate of just 28c in the dollar without deductions and 22c in the dollar with deductions. The family man with spouse and children has been harder hit than the single taxpayer under the Hawke socialist Government. The proportion of total income tax paid by the single taxpayer has increased from 23c to 28c in the dollar-a rise of 5c in every dollar paid. A family man's proportion of income going in tax has increased from an average of 14c in the dollar to 24c in the dollar, a rise of nearly 10c-- Mr Tuckey —For a family man? Mr MOORE —For a family man. That is a rise of nearly 10c in the dollar over the period in which this Government has been in power. I draw these figures to the attention of the House because people have forgotten the real impact of the Budget and the fact that no Australians have benefited from the cuts in taxation. They are still paying the piper while the hype goes on. The marginal tax rates are still too high. They still represent a major problem for the Government, which must reduce tax rates substantially if it wishes to encourage Australians to earn and produce more. In essence, when one looks at the balance of payments one of the major criteria must be to get Australians out in the work force and earning, both in Australia domestically and for export trade. What are they doing? Not a thing in relation to the amount of tax per dollar that they have to pay in relation to this. Why should average Australian employees want to work longer hours, produce more goods and enhance the so-called recovery when they are paying a top rate of almost 49c in the dollar plus Medicare levy? At those levels, the additional dollar is not an enticement to create incentive, drive, creativity, innovation and determination-all the elements of the Australian way of life-and these characteristics are being destroyed by this regressive tax system. If the Government persists, it will succeed in creating an un-Australian Australia, but in the 1987 Budget it is again increasing taxation. It is again making life difficult for Australian families. It is again making life difficult for the small businesses of this nation. It has again failed to make the really tough decisions of reducing spending first and then cutting taxes. It has again taken the soft option, that is increasing taxes instead of chopping into spending programs. The chardonnay sipping socialists opposite are out of touch with the mood of the electorate, which is struggling under the burden of taxation. This Budget is the Government's most repressive yet, with total taxation revenue up by a staggering 8.5 per cent against a projected inflation rate of 7 per cent. In real terms, once again taxpayers are carrying the can for the glory. No matter what the Treasurer says about spending as a percentage of GDP-this is the figure that counts-total taxation revenue is up by 8.5 per cent this year. Australians, their families and their businesses are bearing the burden of the Government's inability to cut its spending. Because of the blow-out in the Government's spending plans, Australians have been asked to carry the can and bale it out of the economic mire. We do not see the Treasurer tightening his belt, living on less or consuming less. Instead, stories of his classical associations are well known. The people of Australia, their families and businesses deserve better treatment than they are receiving from the Labor Government. The Government just keeps on taxing without regard to the detrimental effect of the disincentives of taxation. On this subject, the facts speak for themselves. In the coming year total revenue is up by $5.5 billion, an increase of 8.5 per cent. Individual tax revenue is up by $3.1 billion, an increase of 8.1 per cent. Both those figures are way over the inflation rate projected for this period. On this graph, in which people might be interested, both figures show clearly and we see the huge rise that has taken place since the Hawke Government came to power. For those who might be interested, this graph has a remarkable shift which even members on the Government side might be able to see. Company tax revenue in the current year is projected to go up by just short of $1 billion, an increase of 14 per cent-well in advance of the inflation rate. What an impact this will have on development in the company area. Fringe benefits tax revenue is projected to rise by $200m, a rise of 40-odd per cent. There are no revenue estimates for what is to come from the capital gains tax. That will certainly be substantial. All these taxes have grown faster than the consumer price index which the Government estimates to be 7 per cent in the coming year. Australians as a whole have been let down by this Budget. No Australian family, business or individual has been able to see in it the hope of personal tax cuts. No person has been able to see in this Budget a way in which his future is clearer. The Government has painted itself in glory. Individuals have been left to carry the burden. They have to pay the bill to make it possible for a Labor government to behave with the ego and mania that has gone on in the last few days. I hope that when the reality of this Budget comes home to the taxpayers, they will see it for what it is: a high taxing Budget with continuing high spending programs and no relief for the ordinary individual in an increasingly tight economic time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(3.12) —I suppose that it is inevitable in a parliament in which an Opposition is forced perpetually into an adversary situation that when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) actually achieved a balanced Budget the Opposition, in order to fulfil its adversary role, had to seek any kind of argument to decry the level of that achievement, although prior to the Budget we heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) saying that he felt what the Government should be aiming for was a balanced Budget. Yesterday the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), was doing his best to do so as was the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). But what does this come down to? How is it that this Budget has been universally acclaimed by editorial writer after writer and by the international stock exchanges? The Treasurer gave a word of caution. The very success of the achievement poses new problems and new challenges-which will be met. The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the honourable member for Ryan know that financial commentators throughout Australia, many of whom are not complimentary generally about this Government, gave, I believe, nothing but proper balanced praise for the efforts of the Treasurer. The honourable member for Ryan introduced this matter of public importance, which was inaccurate: The increased tax burden on Australian individuals, families and businesses resulting from the 1987 Budget. That is wrong. This Opposition can never get anything right. This Budget, as promised in the election campaign by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) introduces no major new taxes, nor does it increase tax rates. That is the simple fact. Neither the fact that tax as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1987-88 is 24.5 per cent nor the personal tax cuts flowing from the May statement were mentioned. Those tax cuts amounted to $4.5 billion. As a result of those decreases and the economic policies of this Government the average pay as you earn taxpayer is in the situation that what he is paying in tax in proportion to GDP and the rate of inflation is low. I state the simple fact that as a result of those tax cuts the average taxpayer is operating at a level about 6 1/2 per cent lower than the inflation rate. How was this result brought about? Was it brought about by taxing or slugging the wage earner? No, it was brought about by this Government having the credibility and courage to produce an assets test and a tax on fringe benefits and capital gains. It was that decision which caused the increase in revenue. Those people who follow this economic debate will recall that on every one of those issues the gentlemen opposite mounted a campaign which was designed to produce fear throughout Australia. They said that the capital gains tax, although it exists in other parts of the world, was going to destroy the income level of the average Australian. They were talking about the tax dodgers and their mates about whom they did nothing for years. What an imposition the fringe benefits tax was going to be. Again we were told that all the gentlemen with whom those opposite used to have free lunches could no longer buy those free lunches. What shock horror that was. Then there was the assets test. We were told week after week and month after month that as a result of those decisions the Hawke Government would be swept from office and there would be a new regime led by the present Leader of the Opposition. The fact is that the Opposition went into the election less than 10 weeks ago. Those opposite could not get their figures right. Never before was a sleazier bunch of tax proposals put to the Australian people. Those opposite said, `We will abolish the fringe benefits tax. We will abolish the capital gains tax. Trust us. The assets test will be destroyed. We will make cutbacks at every level of the public sector but do not ask us where we will make the cuts'. Never was a more cynical or dishonest economic fiscal proposal put to the people. The people made their decision. They rejected the sleazy proposal because they knew it was intrinsically dishonest. They knew it would not work and ultimately they were not prepared to trust a former Treasurer who, as he went from office ignominiously, left this nation with a record deficit. It took this Treasurer and Government years of hard decisions to restore us to the position where for the first time in many years we have a balanced Budget. When one looks at what has occurred one sees of course that there have been increases in tax revenue but they occurred from the broadening of the tax base. There is now greater fairness and equity in our taxation system than ever before in our history. The smart money friends, the white shoe brigade who stood behind the purported alternative Leader of the National Party, the people who have been making the smart money and not paying tax for years now have to make a proper, just and appropriate payment to accept their share of the burden. It is because of that increased tax revenue base and the determination of the Treasurer and the Government to see that those who have been rorting the system will not continue to do so, that the collections, as a result of those policies, exceeded the initial estimates. That is why tax revenue is high. But it is not because of increased impositions on the average Australian; it is because those who should have been paying in the past are, as a result of the Government's policies, paying now. I and this Government make no apology for the fact that it took some time to inject some justice and equity into the taxation system. In introducing that justice and equity, this Government has made certain that Australia can go forward on the basis of starting to meet some of our overseas debts. We have produced a balanced Budget. The demands which were made by the Leader of the Opposition less than a week ago are now met by the mealy-mouthed proposition that comes into this House as a so-called matter of public importance. The fact of the matter is that this subject matter does nothing for the Opposition's credibility. Opposition members in this Parliament are what they were before the election-a bunch of individuals with confused and conflicting policies and no long term coherent strategy. I will say this of the shadow Treasurer who replaced the former shadow Treasurer: He has had the foresight at least to say, `We have to get off the track that we are on; we must stop trying to buy our way into office'. He has indicated that if he is given time, he will try to come up with something that looks like an alternative economic policy, not a grab-bag of political propositions which could not work and which, as they were mounted, honourable members opposite knew could not work. What is worse, they could not even get the arithmetic right. That is the story. We all know it. I will listen, as I think many people in Australia will listen, with interest, to what the Leader of the Opposition has to say later this evening. However, this matter of public importance is an indigestible entree to what, I suspect, will be a fairly foul feed from the leader of the Opposition later tonight. The 1987-88 Budget outcome reflects major cuts in outlays. The measures taken in the May economic statement and in the Budget reduce the prospective deficit by $3.5 billion net in both 1987-88 and 1988-89. Tax measures reduced it by only $0.4 billion. That is the simple economic statistic. In 1987-88 outlays will decline by 2.4 per cent in real terms. That is the largest real decline in the 35 years for which we have comparable data, and it follows the decline of 0.8 per cent last year, making it the only case of two consecutive falls over the whole period. The achievements of the Treasurer and the Government in making the hard economic decisions that had to be made to bring this nation back from the brink of bankruptcy to which it had almost been brought in the last years of the Fraser Government were subjected to misrepresentation and distortion by those who had rorted the tax system in Australia for years. Their mealy-mouthed apologists opposite, endeavouring to strike fear into the heart of the average Australian, compounded their actions during the election. Less than 10 weeks ago the Australian people were given the opportunity of casting their judgment about the future economic management of this country. They had clear alternatives and they voted for a continuation of the economic management of this Treasurer and this Government. In so doing, I believe that they showed correct judgment and correct decision-making. The Budget which was introduced into the House this week will fully justify that judgment. As I said at the outset, in producing a balanced economic statement, the Treasurer deserves the praise of every honourable member. More importantly, he has given us an economic base from which we can build. It does not mean that there are no challenges in the future; there are many. But it means that if this Government is prepared to meet those challenges with the courage and the fortitude that it has shown in the light of the carping criticism of honourable gentlemen opposite, those challenges will be overcome. This matter of public importance is one further discredited political exercise by an opposition that has entirely lost any credibility with the Australian people and which lacks faith in itself and the courage to face up to the great issues that face this nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.27) —Those who have listened to the 15-minute address by the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Holding) would have noted that 14 of those minutes contained a lot of rhetoric, hyperbole and, as a result, rubbish. For the one minute in which he addressed himself to the subject of the matter of public importance, he got it wrong. I will pay particular attention to the figures which he fudged and which have been fudged in the Budget. It has been noted this week that the Budget contains a deficit of $27m. The Budget has been presented to the people as a balanced Budget-as well it might be, because there is only a small amount to make up. However, it has the opportunity, or the alternative, of going bad the other way. When we talk in terms of a balanced Budget, we must consider the figures. If it does not balance in one respect, it could be out of balance elsewhere. In addition, the Government has embarked on an exercise in accounting which would be rejected by every graduate of commerce and economics in Australia. The Government has used a revenue figure of $1 billion from the sale of assets. That figure is not to be included as revenue, as any honourable member would include it, for instance, if he were selling a house. No, the Government has taken it off the expenditure. As a result, the Minister gloriously declared real decreases in tax gathering and spending whereas in actual fact those are not substantiated by proper accounting. If one looks at the fudges-the Minister used that term-and the dishonesty in the presentation, one wonders why the great media barons and the journalists of this country have not picked up the fudging of the figures-it is not a question of double counting-to make sure that a proper presentation is made to Australians. There is no doubt that the 1987-88 Budget, as the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) indicated, places a burden on business people and individuals. In addition, the cost of the sacrifice in balancing the Budget-a concept which I applaud-is borne not by the Government but by many people who may be present in this chamber today or listening to this broadcast-the small earner; a person earning under $19,500 a year. It could well be made by a business person paying additional company tax. The Minister said that there was no increase in tax rates. That is not true. There is an increase in the company tax rate, the prescribed payments tax and the fringe benefits tax. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer ought to get his facts a little more accurate. Today's discussion gives us an opportunity to consider not just where the burden falls now but where the burden of taxation has fallen over the last four years of the Labor Government. Of course, that is not hard to detect. If we compare the Budget Estimates for the last five years we will find that since 1982-83-the last Budget of the conservatives-Commonwealth collections of revenue have increased from $44 billion to $79 billion-the corrected figure after I add back the $1 billion from the sale of assets. There has been a 76 per cent increase in revenue in that time and most of that has been taken from the taxpayer. An interesting comparison is that over those Budgets the consumer price index, including the estimate for this year, increased by 37.3 per cent. There has been a 76 per cent increase in revenue collections and a 37.3 per cent increase in the consumer price index. That is a real increase in revenue collections of 38.7 per cent. Of course, this is matched on the expenditure side which this Government has allowed to blow out in its time in office. It is interesting to look at a schedule in the Australian Financial Review of Wednesday 16 September which shows the effect of the five Budgets of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on customs, excise, sales tax, income tax and company tax. I will go through each of them quickly. In the customs area the Treasurer has increased collections from $2.4 billion to $3.3 billion. Who pays customs duty? The consumers, the residents, the citizens of Australia pay it. The excise on goods such as tobacco and spirits is automatically indexed. Excise income has increased from $7.7 billion to $9.7 billion over the period of the Keating Budgets. Sales tax has increased from $4.1 billion to $7.1 billion-not a bad increase! The Treasurer says that he has not imposed a consumption tax. If that is not an increase in consumption tax, I would like to know what is. Income tax revenue has increased from $24.7 billion to $41.2 billion. Company tax collections have increased from $4.4 billion to $7.7 billion. We know who has been bearing those costs. As I said, we have heard the Minister with the hyperbole he added, talking of fear and emotion. The one thing he did not mention was the cost to this economy of negative gearing. Twelve months ago negative gearing was a rort perpetrated on the honest Australian taxpayer who was being seen off by business. Mr Lloyd —He has certainly moved into a negative gear on this. Mr BRAITHWAITE —He has moved into a negative gear. It looks as though he is moving out of the chamber altogether. This Budget replaces something that should not have been removed in the first place. To what extent has the Minister tried to explain that? He has not explained the increase in company tax, the decrease in the depreciation allowance to 2 1/2 per cent and the increase of 3 per cent in the fringe benefits tax. These figures indicate that this is a taxing Budget. The honourable member for Ryan has cited figures to show where the revenue increases between 1986-87 and 1987-88 have taken place. I mention again that the business people of Australia will face a 10.2 per cent increase; people who pay the Medicare levy face a 20.4 per cent increase; there will be a 9.1 per cent increase in prescribed payments and a 14.3 per cent increase in company tax. However, the fringe benefits tax-the tax which above all others has retarded business in Australia-is increasing by 40.1 per cent. The Treasurer in his last Budget could not get it right because the remarkable decrease in the deficit which he mentioned was afforded by a $210m increase in fringe benefits. From the estimate of $325m last year it eventually increased to $535m. The Treasurer could not get the Budget figures right last year and one wonders whether the figures will be right this year. We have to ask who carries the burden? It is the small business person and the small wage earner-the family man who cannot get beyond that $19,000 to $20,000 income bracket and who, if he does, will be caught by income creep. While everybody in the community has had to make sacrifices and carry the burden of this increase in taxation, the one group that has been left out is the trade unions. Late in the life of the last Parliament I asked a question of the Treasurer-a question to which he had no answer. I was able to indicate that 10 unions out of the 360 unions in Australia had been documented as having $120m of investment, the interest from which is entirely tax free. If, as some suggest, business people are rorting this country and if they are to be asked to substantiate their taxation claims why, in the interests of income revenue and fairness to the system, should the unions continue to go untouched? The Treasurer seems to tolerate those union activities but not the activities of honest people within Australia. In connection with the increased burden on taxpayers in Australia I mention the substantiation rules and the cost of compliance. I suggest to those who are thinking of attacking their tax returns-if they have not done so they should address their prayers to the Almighty to give them the courage to do so-that it will cost them 50 per cent more to have their income tax returns prepared this year or, if they are doing it themselves, it will take them twice the time to substantiate them. The rules and regulations applying this year impose a burden on the people of Australia not only in terms of tax but also in terms of compliance costs. In this connection we have to ask once again: who is making the sacrifice? I suggest that it is not the Government. It is that small person; it is the company that last year, because of high interest rates and massive deficits, faced liquidation or stagnation. It is borne by the people who cannot get jobs. Other people will be put out of jobs because of the burdens imposed by the Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(3.37) —We have heard the Opposition raise a number of issues in relation to the alleged burden of tax policy imposed by this Government. It is perhaps worth beginning by making some reference to the wording of the Opposition's matter of public importance. It states: The increased tax burden on Australian individuals, families and businesses resulting from the 1987 Budget. It is not surprising to see that during the last Federal election campaign the Opposition was totally caught up in hopeless arithmetical errors. Honourable members should look at page 298 of Budget Paper No. 1 which sets out estimates of revenue. It states: The measures announced in the Budget are estimated to add a net $35m to revenue in 1987-88. In actual fact the specific measures included as part of the current Budget are negligible in terms of their impact on total tax revenue, so the Opposition is actually referring to the effect of the Government's tax reform measures of 1985 which, of course, have had a substantial and benign impact on the structure of our tax base. It is also referring to a number of other measures taken by the Government prior to the Budget which have had significant revenue implications. I turn to the actual position in regard to tax revenue. As has been pointed out a number of times already in this House, the tax to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio from 1987-88 is projected to be 24.5 per cent, a significant reduction from last year when it was 24.8 per cent. Also, if we look at the total revenue position and examine other forms of revenue that the Commonwealth Government collects we likewise see a reduction in the ratio of revenue to GDP in the order of 0.5 of one per cent. Whichever way we look at it we can see that there is a reduction in that ratio. Of course, there has been an increase of 8.1 per cent in total tax collections from individuals. But it is interesting to note that if we break that down and look at the increase in net pay as you earn (PAYE) tax collections we see that it is 6.8 per cent, which is actually below the rate of inflation. Therefore, we are seeing a real decrease in the contribution made by PAYE taxpayers. I suggest to the House that what we have seen is an increase in the total tax burden which is substantially less than the historical experience of the last few decades. Not only have we seen a reduction in tax as a share of gross domestic product, but also we have seen a significant restructuring of where those tax collections are coming from. A very large amount of revenue is coming from fringe benefits, substantiation, capital gains and other measures that the Government has taken in order to broaden the income tax base. The beneficiaries of that process of course have been the ordinary taxpayers who previously have been meeting their obligations but who have not had access to the various methods of tax minimisation that were able to be exploited by others. They are the people who stand to benefit from the base-broadening measures that have been taken. I submit that what we are seeing is an equitable restructuring of the tax base, one that in this year involves a reduction of tax as a share of GDP and also total revenue, and one that does involve a significant reallocation of the tax burden in a way which is highly consistent with equity and fairness in the system. It is perhaps interesting at this point to look also at the long term record of the tax to GDP ratio in Australia. Ever since the early 1950s, and even prior to that, there has been a steady, seemingly inexorable increase in the tax to GDP ratio. That has been the case irrespective of the political complexion of the government in power. I cite a couple of figures from a table I have showing tax as a proportion of GDP. In 1976-77, the first full year of the Fraser Government, the figure was 22.5 per cent. In the last full year of the Fraser Government, 1981-82, it had risen to 24.3 per cent. In this Budget we see that tax as a percentage of GDP comes to 24.5 per cent, which is a 0.2 per cent increase. However, it is important to bear in mind that this year's figure includes the Medicare levy as part of tax revenue. It is included in the aggregate whereas previously people were paying substantially more by way of private health insurance payments. So we have had a shift from the private sector to the public sector, if you like. This year the Medicare levy revenue, which is used to fund health insurance, amounts to something like 0.7 per cent of GDP. So to get a basis of comparison with the Fraser years we need to subtract that 0.7 per cent from 24.5 per cent, which gives us 23.8 per cent. We end up with a tax to GDP ratio which is in fact lower than it was in the last two years of the Fraser Government. I again note that there has been an historic tendency for that ratio to increase, including under the Fraser Government, and what we see this year is a development which runs quite contrary to that trend. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard this table. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMMONWEALTH BUDGET OUTLAYS, RECEIPTS AND DEFICIT (1953-54 to 1987-88): Outlays Actual Real Growth Per Cent GDP Taxation Revenue Actual Real Growth Per Cent GDP Total Receipts Actual Real Growth Per Cent GDP Deficit Actual Per Cent GDP $m % % $m % % $m % % $m % 1953-54 (a)... 2,081 22.3 1,802 9.3 1,940 20.8 141 1.5 1954-55... 2,149 2.0 21.6 1,875 2.8 18.9 2,039 3.8 20.5 110 1.1 1955-56... 2,349 6.5 21.8 2,006 4.2 18.6 2,190 4.6 20.3 159 1.5 1956-57... 2,461 -1.3 21.0 2,199 3.2 18.8 2,415 3.9 20.6 46 0.4 1957-58... 2,619 5.7 21.8 2,325 5.0 19.4 2,573 5.8 21.5 46 0.4 1958-59... 2,817 8.8 21.9 2,269 -1.3 17.6 2,546 0.1 19.8 271 2.1 1959-60... 3,036 3.3 21.4 2,506 5.8 17.6 2,818 6.1 19.8 218 1.5 1959-60 (b)... 3,061 4.1 21.5 2,506 5.8 17.6 2,827 6.4 19.9 234 1.6 1960-61... 3,237 1.3 21.4 2,851 9.0 18.9 3,204 8.6 21.2 32 0.2 1961-62... 3,598 9.7 23.2 2,836 -1.8 18.3 3.240 -0.2 20.9 358 2.3 1961-62(c)... 3,620 10.4 23.4 2,862 -0.9 18.5 3,262 0.5 21.1 358 2.3 1962-63... 3,770 2.1 22.5 2,915 -0.2 17.4 3,356 0.8 20.1 415 2.5 1963-64... 4,142 7.6 22.3 3,256 9.4 17.5 3,724 8.7 20.1 419 2.3 1963-64 (d)... 4,145 7.7 22.3 3,257 9.4 17.5 3,725 8.7 20.1 419 2.3 1964-65... 4,533 4.5 22.2 3,835 12.6 18.8 4,351 11.7 21.3 183 0.9 1964-65 (e)... 4,532 4.5 22.2 3,835 12.6 18.8 4,349 11.6 21.3 183 0.9 1965-66... 5,058 8.2 23.5 4,238 7.1 19.7 4,803 7.0 22.4 255 1.2 1965-66 (f)... 5,029 7.5 23.4 4,209 6.4 19.6 4,774 6.4 22.2 255 1.2 1966-67... 5,642 8.2 23.8 4,485 2.7 18.9 5,090 2.8 21.5 552 2.3 1966-67 (g)... 5,640 8.1 23.8 4,485 2.7 18.9 5,088 2.8 21.5 552 2.3 1967-68... 6,225 5.7 24.6 4,952 5.7 19.6 5,583 5.1 22.1 643 2.5 1968-69... 6,613 1.9 23.2 5,533 7.1 19.4 6,228 7.0 21.8 386 1.4 1969-70... 7,348 5.3 23.3 6,391 9.5 20.2 7,157 8.9 22.7 191 0.6 1970-71... 8,102 4.6 23.2 7,221 7.2 20.7 8,093 7.3 23.2 10 .0 1971-72... 9,047 4.7 23.2 7,934 3.1 20.3 8,913 3.3 22.8 134 0.3 1972-73... 10,190 5.7 22.9 8,453 .0 19.0 9,481 -0.2 21.3 709 1.6 1972-73 (h)... 10,133 5.1 22.7 8,437 -0.2 18.9 9,436 -0.6 21.2 696 1.6 1973-74... 12,192 5.6 22.8 10,846 12.8 20.3 11,911 10.8 22.3 281 0.5 1974-75... 17,808 19.8 27.6 14,054 6.3 21.8 15,256 5.0 23.7 2,552 4.0 1975-76... 21,787 5.1 28.6 16,807 2.7 22.0 18,220 2.6 23.9 3,567 4.7 1976-77... 24,015 -1.0 27.6 19,596 4.8 22.5 21,330 5.2 24.5 2,685 3.1 1977-78... 26,665 2.5 28.2 21,293 0.3 22.5 23,382 1.2 24.7 3,283 3.5 1978-79... 28,912 1.6 27.0 23,235 2.2 21.7 25,486 2.1 23.8 3,426 3.2 1979-80... 31,445 -1.0 26.0 27,249 6.8 22.5 29,457 5.2 24.3 1,989 1.6 1980-81... 35,996 3.5 26.2 32,407 7.6 23.6 34,916 7.2 25.4 1,080 0.8 1981-82... 41,189 2.5 26.6 37,711 4.2 24.3 40,637 4.2 26.2 553 0.4 1982-83... 48,793 6.7 28.7 40,764 -2.7 24.0 44,345 -1.7 26.1 4,448 2.6 1983-84... 56,432 7.4 29.3 44,438 1.3 23.1 48,500 1.6 25.2 7,932 4.1 1984-85... 63,714 6.1 29.7 52,421 10.9 24.4 56,994 10.4 26.5 6,720 3.1 1985-86... 69,918 2.5 29.1 58,399 4.0 24.3 64,193 5.2 26.7 5,726 2.4 1986-87... 74,899 -0.8 28.3 65,685 4.1 24.8 72,184 4.1 27.3 2,716 1.0 1987-88... 78,146 -2.4 26.8 71,243 1.5 24.5 78,119 1.2 26.8 27 0 (a) estimates for the years 1953-54 to 1959-60 are taken from the Supplement to the Treasury Information Bulletin, ``National Accounting Estimates of Public Authority Receipts and Expenditure'', August 1966. Real growth estimates are derived using implicit price deflators for expenditure on gross domestic product, as set out in the ``Australian National Accounts, National Income and Expenditure 1985-86'' (Cat. No. 5204.0). (b) 1969-70 Budget Speech. Real growth estimates are derived using implicit price deflators for gross non-farm product as set out in the ``Historical Series of Estimates of National Income and Expenditure, Australia'' September Quarter 1959 to June Quarter 1980 (Cat. No. 5207.0) (for years 1960-61 to 1968-69); ``Quarterly Estimates of National Income and Expenditure, Australia'' June Quarter 1987 (Cat. No. 5206.0) (for years 1969-70 to 1986-87); and for 1987-88, Treasury forecasts. (c) 1971-71 Budget Speech. (d) 1973-74 Budget Speech. (e) 1974-75 Budget Paper No. 1. (f) 1975-76 Budget Paper No. 1. (g) 1976-77 Budget Paper No. 1. (h) 1987-8 Budget Paper No. 1. Mr BALDWIN —Perhaps it is illuminating also to make some comparisons of the tax to GDP ratio in Australia with the ratio in other major industrialised countries. I have a table which appeared in a recently published Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development document, and I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard also. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 1 TOTAL TAX REVENUE AS PERCENTAGE OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT AT MARKET PRICES (1) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Sweden... 49.4 51.1 49.9 50.6 50.3 50.5 52.2 Denmark... 45.5 45.3 44.5 46.5 48.0 49.2 50.3 Norway... 47.1 48.7 47.9 46.6 45.8 47.8 49.9 Belgium... 43.6 44.2 45.4 45.5 46.5 46.9 . . France... 42.5 42.8 43.8 44.6 45.5 45.6 45.1 Netherlands... 45.8 45.2 45.4 46.7 45.2 45.0 46.1 Luxembourg... 40.9 40.6 40.7 43.7 42.1 42.8 41.5 Austria... 41.2 42.5 41.2 41.1 42.1 42.5 42.3 Ireland... 34.0 35.2 36.9 39.0 39.9 39.1 40.2 United Kingdom... 35.3 36.6 39.5 37.9 38.4 38.1 39.1 Germany... 38.0 37.6 37.4 37.3 37.5 37.8 37.4 Finland... 33.3 34.9 34.5 34.4 36.1 37.3 38.6 Greece... 28.6 29.1 31.8 33.3 34.9 35.1 . . Italy... 30.0 31.1 33.7 35.9 35.1 34.7 . . New Zealand... 33.0 34.0 34.9 33.1 33.0 34.3 . . Canada... 31.6 33.6 33.4 33.0 33.2 33.1 33.9 Switzerland... 30.8 30.6 31.0 31.6 32.3 32.1 31.1 Portugal... 28.7 30.4 31.0 33.1 32.2 31.1 30.6 Australia... 29.2 30.1 30.1 29.1 30.5 30.3 . . United States... 29.5 30.0 29.9 28.4 28.4 29.2 . . Spain... 24.1 25.5 25.8 27.9 29.2 28.8 30.3 Japan... 25.5 26.2 26.7 27.2 27.4 28.0 . . Turkey... 19.0 20.4 20.1 18.3 14.4 16.1 . . Unweighted Average: OECD Total... 35.1 35.9 36.3 36.7 36.9 37.2 . . (1) Ranked by the 1985 Figures. * Provisional- . . Not Available- Mr BALDWIN —The table makes it clear that in fact Australia is quite near the bottom of the league in terms of tax to GDP ratios. Based on last year's figures, Sweden has a tax to GDP figure something like 20 per cent higher than ours. In just about all Scandinavian and European countries tax as a percentage of GDP is substantially in excess of the figure for Australia. Yet of course there is not clear evidence of any correlation between the tax to GDP ration on the one hand and the rate of economic growth on the other. Many of the countries which have very much higher ratios than ours have been able to create the industrial bases, innovative industrial structures and very highly competitive manufacturing and exporting sectors that are distinctly absent from the Australian economy. So there is no clear evidence that that burden is having an adverse affect on the operation of those economies. In any case, it is clear that in international terms Australia is fairly well down the league. I would like to make a few comments on a number of the shibboleths put forward about tax. One is that the answer to our economic problems is to reduce the tax burden. The evidence does not particularly substantiate that. We have also heard reference here to the adverse effects on incentives to work, save and invest that allegedly result from the high tax rates that this country is claimed to be subject to. Once again the evidence does not support the argument that we have a high tax burden, and there is no clear evidence of a relationship between marginal tax rates and incentives to work. It is a matter that has been of some debate in academic economic literature for some time and there has been quite an attempt to arrive at positive conclusions on that score. Thus far those attempts to arrive at such conclusions have been distinctly unproductive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind the House that earlier today the House agreed to debate the Privacy Bill 1986 and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 together. Mr REITH(Flinders)(3.47) —Before lunch I was saying that the Opposition takes the view that these privacy Bills are more about hypocrisy than anything else because the fact is that the Government, whilst it gives with one hand, by introducing privacy legislation, takes a lot more with the other hand when it brings in and forces through the Australia Card Bill. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech really gives the game away when he says that these privacy measures will be subject to the necessary standards to maintain efficiency in government. The fact is that the Privacy Bill is nothing but a phoney, and a dangerous phoney at that. The Law Council of Australia has had a careful look at this Bill, and it says this: If, however, the effect is to create a mistaken belief that legal rights and duties are created, and thus to encourage a state of wrongly-based satisfaction or complacency amongst the community, then this must be a matter of serious concern. It is a matter of serious concern when the Government, whilst it brings in the Australia Card Bill, goes around the country saying to the people of Australia, `Don't worry about that, the Privacy Bill will look after you'. When one looks at the details of this privacy legislation the reality is that basically these Bills give the Australian people absolutely nothing. What the Government has done on this issue really is hypocrisy of a new order. The Law Council talks about the Australia Card as a measure which will work to see a reduction in people's rights and a reduction of civil liberties in Australia. The Law Council says in a letter to me recently that its opposition is based mainly on its concern `that the legislation provides inadequate protection of privacy'. That is absolutely right. That is not the Opposition saying that but the Law Council of Australia. In talking about its concerns in regard to the Data Protection Agency, the Law Council says: . . . the DPA will have no weapon to ensure protection of privacy. What sort of guarantee does the Data Protection Agency give the Australian people when the Law Council tells us that it is not worth two bob, not worth the paper it is written on? The Law Council says: The principles governing the DPA in the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers consist of vague generalities and are at times contradictory . . . What a damning indictment that is of this Government and its legislation. The Law Council also says: The rights of review of decisions of the DPA are excessively complex and difficult to understand. That is quite right too, but this Government has the gall to say to the Australian people, `Don't worry about it. This Data Protection Agency will look after your rights'. The fact is it will not look after people's rights. The Law Council also says: The Authority is protected from being sued and will become a large and powerful bureaucracy exercising virtually unlimited control. This is the body that is supposed to look after people's rights. What do we find when we scratch the surface of Labor's hypocrisy? We find another bureaucracy to add to the extra 2,000 public servants the Government is going to give us with the Australia Card. The whole situation is absolutely outrageous. The Government is claiming in this House concern for privacy and at the same time is trying to foist on to the Australian people the Australia Card. The Law Council also looked at some of the details of the privacy legislation and I shall refer to some of its criticisms. The Government says that it has had the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission on privacy and has basically followed its advice and the advice of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and is going down the track with all things very normal. It claims it has done a very good job. But when one looks at the detail one sees that things are not what they seem. The Law Council's criticisms include that the Bill is too narrow and does not go as far as the Law Reform Commission recommended. The Law Council looked at this Bill and commented on the restrictions of the application of this legislation. It said that there are no sanctions. If someone breaches someone else's privacy and the breach occurs in a Commonwealth department no one will go to gaol and no one will pay any damages. I guess, nobody will even bother to say, `I am sorry'. The reality is that there are just no sanctions and those public servants who have scant regard for the privacy of Australians will continue to have scant regard. That is yet another example that this legislation is nothing but a disguise; it is a palliative for those who have stressed their opposition to the Australia Card on the grounds of privacy. I have already referred to the fourth criticism picked up by the Law Council when it looked at the details and the principles of the legislation. It said that this legislation creates the false impression that people really have rights. On the radio this morning Senator Ryan was saying that people's rights will be protected. I can only assume that Senator Ryan really does not have any idea of what rights are all about. I am only a country lawyer and I do not present a thesis on the definition of legal rights but my idea of a legal right is when one can go before a real judge and have some real justice metered out to those who have acted against one's interests. I have looked at this legislation to see, if my rights were infringed, where I could go to a real judge to ask for some justice to be meted out. I cannot find such a provision because it is not there. What Senator Ryan was talking about was the claim that the information will be secure. She says that is a right; that the information is secure. I think she should ask her Department to give her a briefing on what people's rights mean and what they should mean in legislation of this sort. When the system is tested to see whether it is secure, I have no doubt that it will leak like a sieve. The Health Insurance Commission is the body which, when the Government was having an argument with the doctors in New South Wales, leaked the doctors' incomes. Not so long ago we had a situation with Medicare in which the Commission provided information willy-nilly on people's medical background as if there was no question of privacy whatsoever; it never entered the head of the people in the Commission. People were going around interviewing people, young girls, and asking them why they were at such and such a doctor's clinic and that sort of thing. The comments of the Law Council on this legislation have not found their way into any sort of response from the Government. There are pages and pages of criticisms on such things as the definition of personal information and those criticisms have been simply cast aside. It is understandable why they were cast aside, because the Government is not interested in privacy. The Privacy Bill 1986 and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 were introduced only because the Government introduced the Australia Card Bill and it wanted to cover its tracks against those who stood up and raised questions about privacy. It is the view of Opposition members that it is grossly irresponsible of the Government to link privacy issues with the Australia Card Bill as it has in this manner. These are important issues; there is no doubt about it. With computers we are in the age of information and it is time that members of this Parliament sat down and examined, deliberated on and considered the implications of this new technology for people's rights and privacy. It is time that we came to a careful and considered view about what we believe this Parliament should do to ensure the protection of people's rights. It is important to establish principles. To the extent the Government does that in regard to this Bill, it has the Opposition's support, but the Government does not have our support for the way in which it has introduced this Bill or the way in which it has employed political strategies to mask the gross deficiencies of the Australia Card Bill. The Bill was introduced and rammed through this Parliament yesterday and today and now goes on to the Senate for further deliberation. The Opposition will not be diverted or distracted from the enormity of the ramifications of the proposed ID card. We oppose the legislation but we endorse the importance of privacy legislation. It is usually at this time in a debate that the Government comes out with the bucket and on with the smear tactics: if one does not go along with the legislation being debated, one is a friend of tax cheats and one's criticisms are disregarded accordingly. I think the Government ought to review its strategy about this. Not so long ago on a radio program I heard the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) saying that the extremists were all getting the limelight because after the election there was not much on the agenda so all the funny or odd people had come out of the woodwork to have a go at the Australia Card legislation. Immediately after the Prime Minister said that on the radio, Barrie Unsworth, the Premier of New South Wales, came on and expressed his concerns about the privacy legislation. I notice from the newspaper today that he has been brought into line. We really ought to ask ourselves where does Mr Unsworth stand on this issue. One day he is bucketing it; the next day he is supporting it. I dare say that he will change his mind again as we move through the debate. Ben Lexcen learnt his lesson. He was No. 1 pin-up boy with the Prime Minister when we won the America's Cup. Ben Lexcen was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Then he put his head up and said, `I don't think the Australia Card is a good idea', and the Prime Minister was on to him in a flash calling him an extremist and a funny person, a person who ought to be disregarded. Peter Garrett is another one of these funny people. I was at a meeting in Melbourne the other day at which Peter Garrett was rather bemused by it all. He said, `The Government came to me to ask me to go on to the Constitutional Commission to consider how we might amend the Australian Constitution. In other words, it thought that I was good enough to look at amending the Constitution but, lo and behold, as soon as I said I did not like the Australia Card, the Government attacked me as being an extremist and a friend of tax cheats'. Joan Coxsedge, a Victorian upper House member of Parliament-she is way out to the Left-spoke at that meeting. I sat in the front row next to Albert Langer. He was at Monash University when I was there. Albert Langer is to the Left of the political spectrum-way out to the Left; so far out that it is indescribable. Mr Brumby —You go way out to the Right. Mr REITH —The honourable member is quite right. He probably thinks I am to the right of Genghis Khan; that is his view. But it shows the width of opposition to this ID card Bill, a width of opposition which we all know includes some Labor members who have been muzzled by the Caucus rules. Only this week in the Parliament some Labor members were not prepared to vote for an Opposition motion that we discuss a referendum Bill. They were not even prepared to discuss whether we could have a debate on a referendum Bill put forward by the Opposition. That is how low some of these people have stooped. This collectivist principle in the ALP is all very well, but I ask: How far will the Government go when it comes to throwing aside its own principles? A member of the Labor Party was on the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card which stated that the ID card was not a good idea and that it would not work. He has been muzzled. The Government has really put the ropes on the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent). He was not even in the House during most of the debate; nor should he have been, having regard to the embarrassment that he and other members of Labor's Left must feel on the question of this Bill. The fact is that at worst it is a mirage and at the very best it is flawed and totally inadequate. For Australian Rules football fans, it is a bit like a grand final between Melbourne and Carlton in which Carlton fields a full team of 18. The team lines up when the siren goes to find that Melbourne has only one player. It could be Robbie Flower or anybody else, but he will not even get to touch the ball if there is not a fully-established team of 18 players. Mr Lamb —Do you think they will get there? Mr REITH —I expect them to get to the grand final. I certainly hope they do, but I am an Essendon supporter-- Mr Lamb —You got that right-one thing right. Mr REITH —That is one thing I have got right. I thank the honourable member for Streeton for his support. In regard to the Data Protection Agency and all its principles, all the principles in the world will not stop organised crime. The honourable member should not take my word for it; take the word of Frank Costigan. He knows more about organised crime in Australia than anybody else. What did he say? He said that the ID card would not touch organised crime and that organised crime would make a mint out of it. In fact, the more that is spent on the ID card, the better will be the return for the forgers. The Data Protection Agency will not stop the leaks. It will not provide any protection for the innocent people who will suffer. Honourable members should not believe the phrase: `The innocent people have nothing to hide'. It is always the innocent people, the disadvantaged people, the people who cannot get access to our legal system, who suffer the consequences of this sort of growth in government bureaucracy and the intrusion which is represented by the Australia Card. The Data Protection Agency will not stop future governments extending the use of the card. Everybody knows that when this measure was raised, 30 departments wanted to be in on the act. Okay, they have been pruned to three, but that is only for the time being. A piece of paper fell off the back of a truck. That gives one an idea about how this whole system will leak like a sieve. Some of the bureaucrats do not like it, so things start falling off the back of a truck. If they do not like what I say, some of my details will fall off the back of a truck. The reality is that no future government will be able to stop the leaks. Nothing that we do here today will stop-certainly the Data Protection Agency will not stop-future governments extending the card. After a while there is no doubt that people in Australia will not be able to move without an Australia Card. It is a disgrace to use the name `Australia' to refer to this ID card. As the legislation now stands, when the baby-sitter fronts up, one will have to ask for his or her ID card. The Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), the responsible Minister, told us the day before yesterday that that was the case. He then said, `Don't worry, those friendly bureaucrats won't chase you if you break the law'. But he admitted that even the baby-sitter must front up with the card. The Data Protection Agency will not stop the costs to business which are somewhere in the vicinity of at least $2,000m. It will not stop those costs being transferred by way of increased prices. Everybody will pay through the neck for this proposal; there is no question about it. The Data Protection Agency will not be able to stop unauthorised use of the card. The fact is that this ID card will not work. It would be generous to call the Data Protection Agency a toothless tiger. The reality is that this legislation has been brought in to attend the funeral of privacy in Australia. It has been brought in to give the whole matter a nice air, to dress it up. That is all it is. It is one of the greatest acts of cynicism and hypocrisy that we in this Parliament have ever seen. The Government claims that it is concerned about privacy, yet its Australia Card legislation attacks privacy and takes aways people's rights in a way in which they have never been taken away before. It is no wonder that the Government does not want a referendum because people are waking up to it. We have opposed this legislation time and again and we will do so in the future. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(4.06) —One could be excused for wondering what this debate today is actually about. In fact, it is about two privacy Bills which are before the House-the Privacy Bill 1986 and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. These are the first pieces of privacy information legislation that have ever been brought before the Federal Parliament. It is our intention as a responsible Federal Government to ensure that these privacy information principles, this legislation, is passed into law with the passage of time. It needs to be said that the two Bills that we are debating have been through the House of Representatives previously in virtually identical form. They were debated along with the Australia Card legislation in November last year. They were comprehensively debated in this House and in the Senate. They were passed by this House and, unfortunately, rejected by the Senate. Despite the fact that this legislation would enhance and further the interests of privacy in Australia, the Opposition has opposed it on previous occasions and seems set to oppose it again. The purpose of the legislation is to enact a set of principles that will govern the use and protection of information held by certain Commonwealth agencies. I have mentioned that it is historic legislation. It is historic because it is the first time that the Commonwealth Government will legislate for the protection of privacy in Australia in a uniform way. Privacy is absolutely crucial and fundamental to the concepts that we all hold of a free and democratic society. Privacy is a very fragile thing. It is a very vulnerable thing. It is very difficult to measure or quantify, but it is certainly something that must be protected and nurtured. The need for privacy legislation has been highlighted over the best part of the last two decades by many prominent Australians, I suppose commencing with Professor Zelman Cowen, as he then was, with his 1969 Boyer Lectures entitled: `The Private Man'. The Bills that are before the House are based on the Australian Law Reform Commission's draft legislation and they also draw on the principles on privacy of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I have been amused in this debate to hear the Opposition wax so lyrical about the importance of privacy, because the importance of this issue of privacy is being used by the Opposition in a cynical way as the basis of its opposition to the Australia Card program and the establishment of the Data Protection Agency. It needs to be said that many Opposition members who now speak with such flourish and so forthrightly in this Parliament have not always been opposed to the Australia Card. It is certainly opportune for them to be opposed at the moment. One can safely say that they are guided by the concept of decibel democracy. As soon as an issue is run in the Press and it seems to have a bit of public support, the Opposition jumps on board. So too with this Australia Card issue. Over the last month or so, when there has been a small drop in support for the Australia Card measured by public opinion polls, the Opposition comes in strongly and says so forthrightly that it has always been absolutely opposed to the Australia Card. We did not hear much from the Opposition during the recent election campaign. Mr Porter —What caused the double dissolution? Mr BRUMBY —The double dissolution was called on the basis of the Australia Card. The Australian Labor Party ran advertisements on the Australia Card during the election, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) debated the issue, but I did not hear as much as a whimper-and that is the best that we could expect-from any senior Opposition member about the Australia Card. It was not opportune for them to run on it at the time because they did not think they had public support and they were too gutless to take their argument to the people. Members of the Opposition did not run on the issue. They have not run hard on the issue for two years. It was amusing to hear members opposite wax so lyrical today about privacy, because the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have not exactly got a great record on privacy. They had all of the 1970s and the first three years of the 1980s in government to do something about enacting their own privacy legislation. They had the first two years of the 1970s and they had 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982-10 years-to implement privacy legislation and they did not. They had Zelman Cowen's lectures and they had the Law Reform Commission's report in 1974. They did not take the opportunity to produce privacy information legislation. It has been up to this Government, a reformist Labor government, to put this legislation before the Parliament. Honourable members opposite did not give much credence to concepts of privacy or personal human rights during the 1960s when they were in government, when they conscripted tens of thousands of young Australians, against their will, to fight an obscene war in Vietnam. Where were their principles then on privacy and human rights? They were not there at all. As I have already asked, where were they in the last election campaign, when honourable members opposite did not have the courage or the guts to run on this issue because they did not think they could win public support? The Opposition is basing the campaign that it is running on this legislation on the basest of human emotions-fear and misinformation. If they had listened to the debate in this House yesterday on the Australia Card, they would have heard some of the stories from Government members about constituents coming to their offices full of the fear and misinformation that people opposite-- Mr Reith —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. My point of order is that this is completely irrelevant to the Privacy Bill. Maybe the honourable member has not read the Bill. I suggest the he ought to and he should be relevant to it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! There is no point of order. A certain amount of flexibility was given to the honourable member who took the point of order and he gave a resounding address on the Australia Card. Considering that that was allowed, I now call the honourable member for Bendigo. Mr Reith —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. If one looks at the Hansard when this matter was last debated in this place-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Reith —Madam Deputy Speaker, I do have a point of order. Mr Brumby —Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the two pieces of legislation which are before the House relate to privacy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am aware of that. I ask the honourable member to come to his point of order. Mr Brumby —They refer to the establishment of the Data Protection Agency. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am aware of that. Mr Brumby —The Data Protection Agency is an essential part of the Australia Card legislation which was passed yesterday. It is quite clear that these pieces of legislation are inextricably linked. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! No point of order is necessary. I have already acceded to the point the honourable member has made. Mr BRUMBY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for ruling. I was giving some examples that were raised yesterday in the debate in this House. The honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) told a story of a constituent coming to his office who had heard of a secret government plan to destroy automatic telling machines. This constituent had been told that, under the Australia Card program, he would not be able to take money out of an automatic bank telling machine without showing his Australia Card. The honourable member for Calare was asked, `Where does that leave us? How can we show an Australia Card to a telling machine?' Mr Reith —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Under the Standing Orders, the honourable member is not entitled to canvass the debate in this House on a previous Bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, I suggest that you require him to stick to this Bill, as we were required to do when it was first debated last year. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am applying what is said in the Standing Orders regarding relevancy. I am aware of the Bill before the House. I draw the attention of the honourable member for Bendigo to the fact that his remarks must relate to the Data Protection Agency or other points which are pertinent to this Bill and to both; but I repeat that the honourable member for Bendigo has been given latitude to respond to points already made by the honourable member for Flinders in this debate. Mr BRUMBY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your further ruling. I was giving examples of this campaign for fear and misinformation about the Australia Card. Last week I had a constituent in my office who asked whether it was true that every time he filled his car up with petrol he would be required to produce his Australia Card. He is a sensible young man, but that is what he had been told and he believed it. Of course, that is the type of fear and misinformation campaign that is being conducted by the Opposition. When we look at the contributions which have been made by Opposition members in this House over the last few years to a number of important parliamentary debates, we see a constant base theme that runs through them-the very base theme of fear and misinformation. Do you remember the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the assets test? Do you remember Opposition members standing up in this House and saying that pensioners' privacy would be invaded with SS-type guards knocking down doors, going into houses and counting people's assets? Do you remember that claim being made in this House? We remember another Liberal member in this House saying that the gold fillings of pensioners' teeth would be valued for the assets test? Again, the Opposition is using same base appeal to fear. The same type of base campaign was conducted on the fringe benefits tax legislation. Opposition members said that meals served to family members would be subject to the tax and that farmers would be paying billions of dollars in fringe benefits tax. We remember the campaign on the entertainment deductions which we abolished-the end of the free lunch? The Opposition mounted the same campaign of fear and misinformation. All we can say about this Opposition is that it has no clear vision of where it will take this country in the future. Honourable members opposite have no set of policies. They are totally opportunistic. They are run by that principle of decibel democracy. If they think they are on a good wicket in the short term, they are on to it. Let me tell honourable members opposite that we won the assets test campaign; we now enjoy public support for it. We won the fringe benefits tax campaign; we now enjoy public support for it. We won the campaign on other taxation base broadening measures, and we now have widespread public support for them. We will also win this campaign-and convincingly. Let us just look at what this Data Protection Agency and these privacy information principles will involve. The Data Protection Agency is being established to protect the rights and privacy of individuals by controlling the collection and use of personal data by the Australia Card authority and all other government agencies which have databases covered by the Freedom of Information Act. So the Data Protection Agency will also administer the Privacy Bill. It is all right for members of the Opposition to make these empty claims with empty rhetoric about a toothless tiger. The fact is that never before in Australia have we had privacy legislation proposing a data protection agency to ensure that the information kept about us as individuals is kept in a certain way which does not breach our personal privacy. We have never had that before in Australia and I would have thought that that was something good, something that we ought to cherish. But Opposition members come into this chamber and oppose the legislation. They do not have the gumption to stand up in this chamber and support privacy legislation, or a data protection agency which will go with it, to ensure that it is enforced. Let us look at some of the things that are involved in the protection of privacy. Clause 13 relates to information privacy principles. Principle 1 provides that information is to be collected only for lawful purposes. Principle 2 provides that where information is collected from an individual for inclusion in a record or generally available publication, the person is to be made aware of the purpose of the gathering of the information. Principle 4 provides that reasonable security precautions must be taken to protect information. Record keepers holding information must ensure that the information about them is accurate. Principle 6 provides that a record keeper has to give reasonable access. Principle 7 provides that where a record keeper and a person are unable to agree about the accuracy of the information, a statement is to be attached to the record setting out the correction sought. There are 11 principles under clause 13. We have never before had them embodied in legislation in Australia. I think they are good and they ought to be commended. I was on the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card which examined the arguments for and against the Australia Card. We exhaustively investigated the Australia Card and it was my view, supported by my colleagues, that the Australia Card ought to be introduced but with protective mechanisms involving privacy legislation. One of the witnesses who appeared before our Committee was Professor Douglas Whalan of the Australian National University. Professor Whalan is a very public figure, a noted civil libertarian. He stated the following before our Committee: . . . it is inevitable in our community that we are going to have complex, complete, intertwined computerised records. What we do not have at present is a completely adequate protection against the use or misuse of those records, and that need for some sort of protection I believe exists quite independently of the proposal for an Australia Card. If we do have an Australia Card it is vital, I believe, that we have both very carefully circumscribed limits on its use and a protective body with similar independence to that possessed by the Ombudsman. Perhaps one irony would be that if we do have an Australia Card with all those protections . . . our privacy may be better protected than it is now. Professor Whalan is dead right because this legislation involves the Australia Card legislation, coupled with a Data Protection Agency and privacy legislation which we are debating today. As Professor Whalan put it, if we have the Australia Card with circumscribed use-that is what we are proposing; only the Social Security Department, the Taxation Office and Medicare will be able to use that information-with a Data Protection Agency and with privacy legislation, we will not be putting back the cause of privacy in Australia, we will be advancing it. That is what Professor Whalan, a noted academic and civil libertarian put to our Committee. I will conclude by making a few points about some of the claims that are being made against this legislation and the Australia Card proposal. A document was distributed to all Federal members, I believe this week, entitled: `Why the ID card must be stopped now!' It is a national campaign against the ID card. It is a totally scurrilous publication. It is full of lies. I can find nothing accurate in it. On page 3 it states: Even the taxation office is cynical. That is a straight-out lie because the Taxation Office appeared before our Committee and it was very strongly in favour of the Australia Card. I will come back to that. The pamphlet continues: For a billion dollars outlay, we may not get any additional tax revenue. That is a joke. It continues: The Government's estimates are little better than guesswork. I was on that Committee. We were provided with an abundant amount of confidential information from the Australian Taxation Office on how these estimates were calculated and those estimates are extremely conservative. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) can interject about my contribution to this debate, but he signed the Joint Select Committee report-he was a member of the Committee-which stated that the Taxation Office estimates of revenue of around $800m per year in net benefits were extremely conservative. He was a party to that report. Opposition members on the Joint Parliamentary Committee all agreed that the Taxation Office estimates are extremely conservative at $800m a year. We are not talking about $800m a year, we are talking about more. In fact, in that report we said that the figure may well be two to three times higher. We might be looking at $2 billion. We do not say that from the Government benches because we want to give the rock bottom figure. This pamphlet states that even if the figures are right the additional revenue is a mere 50c per person, per week. That is nonsense! I will tell honourable members what the real figures are. The real figures mean a tax cut for every taxpayer in Australia of nearly $6 a fortnight. That is not a bad sort of tax cut. It might not matter to the honourable member for Flinders, but it matters to ordinary Australians-$6 a fortnight is a lot of money after tax. That is the sort of money we are talking about in this report. The honourable member for Flinders who has carried the debate for the Opposition in this place, the shadow Attorney-General, the man who wants to be Attorney-General, is the man who only seven months ago offered $100 to the Australian who could produce the best forged ID card. What a top classical job. What a pre-school mentality. Have honourable members ever heard anything so puerile from the man who wants to be Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia? He offered $100 to the Australian who can best forge an ID card. What a beauty! That highlights the Opposition's contribution to this debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.26) —I have a view about the way in which members ought to conduct themselves in this House. I very much regret the comments of the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) who preceded me and personalised the discussion. Let me deal with some of the aspects of his speech which, if I were gentle, I would describe as grossly misleading. I will comment on his speech in three respects: Firstly, he suggested that during the recent election campaign the question of the identity card was not raised by the Opposition and its Leader. I did not attend all our campaign meetings, but I attended a number of them and I can say unequivocally that that question was raised, it was spoken about and the issue was there to be taken up by anybody in the media who wanted to write about it. I could also say-the honourable member may have seen the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) television clips provided by our political party-that the question of the identity card was also raised on the ABC in the free time made available by it. The second matter I want to address is his allegation that the Opposition has a lack of interest in privacy. He suggested that as early as 1974 the Opposition, when it was in government-the last Liberal-National Party Government-had before it a report from the Australian Law Reform Commission on privacy. Mr Brumby —Correct. Professor Morrison. Mr RUDDOCK —That is correct. That was the report on privacy by the Australian Law Reform Commission. It was in 1984 and it has developed-- Mr Brumby —Professor Morrison's report was in 1974. Mr RUDDOCK —That was to the New South Wales Liberal Government by Professor Morrison, whom I happen to know. The result was the formation of the Australian Privacy Foundation in New South Wales which has contributed so much to the development of discussion about privacy in this nation. Mr Porter —He did not know what he was talking about. Mr RUDDOCK —No, of course he did not. But the privacy report which was brought down by this Government was initiated on terms of reference given by the Law Reform Commission by R. J. Ellicott, QC, MP, a former Liberal Attorney-General. This report has been in the hands of the Government since 1983 and could have been acted upon at any time if it had wished. In 1987 the Government wants us-- Mr Brumby —You are opposing it. Mr RUDDOCK —Of course we are opposing it. We are opposing it because the Privacy Bill the Government is putting up is a pale shadow of the recommendations that it has from the Privacy Foundation as to what should be done if we are to develop an adequate scheme for the protection of privacy in this country. That is the fact of the matter. The honourable member deserves to be chastised most severely for the way in which he has dealt with the truth in this debate. The third matter is his suggestion that the Government has not suffered for the way in which it treated the elderly of this country by the implementation of the assets test. The Government has not been vindicated in any way at all by the way in which it treated the elderly in relation to the assets test. It has lost irrevocably the support of the elderly in the community and any assessment of voting trends gives proof to that. The Opposition is the Party that has been supported by the elderly because of the view that it has put over and over again on the question of the assets test. This debate is about privacy. I do not mind joining issue on the identity card. In fact I welcome the opportunity on behalf of my colleagues, who will no doubt be able to join the debate because of the breadth of the ruling from the Chair. I want to talk about privacy because I see it as being of the utmost importance that the terms of this Bill are examined in this House and this Bill is thrown out now because of the inadequate way in which it deals with the subject. Privacy is of the utmost importance. When the Australian Law Reform Commission put down its report in June 1983, it spoke about the year to follow, 1984. It had this to say: Ever since George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four, that year has stood as a symbol of the way in which authoritarian attitudes and intrusive modern technology could undermine freedom and individual privacy. Now, on the brink of 1984, the Law Reform Commission publishes the results of a seven-year inquiry into the threats to privacy in Australia. It concludes that privacy is in danger, both in actuality and, even more so, in prospect. This report describes the chief sources of the danger. They include: Growing Official Powers. If there had been an identity card proposal at that time, it would have written about it in this context. It continues: The powers of increasing numbers of public officials to intrude into the lives and properties of Australians are growing. New Business practices. New intrusive practices have developed in recent years, such as electronic surveillance, credit reporting and direct marketing. New Information Technology. Just listen to what the report had to say. It was a forewarning of what this debate on the identity card is all about. It continues: The computerisation of personal information has enormous advantages, but it also presents Australian society with new dangers, now well documented and understood. The amount of personal information that can be collected and distributed has grown enormously. The ever-increasing speed and the ever-diminishing cost with which it can be retrieved puts a great deal of information about all of us at the fingertips of a few. Computers can now manipulate information supplied from many sources, match and compare it and build detailed personal `profiles'. The linkage of computers by telecommunications bring such information across the street or across the world. The computerists, those who operate computers, do not, as a group, have even the imperfect checks and restraints that the older professions are subject to. The new technology is international. Control of it can be readily centralised in relatively few hands. The Government's identity card legislation is just about that. The report, which was there to guide the Government in relation to this legislation, was an effort to ensure that there was statutory control in relation to the sort of legislation that the Government is bringing forward-the ID card legislation. Of course, the Government recognises that it has to come to grips with that. When one looks at the outline of the Bill, if one reads it without looking at the detail of the legislation, one would think that that is fine, and that the Government is trying to protect us from the way in which computerised information can be misused and also the way in which this legislative approval, through the Australia Card, could legitimise the collection of that information. On the Privacy Bill, the explanatory memorandum states: The Privacy Bill 1986 will establish rules of conduct, called Information Privacy Principles . . . The explanatory memorandum continues: The IPPs are based on a recommendation of the Law Reform Commission in its Report No. 22 entitled `Privacy' . . . and presented in December 1983. * * * * A breach of the IPPs is deemed to be an interference with privacy . . . although interferences with privacy do not give rise to any civil liability in damages or criminal penalties. An individual alleging an interference with privacy will be able to complain to the Data Protection Agency (DPA) to be established by the Australia Card Bill . . . One reads about that and one thinks that it is fine. There is a scheme to deal with the problems that the implementation of the Australia Card Bill brings forward. However, the fact of the matter is that the Government has brought forward a defective Bill as demonstrated by my colleague the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) from the criticism developed by the Law Council of Australia in its advice. That advice has been before the Government for a considerable time. The Privacy Bill was not a double dissolution Bill. It was not one of those Bills, like the Australia Card Bill, which justified the election, and which the Government might be able to present to a joint sitting. It is not a Bill which the Government cannot amend for fear of breaching section 57 of the Constitution which would mean that had it been amended it could be struck out by the High Court if it passed a joint sitting. The Privacy Bill can be amended at any time by the Government as it passes the House. The defects in the Bill as it relates to privacy could be examined, catalogued, and we could be given a Bill designed to deal with privacy adequately. However, in the speech made by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) when he introduced the Bill, he acknowledged that amendments had been made to the Bill from the time that it was presented to the last Parliament. The Attorney-General in his second reading speech said: These Bills are the same Bills as were passed by this House on 14 November 1986. The only changes made are to take account of the passage of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 and minor drafting corrections. Here we have this important question of privacy. We have a Bill which is clearly defective and inadequate to address the questions raised about privacy, an opportunity to amend it, and to take those criticisms into account, and members are going to come into this House and tell us that this is a Bill that adequately addresses those problems. If I were wont to describe people as hypocritical, I think that this would be a situation where that label would be amply justified. The fact of the matter is that the Minister has had the opportunity, and if the Government were of good intention and valued its reputation, we would not see the Bill that passed the House in November 1986 before us but today we would be seeing a new Bill. In the remaining time available to me I want to take the House through the provisions of the Bill and detail in the time that I have some of those matters that ought to have been considered if the Bill were adequately to address the question of privacy. Four points were made in the advice from the Law Council of Australia which make it clear that this Bill is defective. Those points were these. The first is that the Bill lacks adequate remedies for breach of privacy. In fact, in clause 15 (6) there are specific provisions which limit access to other remedies. If one went to the United Kingdom, where that much maligned Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, brought in legislation dealing with the question of privacy, one would be aware that access to the courts for civil remedies arising from a breach of a statutory duty imposed by legislation exists. Yet here in this Bill, where we are enacting statutory duties and where, to all intents and purposes, under the common law tortious remedy would exist, we are being asked to provide a specific statutory bar to the courts for a civil remedy in the event of a breach of a statutory duty. Quite frankly, I regard that legislation as being severely defective. The Law Council would endorse that view, as its comments make clear. The legislation also denies any access to criminal remedies. The only additional matters raised by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech were that there may be access to injunction or one may be able to bring some action in defamation arising from the way information is dealt with. The second matter raised by the Australian Law Reform Commission is that the Bill is too narrow. Interestingly, the Law Council of Australia said that the Law Reform Commission report was a narrow document; that it did not canvass the field adequately. Yet we have legislation before us which deliberately reads down the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission as to what it saw as being the appropriate way the subject should be dealt with. The third point made by the Law Reform Commission is that the title `Privacy Bill' is severely misleading. If one wanted to describe adequately what this legislation represents one would give it the title `Bill dealing with personal information' because that is really all it deals with. In terms of the wider questions that are addressed in the Law Reform Commission report-matters relating to eavesdropping, interference with the mail, the way medical research and other information is dealt with-the Privacy Bill that we have before us is quite effective. The fourth and, I think, most telling criticism is that this Bill will deal only with information that is established after the legislation is enacted. In other words, any information that is held by government now on a person will not be subject to any of the remedies available or any inquiries that might be initiated. Presumably under the Australia Card legislation the Government will be able to draw upon earlier information that might be available about a person. I regard those matters that I have raised as being severe limitations, ones which the Government ought to be taking into account. They should prompt the Government to withdraw the legislation and re-present it to the Parliament at a later date. In the appendix `Comments on proposed information privacy principles' the Law Council of Australia made a number of more specific comments. I will draw out some of those points for the benefit of members of the House who are interested in this subject. The first point raised was one that I made earlier; that is, that records collected after the date of the enactment of the legislation would not be covered by the privacy legislation. It makes the second point that the principles apply only to personal information collected for inclusion in the record. In other words, if other information of a non-personal nature is brought forward, this legislation might not apply. The Law Council dealt with the definition of personal information. It drew out the point that in the Canadian Privacy Act a much wider definition applies. The Canadian legislation states: Personal information means information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing . . . (c) any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual, (d) the address, fingerprints or blood type of the individual . . . (f) correspondence sent to a government institution by the individual that is implicitly or explicitly of a privately or confidential nature, and replies to such correspondence that will reveal the contents of the original correspondence, (g) the views or opinions of another individual about the individual . . . That legislation in Canada clearly had a much wider definition of personal information than is proposed in our Bill. Thus it is more adequate for the purposes. The next comment by the Law Council deals with the relevant lack of social justification. The New South Wales Privacy Committee suggested a social justification principle in its guidelines for the operation of personal data systems. This legislation ignored that recommendation. I want to read from the Law Council's comments in relation to that matter because those comments are particularly pertinent: It is not possible to infer from the Principles any limit on how broadly a record-keeper may define the purposes of the system. The possibility is therefore left open of so broad an initial definition of purpose that vast amounts of information are `relevant'. For example, the creation of one central bureau for the purpose of gaining a complete picture of a person's socio-economic history by recording credit, tenancy, employment, medical insurance and other insurance details would not seem contrary to these Principles. These important points ought to be examined in detail by the Government. They deserve to result in the rejection of this legislation and a fresh Bill before the Parliament. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(4.46) —We have now heard from two lawyers from the opposing side. It is time we heard from a layman because in dressing up the rhetoric, presenting it in legal terms and having an ignorance, I suspect, of the mechanics of the operation of the new technology information systems, those opposite have been able to employ the weapon of fear and have ignored the facts about the operations of privacy legislation. They have also made reference, as I will, to the operation of the Australia Card. There is no question that in our modern technological age with new weapons to invade people's privacy we need to re-examine the relationship between government and the individual, and the individual and the rest of society. Let us not just talk about government and the individual but also about information systems in the private sector that invade the `privacy'-we have to explore what that even means-of ordinary citizens. We heard from the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) yesterday about how time, distance and space have been telescoped over the last 50 years by invention after invention. It is no use talking in a lawyers' framework. I heard it adequately described yesterday: lawyers always think backwards; they rely on precedent. It is up to lay people and members of parliament to think forward. That is what this Government is doing and it is what the Privacy Bill is all about. There is no doubt that we live in a computer age where the ability to store, retrieve, analyse and match information is unparalleled and every day becomes more efficient. So it behoves governments-and this Government incidentally is the first national government to grasp the nettle on this issue-to find a balance between the community benefit that comes with increased access to and interchange of information and the public benefit, no more so than in the interface between government and people. This legislation introduced by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) does just that. It strikes a fair balance between the community benefit and the public benefit. It is necessary for governments to intervene in that interface. Member after member on this side of the House-I know they believe it and have reiterated it in this Parliament-respect privacy as a fundamental right which is part and parcel of our democracy and the Australian tradition. We are introducing legislation to protect that privacy from over-intrusive government. However, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) wants it both ways. He says that there is a need for such legislation and that he endorses the primary principles in the Bill. I guess he supports those members of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card which recommends that this legislation be introduced. Yet he wants it both ways. He supports it and endorses the principles, yet time and again in the 30 minutes allotted to him to speak to the Bill today he said that the Opposition opposes the Bill. He said that the Attorney-General has received suggestions for amendments but that it is the same Bill. Yet not one amendment has been suggested by the Opposition. It has engaged in a blatant political exercise of pure obstruction and opposition. Mr Reith —Oh! Mr LAMB —Well, let me quote from the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which, in paragraph 2.42 on page 76, recommends the legislation I have just mentioned: That the Commonwealth introduce privacy legislation based on the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission Report on Privacy as soon as possible. That legislation was introduced in this Parliament in November last year and on 14 November the Opposition voted against it. What hypocrisy, grandstanding and cynical opportunism. The people need to know why the Opposition has taken this stand, why it continues to play on fear, and why it has rustled up in the Parliament today the lawyers who are ignorant on technological revolution but smart on rhetoric. During the election we did not hear one word from the Opposition about the double dissolution legislation-the Australia Card. Because it did not regard the card as an issue, the media did not give the issue the prominence that people now think it should have been given. Because of the popular support at that time, the Opposition did not think it had an issue on which to beat us around the head. So it remained mute. Because the Opposition lost the election, it is now grasping for something and it believes that it can beat us around the head on this issue. I believe that the ordinary Australian can easily distinguish between the opportunists and those who are genuinely concerned about civil liberties. Most honourable members opposite are political opportunists. They have failed on all avenues of taxation reform which this Government has introduced. They failed in the debates on the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, and so on. I am sure that their public contribution to this debate, their fearmongering, gives them no more credibility than they had then. They now resort to that base weapon-to quote the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby)-of fearmongering. The Opposition is joined by a motley group of hangers on, many of whom, with their companions, were in the fight against other tax reforms. Let me give just one example of that motley crew-one who joined them then, lost the battle, and joins them now. I refer to an article which appeared in the Post newspaper in my electorate. My staff was told that it was written by Peter Boyle of the Australian Small Business Association. In a huge article, which was full of fallacies, he pretended-- Mr Reith —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I object to this slur on people such as Garrett, judges of the Federal Court and those generally in the community who are opposed to the legislation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. There is nothing in the Standing Orders of this House in that respect. Mr LAMB —The article contains fallacy after fallacy and misrepresentation after misrepresentation. Let me give just three examples: A hospital may refuse entry to a cardless person. That is totally wrong. It is not in the legislation. Secondly, the article stated: If you are employed in a job and you don't have a card, you may have to be dismissed or forced to resign as it is an offence for your employer to pay you. Once again, that is totally false and is not provided for in the legislation. Thirdly, the article stated: . . . the Australia Card will replace the Medicare card, and every detail of your medical treatment will be stored in a single government computer. The article was alluding to the Australia Card Register. Once again, that is wrong. The statements in those three instances are wrong, wrong, wrong. It is important to take those who are fearmongering, the opportunists, the opportunist lawyers opposite and to ask them to tell the people the facts about the Australia Card Bill regarding privacy, access and information. Let me outline some of the facts. It is not a general ID card; it is an Australia Card and is called that because of its limited identity use for three agencies. It will have only basic identification information in the Register and none of the medical records, information about legitimacy of birth and so on that have been pushed up by our opponents. It will be purely a register for identification purposes. Only three agencies will have access to the information. Those three agencies will not be able to exchange the information among them. That is the important fact about the technology of the computer system and the protection that has been provided for the Australia Card. Public servants will not be able to exchange information or to build up a huge dossier on any individual. The actual records will remain separate. There will be no huge database. This simple information, which is already available to government departments-there is nothing new here-will be protected by the operations of the Data Protection Agency (DPA). Personal information will be protected against unwarranted access or release and the system will operate only under the privacy legislation which is before us. Access will be limited to a few and it will be used only to check the identity or the purpose that an accredited official has in the area of tax and welfare. There will be no police access, no creation of a huge central dossier and no wide Public Service access. In contrast to all the fearmongering, we have the genuine and professional concern of many legal and civil libertarian groups, all of whom will welcome these privacy Bills. I have had approaches from the Law Institute of Victoria, the Administrative Law Committee and the New South Wales Privacy Committee, all of which have expressed properly founded concerns about the privacy of the Australia Card and government information banks on individuals. The Government has indicated that it will respond to those concerns. Let me give one example. I have before me a Press release issued by John Howie of the Society of Labor Lawyers dated 22 July 1985. I know John Howie. I respect him as an excellent solicitor and lawyer and an excellent civil libertarian. The Press release said: The Society was opposing the introduction of ID cards because they would pose-- Mr Porter —Hear, hear! Mr LAMB —This was in 1985. I ask the honourable member to listen. It said: The Society was opposing the introduction of ID cards because they would pose grave dangers for individual privacy. There is some protection for individual privacy in the sheer diversity of current data bases. That is right. However, the Luddites opposite ignore the technological revolution. It is inevitable that a sheer diversity of data bases cannot be maintained without the legislation that is before us and without the DPA. The Press release continued: We remain unconvinced that appropriate controls will be put in place. Mr Howie noted that the recommendation to the Australian Law Reform Commission on privacy remained unimplemented and that a comprehensive set of controls over databases was in any event long overdue. The Government could not agree more. The Press release was written on 22 July 1985. The very legislation that the Society of Labor Lawyers wanted to protect privacy was introduced last November, or a bit earlier, and was opposed by the Opposition. What about the hypocrisy? The Opposition will use such groups for its own ends, but it will not meet head on their suggestions for protecting privacy, as this Government has. I share some of the concerns of the different law groups. In fact, in Caucus I opposed the introduction of the Australia Card because I had doubts about it. However, I must say that our doubts and concerns were listened to, as were most of those of the legitimate civil libertarian lawyer groups. Changes were made, to the point where now I am able to support the legislation before the House and I am able to vote with the Government on the Australia Card. I still have some concerns, but they are not about the Australia Card legislation and they are not about the privacy legislation; my concerns are about what would happen if honourable members opposite were ever elected to government. Should that tragedy ever happen I am concerned that it will enter the heads of honourable members opposite to impose upon the liberties of ordinary citizens and infringe their rights as they did in the 1960s during the opposition to the Vietnam War and as they do in Queensland in regard to the rights of people to march in the streets and protest. If those right wing members of Parliament were ever to form government I fear that they would use this legislation to infringe the privacy of people. However, we do have protections in place to make it extremely unlikely that there would be a clear victory in the Senate for the present Opposition. It would have to go through the same processes that this Government has had to go through to introduce the Australia Card legislation. A proposal for change would require a double dissolution and a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament to be successful. We have constitutional validity for what we are doing. I am concerned at the possibility of the Opposition coming to government. My second concern is the possibility that the Australia Card will become a de facto identification card. However, I admit that there are plenty of other materials that are used for that purpose already. Mr Deputy Speaker, I pause here and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour this day. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 15 September, on motion by Ms Crawford: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: May it please Your Excellency: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(5.03) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this Parliament as part of the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech. In doing so may I congratulate you on your appointment to office, and would you please pass on my congratulations to Madam Speaker for her well-deserved re-election to the Chair of the House. It is a great honour and pleasure for me to be elected for the first time as a member of the Hawke Labor Government-a government which, I believe, has proven itself to be one of the great reformist governments in this nation's history. It is generally considered that the great period of Labor reform was during the Whitlam Government of 1972-75 and there is no doubt that that Government, more than any other, introduced crucial and long overdue measures to bring about enlightened social conditions and equality of opportunity for all Australians. It is one thing to reform by giving to the underprivileged; it is quite another thing to reform by taking from the privileged. While the former may occasion the disapproval of the elite, the latter, as we have seen, brings down its rage and galvanises its forces. That this Government has had the courage and the conviction firstly to introduce and then to persevere with its economic reforms in the face of a massive Opposition campaign is to its eternal credit. It is to the credit of the Australian people that on 11 July last they saw through the deception and self-interest of the Opposition policies and re-elected a Labor government. During the last 4 1/2 years, this Government has directed the Australian economy responsibly and competently in the face of unprecedented external pressures. The evidence of its success mounts daily. Falling interest rates, improvement in the balance of trade and lowering of inflation have established Labor as the pre-eminent economic manager of this country. Our latest achievement is the Budget brought down this week-the so called horror Budget; the Budget which, according to the Opposition, would be so horrific that we had to call an early election for fear of its consequences; a Budget which, in fact, boils down to a deficit of $27m and at least $22 a week for one million Australian children. I stand here today at the behest of the electors of the seat of Hawker. I appreciate the great responsibility that they have vested in me and will do my utmost in the coming years to vindicate their choice and represent them faithfully in this Parliament. I am indebted also to the South Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party which endorsed me for this seat, to my family and friends and to the hundreds of Party members whose moral and physical support enabled me to win. The seat of Hawker is in the south-western metropolitan area of Adelaide, stretching from the beachside suburbs of Glenelg and Brighton in the north and west to Millswood in the east and Marion in the south. It is a diverse seat in respect of interests and income. However, the heartland of Hawker is a large, stable residential area, established in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, in which most houses are presently occupied by their original owners or elderly people who have moved into units from within the same area. It is not surprising, therefore, that in respect of the age of its population, Hawker is the oldest federal electorate in the country, with a median age of over 40 and with one-fifth of its electors over the age of 65. Contrary to the claims of the Opposition parties during the election campaign, the aged have not been forgotten or neglected by Labor. Significant real pension increases, and unprecedented funding of services, demonstrate Labor's commitment to the aged. Through the introduction of the home and community care program and other schemes, Labor is coming to terms with the aging of Australia by rethinking and restructuring its system of aged care and support. I, as the member for Hawker, will do my utmost to see that the aged continue to take high priority on this Government's agenda. A large number of the elderly in Hawker are veterans of World War II and, with their spouses, moved into government subsidised war service homes in the late 1940s. The veterans in Hawker are a large and vocal group who waste no time in letting me know what they think of government policies and actions which affect them. I have assured them that this Government and I are committed to the retention of a separate Department of Veterans' Affairs and the maintenance of veterans' incomes and services. I am delighted with the way that local veterans' groups have welcomed me as their new member. There are also significant numbers of Vietnam veterans in Hawker who are no less deserving of our moral and material support, especially as these men are still relatively young. Unfortunately, even after 15 or more years of repatriation, many of them still experience problems in adjusting to normal life. They are at a comparative disadvantage because of the distinct nature of the physical and psychological damage done to them and because the same honour and esteem do not seem to accrue to veterans of a modern, unpopular and lost war. I believe that this Government must ensure that Vietnam veterans are adequately compensated, particularly those suffering from the insidious and often unrecognised effects of chemical warfare. A problem with which I am continually confronted is the plight of sole parents. We must give supporting mothers, as most of these parents are women, adequate income and community support, so that they, with their children, may live in comfort and dignity, free from the temptation to enter into unsatisfactory relationships in search of security and companionship. The overriding need of supporting parents, the aged and other low income earners, is adequate and affordable housing. South Australia has a commendable record in this area due largely in recent years to the foresight and good management of the Bannon State Labor Government and its policies on public housing. But there is still a huge need to be met. I trust that the recent relocation by this Government of housing as a sub-department of the Department of Health and Community Services will not mean any diminution of this Government's commitment in that area. The Social Security Review commissioned by this Government has identified families with dependent children as the group in particular need of government support. We have gone a long way in providing assistance for them by introducing the family package and creating the environment for a reduction in interest rates. In addition, real increases in education funding, particularly in the area of participation and equity, have meant greater educational and vocational opportunities for the children of these families. I commend the Government for its recent conjunction of the departments covering education, employment and training. With a greater gearing of education to the employment market, the job prospects of school leavers and mature men and women will be greatly enhanced. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is all very well for governments to sit in parliament and party rooms, making policy and taking decisions amidst a welter of theory and statistics; but it is only when we go out into the community and look at the way in which our decisions affect the lives of individual men, women and children that we can appreciate the power we have and the enormous benefit or damage which a minor funding adjustment or a slight policy shift can bring to an individual person. Largely by necessity, we in government deal with Australians as a large mass or a number of broad socio-economic or interest groups; but there are in fact 16 million stories out there, and, with honourable members' indulgence, I will relate but three of them. There is a constituent of mine called Sandy-a 22-year-old woman of keen intelligence who has been afflicted since birth with extreme cerebral palsy. She is confined to a wheelchair, suffers continuous spasms of her entire body and can speak only with the utmost difficulty. Until recently, Sandy had virtually abandoned hope of ever being able to establish satisfying relationships or perform useful work. However, earlier this year she joined a disability demonstration project funded by the Department of Community Services. After months of patient effort by Sandy and her instructors, she has now learnt to operate a word processor with her breath and is employed keeping records for the project. Not only has Sandy got a job, but she can now, by means of her word processor, express herself effectively for the first time. A Federal Government grant has given this woman the gift of communication and improved beyond measure the quality of her life. Then there is Maria-a mother of four, who had for 16 years suffered unspeakable mental and physical abuse at the hands of her husband. After months of accommodation, support and counselling at a government-funded women's shelter in Hawker, Maria is about to move into a South Australian Housing Trust house where, with supplementary assistance, she and her children should be able to rebuild their lives. Finally, there is Merilyn-a competent and cheerful young woman who came to my electorate office the other day to build some cupboards. Because of this Government's enlightened employment policies, Merilyn has just completed an apprenticeship in carpentry with the Department of Housing and Construction and is doing well in a job she enjoys and excels at. I am sure that it will not have escaped the notice of some honourable members that these are all women's stories. This is not by design on my part. But neither, I suspect, is it entirely by chance. While all Australians benefit from this Government's policies, it is women and girls in particular whom we have enabled to overcome disadvantage and break out of traditional roles. It is the thousands of Sandys, Marias and Merilyns, not to mention the Toms, Dicks and Harrys, whose lives we have the power to make or break here in Canberra. It is up to us to exercise that power responsibly and fairly and with full knowledge of the implications of our actions. I rise in this House today as the first Labor woman from South Australia to be elected to the House of Representatives. This is an honour of which I am proud and for which I am grateful. However, I wish on this occasion to pay tribute to two South Australian men, both of whom I admire very much and who are, and will I trust continue, to be an inspiration to me and others. Although one of them is still very much alive, I hope that he will forgive me if, for the sake of grammatical convenience, I refer to them both in the past tense. The men I speak of are Charles Hawker, after whom my electorate is named, and Ralph Jacobi, my predecessor and the first member for Hawker. Although they came from vastly different backgrounds and belonged to opposing parties, they had much in common as men and politicians. Both were men of great intelligence and conscience, honest and plain speaking, with an overriding sense of responsibility to their constituency and an abiding contempt for sham and hypocrisy. Charles Hawker came from a well-to-do South Australian pastoral family. Despite being crippled and in constant pain as a result of injuries incurred in the Great War, he led a full and active life and was elected to Federal Parliament in 1929 as the Liberal member for Wakefield-the only conservative success in the rout which brought the Scullin Labor Government to power. In 1932, when Joe Lyons led the newly formed United Australia Party to victory, Hawker, at the age of 37, became Australia's first Minister for Commerce. Despite his discomfort inside the Cabinet `straitjacket', as he called it, he established a national and international reputation for his expertise and far-sightedness in the area of overseas trade, never forgetting that the aim of his endeavours was the welfare of the Australian people, then still in the grip of the Great Depression. The constant thorn in his side was the reluctance of the Government of the day to lift the exorbitant tariffs which it had so vehemently attacked in Opposition and which Hawker considered were stifling enterprise and industry. In a speech in this House he referred to his own side as `a Government of the feeble for the greedy' and warned his colleagues that they were rapidly alienating the people who had voted them into power. In 1932, following a reduction in Public Service salaries and pensions, Hawker expressed constantly his belief that members of parliament were not shouldering their fair share of economic restraint. When an independent Labor member moved an amendment in the House to reduce members' salaries to #600 a year, the Government refused to support it. This was the last straw for Hawker, who promptly resigned his ministry and crossed the floor. The amendment was defeated by 56 votes to eight. Despite Hawker's resignation from the Ministry, he continued to take a high profile in the Government and was spoken of in coming years as a future Prime Minister. However, he was not reappointed to the Ministry and there was much comment in the Press of the day that the conservatives' best talent was being wasted on the back bench. Hawker's dedication to his constituency is attested to by the fact that in the by-election which followed his untimely death in a plane crash in 1938 his former seat of Wakefield was won by the Labor candidate with a swing of 37 per cent. Ralph Jacobi was the South Australian State Secretary of the Australian Government Workers Association before his endorsement as the Australian Labor Party candidate for the newly-formed seat of Hawker in the 1969 election. He held that marginal seat through eight elections, despite unfavourable redistributions and a string of well-heeled, well-connected and well-financed Liberal opponents. Like Charles Hawker, Ralph rejected the frills and prestige of public office, believing that he was no better than the people he represented, that they had given him a job to do and that it was his duty to do it to the best of his ability. In his constituency and in the Parliament, he fought to protect the rights and welfare of the so-called `little man and woman'. While campaigning in Hawker for this last election, in the street or on doorsteps, I met innumerable people who spoke of the unstinting efforts which Ralph had made on their behalf to right a wrong or solve a problem. It is typical of the man that in his first speech in this House he rejected all the niceties of maiden speechmaking and devoted his entire statement to exposing the dishonest practices of an insurance company which had tyrannised one of his constituents. In the Parliament, Ralph took up many of the important but less glamorous or fashionable issues, such as insurance law and practice, the management of the Murray-Darling basin and, in the 1970s, tax evasion. His achievements in these areas are considerable but largely unsung, as Ralph is not one to curry favour or blow his own trumpet. Ralph had not time for the self-indulgent or the effete. ALP members in South Australia will remember his impassioned and persuasive speech at last year's State Convention in defence of the Australia Card proposal. The civil liberty which Ralph prizes above all is the freedom not to be cheated or exploited. The so-called liberty which he rejects most vehemently is the liberty to cheat and exploit. I am greatly honoured to succeed Ralph Jacobi as the member for Hawker and I hope that I am equal to the task. Yet, Mr Deputy Speaker, despite the best efforts of Charles Hawker and Ralph Jacobi and people like them, the hypocrites and the charlatans-or, as Ralph much more eloquently calls them, the spivs and con-men-are still with us, and have never been more apparent than today when the voracious media, hungry for stories and controversy, give them unlimited exposure and undeserved credence. From behind the spurious status of their wealth or their titles, they pontificate about how much we should earn, what personal relationships we should form, or how we should bring up our children and who we should vote for; and they profess to do this in the interests of Australia when it is simply their own self-interest and ego which they promote. There are the business leaders who say they know what is best for this country, who even aspire to lead this country but whose business practices deprive this country of tax revenue and productive investment. There are the conservative gurus and politicians who wax mealy-mouthed about the welfare of the family, but whose policies, if implemented, would reduce all but the most privileged of families to poverty, deny them equal opportunity and cut off their support systems. There are those who voice pious concern for women, but who in this very House deny them equal employment opportunity and who attempt to buy them off at election time with cheap bribes to stay at home. There are the selective moralists who can express their opposition to abortion by pleading the sanctity of human life and then in the very next breath, advocate the reintroduction of the death penalty. And finally there are the political and community leaders who wear their religion on their sleeves, who presume to preach to us about what is moral and what is immoral and yet who lie, who embezzle, who support racist and murderous regimes and who are totally bereft of the tolerance, compassion and humility which are the touch-stones of the faith they pretend to espouse. Mr Deputy Speaker, one would have thought that some of these people would have had the decency and shame to crawl back into their holes after their recent defeat, but no such luck. With the re-emergence of the debate on the Australia Card they are out in force once more. To cite just one example of the hypocrisy which is rife in this debate we need only to look at those critics of the card who represent a party which a few years ago sanctioned a police raid on a family planning clinic and the subsequent confiscation of confidential medical files. And these same people now come out bleating about privacy. Their record shows that they care nothing for the privacy of honest Australians; they are concerned only that the dishonest may carry out their nefarious activities in private. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do my utmost in this Parliament to uphold the cause of honest and fair-minded Australians and I thank you for the privilege of taking part in this debate. Debate interrupted. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to add to an answer I gave during Question Time today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Indulgence is granted. Mr DUNCAN —I am now able to say, as the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, has done in the Senate, that it is not the case that the Australian Federal Police advised the Department or Senator Evans in early August or at any other time that Amann Aviation was not suitable to operate the Commonwealth contract. I have heard what Senator Evans said at the end of Question Time and in debate just concluded in the Senate and to the best of my knowledge it is an accurate account of the situation. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek indulgence of the Chair to make a brief statement. Mr Young —No. Ministers can add to an answer; you cannot add to a question. Mr BEALE —I am seeking Mr Deputy Speaker's indulgence. Mr Young —What for? Mr BEALE —It is not for you to decide; it is for Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand there have been precedents involving the present Leader of the House (Mr Young). In 1982, after an answer was given by indulgence the honourable member was permitted to comment on the matter. I intend to grant indulgence but I hope it will not be in any way extended. Mr BEALE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the House. We have just heard the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) refute the answer that he gave in the House today to three questions to him from the Opposition; one by me and two by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The Minister had plenty of time to consider what he was going to say and when he was finally forced to respond to the questions he gave a most detailed response. He said that some time in August advice had been received from the Australian Federal Police. It had been given either to the Minister or to the Department and had expressed some concerns about Amann Aviation. It is inconceivable that the Minister should give such a detailed response, when he had plenty of time to think about what he was going to say, unless there is some record of some kind either with the Minister, Senator Evans or in the Department about this whole matter. We call on the Minister to come clean on this whole question. The Minister has not dealt with it simply by saying that he has heard what Senator Evans had to say in the Senate and the matter is finished. He has to tell the House whether there are any records anywhere of any conversations between the Department and the Australian Federal Police on this whole coastal surveillance mess. He has to tell the House the details of those conversations. He has to advise the House whether there were any conversations between senior people of the Australian Federal Police and senior people in the Department. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr BEALE —He has to say whether those conversations were verbal. If they were not verbal, if they were written, in what form were they written? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! This is not an interrogation. The honourable member is speaking by indulgence and I would ask him to draw his comments to a conclusion. Mr BEALE —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not good enough for the Minister simply to refute an answer he gave in the House today. Mr Young —Mr Deputy Speaker, I can understand your granting indulgence to the honourable member to speak and I appreciate it because that indulgence was granted to me by the House, as you pointed out, five years ago. That is why I sat here so quietly. But it seems that the honourable member for Deakin wants to start a debate. He is asking a series of questions which he can ask at Question Time tomorrow. If he has a look at the Senate Hansard he will probably get the answers he is asking for now. It does not seem to me that the indulgence which you have given him from the chair has anything to do with the way in which he is now raising the matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is speaking by indulgence. I have asked him to draw his remarks to a conclusion. The matter should not be debated. Mr BEALE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point is that the House has a right to know what is going on behind all this. It is not good enough for the Minister to say, `Oh, I have read what Senator Evans said in the Senate and it is true', and therefore repudiate what he said in the House earlier. He cannot leave it at that and should not leave it at that now. He has to tell the House and the Australian people what is going on with this whole business, what advice the Australian Federal Police gave to the Department and in what form it was given to the Department. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member now to conclude his remarks. Mr BEALE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I say in conclusion-I thank you very much for your indulgence-that the Opposition will not leave this matter here. There is something very funny about this whole business between the Australian Federal Police and the Department. We intend to pursue it until we get to the bottom of this sorry mess and see that the Minister responsible is dealt with. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have asked the honourable member to bring his remarks to a conclusion. He has infringed my indulgence. Debate resumed. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.29) —At the outset of my remarks I extend my congratulations to the honourable member for Forde (Ms Crawford), the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) and the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) on the occasion of their first speeches in this place. I would not be so insincere as to say that I wish them a long tenure here, simply that I hope that they will enjoy the time they are here and that they will understand, as they obviously do from their remarks, the great privilege that they have in representing their constituents in this place. However, I would like to say to my colleague the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Prosser) how much I welcome him. He replaces a very fine local member and I am sure he will carry on the tradition. I do wish him a long tenure in the House. It is part of our Westminster tradition that the monarch or his or her representative delivers a speech on the occasion of the opening of each new parliament. That Address to the new parliament, although delivered by the Governor-General, is usually couched in language which purports to attribute great wisdom and credit to the new Government. That is not surprising, given that the Speech delivered by the Governor-General is written for him by that same Government. We can all be thankful that some of the more outrageous hyperbole and cant that we have come to expect as a matter of course from this Hawke-Keating Administration is absent from the Address being debated, even if it is only out of deference to His Excellency. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who are no shrinking violets when it comes to extolling their own virtues and virtuosities, have had to resort to moderate and more acceptable language in outlining a program for this Government, however long it may last. In the context of use of language and the length of parliamentary terms, members and senators alike felt the need to suppress an inclination to laugh during the Address given in the Senate last Monday. That stifled mirth arose not so much from the support the Government now proposes to give to the concept of four-year terms for members elected to the House in future, but from the justification offered for such a measure. The offending-and, I add, offensive-reason was given as `fewer elections' which would, it was spuriously claimed, `result in less cost and inconvenience to the electors'. A one-liner like that, coming as it does from this Government, must qualify the Prime Minister's speechwriters for a job on Bob Hope's joke-writing staff. If ever there was a government that has inflicted more and unnecessary costs on electors because elections have been called well before the normal three-year term expires it is this Government. If ever there was a government that inflicted more inconvenience on electors by calling early elections, it is the one we have today. If ever there was a government that created greater instability and failed to encourage long term planning because it has called early elections, it is this Government. Given all that has gone before, and given the arrogance of successive Hawke-Keating governments, as well as their oversight and management-or is it mismanagement?-of Australia's economic decline, it should be perhaps unremarkable that the Government now ignores its own deliberate contributions to the cost and inconvenience of early elections. The truth is that there are few, if any, members left in this chamber who remember a full term of three years. The last time that a government ran even close to its full term was in 1980. Successive Hawke-Keating governments have shown the way in regard to this practice. Those honourable gentlemen and their governments have called the past three elections in the space of less than 4 1/2 years. They now talk about introducing four-year terms. At best, it is a selective use of the language, given the Government's lousy record, for it now to summon up the courage to claim that its latest concern for the cost to, and inconvenience of, electors is somehow uppermost in its collective, tiny mind. Although there will be little examination by a traditionally uncritical media of this Government's use of language in the Speech that is being debated, the inconsistencies and insincerities abound. Another example is to be found in a reference to directions in industrial relations over the life of this Government. While questionable, we might have allowed to let pass as empty rhetoric a claimed intention to reform the industrial relations system. We might have let that pass because we all know that immediately before the most recent election, but nevertheless after four years in government, the crowd opposite introduced and abandoned reforming legislation within a twinkling of the proverbial eye. But duplicitous use of the language does not end there. The Government went on to inform us that it will finalise an industrial democracy policy. Well, it is pretty clear that democracy is a very scarce commodity in industrial relations in this country. If the Government is sincere-and it is not-about democracy in industrial relations, it will have to take another leaf out of the coalition's policies and remove for all time the possibility of compulsory membership of a trade union. It is no great revelation to note that the Government uses language, as so frequently happens in Eastern bloc countries, that is meant to express a higher-and completely opposite-intention from the natural meaning of its mere words. So when this Government talks about industrial democracy, democracy is the farthest thing from its mind. If the Government was genuinely committed to true industrial democracy it would legislate to ensure observance of the basic democratic right to freedom to associate and the freedom not to associate, or even to disassociate, having once joined an association. After 4 1/2 years of this Government there is no hope that it will buck the dictates of its masters in the trade unions in general, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) in particular, and observe the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to bring about true industrial democracy. Over its previous two terms-and presumably this one-there was no dedication to freedom of association in the workplace. Indeed, the Government's dedication takes us in the opposite direction. It is an inescapable fact that the present Conciliation and Arbitration Act enforces compulsory unionism through section 47. Sub-section (1) allows the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to direct employers to give preference to union members over non-union members, or to members of one union over another union. Sub-section (2) directs the Commission to give preference to unionists or to the members of a particular union if it is for the maintenance of industrial peace or for the good of society. Those sub-sections encapsulate the chief means of ensuring compulsory unionism. One involves the philosophy of peace at any price, no matter what long term mischief is done, and the second glosses over the denial of individual rights and freedoms for some unspecified general good. The current Act states that the Commission shall grant preference whenever it thinks it necessary for-and I quote: . . . ensuring that effect will be given to the purposes and objectives of an award, for the maintenance of industrial peace or for the welfare of society . . . For those reasons a basic human right is being seriously compromised and, in practice, it is being denied. The right to freedom of association has very deep roots in our tradition of common law. The inescapable corollary of the positive right to form and join free associations has always been the freedom to stand outside the same associations. These are not rights that have merely found expression in recent international forums. I, as a Liberal, do not need to call upon external conventions to justify civil liberties within Australia. Nevertheless, it is instructive to quote from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not least because this Government has often taken refuge behind international treaties and conventions in domestic political disputes. Clause 1 of article 20 of the declaration states: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Clause 2 states: No one may be compelled to join an association. Clause 4 of article 23 refers to the right to form and join trade unions, with no mention that this somehow negates or qualifies the rights proclaimed in article 20. To put it as simply as possible, the coalition believes in freedom of association and freedom of choice in this context. Legalised or de facto preference for unionists creates the hollow choice between membership of a union or denial of a job. The individual is also denied the right to decide his membership of a collective body. Conversely, the collective loses the right to determine its own membership. It is another example of how coercive measures limit the freedom of those they are designed to help. It must be stressed that the euphemistic phrase `preference for unionists' involves not only discrimination against non-unionists in access to jobs but also pervasive and continuing discrimination in employment. In 1984 the ACTU made a submission about preference for unionists in Australian government employment. It made it clear that preference must be given to unionists in respect of voluntary transfers, choice of roster changes, access to training seminars, choice of dates for recreation and flexi-leave and, above all, promotions. In such a context there can be no question that preference for unionists means compulsory unionism. Any person who manages to obtain a job without joining a union under those circumstances would find himself a second class citizen within his employment. Those who justify compulsory unionism and try to explain away the denial of free association often fall back on the analogy of the state. For those who do that, I cite a book written in 1918 by F. A. A. Russell entitled Australian Industrial Problems, in which he argued: A man born into a civilized state who becomes a civilian of that state must either subscribe to its laws and pay its taxes or become an outlaw. He also argued that the security so obtained compensated for the loss of independence. That is very sound reasoning when applied to citizenship of a state but it is highly dangerous in the clear implication that a trade union should have the rights and moral authority of a nation state. It is these very pretensions of trade unions to which the many Australians I represent tonight object. So many privileges of trade unions date back to the early years of the Commonwealth. Of course, there was a period when some of the laws which may exist today could be justified, or perhaps wrongly justified. Nevertheless, the ends might have justified the means. That is not a point of view that I subscribe to. Instructively, I refer again to F. A. A. Russell, who warned that preference for unionists inevitably brought with it the necessity for the state to regulate unionism. Russell went on to warn that otherwise unionism would possibly regulate the state. That is indeed a prescient warning for 1987, when it appears that reform of the nation's industrial, tax and economic systems can occur only with the consent of the unelected leaders of the ACTU. Just as the language inflicted by the Government on the Governor-General for his Speech camouflages and confuses the true direction of the Government in industrial relations, the same can be said about reference in the Speech to our faltering economy and what the Government intends to do about it. One of the manifestations of dismal economic performance is the unacceptable and seemingly hard-core level of unemployment. That barely gets a mention in the priorities outlined in the Governor-General's Speech. It seems to me to be a basic tenet of this Government that an acceptable level of employment means only that the Ministers to whom it is acceptable have jobs themselves. The same government learned early on that the secret to its success was sincerity. Once it learned to take sincerity it had it made as a government. Nowhere is conscious, deliberate insincerity more apparent in the Government's words than in that part of the Speech in which reference is made to the Australian economy. Of course, there is no reference to the economic ills flowing from the Government's past article of faith in economic growth as the great cure-all for our problems. That has gone by the board, although there is some suggestion of a return to that mentality in the current Budget. However, that will be the subject of another debate. In this discussion it is probably sufficient to note that the Government continues to lay emphasis on the decline in our terms of trade and imply that it was unforeseen and unpredictable. Although the decline in our terms of trade was predicted, the Government chose to ignore the warnings, just as it chooses to avoid any acknowledgment of its own past ignorance. Having failed to accept its share of responsibility, we are told that corrective action will be taken during the life of this Parliament. It is pretty difficult to accept the general proposition that the future is rosy under a government which is too blinkered to admit the significant part it played in facilitating our present parlous economic circumstance. I think I have mentioned already that when the Hawke-Keating Government first attained office, Australia was on the brink of, and staring down into, some sort of economic abyss. The Government took us one giant step forward into that abyss. It stretches credulity when we are asked to give all credit to the Government for modest indications that we might be starting the hard climb back up the walls of that abyss when its big-taxing, big-spending policies were largely responsible-if not mostly responsible-for our being there in the first place. Nor could any rational person be expected to confer unqualified credit for recovery from extremely unfavourable highs and lows, measured by statistical indicators, when the Treasurer and the Prime Minister refuse point blank to admit past mistakes and the possibility of future mistakes and errors of judgment. After all, the Prime Minister is quick enough to renege on his promises, not because of admitted mistakes on his own part but because of changed circumstances which he did not have the wit to foresee. After a list of broken solemn promises, it is only recently that he has summoned up the necessary courage and honesty to indicate that he felt free to break any promise, and that was during the last election campaign. Given his record, that is probably the wisest course he could have taken. The Prime Minister thoroughly deserves the title of Hoadley for his record of crumbling, particularly when the ACTU wants a mouthful of the action. After all, who can forget his shenanigans at the 1985 Tax Summit? Still under the heading of the Australian economy, the Governor-General's Speech claims that monetary, wages and fiscal policies have been geared towards the objectives of growth in economic activity and living standards. The truth is that the only monetary policy announced by this Government is that it was to be kept tight. There were not embellishments and we were given no explanation-merely that it was going to be a tight monetary policy. The Government, immediately after its first Budget, announced that it was going to abandon all forecasts in the monetary area. It was not going to predict or set goals for the supply of money-an essential element of monetary policy-whether they be goals with M3, or the broad money supply, or whatever. If the Government has a monetary policy, absolutely no-one knows what it is except that it was, and is, to be tight, whatever that means. Wages policy is announced, but it changes from time to time. It all depends, of course, on what the ACTU demands. The end result has been that unit labour costs have outstripped increases in countries which are our major trading partners by up to a factor of four with all that it means for our economic well-being and our economic future. The decision of the Australian people on 11 July was to give this Government-in terms of seats but not in terms of the absolute overall vote-its third chance. Despite the danger, that judgment of the Australian people is tantamount, in my opinion, to playing leapfrog with a unicorn, and I hope that it does not cause too much permanent damage. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before I call the honourable member for the Northern Territory, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(5.50) —I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Address-in-Reply debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I ask you to pass my congratulations on to Madam Speaker on her election to her high office. I also commend the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey), the honourable member for Forde (Ms Crawford), the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) for their fine contributions to this debate. I regard it as a great honour to stand before the House as the member for the Northern Territory and as a Territorian. My thanks go to the people of the Territory for having the confidence to elect me as their representative to this House. They can be assured that I will be strident in my efforts at representing the interests of all territorians. My success in the election on 11 July would not have been possible without the support of my Party, my friends, my colleagues, those who worked on the campaign and my family. I extend my appreciation and thanks to all of them. I pay particular tribute to my partner, Elizabeth, who at the height of the election campaign, gave birth to our daughter Frances, our first child. Many have asserted, but I can assure them that it was not the case, that this was a blatant attempt to grab the granny vote. I come to this place with a background as a teacher and a research worker. Immediately prior to my election, I was an employee of the Central Land Council in Alice Springs. I have lived and worked in both the centre and top end of the Territory as well as in some of the remote communities. In teaching, I worked for a number of invigorating and stimulating years with high school students in Darwin. As a researcher I had the honour and privilege to work with Dr H. C. `Nugget' Coombs and Dr Maria Brandl on a three-year project examining the impact of government programs on Aboriginal children and families. My speech today will seek to draw on these experiences and will address a number of issues of concern. The seat of the Northern Territory has a proud Labor tradition. The seat was formed in 1922 and from then until 1934 was held for the Australian Labor Party by Mr Harold Nelson. His son, Jock, a life member of the Party, held the seat from 1949 until 1966. More recently, John Reeves held the seat for the ALP in the first Hawke Government. The Northern Territory is a unique electorate. It has an area in excess of 1.3 million square kilometres, with a coastline of some 6,200 kilometres. Almost four-fifths of the electorate lies within the tropic zone. The electorate incorporates not only the mainland area and adjacent islands defined as being part of the Northern Territory itself but also Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the Indian Ocean. I place on record my indebtedness to the people of these islands whose support for me and the Australian Labor Party in the last election has been rewarded with a system of government that is both practical and concerned for their welfare. I look forward to visiting the islands as soon as is practicable. The electorate of the Northern Territory is, if not the largest by area in Australia, then geographically the most dispersed. The demography of the Territory reflects its unique geographical composition. Aboriginal Australians, who comprise almost a quarter of the people in my electorate, share more than 40 different languages and dialects. The majority of these people live in small isolated communities dotted throughout the Northern Territory or on the adjacent islands. People from another 50 different nationalities call Australia home and live within the electorate. Some of these people are quite recent arrivals and there are those among them who have chosen to make their home in the Territory, having been forced to leave their homelands in circumstances of violence and turmoil. There is, for example, a large community of East Timorese people in Darwin, who arrived as refugees after the violent appropriation of their birthplace. All of these ethnic groups, no matter what their origins, have made significant contribution to Territory life and enriched the community as a result of their presence. The decision in Tuesday's Budget for the funding of a national languages program will be particularly welcomed by the Territory's ethnic community, but it will also be relevant to the Territory's Aboriginal population. The cultural diversity of the Territory seat is one of its distinguishing, invigorating and endearing features. Another is the fact that it is the only electorate in Australia which has within its boundaries the whole of a State or Territory. The Territory population is growing rapidly and, while welcome and challenging, this growth places strains on the level of service delivery that can be provided. This Government has recognised these demands and continues to provide the Territory with almost 78 per cent of its revenue. On a per capita basis this is four times the amount provided to the States. This dependence by the Northern Territory on the Commonwealth is, perhaps, regrettable and I will use every effort to promote the second economic development of the electorate and to lessen this dependence on Canberra. I do, however, place a caveat on that undertaking. It is my firm view that economic development must be equitable and undertaken in an atmosphere of social and environmental responsibility. In this regard I will vigorously oppose any regime for resource development which seeks to deny Aboriginal territorians the right to control access to or development upon their land. I will oppose attempts to vandalise our national parks. They are our greatest long term economic assets. It is significant that the industry which has experienced unparalleled growth in the Northern Territory is tourism. Between 1983 and 1987, there has been an increase of 336 per cent in tourist visitation to Kakadu National Park and slightly more than 200 per cent to Uluru National Park. The number of visitors to Kakadu in 1987 will be 195,000 and to Uluru 180,000. It is expected that next year the visitation to both areas will reach 250,000. These tourists have been attracted to these areas by their unique cultural and physical values. These parks are of major international heritage value. The economic spin-offs to the rest of the Territory that result from this tourism are significant. I will be pleased to use every endeavour to support development which is consistent with the principles of equity and social and environmental responsibility. The Territory economy reflects an over-dependence on resource development. The manufacturing base of the Territory is small, comprising only 6 per cent of Territory product in 1985-86 compared with a national figure of 19 per cent. I will vigorously support efforts to diversify the Territory's economy. In this regard, this Government's defence policy of self-reliance will be very important to the future economic development of the Territory and is to be applauded. Already it has resulted in substantial inputs to the Territory economy. By the time the Tindal base at Katherine has been completed, and the 2nd Cavalry Regiment has been relocated to the Territory, with the future possibility of an Army brigade moving to the Top End, at least $1 billion will have been spent and up to 10,000 service personnel and their families will have moved to the Territory. This expenditure will give much needed stimulus to the development of the construction industry and the manufacturing and service sectors in the Territory and provide long term employment and career opportunities for young territorians. Hand in hand with providing employment opportunities the Government has a responsibility to provide young people with equal educational opportunities. I am concerned to work to ensure that such opportunities are available to all residents of the Territory, whether they live in the major urban areas or in remote and isolated communities in the Territory or on the Christmas or Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I am concerned to ensure that the educational services provided to them are appropriate to their needs and aspirations. Education should not be seen as a labour market program. An issue which the Northern Territory administration is hoping to promote within the Territory is statehood. It has announced its intention to hold a referendum on the issue either late in 1988 or early in 1989. In setting its agenda for debate over the issue the Territory Government has earmarked as major planks to its campaign, the gaining of control over the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and having both Uluru and Kakadu National Parks transferred to its control. The inevitable result of such a campaign will be a divided community. Clearly, the hidden agenda of this proposal is to give the Northern Territory Government the unfettered right of access to Aboriginal land in the Territory. If statehood is to be achieved in the Northern Territory it must be done with the support of all sections of the community. It would be grossly improper and unjust if statehood meant the subjugation of Aboriginal land rights against their will. My friend and colleague Bob Collins said in another place yesterday-I agree with his proposition-that statehood should not be provided to the Northern Territory unless it is done on the basis of equal representation with the other States. It took 188 years for any government of this country to recognise in law Aboriginal rights to land. This recognition was given by this Parliament with the enacting of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. In my view, it is important, as we approach the bicentennial of the invasion of this land by non-Aboriginal people, that we take special stock of our relationship with Aboriginal people. This is one issue which I believe to be of pre-eminent importance as we approach 1988. As a nation we have yet to recognise and accord Aboriginal people the justice that is their due. We have still to come to terms with the fact that it was only 20 years ago that the people of Australia gave this Parliament the power to make laws on behalf of Aboriginal Australians. It was only then that non-Aboriginal people deigned to recognise Aboriginal people as a race. The year 1988 provides this nation with a unique opportunity to seek a reconciliation with Aboriginal Australians and recognise their calls for justice. It is time that this Parliament and the nation returned to the bipartisan approach to Aboriginal issues that characterised the passing of the 1967 referendum and the enactment of the Aboriginal Land Rights, (Northern Territory) Act 1976. It is time that, as a nation, we examined the history of our colonisation of this land and came to terms with the Aboriginal view. As the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, the Uniting Church in Australia Social Responsibility and Justice Committee and the Australian Council of Churches Commission for Church and Society have observed in their recent publication titled A Just and Proper Settlement: Aboriginal people have been in continuous occupation of this land for a longer period than any other people, past or present, have occupied any other land on earth. And as my colleague, the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and current Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Holding) observed in 1983: The origins of Australia as the Western nation we know today are seen by indigenous people here as the end of the dreaming, not the birth of the nation. It was the beginning of dispossession, disease and death; in short the destruction of Aboriginal society. The myths that have built up around the settlement of this country must be exposed. All Australians should understand, for example, that in the first 120 years of colonisation, somewhere between 80 and 90 per cent of the Australian Aboriginal and Islander population was wiped out. It is probable that at least half a million Aboriginal and Islander people died in this period, either as a direct result of the wars that were fought between black and white people in this country, or as a result of the diseases that were introduced by colonisation. It is not my intention to give honourable members a history lesson, but merely to highlight the gravity and injustice of the treatment that Aboriginal Australians have endured at the hands of non-Aboriginal people. It is worth pointing out that despite the assimilationist and welfare oriented programs that have in the past characterised the administration of Aboriginal and Islander affairs in this country, today the unemployment rate of Aboriginal people is six times the national rate; on average an Aboriginal person earns only half the income of other Australians; Aboriginal life expectancy at birth is 20 years less than that for all Australians; Aboriginal child mortality is three times higher than the national rate; up to 36 per cent of Aboriginal children aged under 10 years in some areas suffer from trachoma, compared to 1.6 per cent of non-Aboriginal children; many Aboriginal families live in sub-standard housing or temporary shelter; and the imprisonment rate for Aborigines is over 20 times that for the total Australian population. These shameful statistics mirror the lot of colonised peoples of the Third World. While there is a view that non-Aboriginal Australians should not have to atone for the sins of their forebears, we are still not prepared to accept that this colonisation process, the historical continuum of dispossession, alienation and oppression which began in 1788 continues to this day. No longer do we, the colonisers, rely on guns and poison. The contemporary tools of colonisation are legislation and statutes, and these derive their power from the legal fiction of terra nullius, and to our refusal to come to terms with our obligations to Aboriginal Australians as the indigenous owners of this land whose rights have never been ceded. To the best of my knowledge we remain the only former British colony not to have recognised the rights of the indigenous people either by treaty or through the Constitution. This nation cannot pretend to wear the mantle of maturity until the indigenous rights of Aboriginal Australians are given formal recognition and the demands by Aboriginal and Islander people for compensation for lands stolen and for social and cultural disruption are addressed. In my view, this should involve appropriate amendments to the Constitution. I would remind honourable members that calls for the recognition of these rights are not new. It is worth noting that in February 1975, in the other place, the following motion, moved by Senator Bonner and seconded by Senator Withers, was unanimously passed: That the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay. And urges the Australian government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people and introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for dispossession of their land. The fact that this Parliament has yet to enact such legislation epitomises the plight of Aboriginal and Islander people in this nation today. It is time that the politics of division in this country were put aside so that at last the injustice of the Aboriginal dispossession is recognised and dealt with in a way which is satisfactory to Aboriginal Australians. You have before you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a person who, while working with the Central Land Council, was seen as a dreaded white advisor, a non-Aboriginal employee of an Aboriginal organisation, a person vilified by many within the community and particularly, on some occasions, by those sitting opposite us. The so-called white advisers are regarded with derision by those who fantasise about what Aboriginal people can or cannot do or should or should not do. Such people are unwilling or unable to recognise that Aboriginal community based and controlled organisations such as land councils, health services and resource agencies are responsible to and run by Aboriginal people. My colleagues the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) both have experience of working in an Aboriginal organisation and both have experienced the derision and abuse of being a white adviser. These attacks serve the purposes of those who are ignorant or who seek division, not the recognition that Aboriginal people, like other Australians, have the right and the ability to employ, manage and direct staff. This attitude is typical of the institutionalised racism to which Aboriginal Australians are continually subjected. In the Northern Territory, various conservative politicians have sought to capitalise on this type of racism to divide the community for electoral purposes. Sadly, they have found welcome allies in sections of the Northern Territory media. Such divisive campaigns of vilification have no place in a country which, as a minimum requirement, ought to live up to the many international treaties and conventions to which it is a party. As His Excellency the Governor-General indicated, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) have placed the issue of Aboriginal rights firmly on the political agenda. The royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody is of particular significance. It has rightly pointed out that a major task is to promote a positive attitude in the community generally to Aboriginal Australians. For this to happen it is important that the institutionalised racism that has for so long been at the core of this country's dealings with the indigenous population is exposed. This requires that political community and industry leaders acknowledge the injustices of the theft of Aboriginal land and the colonising of Aboriginal people. I conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, by quoting from an eminent Australian author, Xavier Herbert, who, you will recall, in addressing the issue of Aboriginal land rights, said: Until we give back to the black man just a bit of the land that was his, without strings to snatch it back, without anything but complete generosity of spirit in concession for the evil we have done him-until we do that, we will remain what we have always been so far, a people without integrity; not a nation by a community of thieves. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.09 to 7.30 p.m. (Budget Debate ) Debate resumed from 15 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(7.31) —This year's Budget is strong on symbolism. It is superficially attractive, even clever. Yet beneath the surface it portrays a recurring and potentially fatal quality about the Hawke Government's economic management, namely complacency. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has brought down a Budget which seeks to paint a coat of veneer over a brittle and fragile economy. Yet it was only last year that the veneer was stripped away with a blow torch when the Treasurer warned that he was about to book us all on a tour to banana republic status and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) solemnly announced that Australia was in some kind of economic state of war. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister are now attempting to sell a new story to the Australian people. In 15 months apparently we have gone from a banana republic to lotus land. On behalf of the Opposition I simply say: Let the buyer beware. The past two days have seen an orgy of government self-congratulation and media hype, all of which has been based on the Government bringing down the deficit to only $27m. The Opposition welcomes any reduction in the Budget deficit but that is not the real test of the success or failure of government policy. The Hawke Government must be judged on the impact that its policies have had on the economy. When we examine that impact, the economic score card is dismal. After five Budgets and three mini-Budgets, and despite the hype of the last two days, the Hawke Government presides at the moment over a current account deficit well above historical levels, a record foreign debt level which is climbing every day, business investment which as a share of gross domestic product is close to its lowest level in 30 years, an inflation rate at least double that of our trading partners, interest rates which despite recent falls remain at very high levels, an unemployment rate stalled permanently at eight per cent or more, the second largest tax burden in peace time, exceeded only by last year's record level, a further decline in rural output and an additional 700,000 Australians below the poverty line since March 1983. The Government boasts that its policies have made Australia more competitive, yet the Budget Papers indicate that our productivity performance over the coming year will be such that our competitiveness will actually decline. The Government would have all Australians believe that this dismal catalogue of economic failure is entirely the fault of overseas pressures and former governments. The Treasurer laments that our terms of trade have worsened. What he does not tell the Australian people is that this has happened before. The present Treasurer and Prime Minister are not the only incumbents of those offices who have had to contend with adverse international economic problems. The combined impact of the international recession and the domestic drought in the early 1980s wiped more off in the terms of trade in which the Treasurer and the Prime Minister constantly seek refuge to explain their dubious stewardship of the Australian economy. The simple truth is that this Government is very much responsible for our current economic malaise. Its reckless big spending and big taxing Budgets, particularly in 1983 and 1984, contributed to our problems. Its long commitment to the now discredited policy of wage indexation contributed to our problems. Its failure to respond early enough or appropriately to the initial collapse in our dollar contributed to our problems. It was early 1985 when our dollar first fell sharply that danger signs began to ring loudly, but for 15 months the Treasurer and the Government sat on their hands while our international position deteriorated. That was benign neglect of the worse kind. The Government even went to the March 1986 wage case to support the full introduction of the 3 per cent superannuation deal with barely a mention of our deteriorating terms of trade. This was despite Treasury warnings the previous August that those terms of trade would fall sharply. There can be no doubt therefore that the large hole Australia must now pull itself out of was well and truly dug by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. This year's Budget is short on new decisions on both the revenue and expenditure sides. The Government has been unwilling to take any further steps to reduce the size of government through reduced spending and taxation. Only four weeks ago the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) urged larger cuts in government spending. He said the Government had not been moving quickly enough. But those urgings clearly have been rejected. In this Budget complacency has triumphed over a longer term appreciation of the extremely precarious nature of Australia's economy. As I said on Budget night, the deficit of only $27m is too good to be true. It is too good to be true because the Treasurer deludes himself by counting the $1,000m proceeds of assets sales towards a reduction in the deficit. Whatever may be international or other accounting conventions, the reality is that assets sales do not constitute an ongoing offset to recurring spending. In fact, they withdraw savings from the private sector. Yet the very purpose of reducing a deficit is the opposite, namely to leave more savings in the hands of the private sector. To include the proceeds of assets sales to reduce the size of the deficit is akin to a family helping finance its monthly mortgage payments by selling items of household furniture. The deficit should also be viewed in the light of the massive and unprecedented windfall profit the Government has received from the Reserve Bank of Australia over the past two years. The Government collected $2.6 billion last year and another $2.7 billion is estimated for this year. Yet in the previous decade Reserve Bank profits averaged less than $600m a year. Ironically, these huge profits owe their origins to the chaotic collapse of the Australian dollar in 1985 and 1986. Only a fiscal fool will believe that next year a profit anywhere approaching $2.7 billion will be available from the Reserve Bank. The key point is that there are several one-off factors in this Budget, which means that the underlying deficit is not $27m; it must be closer to $2.5 billion. Madam Speaker, let me say one or two things about the fiscal record of this Government. Leaving aside what has already been said about assets sales and Reserve Bank profits, that fiscal record is nowhere near as good as the Treasurer claims. Essentially, the Government has done no more in the past two Budgets than unwind the astronomically high levels of spending in the early Hawke years. Leaving aside the rhetoric and back slapping, Federal Government spending this year, when proper adjustment is made for asset sales, will be no lower than the average of Federal Government spending during the seven years of the former coalition government, whose economic record the Hawke Government so freely criticises. The first two Budgets of the Hawke Government were reckless and spendthrift. It was the present Treasurer who went on a $15 billion spending splurge in his first two years in that job. The last Budget of the Fraser Government produced a deficit of $4,400m, not the $10,000m so dishonestly peddled by the Treasurer. In his first Budget, the Treasurer increased that deficit to approximately $8,000m-the biggest ever in our nation's history. The real rate of growth of government spending under the Hawke Government far exceeds that under the former coalition Government. On the tax front, this Treasurer has a truly lamentable record. He retains the crown as Australia's biggest taxing Treasurer. Last year and this year have produced the highest ever levels of taxation collections by any Treasurer in our nation's history. The tax grab in this Budget is symbolic of the whole document. After the initial euphoria from the money market and the Government itself, the reality is that individual Australians are now waking up to the fact that this Budget does little to ease their monetary burdens. Three years ago the Prime Minister promised, through his own discarded and almost forgotten trilogy, to put a ceiling on the Government's tax take. The ceiling he chose was a record high level, but at least it was a start. However, in this year's Budget, as it did last year, the Government has broken the promised trilogy. It has collected over $1,400m additional tax over and above the ceiling it promised. If Mr Keating had just kept his tax take at the same level as the average of the former Government, he would have collected some $16 billion less tax over the past five years. Despite the Government's income tax cuts last July, the Treasurer will still collect an average of more than $230 extra tax from every Australian worker this year. Negative Gearing One of the most symbolic decisions of the Budget was the Treasurer's back-flip on negative gearing. Two years ago when I and many others criticised the ban, the Treasurer called us the friends of the tax avoidance industry. Now he parades as the patron saint of the housing industry. No doubt the Treasurer believes that the original decision in July 1985 and the decision to reverse it last Tuesday night were both equally quality decisions. Employment, Education and Training We welcome the Government's conversion to the cause of skills formation. The Liberal Party and National Party of Australia have argued long and hard that this nation's problems will only be solved if we pay greater attention to the quality of our work force, the skills, initiative and creativity of working Australians and the ways in which work places are organised. But let us look at higher education. The Government takes credit for creating 5,800 new student places, but what has not been made clear is that this is the smallest annual increase in student numbers since 1983. And with more and more students finishing Year 12 and wanting to continue into higher education, we will find well over 20,000 students turned away next year. The level of unmet demand will be at least 25,000 young Australians in 1988. The Family Package The Opposition welcomes aspects of the proposed family assistance package. Although we are concerned about its potential to introduce new and severe poverty traps, we shall carefully monitor its operation. I note in passing that this package builds upon the family income supplement scheme described by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) as one of the great social reforms of recent times. That scheme was introduced by Senator Chaney as Minister for Social Security in the former coalition Government. The Agenda for Change Despite the very sharp differences that exist between the Government and the Opposition on economic management, there is nonetheless some common ground. We both agree that the Australian economy has performed very badly in recent years. We both agree that some major changes and reforms are needed. Our areas of sharpest disagreement relate to the pace of change and the need to alter long entrenched institutional attitudes, particularly in industrial relations. In recent years, the Liberal and National parties have played a major and constructive role in shaping the debate and setting the agenda for economic reform. In crucial areas our policies, initially ridiculed by the Government, have ultimately been embraced and implemented. That happened in the area of financial deregulation. The Prime Minister is now trying to make it happen in the area of privatisation, but I will return to that in a moment. In the period immediately ahead we shall continue to argue for and advocate those fundamental changes which are needed to put the Australian economy permanently on a more robust and competitive international footing. As we have done in the past on issues such as the floating of the dollar, we shall support intelligent government decisions. Unlike the Labor Party in opposition, we are not in the business of knee-jerk negativism. We all want a more secure and prosperous Australia. The economic imperative is for greater incentive and increased productivity. These must be the by-products of policy and structural changes as these are the keys to trading our way out of our external imbalance and returning to a trend of rising and not falling living standards. Achieving these goals must involve reducing further the size of government; reducing the overall tax burden on individuals; introducing greater flexibility into our labour market, and lowering the cost structure to industry through increased competition and reduced government regulation. Let me say a few words about coalition attitudes in some of these areas. There can be no doubt that, as argued by the Liberal and National parties in the recent election campaign, fundamental reform and simplification of our tax system is needed to provide more incentive for business and individuals. Having smugly claimed for so long that the task of tax reform was ended, the Treasurer admitted last Tuesday night that further change, at least in the business area, was now needed. In conceding a review of business taxation, the Treasurer is conceding a major element of the Liberal taxation policy for the recent election. So much for his criticism of that policy. I remind him that an essential element of that policy was a significant reduction in the rate of company tax paid for in part by the removal of specific concessions to industry. The Government's decision on negative gearing also reflects an element of that policy. I have no doubt that, as time passes, other elements of that policy will be picked up by the Government. The Liberal and National parties support a steady, sensible program of privatisation. We believe that Australian Airlines, the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, the Pipeline Authority, Aussat Pty Ltd and 49 per cent of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and Qantas Airways Ltd should be sold to the private sector. We have never supported the indiscriminate disposal of government assets merely to satisfy some ideological commitment to ridding the government of assets. The double standards of the Treasurer on negative gearing pale into insignificance when compared with those of the Prime Minister on privatisation. The Prime Minister, now apparently a latter-day convert to the cause of privatisation, pleads with his opponents in the Labor Party for a rational debate. I would say to the Prime Minister that if he does not get his rational debate, then he has only himself to blame. He is now reaping the harvest of the disgraceful scare campaign he waged against the privatisation policies of the Liberal and National parties as recently as three months ago. He can barely complain if some within his own ranks now fling his own words back at him. His monumental inconsistency, his deceit in the last election campaign, have poisoned the well and made a rational debate on this subject extremely difficult. It has always made economic sense to transfer assets into private hands provided there is a public benefit in that transfer. Industrial Relations Australia unquestionably needs major reforms to its industrial relations system. It is rigid, inflexible and incapable of responding adequately enough to the challenges of Australian industry competing successfully in the international market place. Our policy involves not only a spread of voluntary agreements on an enterprise level, but also the absolute acceptance of the principle that all sections of the Australian community, including the trade union movement, are equal before the law. The Liberal and National parties will never accept the denial of basic common-law rights to sue and we will vehemently oppose any renewed attempt by the Government to repeal the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Labor's Identity Card Just as the coalition will support intelligent Government decisions, we will vigorously oppose stupid ones. The ID card proposal is just such a decision. The Government is setting itself about the task of imposing on this country an identity card which will cost $750m. The Prime Minister talks about efficiency in government. Yet he will add 2,000 new public servants to the payroll to run the ID card system. Australian business will pay $2,000m extra simply to comply with the paperwork and regulation that this card imposes. The Government cannot even guarantee the security of the personal information of Australians which will be held on Government computers. If a person fails to report the loss of his ID card he will be fined $500. Small businesses will be fined $2,000 if they do not carry out the instructions which go with the card during their daily operations. Above all else, the ID card simply will not work. It will not stop the cash economy; it will not stop social security fraud. It will not be able to tackle organised crime. In fact, it is an open invitation for organised crime in Australia to move into a lucrative new market. For more than 12 months, the Opposition has been campaigning to stop the introduction of this intrusive Labor national numbering system. I urge all Australians to join the Liberal and National parties in a united protest against this ID card. And should all of that still fail to stop this Government giving us all numbers, the coalition is committed to tearing up Labor's identity card legislation after the next election. I said at the commencement of this speech that the Budget was strong on symbolism, but reeked of complacency. It is a document that has won early plaudits, but it masks the true state of the Australian economy. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer say that they have delivered. So far, in four Budgets, they certainly have delivered. They have delivered the biggest spending government in our history and the biggest taxing government ever. They have given us the lowest value ever of the Australian dollar; record interest rates; record foreign debts; the worst inflation rate compared with our trading partners; the highest number of bankruptcies ever; the longest queues ever for public housing waiting lists; more long term unemployed than ever before; and they have shamefully lost our country's triple A international credit rating. Those are the basic facts. They are the results of Labor's previous four budgets. Those budgets have failed, and failed dismally. My fear, the fear of many Australians and the fear of the Opposition, is that Labor's fifth Budget will not, as time passes, match the extravagant praise heaped upon it in recent days. Labor missed opportunities in its fifth Budget. It is a complacent document. The Australian nation deserved better. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(7.54) —I think it is important that we on this side of the Parliament remind the Australian electorate of some of the myths that the Opposition is attempting to perpetrate. First of all, we have the sad and sorry spectacle-- Mr Keating —It was an MPI. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The Treasurer is quite right, it was like a matter of public importance and we have heard it all before. We had the sad spectacle this week of the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) being surprised to see Government members sitting on his side of the House-to which he referred as cockies corner. I think that shows members of the Australian community and, certainly, those on this side of the House that honourable members opposite did not realise that they had actually lost the election-that 11 July was actually a resounding electoral win for the Government and a resounding electoral loss for them. Mr Young —The biggest defeat they have ever had. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs is quite right. It is very clear that what the Australian people did on 11 July was to give this Government a resounding endorsement. The first myth the Opposition seeks to perpetrate is that it did not lose the election. As I said, the Leader of the National Party is surprised that our back bench stretches right around to the Opposition benches in this chamber. Clearly, we had a magnificent electoral win. The second myth the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) seeks to perpetrate is that he was never Treasurer. We all remember the experience in this country when he was Treasurer. That was the time when despite the efforts at and the conversation about tax reform the top rate of income tax remained at 60c in the dollar. The only growth industry we had at that time was tax avoidance and tax evasion. Dr Klugman —I had just forgotten about it. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The honourable member for Prospect had nearly forgotten but we need to remind the Australian people that tax avoidance and evasion was a growth industry and the top income tax rate remained at 60c. The next myth is that the Leader of the Opposition speaks for the coalition. We all remember a few months back the rowing between the National Party and the Liberal Party. That rowing has not died away; it has not ceased; it is still there. All we are waiting for on this side of the House is for further outbreaks in the next few weeks as the Opposition's failures continue to mount. The community at large is aware of that disunity. Joh is still in Queensland. The Leader of the National Party represents half of the National Party. The Leader of the Opposition does not speak for the coalition because there is still division. I make another observation. At the time we won office the projected deficit was $10,000m. We have only to remember the words of Senator John Stone, the shadow Minister for Finance. He said that the projected deficit was $10,000m when we took office. Perhaps it is an opportune time to remind the Australian community of this. Let me cite the deficit figures since we have been in government. Had the coalition remained in government in the 1983-84 financial year we would have had a deficit of $10,000m. It did not. It lost the election in 1983. That was the coalition's first loss. The Australian community would have lost very badly if that $10,000m deficit had been realised. The deficit of our Budget of 1983-84-our first Budget-was $7,932m. It was 4.1 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). We reduced the deficit from $10,000m-the John Stone, John Howard, Malcolm Fraser $10,000m. In 1984-85 we reduced the deficit even further to $6,720m, this time to 3.1 per cent of GDP. I point out to people who are listening to this debate that there is a pattern to the deficits which demonstrates that this Government has sought to address itself to the major issues of the day. Reducing the deficit is one. In 1985-86 the deficit was $5,726m or 2.4 per cent of GDP. In that year it came down even further. In 1986-87 there was a $2,716m deficit or one per cent of GDP. Tonight we are debating a Budget with a deficit of $27m. It is down from the deficit of $10,000m that we inherited from the Liberal-National parties to $27m or zero per cent of GDP. We have hauled the economy and the Australian community out of the financial mess in which the Howard-Fraser Government left it. Let me go through the figures again: The deficit has come down from the $10,000m, the John Stone legacy, to $7,000m, to $6,000m, to $5,000, to $2,000m and this year to $27m. Mr Sciacca —A great achievement. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As my colleague points out, it is a very great achievement. We will continue to develop this strategy for the Australian community. On this side we have shown a capacity to tackle the real issues. I turn now to another important myth. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Budget has not worked and that in fact it is a superficial Budget. I will quote some of the newspaper headlines that have appeared since Tuesday night. The Melbourne Herald of Wednesday morning had the headlines `Keating in Full Command' and `Cash for Needy Families'. On the same morning the Sydney Daily Telegraph had the headline `Bank Cuts Home Loan Rate by $30-Immediate reaction to Treasurer'. On the same morning the Australian Financial Review had the headline `Keating balances the Budget-Mortgage rate falls as market supports Government'. Another article in the same paper was headed `$A moves past 73c as interest rates fall'. This is the reaction of the community to a Budget that is not working! In the Daily Mirror of that day an article by Terry McCrann was headed `Keating's Brilliant Budget'. It stated: Last night's exercise set the foundations for a Hawke-Keating team in Canberra well into the 1990s. All my colleagues are here on the back bench; they have recently been returned and re-endorsed as competent and skilful Government members. I have good news for them tonight-the people out there say that these members will be here for a lot longer, and the people out there will be very pleased with the performance these members have put in in the brief time they have been here. We have heard some maiden speeches already; the quality amongst these people is outstanding. We are looking for a sustained effort from these people on the back bench to support our excellent front bench. The score is on the board, and in fact Terry McCrann is absolutely right-this has laid the foundations for a long, long period in government. Little wonder that on Tuesday night the faces opposite were so glum when the figure of $27m came out. Did honourable members see their faces? My colleague the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) was here, he saw their faces; so did the excellent new honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr). He saw their faces; he saw the shock when the $27m deficit came out. Those opposite knew then that they would be in opposition for a long time. We know that we will be here in government for a long time. We are not complacent about it, we are realistic but we know that the assessment made of our performance is a good one. What is the assessment? The assessment as of this evening is that the Australian dollar has reached, in United States terms, 73.2c. It was 72.7c before the Budget but it has now gone up to 73.2c. The other good news to observe and reflect upon is that interest rates for 90-day bank bills have gone down to 11.48 per cent, as of the close of business tonight. In other words, one could almost pay off one's house if one took out 90-day bank bills, because that rate is about 11.5 per cent as against the mortgage rate of 14.5 per cent. But I ask colleagues on the Government side to bear in mind that the mortgage rate is continuing to fall. We can go through those facts and figures in just a moment. We can look at the pattern. Let me continue with this litany of praise from the Press. It is substantial praise. On the same day as Terry McCrann's article in the Mirror, the Sun ran the headline `Budget bonanza-Home rates slashed-Tax cuts hint'. In other words, that indicated that there was scope for tax cuts. Those of us on this side might well ask whether these are the sorts of tax cuts that the Leader of the Opposition brought in in 1977 following all those advertisements with the fistful of dollars. No, they are not. These are substantial tax cuts because we have shown since we have been in government that we do give tax cuts. Cuts were introduced on 1 December last year and 1 July this year. Substantial tax cuts have been given to the Australian community, and the community is spending that money. This is not the fistful of dollars that is served up in an election campaign and taken away six months later, as happened under the Fraser-Howard operation. This is substantial. This is not a casino operation being run by the Government; this is a substantial performance by the Government. It will not take the money off the people on their way out; it gives the tax cuts and the people keep them. It used to be a bit of a casino, a gamble-the people rolled the dice, placed their chips and hoped after the election the Government did not take the chips off them. In fact, it did-six months after the 1977 election. What is more, just to make sure we all know what the previous Government was like, it put on a surcharge. Not only did it take away the tax cuts, it also put on a surcharge. So members of that Government were the greater tax reformers-the people who kept the top rate at 60c, the people who had the great growth industry in tax avoidance and evasion; these were the people who gave the fistful of dollars in 1977 and took it away six months later. This Government is different because it delivers. My colleague the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) is one of those members who are part of an effective government. Let us move on. `Home rates begin to fall'; says the Melbourne Age. It also carried the headlines `Dream Budget has the critics at a loss for words', and `Keating plays Budget trump: A $27m deficit'. That was from Michelle Grattan. In fact, did home loan interest rates fall? Of course they did. The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd did not even wait 24 hours. It saw the writing on the wall-that the economy was in good health and that this Government lives up to its commitments. That organisation was also matched by the National Australia Bank Ltd, the Westpac Banking Corporation and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. They all moved very quickly. Within the space of 48 hours the rates for the mortgage market came down to 14.5 per cent. What is more, the people out there paying the prime rates saw a drop of 1 per cent in the prime rates of these banks. So there was not just an improvement on the consumer side, in the housing sector. I remind my colleagues here tonight that the Leader of the Opposition did not mention housing in his speech. This is one of the problems with the Opposition. It does not think it is important for people to have jobs, because it created record unemployment-250,000 people were put out of work in the last year that the present Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer. The Opposition believes in creating unemployment, and it also had in government the lowest level of housing starts for 20 years. Honourable members will notice the two great gaps in the Leader of the Opposition's contribution tonight: there is no mention of housing and there is no mention of unemployment because Opposition members are not interested at all in those basic things. Their real preoccupation is again with the shonks and the frauds and the people who are out there to rort the system. That is where they devote their energy and that is why they all look so perturbed when we talk about identity cards. We are concerned to try to stamp out the rorts and the frauds. They do not worry about these basic issues; they are not concerned about people being in houses and they are not concerned for people to have jobs, but we on this side are. Honourable members should observe the success of the first home owners scheme, which those opposite would seek to do away with. In fact, they are not interested in housing; they would do away with such schemes. Clearly from the evidence we can see that the level of housing starts, at a 20-year low under this Opposition, has now come back under us to be a major contributor to the economy's welfare. Let me go on with this reaction from the Australian Press. We see `Keating's balancing act-Hint of further tax cuts' in the Sydney Morning Herald again on the same day, on Wednesday morning, and, from Max Walsh `Figures reveal how badly Liberals blew it'. In fact, Max Walsh went on to say that despite the fact that we had a $9 billion loss of export earnings because of a collapse in commodity prices and a collapse in the volume of commodities being sold, and therefore an ensuing reduction in Australia's standard of living, the Australian electors on 11 July were not prepared to risk voting in those opposite because the people knew their policies were not substantial, that the policies were divided between the National and Liberal parties and divided within their own parties. The people remember that one or two of these people opposite had actually been in government, and when they were in government they were failures. The people, including those who were made unemployed, and those who did not have housing, remember that very clearly. What is more, the rest of the people remember that there was a record level of industrial disputes and the only policy the previous Government had was to divide this country. They remember that very clearly. So we see here a reaction from the Australian community which says, `We re-endorsed you on 11 July; we have seen your first major financial statement since the election and we are very pleased with it'. What will be the reaction after people have had more time to look at it? I refer to today's Press. We see in today's Age `Big banks cut home loan rates'. I have referred to those figures already. A further headline states `Treasurer hints at income tax relief in present term'. Why? Because we are continuing the process of tax reform. What sort of tax reform? The sort of tax reform which the Opposition went for. It tried these things but backed off because it was not willing to do them. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation had to continue to serve up claims saying, `Give me the power, give me the ability to stamp out tax avoidance and evasion'. The previous Government turned its back on that opportunity. I come from the State of Western Australia where of course tax avoidance and evasion used to be the growth industry. The then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, turned his back on all those cases. There was no action. We in Western Australia remember that well. The Liberal Party in Western Australia is still struggling out of the throes it got itself into in those times. Mr Grace —They will continue to. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —They will continue to struggle, as my friend the honourable member for Fowler says. Today's Sydney Morning Herald ran the headline `Home loan rates cut in Budget glee'. Exactly. There has been a substantial reaction to the Budget outcome. In the Daily Telegraph of this morning we see `Home values boom-loan rates plunge', and `Welfare groups praise aid package'. Finally, in the Australian Financial Review today we see the headlines `Keating locks Labor into balanced Budgets' and `Bulls roar, rates fall as markets cheer Budget'. That is the evidence of Australia's reaction, the Press having looked at the Budget very carefully and having dissected this Government's performance. At the outset I said that what we have had as a government is a sustained performance, bringing down that $10 billion deficit-the John Stone projected deficit. He might hide from that, but the reality is that a $10,000m deficit was projected by the Howard-Fraser Government. We have wound it back, and the Australian community knows we have wound it back. We have succeeded. We now have a $27m deficit, effectively a balanced Budget, and we have laid the foundations for great growth in the Australian community. The projected growth for next year is 2 3/4 per cent. So we are expecting further growth. While on that theme, let me add that when we talk about 2 3/4 per cent growth in the economy next year, we should realise that that will bring with it another 100,000 jobs to add to our job-creation effort so far. That will mean that by the Bicentennial there will be a great present for everyone in this country. The great present will be that we as a Labor government will have created one million new jobs since 1983. Mr Gear —Come on! That many? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The honourable member for Canning says, `That many?'. It will be one million new jobs since 1983. That is the sort of record that the people out there know exists. It is not one of these myths that the Opposition perpetrates; it is not the sort of myth that the Opposition Leader comes in here and talks about. The sad thing about tonight's contribution from the Opposition, and let us be very charitable, is that it is backward-looking and it is static. It goes back to where the Opposition was some months ago. Not only that, it is not a statement about a dynamic modern economy. It is not a statement from a Leader of the Opposition who floated the dollar, because he did not. It is not a statement from a Leader of the Opposition who reformed the tax system, because he did not. It is not a statement from a Leader of the Opposition who set about modernising the Australian economy, because he did not. It is not a statement from a Leader of the Opposition who did something to improve industrial relations, because he did not. In fact, when the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer in the Fraser Government, industrial relations in Australia became a sham. There were record levels of strikes. This is the history we have and it is very clear on the record. Whenever I am in my electorate people ask me, `Why don't you point this out to Opposition members? Don't they remember they just lost the election?' Yes, they did. `Don't they remember that the coalition is in tatters?' Yes, it is. `Don't they remember that Joh doesn't trust them?' Yes, he does not. `Don't they remember all those strikes?' Yes, the Australian people do but not honourable members opposite because they have a new recipe for industrial relations disaster and it is called private contracting in the labour market. The Government will not be conned into that; we have a much more sensible approach. Honourable members opposite might not remember the record levels of unemployment created under the Liberal and National parties but the Australian community does. Do Opposition members not remember the collapse in the housing market? The Australian community does but the Leader of the Opposition does not. This Budget has addressed itself to some of the substantial questions. I have talked about the deficit being reduced from 4.1 per cent of GDP to 0 per cent of GDP. I have also talked about the reduction in monetary terms; from the $10,000m John Stone projection right down to the $27m that the Hawke-Keating Government has projected as the deficit for this year. The Opposition should remember the record of economic failure. This Budget is about compassion. The family allowance package is very important. There was some comment on the radio program AM this morning which I and the honourable member for Grey found disgraceful. A woman from the western suburbs of Sydney was interviewed. She said that the $80 a week extra she would get would not make much difference. I know many people in my electorate of Stirling who would very much like an extra $80 a week, and they will get an extra $80 a week. What sort of people are they? They are in needy circumstances with children and they are in the private rental market. They are looking towards getting some $80 a week tax free under this Government. This is not a shifty little scheme that those opposite practice. That is the family package commitment of this Government. The Government has also recognised the problem of pensioners who work as a Father Christmas. If they earned some money over Christmas they lost their fringe benefits and part of their pensions-not as a result of this Government but because of a Federal Court decision. This Budget allows those pensioners to earn $1,000 before their pension is affected and that will be averaged out. That is a very sensible provision. Not only is there a Christmas present for pensioners-particularly some in our electorates who will be working as a Father Christmas again this year-there is a Christmas present for about a million Australian children who will be recipients of this family package. This Government, in its time in office, has a record of responsible economic management. The score is on the board. I have quoted the reaction of the Australian media to it. It is universally praising. Let us see what the reaction of the Australian media is to the reply of the Leader of the Opposition tonight. Like me, the Australian media and the Australian community remember the record of failure of the Opposition when it was in Government. The Australian people also remember that they just voted the Opposition out again. It lost the election. There are so many Labor members that some have to sit on the Opposition side of the chamber. The Opposition has lost the election, it has lost credibility and it has lost any notion of having a decent economic policy. It will continue to lose while it serves up the inadequate material it has served up tonight. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(8.14) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was quite amused to hear the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) giving such strong endorsement to his colleague the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget debate speech tonight. He claimed that the Opposition lacked credibility. Let me refer to the relationship between the honourable member for Stirling and the Treasurer. During the Federal election campaign the Treasurer visited the electorate of Canning and he said of the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), `This is a man I would support for the Ministry'. When he moved on to the electorate of Stirling he was asked whether he would support and endorse the honourable member for Stirling as a member of the Ministry, and he would not. So the Treasurer has no confidence in the honourable member for Stirling, regardless of his views on the honourable member for Canning. Mr Grace —He had less in you. Mr DOWNER —What the Treasurer may think of me and indeed of the honourable member interjecting from the other side of the House-I can barely remember what he is the member for-is completely irrelevant. The Treasurer has brought down in the last few days an empty and thoughtless Budget. Mr Grace —Silver spoon. Mr DOWNER —Indeed, it is as vacuous as the mind of the honourable member on the other side of the House who is interjecting in a way which is typical of some back bench members of the Australian Labor Party. This Budget should be described as the ostrich Budget. It is a Budget in which the Government has buried its head in the sand while a sandstorm of economic ruin rages around the country. It is, in effect, a do nothing budget. Yet when one considers the climate in which this Budget has been introduced it is really quite staggering that any government could have the audacity to do nothing in its major economic statement of the year. In this country everybody knows that we have a staggering investment drought, the greatest investment drought we have had for 30 years. This is a country which is supposed to be a developing country, a country which we are supposed to be building up and making great. Yet this Government has overseen a staggering investment drought and even in its Budget Papers it predicts only a 3 per cent real growth in investment. That in itself is an heroic estimate. We have an inflation rate which is still double that of our major trading partners. We have an interest rate crisis even with the falling interests rates we have in Australia at the moment. It is an interest rate crisis of almost unprecedented dimensions which has had an appalling effect on individuals and on their household standards of living as well as on businesses. We have an unemployment rate which is stalled at 8 per cent in spite of perpetual boastings by the Treasurer, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and one or two other people one can remember in the Labor Party. The Government has a balance of payment crisis which even in this Budget is projected to be $11 1/2 billion. We have a foreign debt of $110 billion. Since 1983, when the Labor Government came to power, it has claimed quite spuriously to have compassion. There has been a growth of some 700,000 in the number of people in Australia who live below the poverty line, and I think that figure is very poignant. While Labor has been in power, 700,000 people have fallen below the poverty line. What it has done with this Budget is nothing. It has brought in an empty, thoughtless document which does nothing to address these issues. Australia needs significant changes in direction. We need a new outlook, new hope, new policies. We need, for example, as the Opposition has said again and again, a major effort by government to reduce its expenditure, to eliminate massive waste, to eliminate duplication of government services and functions and not to create duplication as we have had this very day with two Ministers working in the same Department and saying quite different things. We need the elimination of a whole range of unnecessary functions which are cluttering up Government at the Federal level. On the other side of the ledger, something really must be done to reduce the massive tax burden that we have in Australia and to revitalise our country. But, as I have said, this Government has done nothing. It has introduced a Budget which is simply a public relations exercise which revolves around the phoney Budget deficit figure of $27m. If one takes away the assets sales and the extraordinary Reserve Bank of Australia profits in this year, one sees that the real deficit is $2 1/2 billion. The Government is all about public relations; all about trying to convince one or two of its key friends in the media that it is doing the right thing. It does not matter what the underlying figures are, the Government is simply about presentation-pretty packaging, but inside that packaging is nothing. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) made a point very strongly tonight in regard to the Government's spending record since 1983. It is a record of gross irresponsibility. If the rate of growth in real terms in government spending during the Fraser Government had been maintained by this Government then this Government would be spending $22 billion less than it is spending at the moment. That is the degree of irresponsibility shown by this Government. Total outlays in real terms in this 1987-88 Budget are expected to decline by 1.4 per cent. But that figure conceals the Federal Government's failure to cut its own spending. I think it has done the right thing by reducing payments to the States and the Northern Territory; I do not walk away from that for a minute. The Government has reduced those payments to the States and the Northern Territory by 4.2 per cent. But what has the Commonwealth Government done to contribute to reduced government spending? If one takes away the effect of that 4.2 per cent reduction to the States and the Northern Territory, one is left with a slight increase in Commonwealth Government expenditure in this financial year. It is another example of pretty packaging, but when one opens the package, one finds absolutely nothing inside. There is no commitment from this Government to reduce the overall size of government and free up the individuals in our nation. There is no commitment from this Government to dispense with the great raft of regulations which is holding back individual and business development in Australia. The private sector is still being crowded out by massive government spending-spending which the Government increased in 1983 and 1984-and we are still left with a massive public debt which has built up almost exponentially since 1983. The interest rate bill on government debt in the 1987-88 financial year is $8 billion, which is greater than the amount of expenditure on education. We on this side of the House care about education. We care about developing people's skills and training people so that they can prepare for the difficult future that is ahead of us. Yet this Government is spending more on paying off the interest burden on its debts than it is on educating our people. It spends more on the interest bill on its debts than it does on the defence of our people. It is really a very scandalous statistic and it is something that I think all members of the Australian community-even if members of the Labor Party will not think about it-will find to be a very staggering fact. Let us look at the other side of the ledger. If we look at the taxation story, in this Budget, it is simply more of the same. If one unwraps the parcel, once more one will find nothing inside. Taxation is still running at about 24 1/2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). This Government achieved a national record: in 1986-87 it went up to 24.8 per cent. It has brought it down to 24.5 per cent of GDP, a difference which is negligible. What we are talking about for ordinary taxpayers is an increase in real terms in the amount of tax they will have to pay. With the inflation rate expected to be about 7 per cent, tax receipts in the coming financial year are expected to be 8 1/2 per cent. Total tax revenue will increase by $5,500m this financial year. Individual tax receipts-tax receipts from the hardworking individuals of our country-will go up by 8.1 per cent. That figure is higher than the inflation rate. The company tax burden, which is paid by the wealth creating sector of our society, will go up by a quite hideous 14.3 per cent. The Treasurer has already admitted that that is a major problem. The notorious fringe benefits tax will increase by over 40 per cent. Since 1983 when this Government was first elected income tax receipts have grown by 78 per cent. Seventy-eight per cent more tax is being paid today by hard-working Australians than when this Government came to power in 1983. I think that that is a very frightening and staggering statistic. If one ever wanted a guide as to why this country is doing so very badly today, by international and historic comparisons, that figure of a 78 per cent growth in tax in that period is, I think, one of the clear explanations for the disaster of this Government. We have a government that, of course, has staggeringly increased the tax paid by ordinary people. Wage earners now pay a 40 per cent marginal tax rate, plus 1.25 per cent for their Medicare levy. In 1983 those wage earners were paying a 30 per cent marginal tax rate. The Government is screaming, `There are still tax cheats out there. We are going to catch them with this blatant threat to civil liberties, the so-called Australia Card, which we know is a real identity card'. What it is doing, of course, in the identity card debate, is deflecting from the real debate-- Mr Campbell —Your father would be ashamed of you. Mr DOWNER —The honourable member will be surprised when I reveal what I am about to reveal. It is deflecting from the real debate which should be going on in this country which the Treasurer and members of the Government are covering up. I have with me a confidential minute paper from the Australian Taxation Office. It tells a very interesting story. The Labor Party is responsible for the Taxation Office and for leaks from the Taxation Office. It will be interested to hear about this minute. It is a minute to the Secretary to the Treasury. The heading of the minute is `Taxpayer Profiles ``Horror'' Stories'. It refers to people on the top 200 list of the Business Review Weekly-the list of the 200 richest people in Australia. Mr Campbell —They are your mates. Mr DOWNER —It is interesting to hear the honourable member for Kalgoorlie say, `They are your mates', because when he hears the full story about this minute he will learn that they are his mates, or the mates of the Treasurer. They are the people whose mates they are-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Mayo should not bring personal abuse into the debate. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie might refrain from that as well. Mr DOWNER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I certainly accept your ruling. I was simply responding to the quite defamatory remarks which were being made by the honourable member on the other side of the House. This document, which I will continue to talk about, says this-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mayo might be aware that it is not possible to make defamatory remarks here. Mr Reith —It is possible; it is just that they are not actionable. Mr DOWNER —Yes, it is possible to make defamatory remarks in the colloquial sense of the language. If you do not know what `colloquial' means, look it up. If you take one of the-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Mayo continues in that vein he might not get to finish his speech. Mr DOWNER —Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be very interested to hear the rest of this speech; there is no question about that. The Taxation Office document states that four of the people in the top 200 list of the Business Review Weekly-the list of the 200 richest people in Australia-have a combined taxable income in the region of $100,000. Four of them have a taxable income, on average, of $25,000 each. They have a combined net worth in excess of $200m, yet they are paying tax on an average income of $25,000 a year. Here are a few stories that the Treasury has been given: A leading developer residing in a very fashionable residential suburb returns a gross income of less than $5,000. His taxable income, being below the taxable threshold, attracts no tax or Medicare levy. This story is contained in a Taxation Office document. It is referring to one of the people on the list of the 200 richest people in Australia. The document continues: A leading developer returned a gross income in the region of $35,000 a year- wow!- around half of which he donated to charity. Is that not curious! It continues: He and his dependent spouse manage to live on a taxable income of less than $20,000, lower than the income- the Tax Office says- that some of the gardeners working in the suburb where he resides would derive. The document gives this third example: A millionaire industrialist residing in an exclusive suburb returns a salary of less than $50,000 from the company he founded. Despite a known opulent lifestyle, no taxable fringe benefits are returned. And so it goes on. I will not labour the point by giving more examples. People like the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) self-righteously run around the country saying how wonderful the identity card is because it will smash all of those little people who are cheating the tax system. The Tax Office has revealed that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are not doing anything about the big money people, the people at the big end of town, with whom they are so often photographed and they love being photographed with them. What is being done about this minute from the Australian Taxation Office to the Secretary to the Treasury? Nothing. The Labor Government has done nothing about it. The hypocrisy of members of the Australian Labor Party, such as the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, who continue to harp on the point that these people are supposed to be the friends of the Liberal Party of Australia is just staggering. The Labor Party is in government. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), the man who is responsible for these affairs, is doing nothing about it. He is running around the country saying that he is going to snatch away all our civil liberties because we are all supposed to be tax cheats, and here we have people from the top 200 list of the Business Review Weekly running away. In one case a person is paying so little tax that he does not even pay the Medicare levy. I would have thought that if this Government had a degree of morality and integrity, this would be its starting point in eliminating tax avoidance and evasion-not bringing in that pernicious identity card which is simply destroying the civil liberties of ordinary Australians. These stories will start building up during this Parliament and this level of morality will come and haunt this Government and there will be more and more speeches like this in response to Budgets and on taxation legislation which will draw to the attention of the Australian people what is going on deep in the bowels of the Hawke Labor Government. This Government should address these problems in its Budget and, further, it should try to provide proper tax cuts for ordinary Australians-not tax cuts for its friends, the property developers and so on, but tax cuts for ordinary Australians and for small and ordinary Australian companies so that this country can return to the path of optimism, the path of dynamism and the path of growth which were so well walked by the Menzies Government during the 1950s and the 1960s. A Liberal government would bring in a different Budget that would reduce the size of government and restructure it to make it more efficient and more streamlined. A Liberal government would reduce taxation to individuals and to companies. The Treasurer has already admitted that the company tax rate in Australia is far too high and needs to be reviewed-just conceding an argument to the Liberal Party. The Treasurer has already admitted that his negative gearing measure was a disaster and has conceded the argument to the Liberal Party. The Labor Government has also conceded the argument to the Liberal Party-even if the loquacious honourable member for Kalgoorlie on the other side of the House does not know, and I suspect that he talks too much to hear, so he would not know-on privatisation, at least intellectually. We all know that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will not be able to deliver because they will never get it through people like the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. They do not have a hope of getting it through people like him. But they have conceded the intellectual argument; they have conceded that the Liberal Party is right, that the path outlined by the Leader of the Opposition is right, and that the Liberal direction and the direction of the National Party of Australia is the direction that will give Australia a chance to get ahead and make this nation great. In conclusion, I only wish that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie would speak to the Treasurer about those people whom I have disclosed tonight as not paying taxes and go out and get rid of the notorious identity card. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(8.34) —I have much pleasure in speaking today on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88. Firstly, let me congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on bringing down a Budget last Tuesday which will provide the framework within which the Australian economy will flourish. In the past few days members of the Opposition have attempted to denigrate the success of this Government, and particularly the success of the Treasurer, introducing a balanced Budget. They have been clutching at straws and a typical example was the diatribe that just came from Mr Downer. Mr Downer —The honourable member for Mayo. Mr O'NEIL —I do not remember the honourable member's electorate that well because he was a short term shadow Minister-probably one of the shortest term shadow Ministers ever in this House. Honourable members opposite would do better if they refrained from blindly opposing every move that the Government proposed and gave some semblance of integrity to their coalition and acknowledged that this is the best Federal Government that Australia has ever had. This Budget has been supported by all sections in the community, from small and large business organisations to social welfare groups and the trade union movement. Yet the Federal Opposition, devoid of policy, devoid of alternatives, rejected by the electors of Australia, and now even abandoned by the vast majority of their friends in big business, tells us that this Budget is a disaster for Australia. Bob Millington said in this morning's Melbourne Age that the Liberals: . . . were beginning to realise that criticising Paul's latest creation made only marginally less sense than calling Father Christmas a child molester. Unfortunately, this realisation has probably not filtered through to the top. The Government has produced a balanced budget giving business and investors the ideal climate in which to invest in productive activity, providing more jobs and more wealth within our society. This opportunity has been created through the hard work of this Government-a government prepared to make tough decisions; a government prepared to explain the need for fundamental change in our expectations and our performance as a nation. This opportunity has been created with hard work, unlike opportunities squandered in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. Those opportunities existed only because of our good fortune as a nation to have certain commodities that were in demand on the world stage. This was the basis of our economic planning. We became the world's quarry and the world's sheep run. All of this thinking and all of the redundant policies created by our conservative opponents over the past four decades is now exposed for the nonsense that it was and still is. This Budget has provided a framework for a new Australia-an Australia where innovation and excellence are encouraged to flourish, where manufacturing has been given the best opportunity ever in this nation's history to flourish and to expand. The ball is now very much in the hands of the private sector. This Government has created the climate for new, productive investment in all sectors of the economy. Already we have seen falls in interest rates which will flow right through the economy benefiting both small and large business, the rural sector-which, of course, makes up a large part of my electorate-and the home-buyer. One of the most pleasing aspects of this Budget, apart from it being balanced, is that it has managed to provide the business sector with the prerequisites that it claims are necessary for investment, while at the same time introducing the most revolutionary assistance measures for low income families ever seen in our nation's history. In many Western countries, most notably the United States of America and Great Britain, a favourable business climate has been established at the expense of those at the bottom end of the economic scale. Low income earning workers and those on social welfare benefits have been beaten into submission in Great Britain and the United States so as to provide a climate that supposedly encourages business activity. In Australia, the Hawke Labor Government has chosen the correct path to economic recovery, while at the same time protecting those in our community who rely on fixed income or receive low wages. The $500m family package, announced by the Treasurer on Tuesday evening will mean an increase in the standard of living for many thousands of children. Cities in my electorate of Grey such as Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Augusta suffered greatly in the late 1970s and early 1980s as Australia's small and fragile manufacturing base was suffocated by government inaction and incompetence. The closure of Whyalla's shipbuilding works and the threatened collapse of the steel industry meant that many thousands of people were thrown out of work. Many more had to take employment wherever it could be found at wage levels which were, and are, far less than the average. The Hawke Labor Government, with the family assistance package, will give these families the opportunity to remove many of the pressures on family life caused by poverty. These pressures all too often lead to the breakdown of the family unit, the social consequences of which are immeasurable. Low income families will be able to look forward to a basic rate payment of the new family allowance supplement of $22 per week per child rising to $28 per week per child for teenagers aged 13, 14 or 15 years. Mr Ronald Edwards —Excellent. Mr O'NEIL —As my colleague the honourable member for Stirling says, this is an excellent package. This special family allowance supplement is in addition to the existing family allowance and is tax free. This measure, along with new rental assistance measures and the imminent introduction of the first stage of the new child support scheme, are positive proof of this Government's commitment to fight child poverty in our society. These are not ad hoc measures or schemes patched together in an attempt to win over the electorate; they are instead policies aimed specifically at those who are most in need in our community. They are not scattergun tax cuts for all and sundry, which the Opposition seems to think is the basis of social policy. They have come about as a result of intensive research conducted by the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty and the social security review headed by Dr Bettina Cass. They are targeted specifically toward families and, as such, again demonstrate this Government's genuine concern for the family unit. This is not just rhetoric, it is reality. Another measure announced in last Tuesday's Budget which will benefit many pensioners in my electorate is the introduction from 1 November of the earning credits scheme which will allow many pensioners to take on casual employment and earn up to $1,000 from such employment without losing their fringe benefits or having their pensions reduced. This will assist many pensioners who have often refused to take casual employment because of fears of losing their benefits. I have had many instances brought to my attention where pensioners have wanted to take on casual employment, such as doing census collection or casual surveys, but have been discouraged because of the fear that they would lose all or part of their benefit. This disincentive will now be removed; a very positive action which will be met with approval by pensioners everywhere. Another reform which will be met with delight by many pensioners in my electorate is the new policy in regard to pensioner fringe benefits. This will particularly assist pensioners who receive an overseas pension, which is subject to currency fluctuation, and either part or full Australian pension. I have made numerous approaches to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) to overcome this anomaly. I am pleased my representations have been successful in overcoming this problem. As I have said many times in this House, the electorate of Grey is somewhat like a mini United Nations with over 60 ethnic groups represented in Whyalla alone. Because of fluctuation in currency values many of these people have, over a period, lost part or all of their Australian pension, as well as their pensioner fringe benefits. Last year many pensioners of British origin came to see me concerned that changes in the value of the British pound and the Australian dollar had meant that they were no longer eligible for pensioner fringe benefits. The pensioners did not mind losing part of their Australian pension because that was being replace by their income from overseas-what they did mind was that they also lost their pensioner fringe benefits because they were over the fringe benefit cut off point often by only a few cents. Honourable members will be aware of the value to pensioners of the pensioner fringe benefits and the enormous added costs that accrue when the fringe benefits are removed. This anomaly will now be removed from 1 January next year and I applaud it. From that date pensioners will be able to retain their fringe benefits for up to three months as long as their income does not rise by more than 25 per cent above the fringe benefit cut-out levels. This buffer zone will allow pensioners a grace period before their fringe benefits are lost and, in many cases, the pensioners income will adjust itself before the three-month period expires, thus allowing pensioners to retain their fringe benefits. These two measures-the earnings credit scheme and the new policy on pensioner fringe benefits-are only small fish when compared with the big debates about economic policy. However, they are issues of great importance to pensioners and are measures which are most welcome in my electorate. These small policy changes are, again, examples of a government which is prepared to fine tune legislation to meet the needs of the community. Both moves should be commended and the Minister for Social Security should be congratulated for his efforts in this Budget on behalf of the poor and the underprivileged in our society. There are many other aspects of the Budget which deserve mention. It is very pleasing for me to see substantial increases in the number of tertiary education places being made available in 1988-an extra 3,500 to 4,000 places. Changes to Austudy eligibility will see many more students become eligible for tertiary and secondary assistance in the years ahead. We should remember that it was the Whitlam Labor Government that initially introduced the tertiary education assistance scheme, or TEAS as it was known, and now the Hawke Labor Government has improved and expanded the scheme into the new Austudy students assistance program. Labor's commitment to education continues. Large increases in the sibling concession arrangements under Austudy will again provide much needed assistance to large families. This is move evidence of this Government's commitment to the family-a commitment that is based on sound policy rather than loud rhetoric. I should also record that an important factor in balancing the Budget was a fairer taxation system. The Government's introduction of a fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax put integrity into the taxation system along with a more efficient tax collection. It is indeed gratifying to repeat that the Government is determined to stamp out tax avoidance, particularly in the corporate sector, by boosting funds to the Australian Taxation Office. Mr Ronald Edwards —We're serious about it. Mr O'NEIL —My colleague is quite right. The $44.2m the Government has allocated for both trade and non-trade training is most welcome and is a big impetus for industry rejuvenation. I will conclude my remarks by acknowledging the tremendous support of the trade union movement and the working class people of Australia who have borne the brunt of the economic sacrifices necessary to attain Australia's economic recovery. From an inherited deficit in March 1983 of nearly $10 billion left by the former Liberal-National Party Government for the incoming Hawke Labor Government to cope with and wipe out, to achieve a balanced Budget this year is a truly superb effort. I salute the ordinary men and women of Australia for their tremendous support and unflagging loyalty in making it possible to achieve this goal. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(8.47) —The Budget before the Parliament is in fact a Don Quixote-type Budget full of dreams and mirrors and divorced from reality. My friend and colleague the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) described it as an ostrich Budget, but I describe it as a Don Quixote Budget. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) a short moment ago quote some media comment on the Budget and the total overreaction of sections of the media to the Budget. I would like to inject a note of reality into the business of quoting media comments on the Budget. I will quote a fairly august newspaper, the Financial Times in London, which said this about the Budget: . . . Mr Keating appears to be breeding rabbits for his Budget top hat, clearly playing to the Galleries, trying to shroud any difficulties in an aura of spectacular success to prevent any instantly unfavourable reaction unnerving the foreign exchange, bond and equity markets. Asset sales have been waved as a magic wand over the balance sheet to make deficits vanish. Mr O'Neil —Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise. There is so much noise on the other side. Did the honourable member say that he had to go overseas to get a positive quote for his speech? He did not get one locally. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Grey will resume his seat. Mr TIM FISCHER —The honourable member for Grey reflects on a notable financial newspaper which has written honestly about the Budget and which concluded in its recent editorial: . . . there are some serious obstacles to surmount before the economy gets right around the corner and onto the home straight towards renewed prosperity. Above all there is still no signs of any determined efforts to reform the labour market. How true those words are. The honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) has had the audacity to praise what the Government has achieved in conjunction with the trade union movement in recent years. Let me highlight to the House just how strongly we battled under the Mudginberri dispute, the Dollar Sweets dispute and other disputes to inject some reality into the industrial relations scene of this nation before it is too late. I totally reject the comments of the honourable member for Grey about this Don Quixote Budget, about this Budget that is divorced from reality and does nothing to ease the fuel tax burden on so many primary producers, so many small business operators and so many export earners for this country. They still face massive cost burdens associated with fuel taxes and all taxes imposed by the Budget, given the fact that the rates of taxation have not been altered in any way, shape or form. What do we see? We see another $6 billion being collected on the revenue side of the Budget through taxation. Let us put that in realistic terms. We see annually some $400 per head of population in Australia being taken as a consequence of fiscal creep, of the situation where, through inflation, people trip over into the higher rates of taxation and end up paying more taxes. Rather than its being billed as a Budget that does not increase taxes, let the truth be stated loud and clear. This Budget takes another $6 billion in taxation from Australian people and that is how it should be viewed by Australian people. The Budget does nothing fundamentally to address our overseas debt, our gross external debt, which had reached some $110 billion at 30 June 1987. In terms of the net external debt, that $83 billion was at 30 June. Let us be fair in considering these rather awesome figures, by pointing to the public sector or Government element of these figures, because that is a more accurate basis from which to consider the debt. On 30 June, we find that the public sector element of the gross external debt was some $44 billion or 16.8 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) and the public sector component of the net external debt was $27 billion or 10.1 per cent of GDP. Let us put it another way. In 1901, the Australian Federal Government was formed with zero debt. From 1901 to 1983 it built up to some $17 billion. What happened in the four years since that time? It went from $17 billion to just over $40 billion. Now we see what is so fundamentally wrong with our economy, what this Australian Labor Party Government has done to the economy, and what this Budget fails to address-the overseas debt. Yes, I can see the commitment on the second last page of the speech made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to pay back $1 billion of overseas debt and $1 billion of domestic debt. It took questions in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to get to the bottom of that. Now we find that they are doing that through mirrors. The Government is selling off once-only assets such as the Japanese Embassy building, as was admitted in the Hansard of the Senate yesterday in response to the question from the Leader of the National Party, Senator Stone. The Government is also selling off a section of the ambassador's residence in Paris. I suppose that reflects the state of bilateral relations between Australia and France at the moment, as the Prime Minister for France has just concorded over the northern air space of Australia into New Caledonia for his flying mission to that country without any due courtesies to Australia. I digress. Let it also be seen from where the $1 billion being paid to reduce the domestic debt is coming. I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that you, as an industrious member for a Sydney suburban seat where so many people are suffering falling standards of living, will want to know. That money is available because the Government raised more money than it required to cover last year's domestic debt. Again, this was shown by the words of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). We had this mirrors situation associated with paying back $1 billion of domestic debt and $1 billion of overseas debt. It is tokenism. I put the reverse question. If the Treasurer had not given that commitment in his Budget Speech, would that mean that we have a Budget surplus of around $2 billion less $27 million? Of course it would not. Now one gets to see the real picture. We are paying off this debt not through utilising revenue but through a series of one-off measures involving the sale of embassy assets overseas and a manoeuvre on bonds previously raised in excess of requirements last year. That is a situation that must be of concern, because this country is going down the tubes in terms of its public sector debt structure. Unless action is taken, more and more dollars in each Federal Budget will be required to pay interest on that debt. Mr Braithwaite —It is 10 per cent of expenditure already. Mr TIM FISCHER —As the honourable member for Dawson points out so accurately as always, it represents now $1 in every $10 of the outlays of the Federal Government. I sound a note of warning. In examining this Budget, we should look at it with a realistic approach so that we see through the presentational dimensions and through the glib words of the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance just what this Budget stands for. That is missing a golden opportunity. It is failing to bite the bullet to deal substantially with the public sector debt problem faced by the Australian Government, which will be a burden on future generations for decades to come. I would like to turn now to matters relating to my shadow portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. I note some good points in the Budget and some bad points relating to looking after our war widows, veterans and ex-service personnel and related people covered by this portfolio. The overall expenditure is up from $3.8 billion to $4.3 billion, but do not let that mislead you, Mr Deputy Speaker, from some of the more subtle changes embraced by the veterans' affairs budget. As a matter of fact, the service pension scheme now seems to have peaked through the sad process of natural attrition as at June 1987. We need to look in a detailed way at the veterans' affairs budget, and once again I will be utilising the Estimates committees procedures, as now to be amended. I hope that there will be some chance to do that at a lower House level as well as organise it in the Senate under the new arrangement, because I find those procedures quite useful to flesh out some of the detailed aspects, which we cannot do on the floor of the House. I shall be co-operating with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) as I have done in the past, to facilitate some questions on notice to bring out the best of the information that we want on those veterans' affairs Estimates. Let us go through it section by section, starting with the defence service home loans scheme. Once again the Government has announced a shake up of the defence service home loans scheme, 2 1/2 years after it announced in May 1985 that the Defence Service Homes Corporation would be transferred to the private sector, and it achieved nothing along that path. As honourable members may remember, the Treasurer told the House in May 1985 that the Defence Service Homes Corporation would be privatised. Nothing has happened. But this week, September 1987, we have yet again had the Treasurer advising a shake up of the defence service home loans scheme. All those affected by the scheme might like to know the score. According to the Budget Speech and the Budget Papers, all applications lodged after Tuesday, 15 September, will now be eligible only for a non-taxable, non-repayable cash grant of approximately $10,000 in lieu of the previous $25,000 low interest loan scheme. Those applications already in the queue because they were lodged prior to 15 September and not yet allocated will be given a choice as to whether they take the existing loan of $25,000 or the $10,000 non-taxable grant. The subtle thing that has happened here is that if the Government adheres to its very tight timetable and implements the new approach to the defence service home loans scheme, then I believe it would, at $10,000, represent a serious substantial reduction in the value of that scheme to the ex-service personnel and the veterans who fought for their country and are seeking a residence. Even some World War I veterans are still applying under the defence service home loans scheme. So I serve notice on the Government that the Opposition will be examining very carefully the detailed ramifications of the defence service home loans scheme shake up to prevent to the extent possible the reduction in assistance provided by that scheme. The deferred interest investments scheme shake up is a complex area which will impact most heavily on Victoria and Queensland where that type of investment is more popular than in other States. The amounts of deferred interest will now be taken into account in assessing service pensions. That will impact very heavily. At least it has clarified a situation where there was some confusion. But such schemes as deferred interest bonds, deferred interest debentures, capital guaranteed investment-type insurance bonds and so forth will now be taken into account in assessing income for tests on service pensions. To be fair that ought to be broadcast widely, particularly in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland especially as this is designed to cut in from 1 January 1988 and will affect the pattern of investment advice. The repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme will be reviewed by a committee which is due to report by 30 September 1987-a very tight schedule indeed. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is in the House. He has joined his portfolio with a degree of enthusiasm and activity. We wish him well in that regard. But I just say to him that he has set two very tight timetables in this Budget, one relating to the defence service home loans scheme and the other to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Failure to adhere to those timetables will seriously affect the well-being of veterans and create anxiety for them. I serve notice that we will be monitoring his performance relative to those timetables as this calendar year and this financial year continue. I turn now to the repatriation hospitals system. That is a very strong system across the nation. I am pleased to welcome the staff increases provided for in the Budget. I add that the repatriation artificial limb and appliance sub-centre at Albury will receive a one-off $85,000 grant which I, as the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Federal member for Albury, welcome because of the increased demand for artificial limb assistance. There are a number of other changes including provisions for World War II servicewomen. The provisions are welcome. They reflect the policies of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia and, as it happens, the policy of the Australian Labor Party at the last election. It is pleasing to see that the credibility of politicians on both sides of the House will be maintained. Within three months of the election these people are to receive the assistance that Trish Kennedy and so many other World War II servicewomen have fought for. I put it to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is at the table, that there is a question as to whether that will continue to apply to the few servicewomen who served as nursing staff in Korea, Malaya and Vietnam. We are picking up the World War II servicewomen; we should now pick up the Korea, Malaya and Vietnam servicewomen who gave outstanding service in the most difficult of circumstances. All in all the veterans' affairs budget needs to be monitored carefully. This matter really points to the possibility of the further downgrading of veterans' affairs matters, particularly in the transfer of some administration to other departments. As shadow Minister, I will be watching that extraordinarily closely. We ought to have some clarification of whether the identity card provisions will apply to veterans so that those who fought for their country will not suddenly find that they are caught up in the webb of that complex and defective legislation. I say that the legislation is defective because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) earlier this day in this House confirmed once again that the ID card legislation has to be amended. He also said that that will not occur until after the joint sitting. So what the Prime Minister has put to the House and the nation is that the joint sitting will be asked to consider and pass defective legislation which the Government admits requires amendment. I call on the electors of Farrer, Riverina-Darling, Wide Bay and all other electorates throughout the nation to continue their petitions and letters to the Prime Minister and their campaign against this shocking legislation which will do nothing to control welfare fraud or tax cheating and which will add on enormous cost burden to this nation as a whole and further shackle primary producers and small business operators as they go about their activities which are vital for the nation. I commend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for his words tonight. His message to Australia was loud and clear. For over four years Australia has been governed by a high taxing, high spending Federal government. While small business, the rural community, the family and the veterans' community have been tightening their belts, the Government has been continuing to borrow and spend. This Budget for 1987-88 unfortunately does nothing to address the question of less taxation and less government spending. The Budget in many places is very complex in its construction. I reiterate that we will continue to monitor closely all aspects of it to show the nation what the real ramifications are, especially for ordinary working Australians, and for my part small business operators and primary producers of the electorate of Farrer and veterans and ex-service personnel right across Australia, all of whom are part of my responsibility. This Budget is deceptive and a Don-Quixote-type Budget based on dreams and mirrors. It does not face reality and it does not face up to the overseas public sector debt and the internal domestic public sector debt. On that score alone, this Budget fails this nation. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(9.07) —I am very pleased to support this Budget and to commend the Treasurer (Mr Keating) for his remarkable achievement in framing a blueprint for our continued national recovery. It is a Budget which protects and improves the position of the disadvantaged and which lays the solid foundation for a long period of Labor in government. This evening I would like to concentrate on two aspects of the Budget of particular interest to my constituents. I first refer to the measures contained in the Budget, which will expand education and training opportunities. I note with some pleasure that the Budget provides that general recurrent grants to schools will rise by almost $60m next year. That is a real increase of 4.8 per cent on this year. Since 1984 the Government's recurrent funding program has provided schools and systems with the stability and certainty they need so much for forward planning. But more than that, along with our specific purpose programs, improved recurrent funding has contributed to a spectacular improvement in retention rates. The Government has as a target that by 1992 two-thirds of young Australians will be completing a full secondary education. The Government is on track. Retention has been increased by 16 per cent since Labor came to office. This process will continue and accelerate next year with the removal of the last financial barrier to young people remaining at school. As from 1988 unemployment benefits no longer will outstrip education allowances. A more generous income test for Austudy will mean that more families will qualify for assistance. The extension of the sibling concession to cover two or more children in different sectors of education is an eminently sensible reform contained in this Budget. To illustrate, I refer to the current system and use as an example a family with two student children. To qualify for assistance, if those two student children are in senior secondary school, an earnings limit of $32,034 applies. If that family has two students in the tertiary sector, an earnings limit of $38,294 applies. But if the family has one student in each sector-one in senior secondary and one in tertiary-two separate income tests are applied. For the secondary student the income limit drops to $23,894 and, for the tertiary student, $27,024. The current arrangement is silly, because in the case of a family on $30,000 with two students, both students would qualify for assistance if they were both in secondary school, but as soon as one progressed to tertiary education neither would qualify-and that is precisely the time when the family would be facing increased costs. The reform to extend those sibling concessions across the education sectors is a sensible improvement to what otherwise has been a very good scheme. This reform, together with increases in the allowances themselves of up to $15 a week and the provision of $38.4m to fund an extra 4,000 new places in the tertiary sector, will mean that many more young people from my electorate and from the western Sydney region in general will complete a full secondary education and go on to higher education. I am also pleased that the Budget night statement of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) contained a commitment to provide $9m in 1989 for Chifley University College in my electorate. That commitment is most welcome. It is evidence of this Government's firm resolve to provide opportunities in a part of Australia which was neglected by successive Liberal governments for so long, as it would have been neglected again had the Liberals won on 11 July. I referred earlier to the establishment of Chifley University. I wish to read to the House part of a transcript of a news interview on local radio, Radio 2KA, on 25 June. The interviewer asked my Liberal opponent: Can the Liberal Party guarantee a university will be brought to Western Sydney? My opponent replied: We feel that the overall education system should be improved a great deal and I do believe that the university in the west will be there in the future. The interviewer responded: John Howard hasn't said that. The candidate replied: John Howard did last year make a statement and say that he was sympathetic and that he believed we needed a university in the west. However, once again, I am saying that this government should put the money up prior to July 11 or shut up. The interviewer said: Yes, but John Howard hasn't even given a commitment that he will fund a university for Western Sydney. The candidate responded: As the candidate, if I am elected, I will push for the university in the west because I believe that there should be one here. The interviewer asked: But there is no guarantee from the party leader? The candidate replied: Once again, I'll go back and say that John Howard was sympathetic and when I spoke to him last year, John believed that we needed a university, however, he did say that we needed to fix up the whole of the education system first. I have no doubt that Liberal Party candidates in that region were told to duck for cover on this issue because John Howard planned to bury Chifley University as part of a secret package of savage cuts to education had he been elected on 11 July. We all remember the Liberal Party's taxation policy, that long-awaited document of over 60 pages that will go down as the longest suicide note in history. We remember the spending cuts on which that policy depended. But in the area of education, the Liberals could not come clean on where the axe would fall and, as a result, the shadow Minister had to suffer the supreme embarrassment of this article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 June under the heading `Education cuts not specified': The Liberal Party's education policy shows no sign of the public sector spending cuts foreshadowed in the party's tax policy. There are no dollar figures in the policy in spite of a statement earlier this month by the party's education spokesman, Mr Peter Shack, that when the policy is released there will be a full costing, and it will add up clearly. . . . Mr Shack said yesterday: `I don't want to give precise details [of savings]. We're on the outside. `While we have every confidence that education will be able to make its contribution to the expenditure cuts needed to fund our tax reductions, schools are only one branch of the education department. The others are higher education and TAFE, and the savings are something we'll quantify when we are in government.' It is no wonder the Opposition did not win the election. The only wonder is that the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) is still on the front bench. Let me turn to another aspect of the Budget which is of great importance to families, including those in my electorate; that is, the family allowance supplement. This exciting reform is part of the Government's commitment that, by 1990, no Australian child need live in poverty. This reform combines a more generous income test and increased payments. For example, a family in private rental accommodation with three children, two of whom are under 13 and one over, on a family income of $17,000, currently receives $16.48 a week under the family income supplement. Under the family allowance supplement that family will receive $85.98 a week. Mr Mountford —How much? Mr FREE —It will receive $85.98. In December that family will be $69.50 a week better off. If the Liberals had won on 11 July, that same family would have received a tax cut of a miserable $5.20, plus a child care allowance of $15.34-a total of $20.54. That is $20.54 from the Liberals as against $69.50 from Labor. So the difference between Labor winning and losing on 11 July will mean an additional benefit of $48.96 a week to such a family by Christmas. At this stage I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which illustrates this point, as it affects a range of family incomes, in detail. I have shown it to the honourable member responsible. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMPARISON OF LABOR'S FAMILY PACKAGE AND THE LIBERAL'S ELECTION PROPOSAL ($/WEEK) (FAMILY RENTING PRIVATELY, WITH 2 CHILDREN UNDER 13 AND ONE CHILD OVER 13) Present Family Income ($pa) Tax + Medicare Levy Present FIS Present Post-tax Income Labor Family Package FAS Post-tax Income Post-tax Income Increase Liberal Election Proposal Tax + Medicare Levy Proposed CCA + FIS Proposed Post-tax Income Post-tax Income Increase Additional benefits of Labor Family Package 10000 2.80 51.00 239.99 87.00 275.99 36.00 0.48 66.34 257.66 17.66 18.34 11000 7.40 51.00 254.57 87.00 290.57 36.00 5.27 66.34 272.04 17.47 18.53 12000 12.01 51.00 269.14 87.00 305.14 36.00 10.07 66.34 286.42 17.28 18.72 13000 16.99 51.00 283.34 87.00 319.34 36.00 14.86 66.34 300.81 17.47 18.53 14000 22.55 45.25 291.20 87.00 332.95 41.75 19.66 60.59 309.44 18.24 23.51 15000 28.12 35.66 295.23 87.00 346.57 51.34 24.45 51.00 314.23 19.01 32.34 16000 33.68 26.07 299.25 87.00 360.19 60.93 29.25 41.41 319.03 19.77 41.16 17000 39.24 16.48 303.28 85.98 372.78 69.50 34.04 31.82 323.82 20.54 48.96 18000 44.80 6.89 307.31 76.39 376.81 69.50 38.84 22.23 328.62 21.31 48.19 19000 52.86 0.00 311.55 66.80 378.34 66.80 46.13 15.34 333.62 22.08 44.72 20000 61.78 0.00 321.81 57.21 379.02 57.21 53.22 15.34 345.70 23.90 33.31 21000 69.69 0.00 333.07 47.62 380.69 47.62 60.75 15.34 357.36 24.28 23.34 22000 77.60 0.00 344.34 38.03 382.37 38.03 68.28 15.34 369.01 24.66 13.37 Mr FREE —I thank the House. The table shows that the additional benefits of Labor's family package range from an extra $13.37 to $48.96 for incomes ranging from $10,000 to $22,000. I should add one cautionary remark about the family allowance supplement, a feature of which I know the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is aware-that is, the danger of a low take-up rate if the scheme is poorly promoted. The family income supplement introduced by the Fraser Government failed to reach all or even a substantial proportion of the families that it set out to assist. I suspect that this happened because the scheme was poorly designed and insufficient attention was paid to its promotion in the community. I am confident that this Government, having developed such a good program in the family allowance supplement, will take the necessary steps to ensure that information about it reaches every eligible family and that benefits flow through to those needy families targeted by the scheme. In the last couple of days many words have been written and spoken about the Budget. Many commentators have been lavish in their praise, but of all the comments I prefer those of Max Walsh. Honourable members may recall that Max Walsh wrote an article in June which I regard as the definitive article of the election campaign, and I think it is only fair that Max should be accorded, at least by me, the definitive comment on the Budget. Max Walsh said this about the Government and the Budget: In two months of being re-elected, it has delivered a Budget which even its most caustic critics concede is a large step in the right direction, and at the same time, in one swoop, it has fully delivered on all campaign promises. No government has been so obligation-free in terms of its economic program as Mr Hawke now finds his at the opening of its third term. To that I would add that no government has ever had a greater entitlement to look to its own future with greater confidence. At this stage I wish to add my comments to the Australia Card debate because, like many honourable members, I was unable to participate in yesterday's debate. I regret very much the remarkable apparent turnaround in public opinion that we seem to be witnessing in published opinion polls. I regret it because it has been caused by a campaign of misinformation, a campaign which has been increasingly hysterical. I believe it is time to return to the fundamentals. I believe it is time to explain to the Australian community that the Australia Card program involves limited access to very limited information; that it is designed quite simply to establish that a person holding a job, opening a bank account or applying for a benefit is the person he claims to be. Our opponents talk of rights and liberties. What about the rights and liberties of ordinary, honest Australians? What about their rights to feel secure in the knowledge that they are paying a fair share of tax in a fair system? What about their rights to know that the benefits they pay for go to people properly entitled to them? Ordinary Australians are entitled to enjoy those rights as well. What about their right to know that we have a fair and orderly migration system? There was an interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 29 August about tourists working illegally in this country while here on tourist visas. The shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), was guilty in that article of breathtaking double standards. The article stated: `We don't even take the simple step of saying, ``can we see your passport?'' before offering a job,' says Mr Alan Cadman, the Federal Opposition spokesman on immigration. He says working tourists deprive Australians of jobs and estimates that $60 million is spent each year paying out Medicare, legal aid and other benefits to illegal aliens. It is typical of the Opposition's approach that in this statement the shadow Minister should ignore the impact the Australia Card would have on the problem while, at the same time, complain about the problem. Opponents of the Australia Card call it an imposition on honest people and claim that it will not stop all cases of abuse. This argument is fundamentally flawed. It is the same as arguing that the compulsory wearing of seat belts and random breath testing somehow have failed because they have not stopped every single road fatality in this country. Quite clearly, they have been successful by reducing the incidence of such fatalities. In the same way the introduction of the Australia Card will significantly reduce tax and welfare fraud. The opponents of the card bear a heavy responsibility. If they get their way they will deprive the revenue of $1 billion a year. Only this evening we heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) saying that he wanted to see more tertiary places created. He also said that he wanted to see more public housing built. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) in the debate this evening said that he wanted more tax cuts. At the same time that members of the Opposition want more they also want to deny the revenue of $1 billion a year. The opponents of the card claim also that it was never raised as an issue in the recent election campaign. That is untrue. I remember very clearly that the first advertisement of the Australian Labor Party in that campaign dealt with this issue. It is not our fault that the Liberals ducked for cover during that election campaign and failed to pick up the ball on that issue. I put out more Press releases on this issue in my electorate during the recent election campaign than on any other single issue, as the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) knows. Mr Webster —And as he also did. Mr FREE —Exactly. The debate in the wider community on the Australia Card increasingly is becoming a battle between myth and reality; a battle between the irrational and the rational. It is becoming a debate in which the usual practice of basing an orderly argument on a common core of mutually agreed facts has been abandoned as the opponents of the card move increasingly into fantasy land. I know that opponents of the card object to being associated in debate with tax and welfare cheats. I understand that objection and certainly would not make that association in the debate this evening. However, as honourable members opposite continue to oppose the Australia Card they are attracting a very enthusiastic team of barrackers because cheering them on on the sideline as they continue their opposition to this reform is every tax cheat, welfare cheat, illegal migrant and con man in the country. I ask members of the Opposition to pause, take a deep breath, look at the company they are keeping in the debate and think again. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.25) —Tonight I want to say something about trade, our trading relationships and our security interests. Before I do so I will pick up two approaches taken by the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free). One concerned Mr Max Walsh and his praises for the Government's Budget. The honourable member for Lindsay seems to have acquired the habit from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of coming into the House with a piece of paper from which he can quote. We know the Prime Minister's habit of coming into the House with a collection of newspaper articles under his arm, rabbiting through them to find one that suits the occasion, pulling it out and saying, `X has said I have done a great thing' or `Y has said that you have not done a great thing'. It is astonishing that debate on the Prime Minister's part has to be reduced to quoting from newspaper articles. But it is a catching disease. The honourable member for Lindsay referred in glowing terms to Mr Max Walsh and what he had said about this Government's Budget. I recall that during the election campaign Mr Walsh said something which I found quite astonishing. He said that deep cuts to spending and taxation would somehow be extraordinarily destructive of our financial system. The curious thing is that if it is a Government cut it is okay, but if it is a cut proposed by the Opposition apparently it is not okay. I see that the honourable member for Lindsay is leaving the chamber. I cannot say that I will miss him, but I will continue with what I have to say about him. Now he is coming back. He also talked in his speech about the Australia Card. He talked about the company that we in opposition are keeping when we defend the rights of the citizens of this country not to have the Australia Card forced down their throats. Does the honourable member seriously suggest that the people who join us are a collection of spivs, crooks and rorters? Mr Campbell —Yes. Mr SPENDER —Really? Does he seriously suggest that Mr Peter Garrett, Mr Justice Kirby, many unions and Labor lawyers are thieves, spivs, crooks or the people who protect them? Of course, he does not. He has fallen into the habit of the big lie-another habit which is very catching in this Government and the Australian Labor Party. It runs along the line-Dr Goebbels knew it well-that if one repeats something often and loudly enough, such as the big lie that this Government inherited a $10 billion deficit, people will believe it. People will say, `How could it possibly be the case that people who are as nice as the members of this Government or the members of the Labor Party would tell such an extraordinary story if it were not true?'. We on our side know that the depth and breadth of support for the forces against the Australia Card is of a kind that this country has seldom seen. The Government knows that within its own ranks are members who do not want the Australia Card under any circumstances. It knows that within its own ranks there are members who fear the electoral consequences of bringing in the card. Let me make a small wager with any honourable member who wants to take it up. I wager that at the end of the day this Government will find the means, even if it takes the card through a joint sitting, to postpone bringing it in. I will now move on to the subject of our trade relations and our security interests. The current account deficit for 1986-87, as I believe every honourable member in this House and many people throughout the country would know, ran to a loss of $13,600m. That is roughly 5.1 per cent of our gross domestic product, and, of course, for the most part that has to be funded by borrowings. It has to be funded by money coming into this country and, for the most part, that means that we are, as we all know, going into debt. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his economic forecasts says that the current account deficit will be reduced to $11.5 billion in the current year. That is still a colossal amount of money, and the result is that for years we will be working ourselves out of the trough in which we now find ourselves. I remind the House that the Government has been in power for getting on for five years. It has been under this Government that the current account deficit has blown out in the way it has, and it was this Treasurer who cheerfully, quite some time ago, spoke of the J-curve and how it would come to our rescue. He said that we would find ourselves emerging on the other side, and things would be okay. As we know, things are not okay and our trading account is in dire straits. It will stay that way for quite some time. We are not alone. The United States is also running a very large current account deficit. It is very many times larger than ours, but of course the American economy is very many times larger than ours. There is domestic pressure within the United States for protectionist measures and for the use of America's economic clout to gain more markets for American goods and produce and to squeeze others, including ourselves, out of those markets. There are presently before the United States Congress two Bills-one which has passed through the House and one which has passed through the Senate-which are now being considered in the process of consultation which goes on when Bills are passed through the House and the Senate in different terms but dealing with the same subject matter so that a compromise Bill is eventually reached. The problems we face are mostly within Congress, but the problems are strong and they have been growing for some time. The surge of protectionist sentiment within the United States has perceptibly deepened and sharpened over the last one or two years and we face the risk of becoming a casualty of the protectionist pressures within the United States. So, of course, would other countries; we would not be by ourselves. One of the worst things that could possibly happen for the economies of the Western world would be the development of the `beggar thy neighbour' protectionist syndrome which was so catastrophic in the 1930s. We must therefore make the strongest possible objections to what the United States Congress is now considering and state in very plain terms that we have been a good and close ally of the United States and that we have a good case. We must put that as strongly as possible. But it is a very different thing to put on to the bargaining table our security interests. Our security alliances and interests and our trade interests are two different things. That is something which the Government and others over the last few days have not understood. The overwhelming national interest of this country is to maintain its national security, and central to our national security are our relations with the United States, including ANZUS and the joint facilities, and our role in the Western democratic alliance. Our alliance relations are based on a community of interests and a view about the kind of society, the kind of world, that we live in and that we hope to live in, the preservation and protection of democratic life and the maintenance of a stable world order. Our trading interests are different. By their nature, they are ever-changing. Our trading interests may and will conflict with the interests of our closest allies because we are all in the international market-place, competing one against the other. We will, day in and day out, find ourselves in direct competition with our closest allies for international markets. Our interest in gaining access to those markets, in gaining greater market share, will be directly opposed to the interests of our closest allies. But our security interests remain paramount and unique. Our national life depends very simply on our national security. If our security goes, we will have nothing to trade. Those interested in our position within the Western alliance are too fundamentally important to be put on the negotiating table to secure trading advantages. The growth of protectionist sentiment in the United States, the danger this presents to our maintaining access to American markets and to other markets, and the danger that domestic pressure in the United States may ultimately force that country to use its political muscle in overseas markets in a way which will harm our access to those markets are forces that we as a nation must counter with all of our political will and strength, but not at the risk of putting any part of our security alliances in jeopardy. The statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) recently have done just that. The Minister for Trade Negotiations in the course of a recent statement appeared to put our bases, the joint facilities, on the negotiating table for the purpose of seeking to secure a trade advantage. The Prime Minister distanced himself from that, and I think made it plain enough that the bases were not on the table. In doing so, he said: We are entitled, therefore, to say to the United States: `We have made the tough internal economic decisions. You impose the same discipline upon yourselves'. I say in passing that the United States, despite the myriad of economic difficulties it also faces, has a current account deficit running at an annualised rate of 4 per cent, which is a full percentage point below our current account deficit. So we are hardly in a position to say that we are so much better when it comes to the current account deficit, and of course the United States market traditionally has been one of the most open of markets. But the Prime Minister, in disavowing any intention of using the defence facilities as bargaining chips, left the position very open and very confused. Back in ancient Greece there was an oracle known as the Oracle of Delphi. People would travel from afar to consult the oracle. They would ask a question and the oracle would come back with an utterance which was capable of two, three, four or five interpretations, hence the word `delphic'. I had thought that we had lost the Oracle of Delphi, but I find that he has returned in the form of the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister was asked on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio on 16 September about the bases he said, first of all, clearly enough: I am not bargaining with the bases. He then went on: But I am saying to our friends in the Unites States there are many aspects to our alliance relationship and they can't expect an infinite elasticity of tolerance on the part of Australia. There will be a weakening of support within Australia for the whole alliance relationship . . . Was he talking about a weakening of support within the Government? Was he talking about a weakening of his own support? He seemed clearly enough to be saying, so far as he was saying anything clearly, that in some way the alliance relationship with the United States would still be on the table as a bargaining chip in our trade negotiations. What does he have in mind? Leaving aside that the Prime Minister's syntax is sometimes more than delphic, was he talking about ANZUS? Was he talking about joint manoeuvres? Are we going to threaten that we will not engage in joint manoeuvres? Was he saying that we are going to go elsewhere for our arms purchases regardless of whether or not we should because we need to have commonality of arms as the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), and the Prime Minister himself, would well understand? Was he talking about access to Australian ports? who knows? He has left us thinking that maybe there is a kind of half alliance situation. Is that what is he talking about? We do not know. Nobody knows. Nobody in this House or outside knows because the Prime Minister has not made himself clear. He has played to the Left because by making these ambiguous statements which are open to interpretation of a weakened support by this Government for the alliance or that the Government would in some way bargain the alliance against trade, he plays into the hands of the Left, of the anti-American elements, of those who would have us turn our back on the world. The Prime Minister's style of speaking in this House is frequently to say. `Look, you're stupid. You don't understand what it's all about. Now, I am going to have to make things so plain that even you can understand'. Who is being stupid now? Why cannot he make himself plain? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member is out of order in making-- Mr SPENDER —How, Madam Deputy Speaker? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member waits for a moment I will make it quite clear how. He is out of order in making personal reflections against another member of this House. Mr SPENDER —Gracious me! `Stupidity'? I will bear that ruling in mind tomorrow, Madam Deputy Speaker. I of course accept it but I shall bear it in mind tomorrow. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Bear it in mind now, please. Mr SPENDER —The first time that the Prime Minister uses that word I will be able to get up and say that I have had this ruling which is now in Hansard and that word has to be struck from the lexicon of parliamentary language. I put that to one side. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Most certainly I have ruled that in this instance you have made a personal reflection against a member of this House. That is within Standing Orders. I ask you to withdraw that. Mr SPENDER —The word is `stupid'. If you think that that is a personal reflection, then of course that is your ruling and on this occasion I most certainly accept it. Could anything be more confused, more confusing, more dangerous-and slightly ridiculous-than this kind of statement? Can the Prime Minister simply tell the House or make plain to the public what he means by the statements that he has made on the subject of the alliance and trade? Will he make plain beyond any doubt that our position is, as a nation, that under no circumstances will we ever bargain any part of our security, any part of our alliance relationships, with the United States against our trading interests? The word `stupid' has been struck from the dictionary of parliamentary usage but to conduct diplomacy over the morning radio in that casual, off-hand and haphazard way is the worst kind of way in which to deal with an issue of such national importance. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(9.44) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a little sad that you saw fit to reprimand the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) for his vocabulary because it is pretty mild compared with some of the things I would like to say about the honourable members opposite. Mr McGauran —Well, you will be prevented. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr CAMPBELL —I do not think the member for what's-its-name will be preventing me. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will call members of this House by their correct titles, please. Mr CAMPBELL —Well, whatever it is. Mr Tim Fischer —North Sydney. Mr CAMPBELL —No, no, the other one, McGauran. Mr McGauran —Gippsland. Mr CAMPBELL —Yes, Gippsland, that obscure Victorian electorate. Truly, Madam Deputy Speaker, never have the Opposition benches of this House been occupied by such a collection of working girls of both sexes-for political prostitutes is what they are, without a shadow of a doubt. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Tim Fischer —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would accept the point of order. Mr CAMPBELL —I am happy to withdraw. Mr Tim Fischer —I find the remarks of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —We are veering away from parliamentary language and I do ask that those words be withdrawn. Mr CAMPBELL —I am happy to withdraw them. As a matter of fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would be prepared to give you now a blanket withdrawal for everything I say that offends; it might save time. Mr McGauran —Are they girls on your own side, the token women Ministers? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr CAMPBELL —I was talking about intellectual prostitutes and you know very well what I mean; you more than most, member for what's-its-name. I want to say a few things in rather a folksy sort of a way. Mr McGauran —Well, hurry up and say it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will cease-- Mr CAMPBELL —I have a very old friend-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There may be only a couple of honourable members in this House but I would still expect the usual courtesies and Standing Orders to be adhered to. The honourable member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. I call the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. Mr CAMPBELL —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am inclined to agree with you; there probably are only a couple of honourable members in the House. I have a very old friend, Madam Deputy Speaker. He is a farmer I have known for 30 years or more. As a matter of fact, I taught him to play chess and he infuriated me by continually beating me. The other day he said to me, `You know, I've never voted Labor but I have to give it to you. Your Government is doing everything right. They're getting it right and I really cannot see what the Opposition has to complain about'. The truth is that the Opposition is one of the most mealy-mouthed collection of Hanrahans this Parliament has ever seen. `We'll all be rooned', they keep echoing. They keep trying to sell this country down-internally and on the external market. In Western Australia we have Mr Lightfoot, an honourable member of the upper House, who recently wrote to the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mr Shultz, telling him that he wished the United States to continue its policies which hurt Australian farmers. He said that only by ruining Australian farmers could we get rid of this dreadful socialist Government. That was an act of treason. It was a statement of treason and it went unchallenged by honourable members opposite. That is to their eternal shame. I sat in this House tonight and listened to Mr Downer of the Downer dynasty. Mr McGauran —The honourable member for Mayo, please. Mr CAMPBELL —Yes, the honourable member for Mayo. He was making allusions to workers. When he was a child he had a doll's house worth more than the house that most workers in Australia live in. This silver spoon-fed gentleman was making some of the most outrageous aspersions and telling the most outrageous untruths. I want to deal with just a few of them. Before I do that I draw the attention of the honourable member for North Sydney-I did tell him to stay around because I wanted to say a few things about him-to the economy. He, in his well modulated tones, told us about this dreadful deficit. The truth of the matter is that the total Australian indebtedness today is something like $82.9 billion. But the current account debt or the running net debt by June will be down to about $9 1/2 billion. The total official sector debt-that is the debt owed by the Commonwealth and the Reserve Bank of Australia-is about $5.8 billion. That is a very small percentage of the total debt. Where is this massive current account debt? It is quite clear that most of it is in the private sector. It is there because many of the friends of the Liberal Party of Australia have borrowed very heavily overseas. One would assume that these friends of the Liberal party are not all stupid; they borrowed money overseas in the belief that they could make money and that they can pay it back. If they do not pay it back they will go broke and they will be sold up. But that in no way threatens the future of my children, Mr Deputy Speaker, or your children. They are the simple facts of life. The honourable member also alluded with derision to the J-curve. A lot of the current account deficit also came about because companies in Australia, once more seeing a future for manufacturing, had to go off-shore to borrow money to get back into manufacturing. Why did they do that? They had to do that because the previous Government had killed manufacturing in this country. It had killed manufacturing in this country because that was the only way in which it could control inflation. Everyone knows that it did not control inflation; inflation galloped away. It tried to control inflation by keeping down wages and creating massive unemployment. That was the legacy that this country inherited from the previous Government. I say to honourable members opposite that there is nothing more conducive to poverty than not having a job, and nothing that will remedy poverty quicker or better than giving people a job. That is the proud record of this Government. The companies that had to buy equipment overseas found that because this Government had taken the responsible step of floating the dollar, their expenditure overseas was higher. There is no doubt that that expenditure is now starting to pay off and will pay off in the future. This Government had to take the hard decision. This Government did bite the bullet, and the rewards will flow to the people of Australia. I want to say something else about the honourable member for North Sydney. He said, `We will never put the security of this country at risk'. Let us look at the proud history of the Liberal Party. What happened in the last war? It gave up and let the Labor Party run the country during the war. The Labor Party Government was the Government that took this country nobly through the Second World War. The history of the Labor Party is a proud history. But it is futile and puerile to say, `We must not put security at risk'. If we are honest allies of our American friends, if we value their friendship-if we value them as friends, as allies-we must be honest with them. To do less would be to sell them short. It is the responsibility of politicians in this country to let the Americans know how the Australian public is starting to feel. I tell honourable members that many farmers in Australia who have never voted for us are now saying: `Look, we're not getting a fair shake from the Americans. We want the Government to do something about it'. It is the same sort of nonsense we heard from that forgettable fellow from the National Party of Australia-I used to call him `sunshine'-who made a statement when we proposed to recognise China. He was never going to sell his principles for trade. He was not going to get involved in that sordid business. He was not going to recognise China. Of course, we did recognise China and massive wheat sales flowed from that recognition, which benefited Australian wheat farmers. Within a very short time, of course, the same people who were not going to sell themselves for trade were so besotted with China that China could do no wrong. Some of them even saw China as the font of all democratic process. Such is the perfidy and hypocrisy of honourable members opposite! It is no wonder that so many of them are lawyers. There are some factors in the Budget which I find to be most unpleasant. I find it unsatisfactory that the Government has raised the price of petrol for some people in remote areas by 4c a litre. Most of those people live in the country. In fact, most of them live in my electorate. I feel quite angry about it. But the truth is that this matter has not been raised once by honourable members opposite. The reason that it has not been raised is that they sold out the country long ago. Mr Tim Fischer —You didn't listen to my speech. I raised it. Mr CAMPBELL —I do apologise; the honourable member must realise how easy he is to overlook. The truth is that the greatest threat facing this country is the growing dichotomy between city and country people. It is the single greatest threat facing this country. In truth, no political party today really recognises this problem. The reason is simple: in Australia everyone lives in the cities; everyone lives around the coast. But if this problem is not faced and we do not start to bring Australia back together again, we will be a divided nation. As a divided nation we will not survive. If one was fair and reasonable-I have a note here which accuses me of bias, so I will try to overcome my bias-one would say that most of the blame for this process must reside with the Menzies Government. This neglect of country issues has come about because Australia has become increasingly centralised. The reason that it is increasingly centralised is because of what happened during those Menzies years. We had a stroke of genius from Black Jack McEwen in the form of the Australian-Japan trade agreement. I am sorry to say that that document was opposed, very foolishly, by the Labor Party at that time. But that document, brilliant as it was, was doomed to failure because the other necessary requirements were not put in place. I believe that what McEwen had in mind, and what he never had the ability or the courage to enforce, was a rational industry sector. That is something that this Government has tackled. I ask honourable members opposite to think what would be the future of this country today if McEwen, at the time of taking this very great step, had also decided that there would be a rationalisation of Australian industry, so that Australian industry would be based on downstream processing of our raw material and on capitalising on our undoubted intellectual ability-that is, by making the stuff that we invented here in Australia. It is in these areas that we could have competed with the world. We could never compete with the world in the making of mundane stuff-knives, forks, spoons, cups and motor cars-because the rest of the world makes this stuff. The only way in which one can be competitive, of course, is to pay low wages. The lower the wages, the more competitive one is. I do not want my kids to work for Korean wages. I do not particularly want anyone's kids to work for Korean wages; although I must say that it might give some honourable members opposite a bit of compassion and put the matter into perspective. The honourable member for North Sydney asked, `Why is it that when the Liberal Party talks about cutting expenditure it is not acceptable, but when the Labor Party does, it is acceptable?'. He asked that question in a rhetorical fashion. I can tell him why that is so. It is because the economy is a very complicated body. The Liberal Party cuts like butchers. It does not care who it hurts, and it hurts little people. I think that history has shown that the Labor Party has cut with the precision of a surgeon. There you have it, Mr Deputy Speaker: when the Liberal Party talks about cutting expenditure, it talks about grinding down the poor and making it even harder for the poor to live. It has no compassion. It is comprised mainly of silver spoon-fed silvertails who do not know the real world. I pay tribute to my colleague the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free), who spoke about the magnificent job this Government has done in increasing funds allocated in the area of family need. I think it is a record of which we can be proud. I do not think we have gone far enough. It is an area which we must continue to look at. But it is the most ambitious, biggest step ever taken by any government that I can think of. It is something of which I, as a member of this Government, am particularly proud. This flies, of course, in the face of what honourable members opposite would have done. As I said, when they grind, it is the faces of the poor that they grind. I want to talk a little about the future direction of Australia. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said, we are by no means out of the woods. All we have done is to show the way, deliver what we promised and set Australia on a course that can achieve for us the greatness of which we are all capable. We find ourselves beset by the perfidy of the Opposition. The Australia Card comes to mind. A little lady rang my office the other day. She said she was very worried about the Australia Card and that she knew what we were up to because a member of parliament had told her. She said she knew that when she had her photograph taken for the Australia Card, the camera would zap on to her forehead a laser number. I said, `Look, whoever told you this nonsense?'. She said, `I can't tell you, but I can tell you that he was a member of parliament and, of course, he wouldn't lie'. I do not think I would have to think too hard to guess who that turkey was. That is the sort of misinformation we are getting. The truth is that the Australia Card will put on record no information that the Government does not already have. It will put on record information that is very mundane. People say, `But won't the hackers get into it? Won't they have access to this information?'. What does it really matter? The truth is that it will be more secure than any other information that is held, but all that will be available is very basic information. My driving licence contains more information than that and my passport certainly does. Every credit card that I have in my pocket contains more information about me. It is information over which I have no control but which is readily sold as a commercial commodity. I continually get targeted mail from people who have access to that information. The Australia Card legislation will make sure that it is much more risky and much harder to do this and that one takes a much greater chance by doing this. It will probably enhance people's civil liberties rather than take them away. I do not doubt that the emotional campaign of lies and distortion waged by the Opposition will be effective. It is my experience that an emotional argument will beat the hell out of a logical argument any day. I think many honourable members opposite know that-they have been practising all their lives. It may also be true that this groundswell of emotional nonsense will sweep me out of office. I might lose my seat. So be it. If that is the case, I accept it. I recognise that Hitler was swept into power by just the same phenomenon. Mr McGauran —For heaven's sake, what a trite observation. Mr CAMPBELL —The honourable member needs to have a regard for history, because if he does not have a regard for history he will never learn from it. But, of course, in his position he really does not have to bother about learning as it will all be provided for him in the future as it has been in the past. Mr McGauran —Do you think so? Mr CAMPBELL —Without a shadow of a doubt. I want to talk about the future of Australian development. There are things that Australia must do if it is to achieve greatness. We have talked about privatisation. I have no brief for the Commonwealth Bank. It is one of those greedy, self-seeking, short term thinking sorts of organisations, like every other bank in Australia. It is certainly no better and no worse, and I have no regard for it. The only question I ask is whether it is an economically sound decision to sell it or to keep it, and that will be based entirely on its annual return against its asset backing, or what we can get for it if we sell it. I believe that Telecom Australia, Australia Post and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission must be protected at all costs. There are other things that must be done. Australia has 80 per cent of the world's neodymium. This rare earth metal will be one of the metals of the future. It is the metal of super magnets-a material that will revolutionise the automotive industry and make electric motor cars possible. It will have enormous application. Australia has 80 per cent of this material, but we cannot refine it and we cannot smelt it. The only people who can do that at the moment are the French, although the Japanese are on the trail. I do not believe that Australians are not capable of refining and smelting this material so that we can add downstream processing, and so that we can get added value from it and have the great jobs in Australia that this would create. But this will not be done by the private sector because it does not have the wit, the will or the wisdom. It must be undertaken by government finance. If we sell some of these institutions and get some money for them, it should be invested in areas such as this so that Australia can have a secure future that will provide jobs for our kids. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.04) —This Government is to be congratulated on its single greatest achievement since it came to office way back in 1983. That achievement can be summed up in two words-media management. As I said earlier today, the Government learnt quickly that the secret of success is sincerity, and that once a government can fake that it has got it made. Nowhere has the faked sincerity of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had more impact than in the Parliamentary Press Gallery. The Press Gallery and the Government have proved the theory that the more innocuous one can make a proposal or measure appear, the farther its influence will extend. The identity card legislation is but the latest and most stark example. It has to be represented as somehow innocuous, if only to explain why all three debates in this House on this legislation have been gagged. But that is just one example. The now time-worn bad news, good news technique is more often used. Each and every Budget and mini-Budget brought down by this Government has been preceded by the application of the bad news, good news device. Everyone in this place remotely aware of the political ploys that are employed in and around this place knows how the game is played. It is especially known by the so-called leaders in the Press Gallery who unblushingly go along with it year after year. If one is in government, the trick is to get the co-operation of the leaders in the Gallery by selectively briefing them and backgrounding them and then, at some later stage, call up the debt of gratitude so created. An occasional booze-up at the Lodge or some other prestigious site might be enough for the rest of the Gallery. Having complied with the prerequisites, it is then in order for both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to seed the bad news in the run-up to a Budget or a mini-Budget. This year, some of the older ploys were not quite appropriate, given that the Budget came so soon after a general election, and given also that the Prime Minister, uncharacteristically, did not choose this time to break election promises so soon after he made them on new taxes and expenditure cuts. In previous years, the pre-Budget bad news took the form of exaggerated stories of tax hikes and expenditure cuts which were slavishly written by a couple of journalists and subsequently taken up by others. In the event, the mini-Budget or Budget proper in- creased taxes all right but did not match the expectation so created. The less than expected impositions then became the good news. The sort of media manipulation that we have seen has been made an art form by this Government, which plays on the fact that few in the Gallery have the necessary economic skills or interest and have found that they can satisfy their editors by writing up ministerial hand-outs. This year, the pre-Budget bad news consisted of creating the illusion that the deficit would be somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion, and that the 14 or 15 areas of spending publicly identified as targets by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) would yield expenditure cuts. Neither appeared in the Budget, and the good news was once again created. Most editorialists, headline writers and journalists responded predictably. Some might say and some do say, `So what, if you can get away with it'. Thinking people who resent attempts to manipulate their opinions and the public's opinions do not think that way. However, the technique is working and it complicates enormously the dissemination of accurate information to serious-minded people which might allow them to form their own opinions without the doubtful benefit of throw-away lines from a reporter who has no ultimate responsibility, mandate or qualifications relevant to the subject matter. So it is that once again we see very little serious appreciation of the full implications of this Budget. In particular, the overall increase in income tax to be collected is 9.2 per cent-a percentage considerably in excess of the inflation rate, either for last year or projected for this year. The Treasurer, in order to save his blushes, now has to postulate in public cuts in company tax and personal taxes at some time in the future. It is a tribute to the false imagery woven by the Government that few commentators have dwelt on the fact that, despite tax cuts effective from 1 July, the total of personal income taxes is budgeted to rise by $2 1/4 billion this financial year. Unless there are further tax cuts in a May mini-Budget next year, an additional $5 billion in extra personal taxes will be collected in the financial year 1988-89. That will inevitably happen because this year and next one million taxpayers will move up into the 41.25 per cent tax bracket. A further half a million individuals will be paying the top rate of 50.25 per cent on extra dollars earned over the same period. The presentation of a nearly balanced Budget, however contrived that outcome, has excited a superficial view which ignores the continuing record tax grab under this Treasurer. So has the reduction of outlays which will be reduced not in absolute terms but as a percentage of gross domestic product. Making too much of a virtue of that circumstance is logically possible only if the revenue raising records of the Fraser and Hawke-Keating governments are compared. Total revenue over the life of the previous coalition government averaged 25.1 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). This year, even if the dubious practice of counting assets sales is accepted as presented in the Budget Papers, the Government will gather sums totalling 27.1 per cent of GDP. Even at 27.1 per cent, it is higher than the average of the Keating years, so this year it will be higher than in the previous four or so years. The same is true for budgeted spending. This year the average spending by the Hawke-Keating regime will remain significantly higher than the average under the previous coalition government. On the score of both levels of spending and total revenue gathered, this Government has retained the doubtful honour of being the biggest spending, biggest taxing government in the history of our nation. It is also the biggest borrowing government ever. That leads seriously interested observers to the obvious questions which so far do not appear to have been addressed by other than the more serious-minded commentators. How does the Government propose to go about reducing our external deficits? At what rate does it expect to make progress to that end, if any? Mr Hawker —Silence. Mr ROCHER —There is silence. What are the implications of huge interest payments on our foreign debt? The answers to those questions go begging. There is silence, as my friend the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) interjected a little while ago. Some of the basic promises are also shaky, although forecasts are probably more soundly based this year than they were last year. Even so, at 2.75 per cent, the predicted growth of GDP deserves brief comment, so do some aspects of taxation as outlined in the Budget Papers and by the Treasurer in his second reading speech. An examination of the current account deficit is warranted, although it will not be possible as I see my time is fast running out. Terry McCrann in the Daily Mirror a couple of afternoons ago made the telling point when he referred to the four horsemen of Australia's economic apocalypse. He identified those horsemen as high taxation, high levels of government spending, high levels of inflation and high foreign deficits. In those four areas we are still experiencing the highest taxation, the highest levels of government spending and the highest foreign deficits, in absolute terms, in the history of our nation. In relative terms, when we compare our record and our current position on levels of inflation, we are worse off than we have ever been with obvious effects for our trading position and our deficit on the current account. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.16) —Firstly, Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. Tonight I thought I might bring to the attention of the House the views of one of my local councils on what seems to be the most pressing issue in the nation right now; that is, as the Council refers to it, the proposed national identification system, sometimes known as the Australia Card. The Council has considered this proposal and has looked at it very closely. It feels so strongly about it that it has written a detailed letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). A copy was forwarded to me as the local member. I would like to share with honourable members tonight some of the views of the Council because I think they are very well expressed. It makes the points about the ID card that so many people in Australia are now making and thinking and highlights the concerns they genuinely have. I will read a couple of sections of the letter. It states: Individual counsellors have listened with interest to the arguments for and against the proposed `Australia Card', as reported in the media, and have unanimously agreed that the advantages which such a proposal may offer will be far outweighed by its potential disadvantages, not the least of which is the likelihood of the misuse of the information stored on computer-file about the individual. I think that sums up the greatest concern in the community now about what the ID card proposal is all about. The Council goes on to say: Council understands that the main reasons given by the Government in favour of the introduction of the `Australia Card' are that it will largely eliminate cheating of the taxation and social security systems and it will assist in the control of illegal immigration. On the question of taxation, information publicised through the daily media suggests that the legal capacity for addressing the problem of taxation avoidance, as is suggested will be achieved by the `Australia Card', already exists. That is something that all of us know deep down is quite true. It continues: It is more a question of the efficiency (or inefficiency) of the Australian Taxation Office, specifically its ability to implement the controls permitted by the existing law, rather than a lack of enabling legislation, that is contributing most substantially to the present unacceptable situation. Council is also aware of the argument that the `Australia Card' will be ineffective against the `cash economy' which, allegedly, is widespread throughout the country and is estimated to be the cause of a significant loss of taxation revenue to the Government. Council is, of course, not in a position to comment on the extent of the so-called `cash economy'. . . In relation to the claim that the `Australia Card' will stop welfare fraud, Council understands that direct fraud on the Department of Social Security in 1985-86 contributed to something less than 1% of the total `mis-expenditure' by that Department. It is understood that overpayments to undeserving recipients accounted for some 60% of the sum so `mis-expended', and that the `Australia Card' will not address this problem. Council goes on to talk about illegal immigration but also makes the following comment: It would seem, however, quite wrong that the whole of the Australian population should suffer the ignominy of having to prove its identity for the sake of controlling a relatively few wrongdoers. In this day and age surely some other system of control can be found . . . The first point made by Council concerns the misuse of information obtained by the Government. It says that the potential to abuse the system can be described in two parts. It states: Firstly, despite the apparent sincerity of the Government in claiming that the strictest security will surround the data base, the core of the system's operations, it must be acknowledged that the present government, despite its popularity at the moment, will not always be in power and therefore in a position to enforce that security. Nor is it unreasonable to suggest that the personalities of the present Government will always be there, despite continued electoral success of the A.L.P. In both these cases, the `guarantees' given now are less than reassuring and are potentially worthless. Despite the rhetoric being bandied around at the moment, Council is quite sure that, once in place, no future Government will dismantle the system-a reason will always be `invented' to maintain it. That expresses the concerns that so many people in the community have been putting to me and my colleagues, but so far the Government has failed to address them. That is taking the longer term view of the thing, not the immediate one. The letter is quite fair. It suggests that the problems may not be associated with the Government, but it points out the potential dangers of a future government and what the ID card could do in the hands of the wrong people. This is the fear that the Government has failed to grasp, a fear that is worrying many people out there in the community. I suggest that the Government ought to heed these warnings before it is too late. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.21) —I wish to raise a matter that I believe has profound moral implications for the whole world, and that is the case of Mordechai Vanunu, who is currently on trial in Israel. Mr McGauran —He is a traitor. He is a traitor to his country. Mr TICKNER —I note that in the gallery tonight are two ministers of the Anglican Church, Reverend Stephen Gray and Reverend John McKnight of St John's Anglican Church, Kings Cross, and I hope that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) will show a little more respect in view of the serious matters that I seek to raise. Mr McGauran —Why? The man is a traitor. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. Mr TICKNER —Mordechai Vanunu is currently on trial in Israel for disclosing the existence of nuclear weapons capability and stockpile of Israel. He was kidnapped in Rome in violation of Italian sovereignty and taken to Israel by the Israeli secret service. He is currently kept in a small cell some 3 metres by 2 metres, where he is constantly watched, with no windows in his cell and the lights on 24 hours a day. I do not pretend that the issues involved in this case are not without complication, nor, as I have already indicated, that profound ethical and moral considerations are not involved in the case, but whatever one's views of Mr Vanunu's conduct, I would hope that we would all support the right of people around the world to have not only a fair trial but an open and public trial. No government can justify holding a secret trial, whether they be trials in countries with totalitarian governments of the Right or of the Left or in Israel. This fact of a secret trial has, I am informed by the reverend gentlemen, aroused the concern of Amnesty International, which has made representations on the matter. This is in stark contrast to the trials of nazi war criminals that have been conducted in Israel. They have been open and public trials. The Government of Israel ought to respond to world-wide community concerns about this case. I am informed, and I know, that Mr Vanunu has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Bertrand Russell Foundation and by a number of members of the Australian Parliament. The issue is one of great concern to this House, to this Parliament and to the Government. I was disappointed by the answer given by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) who in this chamber represents the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans). He indicated, as I recall the answer, that it was not the practice of the Government to intervene in relation to trials of foreign nationals within their own country. I respectfully suggest that human rights issues are very much of world concern and it is the practice of this Government to inquire and probe into, and to take a stand on, human rights issues in other parts of the world. I respectfully suggest that this is a matter that will not go away and warrants further consideration by the Government. Before I conclude tonight I want to quote briefly from an open letter written by Mordechai Vanunu in his cell. He said: The individual, the citizen, anywhere on the face of the earth, has to find the way in which he can add his personal contribution to improve life on earth, its quality and safety. By taking this course of action he will make everyday life pleasanter and more tolerable. Those are the ideals that motivated Mordechai Vanunu to take his stand to expose the Israeli nuclear capability. I would have thought that all members of this House would realise that the Middle East is a flash-point and has the capability of engulfing the world in a global nuclear war. I believe that this issue warrants the concern of all us. It involves profound moral questions and I commend the reverend gentlemen for coming to Canberra in an attempt to awaken the conscience of members of parliament. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.26) —It is my intention to address another topic, but I do not feel that I can allow the comments made by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) to pass without my comments in return. I have been travelling to the Middle East since I was a boy. I have only a limited knowledge of that part of the region, but I guess that I have some understanding of the perilous state of Israel's security and I understand, to some extent at least, the reasons for many of its actions. I also share the concern of the honourable gentlemen about the manner of Mordechai Vanunu's apprehension in Italy, in apparent breach of that country's sovereign law if not international law. I have no argument with his point that that was an illegal act. Be that as it may, at the same time I have no argument about the conduct of his trial. He is being tried for the disposal of state secrets, and naturally much of his trial is being conducted in secrecy, but not all of it. His defence lawyer is able to brief the media and family and concerned friends on certain aspects of that trial. Indeed, Mordechai Vanunu has changed his attorney during the course of that trial, I understand. I also understand that members of his family are able to attend parts of the trial, so the conduct of that trial seems to be no different to that of anybody charged under a secrecy act in a Western democracy. I very much regret that I am not better informed about the conduct of that trial so as to be able to meet a number of the criticisms raised by the honourable member. I for one do not want to jump on any band-wagon that is put before us and turn into some sort of champion or a knight on white charger for any traitor whose name is put forward. It does not follow that, because a person expresses the highest ideals and is apparently motivated by high ideals, his actions are any the less traitorous. I wish instead to put a number of questions to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and, by implication, to the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples), who is at the table. I refer to the controversy that raged last week, at least in Victoria and I suspect in other parts of Australia, regarding plastic covering for foods. I have no axe to grind, but I am sick and tired of State consumer affairs Ministers, in this case the Hon. Peter Spiker of Victoria, and Federal Ministers, in this case the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), lambasting any industry if it seems to suit their publicity urges. We saw an example of the Minister for Consumer Affairs seeking to attract public attention when the poor old Commonwealth Bank, for a short period last Saturday morning, swallowed up people's Bankcards. That was a regrettable error that inconvenienced a lot of people, but this Minister was in every newspaper and every media outlet earlier in the week attacking the Commonwealth Government. If that is going to be the conduct of his Ministry I have grave fears for a number of innocent parties. This Minister will have to learn-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will be very careful not to impugn any member of this House. Mr Staples —Madam Speaker, did the honourable member for Gippsland speak about attacking the Commonwealth Government? Did he mean the Commonwealth Bank? Madam SPEAKER —He said the `Government', but I think that he meant `Bank'. Mr McGAURAN —I meant `the Commonwealth Bank'. We have here a publicity Minister trying to justify his petty, mickey mouse ministry that was given to him to placate the Left faction. The Minister for Consumer Affairs has a tiny area of responsibility and cannot possibly justify his salary and those of his assorted staff. I am allowing myself to be distracted. The point I wish to ask the Minister for Community Services and Health is this: does he agree with the comments of the Minister for Consumer Affairs about plastic wrapping? Is the Minister for Community Services and Health aware of the damage that could be done to such an industry? Does the Minister for Community Services and Health agree with the supposed medical and health risks associated with these plastic wrappings or does he regard the Minister for Consumer Affairs as pursuing a worthless topic, purely for selfish and self-centred reasons? I worry that there is a scare campaign in action without any real health or medical reasons being put forward by the Minister for Consumer Affairs. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.31) —I want to talk about a display of fanaticism that exists in Australia today. I do not dare name people but I want to refer to a leader who thinks he has God-given wisdom and that everything he embarks upon is right, regardless of what people say. I saw the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) earlier. I guess that his mind would turn to his home State where he has often made such utterances. But I will consider Canberra. I refer specifically to the nation's Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and more specifically to his attitude towards the identity card. We are watching a tragic display of a man who has boxed himself into a corner. Mr Gear —Who is this? Mr DONALD CAMERON —It is the Prime Minister, a man who knows that the vast majority of Australians have thought this issue through and believe it to be totally un-Australian. Yet the Prime Minister believes that he has a commitment to introduce the card, come what may. A system that requires a fine of $500 if a person does not report the loss of his card within 21 days is totally different from that involving any old card. Mr Hawker —It is foreign. Mr DONALD CAMERON —It is totally foreign to Australia as the honourable member for Wannon so rightly reminds us all at this time. If an employer, and that includes someone who hires a baby-sitter, a gardener or anyone like that from those comparatively menial-I do not like to use that word; I will say less grandiose-occupations- Mr Shipton —Even baby-sitters? Mr DONALD CAMERON —Yes, he or she will be fined $20,000 if that person fails to see and record the employee's ID card number. That is the type of fine that would be applied to a drug runner-and it will be imposed to make the ID card system work. If an employer hired a cardless person, Madam Speaker, how much would the fine be? Madam SPEAKER —Keep me out of it. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I do not blame you, Madam Speaker. I would have run away from this matter too, if I were an Australian Labor Party member. The fine would be $20,000. If a 13-year old or 14-year old girl arrives at my home to act as a baby-sitter while my wife and I go to some parliamentary duty and the girl says, `I ain't got a card, Mister' I face a $20,000 fine because I am guilty of hiring a cardless person. It is absolutely shameful. It is disgraceful and typical of how out of touch the Government in power actually is. If the ID card agency directs a card subject-and that is the name the Government has for all of us; we are no longer people, we are card subjects-to arrive at a place and we do not arrive we face a fine of $1,000 and/or imprisonment for six months. Where are the civil libertarians on that side of the House? I knew one of them. His name was Georgie Georges. He was from Queensland and because he had the guts and gall to vote against the proposal he was jettisoned from the Australian Labor Party. The Ben Chifleys, the John Curtins and all that Party's early leaders would be turning in their graves about what the Government is proposing to bring into this country. I earnestly hope that the Prime Minister is looking for a way out so that he can honourably extricate himself and this nation from this horrible approach that those opposite have mistakenly followed. I plead with those Labor members on the other side to be men, to stand up and follow what the Australian people really want; and that is an abandonment of this horrible, frightening monstrosity that they are seeking to impose on the nation. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.36) —We have just witnessed in this House one of the typical performances of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) who gets frothy at the mouth and does not know what he is talking about. If he can be a little bit emotive, he will be. Let us expose a few of the things he said about the Australia Card. Mr Donald Cameron —Do you believe in it? Mr GEAR —I do believe in it. I always have. The overwhelming support in the move against the card that the honourable member talked about really means that he looks at newspapers every day, as members of the Liberal Party of Australia quite often do, to see whether there is a bit of genuine concern about the Australia Card-and I do not doubt that there is. There are people out there with genuine concerns. But the difference between those on this side of the House and those in the Liberal Party is that they are trying to take advantage of that concern and whip it into a frenzy. Mr Donald Cameron —Fair go, George. Mr GEAR —That is what the honourable member tries to do in his speeches. All he is trying to do is scare people. He did it on the assets test. He tried it with the fringe benefits tax. He made projection after projection. History has proved him wrong. He will be wrong again because once the Australia Card is introduced, the people of Australia will be the beneficiaries. In the honourable member's contribution tonight he talked about being fined $500 for losing a card. Mr Donald Cameron —You have 21 days to notify its loss. Mr GEAR —The honourable member says that if a person loses the card and does not know about it in 21 days there will be an automatic $500 fine. Is that not what the honourable member is saying? Mr Donald Cameron —They do not have to pay if in 21 days-- Mr GEAR —The honourable member does not know what he is talking about. He has just retracted what he said. Another matter the honourable member brought up was that of the baby sitter. We have heard about that. It is another point made by those opposite. They say that if a person does not see his baby-sitter's card he will be fined $20,000. Mr Shipton —Police state. Mr GEAR —I hear an interjection from the back about a police state. All I can say is that these born-again civil libertarians are the people who did not worry about civil liberties when they were in government. Certainly that applies to such people in Queensland which was in the news today. It has the most corrupt police force and Premier in the country. Those people do not worry about bringing in anti-march laws. People in Queensland cannot march if they object to anything the Queensland Government does. That is what happens with civil liberties in Queensland. But who opposes the ID card? The Queensland Premier does. Why does he? If I had a police force like his, I would oppose the ID card. How corrupt can one get? In Western Australia, the former Minister for Police, Bill Hassell, opposes the ID card. When he was a Minister of the Crown in Western Australia he brought in a law that prohibited more than six people meeting in the streets of Perth; it was known as the anti-assembly law. There is a great civil libertarian. He opposes the ID card. I will say something about the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. When it comes to civil liberties and privacy, they have a shabby record. All they are doing now is crawling out from under a rock because they can see a little concern in the community. The fact is that they have no morality on their side. They are just political opportunists. Let us talk, for instance, about what we can do with the proceeds that the Government has said will come from the ID card-the $1,000m that we could spend in the community. What could we do with that money? Mr Hawker —You could build a lot of prisons. Mr GEAR —The honourable member does not know what he is talking about. With $1,000m we could wipe off the whole of the top tax rate. We could take the 49c in the dollar tax rate down to 40c and still have $200m left over. Those opposite should square that with what they promised in the last election campaign. They promised a top tax rate of 38c. We could get a top tax rate of 40c and still have $200m left over. If we chose to do so, we could give $8.50 a week to every pensioner-not only to those on the age pension but to every social security recipient. We could provide 100,000 new tertiary places with the money we will get from the tax cheats and the social security bludgers. But that does not worry those opposite because all they are concerned about is whipping up a bit of emotionalism in the community. The honourable member's speech showed that. The simple fact is that those opposite do not have a clue about running an opposition. They do not know that to get into government they have to do the hard work, come up with the policies that count and bring together a tax policy that adds up and that does not have holes in it. They cannot do that. Why do they not realise that to get into government they must earn it. The born-again civil libertarian, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), has entered the chamber. Honourable members opposite should not worry about the sleazy way of sneaking in the back way and trying to turn the ID card into something it is not. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Canning said that I have just raised this issue. I have raised it four times in the Parliament in the last 18 months, so he should not accuse me of being a Donny-come-lately. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.41) —I, too, would like to buy into the identity card issue. What I would like to say about it is that this Government on this side of the House, in the 200th year of our settlement, is putting numbers back on our backs. We arrived in Australia as convicts 200 years ago. We have shaken off the numbers and the chains around our necks and ankles. It took us a while to get rid of that stigma. Now the Australian Labor Party wishes to impose the chains and shackles of numbers on every citizen of this country. Each and every one of us is to have a number on our back. I fully support the comments made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) in the House tonight. I am more concerned about the cuts that the Labor Party has imposed, again, on rural Australia. We have seen massive cuts in the Budget in terms of help needed in the productive sector of this country. When the farmers of Australia are paying their way and are trying to pull the nation out of its economic problems, the Labor Government withdraws the aid that is needed. There has been a 4c per litre cut in the fuel freight subsidy scheme. Some honourable members opposite should be ashamed of the initiatives which their Government has imposed on their constituents. The scheme has been a great help to those people, but the Government wants to save $8 1/2m. The Government has withdrawn $10m that was allocated for wool promotion. At long last, after 20 years, the wool industry is recovering and is adding up to $2 billion to our balance of payments situation. But what do we see? Those people opposite who are meant to have some business sense about them have cut out promotion. It is only through the expenditure of growers and governments in the past 15 years that the wool industry has been able to get back on its feet, thus helping to put this nation back on its feet. However, the Government has cut $10m from the funds it promised. That represents another broken promise by the Hawke socialist Government. It is a disgrace. No money has been allocated in the Budget to help with the meat chemical problems which we have run into the past few months. The Government should look very closely at setting up a high temperature incinerator. We need an incinerator that will operate up to a temperature of 4,000 degrees and burn some of the chemicals which are sitting around on farms and which have been there for many years. Obviously, those chemicals must be destroyed. I am a firm believer in spending a lot more time and effort on attacking the source of the problem and not concerning ourselves too much with all the expense and red tape involved in the testing procedures that have been put in place. I make a plea to the Government, especially the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), to look closely at the problem and to see whether some funds can be provided to enable the chemicals to be picked up and burnt. Presently, the only way of getting rid of the residues and the chemicals that are left sitting around in old rusting tins is to take them out to sea in a ship that visits Australia every 18 months or so and burn them. We have not heard anything about the remote area commercial television signal. It is a disgrace. When we were in government we worked for many years to put the satellites in place to give people in rural Australia some television. They are now able to receive the Australian Broadcasting Corporation signal, but in many areas of Australia that is still the only channel they can get. Mr Cunningham —Won't free enterprise do it? Mr IAN CAMERON —Free enterprise cannot do everything. Mr Cunningham —You want a cross-subsidy. Mr IAN CAMERON —It may be needed to give those people an adequate service, just as they need a freight subsidy for fuel. The Budget has increased welfare handouts by $2 billion. An amount of $2 billion is going to people who do nothing but lie around and pick up welfare payments. Mr Lamb —Oh! Mr IAN CAMERON —It is true. If the honourable member reads the Budget Papers, he will find out about it. In my shadow portfolio of local government, there has been no real increase in funding for roads by this Labor Government since 1983. It is a disgrace. The Government expects us to continue to increase our exports when the road structure of this nation is falling apart. Yet the Labor Party is not prepared to increase funding for roads. In addition, the 2c that is taken out of personal taxation is being moved from country areas back to city areas, just as we would expect from the Labor Government. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(10.46) —The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), in the first comment he made in opening his speech, spoke of `this Government on this side of the House'. I remind him that we won the election, and when one sits on that side of the House one is in opposition. Perhaps he will correct Hansard when he looks at his greens. I think that he meant to say `the Opposition on this side of the House'. We have heard a lot tonight, as we have before, about the identity card and the campaign that is being waged against it. As the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) said, many people in Australia have genuine concerns about the ID card. I for one am a supporter of it. I believe that it will have a much more positive impact on Australia's way of life in 1988 and beyond than it will have a negative impact. There are many arguments for that. Some of the information coming out of the Press about an inquiry that is going on in Queensland indicates that a lot of money is being made, probably in circumstances which one would not expect in a police force. Through the newspapers what is happening in Queensland has become public knowledge. If we had a monitoring system such as the Australia Card, I wonder how people would be able to launder money in such a way so as to benefit from the illegal methods that are being carried out. If a person walked into a bank wanting to deposit $50,000, the question would be asked, `Who are you?' We know that if someone in Queensland has $40,000 or $50,000 on the side and wishes to put it away and get a bit of interest, he does not have to do that at present. It is quite safe to walk into a bank, and perhaps the bank manager will ask him his name, but for a $50,000 deposit the bank will not dig too hard as to whether it is a genuine name. This laundering of ill-gotten gains goes on not only in Queensland but all over Australia and probably all over the world. It is very much the black market of society today. If the Australia Card tightened up on the drug trade and the illegal money trade in the banking system, it would be a real benefit to the public. That must be brought out in this debate. One of the real issues is that we must make it more difficult for the dishonest to get away with things in this community and, at the same time, protect the privacy rights of those who will need the card for identification purposes only. The honourable member for Maranoa carried on in his usual way about the way in which this Government is allegedly treating the rural sector. Any person in the rural sector who would even consider that the old and disgraced Country Party or the National Party of Australia has anything to offer the rural sector would have to think twice. We are looking at a turnaround in the rural sector which will be sustained and real. As that turnaround is taking place, the economy is being restructured. We will not see it squandered away in exorbitant land prices and in capital investment for capital gain, because the real decisions being made for rural Australia now are based on a real future. This Government has established the type of economy which will make all the difference to rural Australia, along with many other parts of the nation. A few months ago I had the privilege of leading a delegation of the Australian Parliament to the United States of America on the trade issue. While I was in the United States it was mentioned to me on a number of occasions that congressmen could not see a way out of the problem they had; it was a political as well as an economic problem. Having had the opportunity to look at some of those issues again I can see a further massive change in direction in relation to subsidies in these countries. I refer to the economic distortion built into the decision making of farmers in the United States and the European Economic Community countries, including England, Scotland and Ireland. They are using nitrogen fertilisers and all other fertilisers and chemicals at a rate that was unthought of even five years ago. The farmers are so distorted in their decision making that they are making a mess of the environment. The environmentalists will have to make the decisions. I believe that within 18 months there will be a big campaign against the farming practices in these nations. That is where the change will come from. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.51) —A number of honourable members who have spoken tonight have chosen to speak about the ID card. However, unlike myself, I doubt whether many of them have bothered to read the legislation or, if they have done so, they appear to lack any knowledge of what the legislation means. I think it is time that a few of the Government's myths about the Australia Card are exposed. It was not so long ago that the Government's sole defence to any critic of the ID card legislation was to label such critics the friends of crooks and cheats. Most of us are offended by that because there is no evidence to prove that claim. Mr Cunningham —Where do they launder their money? Mr TUCKEY —I ask the honourable member not to start me on that. People who launder their money are not friends of mine and nor are they friends of my colleagues. If there are to be accusations we can both go down that track. Madam SPEAKER —Let not either of you go down that track. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, I do not want to and I do not want to be aggravated into doing so. I am pointing out that that was the Government's sole defence. Government members have never tried to discuss the clauses in the Australia Card legislation. For example, they have never tried to explain what clause 49 means when it states that an employer must ask for a card from an employee and why, at the bottom of that clause, it states that the fine for failing to do that or comply with the other requirements of the clause will be $20,000. The Government has not tried to explain to anybody in Australia that a baby-sitter is not an employee under the Income Tax Assessment Act. In fact, the other day the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) was at pains to say that baby-sitters always have been. More importantly members of the Government have been arrogant and said, `You will get it, whether you like it or not'. It would be reasonable to listen to the Australian people on this issue. Yesterday when I was trying to get information-information which I have received today-on the security of the so-called landline that the Special Minister of State has described as a brand new technological advance in the security of computer transmission from place to place, I was told, `You will get it when we are good and ready'. I was seen as the opponent to the card and not as a representative of 16 million Australians who are now deeply concerned about it. As a result of my efforts as a representative of those people today I received a written reply from the Minister which stated clearly: Many people may not be aware that modern communication dedicated data networks- this magnificent landline that the Minister invented- aren't a physical `your use only' network of data lines. The various data streams of a number of dedicated users will be multiplexed, or combined, and demultiplexed as they are moved around the country. Individual dedicated users can't tap into the data of other dedicated users. I am assured of this but not convinced. I continue: Dedicated data systems can still be compromised by someone physically tapping into an exchange or transmission line. Mr Cunningham —What will they find? Mr TUCKEY —They will find anything they want. That is the other myth Government members keep promoting. Government members opposite keep referring to the schedule at the back of the Bill and saying, `That is all the information we are going to keep'. Mr Cunningham —That is right. Mr TUCKEY —That is not right. I ask Government members not to misrepresent the point to the people who trust them. I ask them not to convince themselves about this to the detriment of the people they represent. The Government is introducing a common numbering system for social security, Medicare, tax, employment, banking, stockbroking et cetera. The linkage of government is already occurring. Recently the Government got the tax file numbers from everybody who receives family allowance. The Government is now using the numbers to directly access the Australian Taxation Office to verify the amount of money these people say they earn. The Government is doing that and that is why it needs the numbers. It is going down these same data lines. The Government cannot guarantee the people their security, and it is time that Labor members stopped perpetuating that myth. The crooks will still launder their money in one way or another. They will not leave it in the bank to have it frozen by the ID card. The Government will catch a few secretaries, small investors, and the odd cleaning lady and baby-sitter, but I doubt whether it will get $1,000m off them. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.56) —I shall detain the House for no more than two minutes, but I wish to raise the serious matter of the air-conditioning of this Parliament. Since Parliament has resumed a number of members have succumbed to flu of varying degrees of intensity. It has been reported tonight that one member, whose office is in the annex, is suffering from glandular fever. This situation has existed for many years. This is an old parliamentary building and we are about to leave it, but there has always been a heavy air of suspicion associated with this air-conditioning system in terms of the unhealthy air that permeates throughout the building, with great potential damage to the health of staff who have to work in horrific conditions, and to members, senators and executive staff. The executive section of this parliamentary building was once subject to a major investigation in respect of legionnaires disease. I note today that Mr Gray Robertson, the president of a United States international pollution company, has ruled that air in six buildings in Sydney was extremely unhealthy and threatening to health. Although, I know, Madam Speaker, that you are not in a position to order any major changes in this final 12 months' occupation of this House, I would hope that within the existing resources available to you perhaps some check could be made, on the resumption of the Budget session, to ensure that there is nothing untoward associated with the air-conditioning system. I hope that such an investigation will be able to show that we are all not at risk under this air-conditioning system, and that it will not cause further injury or damage to health, which in turn affect the efficiency and the deliberations of this Parliament. It is my personal belief that for decades the air-conditioning system of this Parliament has affected the efficiency of government and Parliament. I raise this matter seriously tonight and ask, Madam Speaker, that perhaps you contact Mr Gray Robertson, who is now visiting Australia, to ask him to volunteer an opinion on the air-conditioning of this parliamentary building. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(10.57) —I wish at this late hour to make some comments following the remarks of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) regarding what he said was my lambasting of industry as publicity urged me. I shall not comment on his remark about mickey mouse Ministers, except to say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who I presume is the member's leader as well, effectively supported that legislation in his comments the other day when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made his announcements. The comments made by the honourable member for Gippsland tonight were unnecessary. He mentioned other State Ministers and included them in the same situation. He failed to mention Mr Lester, the Minister responsible for consumer affairs in his own Party in Queensland, who has also raised similar issues, along with many other State Ministers, I believe quite responsibly. If the honourable member for Gippsland is concerned that I have raised an issue regarding possible food wrap hazards and others, I would point out that I could have got as much publicity by saying that the position was safe. He fails to understand that it is my job as Minister for Consumer Affairs to raise these issues where concern is expressed in the community and to give an opinion as to whether matters are safe or hazardous. It is the responsibility of the Government and the Minister to help the community in that way. In regard to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, I advise the honourable member that just today I had quite amicable discussions with the Australian Bankers Association. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Staples —Madam Speaker, I require that the debate be extended. Madam SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr STAPLES —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I had quite amicable discussions today with the Australian Bankers Association, and indeed I have talked considerably with many industry bodies. The honourable member may feel that, as the Minister for Consumer Affairs, I am involved simply with consumer protection. In fact, I am involved in consumer affairs. That means that I wish to and I do talk with a wide range of industries and I am sure groups I have spoken to would not mind me mentioning their names. In the short time that I have been a Minister I have met with the Australian Citrus Industry Council, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Finance Conference, Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd, the Council of Australian Food Technology Associations, the Victorian Credit Co-operative and, today, the Insurance Council of Australia. I will be having more meetings and developing those links with business because I believe that consumer affairs does need to be, at a Federal level as well as a State level, an important link between business and industry and the consumers, not a confrontation or publicity seeking situation as the honourable member may feel. It is interesting to note also that neither the Liberal Party, the National Party, nor the coalition itself, has any consumer affairs policy to speak of. I have not been presented with one; I have not seen one. Mr Ian Cameron —You have just said that we have a Minister in Queensland. Vince Lester is the best Minister in Australia. Mr STAPLES —I am talking about the Federal level, not the State level. Mr McGauran —What about getting on to the plastic wrappings. Mr STAPLES —Let me just go to the Press release issued on 8 September regarding this matter. It is headed `Staples warns of possible food wrap hazards', and it says: The Federal Minister for Consumer Affairs . . . is contacting major food retailers and organisations, requesting them to minimise- I stress the word `minimise'- use of plasticised PVC wrapping for cheese and meat until more information is obtained about some safety aspects of the wrapping. I do not really think that that is a scaremongering or publicity seeking stunt. That is what I said; how it was reported in the different newspapers is not my fault. That is the way it was sent out from my office. I also said in that Press release: Consumers should remove plastic wrappings before storing cheese, meat and other fatty foods. I recognise that the honourable member for Gippsland has a lot of dairying and meat industry activities in his electorate, and I can understand his genuine concern but he should also understand that there has been some concern raised internationally about this matter. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. No other Minister having risen, the Minister may continue. Mr STAPLES —Thank you. There are three chemicals allegedly found in plastic wrappings that act as plasticisers-diisooctyl phthalate, dioctyl adipate and dioctyl phthalate. These chemicals do leach out of polyvinyl chloride into fatty foods, and quite high levels were found in several samples taken from certain stores by the Australian Consumers Association. Dioctyl adipate has been known to cause cancer in mice, according to the World Health Organisation. I also said: . . . insufficient research has been carried out into the leaching of chemicals from wrappings into foodstuffs. If the honourable members around the honourable member for Gippsland would keep quiet, perhaps the honourable member for Gippsland might have a better chance of getting some information. I also said: The National Health and Medical Research Council will be shortly examining this matter. I have directed the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs to assist the NH & MRC and to make recommendations about appropriate controls as a matter of urgency. As the honourable member also mentioned the Minister for Health and Community Services (Dr Blewett), I suggest that he read a speech made by the Prime Minister on 13 March on the occasion of the Ruby Hutchison Memorial Address. He will see in that speech that I, as Minister for Consumer Affairs, have the responsibility for food and beverage standards and indeed for packaging and labelling. Those matters were transferred to the Bureau of Consumer Affairs at that stage. If the honourable member wants more information about my responsibilities and about these activities and problems, I would seriously invite him to come around to my office. I will give him as much information as he requires and I will be quite happy to discuss these issues with him as I will certainly be discussing them with the Plastics Institute of Australia. House adjourned at 11.06 p.m. Mr Milton to ask Madam Speaker: (1) Will the same Public Service guidelines in relation to the designation of non-smoking areas in Public Service Departments apply to the new Parliament House; if not, why not. (2) Will the (a) parliamentary committee rooms, (b) party rooms, (c) library and (d) lifts be designated as non-smoking areas; if not, what are the reasons in each case. The following notices were given: Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to establish an Australian Horticultural Corporation, and for related purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to establish a Horticultural Research and Development Corporation, and for related purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to establish a Horticultural Policy Council. Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968, the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984, and for related purposes. Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to make provision with respect to research and development in relation to the Australian fishing industry. Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969. Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act to provide operating standards for certain superannuation funds and approved deposit funds, and for related purposes. Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act to establish an office of Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner, and for related purposes. Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts in consequence of the enactment of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Act 1987, and for related purposes. Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act to repeal the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977, and for related purposes. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to make amendments of the Patents Act 1952 consequential upon the enactment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987, and for other purposes. The following answers to questions were circulated: Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Hansard, 15 September 1987, page 52): What is the difference between a normal Telecom Australia line and the `landline' that Senator Ryan and, now the Prime Minister say will be used to interconnect the various computers and computer terminals that will carry confidential information accessible by the ID card number? Is the line referred to by Senator Ryan and the Prime Minister in fact a dedicated Telecom line? Will this line still require linkage through Telecom exchanges? Would such a line be more easily identified by interested persons because of its dedicated status? Can the Minister guarantee the absolute security of such a connection in light of recent evidence of phone tapping? Mr Duncan —The further answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australia Card communication system will be that currently operated by the Health Insurance Commission (HIC). I am advised that in the eight years that the Australia-wide HIC system has been in operation there is no evidence that anyone has tapped in. Telecom advises its customers to seek a level of security consistent with their particular needs. The first level of security is use of the public switched phone network. As is well known, this network is vulnerable to unauthorised phone access; i.e. voice and data transmissions and data banks are not secure from hackers. The second level of security comes from use of a dedicated data network whereby facilities are dedicated to and used by a particular customer. Such networks are not accessible through the telephone. Many people may not be aware that modern communication dedicated data networks aren't in fact a physical `your use only' network of data lines. The various data streams of a number of dedicated users will be multiplexed, or combined, and demultiplexed as they are moved around the country. Individual dedicated users can't tap into the data of other dedicated users. Dedicated data systems can still be compromised by someone physically tapping into an exchange or transmission line. However, for the data to be of use, the tapper would need to be able to demultiplex the various information flows. The third level of security involves encrypting or coding dedicated network data. I am advised by Senator Ryan that in fact HIC data is compressed and interspersed with messages to and from different terminals. This high level of security will be further enhanced for Australia Card by the use of encryption of data to the highest commercially available technology. In summary, the Australia Card network will incorporate the highest available security systems and safeguards.