Monday, 21 September 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House of the death on Friday, 18 September, of Mr William Paul O'Connor, a member of this House for the Divisions of West Sydney, from 1946 to 1949; Martin, from 1949 to 1955; and Dalley, from 1955 to 1969. As a mark of respect to the memory of Mr O'Connor I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places- Madam SPEAKER —I thank the House. Mr PEACOCK —Will the Treasurer agree that, if the Government had shown political courage and followed Senator Walsh's advice to cut expenditure further, this would have accelerated the pace of adjustment on our external account and prevented Australia from going further down the Argentinean road? Mr KEATING —Senator Walsh has never put any views in the Cabinet to the line that outlays should be cut further. The fact is that this Government has brought the starting point deficit down since June 1986 from around $8 billion to zero. As such, that is the biggest change in fiscal policy of any country Australia may be compared with; that is, $5 billion cuts on recurrent outlays, $2 billion on receipts-mainly from base broadening and from compliance-and $1 billion on assets. That is the reason why, following the collapse in the terms of trade in late 1985, early 1986, the Government has made such a rapid response and that is why the response has been greeted so enthusiastically in the markets. I also refer the honourable member to his own Press statement of a week ago in which he said that he would be re-examining the funding elements of the Liberal tax cuts and their introduction. He said that it is just not a matter of credibility; it is a matter of sensible economics. I put a statement out saying that of course he was dead right. It is worth recalling that the impact of the coalition's policy would have been to have wiped out $2 1/2 billion of base-broadening measures and to have added $2.7 billion in this current financial year from tax cuts, which would have left us with a deficit of $6 billion. Under this Government it is zero. I do not think one can put the point more eloquently than to say that this Government has faced all its responsibilities. Senator Walsh was making no criticism of the Budget aggregates. All he was doing was giving us a run again on his long run views on certain expenditure programs, views which have been broadly rejected in the Expenditure Review Committee over eight sessions. Mr SIMMONS —Is the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy aware of Opposition claims that farm incomes are set to decline this financial year? Can the Minister advise the House of the outlook for the rural sector? Mr KERIN —The Opposition spokesman on primary industry asked me a question last week and pointed out that in Budget Statement No. 2 it was stated that farm production was down by one per cent. He implied that, therefore, the farm sector was in quite a bit of trouble. I thought that was just an innocent mistake, and I did point out the reason why farm production was down. I see that the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Murray keep on repeating that, so I think it is in order that I just correct them and point out to members of the House information that has been around for quite a while. I refer particularly to the Quarterly Review of the Rural Economy, a publication by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. It shows very clearly that the index of the real net value of rural production this year is expected to be up by 27 per cent. It is the value of production that counts, it is the farm income figures that count, not necessarily the volume of production itself. All that appears in the Budget Papers is that there will be a drop in the volume of production. I pointed out last week why this was so. We are all aware that the gross value of rural production for the wheat industry is down substantially, but we are also aware that it is up by about 33 per cent for wool and up by quite a large amount, some 23 per cent, for livestock products. All those figures are publicly available and on the record. More importantly, the paper from the Bureau shows that we have had the first improvement in almost a decade in the terms of trade for farmers. The main economic problem for farmers for quite some time has been interest rates. The economic management of this Government has got and is getting interest rates down. The 90-day bank bill rate is now 11.4 per cent. It was about 19.5 per cent last August. The prime rate is now between 14.25 and 14.5 per cent. The people who do not understand that interest rates are coming down as a result of this Government's policies have another think coming. I just stress the benefits of this Budget for the farm sector. We have here the simple proposition that we are getting the economy right, and nothing so affects real net value of rural production and the real incomes of farmers as good economic management. We have almost a balanced Budget; we are bringing interest rates down; we have the lowest deficit to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio in 35 years; we have the largest real decline in outlays in at least 35 years; we have growth up from 2 to 2 3/4 per cent; we have inflation coming in at 6 per cent, which is getting towards the average rates of all our competitors and, as I have said, interest rates have dropped to the extent that they are now more comparable with those of the countries with whom we compete on world markets. The family assistance package introduced by my colleague the Minister for Social Security will also help low income farmers. That is a marvellous measure for those who are in real trouble in the bush. On the revenue side, we now have a system that is much fairer. What we are doing is managing Australia's second economic recovery in four years, following the mess we inherited and the terrific terms of trade disaster in 1985-86 of some 10 per cent and in 1986-87 of some 5 per cent. Farmers now face terms of trade improved of 3 per cent. The fiscal imbalance is fixed, public debt as a share of GDP is falling, the inflation imbalance is being fixed and we are bringing interest rates down, and the real net value of rural incomes expected this year should increase by 27 per cent. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Minister for Social Security to comments by the Minister for Finance, who has stated that there are 200 programs which cannot be justified on social justice or equity grounds but which will not be abandoned because the Government does not have the political courage to do so. Does the Minister agree that there are programs within his portfolio which cannot be justified on social justice or equity grounds and, if so, which are those programs? Mr HOWE —In terms of this Government's record with respect to social security, I think not only Senator Walsh but also all members of this House would recognise that the Government has been concerned to ensure that proper restraint is exercised, that there is improved targeting in relation to those programs and that there are real improvements in the level of assistance, particularly in the area my colleague has referred to-low income families. Not only has that been the policy of the Government but, over a number of Budgets, the Government has delivered that policy in relation to improvements in the targeting of programs. On the other side of the ledger, in terms of restricting payments where we do not believe that there is the greatest need, no government has shown more political courage than the present Government. Indeed, no Minister for Finance has better demonstrated, over successive Budgets, a commitment to ensuring that our programs are delivered in the areas of most need. We were able to make a tough decision like our decision on the assets test and, despite the opposition from the rabble on the other side of the House, to carry that decision through to ensure that millionaires did not receive age pensions and that the people who were the most in need received those payments. Similarly, we made a decision in relation to the reintroduction of the means test for the over-70s. We have to remember that Senator Walsh, as I understand it, was referring to comments that were made at the time of the National Conference last year. Since that Conference, we have made decisions, both in the August Budget and then in the May statement, which have the effect of improving the targeting in those programs. So we are not talking about some kind of abstract theory. We are not speculating about what we might do if we got the opportunity to add substantially, as the Treasurer has suggested, to a prospective deficit. Rather, we are making decisions that will ensure greater fairness and equity and will ensure that the people who really are in poverty receive substantial assistance. That has been the policy of the Government and that will continue to be the policy of the Government in the future. In answer to the honourable member's question, of course the Government is prepared to be rigorous in its examination of all social security programs. There will be no variation in the policies that we have adopted in the past and all programs will each year be under the scrutiny of the Government. I think Senator Walsh is concerned to achieve progressive scrutiny but, ultimately, fairness and equity. If there is a term that is not in the lexicon of the Opposition, it is the term `fairness and equity'. Mr MARTIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs. What is the estimated number of coal miners who face retrenchment as a result of industry restructuring? What are the elements involved in the Prime Minister's recently announced package of $8m to assist retrenched coal miners? Mr HOLDING —I think it is broadly agreed within the industry, by both unions and employers, that restructuring of the industry will involve the retrenchment of about 3,000 coal miners. The package as announced by the Prime Minister involved the sum of $8m. That package is similar, in measures of unit costing, to those provided recently under assistance packages to the heavy engineering and textile, clothing and footwear industries. This basically comprised wage subsidy, formal training and relocation allowances. It has to be borne in mind that, unfortunately, in those areas where relocation will be necessary, vulnerable mines, essentially in areas which have already suffered some retrenchment-- Mr Blunt —Have you lost your place? Mr HOLDING —No, I have not lost my place. The restructuring that has gone on in the mining industry has already created high levels of unemployment. The elements involved in this package include an expansion of relocation assistance, because many miners will not be able to find employment in those areas in which they were previously employed. I am proposing to visit these mining areas affected. The package will be administered by the Commonwealth Employment Service. It is important, given the number of people involved and the particular problems of miners who are facing retrenchment, that they are dealt with-as I am certain they will be-with both sensitivity and an awareness of the problems facing families who have to move from areas in which employment opportunities are poor and the housing situation is such that they will be selling their houses on a buyers' market. In many cases they will have to move to areas in which they will pay maximum prices for houses. I am grateful for the assistance from those members who represent electorates that are affected. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Will he confirm that each of his Ministers has full ministerial responsibility for the department which he or she is sworn to administer? Mr HAWKE —I sincerely thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question because it is important. I say that I thank him against the background of what I thought, and still believe, was the constructive response of the Opposition to the changes that I announced earlier this year. It is appropriate, in light of any uncertainty that emerged last week, that there be a complete clarification. So in that sense I do thank him for his question. Let me make it quite clear that there was no contradiction, as honourable members opposite may have thought there could have been, in anything that was said by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. Let me make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition what the position is; a Minister, having been sworn to administer a department, is responsible jointly with the portfolio Minister-- Mr Howard —And severally. Mr HAWKE —For that administration, and must be so-- Mr Howard —Jointly and severally? Mr HAWKE —Jointly and severally are responsible for the administration of that department. However, there is in place-I want the Leader of the Opposition to understand this; I think he does-a sensible administrative arrangement whereby a portfolio Minister asks the Minister to concentrate his or her attention on certain functional areas. I think the Leader of the Opposition would understand that. If questions outside those areas are asked of Ministers, the Ministers may need to refer matters to the portfolio Ministers or seek further information. Ministerial arrangements announced on 14 July do not affect, therefore, the normal representational duties in the other chamber. So that it may be quite clear that there is no contradiction or difference involved between anything that was said last week and what I announced in my statement on 15 September, I remind the Leader of the Opposition that in my statement to the House on 15 September I said: Portfolio Ministers are ultimately responsible for the administration of their entire portfolios and will be accountable to the Parliament for the overall operation of their portfolios. All Ministers, however, have a clear accountability within specific responsibilities allocated to them. The Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support was reported on 18 September as saying: The idea that I have direct responsibility for this matter is incorrect. The Minister was talking there about the allocation of specific areas of responsibility between the portfolio Minister and himself, but that does not-- Mr Beale —You used the word `administration'. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will not interrupt. Mr HAWKE —I assure the Leader of the Opposition, and I do so gladly against the positive response that he gave before, that there is this overall responsibility shared by the two Ministers for the portfolio as a whole. But administratively, in terms of the division of their specific responsibilities-`you will look after that, that and that'-in that sense the answer by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support was appropriate and not inconsistent with what the constitutional position obviously requires. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Small Business. Is it a fact that the Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the Hon. Neville Wran, instructed officers of the Organisation not to make any public statements or release any scientific information in support of commercial logging in north Queensland rainforests? Is this, as charged by Senator Ron Boswell, a case of political suppression? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for his question. The answers to the three parts of the question are no, no and no. However-- Mr Donald Cameron —Well, sit down. Mr BARRY JONES —I will not disappoint the honourable member. The Chairman of CSIRO advised Dr Joe Landsberg, the Chief of the Division of Forest Research, that, in his opinion, while CSIRO personnel were free to express their views as citizens on contentious issues involving direct opposition to Government policy, they should not allow themselves to be billed as CSIRO spokesmen to be used as bones in political dog fights. The use to which the CSIRO officer was being put in this case was essentially political, not scientific. I agree entirely with this view. Only the Chairman, the Chief Executive and the Minister can speak for the Organisation in policy matters. Mr BEALE —I refer the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support to the answer he gave to the question addressed to him last Friday by the Leader of the Opposition in which the Minister said that the documents he had referred to the previous day were `part of the tender process, not the later documents which were tabled in the House this morning'. I also refer the Minister to the statement made in the Senate last Friday by Senator Gareth Evans that all relevant documents, including those involved in the tender process, were referred to or attached to the statement tabled in both Houses on Friday morning. In the light of this latest conflict between the two Ministers, will the Minister advise the House who is telling the truth? Mr DUNCAN —There is no conflict, Madam Speaker. The situation is that the documents to which I referred when making that answer were documents arising out of and part of the tender process. The documents that were referred to and tabled in this House and in the Senate were documents which related to a later period, about August, of this year. There can be no conflict about that at all. Mr Beale —But Evans said-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will not continue to interrupt. Ms CRAWFORD —Can the Minister for Community Services and Health inform the House of the reason for the 76 per cent increase in funding for the battle against acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and can he indicate the proposed allocation of those funds? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for her question. It relates to one of the more important health challenges this country is facing. We have increased AIDS funding under this Budget by some 76 per cent, noting that 583 Australians already have been diagnosed with full AIDS. Of that number, 319 have died. The present expectation is that the numbers diagnosed will double every 10 months and a conservative estimate for 1990-91 is a cumulative total case load of some 3,000. Of the $20.5m that we have allocated, $9.5m goes directly to the States for cost shared programs. That has been adjusted this year to give particular weighting to those States with the heaviest demands, based partly on the total number of AIDS cases. This weighting means that New South Wales, which has by far the highest proportion of AIDS cases, has been particularly well treated as a result of this. The new formula is an attempt to link the needs of the States to the funding they receive. In addition we have doubled the amount of money on AIDS research, taking it to $3m. Funding for the National Reference Laboratory has also been increased so that the Laboratory can continue with its important work in evaluating AIDS technology and the changes that take place in AIDS technology. Finally, as we have no vaccine and no cure and as education must remain at the very forefront of our activities, for the National Advisory Committee on AIDS budget this year we have put aside $4m for information and education. Because behaviour change is so important and community groups can play a major role in this, there is another $3m for national community grants. This is all part of a co-operative campaign between the Commonwealth Government and the States to fight what is, as I have said before, one of the biggest public health challenges we have faced in this country since the Second World War. Mr HOWARD —I address a question to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. In view of the claim just confirmed in the answer to the honourable member for Deakin that the document he referred to last week in answer to a question from me was part of the tender documents, which appears to be in conflict with what Senator Evans has said, will he table the tender documents, including the document to which he referred, so that the matter can be resolved? Mr DUNCAN —No, I will not, but I will confer with Senator Evans concerning this matter and review the situation to ensure that any concerns that the Leader of the Opposition has can hopefully be allayed. Mr KENT —I direct my question to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Will there be any savings or any loss of services in the closing of the Midway Migrant Centre and the welcomed re-opening of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel? Mr YOUNG —The Government decided in the Budget process to reduce migrant-on-arrival accommodation stock to a level commensurate with forecast demand from immigrants. The network has the capacity to accommodate some 3,500 people at the moment, but needs to provide only some 1,500. In Victoria, capacity far exceeds the demand from clients and is to be reduced to a more realistic level. Occupancy at the Midway Centre is 650 people as of June 1987 and is now well below the Centre's capacity which stands at 1,200. It is continuing to decline. Using the Enterprise Centre instead of Midway is an efficient way of meeting the reduced needs. The Enterprise Centre is a much more modern complex than the Midway Centre and offers significant economies in operation, particularly in relation to food services, housekeeping, maintenance and general overheads. Enterprise was closed in October 1985 as part of the rationalisation of migrant centre operations with an intention to redevelop the Centre as self-contained accommodation at a later date if needed. Operational cost savings in the order of $1m per annum will be achieved in Victoria as a result of the Government's decisions. Should redevelopment of the Enterprise Centre proceed, the cost of redevelopment could easily be met from operational savings arising out of the move from Midway to Enterprise. The decision to move operations to the Springvale area is strongly supported by the population and housing forecasts for metropolitan Melbourne recently released by the Victorian Minister for Planning and Environment. The report clearly indicated that the growth in population, employment, accommodation and community facilities through the year 2000 will be in the south-east corridor which embraces the Springvale area. Mr LLOYD —I refer the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support to media reports that the Department of Aviation had warned only 11 days after the Coastwatch contract was awarded to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd that this company was `out of its depth' with such a contract. Is there any substance to these reports? Mr DUNCAN —I will obtain a report on that matter and give the honourable member a detailed reply later in the day. Mr WRIGHT —I direct a question to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. I refer to continuing concern in the community about the sale of toy nasties. Will the Minister advise us as to what action has been taken to ban the sale of these unacceptable toys? Has he taken any steps to involve State Ministers for consumer affairs to co-ordinate a nation-wide campaign against the sale of these products? Mr STAPLES —I thank the honourable member for Capricornia for his question. He is a member who has shown a continual interest in consumer affairs matters. I inform the House that the toys that the honourable member has talked about are called victim toys. These are toys which have become available on many shelves around Australia and they usually show children with some form of physical injury, mutilation or deformity as a result of violence, hence the name victim toys or, as they have often been called in the Press, toy nasties. Under the Trade Practices Act at the moment, it is difficult to show that these toys will or may cause injury, and so I have set up a committee under the Consumer Goods Advisory Committee. This Committee is chaired by the Hon. Ray Reynolds, QC, a former judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court. He, along with other members of the community, including people from the Australian Toy Association, the Advertising Standards Council as well as psychologists and other parent bodies, will look at the issue of psychological damage, as distinct from physical damage, as this is what the Trade Practices Act currently refers to. The problem is that under the Trade Practices Act it is difficult to address this issue directly. There needs to be further investigation of it. I have taken the step of writing to most toy retailers and distributors in Australia to ask them to look at their shelves and at the toys they have there, and to accept some sort of voluntary steps to look at an area which is of concern to the broad community. I hope that that will be done. In the meantime, other State Ministers, principally Peter Spyker, the State Minister in Victoria, have shown concern about the matter. Mr Spyker has also set up a committee to look at it and at a broader range of issues in this area. Nonetheless, I hope that the committee that I have set up will be reporting to me late in November, and then further action will be considered. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Treasurer. I refer him to section 51 (xiii) of the Constitution, which expressly excludes the Commonwealth from making laws to control State banks. If the identity card legislation is ever proclaimed, what legislative power does the Commonwealth intend to use against a State bank which declines to put the ID number on its clients' accounts and thus creates itself the `Zurich' of Australia? Mr KEATING —I would need to check the law on that, but what I find amusing about the underlying basis of all these questions is why the Opposition has chosen to take such a dogged attitude to what is essentially a simple numbering system to provide computer efficiencies to deal with fraud and taxation abuse. The $1 billion which the Government has forecast as proceeds from this system is a very large figure indeed. I just remind honourable members that when the Government had the consumption tax on the table in 1985, the fiscal dividend or yield from the consumption tax was $1.5 billion. We have yielded $2.5 billion from the base broadening measures and a further $1 billion from an ID card. I am at a loss to understand why the Liberal Party of Australia should take an attitude that an instrument against tax avoidance which can be used to deal with taxation fraud and social security fraud ought to be resisted, all on the basis of some phoney and trumped up idea that we have an internal passport or, alternatively that-- Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. On a matter of relevance, I asked a very specific question of the Treasurer and he has avoided it completely. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member knows full well that the Chair has no authority to tell the Minister how to answer the question. Mr Donald Cameron —He should answer the question. Madam SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Moreton does not cease interjecting, the Chair will deal with him. Mr KEATING —I said that I would check the law. I cannot, off the top of my head, recall the position. But in respect of the system this mock indignation on the part of the Opposition about denial of civil liberties is really stretching credibility to a point where those opposite are quite happy apparently to see losses to the revenue and fraud on the social security system and not do anything about it. Mr GAYLER —I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Can he outline to the House the progress that has been made on mill rationalisation within the Queensland sugar industry? Having regard to the rationalisation of the Babinda, Mourilyan and Goondi sugar mill areas, can the Minister give details to the House of the Queensland Government's stamp duties with respect to the purchase of the Goondi mill and indicate to the House what stamp duty is payable to the Queensland Government on the transfer? Further, can he indicate whether the Queensland Government has given any indication that it will forgo such payment in support of the sugar industry? If not, can he seek such support from the Queensland Government? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Since we introduced the sugar mill adjustment package jointly with the Queensland Government, the sugar mill adjustment committee has been processing several propositions before it, the most successful being the Goondi-Babinda rationalisation. The major reason that the sugar mill adjustment committee and the Government acted so quickly here was that the Goondi mill was up for sale by CSR Ltd. Although that was not greeted with a great deal of equanimity in that sugar-producing area, the rationalisation made a lot of sense from many points of view. We have put funds in, and we came to an arrangement with the Queensland Government. But there is now some request for additional funds. Of those additional funds, quite a large amount is explained by the Queensland Government's requirements for the duties referred to by the honourable member. At this stage we are talking about some hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I guess that that will be subject to some ongoing correspondence between the Minister for Primary Industries in Queensland, Mr Harper, and me. In terms of other rationalisations, one of the other mills up for sale by CSR was at Pleystowe. There was an enormous amount of activity at the mill level well before the sugar mill adjustment package was put together or the mill adjustment committee was set up. Various private consultants were brought in. It always looked as if in the Pioneer Valley there was a great chance for rationalisation, to get mills handling something like a million tonnes of cane or more a year. We are very close now to having a package together there. It will be submitted to the sugar mill adjustment committee. As for the other areas, my colleague the honourable member for Hinkler is very well aware that some funds have gone forward for the Isis mill, or will be doing so shortly. We have been handling or looking at the problems of the Rocky Point mill. They are subject to ongoing correspondence between the Queensland Government and me. Other propositions are being advanced, but in terms of rationalisation, I think this money will be very effectively spent, so that the industry is in a better position to handle the economic problems that face us in the years ahead, in the Babinda area and prospectively in the Mackay area. The honourable member for Leichhardt has taken a very close interest in this matter right throughout. He has been particularly of a mind to make sure that not only the sugar farmers are taken care of, but also the mill workers, particularly, displaced mill workers. In terms of funds being made available to that committee, a sum is being made available to the displaced workers which is largely due to the good offices of the honourable member for Leichhardt. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister said today that Senator Walsh had assured him he did not know the media were present when he spoke about the Government's Budget strategy in Perth at the weekend? Is it a fact that Senator Walsh said at one stage during his speech that part of his speech was off the record, therefore indicating he knew of the presence of media representatives? Has the Finance Minister misled the Prime Minister, or has the Prime Minister misled the media? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the first part of the honourable member's question is yes. In regard to the second part, there is no reference made to his saying that a part is off the record. But I make the obvious point that that is not inconsistent with the proposition that he did not know the media were present because one can talk to a group of people other than with the Press present in a way where one is quite prepared to let them go at will, or one can then say, `Look, there is something I want to talk about now and it is off the record'. I have no reason at all to believe that Senator Walsh has told me other than the truth. He told me unequivocally that he did not know the media were present. I have no reason to disbelieve him, but I make the point that if he did make the comment at some point that `this part is off the record' then that is not inconsistent with that proposition and obviously not inconsistent. Mr MILDREN —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources. I am sure the Minister is aware of the critical importance of adequate quality water supplies to this, the driest of continents. What information can the Minister provide on progress being made by the Government in the conduct of water research? Mr PETER MORRIS —I can say to the House that since the establishment of the Australian Water Research Advisory Council in June 1985 considerable effort has been directed by this Government to developing a strategy to strengthen the Australian water research program. That strategy is aimed at improving leadership and co-ordination in water research. At a research seminar here in Canberra last week there began a development of a statement on national water research needs and priorities. Under that strategy as well there is to be a strengthening of research capability through initiatives being carried forward by the national water research program. These include some 12 water research centres, a scientific merit program, a water research achievements award and a research fellowship scheme. These are designed to help attract students to careers in water research. Additionally, we have moved to encourage investment in water research through the provision of incentives to the water industry itself to fund research by the industry's participation in partnership research programs-that is, that the industry itself become involved in expenditure on water research in the establishment of water research, centres of its own and, from the Government's point of view, by the provision of funds for higher priority research and regional problems, such as the Murray-Darling basin. Added to that is the need, I believe, for all of us-I think this matter transcends party politics-in the Parliament to improve community awareness and community understanding of the need for water research and the need to make more efficient use of that very valuable and limited commodity. To back that initiative with money, the Government has provided in this year's Budget some $5.8m, which is a 74 per cent increase on the expenditure last year. It compares with half a million dollars expenditure by the present Opposition prior to our coming to government. If we add to that $5.8m being provided this year the sum of $374,000 carried over from last year, this year in total the Government is providing some $6.2m to further water research, to strengthen activities in the industry and to assist the community to find adequate and quality water supplies. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask another question of the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. In light of the Minister's advice that there are documents on which he is going to confer with his colleague in the other place, will he advise, in light of Senator Evans's response that there are no such documents with respect to the early tender process with Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, whether his response to the House last Thursday was a fabrication or has he in fact seen documents with respect to the earlier tender process? Is it those documents that Senator Evans has not seen? Mr DUNCAN —As I said earlier at Question Time, I am not going to respond to this nitpicking right now. I am going to consult with Senator Evans and bring back a report later in the day. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the call to raise, by way of your indulgence, a matter of procedure concerning the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan). Mr Hand —Why aren't you down the front? Mr N.A. Brown —A very good question. Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to raise a matter of procedure and a matter of order arising under standing order 142, which allows questions to be put to a Minister relating to: . . . any matter of administration for which he is responsible. This, of course, in substance is part of the same question raised during Question Time by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Madam Speaker, as you will recall, last Friday we had a debate on the coastal surveillance contract. In the course of that debate the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support said as part of his defence-these are the words he used: I want to say that this matter was not directly within my area of responsibility . . . So we have a Minister saying that here is a matter arising within this Department but it is not within his area of responsibility. That statement highlights the problems that have now arisen from this new structure of ministerial responsibility which was outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on two occasions, on 14 September and 15 September, and on a third occasion when he answered a question in Question Time today. Madam Speaker, it leads to this matter upon which the House, with respect, would find it an advantage to have your guidance; that is, to which Minister are honourable members to address their questions-to the Cabinet Minister, if I can call him that, the super-Minister, or to the non-Cabinet Minister, the junior Minister? More generally, but I think more importantly, the question arises of whether junior Ministers in this House are responsible to the Parliament, or not, for the administration of the whole of the department. Of course, as we all know, they are sworn in as Ministers to administer a department and the question is whether they are Ministers here responsible to the Parliament for the administration, not of part of a department but of the whole of a department. Until the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support made his statement on Friday, I think we all assumed that the non-Cabinet Minister, the junior Minister, was responsible for the whole department. We assumed that-or at least I assumed it-for two reasons. The first, as we all know, is that the Constitution provides for the appointment of Ministers to administer a department of state, not half a department or two-thirds of a department, but a department and only a department of state. Of course, it is common ground, we all accept now, that we may have two or more Ministers administering the same department, but they must all, it would seem, administer the whole of the department. It is not the case, it would seem, that the department can be split up between different Ministers. The second reason why we assumed that junior Ministers were responsible for the whole of the department was that the list of Cabinet Ministers which was tabled by the Prime Minister on 14 September said that. If we take the example of the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, we see beside his name, under the heading `Department Administered', the Department of Transport and Communications referred to. To the reader of the list tabled by the Prime Minister it is apparent, and it is the only thing that can be apparent from it, that he has been sworn in to administer the Department of Transport and Communications-and, one might add, presumably the whole of that Department. If he was not, he is not a Minister and of course other things flow from that. All of that background-and I am grateful for your indulgence, Madam Speaker-leads up to this: I seek your guidance on whether all Ministers are responsible to the Parliament for the whole department that that Minister is sworn in to administer, or only part of it-as the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support seems to believe is the case with him, otherwise he would not have been saying the other day that here was a matter, a subject of contentious debate in this Parliament, which was nevertheless a matter which according to him he was not responsible for. Of course, this is exacerbated in this case because the specific functions given to him and listed in the Prime Minister's statement include operational aviation matters. Finally, Madam Speaker-as I say, I am grateful for your indulgence thus far-the question is this: standing order 142, as we all know, enables questions to be put to Ministers on any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible, so when standing order 142 allows such questions to be put to a Minister on those matters for which he is responsible, does that mean all of the matters within the department which the junior Minister has been sworn in to administer? Madam Speaker, this is an important matter upon which your guidance should be sought. It is important because it goes to the very root of our responsible parliamentary democratic system and it is important because it is based on a Constitution which really does not know these notions of ultimate responsibility, or special responsibility, to which the Prime Minister has been referring. The Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) has put out a form of Press release in which she refers to her special responsibility. Madam SPEAKER —I think the honourable member has explained the case pretty well. Mr N.A. Brown —Again, Madam Speaker, and I will conclude on this point, our Constitution knows nothing of any notion of special responsibility. We have people who are Ministers, so are they responsible for departments or are they not? What we want to know, what I want to know, is this: are all Ministers sworn in to administer a department responsible for the whole of that department and are they to be treated as such in this House, or not? Madam SPEAKER —Before I call the Prime Minister, I point out to the honourable member for Menzies that it is no responsibility of the Chair to decide which Minister will answer any question. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the honour- able member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) for raising this matter. He did me the courtesy of indicating that he would be raising it. I had thought that essentially I had addressed in my answer to the question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) the concerns that were in the mind of the honourable member for Menzies but, if not, let me in a sense repeat and add to what I said. The honourable member for Menzies says that the Constitution knows no division. When we talk about what the Constitution knows, unfortunately in this life the Constitution does not have a voice that can speak for itself and we have to go through the very expensive process of approaching those in the honourable member's own profession, who charge highly for saying what the Constitution knows and says. Obviously, we have gone to members of the legal profession and we have received advice from them as to what the Constitution knows, to use the honourable member's rather mystical phrase. We have acted on the best advice that we got, and that advice is reflected in the statements that I have made to the House. I suggest to the honourable member for Menzies-and I say this with great respect-that apparently he had no problem in understanding either the constitutional or the factual basis upon which we have acted until he heard the statements by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan). I suggest, with respect, that the Minister quite properly used the word `responsibility' in regard to the division that had been sensibly arrived at between the portfolio Minister and himself. The honourable gentleman said in his question that he could understand a situation where we could have two or more Ministers responsible for a department. Now obviously-- Mr Peacock —Do they do that in Argentina? Mr HAWKE —Come on! The honourable member has gone from foreign affairs to economics and has enough on his plate now in just starting to understand economics without going back into the foreign affairs area. I am saying to the honourable member for Menzies that, if we were talking about two or perhaps three Ministers in a total portfolio area, good sense would demand them saying among themselves, `In regard to the handling of this portfolio I will take particular responsibility for these areas and you will take particular responsibility for those', and that is what is being done. In that sense the Minister was saying that that was not his particular responsibility. But that does not take from the fact that, in regard to responsibility for the administration of the portfolio as a whole, that is something which each of the Ministers is sworn to do. As I said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition earlier today, Ministers having been sworn to administer a department, as they have been, a Minister is responsible, jointly with the portfolio Minister, for that administration. That is clearly the case. It is totally in accord with the constitutional advice that we have received. The only difficulty that has arisen in the mind of the honourable member for Menzies is as a result of the language properly used by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support which reflected nothing more and nothing less than the fact that, sensibly, in order to conduct their affairs, in regard to this Minister it had been said, `He will have the responsibility for handling that and that'. That is what he said in the House. There is nothing in that statement by the Minister which is in any way inconsistent with what I have said to the House, with the constitutional advice that we have received and, most importantly, with sound administrative practice. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to speak briefly on this matter. Madam SPEAKER —I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD —This is an important matter. Could I say at the outset, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) quite properly said in answer to my question, that there are features of the new administrative arrangements made by the Government that the Opposition supports. We certainly have no basic quarrel with the proposition that more than one Minister can be sworn to administer a department and we welcome the more progressive attitude now being taken by the law authorities in advising the Government on this matter. The difficulty that I have, and I think the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) has, is not with that basic proposition but with reconciling what flows from that. What flows from that was clearly spelt out by the Prime Minister when he said that the Ministers were jointly and-in answer to an interjection from me-jointly and severally responsible for the acts of their departments. Mr Hawke —That was your phrase. Mr HOWARD —But the Prime Minister did not dissent from it. Mr Beale —He accepted it. Mr HOWARD —He said, `Jointly and severally'. Thus far I have no argument with the Prime Minister's explanation. My difficulty arises-I think the difficulty of the honourable member for Menzies arises-when the Prime Minister seeks to reconcile that with the claim made by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) that there are certain matters within the Department for which he is jointly and severally responsible, under his oath as a Minister, for which he has no direct administrative responsibility. The question that we ask is: where on earth does direct administrative responsibility for a particular matter finish and joint and several liability for the acts of his Department commence? I think the Prime Minister owes the House an explanation for where the one finishes and the other starts. Madam SPEAKER —Does the Prime Minister want indulgence to reply? Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Yes, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether there is a wilful refusal to listen or just an intellectual incapacity on the part of honourable members opposite. I will for the third time attempt to make it clear to those who are either unwilling to understand or incapable of understanding. I think it is fair to say again, as I did to the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown)-and I am quite happy about its being raised-that I think the problem, if there is one, has arisen because of the use of language by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan). He was not, in making the point that he was making, quite directly and innocently, seeking to address the constitutional question of responsibility in the sense in which the honourable member rightly raised the question of that broad constitutional responsibility. He was referring to the arrangements that have been made between the portfolio Minister and himself in relation to the vast range of areas covered by the Transport and Communications portfolio. They have sensibly and intelligently sat down as colleagues, in just the same way that the Opposition would do if it were ever in government, which is unlikely in the foreseeable future, and said, `Now look, I will cover this area, you will cover that area and let us go about our business'. What the Minister was saying, in using the word `responsibility', was that in that sense that area was not his responsibility; it was the responsibility of Senator Evans. It was quite innocent of and unrelated to the broad and proper question that the honourable member for Menzies raised. We do not retreat or resile from the proposition, the basic constitutional fact, that there is a constitutional responsibility which is shared by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support for the whole Department. He was saying no more and no less than that, in relation to the arrangements that he has with Senator Evans in terms of handling all the functional responsibilities, that he will look after that, that and that, and Senator Evans will look after the other areas. It was in that sense that he was talking about responsibility. That is so clear that I am surprised that a man of the degree of learning in the law which the honourable member for Menzies has cannot grasp it. I think from the genial smile upon his face that he now does. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 12g of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Academic Salaries Tribunal for 1986-87. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners 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. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Burr,Mr Cowan,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Carlton,Mr Halverson,Mr Jull,Mr MacKellar,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton and Mr Tuckey. 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 Blunt,Mr Cadman,Mr Carlton,Mr Cobb,Mr Dobie,Mr Dubois,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Beale,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Saunderson,Mr Scott and Mr Webster. 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,Dr Blewett,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Webster and Mr Wilson. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of certain citizens of Australia 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 Cadman,Mr Cobb,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Millar and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Maranoa Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: (a) The Australia Card Bill will not effectively control Social Security fraud, Income Tax fraud, and other maladies which the Federal Government alleges it will; (b) The Australia Card Bill, if passed, will lead to an invasion of the individual's privacy; (c) Information collated in relation to card holders could be improperly used, and could lead to a significant infringement of Civil liberties; (d) The Bill's penal provisions could be inappropriate, unjust, discriminatory, and over zealously applied. (e) Implementation of the Bill will result in a gross waste of taxpayer's money. Your petitioners oppose the Bill and the concept of an identity card as proposed by the Bill. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the Australia Card Bill for reasons set out above and any other similar legislation promulgated by the Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster. 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 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Dawson electorate respectfully shows that: the Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal, and that the card will not 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. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 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 call upon the 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 Carlton,Mr Fife,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr MacKellar and Mr Webster. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensions before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly,Mr Halverson and Mr Langmore. The Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the 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% 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 Blanchard and Mr Prosser. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the proposal: (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 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 matter; (c) will cause a further larger and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the tax payer; (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended. 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 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 and Mr Tuckey. 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 the unrestricted importation, and 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 A.C.T. legislation and customs regulations which have resulted in Australia wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney, through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range, together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: Any proposal to establish memorials to peace, the so-called Aboriginal War and anti-war activists and other left wing causes at the Australian War Memorial at Canberra would desecrate the Memorial as a fitting and solemn monument to those who served in Australia's Armed Forces and to those who died in defence of their country. Your petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives acts to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's memorial to Australia's former servicemen and women and war dead. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. 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, 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 (04) 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 Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned strongly protest 1987 cuts to ESL programs for adults, conducted by the Adult Migrant Education Services (AMES) in New South Wales. Evening ESL classes have been cut by 25% The ESL Correspondence course is to be abolished in a few months time. The English-in-the-Workplace Program has been reduced. Full-time on-arrival courses have been abolished. AMES day centres have had their teaching hours reduced. Community programs have lost teaching hours. We call for: (i) the full and immediate restoration of AMES teaching programs in New South Wales to at least 1986 levels and (ii) a substantial increase in funding to AMES programs in the 1987 Budget, in view of the recently announced increases in the immigration intake. by Mr Grace. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled. The humble petition of these electors showeth that as: In Australia, tobacco kills about four times as many people as the total killed by drink, drugs, murder, suicide, road accidents, rail accidents, air accidents, poisoning, drowning, fires, snakes, lightning, and every other known cause of accidental death all put together. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will prove your worth with effectual action against the promotion of tobacco. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: In respect of sole parents on the Supporting Parents Benefit or the Widows Pension, whose youngest (or only) child has turned 16 years old and who will lose their pension of benefit from September 3, 1987 regardless of whether that child is still at school. 1. It will be difficult for them to support a child at school, especially in years 11 and 12, on unemployment benefits. 2. It will be difficult for most of them to find employment due to their lack of work skills and the high unemployment rate. 3. It will be difficult for them to undertake a retraining programme as the Austudy rate is even lower than unemployment benefits. We believe that these sole parents should be able to retain their benefit or pension at least until all their children have finished their high school education. We call on the legislature to change the legislation to this effect. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. 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. The Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, your petitioners, humbly pray, that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to legislate for the Australia Card Bill, and your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. 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. 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 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 determined to proceed with the introduction of a national identification system to be known as the Australia Card, the following citizens of Australia express their concerns at the potential violation of civil rights and democratic freedom posed by such a national identification system and urge that the Government not proceed with its planned introduction of the Australia Card. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows that: 1. Continuing proposals by the Department of Social Security suggest the Hawke Government intends to reduce social security services to the people covered by the Warrawong, Dapto and Corrimal Social Security offices. 2. We are opposed to the proposal of reducing the present social security services to shopfronts, staffed by few people, resulting in longer waiting queues, longer travel time, more fares and increased hardship. Your petitioners pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to those most in need in our community by: 1. Ensuring that social security services in Warrawong, Dapto and Corrimal not be reduced to shopfronts. 2. That the Hawke Government provide for a complete range of services and staff for the Warrawong, Dapto and Corrimal communities. by Mr West. To, the Right Honourable Speaker, Members of the House of the Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth (closure of social security offices at Corrimal, Warrawong & Dapto) Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will (keep said offices open with full services as at present 21, August 1987) And your petitioners as dutybound will ever pray. by Mr West. Petitions received. Government Programs Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Hawke Government to show political courage to cut programs that are not justified on social justice or equity grounds to stop Australia going further down the Argentinean road. 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 PEACOCK(Kooyong)(3.09) —The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in an astonishing but truthful speech at the weekend, said essentially-I use some paraphrasing to reduce it-that this Government is a cowardly, gutless government that presides over scandals and rorts but masks them by overselling to disguise our slide to banana land. There are a number of things that can be said about Senator Walsh's extraordinary remarks. Firstly, he told the truth, secondly, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is agitated about the truth being told but, thirdly, he will do little about it. Fourthly, Senator Walsh's remarks totally support the Opposition's claims, for he has blown the cover on both this Government and its Budget. Fifthly, and most importantly, Senator Walsh has stated clearly the perilous state of the Australian economy. Senator Walsh's points were, firstly, that the Government lacked the political courage to abandon unjustified programs; secondly, that he could think of 200 such programs; thirdly, that the new Parliament House building is `a scandal'; fourthly, that a sum of $650m is being spent on a new Brisbane airport for which `there is no functional need'. That is one with which we would not agree and there are a number of others too. Fifthly, he advocated an inheritance tax and said that the only reason the Government was not implementing it was not because it did not believe in an inheritance tax, but because it would be blocked by the Senate. There is nothing wrong in principle with that; it is just that we would oppose it. Sixthly, he said that that child care should never have been taken away from the private sector. Seventhly, he said that there was no justification for providing such a high level of subsidy to only 17 per cent of the children under five years of age. Eighthly, he said that there were strong arguments for reimposing tertiary education fees; ninthly, that the Budget might have been `oversold'. And, tenthly, that there was a need for Australians to hold down consumption expenditure and build up savings. And is he not right? Eleventhly, he said that if people were encouraged to spend rather than save, Australia could be sent `further down the Argentinean road', that road that it appears we are already embarked upon. Twelfthly, he said that if it gets much further it could well be `irretrievable'. Those remarks are from the man whose name accompanies that of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on the front of all official Budget Papers. I remind honourable members that the Budget Statements are: Circulated by the Honourable P. J. Keating, M.P. Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, and Senator the Honourable Peter Walsh Minister for Finance for the information of honourable members on the occasion of the Budget 1987-88. I think honourable members would agree that Senator Walsh would be in a position to know. I think he has a bit to do with these documents. What today was the response of the Prime Minister? Firstly-this will not surprise honourable members-he said that it was all the fault of the media. I will give the House his exact words: `It's a massive media beatup'. Secondly, he said that the Minister did not know that he was going to be publicly quoted. Pick up the gun at home, load it, aim it, fire it, and see how you get on in court using that defence, old son. He did not know that the gun was loaded! Thirdly, the Prime Minister said that it was a private forum. There is a fundamental point about this. No one has denied that he said these things; it was just that he said them publicly. Mr Hunt —He told the truth. Mr PEACOCK —That is right. The question arises: is it true or not? He said it and I assume that he meant it. It certainly flows from his August statement when he wanted the Government to target 13 areas to be reduced. It really is an abject reflection on the cynicism of this Government-and dare I say it of this Prime Minister in particular-that the truth cannot be told publicly. Fourthly, the Prime Minister also said-and he started to edge to it as the Press conference went on-that the comments were unwise. Then he alleged, as the Treasurer did here, that they only involve the recitation of a 1986 anecdote. There are two comments at least to be made about that: he made at least 10 other points that had nothing to do with the 1986 anecdote and, if he did not think that the anecdote was relevant to all he said, why did he use it. Fifthly, and interestingly enough, pushed by the media, the Prime Minister eventually conceded, but only in regard to this interesting alleged anecdote, that Senator Walsh came `close to breaking Cabinet solidarity'. Close! He positively embraced it with a bear hug, it seemed to me, certainly in terms of the other matters not directly related to the alleged anecdote. That was the Prime Minister's response, but what should his response have been? Clearly, he should have sacked Walsh. Walsh should resign. Having lectured his colleagues on political courage, he should resign. If he does not, he should be sacked. It was a former Labor leader and dear member for Melbourne, who once said in remarks in this place and elsewhere, `Back him or sack him'. Of course, if one backs him, one must be agreeing with what he said. I am not just making this up. Because of the total confusion in the mind of the Prime Minister about ministerial responsibility elsewhere, I decided to go back and look at the Cabinet Handbook that he issued in glossy print. It has his signature on it. It says that it is correct as at 4 November 1983, and it has not been changed since then. I shall just quote a few of what it calls `Cabinet Conventions and Principles': Collective responsibility 2.1 The convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers for Government decisions is central to the Cabinet system of government . . . 2.2 Decisions of the Ministry are binding on all Ministers . . . 2.3 All Ministers are expected to give their support in public debate to decisions of the Government . . . . . . . 2.8 Public statements by Ministers: It is inappropriate for Ministers to accept invitations to speak or to comment publicly on matters outside their portfolios- this has a relevance to the Treasurer's portfolio- in circumstances which may involve disagreement-or which are likely to be construed as amounting to disagreement-with the conduct of another portfolio, without the prior concurrence of the appropriate Minister or the Prime Minister. Did Senator Walsh have it? If not, he is in breach. To underline that further, in the Foreword the Prime Minister talks about adherence to the rules and principles. He says: Adherence to them strongly supports the principles of collective decision making and collective responsibility. I seek the co-operation of Ministers and officials in ensuring adherence to the Cabinet procedures laid down here. I do not need to quote David Solomon's recent book commenting on this Cabinet Handbook, or a book by a lecturer in law or general studies in the University of New South Wales, Richard Lucy. One can go back to Dicey, the fount of wisdom on collective responsibility. I will use the phrase used by David Solomon. What these words that I read out were directed at was really a formal way of expressing the idea that all the members of the Cabinet must sink or swim together. If one does not like it, one gets out. If one disagrees with what the Minister said and he said something at variance with the Government, he should be sacked. One is either fair dinkum and abides by the enforced rules or one does not. This Government simply jettisons the rules. Behind that question of ministerial responsibility, every member on this side of House knows that there is something even deeper than whether a particular Minister can scuttle away from what he said in a moment of honesty. What Senator Walsh has done is blow the cover of all the Treasurer's rhetoric, particularly when he said that the Budget was oversold. `Oversold' is a polite way to say that Australians were conned by a beat-up, that is, by misrepresenting it. The Budget was not balanced. We said that last week and Senator Walsh knows that it was not. Far worse, he shares the fears that we in the Opposition hold that the Government is `complacent'. That is the very word that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) used in describing the Budget last Tuesday night; he said that the Government had been complacent. Too right it is complacent. That means that we have lost another year in the battle against our economic problems. The cost of the Treasurer's complacency is another year of higher taxes, another year longer accumulating foreign debt at the rate of approximately $1 billion a month, complacency in the face of a huge net foreign debt, a large current account deficit, continued low investment in plant and equipment, continued high rates of wage and price inflation, continued high rates of interest, abysmal productivity, continued high rates of unemployment and an underlying Budget deficit, all taking us `further down the Argentinean road'. Indeed, as Senator Walsh also said, `If it goes much further it could well be irretrievable'. This Prime Minister dismisses the remarks and, more importantly, hides the truth from the Australian people. Last Tuesday's Budget offered a golden opportunity to address our problems-and Senator Walsh knows this. If the Government had `the political courage' to cut spending further, more resources would have been released from the non-tradable public sector to the tradable goods sector-an essential impetus to export growth and import replacement. This is the Government, after all, which for the first time in Australia's history lost our AAA international credit rating; yet even this does not shake it from its `complacency'. Senator Walsh has exposed this Government for the fraud that it is-fraudulent figures and fraudulent rhetoric. But who suffers as a consequence? Does Keating? No. Does Hawke? No. Does Walsh? No. Not on your life. Only the Australian people suffer. The Government is taking them down-in the words of its Minister for Finance-`the Argentinean road', and will not even tell them. Last week I said that the Budget figures were illusory and that Keating was pulling the wool over Australians' eyes. I said that he was cooking the books with what these days is euphemistically called creative accounting. There is no doubt, flowing through all that Walsh said, that he agrees. A Liberal-National Party government would take our problems on head on. We would not waste the opportunity to cut government expenditure and we would give tax relief. We would balance the Budget with lower levels of expenditure and tax and we would therefore speed up the rate of adjustment-because we are not complacent. Above all, we would tell the truth. Senator Walsh undoubtedly agrees with us that not only is the Government deceitful, using the word `oversold', but also that it is undertaking a very risky strategy with this Budget. We should think of that. Sure, it is risky. It is possibly risky for the Government. But what of the risks for Australia? I should not raise the question of the national interest, should I? After all, it mattered not to the Prime Minister that Senator Walsh told the truth. That it got out was his crime. Even that cannot move the Prime Minister to take the appropriate step of either backing him or sacking him. The Prime Minister implies that he has quietly and gently censured his Minister. Censured him! It seems like flaying him with a wet tissue. Why? For simply telling the truth. Summing up this rather abject and grubby affair in which one Minister tells the truth and calls on his colleagues to show courage but when found out shows none himself, we reach the conclusion that Senator Walsh has blown the cover-and he knows all regarding the Budget. Secondly, he corroborates the Opposition's stance. More importantly, he has revealed the damage being done to Australia by this Government. The Prime Minister will not back Walsh. According to the Prime Minister, he was just indiscreet. The Prime Minister will not sack Walsh. Walsh will not resign. The Prime Minister, in the refuge of the scoundrel that he so often is, blames the media. By his behaviour, this Prime Minister is yet again shown as a weak, vacillating, compromising person who above all will not tell the truth and does not want it told. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(3.24) —What staggers the Opposition is that this Government has been so extraordinarily successful in turning round the fortunes of this country which was left in such a godforsaken position by those opposite including, I might say, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who in the dying, last, hopeless days of the Fraser Government was the Minister for Industry and Commerce. What he has to contend with is that, at that stage, we had unemployment at the rate of 10 per cent, inflation around 10 per cent and fiscal policy wildly out of control all as a result of flagrantly irresponsible policies pursued in the Budget a few months before which were all designed to produce electoral victory before Christmas. We all know that that strategy was wrecked and we all know that as a result of that electoral strategy being wrecked Australia was left wrecked with it and we, the Australian Labor Party, had to come in and attempt the great task of cleaning up the mess. Members of the Opposition cannot understand why and how we have been so extraordinarily successful. The fact is that we have been able to produce a balance Budget on this occasion, something which they, even in their wildest dreams, only promised they could do three years down the track. That is only if one believes some of the wild fantasies which they put into their pre-election figures on fiscal policy. Three years down the track they were going to balance the Budget; this Government produced it this year at once. I think there has been a lot of scurrilous abuse of my colleague and, I might say, good friend the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). I would be staggered to find anyone in this country-anyone certainly on this side of the House-who would agree that Senator Walsh lacks guts. They might say lots of things about Senator Walsh, but one of the things they will not say about Senator Walsh is that he lacks guts. Senator Walsh has been the Minister for Finance since the 1984 election. This is not necessarily an easy thing for me to say, but I would say that Senator Walsh has been the best of the Finance Ministers this country has had. During the period that he has been Finance Minister, he has been absolutely resolute about two things; that is, forcing Ministers and the Government collectively to justify, line by line, every item of expenditure. It may well be that on some issues he would challenge a particular expenditure; that, after all, is his role. A good Minister for Finance will always-indeed, in my view-challenge every line of expenditure. Whether or not this can be justified in the context of the Expenditure Review Committee, or in the context of the Cabinet is a matter for collective decision-making and, of course, takes into account certain political considerations as well as those in broader fiscal policy or other particular criteria that one might want to apply to any particular line of expenditure. But it is his task to challenge expenditures of Ministers individually and of the Government collectively. Having been involved in this process for all of the time that this Government has been in office along with him, I might say that Senator Walsh has done that in a painstaking way which has required a great amount of discipline upon all Ministers in this Government. We go through a very exacting process as we make our decisions about expenditure. There has been absolutely no lack of political courage as we have undertaken that task. Just to give honourable members an example of the way in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has quite outrageously taken out of context what Senator Walsh said or was purported to have said over the weekend, let me just put this in the context of the time at which the anecdote was made and where we are at the moment. The anecdote that he referred to was made by him or recalled by him at the time of the Labor Party conference in June 1986. Since that time we have had two Budgets and one expenditure statement in May this year. In June 1986 the prospective deficit for the forthcoming year was in excess of $8 billion. That is what we had to look at when we sat down to finalise the 1986-87 Budget-$8 billion. What have we produced? Two years later we produced a deficit of zero. There is $8 billion of accountable, absolute political courage. Not only did we do it, but we also got re-elected on the basis of the political courage that we demonstrated in producing that astonishing result. That is the greatest turnaround in fiscal policy that has ever been seen in this country and, I dare say, has been rarely paralleled in any other country of our kind anywhere around the world. Mr Peacock —Why does Walsh disagree with you? Mr DAWKINS —Because he made the statement two years ago, you dummy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister should not refer to other members in such a provocative approach and tone. Mr DAWKINS —He was recalling an anecdote he gave two years ago. Mr Peacock —I thought he said it at the weekend. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The honourable member for O'Connor might resume his seat unless he is raising a point of order. Mr Tuckey —I just came in to sit down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr DAWKINS —The central tenet of the position of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that there are 200 programs about which we lack the political courage to do anything. The statement about 200 programs goes back to two years ago when there were perhaps 200 items of expenditure or savings options which the Government had to look at. We have looked at them, we have dealt with them and they add up to $8 billion. That is to be put in sharp contrast. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor shall not interject that these are lies and he should withdraw that comment. Mr Tuckey —I did not say that. I said it is up from $5 billion this morning. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is what it sounded like. I apologise. Mr DAWKINS —Let me explain that. The honourable member for O'Connor was not in the House when I first made that remark. What I was referring to was that when we sat down to finalise the 1986-87 Budget the prospective deficit was in excess of $8 billion. The prospective deficit now is zero. There has been a $8 billion turnaround. That is $8 billion worth of courage, courage that can be added up, courage that has actually been rewarded by an electorate which understood what needed to be done and which appreciated the courage and the dedication that we-and might I say, Senator Walsh-were prepared to bring to this question. In terms of recurrent expenditure-that is where the $5 billion comes from-$5 billion worth of expenditure has been taken out of recurrent outlays during that two-year period. That has happened because the Minister for Finance, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and I and other members of the Expenditure Review Committee have painstakingly gone through our expenditures line by line, added them up and made a judgment as to whether those programs were justifiable. We made the judgment that there was $5 billion worth of additional expenditure there which the country could well do without if it was going to make the adjustment which was necessary in our current circumstances. In order to get to the $8 billion there are, again, the base broadening measures in the taxation system. Let us recall that almost all of those base- broadening measures, which now account for some $2 1/2 billion of additional revenue, were opposed by Opposition members not because they did not agree with them but because they lacked political guts to support them. We know that if John Howard had his way he would embrace nearly all of those option A tax measures. He used to advocate half of them publicly and God knows what he believed privately. Of course when it suited him, when there was the prospect of an election looming, he abandoned them all because he thought he might be able to grease his way to power by offering some superficial attraction to populism. That was not the course for us; it was not the course for the Treasurer; it was not the course for the Minister for Finance. We decided to take the tough options and I reject out of hand any suggestion that we have lacked the political courage to address the circumstances of our times. I said at the beginning of my speech that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at the time of the changeover in 1983 was the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He more than anyone should know the devastation that was wrought by our predecessor's industry policy. Our manufacturing industry had become woefully uncompetitive internationally and he knows it. In the last several years, under the guidance of policies pursued particularly by Senator Button, we have had to turn that situation around. So rather than losing hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing industry we are now increasing jobs and with those jobs we are picking up markets not only in Australia but also overseas. That is the task we have set ourselves and from which we will not be deflected by any beat up from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or anyone else. When an election looms it is always easy to pad out Budget figuring in order to make the situation look better than it is. I raise this matter in answer to the suggestion by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that this Budget is not what it purports to be. Let me take him back just a few short years to 1982-83 when there was a $2 billion difference between the outlays predicted at the time of the Budget in late 1982 and that which actually occurred in the middle of 1983. There was a $2 billion discrepancy in the outlays of the last Budget of the Fraser-Howard Government. As well, revenue was understated by some $0.8 billion, with the result that we had a massive deficit blowout of $2.8 billion in the last Budget that Mr Howard was responsible for under the Fraser prime ministership. That has to be seen in the context of the Deputy Leader's suggestion that our Budget does not add up and will not add up. Our record of accurately projecting Budget outlays, revenue and deficit size is unrivalled. Indeed, in only one year was there a discrepancy and that was a direct result of the massive collapse in the terms of trade which confronted Australia during 1985-86. As a result of that we embarked upon the scrutiny of taxation and Government outlays in order to ensure that that would never again happen to Australia, that Australia would face up to and go through the adjustment process which we are now going through. If there is anything about what Senator Walsh has said that I would like to make much of, it is that what he is drawing attention to and what I think the Government as a whole wishes to draw the country's attention to is that the task is not over and we have to continue to be as resolute as this Government has been in the course of its term in office, most particularly over the last two years, if we are to work our way through these problems. There is no suggestion that people can lie back in the traces as a result of the progress we have made to this point. Australia still has a task to confront and this Government will do everything it can to ensure that circumstances exist in which that can be confronted. That is the reason why I have been engaged in looking at the whole question of properly preparing the work force in terms of skills for the challenge that exists. Despite having an unemployment rate of around 8.1 per cent, about two percentage points lower than when we came to office, there are still skills shortages because our predecessors were totally negligent in the way in which they dealt with these questions. They did not care whether there were skilled workers to undertake the tasks which Australia could and now will undertake in order to work our way out of the difficulties in which we find ourselves. I conclude on a final point. On the matter of political courage, I take honourable members back to the circumstances of the last election. All of our expenditure cuts and our taxation propositions were laid out for the electorate to judge. What did we get from Johnny Howard? We got only promises to get rid of those taxation measures which now bring in $2 1/2 billion. He thought they might have been a bit unpopular. Not only that, there was another $2 1/2 billion worth of unspecified spending cuts. If ever one wanted an example of absolute, unqualified, political gutlessness or lack of courage it was that, going to the electorate and saying, `Here are the cuts but I will not tell you where they are because you might not like them'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Before I call the honourable member for Richmond I mention to honourable members on both sides that members are expected to refer to other members, Ministers and office holders by their title rather than their name. In the last two contributions there was a tendency to refer to individuals by name rather than by title. I trust the honourable member for Richmond will not continue in that vein. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(3.40) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you would agree, along with all of my colleagues, that I strictly observe the Standing Orders of this place, and also the precedents that have been set by your rulings. I will adhere to those precedents in the course of my remarks this afternoon. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Richmond that I have not set any precedents; I have not given any rulings. I have drawn his attention to the fact that honourable members should refer to members, Ministers and office holders by their title. Mr BLUNT —Surely, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you have allowed certain remarks to go unchallenged also. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I also remind the honourable member for Richmond, if he wishes to press the point, that initially the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition went unchallenged. I thought that to provide balance in the debate it was fair to allow the Minister to continue along the same line. I would draw the attention of others to that fact if they continue to do so. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will arrange for someone to move that I be granted an extension of time. I felt very sorry for the Minister at the table, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), when he made his remarks this afternoon because he, like many members of the Hawke Government, agrees with the comments of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). The Minister is reported in today's Press as proposing that the Government reintroduce university fees. Mr Dawkins —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is not in order for the honourable member to speculate about my views on anything and I would rather he did not, because he is wrong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Richmond. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If it is going to be one of those afternoons, let us really go for it. The Budget has been referred to as some sort of economic miracle. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is walking around the place describing it as historic. Let me tell honourable members opposite that it is historic because the Treasurer of this country is gambling his political future and the economic future of Australia on this Budget. I am talking about some of the things that are contained in this Budget, how it is balanced and how the Government has oversold it, to use the words of Senator Walsh. It certainly has been oversold; it has been turned into a media spectacular. When one looks at what is behind the Budget one can see what prompted Senator Walsh to make his outburst in Western Australia on Saturday. Nobody with any sense of economic credibility could resist making some comment, some protest, about what this Government, this Treasurer, has done to the Australian people and their possible future. This Budget is operating in an economic circumstance whereby our country has a foreign debt of $110 billion and rising, it has a current account deficit of $10 billion per annum and it is not likely to come down in the next two or three years, it has 9 per cent inflation and 8.5 per cent unemployment, and it has its lowest rate of private investment in productive capital for almost two decades. In the face of this the Minister, who is now leaving the chamber, has the nerve to suggest that this is a responsible Budget, that the Government has addressed the economic problems of our country and that the Treasurer knows what he is doing. None of those things is true, and Senator Walsh knows them not to be true. That is why he made his comments. This country would be better served if Senator Walsh were Treasurer and the Treasurer were sacked. That is the option that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) confronts right now. He must sack either Senator Walsh or the Treasurer, because one of them is fundamentally wrong. We cannot have that sort of difference of opinion if we are to maintain Cabinet solidarity and the principle of collective Cabinet decisions as the basis for our Government in this country. Let me explain, for the benefit of those honourable members in the Australian Labor Party who do not have the economic knowledge of Senator Walsh, exactly what the Treasurer is doing with this Budget. This Budget is based upon continuing foreign capital inflow, massive public sector borrowings and private sector borrowings, foreign equity and portfolio investment, and real estate investment. When we have those things we can continue to live beyond our means and we can avoid the necessity for fiscal responsibility. The incentive for foreign capital inflow is based on a low Australian dollar and high interest rates, but that is the essential problem on which the Treasurer is gambling. Capital inflow is forcing the Australian dollar up and our interest rates are coming down because of the increase in the money supply and because of the media oversell following his Budget. When the dollar rises and interest rates come down and perhaps there is some crack in the confidence of the Treasurer's economic management-a crack created by the comments of Senator Walsh in Western Australia this weekend-we will come to the crunch. If we do not have that continuing foreign capital inflow we will suddenly have to confront economic reality in this country. We have to confront the facts: we are living beyond our means and this Government's Budget shows no fiscal responsibility. It provides no incentive whatsoever for accelerated structural adjustment. Heaven only knows that is what our country needs. Our competitiveness is based on a weak dollar, not the essential productivity of our industries. The Treasurer has produced a Budget with mirrors. We have seen examples of how he has achieved his $27m deficit. It is a direct result of the sale of the farm. He has sold a billion dollars worth of Australia's assets. It is a direct result of the Reserve Bank of Australia's foreign exchange profits. Its trading in foreign exchange and trading in the Australian dollar have produced profits which have been included in the Budget. A part of that is as a result of the Treasurer's approach to managing the economy, as a result of his approaching the whole thing with confidence so that from time to time the Reserve Bank can operate in the foreign exchange market and can produce these profits that go into his Budgets and make sure they are balanced. But what we are really talking about is the future of our country. We have to decide whether we want a government that will show fiscal responsibility, and not only fiscal responsibility but also responsibility to the future of Australia. The Treasurer has financed this Budget by massively increasing government tax revenue. In five years government revenue has increased by 75 per cent. There are many people in the galleries here today who are on family budgets. They understand how difficult it is to balance a budget because, unlike governments, they cannot go into deficit perpetually; they have to achieve a family budget which is essentially balanced. They can use Bankcard from time to time but eventually they have to come up with expenditures that equal their income. But how many family budgets have increased by 75 per cent in the past five years? We have to ask how the Government increased its income by 75 per cent. It did so by increasing taxes and charges. In last year's Budget the Government magnanimously offered some tax cuts, spread over two fiscal years. Notwithstanding that, it still increased government revenue by 75 per cent. The question everybody should be asking is: what sort of tax cuts would have been available had this Government cut its expenditure? In the last election campaign members of the Government ran around the country saying that fiscal expenditure could not be reduced and that the Opposition parties could not provide the tax cuts they were offering. The Opposition is saying that had the Government shown fiscal responsibility, had it cut back on waste and eliminated duplication, had there been, as we have said, the sort of responsibility shown that this country needs in order to avoid becoming the Argentina of the future, we would have been able to have massive tax cuts-not the tax cuts which the Treasurer has offered, not tax cuts which do not do anything for the average family, but tax cuts which would in fact help. Notwithstanding that we have had some sort of Claytons tax cuts, the Budget Papers produced by the Treasurer and Senator Walsh indicate that income tax revenues are projected to increase by 9 per cent. That is how much they will go up this year, after the tax cuts. If we bring that back to the average family, how many average families in Australia today can count on getting a 9 per cent increase in their disposable income, the income they have to spend after they have paid tax to the Treasurer? Yet this Government, talking about its fiscal responsibility, has brought in tax scales which will still give it a 9 per cent increase in its income tax revenues. The reality is that Senator Walsh was right. Every word he said directs a challenge to the Treasurer and to the Prime Minister. The Government has to address the question of who is correct-the Treasurer or Senator Walsh. The Government can have only one of them in its Cabinet and it is about time, after the gobbledegook we have heard in this place today about ministerial responsibility, that we got a definitive statement from the Prime Minister and he decided which one of them will continue-the Treasurer or the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. We cannot have such a conflict within a government, and a government cannot have such a conflict and expect to have the respect of this Parliament or the Australian people. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(3.50) —We on this side of the House reject the proposition that has been put forward in this matter of public importance today. During this discussion I will try to focus, just from the point of view of our perspective of the Opposition, on where a debate like the one we have had today is taking us. This Parliament is supposed to be about policies; it is not really supposed to be about personalities. So let us look at the continuing approach taken by those on the other side of the House and examine whether they have started to derive an approach towards policy development. Today we listened to Opposition members attack Senator Walsh and call for his sacking, and all the other stuff they have gone on about. But nowhere in the contributions made by both honourable members opposite who have spoken in this debate was there a single suggestion about an alternative policy direction to that which has been brought forward in the Budget. That is the Opposition's direct failure. It has failed to perceive any alternative policy and that is what is seen by the people of Australia. There is nothing new about this. Just 2 1/2 years ago the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), as Leader of the Opposition, was known to be light on economics but high on public relations and the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the failed Treasurer, was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and leading economic spokesmen. We have now had a 180-degree turnaround. The failed Leader is now the economic spokesman and the failed Treasurer is now the Leader of the Opposition. In all that deck chair changing and swapping we have had the Queensland experiment. As a result, what has been going on with policy development? That is the question I want to have a look at. Underlying all this there has been a shift in policy and there has been the development of an approach; and I would like to flush out a bit of it. While we in the Government have been setting about doing things like reducing a $10 billion deficit to a near enough to zero Budget, members of the Opposition have been developing a policy approach which really needs to be looked at. Today, this matter of public importance represents not just a complaint about Senator Walsh or the perceived inconsistencies in the Government's approach. It is really an attempt by Opposition members to say that in the Budget we have not cut enough and we have not cut in the right areas from their point of view. Let us examine that to see how the Opposition comes to this perception. Let us go first to what I call Valder economics. Let us not forget that just two years ago Mr Valder, the now failed President of the Liberal Party of Australia, made the Westpac tapes proposing that the Government make massive cuts and that they be in the area of social welfare. He was the first to expose that this is where the answers were. Then along came Mr McLachlan, the President of the National Farmers Federation. In Adelaide in April last year at the Liberal Party rural seminar he said that the coalition had not formed policies to provide a suitable alternative. That is what he understood, and he was pointing it out. Where was the National Farmers Federation during the recent Federal election? That was the big question asked. It has gone to ground because there was nothing there to support; and that is well understood by people on both sides of politics in Australia. After the warning from the National Farmers Federation, out came what became known as the secret leaked document that flushed out the real coalition. Or should I call it the Liberal Party agenda? It was published on the front page of the Australian Financial Review on Monday, 23 March. The Australian Financial Review is not what one would call an Australian Labor Party propaganda magazine; it is the paper most broadly respected in the business community. In this secret leaked document we saw a call for a $5 billion spending cut. Where was it to go and why was the plan that it should be kept secret? It was proposed that it should be kept secret because, as the paper states, if the cuts leaked out there would be a general strike. Part of the secret agenda listed in 10 dot points was to prepare for a general strike. The Opposition was proposing in that agenda that we cut pensions and tighten eligibility; abolish all employment programs; impose a new personal and company tax; abolish the first home owners scheme; abolish the fringe benefits and capital gains tax-and so the list goes on. In the end the Opposition was preparing for a general strike. That was the secret agenda and that is what got flushed out. During the election campaign it became very clear that the Opposition now has an economic policy. It is based on a cheap grab for votes, cutting taxes for the very well off. The Opposition's social strategy, first proposed by Mr Valder, was to cut benefits to those who were most in need in order to give to those who were least in need. That was its social policy and that is what this secret document is all about. In between it all, if an Opposition is to function successfully as an Opposition it has to have some competent people who understand how the debits must equal the credits and who can actually put it together under pressure and make it work. What did we have during the recent election campaign? First of all, we had the honourable member for Bennelong, in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, with his $500m error. We had Mr Stone, now the Deputy Leader of the coalition in the other place, saying that it was just a little matter, not a big factor. That $500m is $5.60 a week for every pensioner in Australia. They do not think it is just a little mistake or a little matter. But honourable members opposite do; they want to say that an error of $500m does not really matter. We have to look at their capacity to get the planning right. Tax cuts was the central plank of the Opposition's proposal at the last election. Out came the Leader of the Opposition, saying that the tax cuts would be brought in over one year. Out came Senator Michael Baume, in whatever capacity he was before being dumped from the front bench, saying on air in Tasmania that they would be phased in over three years. Honourable members opposite cannot get a policy right and they cannot get a strategy right. What is more, they cannot get their priorities right. If I remember the position of the coalition during the recent election campaign on the question of tax cuts, the Liberal Party had it as No. 1 on its agenda. It was the big ticket item-`We are going to deliver tax cuts'. Where were members of the National Party of Australia? They said: `Oh no, that is not quite right'. My colleague the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who is in the House, to his eternal credit was honest about this during the election campaign when he said, `We have it at about No. 3 on our priority list'. The reason for that was that his constituents knew very well that it was fairy floss, that it was not a top ticket item; and that is why the National Farmers Federation abandoned them during the campaign. So where are we really at in this debate? Those opposite have been developing this alternative policy approach. It has been rejected by the people of Australia. I say to them in the kindest possible way: do not keep on about it. Have a look at a new approach. Do not keep trying to test the same old water because it is understood to be fraudulent and it is understood that it has to be rejected. They cannot come into this chamber and complain that there have not been enough cuts and that the cuts are not in the right area. They should look at their role as an Opposition and cease being the doom and gloom merchants of our economy. Our problems are difficult enough as it is without their wandering around being doom and gloom merchants, trying to talk down whatever confidence is starting to develop in our economy. They should stop opposing for the sake of opposing. If those opposite are going to adopt the values of an Argentinean economy, at least they should try to be responsible about it. Leaving a $10 billion deficit was not responsible. Leaving 900,000 Australians in the unemployment queues was not responsible. Leaving young Australians without educational prospects was not responsible. We are tackling the hard questions, and we are tackling them in a responsible way. I suggest to the honourable member for Kooyong that, if he wants to bring into this chamber a matter of public importance proposing this sort of approach, he ought to go back to the foreign affairs area, grab a ticket to Buenos Aires and enrol himself in the University of Argentina for a degree in banana economics, because that is about where he is with the policies he is proposing today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The debate is concluded. Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed, covering the Privacy Bill 1986 and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(4.00) —I am pleased to be able to speak in support of this legislation, particularly as I have listened to a number of speeches by members of the Opposition. When the House debated this issue previously the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) were in the House. They said to one of my colleagues, `What did you do in the election? Did you campaign on it? Where do you stand on it?'. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, the identity card legislation and the consequential privacy legislation associated with it were the cause of the double dissolution. For my part, I say to the House that I campaigned very strongly on this issue. I not only issued a number of Press releases, but also the Australia Card featured prominently in the brochure that I used throughout the election campaign. In addition, I letterboxed some 5,000 households in Blacktown with a personal letter and a brochure in relation to the ID card issue. It is true that I did get a response from those people who were opposed to it. I received letters from two out of those 5,000 people. We have heard the furphy that somehow the Government has not capably campaigned on the issue or, even more ridiculously, that we should adopt the process that is used when a constitutional amendment is proposed-that is, the referendum process-in relation to this legislation, which requires no constitutional amendment. That is one of the more ludicrous suggestions that I have heard. Mr Ben Lexcen was reported in my local paper, the Mount Druitt-St Marys Standard, as having addressed a meeting of small business people that was held at the Rooty Hill Returned Services League Club. The headline of the article is `The ID Card is evil-Lexcen'. Let me say that I have responded this week to his article. Essentially, the article is racist, emotional claptrap. Mr Lexcen's major concern seems to be that he has lived through the Hitler era and the McCarthy era. Let me respond to that statement. Those are two extreme examples of the Right. They do not have anything to do with our side of politics. Indeed, the concentration camp argument seems to be raised time and time again. Let me say that my mother's side of the family has certainly experienced regimes of both the Left and the Right. Regrettably, very few of my mother's relatives were able to escape the Germans in 1939. Those who did escape were finished off by the Russians. I think it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that this system of number identification can be in any way compared to the processes of that regime. McCarthyism is something that we all condemn. The inherent opposition to the ID card seems to do one thing: it seems to undervalue Australia's commitment to democracy and its preparedness to defend it. Mr Lexcen is some ways, I think, concedes this when he says, in effect, `I'm not worried about what this Government would do'-included in that statement is probably the Opposition-`what I am worried about is what will happen in 50 years time'. The Government has a responsibility for today and maybe tomorrow, but in 50 years time another generation will have the responsibility. Last week seven groups of school students from my electorate visited this Parliament. They came from primary schools and high schools. In 50 years time those students will be about 59 or in their sixties. I am confident-I have always been confident-that Australians will resist the sort of totalitarian, emotional claptrap that the Opposition raises about the potential danger of this card. I know that if honourable members on this side saw any government, of whatever persuasion, wanting to introduce such a process, they would resist it. The argument is not about what the card will do now; it is about what the card will do in the future. The Opposition has been opposed to the ID card; there is no doubt about that. In the post-election period, certainly in New South Wales, in terms of getting the Opposition up and running in its opposition to the ID card, the Liberal and National parties have not had anything to do with it. It has really been commentators, like Alan Jones on radio station 2UE, with his extremist and emotional talk, who have really whipped up a frenzy. The Opposition has belatedly almost jumped on his coat tails, saying `Me too, we think it is important'. Mr Nehl —Is that the Labor Party? Mr PRICE —Mr Jones hardly represents the Labor Party. Why would the Opposition, apart from the reason I have previously outlined, want to maintain its opposition, knowing the Constitution, knowing the conventions of this place, and knowing that there was a double dissolution over this matter? The answer is simple: it has traditionally maintained the civil liberties of those who wish to cheat and defraud the Commonwealth and put the burden on the decent, ordinary taxpayers of this country. The only people who will benefit from not having an ID card are tax avoiders. Mr Deputy Speaker, because of your chairmanship of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure and its inquiries into the Australian Taxation Office, you would know of the difficulties that the Taxation Office has in matching interest payments, dividend payments and tracking down property. I have seen the difficulties at first hand when the Joint Committee of Public Accounts investigated the acquisition of new computers for the Taxation Office. It is an immense job and the Office is not doing it well now. If one were to ask the Commissioner of Taxation, as we did during that inquiry, he would tell one that we need the ID card. In fact, I was naive enough to think that perhaps, given the way things were going at that stage, the Office would have been working on some alternative proposal. But he was quite adamant that the ID card was important if one wanted to stamp out tax avoidance and the lurks and perks that still remain in the taxation system. Who else does the Opposition defend? Of course, it is defending those who are abusing the social welfare system. Let me tell the House that I attended a meeting of the same small business people. With tears in their eyes they told me how terrible it was that they were forced to employ people who were on the dole and were continuing to receive the dole while working. I said to them, unequivocally, that I dislike and have no time for people who are working and who collect the dole, but I have even less time for those who employ them. I represent an electorate in which there are many people who are genuinely seeking employment and who would like the privilege of a job. But if we are to get them into jobs and get this economy right we must get away from the mentality of lurk merchants, tax avoiders, and those who abuse the social welfare system. Who is the Opposition protecting? It is protecting the 50,000 to 60,000 illegal aliens. Any member on this side of the House will tell you that the matter that most constantly preoccupies his time in terms of constituency work is usually that of immigration. I, like my colleagues, try as hard as I can to get as many new citizens into my electorate in this great country called Australia. But I do not support illegal aliens because we have seen evidence that although they are not entitled to do so, they are overstaying the limit of their visas-if they have a visa-and they are collecting Medicare benefits; they are picking up benefits to which they are not entitled. Mr Lee —Special benefits. Mr PRICE —Special benefits. The ID card is the only system that will track these people down. Opposition members talk about civil liberty and their concerns for it. They are not concerned about the civil liberties of the Australians who have to support the 50,000 to 60,000 illegal aliens. They are not concerned about the civil liberties of Australians who seek work but cannot obtain it because some people who are in work are receiving dole cheques. They are mostly concerned about protecting tax avoiders. I sum up the Opposition in this way: it is the party of the wealthy, the tax avoiders and the lurk merchants. That is the marketing niche which Opposition members have carved out for themselves; that is the niche which they will defend to their last vote in this Parliament. I reiterate some of the points that I have covered. I campaigned very strongly in the last election. I got one of the smallest swings in the western suburbs of Sydney. I think that that was because, among other things, I campaigned so vigorously on the ID card. Mr Lexcen, a champion of the Opposition to the ID card, came to my electorate and used a blatantly racist argument. The Standard quotes him as saying: Say in the year 2030 Australia might have a population of around 50 million, with 40 million Asians and 10 million Caucasians. If that is not a racist argument, I do now know what is. Mr Shipton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under the Standing Orders, as interpreted by Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice, is it in order to make accusations of this nature against an individual Australian other than by way of a substantive motion? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PRICE —According to the article entitled `The ID card is evil-Lexcen', Mr Lexcen said that in about 50 years time Australia might have a population of 50 million, with 40 million being Asians and 10 million Caucasians. He is quite happy and content to support a racist argument. I wonder whether the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) feels comfortable using a racist argument such as that. Mr Shipton —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the honourable member is not allowed, under the Standing Orders and according to Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice on the rules and interpretations of the Standing Orders, to come into this House and call individuals racists. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —As I said earlier, there is no point of order. Mr PRICE —I am quite happy to table the newspaper article. I seek leave to table it. Leave granted. Mr PRICE —I thank the House. Perhaps I should bring a couple of other newspaper articles to the attention of the House as they sum up what is happening in the ID card debate. The first appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday, 11 September. Mr Lee —A very good article. Mr PRICE —It was a very good article, as the honourable member for Dobell mentions. He is a champion of the ID card and particularly privacy. The article stated: For emotional claptrap, it is hard to go past the present debate on an identity card. There has seldom been a subject on which there has been so much misunderstanding, so much misrepresentation and so much downright irrational fear. That sums up the Opposition's case pretty well. The article continued: You would think that no Australian had ever been given a number; that drivers' licences, passports, credit cards and tax file numbers still had to be invented. Mr Lee —They probably don't have tax file numbers. Mr PRICE —That aspect is probably worth investigating. The article continued: Few of the vocal critics of the Australia Card seem to have thought through the potential for abuse in the use of licence numbers by law enforcement agencies, through credit card transaction slips which can provide card companies with a great deal of information about a person's behaviour and the vast amount of information that the Tax Office has on sources and levels of income and assets. Much has been said about the security around the ID card and the computer that will house it. However, I have never heard an Opposition member stand up and ask the same question of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) about his Department's computer system. That system is an extensive one. It is not a proposed system; it is one that is up and working. Is there no concern for privacy for those who are currently on social welfare benefits? Are we preoccupied only with the wealthy or those who wish to avoid their fair share of taxation? Is this the standard, the level of hypocrisy, for which the Opposition is aiming? I am very concerned that the Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd has developed a policy whereby it is very selective about its customers. To be even more frank and blunt, there are many people in my electorate with whom it refuses to open an account. I have never heard an Opposition member express concern about that. The whole point about the ID card debate is that the information which the card will contain already exists. There is information which the Social Security Department, the Health Insurance Commission and the Australian Taxation Office already have. The big difference between this Government and the Opposition is that we are concerned about the individual's privacy. One of the principal features of the Australia Card legislation and its concomitant privacy Bills is that, for the first time, we are entrenching rights to privacy that do not exist now. In all of the civil libertarian argument that is going on about the ID card, where is the concern for privacy for the citizen as it exists now? I believe that the Opposition is being quite hypocritical in its stance. I am not usually one to quote John Laws; but, for the benefit of the honourable member for Higgins, I will quote what he said as reported in the Sunday Telegraph: That's what worries me so much about the ID card debate that is currently ripping the country apart. The sheer hysteria being whipped up is based on pure misinformation, half truths and deliberate lies. Those are not my words. I am not trying to defame anyone. Far be it from me to want to do that in this House. That was Mr Laws's view. I commend his article to all honourable members. His article contained a series of questions in an effort to debunk all the half truths, lies and hypocrisy. One of the questions was: Will it be necessary to produce the Australia Card every time you withdraw or deposit money to your bank account? The answer was: Definitely not. The card will be used once only. To open a new account or to establish identity for an existing one. The offering which I have put before the House is very selective. The Privacy Bill 1986 establishes rules of conduct called information privacy principles (IPPs) for the collection and retention of, access to and correction, use and disclosure of personal information about individuals. The IPPs will apply to Commonwealth departments and agencies. Interestingly, they are based on the Australian Law Reform Commission's report No. 22 entitled Privacy which was presented in December 1983. This is also consistent with Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. What the opponents of the legislation have never suggested is what we should be doing to protect citizens. I see that my time is rapidly running out. I reiterate that I am a very firm supporter of the legislation. The Government should not buckle. If it does buckle under to pressure, the only people who will suffer will be those decent, honest Australians who are overwhelmingly in favour of the legislation, those Australians who accept their fair share of the taxation burden and responsibilities as citizens. A lot of hysteria has been whipped up. In my own State, there is a firm commitment on both sides of the political fence to a driver's licence containing a photograph. That is to occur in New South Wales. They do not raise any objections to that. It already exists in Victoria. It has been most amusing to read some of the quotations from Prime Minister Curtin in the 1940s, but they ignore the massive change that has been taking place in the 1980s compared with the 1940s. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(4.20) —I cannot imagine how you can sit there, Mr Deputy Speaker, without tears forming in your eyes, having listened to what the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) said. He has the hide, the utter gall, to stand in this chamber and talk about the Opposition being hypocritical. We have just heard the honourable member for Chifley go to town, trotting out his care for the privacy of the ordinary Australian citizen. He says that the Government is concerned about the privacy of the Australian citizen. Let us look at least at what one prominent member of the Government says about privacy. I am talking about the honourable member for Bonython, the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). In 1986 at the South Australia Australian Labor Party branch conference Dr Blewett said: Let me say, as a socialist, that it is the interests of the community that should come before the individual right . . . We shouldn't get too hung up as socialists- that is the Australian Labor Party, the Government- on privacy because privacy in many ways is a bourgeois right- he refers to privacy as a bourgeois right- that is very much associated with the right to private property. They are the Minister's words. So, how can any member of the Government come in here and say that we are hypocritical and not concerned about privacy? I will refer briefly to this morning's Sydney Morning Herald which reports: The latest Auditor-General's report has detailed security inadequacies in both the Department of Health, under Dr Blewett, and the Department of the Special Minister of State, under Senator Ryan-the Government's two main promoters of the Australia Card. Only last week we had the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan)-he is also the Minister for gaffs and foot-in-mouth-say in Question Time, `We are talking about the transmission of ID data by landline. It will be secure'. However, this article in the Sydney Morning Herald goes on: An audit of the Department of Health found inadequacies in controlled access to computer facilities- but the Government says that that information will be safe- as well as problems with the Department's general security procedures. The article quotes the Auditor-General's report as stating: The latest findings suggest that, other than for basic perimeter security, the department has given relatively low priority to security matters. The Government says, `Don't worry about the database connected with the ID card; it is secure'. It could fool me on that. The article in the Sydney Morning Herald goes on: In the Department of the Special Minister of State, the Auditor-General reported: Programming staff were not formally trained in relevant data security measures. The Government says, `Don't worry about it; it is secure'. The article goes on to state that the Auditor-General found: The functions of the data security officer were not being performed, and data security policies and procedures were not documented. That is from a report of the Auditor-General. How much worse will it be once we have the ID card, which I hope we will not. The honourable member for Chifley referred to fear being generated. I would just like to come back to that point because I have a letter which was written by a person in Urunga in my electorate who had been going around talking to people about the Australia Card and inviting them to sign a petition against it. The part of the letter I would like to read is this: The younger people up to the age of, say, 50 years- and that is very encouraging for those of us who are about that age- are keen to sign right across political lines. One woman said to me-I have voted Labor all my life but I am dead against this one-she signed greedily. Older people are scared and won't put their name on anything. This thing has generated so much fear and distrust and that alone is reason enough to abandon at once its imposition. There is a great deal of truth in that. The opposition to the Australia Card is not coming just from the Opposition; it is coming from right across the Australian community. I inform the House of a decision taken by the Anglican Diocese of Grafton which stretches from Port Macquarie to the Queensland border on the north coast of New South Wales. Last Sunday week the Anglican Synod adopted a motion from the Reverend Jim Nightingale of Kempsey. He said: From a religious perspective, I have an identity which was given to me by God, and my fingerprints tell me that I am unique. As a Christian, I know who I am and I do not need the State to give me a synthetic identity. The Reverend Jeff Murnain of Port Macquarie, in supporting the motion, stated that as Christians we are called to love justice; we are called to be watchmen. For this reason the church had a responsibility to make itself heard on this issue. He went on to say: There is a need for more incisive debate. There is a need for the democratic rights of people to be exercised. The Card is more than bad legislation; it is clearly unpopular; it is potentially dangerous; it is inherently evil. I believe that we as the Church have a command from Jesus our Lord to caution the Government against an untimely, undebated, unpopular and dangerous introduction of this Card. Mr Tim Fischer —It is unworkable. Mr NEHL —It is unworkable indeed. The Anglican Synod voted to recognise the importance of a full and public debate on the proposed Australia Card legislation and to call upon the Federal Government to put the issue to a national referendum. Why not? Why not let the people have a say on this most vital of issues to come before this Parliament? What is the Government afraid of? Why will it not let the people have a say? I would also like to quote from the editorial in the 28 August 1987 issue of Computerworld, a magazine which is certainly knowledgeable about the issues we are talking about. It states: In a recent televised debate, Senator Susan Ryan promised safeguards for the community, so that information surrounding the Australia Card would be at least as secure as the PINs- personal identity numbers- and account details contained within the banks' ATM- automatic teller machines- networks . . . there is no way that current network standards are capable of the level of security promised by Senator Ryan. Either the Government does not appreciate the difficulties in attaining this level of security, or it will not be able to live up to the promise, or it is being economical with the truth. We know how secure it is. We know how many people in this House have had their piece of plastic gobbled up by the machines. Only in the last week the Commonwealth Bank and the Westpac Banking Corporation, I believe, had their computer systems go berserk and gobble up hundreds of people's cards, yet the Government is seeking to inflict more plastic on us. I believe that the 23,000 legal practitioners, the lawyers in this country, should have the opportunity of putting their views. I will quote from a letter written to me and other members from Mr Darryl R. Williams, QC, the President of the Law Council of Australia. He says in part: The Law Council has said, however, that it is opposed to the Australia Card legislation in its present form, and that its opposition is based mainly on its concern that the legislation provides inadequate protection of privacy . . . That is what the Bill we are debating right now is about-privacy. The letter goes on: The Council is also concerned that the Australia Card, as presently proposed, will involve a system of identification that could easily be expanded for use by all government departments and other data banks using the same identification numbers. I return to Computerworld for a moment and to a story about `Teenyhackers'. The article states: The US Secret Service sprang into action the other day, arresting nine teenagers from a Pittsburgh high school for fraud. The juvenile hackers were alleged to have used home computers to gain illegal access to a credit authorisation centre, using the valid card numbers obtained to buy thousands of dollars of mail order merchandise. Our man in Pittsburgh said the home hackers used relatively sophisticated techniques, including specially written software, to bypass security controls and navigate through credit records to get key information. The President of the Law Council of Australia said: . . . the Law Council views as objectionable the requirement that persons prove their identity before they can enter into a considerable number of quite common transactions and activities. This appears to the Council to involve an unwarranted restriction on the freedom that individual Australians have, and should have, to engage in ordinary activities and transactions. . . . . I note in passing that the Government's attitude seems somewhat contradictory. On the one hand it argues that the information contained in the Australia Card and in the central data base will be limited and of such a character that there need be no concern about its being vulnerable to unauthorised access. On the other hand, the Government sees a need to establish a complex and costly system to protect that information-a system said to be the most secure available. It might be asked why such tight security is needed if the information held is as insignificant as the Government asserts. . . . . The efficacy of the DPA will be dependent on subjective factors such as the provision of adequate funds for its staffing, and the skill, energy and philosophical attitudes of its members. Sufficient reliance could not be placed on the Agency to monitor and protect the rights of privacy which, by virtue of other provisions of the Bill, would become vulnerable. There is a great deal more that I would like to say, but the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) will follow me shortly. I would like to state again, as I have in the House before, what I see as my basic philosophy in terms of politics, and that is that the Government is there to serve the people-not the other way round. We the people are not there to serve the Government, the Government is there to serve the people. The Australia Card is changing that about. The honourable member for Chifley referred to what happened during World War II. I would like to say to the Parliament and to the people of Australia that in the 1930s, the people of Germany were not told of what happened, or so they said. After the war, they said, `We did not know about the concentration camps. We did not know about what the SS was doing. We did not know about all of those things'. Let the people of Australia know that this time, they are being told. The Australia Card is one way that we will lose our liberty and our freedom. I just want to conclude by quoting from a speech that President Woodrow Wilson made in New York in 1912: Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it. We must not increase the Government's power by giving it the Australia Card. We must reject it. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(4.33) —As I rise to speak on the Privacy Bill 1986 and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986, I thank the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) for his indulgence in allowing me to speak by splitting the available time with me. At the beginning of my remarks, I would like to refer to the comments made by the previous Government speaker, the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price). As I understood it, he stated that the Liberal Party of Australia did not campaign against the Australia Card, the identity card, during the election campaign. I can tell him that he is absolutely wrong, and from personal experience I can inform the House that I campaigned on the issue in my electorate. Mr Nehl —So did I. Mr SHIPTON —So did the honourable member for Cowper. I am pleased to say that I had a 2 per cent swing to me, and this was one of the big issues in my campaign. Moreover, on 7 July, I put out a national Press release pointing out that in this double dissolution election because of the ID card legislation, members of the public, Australians, were being asked to vote when they could not get copies of the Australia Card legislation, at least in Melbourne. One could not get copies of the legislation in Melbourne before an election that had been called because of that legislation. It is a scandal. I put out that release, but none of the media published it anywhere in Australia to my knowledge. The media has a lot to answer for. The honourable member for Chifley made some other comments. He referred to Hitler and said that it was outrageous to raise those arguments in this debate. I can say that one cannot trust any government of the extreme Right or the extreme Left. No government in a democracy should be given the power for people to take it over, whether they are of the Right or of the Left. Hitler and Stalin are to be condemned equally and one could imagine the even worse horror-there was horror enough-if people like Hitler and Stalin had had available to them the information that will be available to the bureaucracy and to government under the Australia Card legislation. The holocaust in Hitler's time would look like a Sunday school picnic, if his Government in pre-war Germany had had available to it by computer and on database the information that the Australian Government will have if this iniquitous legislation goes through. I would like also to deal with the driving licence argument. Government members are saying, as are a number of the proponents of the Australia Card legislation, that we all have driving licences and credit cards and this will just be another card. I do not agree with that argument and it needs to be explained. If we have a driving licence it is because we wish to drive a car, and we get a licence from the Government to do that. That is, we have an agreement between the Government and the individual to have a licence to do the thing on the licence-drive a motor vehicle. That is a one-off operation and the information that the individual puts in to get that licence should not be available to any other part of government for any other reason. It should be limited and quarantined to the driving licence itself. The issue of credit cards is a matter of choice by individuals who wish to have those cards available to them to carry out financial and commercial transactions. I recognise that it is a limited choice in many ways because if one wants to live in a modern society, one has to have credit cards. However, it is again a matter of choice, and responsibility ought to go with the bank or the commercial organisation concerned with which one has the credit card arrangement to protect one's privacy in relation to the information that one reveals in one's application for that card and in the transactions that one carries out by virtue of the use of that card. The honourable member for Chifley challenged Opposition members to express concern. I respond to that challenge and express concern. I think that there is a need for privacy legislation in relation to the state of affairs that exists at the present time. There is a need for privacy legislation in relation to private databanks that hold information about individuals. There is a need for privacy legislation in relation to information available from banks and credit card organisations, so that the use to which they can put the information that they hold and have is restricted, and in relation to whether they can trade lists and give them to other commercial organisations. I understand that the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (ANZ) is currently writing to certain bank account holders offering them free life insurance, or life insurance-I am not sure whether it is free or otherwise, but that is not relevant to the point. The point is that here is a bank writing to individual customers. I would be interested to know on what basis it does so. On the form that one has to fill in for the life insurance is a whole range of personal details. It raises real questions of privacy of the individual, and there is a need today for transactions of that type to be protected by privacy legislation so that the bank, in this case the ANZ, with personal data about us keeps it private. Banks have personal details of the lives of each and every one of us because we fill in application forms for loans and so on. There is a need for strict controls on the use that that information can be put to because we have no common law right, as individuals, to query the banks' use of that information other than for fraud-and I am not suggesting that. There is a need for the privacy of each of us to be protected. This legislation is part of the Australia Card double. The so-called privacy legislation goes hand in hand with the Australia Card Bill. The Government is not interested in privacy as a matter of principle because it has had a report from the Law Reform Commission since 1983. The Government has only suddenly discovered privacy as an issue and now professes concern about it because of the ID card legislation. The Government is attempting to make that legislation look respectable by bringing to the House the Privacy Bill that we are debating today. The Government is not interested in privacy; it is just a pretence to say to the community, `We are concerned because we have presented this privacy legislation'. Australia needs an adequate scheme for the protection of privacy-there is a crying need for it-but not the weak effort that is embodied in this pretence of legislation, a pretence that the Government is concerned with privacy when it is doing away with it in one massive step with this Australia Card legislation. It is an abortive attempt to profess concern as it introduces the most iniquitous legislation to control the lives of individual Australians that has ever been introduced. The privacy legislation is a charade; it is a patch-up job. The Government has done nothing. It has sat on the Law Reform Commission report since it received it in 1983. This is an outrage. One of the greatest problems for government and democracy today is the growth of the bureaucracy; it is one of the great dangers in our society. The growth of bureaucracy is problem enough but, coupled with the new information technology that is available through computers and databases and the linking of those databases through computers, it becomes frightening. It adds exponentially to the power of bureaucracy and, as a corollary, the growth of bureaucracy. Through the wonderful developments of new technology bureaucrats are being given an exponential increase in their power over our lives to an extent that they have never had before. The growth of bureaucracy is frightening enough without the advent of modern technology. With it, this growth becomes exponentially more frightening and the need to do something about it and to have effective privacy legislation-not the charade that just been produced to the House-becomes even greater. The information on computer databases is horrendous. It provides greater power than the Government has ever had before over the lives of Australians. In practice, it gives bureaucrats more power, because of the information they have, over the lives of Australians in an implied way than governments had in practice in real power when Australians had identity cards in Word War II. Mr Jull —More power than in any other Western democracy. Mr SHIPTON —As the honourable member quite rightly interjects, that is more power over citizens than in any other Western democracy. Dr Klugman —That is just not true. Mr SHIPTON —It is true, and the honourable member for Prospect alarms me because he is a man on the Government side that I have respect for. I would have thought he would be one person not to trust any bureaucrat with the type of information that is available under this Australia Card legislation. I want to quote from an article in the Australian newspaper of 9 September by Morris West. The article is entitled `Australia Card: beware the State'. Mr West refers to an argument that we have been urged to swallow-that the government of the day is the vigilant and benevolent defender of our rights and liberties. Morris West says: Not so. Never so. A government is a temporary instrument of power. That power is vested permanently in an entrenched public service. The public service can be brought to account for its action only with the greatest difficulty. All men are corruptible, all power corrupts in greater or less degree. In a democracy the only safe course is to cede to our elected servants as little power as is necessary and to call them constantly to answer for their use of it. I add to what Morris West said. People have to get behind the elected representatives because our power-as members of this House-to get to the bureaucracy is limited. The greatest threat is the bureaucracy that lies behind the Executive government of this nation. It is the bureaucracy that will be given greater power by the Australia Card legislation, and that legislation gives more power over individuals. This power of the bureaucracy is frightening. There is a need to limit it. Freedom has never been more under threat and attack than it is in Australia at present. Undoubtedly there is a need for privacy legislation to restore that balance and freedom before legislation is introduced that further takes privacy away in the massive way that occurs in the Australia Card legislation. The Law Council of Australia, which represents 23,000 barristers and solicitors, says that the legislation provides inadequate protection of privacy. Mr Rocher —What do the Labor lawyers say? Mr SHIPTON —They agree. That was a good interjection. Where are all the members of the Socialist Left faction of the Government who, in their hearts, do not agree with this legislation? The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples), the Minister at the table, is a member of the Socialist Left faction. I challenge him to tell this House what he really thinks about the legislation. Is he really in favour of the identity card? Mr Hunt —What about the Victorian Labor Party? Mr SHIPTON —This legislation is a challenge to Mr Cain and the Victorian Labor Party. What do they think about it? I know that Mr Unsworth does not like it. He is worried about losing seats by the bucket load over this legislation during the New South Wales election. Mr Jull —They say Mr Bannon is twitchy. Mr SHIPTON —State Labor governments will desert this legislation the nearer they get to their elections because they know that Australians abhore legislation of this nature and resist authoritarianism in every form. That is the history of a free Australia. The polls show this. In the mall in Melbourne and in my electorate I have been inundated by people who are against this legislation. There is a campaign in my electorate. People are flooding my office with petitions. In the mall in Melbourne I was part of a group of Liberals campaigning against this legislation and people were queuing up to sign petitions to present to this House against the ID card. That is how much the card is hated by the electorate. I call on the Government to withdraw it. I get back to the Data Protection Agency, the so-called protector under this legislation of our privacy. This will create just another bureaucracy with control over our lives. I would like to deal with some comments in the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who introduced this legislation, but I am cognisant that my time is running out so I will just say that the Minister, when introducing this legislation, said: Commonwealth agencies must have a lawful purpose for collecting personal information, and the purpose must be related to the functions or activities of the collector: He went on to say that personal information, which is part of the information that can be collected: is widely defined to include anything-fact, true or false, or opinion-that reasonably identifies the information-subject. How frightening that is. The Minister is condemned out of his own mouth. He has indicated the right of collectors to gather personal information and use it against us. The Data Protection Agency established under this legislation is yet another bureaucracy and at the end of the day, as the Minister has said, it can be overruled if it is in the public interest. The bureaucracy will triumph again and honourable members will find that the rights of individual Australians are condemned and damned in practice. I urge the House to vote against the legislation. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(4.51) —I wish to take up only a very brief time of the House. I appreciate that the Privacy Bill before the House certainly is associated with the ID card. I want to state my strong opposition and that of my electors to the introduction of the identity card. Like the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) who has just addressed the House, I have dozens of petitions. In fact, I have a heap of petitions with thousands of names of the people who are very concerned about the introduction of the legislation. In broad terms, I think that there has been an awakening within the community. People are now aware of what this card means for Australia. Australians will eventually be known by a number. This is against the individualism of every person in Australia. The people of this country value their freedom. As many honourable members have said, there are just reasons why we do not want to see the introduction of an Australia Card in our country. One reason I believe identity cards exist in Eastern Bloc countries is the fact that the Government has a complete knowledge of the wealth of people. Once we get our cards we will be able to be identified. Every Australian, at least 16 million people, will be recorded on data. There is nothing to stop the Government from getting full details concerning everybody, such as the property that they own, their families, the work that they do and everything else associated with this card. It would be possible to deduct digitally certain funds such as a tax of any kind on people's wealth. This could eventually be carried out in Australia. We do not want this to occur. I am confident, after checking with senior public servants and speaking to people-others have phoned and spoken to me personally-that the Government has power within its departments to be able to overcome fraud right now. A senior officer at the Department of Social Security phoned me and said, `Mr Cowan, I want to let you know that if we had the facilities and the staff we would be able to deal with fraud within the Social Security Department'. I dare say that the same situation exists with taxation, immigration and crime. That is why people do not want an extra burden placed on them. I do not believe that any Australian wants the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia or the National Party of Australia to have an identity card. People do not trust any of us because they know that a Minister or a senior officer within the Parliament, ministerial heads or officers within departments can come along and recommend that certain things be done. They can say, `You have your identity card. This can be overcome by the use of the identity card'. Any Minister can be convinced to put up a matter to the Cabinet or bring along a case to the Parliament for further responsibilities to go on to that identity card. I can appreciate why the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples), members of the Labor Left and others within the Labor Party are so firmly opposed to the identity card. They are firmly opposed to it because they do not trust their own people and they do not trust us, and rightly so too. I would not trust us either. There always comes a time when these things can actually occur. I do not know a lot about technology or computers, but experts are telling us daily in the written media, over the air and on television that there are means by which one can tap into information that is held within computers. We know that this is true. One does not have to be the Federal police or the State police to know that. A child of 8, 10 or 12 years of age with knowledge is able to experiment and do these particular things. Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the time to speak on this matter. I tender my concern on this matter. Over 50 to 60 people daily ring my office. I am sure they have also rung the offices of the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson), the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the rest of the members here. They have protested strongly to us. One Tuesday morning five people came into my office and said, `We want to see the member'. I always see people if they would like to see me. They said, `We have voted Labor. We will not vote Labor in the future because we do not like the identity card'. That is true. I think the Government should heed this. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) normally reacts to public pressure. I fully appreciate that the Government may have some form of mandate to implement the Australia Card but, irrespective of that, there are reasons why the Government should not do this. In fact, somebody said earlier that the media failed to give the Australian people the proper coverage of what the identity card meant throughout the election. I had two questions about it. Every time I went on the stump, I said, `You are going to have the Australia Card; beware of it', but the people did not heed my warning. Maybe we are a little at fault, but the fact of the matter is that the people know now. Once the election was over and people talked about it there was grave concern in the community. We do not want the identity card; we do not want the privacy Bills that are now before the House. If the Prime Minister is politically wise he will heed the advice of some of the Ministers, some of his backbenchers and the many followers that he has throughout Australia and he will throw out the legislation. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(4.57) —I do not want to take up the time of the House either. I certainly will not take up more than a few minutes to make a final appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and to the Government before the Government proceeds on a very dangerous political course. It is very dangerous for this country and for the rights of the individual. I, like millions of other Australians, thought that this was not a bad idea when it was first raised as a concept. I, like millions of other Australians, have now come to the view that this is probably the most dangerous legislation that has come before the Parliament in my lifetime. I say this because it will subjugate the individuals in the Australian community to the power of the State and the bureaucrats of this country. Surely the Prime Minister and his Ministers know that, notwithstanding the fact that the Privacy Bill and the associated Bills were the subject of a double dissolution, the Australian people at the time never realised the extent to which their own liberties and freedoms were going to be imprisoned and they voted not on this issue but on issues other than the reason for the double dissolution. In any event, the Government cannot claim to have a great mandate. The mandate is not there because in truth the combined vote of the Liberal and National parties exceeded that of the Australian Labor Party. For the sake of unity of this country and for the sake of the people the Government ought not to proceed with a piece of legislation that is alien to the very principles of liberty, privacy and the civil rights of the Australian people. I think it would be an outrage if the Government tries to tough this issue out at the expense of the principles to which most of its own members adhere. What an incredible situation we are facing in this Parliament at the moment where the Labor lawyers of this country, Labor organisations generally, and practically every Labor voter in my electorate, are opposed to this legislation. In the years that I have been a member in this place I cannot remember an issue that has caused my office more work and more difficulty and created more emotion than this particular piece of legislation. When we ultimately bring the petitions that are piling up in our offices into this place I think the Government will get the greatest shock of its life. There are thousands upon thousands of people flooding our offices, flooding public places, signing petitions, asking the Government, sending telegrams, writing to the Prime Minister, writing to Senator Susan Ryan in the other place and to everybody who has a responsibility. We must not forget that when this issue was referred to an all party committee of this Parliament, the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, it went away and did its homework and by a majority vote the Committee-which consisted of Labor, Liberal, National and Democrats members-recommended to the Government and to this Parliament that we should not proceed, but the Government chose to proceed. Question (by Mr Cunningham) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, John Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. 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. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sciacca, C.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Snowdon, W. E.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. 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. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanCohen, B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Brown, Robert Macphee, I. M.Morris, Allan Adermann, A. E.Hayden, W. G. Spender, J. M.Duffy, M. J. Reith, P. K.Hollis, C. Goodluck, B. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, John Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. 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. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Harry Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sciacca, C.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Snowdon, W. E.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. 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. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith,W. L.Fisher, Peter 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.Hunt, R. J. D. Brown, Robert Macphee, I. M.Morris, Allan Adermann, A. E.Hayden, W. G. Spender, J. M.Duffy, M. J. Reith, P. K.Hollis, C. Goodluck, B. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 5-by leave-taken together. Mr PORTER(Barker)(5.15) —The first clause of the Privacy Bill is the short title, which states: This Act may be cited as the Privacy Act 1986. This legislation is a classic example of the Hawke Government's two-card trick-it is taking away privacy, it is invading privacy, with its identity card legislation, and with this Bill, to be known as the Privacy Act, it is pretending to protect some of our rights to privacy. There is no doubt that over time there has been an increasing tendency with all government regulation and control towards the invasion of individual privacy, and there is a need to ensure the protection of individual privacy. But this Bill does not do that, and indeed it has been introduced only because the Government is introducing the ID card legislation which, as I have said, is one of the most gross invasions of privacy that this country has ever seen. As I have said, the short title explains that this legislation will become the Privacy Act. I want to draw the Committee's attention to concerns that I and a number of others on this side of the chamber have with the legislation. The Government, in clauses 1 to 5, clause 6 and a number of other clauses, refers to the ID card legislation and the establishment of the Data Protection Agency. Supposedly the Data Protection Agency will assist in the protection of individual privacy and maintain the confidentiality of information which will be stored as a result of the implementation of the ID card system. The concern I want to raise relates not just to the information stored on the Australia Card Register itself, but to other information stored by departments which is currently held by separate departments in files, more often than not document files, rather than computer files, without there being a unique identifier which links all those files. But under the ID card legislation we will for the first time have a register. People will have to provide certain information in order to get their ID card and that information will be recorded on the register. Once people have their number, they will become known as a 12-digit number and so, over time, people will be identified by that number on all the other files held by government departments including the Department of Social Security, the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Community Services and Health. These files will be identified by this same unique identifier, a person's ID card number. As I have said, to this date I suppose my file in the Taxation Office is filed under my name or perhaps my tax file number, so someone wanting to get information on my income tax return would have to know my name or my tax file number and then would have to get into the Tax Office and get access to that physical file. As I understand it, the files are not sufficiently computerised yet to have all that information on computer. So it is a physical task to get in there or get someone from the Office to get the information. The concern I express is that once we have the ID card, the unique identifier, it will not be necessary for someone actually to get into the Tax Office and get the information he might want on me which is now held by just that Office. Rather, with the unique identifier, once we have the number we will have access, as these departments go on computer, to all the records that are held about individual citizens-their health records, income tax records, and social security records; and, no doubt, as other departments go on computer and use the ID card number, foreign affairs records, immigration records and so on will all be linked with this one number. The Government says, `But that is not right. This Privacy Bill, the Data Protection Agency and other security measures taken by the Government will ensure that people will not be able to get access to your information. We will set up all these protective measures to ensure that people cannot readily get access to your information. For example, we will limit the number of people who have access to the computer which will access the ID card register, which is the first step to getting the other information held in departments such as Health, or the Australian Taxation Office, using your ID card number. So we will limit the number of people who have access to the ID card register'. The Government also says that those who access that register will be identified by the computer and that that identification will be recorded. So if a clerk named Joe Smith accesses the register, it will actually be recorded by the computer that Smith has accessed the register. The Government says that that is protection for the individual. I put it to the Committee that that provides very little protection. There will be terminals all round the country. Once a person has access to the register, what happens to the information that comes out from the register? Is it converted into a written document? If it is, if it becomes a document of some form, what protection is there in relation to the document? That can be used in any way an individual likes. Despite all these complicated devices to ensure that only a limited number of people have access to the register and that, when they have access, they are identified, once the information is actually converted to a document what security is there in relation to that piece of paper? Of course, that piece of paper can be leaked and so on. In addition, what guarantee is there that I will not be able, for example, to use someone else's identification to access the computer? What security will there be in relation to the restricted number of people supposedly who have access to the register? We are not told that. Another of the concerns is hackers getting into the computer. The Government says, `That will not be able to occur because we will have dedicated landlines'. Even if dedicated landlines work-and there is some doubt that they will-is the Government saying that the Department of Social Security, the Tax Office and the Department of Community Services and Health will all have dedicated landlines? If they do not, once someone knows a person's ID card number and all the files are linked by that unique identifier, the ID card number, the hackers can get into the Social Security, the Tax Office or the Health computers. Once they have the ID card number they have access to the files. So it is not just a matter of having a dedicated landline for ID card purposes for the ID card register. The Government has to give us dedicated landlines for all the departments because once the ID card comes in each person's record in each department will have the one number and that will give access to all information held by the various departments on an individual. Despite all the guarantees that have been given by the Government and this legislation called the Privacy Bill, my view is that there will be no protection of individual privacy and that the ID card legislation and this legislation together are one of the greatest invasions of privacy that this country has ever seen. The Government's promise to provide protection of individual privacy with this very limited legislation means nothing at all. It really is the classic two-card trick. The Government says, `We will bring in an ID card. We will number you, but we will protect your privacy by introducing this Privacy Bill'-which does absolutely nothing. The concern I expressed a moment ago relates not only to the records now all being linked with a unique identifier but also to the fact that, if other departments' records go on computers, people can hack into all those records and with a person's ID card number access personal information. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(5.25) —I rise to support strongly the comments made by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). This chamber listened at an earlier stage to a seven-page outline of the legislation presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). We now have a last opportunity at the committee stage to express a response, and that response must take into account some of the pertinent statements made by the Attorney-General. First of all, he told this chamber that at common law there is no enforceable right to privacy as such. However, there are various existing legal rights that protect aspects of what are generally regarded as individual privacy. He admitted that, in recent times, there have been enormous developments in technology for processing information and providing opportunities for building up and using information on individuals. He went on to say: This has focused attention on the need to provide more comprehensive measures for protecting privacy against the threat posed by misuse of this technology. The really significant point is: This has been recognised during the development of the Australia Card by the decision to establish the Data Protection Agency . . . All of this significantly draws attention to the fact that, despite this legislation which the Committee is now considering and its relationship to the Australia Card legislation, the real truth of the matter is that privacy is at risk. The real truth of the matter is that, if this legislation is passed, all Australians will find themselves at risk from the point of view of reasonable privacy. What do we find in the information before us that we must take into account? We find that this is really a smokescreen to try to give the impression that there is a legislative process that will create protection. The truth of the matter obviously is that, in the modern day of technology advancement and so on, there can be no guarantee. It is also very apparent from statements by people who have the technical capacity to know the answers to these questions that what is proposed, and what this Committee now has a last opportunity to deal with, is a fictitious proposition. I put it to the Committee that the protests from people in my electorate far exceed anything since the days of bank nationalisation in the number of petitions that have been signed, the number of letters that have come in, and so on. Why? It is largely because of the import of what is contained in the legislation before this Committee: an attempt to claim that provision is being made for privacy when this is not the case. The honourable member for Barker sounded a warning in a very appropriate way and I am sure that honourable members on both sides of the chamber will have taken notice of that warning. I urge the Committee at this stage to move to recommit this Bill and the related Australia Card legislation. If it is not done in this place, surely in another place it would be appropriate for the whole matter to be recommitted so that we can get to the truth and the import of the legislation that we are now dealing with. One of the clauses before us relates, of course, to the title of the Bill. That title is misleading. That title is intended, without a doubt, to mislead the Australian people on this very vital issue. Unless there is a move by the Government at this last moment, the Australian people are justified in seeking a recommittal in another place and some further action to clarify the claims that have been made in order to elucidate the truth of the matter and to enable the people of this country to see clearly that present day technology does not provide protection; the opposite is the case. It creates the risk, the very premise, upon which privacy would be lost. The mere existence of this legislation would be an inadequate protection. I believe that the majority of members of this House, if they were given a free vote, would throw out this legislation. The Bill still has to pass the third reading stage. I hope there will be time before this legislation becomes law-if it is not done now-for it to be reassessed so that the facts can be brought to light. If that were done, there is no question that a vote against it would occur. On behalf of my constituents, the people who have approached me in recent weeks, those who now realise the dangers, I say very strongly that we on this side of the chamber oppose this Bill with all the vigour and capacity that we have, and we will go on doing so regardless of what occurs during the remainder of the committee stage this afternoon. Progress reported. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.34) —Last Thursday night, before this debate was interrupted by the adjournment debate, I outlined the magnitude of the amount of additional income tax to be harvested in this financial year and the next. The amount of income tax to be paid by individuals, not by companies, will increase by $2 1/4 billion over the 1987-88 financial year and by $5 billion in the next financial year. Despite the illusory reductions which became effective on 1 July-- Dr Harry Edwards —The biggest taxing government of all time. Mr ROCHER —Indeed, it has the record and it looks like keeping it for the rest of the time that it remains in office. That is in keeping with the record of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and his Government-the biggest taxers in our history, as the honourable member for Berowra has interjected. This Government simply fails to recognise that the disincentive of excessive taxation is reflected in people's willingness to work, save, invest and take economic risks. When tax rates become excessive, as they remain today, people not only do less of these productive activities, but also they move into the underground and barter economies. They smuggle, evade taxes and even vote with their feet by moving to places where the correlation between effort and reward is more advantageous. The Treasurer, as if to justify an overall increase of 9.2 per cent in the amount of all income tax to be collected in this financial year-an increase, incidentally, which is well in excess of the projected inflation rate of just over 6 per cent-with twisted logic, invokes his new capital gains tax. That ploy in his Budget Speech is of more interest for what it does not say about the capital gains tax than for what it does say. The Department of the Treasury, not the Treasurer, tells us at pages 298 and 299 of Budget Paper No. 1 that capital gains taxes will yield $50m to $100m in this financial year. Dr Harry Edwards —It was going to be five. Mr ROCHER —Yes, it was going to be five. But that is not a bad margin for error-$50m to $100m. The difficulty is probably explained at length, if not all that convincingly I suppose, in footnote (d). Although $50m to $100m is not all that significant-except for us mere mortals-for a Budget which sets out to spend a total of more than $78 billion, comparatively insignificantly as it is, the Treasurer can use expected new capital gains raisings to justify a return to negative gearing for certain income producing property. That thinking, however juvenile and unworthy of one who would be Prime Minister one day, is better than having to admit that the coalition's warnings, given at the time, about the consequential effects of the self-same Treasurer's earlier outlawing of negative gearing benefits for property owners and those providing rental income, were correct. The Treasurer, who is not one to eat humble pie or admit his mistakes, has avoided acknowledging his earlier stupidity in this connection. His Department is more circumspect, however, particularly about the total amount of capital gains tax to be gained in this financial year. In the Budget Papers the Treasury makes it clear that the new capital gains tax was not a factor worth mentioning when talking about collections in excess of estimates for the financial year 1986-87, that is, last year. While Government members at large have sought to show otherwise, vast additional amounts have been raised under the section 26aaa provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act-not the capital gains tax provision-which were in place long before the present Government came to office in 1983. So-called tax reform cannot therefore be accurately cited, as some honourable members opposite would have us believe. Because share trading has boomed over the past 12 months or so, section 26aaa collections exceeded estimates for last year, and there is a chance that they will exceed estimates this year. With that boom comes a problem for the Government which will mature sooner or later. Everyone knows, or should know, that the bears will have their day in the share market and that every share trading boom is followed by a bust. We all know that it must happen, but few of us are bold enough to say when it will happen. However, when the inevitable occurs, its effects will not only see traders with burnt fingers, but also the Government's coffers will suffer. With that certain knowledge in mind, the Australian Taxation Office is already establishing the foundation for avoidance practices of its own. Because time will not permit today, I do not intend to go into that matter in detail. I shall certainly take up that issue at an appropriate time. So much for the claim of tax fairness which the Treasurer made in his speech. Given the wording of the capital gains tax law as it stands now, some measures of fairness in this context would be restored if section 26AAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act were repealed with immediate effect. It is no longer relevant. It would have the desirable effect of removing more discretion from the Commissioner of Taxation which he may-I emphasise the word `may'-be tempted to use or abuse, as he has in some of his other areas of discretion. Many of our economic problems appear to have only belatedly registered with the Government. Although the portents have been there for all to see for some two or three years, the big spending, big taxing and big borrowing policies of the earlier Hawke-Keating governments laid the foundation for the great difficulties we have at the moment. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) alone in the Government seems to have grasped the gravity of our economic problems. He alone in the Government is credible in identifying the frightening prospects and advocating possible remedies. Senator Walsh seems to understand that economic growth is a process of individual self-generated increase in expansion. It is not a process of collecting drops from some great bucket of wealth in the sky. While his remarks at the weekend are topical and even though he may not, as the Treasurer now claims, have brought his views before the Cabinet, the truth is that this senior Cabinet Minister has been unable to convince the Government of the folly of its Budget. The speech made by Senator Walsh at the weekend was not, after all, his first in the same vein. On 7 August this year, before the Budget was finalised, he spoke in a similar way. An interesting side issue which says much about the lack of cohesion in the inner sanctums of this Government is that its Minister for Finance had to take his arguments on two occasions to the public, as it were, to state a case which his peers did not want a bar of. I think that that is a measure of the lack of fiscal competence of this Government and there is no better person than Senator Walsh to have made that point apparent. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(5.43) —In speaking to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, I am pleased to support a national Budget of which Australians should be proud. This is not only because of the reduction in the deficit, important though that may be: the importance is for the long term well-being of Australians as the detrimental effects of governments going beyond their means to provide essential services are virtually obliterated with the presentation of Australia's first balanced Budget for some years. Honourable members will remember that when we came to office in 1983 the Department of the Treasury projected a deficit blowout of $9 billion to $10 billion. In the 1986-87 Budget brought down by this Government the deficit had been dragged back to $2.7 billion. Now, at the start of the Thirty-fifth Parliament, with the Australian Labor Party's historic third consecutive victory, and in Lilley our historic fourth consecutive victory, the Hawke Government has brought down a widely acclaimed Budget-Australia's first virtually balanced Budget since 1970-71. The domestic deficit with which we have lived and on which we, the taxpayers, have paid interest is now $27m in the context of a $78,146m Budget. Indicators show that the Labor Government's policies to lift our economic performance, bringing down interest rates and inflation and increasing job opportunities are working. The first indicators are there and there is room for much encouragement. In fact, this should encourage all sectors of our society as neither the most creative nor the most reformist of policies will benefit working people and those without jobs if the country is allowed to lurch into depression. But encouraging as the balanced Budget is, it would have been unsatisfactory if it had been achieved at the cost of low income and disadvantaged people in our society. The reform keystone of the 1987-88 Budget is the family package. The package, which will be introduced this December, will enable real increases in the standard of living of more than half a million families and more than one million children. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table setting out total weekly payments for families under the family allowance package. Leave granted. The table read as follows- THE FAMILY PACKAGE Family Allowance Supplement TOTAL WEEKLY PAYMENTS FOR FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN* RENTING PRIVATELY** Total family income Weekly Annual Number of children 1 2 3 4 5 $ $ Under 250 Under 13,000 37.00 59.00 81.00 103.00 125.00 250 13,000 37.00 59.00 81.00 103.00 125.00 260 13,520 37.00 59.00 81.00 103.00 125.00 270 14,040 37.00 59.00 81.00 103.00 125.00 280 14,560 37.00 59.00 81.00 103.00 125.00 290 15,080 37.00 59.00 81.00 103.00 125.00 300 15,600 37.00 59.00 81.00 103.00 125.00 310 16,120 32.00 59.00 81.00 103.00 125.00 320 16,640 27.00 55.00 81.00 103.00 125.00 330 17,160 22.00 50.00 78.00 103.00 125.00 340 17,680 17.00 45.00 73.00 101.00 125.00 350 18,200 12.00 40.00 68.00 96.00 124.00 360 18,720 7.00 35.00 63.00 91.00 119.00 370 19,240 2.00 30.00 58.00 86.00 114.00 380 19,760 0.00 25.00 53.00 81.00 109.00 390 20,280 0.00 20.00 48.00 76.00 104.00 400 20,800 0.00 15.00 43.00 71.00 99.00 410 21,320 0.00 10.00 38.00 66.00 94.00 420 21,840 0.00 5.00 33.00 61.00 89.00 430 22,360 0.00 0.00 28.00 56.00 84.00 440 22,880 0.00 0.00 23.00 51.00 79.00 460 23,920 0.00 0.00 13.00 41.00 69.00 480 24,960 0.00 0.00 3.00 31.00 59.00 500 26,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 49.00 520 27,040 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 39.00 540 28,080 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 29.00 560 29,120 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.00 580 30,160 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 600 31,200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 *Families will receive an additional amount of $6 a week for each child aged 13 to 15. **Families not in private rental accommodation can estimate the payment they will receive by subtracting $15 a week from the above amounts. All payments are tax-free. Note: In addition to the above payments families will also be eligible for the relevant Family Allowance payment for each child. Mrs DARLING —I thank the House. The importance of this measure should not be talked down. Although it will not benefit all Australians in the short term in that those with two children and earning $430 or more a week and those with three children and earning $500 or more a week, phasing out to a family with five children and earning $600, will not gain from the package, it will benefit the nation by lifting our ethical standards as a nation. Poverty should not be allowed even to exist in Australia. According to today's Courier-Mail, Mr Julian Disney, the President of the Australian Council of Social Service, said: . . . the number of Australians living in poverty had increased substantially over the past 10 years to more than 2 million. That is entirely unacceptable. Mr Disney also said: . . . new initiatives by the Government, including the Family Assistance Package, would have a significant impact on the incidence of poverty. While poverty was on the increase, the Australian nation had become substantially richer. The problem is that the gap between those who are substantially richer and those who are substantially poorer was widened. As Mr Disney says, more resources must be allocated in the future to relieve this poverty in a number of positive ways. This Budget is a very good start. I am pleased that the general public supports it as this support will enable the Government to make the family package the first of a number of similar packages. But to do this, we must recoup money lost to Australia through methodical and dishonest abuse of the tax and welfare systems by some people. That is why we should support the Australia Card. Certainly, there are questions of privacy which are being well canvassed. Those questions have been there for at least a decade, as the business world has reaped the advantages of sophisticated computer systems. Where were all the crusaders of civil liberties in the Opposition then? Members of the public have been subjected to having their names, addresses, credit ratings, taste in reading matter, art, household furnishings or heaven knows what else recorded on lists which have been offered at a price to a variety of direct marketing organisations. Evidently it was all right to turn a blind eye to the sale of people's rights of privacy to benefit certain business people but suddenly it is not all right to use the same technology of computerisation to benefit taxpayers who are being ripped off because some people effectively protected by the old system will not pay their way. These are the same honest, taxpaying, average Australians whose jobs were put at risk while machines took over from men and women. Only the unions protested loudly on behalf of those workers at risk. Now it is proposed that the system be used to benefit those self-same people, and lobbies have emerged to kill the proposal at its inception. I am particularly angered by the distortions used to discredit the Australia Card proposal by people who should and do know better. I refer particularly to the references made to the nazi system under Adolf Hitler which used a pass system. To suggest that because such an oppressive and horrific regime used a pass system, or any system, to attack its own people, and that such a card system would do the same in a democracy such as Australia, is ludicrous. It is tantamount to saying that because Adolf Hitler used the army against the people to oppress them, we should do away with the army in Australia. If we have a future oppressive government, we, as a people, are in big trouble. It would use our entire communications system, our defence forces and our transport outlets against the people. Do we do away with those services because it is quite okay to use them under a good government but they may be used against us under another government? The Australian editorial commented on 8 May 1985: The average Australian today has a Medicare card, a Bankcard and probably one or more other credit cards issued by department stores, credit unions or organisations such as American Express or Diners Club. The Australian Taxation Office has a record of his income and tax-deductible expenditure, and the Immigration Department knows if he has a passport and has travelled overseas. The Electoral Office has a record of his address and occupation, and his State government knows if he has a drivers licence and owns a car. There has been a breakthrough in that the Data Protection Agency is now proposed as part of this legislation. This should be welcomed and worked upon. I do not intend to canvass all of the issues again. I have for people in my electorate and other people in that area a listing of the workings of the Australia Card. That will be available upon request. I do not suggest that serious reservations regarding privacy expressed by concerned and thoughtful people should be brushed aside, but surely the rewards for the large majority of law-abiding Australians are worth a little more constructive suggestion regarding ways to amend the legislation as suggested by Senator Ryan rather than tossing out a major means of bringing in the revenue needed to implement important social reforms such as the family package to narrow the gap between those Australians who have adequate or excess financial support and those who, to our joint shame, have not. I have received many expressions of support for and of protest against the Australia Card. I am taking note of all these viewpoints. But overall I am saying, `Give the proposal a go. Make it work. Give it your very best effort'. The poor just cannot wait any longer on the sidelines for the resolution of a public debate which is really based not on this particular card, but on privacy provisions for all computerised systems which have been operative in Australia for years. I am saying, `Continue with the debate by all means and provide additional privacy provisions to cover the systems already in use including the Australia Card, but do not cut the life support system of the poor'. There are a number of anomalies or social injustices which have caused great stress for certain groupings of people. I am pleased to report that this Budget has addressed these. One such anomaly is an aspect I addressed to Senator Ryan following the introduction of Austudy this year. This is an interim payment before Austudy is granted. If people on unemployment benefit advise the Department of Social Security that they are undertaking full time study they lose eligibility to employment benefit and may apply for Austudy. At present, unemployment benefit is cancelled immediately the Department receives verification that Austudy will be paid. However, there is usually a gap between the time benefit is cancelled and Austudy commences. This most certainly caused stress to a number of people who were on unemployment benefit and had that benefit cut off, including the rent allowance, and who then had to wait until their Austudy payments came in. Therefore, I am very pleased that before 1 January 1988 benefit will continue to be paid until the study course starts. Austudy, when granted, is paid from 1 January and any excess benefit paid for the same period will be recovered by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Another change which will be welcomed by the Australian people is to the child disability allowance. The child disability allowance will be introduced from 15 November 1987 and will replace the existing handicapped child's allowance. The handicapped child's allowance is paid under two categories: severely disabled, which is income test free, and substantially disabled, which is subject to a financial hardship test. This has concerned me and others and we have expressed this concern. The child disability allowance, I am pleased to say, will make no distinction between severely and substantially disabled children. This is very welcome. It will be paid income test free to all disabled children covered under the current category of handicapped child's allowance. The child disability allowance will be $112 a month-an increase of $20 over the handicapped child's allowance currently paid at a maximum rate of $92 a month. I also welcome the extension of eligibility to the much used and very welcome carer's pension. The carer's pension is presently available to near relatives who provide constant care and attention to an age or invalid pensioner. From 1 February 1988 eligibility for this pension will be extended to people who are not close relatives but who are providing constant care and attention to severely physically or mentally disabled age or invalid pensioners living in the same home. This will provide much needed financial support for those people who have already dedicated much of their lives to the care of others in extreme need. I welcome this aspect of the Budget. Another point is the retention of fringe benefits. At present, fringe benefit entitlements cease once gross weekly income reaches $75 for a single person, $126 combined for a couple, plus $20 for each dependent child-student in their care. From 1 January 1988, people will be able to retain entitlement to fringe benefits for up to three months if their income rises by no more than 25 per cent above the fringe benefit allowable income levels. For example, a single person whose gross weekly income does not exceed $95.75-that is 125 per cent of the $75 allowable income level-will be able to retain fringe benefit eligibility for up to three months. If the income does not drop below the fringe benefit allowable income limit within that three-month period, eligibility will then cease. So again, compassionately, time is given to people who are suddenly caught in this situation. In regard to sole parents retaining fringe benefits, in the May economic statement, the maximum eligibility for widow's pension Class A and supporting parent's benefit was restricted to people with a dependent child under the age of 16 years. This meant that a number of sole parents whose only dependent child was a student aged 16 to 24 would lose their entitlement from 1 September 1987. This has caused much concern. To give these people more time to adjust their plans for the future, sole parents who lose their pension or benefit between 1 September and 31 December 1987 as a result of that change, will retain their eligibility to fringe benefits until the end of 1988 provided, apart from the age of the qualifying child, they remain eligible for fringe benefits. In this context I am also representing a number of people in my electorate, women who have given their time to stay home and look after their families for many years, particularly those who married at a time when it was not expected, and there were no provisions, for people to be able to find extra work outside the home. As a result of being with their families for many years they now find that they lack the confidence to be able to emerge from this situation and to be able to take on paid outside work where there is paid outside work available. Therefore, I will be speaking with the appropriate committees and with the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) regarding the situation which these people are facing. Sole parents currently in full time Austudy approved courses before 1 September 1987 who would have lost pension or benefit after 1 September 1987 because the youngest student child is over 16 years of age will now be able to continue receiving payment until they complete their courses of study provided they meet the other eligibility requirements. These people will also continue to be paid an education allowance from the Department of Employment, Education and Training. There are many aspects of this Budget to which I would like to address myself, but time does not permit at this stage. However, I would like to repeat that a Budget has been brought in which acknowledges that a large number of people within Australia have been having a terrible struggle bringing up families when their pay packets, pension envelopes or cheques have not been enough to go round on a week by week basis. They have not been enough for some people to be able to clothe or feed their children properly. In any nation, this is entirely unacceptable, but this is especially so in a comparatively affluent nation such as Australia, regardless of the problems we are facing. I am very pleased that the Government has taken a stand in moving to offer more than kind words to people who are caught in this dreadful poverty trap. It is about time that this nation showed that it is indeed a mature, grown-up nation willing to accept responsibility for those people who are in an under-privileged situation. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(6.02) —I agree with the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling). It is about time that we showed that we are a mature and responsible nation, and recognised the severe economic plight in which we find ourselves. I repeat my comment that it is a great pity that the Government does not take it upon itself to replace the incumbent Treasurer (Mr Keating) with the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. It is a great pity that we are not debating Senator Walsh's Budget, because he at least is publicly prepared to discuss the real issues that face Australia today. I am afraid that I have to agree with him and disagree fundamentally with the Treasurer in his approach to preparing the Budget this year. For the benefit of those honourable members who have not heard Senator Walsh's comments, let me make some brief reference to his remarks, which were made in Perth during the weekend. He said that the Budget may have been `oversold'. That may be an understatement because Treasurer Keating's Budgets are a multimedia spectacular rather than a statement of economic policy. We even changed the sitting time of the House to accommodate the needs of the television networks. He makes sure that there is dramatic impact, and very little detail. Unfortunately, that does no service to the Australian economy. At the weekend, Senator Walsh not only made that point, but said that there was complacency in the Government about its economic management. He is also reported as saying: There are 200 government-funded programs that cannot be justified on social or equity grounds; The Federal Government lacked the necessary political courage to bite into indulgent social welfare programs; I find that comment most telling when it was not so long ago that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was telling the entire nation that we were in a crisis akin to a war and that it was absolutely necessary that we all recognise that and take the hard decisions. In the election campaign, and even during recent weeks, the Prime Minister has been running around the country saying, `My Government has taken the hard decisions. We have addressed the issues that needed to be addressed'. He is creating the impression that the Government has solved Australia's economic problems and adjusted the structure of the Australian economy to accommodate the changing world circumstances, so we no longer have anything to worry about. That was the general impression pervading the Treasurer's presentation in the chamber the other night. However, we find that a member of the Cabinet, and of the Government Expenditure Review Committee, the Minister for Finance, whose name is jointly on all the Budget Papers with that of the Treasurer, is saying, `This is not true. The Government lacks guts. It is cowardly. It is not prepared to get on with the job of taking the tough decisions in Australia and putting our country back on the right track'. The problem that we have is that the Treasurer has, in recent weeks, admitted his desire to become Prime Minister. The Treasurer is also an astute politician, and he knows that Treasurers in this country have a bad image in the public because generally they are delivering bad news, putting up the price of cigarettes and beer, increasing taxes-taking all those tough decisions about which people get upset. If one aspires to be Prime Minister, one has to have a very good approval rating and be popular. One does not want to be tagged as being the Treasurer, the chap who took all those nasty decisions which make people dislike him. If one has a choice between the Walsh option, which is the sensible option that addresses the fiscal realities of Australia today and of our place in a rapidly changing and competitive world and the option taken by the Treasurer the other night and one aspires to be Prime Minister, I guess one has the preference of going for the soft option, which is a disaster for Australia. I shall deal with that at length later. First, I would like to discuss the media reaction to the Budget. The Treasurer walked in here on Tuesday night and his calculated speech began with these words: Madam Speaker, the Budget for 1987-88 is in balance. The deficit has been cut to . . . $27m. That is all that we heard of, that is all that the Press Gallery reported, and that was on the television or in the newspapers the next morning. There was very little critical analysis of the Budget and its implications for Australia in its current economic circumstances. I find such a euphoric response amazing when the economic reality of Australia today is fairly bad. Australia still has, as I said earlier today, a foreign debt of about $110 billion, and it is rising. We have a current account deficit in excess of $11 billion, and despite the sometimes glib statements of the Treasurer and other members of the Government, it is not likely to go away in two or three years. We still have 9 per cent inflation, which is very high, particularly when compared with rates of inflation in the United States of America and western Europe. We still have 8.5 per cent unemployment and, interestingly, this Government, in its Budget, says that nothing much will happen with unemployment. It has traded off the spectacular image overseas, the glib presentation of the Budget, for unemployment. It does not anticipate that growth and job creation in the economy will do anything about the 8.5 per cent unemployment rate. Fundamentally, we still have the lowest rate of private investment in productive capital for almost two decades. It concerns me greatly that this is the Government's attitude, and that it is quite hypocritical in its approach. We have heard ad nauseam from Government members about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been created by the Hawke Labor Government. I have never heard so much rubbish in my life. The Hawke Labor Government has created only those jobs on which it has spent taxpayers' money creating spots in the public sector, for a short time in most cases. The reality is that in the Australian economy, the private sector creates jobs, not the Government. People who are prepared to invest their capital and risk their savings to establish a business and employ other people create jobs. Governments do not create jobs, and it astounds me that the glib reporting of the Gallery keeps talking about government-created jobs. If the Gallery wants to confine its remarks exclusively to public sector jobs, technically it is correct, but in terms of private sector jobs, it is nothing short of economic rubbish to talk about the government-created jobs. Someone should take some sections of the media through an analysis of what the economy will do in terms of job creation at a normal rate, and compare that with what has happened over the past few years under the Hawke Labor Government. Senator Walsh understands exactly what the Treasurer has done with his Budget. He has walked away from fiscal responsibility and put down a Budget which is predicated on continuing high rates of foreign capital inflow to Australia. That foreign capital inflow goes into the public and private sectors by way of borrowing, foreign equity investment and foreign portfolio investment-equity into Australian businesses, portfolio investment through our stock exchanges-and investment in real estate. It is this capital inflow that is enabling the current Government's policies to continue, because it will finance our current account deficit. This foreign capital inflow has been attracted by our low dollar and our high interest rates, with the result that the dollar has been pushed up. When the dollar was allowed to float and it fell, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister said, `We have to have a dollar which reflects the real value of the Australian currency, and, by the way, it will restore international competitiveness to Australian industry'. But rather than have a free float of the dollar and allow it to move to reflect the true value, the Government has had the Reserve Bank of Australia involved in the market. These days the exchange rate really is managed. The Reserve Bank has been able to make considerable profits as a result of trading in the Australian dollar. Notwithstanding that, the inflow of capital has pushed up the value of the Australian dollar and reduced that competitive advantage that Australian industry was getting from the reduced dollar. Foreign capital has also been attracted to our country by our very high rates of interest. We have had record high interest rates for almost the entire term of this Government. They are slipping now, but I will return to that in a few moments. Those high rates of interest were deliberate because this Government would not come to grips with wages policy and with fiscal restraint and also needed foreign capital inflow. If the dollar is undervalued or low and there are high rates of interest, money will be moved internationally into this country and will finance the activities of a government if it is not prepared to take those hard decisions and come to grips with them. This foreign capital inflow has not only pushed up the value of the dollar but has also fuelled the stock exchange boom. There is an immense amount of foreign capital in the Australian Stock Exchange at present and in our capital markets generally. I have mentioned that the Reserve Bank's activity in terms of trading in the Australian dollar as the result of capital inflow and the floating of the dollar has contributed to this Budget of well over $1 billion. Also, foreign capital in our stock exchanges has contributed to balancing this Budget. Capital gains tax on shares has reaped an unexpected harvest and as a result has made a substantial contribution to balancing the Budget. This Government, despite its rhetoric about tax cuts, is planning a 9 per cent increase in income tax receipts this fiscal year. That is partly the result of the inflation occurring through the Government's monetary and fiscal policies and its failure to come to grips with a decentralised wages policy. It is interesting to note that in the past five years, the Hawke Labor Government's income has increased by 75 per cent. People express amazement at how the Treasurer managed to balance the Budget. But he did not balance the Budget the real way, the tough way, by coming to grips with waste. He did it by taxing Australians and Australian businesses more and more. Mr Tim Fischer —If he balanced it at all. Mr BLUNT —The honourable member for Farrer questions whether he balanced it at all. He is alluding to the two points that have been discussed before; that is, that the Budget has been balanced only by selling off part of Australia's national assets and by taking into account those exchange trading profits of the Reserve Bank. It is interesting to note that, if the standards of the corporate sector were applied to this Budget, the Treasurer would not be allowed to do that. Unless one is a currency speculator-and I hope the Australian Government is not a professional currency speculator-exchange gains are an extraordinary item and should appear below the line. That is the reality. It is a source of income that cannot be guaranteed for the next year. If the Treasurer were being economically responsible he certainly would not have included that in the Budget this year. Perhaps more should have been made of that in reporting the Budget and its impact on our economy. The Treasurer's Budget rests, as I said, on continuing capital inflow, borrowing more and selling more-borrowing more to finance the Government's expenditure and the activities of the private sector, and selling more of Australian equity; either selling government-owned assets, assets owned by the Australian people, or selling an equity position in Australian businesses and allowing foreign investors into our real estate market. Heaven only knows, we have seen the impact of that recently, particularly in Sydney, with an escalation of prices. We have also seen foreign investors take very strong positions in Australian stock exchanges and capital markets. The problem we face with this approach to the Budget is that the Budget is very much like a house of cards. If the foreign capital inflow, for one reason or another, stops, so does everything else. It is based on confidence and is fairly much of a gamble. We have seen interest rates fall in recent months. Part of the attraction for foreign capital to come into Australia is our above average interest rates. If our interest rates continue to fall, particularly in the context of overseas interest rates rising-and that is the situation that pertains in the United States at the present time-there will come a point when the attractiveness of investing in Australia and transferring international capital into the Australian economy will be reduced substantially. When that point is reached, either capital inflow ceases or our interest rates have to go back up again. The other consequence of continuing capital inflow is that the value of the Australian dollar continues to go up. In recent days it has hit 73c, which is a considerably higher level than the 57c that I remember something less than two years ago. The two reactions will have a dramatic impact on how this Government can continue to handle Australia's economy and on what that means for Australians generally and Australian business. If interest rates are forced to rise again, there will be more and more pressure on the profitability of the business sector. If our dollar is pushed up as a result of this capital inflow, the competitiveness of our industries will be reduced and the much vaunted J-curve certainly will not work at all. As one of my colleagues said the other day, it will turn into a walking stick and be very much of a crutch for the Treasurer. As Senator Walsh said in Perth, the problem is that we are not coming to grips with the real problems of the Australian economy. They will not be addressed until we show fiscal responsibility and restraint. There is an overwhelming need in this economy to reduce government expenditure. If Senator Walsh can, off the top of his head, name 200 government programs which cannot be justified in economic or social terms, a thorough and ongoing review of government expenditure would come up with considerably more. The savings available would be sufficient to genuinely provide Australia with a balanced Budget. Of course, what is also necessary is a reduction in tax. It is necessary to consider only two things-the 9 per cent projected increase in income tax revenues for the coming financial year and the 75 per cent increase in total Federal government revenues over five years-to see exactly what has gone on in the course of this Government. The Government has balanced the Budget not by reducing expenditure but by increasing taxes. The one thing that our economy should not be burdened with at the present time is a continued increase in tax levies. That reduces incentive. That is why we have perhaps one of the lowest levels of private capital formation in the past 20 years. The prescription for stopping Australia going down the track that we are on at present of a further and continuing decline in living standards and reversing that and moving back into a situation where our economy grows, our productivity increases and people can look forward to rising standards of living in the future is to encourage investment and to provide incentive for people to invest and to work harder. Of course, that means we must reduce tax rates. Unfortunately, to do that would make the Treasurer come to grips with some very tough decisions. Those tough decisions, as I mentioned earlier, might have some impact on his political popularity. It was said not so many years ago that Treasurer Keating was a determined man. He said of himself, I think-and this has been quoted widely, so I assume it to be accurate-that he is the glue in Cabinet; he is the one who can take the tough decisions. I wonder what happened when he was framing the last Budget. I guess he had his eye on the main chance, the concern that he has to replace the incumbent Prime Minister at the first available opportunity. He knows that he has the factional numbers lined up. He knows that that is the crowning achievement of any member of parliament's career and that he could not do it if he had brought down the Budget necessary in Australia's present circumstances. The Government has just been re-elected and says that it has a mandate. I do not accept that it has a mandate for a lot of things, including the ID card. It has three years to run. Members of its Cabinet and Expenditure Review Committee are aware of its problems. Some political commentators are talking about Australia's future. Just about everybody is aware of the size of Australia's foreign debt, our continuing current account imbalance, our high rates of inflation and unemployment and our low rate of investment. The Government walks away from the tough decisions and walks away from bringing in an economically responsible Budget. It brings in what is essentially a Budget designed to enhance the image of the Treasurer to give him one massive bit of publicity as the man who worked the economic miracle. I guess he is trying to compensate for losing his medal as the world's greatest Treasurer. Unfortunately in bringing down a Budget which is predicated on the basis I have explained here this evening he has confirmed that he is an economic lightweight and more concerned with politics than with the future of this country. Let me say categorically that that is not the stuff of a Prime Minister of this country, particularly in the economic crisis that we are in, and still in, despite what the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are saying. A Prime Minister who seeks to lead Australia at present needs to have courage, conviction and determination to do what is absolutely necessary in the long term interests of Australia and our people. Last Tuesday night the Treasurer demonstrated that he was expedient and more concerned with his own political career than he was with the future of the Australian nation. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(6.22) —It is very pleasing that this debate is not on the air because I think the people of Australia would have had cause for a bit of wrist-slashing if they had to put up with the last 20 minutes of whingeing, whining and personal vilification of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Mr Humphreys —But it is disappointing that they will not be able to hear you. Mr MILDREN —That is true, but I am prepared to sacrifice that for the sake of the Australian community. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) made some comment about jobs. It was terribly niggardly and negative. Quite obviously members of the Opposition have been having a great deal of difficulty finding something in the Budget where they could actually make a criticism. The honourable member for Richmond talks about economic lightweights. He ought to have a look at the transcript of his own speech. I think he will blanch when he actually reads it. I do not think I have heard so much drivel in the time that I have been in this Parliament. I can assure honourable members that it really is a very sad state of affairs. It is a funny thing that when the honourable member was talking about Senator Walsh he never made comment of the fact that Senator Walsh also made the statement that he believed that there should have been no cuts in taxes. As the honourable member for Richmond has now left the chamber, which does not surprise me, I do not think we will get a response. During the election campaign the Treasurer when asked what kind of Budget he would bring down when he was returned to office stated quite firmly that the really hard measures for 1987-88 had already been taken in the May statement. If honourable members recall, the response of many of our critics was one of confusion. They called for major reductions in government spending as high as $10 billion but, when pressed, they could give no specifics as in fact so far tonight they have also given no specifics. I do not believe they have got any specifics. They are not game to give any specifics. Quite obviously, they were incapable of making detailed statements because they had such a limited understanding of the complexities of the economy. Also, apart from a lack of understanding, there is, quite obviously, a certain lack of courage in the Opposition. I believe it is timely to stress that governments are not composed of ivory tower researchers living in the insulated environment of some academic institution. Governments are composed of politicians who must spend their entire lives riding pretty stormy seas in a ship of state that is exposed to a multitude of competing elements. Therefore it will always be necessary to measure the possible against the ideal. In fact, since both of these courses are subject to interpretation there is not just one viewpoint of what is possible and not just one viewpoint of what is ideal. My comments here are made in the context of comments made by my colleague in another place, as reported in today's Press. Given then the rudderless approach to decision-making of our predecessors, I want to refer to the decisive approach this Government has given to the Australian people. It has given an insight into a government that can act professionally and responsibly. Unlike our predecessors who responded to pressures and crises with short term gap filling or opportunistic decisions that the rest of the nation has been lumbered with for decades, this Government tells the people how it is. It does not resile from hard decisions. It does have a suitable regard for historical determinants and influences on our economy and it focuses not on the short term alone but, more importantly, upon the longer term requirements of a nation in a state of change. The most positive elements of this Budget are, I believe, the continued emphasis upon fiscal decisions rather than upon monetary policy. Honourable members who have been here for some time will remember the tremendous dependence that the previous Government placed upon monetary policy which in many respects led this country into recession in 1981-82. People will know that the continued emphasis of the Government is upon the fiscal decisions rather than upon monetary policy and the determination evident to continue the direction already taken in the area of welfare. As this is a parliament of the people it is only fitting that policies in practice reflect the balance that we, as a Labor Party, see between economic management and social goals. We must never lose sight of our responsibility to those in our society who suffer from poverty or disadvantage. Likewise, those in our society who shoulder the responsibility for rearing the citizens of tomorrow ought to be recognised by government. For many, and in particular those living on modest incomes, the task of providing the necessities of life, let alone the opportunities for advancement for their children, is just too great a drain on available family resources. For this reason it is indeed pleasing to see the Government provide the funds necessary for implementing the family package. The details of this package are, indeed, impressive. I recall when the package was first announced that there were those who saw it as being simply a scheme aimed at vote catching for the last election. I can understand people's reservations. Let us face it, one of the more practised aspects of Australian politics has been the presentation of alternative and attractive items at election time, ones from which a person can actually duck for cover afterwards or provide some small handout. The difference this time is to be seen in the often stated aim of the Government to relieve the financial pressures that are placed on the poor. It has also been the stated belief of the Australian Labor Party over many decades that it should ensure, firstly, that the wealth of the nation should be so distributed that those on lower incomes benefit and, secondly, that this must not wait until the economy is otherwise perfectly ordered. If that were the case, there would always be excuses and it would never be done. If relief from the pressures of low income had to wait until people such as those opposite saw fit, the poor and the needy would have to wait an enormously long time. My own constituents know all about this because Ballarat ranks very low on the ladder of affluence. Average weekly incomes in Ballarat rate considerably below those of the nation in general. This means that between 75 and 80 per cent of Ballarat income earners take home less than the national average weekly wage. The family package will then make a significant difference to the purchasing power of those low income families in my electorate. Honourable members will recall that during the past four years Australian workers have been prepared to take a cut in their incomes. They have done this in the interests of the nation's economy. It is only fitting that their sacrifice should be recognised by the Government in this way. How starkly contrasting are the outraged responses from those whom the Opposition supports; namely those who, for so long, have been able to minimise their responsibilities through the use of fringe benefit deals and untaxed or minimally taxed capital gains. All this was at the expense of the pay as you earn taxpayer and the low and middle income earners. These taxes are being paid and the benefits are flowing directly to the support of Australia's low income earners. I certainly make absolutely no excuses for that and I am proud of it. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr MILDREN —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —Madam Speaker, I seek indulgence to add to an answer that I gave at Question Time today and to clarify an answer. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr DUNCAN —In Question Time today in answer to the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) I undertook to review the situation with regard to documents bearing on the Coastwatch matter and the chronology of events and I now do so. Firstly, as to the issue raised by the honourable member for Murray, the media reports about Department of Aviation concerns derived directly from documents tabled in the Senate by Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister for Transport and Communications, on Thursday last, 17 September. Specifically, he tabled a report prepared by Mr Roger Beale, Associate Secretary to the Department of Transport and Communications, on processes associated with the assessment of tenders and grant of the Coastwatch contract to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd. That report makes it clear that, as Senator Evans said in the Senate today: . . . there was a minute signed by a senior aviation officer, who was the regional inspector in NSW, . . . That officer reached some conclusions about the great difficulty, as he perceived it, that Mr Amann, his chief pilot and chief engineer were going to have. He reported as much to the Government. That report certainly created some continuing concern, but it was not concern that anyone could do anything about . . . The Minister became aware of that concern, but at that stage the contract had been awarded. There was no question of any contractual deadline not having been met. That question did not arise, . . . until 12 September. Until that date where was no basis on which the Government could or should terminate the contract. Both Senator Evans and I have made this point continually. Secondly, as to the issue raised today in the first instance by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) and then by the Leader of the National Party, it is the case that all primary documents within the possession of the Department or its Ministers bearing on the security clearance of Amann both before and after the tendering process was complete were either incorporated or referred to in last Friday's statement. I had not seen any of this material prior to Thursday evening last week. Thirdly, prior to last week I had seen only two written references to the security issue in the context of the pre-12 March tendering process. These were contained in briefing material as follows: (a) The following single sentence in the Tender Board report of 5 February 1987, which report will be tabled by Senator Evans, with other relevant documentation, as soon as freedom of information clearance procedures are complete-expected to be this week-which stated: Security clearances have been given by the AFP-CPU on company officials, including the Chief Pilot. This reference was omitted from the statement last Friday on the basis that it simply summarised, and was wholly derivative from, the tender assessment document which was tabled as Annexure 1. The material continues: (b) Confidential briefing material prepared for Ministerial Office purposes, also derivative from the Tender Assessment Committee report, supplemented orally by the briefing from Chief Superintendent Dixon to the Department, and to the same effect, namely, that full security clearances had been given in the tender process. Fourthly, in relation to the security issue which arose later, namely, after the tendering process was complete, the situation is as follows: (a) All relevant documentation bearing upon this issue then within the possession of the Department or Ministers is referred to or incorporated in last Friday's statement. A minute dated 10 August from the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence (BCI) addressed to the Director of Intelligence, Australian Customs Service, was, after the tabling of the statement last Friday, made available to my Department by Customs. Material contained in this document simply summarises the BCI report of 30 June 1987 referred to in paragraph 5 of the statement. It cannot, for the same reasons as set out in paragraph 6, be tabled, but will be available for perusal by Opposition Leaders and relevant Shadow Ministers on the same basis as the other non-tabled documentation should they require further briefing. I had seen none of this material prior to last Thursday night. (b) On or about 8 September, Senator Evans-in the course of a very long discussion with me on a large number of portfolio issues-mentioned to me that he had asked the Department's new Associate Secretary, Roger Beale, back in mid-August to do a thorough check of all possibly relevant aspects of the Amann matter, and that some further police material bearing upon the security question had turned up, which he had not yet had time to fully work through. It was on the basis of that conversation, and that conversation only, that I made the reply to the Leader of the Opposition that I did on Thursday last, which reply I corrected in the House later that day. (c) Having last Thursday evening read the relevant documents, and subsequently discussed the material with Senator Evans, it is clear to me that the material Senator Evans was referring to in his conversation with me two weeks ago was in fact the minute, or `note for file', of Chief Superintendent Dixon on 16 July 1987, together with the BCI material referred to in that minute. That material, of course, as the statement last Friday makes clear, does not in any way amount to an adverse security finding or recommendation to the Government about Amann Aviation or any of the persons associated with it. Fifthly, I regret that the answer I gave in Question Time today did not precisely reflect the content of the statement tabled in both Houses last Friday. Given that the documents tabled on Friday on their face show that error, it was understandable that my answer today to the honourable member for Deakin has generated some confusion. I regret that confusion, and trust that this statement resolves the matter. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a few short comments on the matter. Madam SPEAKER —Indulgence is given but we do not want to enter into a general debate. Mr BEALE —I understand that, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate the indulgence. Just by way of background I want to remind the House that last Thursday the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) said that some time in August a minute had been received by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) or his Department from the Australian Federal Police indicating that the police had some concerns about Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, the successful Coastwatch tenderer. The next day, responding to another question, the Minister said that the documents he referred to yesterday, that is, on Thursday, were part of the tender process and not part of the documents which were tabled this morning. The Minister has now confirmed that the documents in fact were not part of the tender process and the documents to which he referred last Thursday simply do not exist. We are, Madam Speaker, a long way from last Thursday. Not only was no minute received in August; not only did this minute not indicate police concerns about Amann; but there was no such minute from the Australian Federal Police. This Minister has now completed a disgraceful retreat inch by inch from the answer he gave in the House last Thursday. He has grossly misled the Parliament twice and he has failed to clarify at an early stage what he meant. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will not suggest that the Minister has grossly misled the House. He is-- Mr BEALE —Madam Speaker, with great respect he has said twice-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not impugn the Minister or accuse him of improper motives. Mr BEALE —I conclude by saying that if the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is prepared to tolerate this gross deceit of Parliament then the Australian people are in for a rough three years. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must not use the words `gross deceit of Parliament' either. He knows full well what is stated in the Standing Orders. (BUDGET DEBATE) Debate resumed. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(8.09) —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I had indicated that many of the people who are complaining about the Budget are those people who also complain bitterly about having to meet some of their responsibilities. Some of those people are people who, for the first time, have had to pay a reasonable share of their taxes, such as through the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. These are the people who for so long have been avoiding their responsibilities at the expense of the pay as you earn taxpayer and the low and middle income earners. Now, of course, through this Government's actions, these people are having to meet some of their obligations. The picnic is over for them as they find themselves having to join the rest of Australia and become responsible citizens. I am proud to say that these benefits are now beginning to support directly Australia's low income earners. Of course this is what the Government said it would do. It said that taxes gained from those who should be paying their taxes will ensure some relief for those people who have been paying their taxes fully but who are on low incomes. I am proud to say that this is clear evidence of the traditional and continuing commitment of this Government to social justice. It is a commitment which the Government has shown itself determined to keep. It is to be hoped that the family assistance package will meet with the universal agreement of all people of good will, and I hope that includes some members on the other side of the House. The tables accompanying the Budget demonstrate how helpful this family assistance package will be to low income families. For instance, a family with three dependent children and receiving an income of up to $324 a week will receive, in addition, $22 a child for each child under 13 years of age. If a family has a dependent child of 13, 14 or 15 years of age it will receive $28 a week instead of $22. If the family rents privately-that is, it is not living in government housing, which is already subsidised-it will receive an extra $15 a week. In times that are tough this assistance will be very welcome, and it contrasts dramatically with the miserable pittance offered by the Opposition in the election campaign. I would like to comment on the Government's employment, education and training programs. Once again I make reference to my home city, because Ballarat will be affected positively by the changes proposed in this Budget. For too long the programs in existence were inadequately co-ordinated. This does not mean in any way that they were useless; in fact, I recall that when the community youth support scheme (CYSS) was being done away with we fought very hard to have it retained because it filled a need at that stage. It really was part of an ad hoc system of programs; it was not something which had been co-ordinated adequately. Certainly in my own electorate programs such as community action for youth, the various CYSS projects and the project called servicing opportunities for unemployed youth, have striven to serve their clients as their briefs prescribed. However, since most of the projects developed from disparate stimuli, it was very difficult to see how they related to an overall set of national objectives for the training and preparation of young people to enter the work force. It is therefore timely that the Government's plans to reform the direction of education and skill development should include the integration of CYSS, the community training programs and the community volunteer program. I was relieved to note that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) has acknowledged that the new structure will still recognise the special needs of the disadvantaged job seekers. At a time when every aspect of government involvement in the development of Australia is under review, it is significant that for the first time in peacetime a comprehensive examination of industry, industrial relations, education and training, and economic priorities in the short term and the long term is taking place. It seems that only a Labor government can undertake such a far-reaching approach to restructuring the economic base of this nation; only an Australian Labor Party government can work with all relevant sections that contribute to our economy. We have seen in recent days how the blinkered forces of the New Right, with the willing acquiescence of an Opposition weighed down by its own mediocrity, believes that the only way to run the country is by trying to make one group subservient to the will of another. Union bashing has never and never will achieve anything of value. By driving a wedge between groups which should find co-operation to be of mutual benefit, the New Right simply diverts attention from the pressing needs of the country and ends up wasting time, manpower and precious opportunities to increase output and productivity. It is about time that these tunnel-visioned bigots of the New Right took the time to see just how inimical to the nation's interests are their ideas and their activities. I must say that even the world of business is losing patience with the increasingly irrelevant thrashing around of the New Right and its political wing, represented by the Opposition. This Budget is dramatic proof for everyone to see that a Government with ideas and determination and that is unfettered by outdated and damaging prejudices can allay the fears and suspicions of its erstwhile opponents. I believe we are on the threshold of a new era of co-operation and progress. There are imperatives of economic planning, of social and industrial restructuring and educational directions that we must pursue if this nation is to grow. In the lead-up to the bicentenary it is fitting, then, to recall not only the glories of the past but also the nature and the extent of our follies so that as a nation led by a willing Government we can ensure a future for our children that they can be proud of. This Budget shows the way, and I only hope we have the courage to follow it. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(8.17) —The debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 is, of course, a significant one, made more significant today because of the weekend comments on the Budget made by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. As I said during a matter of public importance last week, preceding those comments we heard an extraordinary degree of optimism, chest- beating, self-adulation, promise and how-great-we-are that would have taken anybody by surprise. Even the Minister at the table, the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), would have been surprised to hear that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was as great as he thought he was. But the Minister for Finance certainly brought it all down to earth. Not only did he say the Budget was oversold but also he pointed out that the general direction of the Australian economy was heading further down the Argentinean road. That is not a bad statement, and it does point precisely to what is going on in the Australian economy. At least there is one honest Minister, if a disappointed one, within the Cabinet when it comes to commenting on the Budget Papers. The optimistic rhetoric which surrounded the Government's pronouncements in the Budget have lulled the nation into a false sense of security beyond all expectations. Those who read the documents properly will see that it is a false sense of security. I want to address later the question of national debt and the balance of payments problem facing Australia. Firstly, I take up the question of what the Treasurer said on the night of the Budget. Not only did he say in glowing terms that the Budget is balanced, to provide the dramatics for the night-this show of great arrogance must have made even the Minister now at the table blush-but also he said, on page 11 of his Budget Speech: Now that we have eliminated the budget deficit we will be repaying $1,000 million of Commonwealth overseas debt this year and the same amount of domestic bonds. No other Commonwealth government in more than 50 years has made repayments of both external and domestic debt in the same year. Clearly those statements must have been written in by some scribbler in the Treasurer's office. It is not possible to say that realistically when in the sentence before it is said that Budget has been balanced. That cannot be true. We cannot have a balanced Budget and be repaying debt. It we have a deficit, we must fund the deficit; if we have a surplus, we refund borrowings. If we have a balanced Budget we cannot be repaying $2 billion worth of debt. So part of the hype of the balanced Budget, part of this enormous build-up of ego, is as a result of a fallacy within the Budget Speech. The person who wrote that must have been someone scribbling in the background. Every year we have redemptions for payments within the Government's securities. There is nothing new about that. Some years there will be a significant amount of redemption-more than the year before-because of past, sometimes short term, debts going back many decades on some occasions. When the holder of that debt turns up quite clearly he has to be paid. But to say that that is a great saving to the economy is rubbish, because if the amount of debt that has to be repaid within that year is more than is currently required, it is taken from a treasury bill or it is borrowed from the Reserve Bank of Australia. For the Treasurer to make that statement in his Budget Speech is misleading in the extreme and shows the degree of hype, nonsense and self-promotion that has been going on in this Budget. We cannot have a balanced Budget and pay $2m worth of debt-anybody can tell us that-because government debts do not carry forward in terms of pre-payments or accruals. That is not part of government financing. I wish it were; it ought to be. Honourable members opposite would know that as well as I. There are no accruals or pre-payments in government spending, so how can the Treasurer make statements like that? Let me go from what I regard as one of the more outrageous misrepresentations of the Budget to what I regard as the on-going problem in Australia-national debt. Just to illustrate what I mean by this: in June 1980, not many years ago, when even the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) was a member of the House, the total Australian debt was $13.6 billion. Today the debt is $110 billion, which is not bad. I wish that I could have increased my net worth by a factor of 10 in the period between 1980 and 1987. Dr Klugman —Easily. Mr MOORE —The honourable member might have better prospects than I have. Mr Barry Jones —The BRW 200 have done it. Mr MOORE —Regrettably, I am not among the friends of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) so I do not know how to do it. That sort of growth in the national debt, which is something about which every Australian should know, is $13 billion to $110 billion in seven years, which is not bad even if it is not in the top 10 growth of the friends of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. One of the great causes taken up by the left wing socialists is for them to say, `There is no need to worry about this as it is all caused by private investment. Those private investors who are taking over everything cause it'. In June 1980, 52 per cent of the debt was government debt and 48 per cent was private debt. Today there is a public sector debt of $110 billion of which $44 billion is public sector debt and $66 billion is private sector debt. What is the fallacy? Quite clearly, if a person is in the private sector and he wishes to borrow to expand his operations not only does he incur the debt but also he incurs the responsibility to repay it. That debt repayment has to be met in relation to his commercial activities. Quite clearly, his commercial activities are a plus to the local economy. We manage to arrange the media guidelines so people should understand the commercial implications and complications of it. So that argument put forward by certain sections of the Left in the Australian Labor Party does not stand up in any regard but it certainly points to a vast and staggering situation that has developed in Australia in recent times-something which every person in Australia will ultimately be forced to stand up and answer for. I wish quickly to point to the interest paid on government debt in Australia because it is a massive amount. For those who would just like to have a few statistics, in 1980-81, according to the Government's Budget Papers, $2.5 billion was paid in interest and in the period 1986-87 just short of $8 billion was paid. That is the sort of growth we are having in relation to the debt of Australia. To put that precisely, it represents 40 per cent of the deficit on the balance of interest payments and, in the period 1980-81, a growth of $2.5 billion to $8 billion. It is a massive increase in all these areas and something which is in no way a tribute to the Government. Just as this goes forward in the current year to the balance of payments it reflects on the adverse effect of the interest payments. Let me quote from Budget Paper No. 1 which refers to the balance of payments in the current year. It states: Mainly because of continuing, albeit slowing, accumulation of net external debt, the deficit on net property income will increase substantially, thereby continuing to constrain the rate of reduction of the current account deficit. In other words, to put it in more simple terms, because of the growth in debt and the interest on debt the ability to wind back the deficit on the balance of payments is constrained, to use the Treasurer's own words. Budget Paper No. 1 continues: These forecasts imply a current account deficit of around $11 1/2 billion- in the current year- some 4 per cent of GDP, in 1987-88. Seasonal influences, as usual, are expected to be adverse in the first half . . . Australia's net external debt is likely to continue to rise faster than nominal GDP during 1987-88, and a further rise in the debt servicing ratio is expected. That is the Treasury's forecast on the balance of payments in the current year. It is little wonder that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh)-even if he speaks to Labor lawyers only in private-is concerned about the future. The Government, in its own Budget Papers, is saying quite clearly what we should expect in the current year in relation to the balance of payments. We should expect a continuing growth in the balance of payments deficit, a continuing growth in interest payments, paid for by the taxpayers, and an overhang for the whole of Australia. I turn now to a publication by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA), which states: Australia has one of the largest debts in the world . . . Further if we take the EPAC peak estimates- EPAC is the Government's Economic Planning Advisory Council- of Australia's net-external-debt-to-GDP ratio . . . it is clear that Australia is about to join a group of either highly borrowed developing countries or industrial countries with severely strained economies. That was the CEDA response to the comment made by EPAC. Put simply, Australia's net external borrowings are the cumulative result of our current account deficits over many years. These deficits have been made good through overseas fund raisings to the extent that Australian exports of goods and services, plus income from other transfer payments, have not been sufficient to pay for imports of goods and services and income and transfer payments. That part of overseas raisings not covered by equity and property sales has been funded by issuing debt. The most fundamental explanation of why Australia has a current account deficit is that, as a nation, we have been spending in excess of our income or, what amounts to the same thing, aggregate national savings have been inadequate compared with aggregate national investment. The current account deficit, therefore, is the spill-over result of this excessive spending over inadequate savings and that pattern continues today. An important reason for the rapid expansion of Australia's foreign debt levels has been not only the generally reduced fund raising but also the dramatic fall-off in capital inflow in non-debt forms-equity and property purchases. Apart from the general worldwide rise in debt-to-equity ratios there are two significant Australian reasons for the trend towards foreign investment in the form of debt rather than equity. Firstly, the actions of the Foreign Investment Review Board, before recent changes, made foreign debt investment in Australia difficult over a large number of years. As a result, debt was the way required capital could flow into Australia. That has been evident in the large purchase of government securities in the years 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986. It is only very recently that there has been a change in those circumstances. Secondly, the increased reliance on debt is surely a potent illustration of the loss of confidence in the Australian economy by foreign investors. They have voted with their feet in terms of the way in which they have placed Australian money into government securities rather than into equities. This has also occurred in recent times. The reason for that has been the fall in the exchange rate. While discussing the causes of Australia's foreign debt, I believe it is important for honourable members to understand that the recent large number of corporate raids and stock market takeovers, often financed overseas through debt raisings, has had little to do with the size of Australia's foreign debt and its rapid growth. The need for capital inflow is determined by the size of the current account deficit, and the actual borrowers are simply filling that need through their individual decisions to fund their financial needs off-shore, whether for takeovers or other reasons. The current account deficit is increasingly due to interest payments on foreign debt. In fact, this year interest payments will represent over 50 per cent of the current account deficit. Over the past 10 years, interest payments have grown by an average of 19 per cent annually. The bringing down of the current account to the historical average of about 2 1/2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), given the increasing drag of interest on foreign debt, will require a massive swing-around to a large surplus of exports over imports of goods and services. In other words, if 80 per cent of this turnaround were to come from exports, the amount of exports would have to increase by $9 billion, or 22 per cent on their 1986 level. The greater Australia's incapacity to generate the necessary higher export revenue, the larger the fall in imports will have to be-basically by slashing people's spending. Since 1982, the exchange rate has fallen against the trade-weighted basket of currencies by about 40 per cent. This drop reflects the deterioration of the current account. So long as Australia maintains a current account deficit of about 5 or 6 per cent of GDP, foreign debt will continue to grow strongly and the Australian dollar will remain a weak currency. As a result of the lower exchange rate, export prices have tended to lag behind import prices, offsetting part of the favourable volume effects. What is worse, interest payments on the foreign debt have expanded, not just with the higher debt levels associated with continuing current account deficits, but with the larger amount of Australian dollars required to service the same foreign currency denominated interest payments. In the medium to longer term, exports may expand and imports contract sufficiently. However, the larger the value of the foreign debt, the more the improvement in the goods and services trade is offset by higher interest payments on the foreign debt. Australia is pretty much in the position now in which, due to this factor, further declines in the exchange rate will have only a limited effect on closing the current account deficit. This clearly indicates that adjustment to the current account deficit must come from areas such as private and government spending, and wages and fiscal policies, not through further exchange rate depreciation. I turn now, in the few moments remaining to me, to interest rates. There is a need to keep the growth of overall demand suppressed in order to keep down import levels and therefore lower the current account deficit to acceptable levels, while fundamental structural economic change occurs. The Government, faced with this requirement, has a number of choices: it can limit government expenditure and rein back the public sector borrowing requirement; it can intervene in the wage setting process to obtain results consistent with economic capacity to pay; or it can implement a monetary policy that has the simultaneous effect of cutting back on the supply of money and credit and suppressing demand through high interest rates. The problem in Australia is that the chardonnay sippers are incapable of cutting back on their expenditure and borrowing to the required degree. Because of that, the Government is the captive of the trade union movement. It has usually lacked the desire to change its wages policy. This has left tight monetary policy, with its relatively more acceptable political impact, from the Australian Labor Party's point of view, to bear the burden of adjustment. The consequence has been historically high interest rates. The living standards of Australians will be hard hit for the foreseeable future as a result of the Government's inability to control the current account deficit and foreign debt at an acceptable level. The annual interest bill for Australia's foreign debt this year will be nearly $8 billion, as I have said before, which is equivalent to wiping about 3 per cent off national income. This cut has been increasing over recent years, and it is expected to continue to rise as the debt level increases at a faster rate than that of national income. If this Government is to tackle the capping of foreign debt relative to GDP, the rate of growth of imports must be kept to a low level. The Government should be careful to ensure that the recent decline in interest rates does not act as a catalyst to increase consumer demand. If this problem eventuates, the Government may once again be pushed to the position of hiking up interest rates. The cut in consumer demand for imports will need to be larger to balance the importation of capital equipment that is necessary for the restructuring of Australian industry. Australia is suffering from a severe external imbalance that manifests itself in continuing large current account deficits and the high level of foreign indebtedness. On an international comparison, this degree of imbalance is relatively severe. Although the causes of Australia's imbalance are a mixture of international and domestic forces, the solutions will have to be basically domestic. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer unwisely find comfort in blaming the problem on the collapse of our export prices and see economic salvation in their recovery. To base Australia's response, or rather inaction, on this outcome would mean risking a huge build-up in our foreign debt levels to a point where economic recovery would be virtually impossible. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(8.37) —Madam Speaker, I commence by congratulating you on your well-deserved re-election to the position of Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member. Dr KLUGMAN —I share some of the pessimism of the previous Opposition speaker, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), as far as our economic future is concerned. I must admit that most of my pessimism as far as this country is concerned lies more at the geopolitical level. I do not want to go into that tonight. I would like to comment on the reaction to the so-called Australia Card which has developed into little more than an hysterical, illogical outcry from people with very vivid imaginations who struggle to outdo each other in scaremonger tactics and in grim religious and Orwellian phrases. I was one of three foundation members of the Council for Civil Liberties in New South Wales. Twenty-five years ago, three of us-the late Mr Justice Sweeney, Professor Ken Buckley and I-started the Council for Civil Liberties. It was one of the Councils for Civil Liberties in Australia which was clearly non-political in any party political sense. I was treasurer and a member of its executive for many years and finally resigned two or three years ago when it decided to support an investigation into the so-called Age tapes, which I considered to be extremely inappropriate for a Council for Civil Liberties to do. I was a member of the original Caucus committee-not the parliamentary committee, the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card-which looked at the proposal for an identity card. I mention one point which does not seem to have been repeated; at least, I have not heard it repeated. For the year for which we gathered evidence from the Australian Taxation Office, financial institutions in Australia-I think it was probably the 1982-83 year, but it could have been 1983-84-paid $13 billion in interest. Tax returns reported only $6.5 billion. I am not suggesting that the other $6.5 billion concerned so-called tax cheats. Obviously, there are people-kids, elderly people, people with no other income-who never earned the amount necessary to have to make out a tax return. However, I would suggest that a large amount of money is not declared for taxation. Suggestions have been made that similarly many rental payments are never declared. If one totalled up the amount of rent that was paid in Australia and the amount that appeared on tax returns, one would find that the figures were nothing like each other. Financial institutions provide the Taxation Office with print-outs or computer tapes of interest paid. The document says, `Roger Shipton'-his address would not be included-`received $173.50 last year'. The Tax Office can match the amount which a person declares and the amount given by the financial institution in only 16 per cent of cases. I find that extremely depressing. Mr Shipton —I agree; they should be able to do more but without the ID card. Dr KLUGMAN —The honourable member suggests that more people should be employed. One of the arguments against the ID card is that we will increase the size of the bureaucracy. I am convinced of two things: firstly, a huge amount of money is not being declared for tax purposes and, secondly, there is a large amount of social security fraud, even though the Department of Social Security, which is always quoted now, has said that fraud amounts to only $20m. It is obvious to us all that the total amount of fraud is much larger. What really concerns me about the debate on the ID card is the hysterical reaction that has come out. It is depressing that in a country which claims to have a reasonably high standard of education people can be aroused by that sort of thing. Mike Steketee, who is not one of my favourite journalists, stated in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald last Friday: Susan Ryan realised she had entered the lion's den in Launceston last Tuesday when a speaker at a public meeting said that, in Sweden, 6,000 people had had numbers tattooed on their foreheads by laser. Mr Lee —Was that Launceston? Dr KLUGMAN —Yes. He continued: Closer to home, she has had to handle claims that, under the Australia Card legislation, babies will have to have their wrists tattooed. Others see dark Biblical portents in the Government's action. Letters to the Government quote Revelation, Chapter 13- I have received similar letters, thankfully not from my constituents- on the evil beast which ``required everyone, great and small, rich and poor, slave and free, to be tattooed with a certain mark on the right hand or on the forehead. And no-one could get a job or even buy in any store without the permit of that mark, which was either the name of the Creature or the code number of his name''. For emotional claptrap, it is hard to go past the present debate on an identity card. There has seldom been a subject on which there has been so much misunderstanding, so much misrepresentation and so much downright irrational fear. You would think that no Australian had ever been given a number; that drivers' licences, passport, credit cards and tax file number still had to be invented. People are scared of numbers. I realise that a vast proportion of the Australian population is innumerate. I have mentioned that on many occasions in this House when I have spoken about our education system. Because we talk about a number, this fear is put into people. I cannot understand why it is terribly different to give a person a number rather than use his name. There is no doubt that the Government is currently losing the argument by saying that information given to governments is safe and will not be leaked. I do not believe that for one minute. Any information given to governments or to anybody possibly will be leaked. There will be unauthorised access no matter how many bits of legislation we pass to prevent it. The important point to put is that with the identity card there will be no new information on people. If a person registers himself for inclusion on the electoral roll, he has to give the same sort of information-in fact, more information than he will have to give to obtain an identity card. Mr Ronald Edwards —Or if you want to borrow money. Dr KLUGMAN —Certainly if he wants to borrow money. Some people who are allegedly concerned about privacy are utterly hypocritical. Frank Costigan, QC, comes up as an upholder of civil liberties and privacy. He conducted an extremely slipshod inquiry which hurt the civil liberties of many people in Australia. He and his staff leaked to the media and worked with the late National Times. There is no doubt about that. He is allegedly concerned with privacy, yet he advocated very widespread telephone tapping. He advocated that all police forces should have the right to tap phones. He advocated that there should be all kinds of interference with privacy. Yet he worries about the Australia Card. We have the hypocrisy of the sort of people who were associated with the National Times. They complain about the possibility of interference with privacy but they were prepared to publish transcripts of illegal phone taps. What utter hypocrisy it is for those sorts of people to behave in this way. Honourable members opposite supported that concept at odd times. I am not saying that all honourable members opposite supported the publication of transcripts of illegal phone taps, but many did. In a different spectrum, many academics oppose the proposition of the identification card. However, the same academics have made representations to me, and I am certain to many Ministers-possibly the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table-that they want to increase the sort of information that must be given by Australians for census purposes. They want more and more information so they can publish more and more papers about the private behaviour of Australians. The information that is required for the ID card is completely non-intrusive, but academics want private information for census purposes and they oppose the current destruction of census forms. Currently the forms are destroyed to ensure people's privacy. All we do is take the information without taking the name of the person who has given the information. The complete and utter hypocrisy of some of those people amazes me. For some weeks the people running the campaign against the so-called Australia Card were the only ones making the running. Slowly other people have become upset, if nothing else, by the utter hysteria that has been created. I will quote some of the people who have given a more rational view. An Australian Financial Review commentator called Peter Ruehl-I do not know the gentleman but he seems to write a reasonable column-stated: The current wave of paranoia over the proposed Australia Card has the basic ingredients for a classic battle in this vein. First, you must have an issue that has all the relevance, in societal terms, of, say, the Lindy Chamberlain case. Second, the presence of a small gaggle of monomaniacs is required to insure sanity doesn't prevail too quickly. That is a perfect summing up of what is happening in the discussion currently. David Potts-I think that he is the economics editor of the Australian-put this rational point: OK, so there are other alternatives to the ID card. But how different are they? Obviously I am not entitled to speak on behalf of the Government and I have not discussed it with any member of the Government, but I would not be surprised if, in the end, we came to some compromise about using taxation file numbers for which honourable members opposite are pushing. What is the difference? Mr Potts continued: Many have suggested that it would be better to use our tax file numbers when opening a bank account and the like. For this to work, the bank would have to know the number you have given is genuine. But how does it find out? By ringing the Tax Office? How do we know what the Tax Office tells it? Do you want the bank to find out how much you owe in tax? Which government department knows more about you than any other? Alternatively, there would have to be some certifiable card or piece of paper with your tax file number on it, in which case there'd be no difference between it and the ID card except perhaps the number or the design. Besides, if the whole point of the exercise is to stop tax avoidance, what happens to the people who don't have a tax file number because they've never paid tax. Are they still let off scot free? Appropriately, the title of Alan Mitchell's column in the Sydney Morning Herald is `The crazies against the ID Card'. First, he refers to Dr Shepherd, and Ben Lexcen who fears for the future of European Australia. Apparently it will be all right for the Aborigines. He writes: Oh, and Mr Howard, who also fears for the future liberty and privacy, warns that the Australia Card would impose an enormous extra cost on small business. I suspect Mr Howard is right about small business-because small business is where most of the tax evasion occurs. The last major anti-evasion measure targeted at small business-Mr Howard's Prescribed Payments System-has netted a small army of new taxpayers and a fortune in previously-evaded tax, much of it from the building industry. I will leave part of the column out where he gives a serve to the Australian Chamber of Commerce. The article goes on: What information do they imagine the Government would have that it does not have now? The Tax Office would be better informed. But it would have no information that either it is not entitled to under the present law or that it would not be entitled to under the alternative proposed by another leader of the campaign against the Australia Card, Senator Janine Haines. One can only expect the Australian Democrats to be involved in any irrational and populist campaign because they are the experts on irrational populism. Mr Smith —Say it again. Dr KLUGMAN —I would be happy to repeat it. I suppose most people in this chamber at least would agree with it and I suppose the majority of those in the other chamber would too. Tom Connors in the Canberra Times of last Sunday week, said: You'll have to excuse me, but I am not going hysterical over the possible introduction of the Australia Card. Furthermore, I am not impressed by the weird coalition of Far Right, Far Left and Centre who are conjuring up the spectre of a police state and the end of the Australian way of life as we know it. The fact that people like the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the Rugby coach and Far Right supermouth Alan Jones, and some people on the loony Left oppose the card should induce more to look for virtues in it. We have extremists, people who can always see terrible things-- Mr Ronald Edwards —Joan Coxsedge. Dr KLUGMAN —Exactly. She thinks it is an American plot; somebody else thinks it is all a Russian plot. We have idiots. I do not usually agree with Don Chipp, but this is what an article in last Sunday's paper said: . . . Mr Don Chipp . . . yesterday said he thought the issue- that is, the issue of the Australia Card- did not warrant the ``obsessive'' debate it was receiving from his party- that is, the Democrats- and others. Mr Chipp . . . : ``Too often the wrong things are on the agenda up here in Canberra. Today we seem to be obsessed with the Australia Card. ``I don't think Australia will go down the tube if we have an Australia Card or don't have an Australia Card''. ``I think I was probably one of the first members of Parliament to suggest an Australia Card. This was about eight or nine years ago. I do not know whether Janine Haines has read this comment, but I am sure she will not quote it. Anne Summers who has returned-I think only temporarily-from the United States said in yesterday's Times on Sunday: My identification number is- and she gives the number- I need it to get paid, to open a bank account, to sign a lease, to claim medical benefits, or to apply for a credit card. It is my US Social Security number, and having lived in the US for almost two years now I confess that I am not only used to it but, even though I can never remember the number without consulting the card, I do not find it much of an intrusion on my liberty. . . . . Perhaps because I have been out of Australia for a while I confess to not being able to understand the passions that have been directed into opposing the Australia Card. Perhaps because I have become used to having an ID card I cannot appreciate the extraordinary paranoia its proposed introduction has aroused. I am sure all honourable members have received exceptionally literate votergrams from constituents. Mr Ronald Edwards —Do you open them? Dr KLUGMAN —Yes, I even open them. I have one here but I will not give the person's name because it may be someone pretending to be him. I often write to someone and say somebody is pretending, and I think this should be checked because the man is an idiot and it is a bit rough. But listen to this; this is supposed to convince me: Cancel certain citizens right-dark side Australia Card. Low interest housing works. Make dole repayable-thumb print tax number. Discipline young, save 25%, voucher education. Re-invest privatization, don't revenue. Semi-privatize defence equipment. Simulators aren't secret, nor is pilferage. It is signed. It is a convincing letter for many, obviously, in this House, but it is not convincing to me. I would like to make the point again that whether one believes that the ID card is the best possible way of dealing with taxation avoidance and social security fraud or not, let us have a rational argument about it; let us not get involved with groups of people who do not believe in democracy, who do not believe in rational argument, who do not believe in any of the sorts of things that a civilised parliament ought to be standing for. Mr JULL(Fadden)(8.57) —The last thing I was going to speak on in the second reading debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 tonight was the ID card. But as one of those people whom the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) obviously believes are either paranoid or belong to a fringe group, I say that for the last four weeks I have been around Australia in my capacity as chairman of the Opposition's ID card task force. I hope that some of the work that we have been doing has been fairly rational in terms of the debate that has been going on. I personally do not think that tremendous tide of public opinion that is now starting to swing towards the Government is public opinion that is made up of people who might be paranoid or off the planet. I am really quite surprised that the honourable member for Prospect has come up with some of the arguments that he has, because I have very great respect for him. I know of his role in the Council for Civil Liberties. I have been on platforms with representatives of councils of civil liberties around Australia in recent days and I think that those people could be far from being called paranoiac. In fact, their debate, to my mind, has been particularly rational. There are definitely some very real questions that must be asked by all Australians concerning the introduction of this ID card, least of all being the cost effective nature of it. I think a great number on this side of the House have some very grave doubts about whether we should be running around spending $800m to $1 billion to get the wretched thing set up. I think there is a very real concern in the community when we are continually told by Senator Ryan that this particular system that we have is based on the Swedish system. I know that a number of my colleagues have expressed to me their concern about the way the Swedish system has gone. Sweden has had an identity card system for no less than 20 years. For the last 10 to 12 years the whole place has been a disaster. It has been a fact that the Swedes cannot guarantee the security of their system. What started as a humble identity card, as that card which Senator Ryan tells us will contain only our photograph, our name, our signature, and our date of birth, has developed into quite a monster. I quote from the report of the Privacy Foundation. It sets out the cases that exist in Sweden It says: In Sweden the social code numbers float around everywhere. They are used by libraries and bookclubs, by credit card companies and insurance companies, they turn up on all sorts of private and public identity cards, public transport cards . . . your football club, your chess club and the political party you belong to all take up your social code number. Every Swedish citizen is caught in a cobweb of computerised information, just waiting for the spider. Of course the spider has got in; so much so in fact that the head of the Swedish Data Inspection Agency, Jan Freese, resigned in recent days because he could no longer guarantee the security of that Swedish data bank. He got out when the bureaucrats got into the system, unbeknown to the authority. He got out when the Government decided that it would scrap the whole idea of a census and just hit button A on the computer when all the information about Swedish society would come up. We know what has happened there, too. It is not only the bureaucracy that has gone mad with the information. In fact, the bureaucracy has sold it off to public companies. The whole thing is an absolute disaster in Sweden, so much so that if a policeman stops a person's car there he can, in a few seconds, by typing the car registration number and the ID card number on to a portable terminal, get a huge amount of data about the person. He can get his name, age, address, whether he is married, his profession, income, taxes and whether they are paid or not, whether the person has been searched or has been in prison, if his driving licence is not in order-any sort of information can come up on the portable machine attached to it. One might use the old argument that one has nothing to hide, but I am damned if I want a situation in Australia where we can develop into a case where, whenever one got pulled up by a traffic policeman, he can get that information about one. We are told time and time again in this ID card debate that there will be a dedicated landline system to feed the information around Australia. I still have not got a reply from the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) about what form that dedicated landline is going to take. That landline is going to add an additional $10 billion to the cost of the implementation of the ID card in Australia. As I said the other day, that particular building project to hook up all those terminals around Australia is going to be a bigger construction job than building the pyramids, if we are to have dedicated landlines. There will be funny little people running around the length and breadth of Australia digging trenches to put in the dedicated landline. The big problem with the dedicated landline is that it is territorial in its aspect and if one is going to crack it, that is the easiest way to go. I would love to tell the story of what happened to me during a recent visit to Townsville, where we went and checked out the dedicated landline systems that operated into a certain bank there. It is so ridiculous. We walked up the laneway of this particular bank, there was what looked like a switchbox on the wall, we picked up the flap and there were the dedicated landlines. It said so and so bank, Townsville. The whole of the bank computer system sits there on the side of the wall. People have got to realise that these things are not secure. I think it is probably a reasonable argument when people say that they have nothing to hide and for that reason they do not object to the ID card, but the one thing that we must stress time and time again in this whole debate about the ID card is that it is that number which is the key to the lock that will give all that information. In terms of the argument that we have at the moment and the information that might be supplied here at the moment, it may not be so bad, but if one goes down the track and follows that Swedish experience-the trouble is that people get used to using the cards, as Dr Anne Summers said in her article-there will not be an aspect of Australian life that will not be touched by the ID card. That is one of the great dangers. There is no doubt about it, whether one says that it is hysterical or not, that there is in the sensible rational Australian community at the moment, a real feeling of concern about the ID card. Mr Katter —Immense concern. Mr JULL —Incredible concern. The honourable member for Kennedy and I are going to Mount Isa this weekend to speak to constituents of his about some of the aspects of this legislation. That is the depth of the concern. It has come from as far away as Mount Isa-the length and breadth of Australia. The Government is not helping its argument. We came in here last Friday, and I asked a question of the Minister for Community Services and Health about whether or not it was a fact of life that sporting clubs, the Country Women's Association, Rotary, Apex and the Lions, and service clubs within our community would have to have a number. Those clubs do have to have an ID card number. We will also have to have a situation where the secretary or treasurer, or both, of those particular organisations will be required to register not only the club's numbers but their own number with their tax file information. What is even more horrific is that, every year, after the annual general meeting of the clubs, they will have 14 days, according to Government legislation, to go and change over the details-this is the answer of the Minister in Hansard for last Friday-otherwise they are up for a fine of up to $5,000 or six months gaol or both. What the devil is Australia coming to when we are getting into that sort of situation? I wonder, in this debate, how well the Government has thought it out. We had the other spectre in Question Time today when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was asked a question by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) about whether or not State banks had to comply with the requirements of the Australia Card legislation. Obviously, the Treasurer did not know, although all he had to do was go and read the Constitution of Australia, which says that while the Commonwealth Government has the right to put on terms and conditions on the operations of State banks in areas other than their home State, it has no control over the banks. Are we really going to get to the farcical situation where the State banks in the capital cities of Australia will become tax shelters for the crooks? They may do, but has the Government thought this out? It is all very well for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to come in here and say that he has a mandate, but I do not believe that on an issue as major as this, with such far reaching complications and concerns within the community, we should be rushing headlong into a system such as this. The thing that annoys me more than anything else is the fact that under this system, ordinary decent everyday Australians are going to be presumed guilty by virtue of the ID card, and it is going to be their responsibility to prove their innocence before the Government will accept them. I think that that is a blight on Australia. I am no friend of tax cheats or dole bludgers but I am certainly not looking forward to a situation like this, where all Australians will be lined up and photographed to get this wretched identity card system into place. I do not believe that within the Australian community at the moment, decent, fair-minded rational Australians want a part of this legislation. I really get quite frustrated when I turn to the Treasurer's Budget Speech-after all we are debating the Appropriation Bill tonight. In his Speech, the Treasurer started talking about the Australia Card, and how: . . . the system will return $1,000 million a year in revenue that is presently being evaded or defrauded. In the next paragraph he said: To further reinforce our anti-avoidance measures, this Budget will fund the Tax Office to establish special audit teams of highly qualified and experienced officers to mount more effective and detailed scrutinies of potential tax avoidance activities, particularly in the corporate sector. The Government has the ID card on the one hand and the Treasurer turns round and gives the solution in the next paragraph. It already has that system to go after the funny money, and nobody in the Government has yet told me just how the ID card is going to bring in that black economy, that cash economy where the real fraud takes place in our community today. I will not spend any more time on the ID card debate, because I think that the Government will find that over the next few months the ID card will come up more and more in every type of debate in the House, and I think that it will really feel the lash of public opinion against it as more and more people realise just what is involved in this national identity card system. Without sounding round the bend, let me say that I really do not think that in a democracy such as ours, in a common law country such as ours, the ID card is the answer to half these problems. Tonight I was going to speak about some of the aspects about the 1988 Budget presented by the Treasurer last Tuesday night. I will now have to cut down my comments on it. Let me say that the one thing that came through to me in the Budget of last Tuesday night was that there was one sector of Australians who missed out on that Budget. The Treasurer came in here and told us that we had a balanced Budget, and we learnt about the special help that is to be given to a great number of underprivileged people in our community. I am sure that most members of the Opposition will applaud that, and particularly the help that is to be given to the poor children of Australia, but there is a very big group of Australians at the moment who seem to have been forgotten by this Government in particular and governments around Australia and that is middle Australia. They are the people that so many of us represent in this House. They are the young married couples who, frankly, are now struggling for survival on what we would call reasonable incomes. They are the people in my electorate who have been hit by the highest interest rates in Australia's history. I suppose we applaud the fact that some of those interest rates are now coming down. But the plain facts are that right now in Australia we have the second highest interest rates in our history. I think the struggle that is going on in the average suburban Australian family and the pressures that are being put on the average suburban Australian family by the policies that have come from this Government are quite horrendous and particularly need our attention. In my electorate at the moment people are actually walking out of their homes. All of a sudden they find that they just cannot maintain the payments on ordinary, average suburban homes. It is not happening in one or two cases, it is happening in dozens of cases in the southern and eastern suburbs of Brisbane. The pressure that is put on marriages and the number of marriage breakups are really putting tremendous pressure on the social fabric of Australia. I hope that as this year goes on we will be looking at a more compassionate attitude by the Government to the people who really have been neglected for years-the people who are on a single income; the people on an income of about $25,000 a year who are trying to educate one or two kiddies; the people who really do not get any specific help from the Government now; and the people who find that they really miss out on any substantial tax benefit as a result of the recent income tax cuts. These people, who really are the backbone of Australia, are finding it very difficult to survive. In the short period that I have left there are a couple of other matters that I would like to raise in the debate. I do not suppose there would be many in this House who would be more supportive of the tourist industry in Australia and indeed during the last 10 years in this House I have done all I can to promote that industry. I think we are starting to see the benefits of a great deal of work that has been done. It was started by Sir Phillip Lynch when he was the Minister with responsibility for tourism in the Fraser Government and, of course, it has been carried on under this Government. I take nothing away from the present Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) for some of the work he has done. There are a couple of aspects which come through in the Budget Papers and which concern me at the moment. They really deal with the future of tourism in Australia. If honourable members go through the Budget Papers-I refer to Budget Paper No. 1-and look at what is happening in terms of assistance to the tourist industry this year, they will see that there is an increase of 19.9 per cent in total funding. That is really not quite a bad effort. It is about $7.6m up on last year. Most of that money, in fact, will go into tourism promotion through the Australian Tourist Commission. If honourable members go further through those documents they will see what else the Government is going to do. One thing that comes through very clearly is the fact that the tourism overseas promotion scheme (TOPS) has only one year to go and then it will be axed by the Government. That scheme has been full of problems. There have been tremendous delays in the Government making payments under that scheme over the last couple of years. Honourable members will find that a great number of the newer tourist operators in the business will be hit very hard by the completion of that scheme. But my appeal tonight is really related to the fact that in the Governor-General's Speech, in the Treasurer's Budget Speech and in the Budget Papers-all the way through-there is a very heavy emphasis on tourism and the very good things it is doing for the Australian community. I applaud that, but I do not think we should ever regard the tourism industry as the panacea for all the problems in Australia. The one thing I am getting a little bit afraid of is that it will become very much the milch cow for the Government if we are not particularly careful. In the last few minutes I will cite a couple of things that concern me. Firstly, TOPS will be axed next year. I am a bit upset about that. Secondly, I am quite astounded that the Government will impose an inbound tax of $5 on everybody entering Australia. Honourable members might say that that is not much, but the cost of collection of that tax which, undoubtedly will fall on the airlines, is millions of dollars a year. That will be reflected in even higher ticket costs into Australia. While this Government refuses really to get a cheap airfare regime into place and to allow charter operators into Australia, we cannot afford to price ourselves out of those markets. I notice that the increased number of tourists will reap for the Government from the departure tax itself a total of $61m for 1987-88. The total expenditure on the tourism industry this year is $46m. That is a fairly big windfall-$16m-which obviously will go into general revenue. I hope that we will be looking to make sure that we do not put so many costs on the tourist industry that we lose our attraction in terms of price for those overseas visitors who are coming here now and spending some very big money. I am concerned that we are not doing enough, especially in some of the State training establishments, to ensure that we can correctly look after the tourists. I know that Japan is one of our fastest growing markets at the moment. There has been some very real criticism that the Australian industry is not adjusting quickly enough for the Japanese market, that we are not teaching enough people how to speak Japanese and how to treat Japanese tourists coming in. I know that that is basically a job for the State educational authorities. Some Federal funds are going in this year, but I urge the Federal Government to push that line for as long as it possibly can. In the last few seconds available to me, I also urgently appeal to the Government and to the Australian Tourist Commission not to forget that northern European market which is starting to build up so well. While the concentration has been on Japan, it can be a fairly fickle market. North America can be a reasonably fickle market. When the big spending tourists come to Australia they will, in fact, be coming from Germany, from the Scandinavian countries, from Switzerland and from Holland. I hope that appropriate pressure will be put on the Australian Tourist Commission to go out into those northern European countries and sell Australia as a destination. Mr LEE(Dobell)(9.17) —I note that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), is the choice of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) as the head of the Opposition's task force to oppose the Australia Card. Mr Smith —A good choice. Mr LEE —The honourable member for Bass suggests by way of interjection that he is a good choice for the job. I suspect that he was chosen for that job because he was one of the few members of the Opposition who were not on record as supporting the introduction of some form of identity card in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and the former Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt)-all those members of the Opposition are on record as having made public statements saying that they believe that the Australia Card proposal is in the interests of the Australian community. It is only in recent days when this weird coalition of extreme Left and extreme Right elements have got together that members of the Opposition have come to the conclusion that they can win a few cheap votes by deciding that they should now oppose the Australia Card. I had the pleasure of addressing a rally on this very issue in the Federal electorate of Robertson last Saturday. The rally was organised by people who are opposed to the Australia Card. The rally was so successful that of the 180,000 residents who live on the New South Wales central coast the roll-up was between 250 and 300 people opposed to the Australia Card. It was a rather disappointing roll-up. The crowd was so aggressive in interjecting and interrupting me when I was speaking and seeking to explain why the Australia Card was necessary that at times I thought I was back at New South Wales Young Labor conferences being interrupted by interjections from members of the Australian Labor Party who would be known to you, Mr Deputy Speaker-members such as Mr Bolton and Mr Mellem. Needless to say, it was important that those people heard the true story. It is a pity the honourable member for Fadden has left the chamber. He also wants to ignore the true story. He does not wish to debate the Australia Card on the facts. Members of the Opposition have invented a fiction, a fantasy, which they claim is the Australia Card proposal and they quite easily put that over, but that is not the Australia Card proposal which this Government is putting forward. The most important question for anyone who is involved in this debate is: What is on the Australia Card Register? What information goes into the Australia Card computer? As the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) pointed out so clearly in his excellent contribution to this debate-I only wish that he had been with me at Gosford last Saturday-individuals' names, addresses, dates of birth, sex and places of employment will be on the card Register. That is information which is given to the Electoral Commission when anyone fills out an electoral enrolment card. Earlier the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) pointed out that when anyone applies for a loan from a bank or other lending institution, he is required to provide a great deal of additional information, information which we are not seeking to obtain from citizens when they obtain an Australia Card. We do not want to know what their assets are. We do not want to know the names of referees who will vouch for who they are. So, first of all, the information in the Australia Card computer is not a person's tax records or any information on applications for social security benefits, and it is certainly not any information about a person's medical treatment. The computer record simply contains a person's name, address, date of birth, sex and place of employment. Many people have also been given false information as to when they will be required to produce their Australia Card. The average citizen would, I believe, be required to produce the Australia Card only in three situations, which would be encountered on very rare occasions. If people change their employment and obtain a new job, they would be asked to produce the Australia Card on the first day that they show up, or, if they forgot it the first day, they can show it on the second day, or the third, and so on. Even if an employee refuses to front up and show his card, well and good: the Government says, `You are not banned from employment but your employer will simply deduct the maximum rate of tax, 50c in the dollar, to make sure that you are paying your fair share of tax'. That ensures that people who are, perhaps, working under false names in second jobs to minimise tax pay their fair share of tax-and who can object to that? Mrs Darling —Fair enough. Mr LEE —That is fair enough, as the honourable member for Lilley says. The second occasion on which a citizen would be required to produce the Australia Card would be if that person sought to open a new bank account. It is quite common these days to hear of people who have opened bank accounts in false names, often to ensure that they do not have to declare interest which perhaps might be earned on that account as taxable income. The third occasion when a citizen would be required to produce the card would be if he or she were after some support or assistance from the Department of Social Security. To hear Opposition members, such as the honourable member for Fadden, suggesting that a policeman can pull a person over to the side of the road, demand to see his Australia Card and then proceed to obtain all sorts of information on that person's assets, any offences he might have committed and details about his medical life, is to hear a fantasy of their imagination. Policemen will not be able to demand to see one's Australia Card. If a policeman pulls a citizen over to the side of the road and demands to see his Australia Card, that policeman has committed an offence under the Australia Card legislation. That policeman would be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to several years if found guilty. The honourable member for Fadden also delights in suggesting that everyone will have access to the information which will be in the Australia Card computer. He suggested that it would be quite easy for anyone to tap into the computer and obtain the information which has been provided by ordinary citizens. If that is so, one might ask: Why have people not tapped into the computer databases which are already up and running in, for example, the Australian Taxation Office or the Department of Social Security, or the Health Insurance Commission's Medicare computer? Every Medicare office has terminals which are linked to the Medicare computer database. I imagine that if people could tap into the Medicare computer, it would be just as easy for them to tap into the Australia Card computer. The fact is that the lines provided for the Medicare computer are dedicated lines which are secure, just as many facilities provided by Telecom are secure. If someone breaks into a Telecom exchange to seek to install an interception device on a Medicare computer line or any other computer line, as soon as the entrance door to that exchange is opened an alarm goes off at a central exchange in the Telecom system, which alerts the Telecom staff to the fact that an illegal entry has occurred. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a former Telecom technician yourself, will be aware of the very strict security procedures which Telecom enforces in the system. In the previous Parliament, when I served on the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception, we were advised by senior Telecom staff from Victoria that they had very strict procedures on security at Telecom exchanges. In the time left to me tonight I want to touch on several other issues. The first concerns another matter involving the communications area, and that is the establishment of a UHF translator to provide improved television reception in Wyong Shire, which makes up over 80 per cent of my electorate. During the 1984 election campaign, the then Minister for Communications, the honourable member for Holt (Mr Duffy), was on the Central Coast and announced at that time that he had agreed to the establishment of translators on the Central Coast so that residents there could receive not only Channel 3 from Newcastle but also commercial channels, 7, 9 and 10 from the Sydney television region, plus Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) signals. The Minister was breaking new ground there, because in the past areas had to be classified as belonging to either the metropolitan area, which would have restricted us to channels 7, 9 and 10, or, in this case, to the Newcastle service area, in which case we would have been entitled to receive only Channel 3. So the good news was that Minister Duffy announced that we would have an overlapping service area and would be able to receive four commercial channels as well as the ABC and SBS signals. On 24 April 1986 Minister Duffy was on the Central Coast and officially opened the first of a planned three translators there which were going to implement the announcement he had made in 1984. The first translator was at Rumbalara Reserve at Gosford. At that official opening ceremony, the Minister announced that the second and third UHF translators, which were to be established at Wyrrabalong trigonometry station at Forresters Beach and at Boudi National Park, would be running within 12 months. It has been more than 12 months since the Minister told us that he expected the other two UHF translators to be up and operating, but I am sorry to report to the House tonight that very little progress has been made in the establishment of the translators. As a result of that, constituents in my electorate can look forward to having fuzzy television reception and very poor reception for some time to come. I am raising this matter tonight in the hope that the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) will ensure that his Department investigates this matter thoroughly. At present there is a dispute between Gosford City Council and the consortium of television stations which is constructing the UHF translator at Forresters Beach. In March 1985 Gosford City Council gave approval for the television station consortium to construct a translator at Wyrrabalong, at Forresters Beach. As you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will be familiar with that part of the Central Coast, I am sure that you are aware that Wyrrabalong is a very dominant peak on the Central Coast's coastline. Mr Howard —I know it well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The Leader of the Opposition and I know it very well. Mr LEE —The Leader of the Opposition claims to know it well. Perhaps he has gone hang-gliding there with some of the hang-gliders who frequent the area. Mr Howard —I have not quite graduated to that but I am working on it. Mr LEE —I would be happy to arrange for the Leader of the Opposition to have a go at hang-gliding there any time he wishes. In March 1985 Gosford City Council gave approval for the translator mast to be erected at Wyrrabalong. The proposal put forward by the television station consortium was for the erection of a lighthouse-type structure. What has happened since is that the consortium has concluded that that is too expensive, and it now wishes to erect a simple transmission tower of lattice-type structure, which would obviously be a lot cheaper, but that would not be agreed to by Gosford City Council. As a result there is stalemate or stand-off between Gosford City Council and the consortium of television stations. I am not too clear who is in the right or the wrong. The television station consortium originally agreed to the erection of this lighthouse-type structure even though it was more expensive, yet Gosford City Council has not been prepared to give an inch and perhaps bend a little to allow the television stations to proceed with the erection of this tower. The problem is that the Gosford City Council has no incentive to hurry the erection of this translator because the ratepayers and residents of Gosford city will not benefit from any improved reception which results from the erection of the UHF translator at Wyrrabalong. Many Wyong shire residents suffer very poor television reception because this stalemate is continuing. I believe that the Department of Transport and Communications now has a responsibility to intervene, to knock a few heads together to seek to ensure that Gosford City Council and the consortium of television stations can sort this problem out so that my constituents can obtain the television reception which they were promised as soon as possible. On the very question of the environmental significance of Wyrrabalong and the erection of a lighthouse or a lattice type structure at Wyrrabalong, I think it is important for the Department of Transport and Communications perhaps to consult with the local interest groups such as the Bateau Bay Progress Association, whose officers have contacted me and said that they are not particularly concerned whether it is a lighthouse or a lattice-type structure; what they are more concerned about is the public access and landscaping which was promised by the television consortium and the fact that this will provide greater public access to the beautiful coastal strip which runs from Crack Neck lookout to Wyrrabalong trigonometry station. I turn to another area of government administration addressed in the Appropriation Bill; that is, the drug offensive and the Government's decision to plough a great deal of money into fighting drugs wherever possible. The Government's campaign against drug abuse is a three-pronged effort. First of all, we have sought to raise the consciousness of ordinary Australians about the harmful effects of legal and illegal drugs. Many honourable members in the House tonight would have seen the advertisements on television explaining in very graphic terms the effect drugs can have on the health of ordinary people. A second area has been the increase in funds which we have provided for rehabilitation centres. The third and most important area is the funds we have provided for the education of children, particularly young children, to seek to ensure that there is a smaller probability of children becoming addicted to drugs in the future. Mrs Darling —Very important. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Lilley suggests, it is a very important area. A lot of Federal Government funds provided in this area have gone to the Life Education Movement, which was started by the Reverend Ted Noffs, who is currently in poor health. I am sure all honourable members in this House would be wishing him a speedy recovery. I had the pleasure of organising a half-day itinerary for a visiting group of Chinese citizens representing the All China Youth Federation when they were visiting Sydney recently. I had to pick out something that perhaps would be of interest to them to visit in Sydney. Having had quite a bit to do with the Life Education centres in my electorate, I came to the conclusion that perhaps the best thing the Chinese people could see would be the Life Education Centre at Potts Point. That was arranged and these citizens of China who were visiting Australia as guests of the Australian Political Exchange Committee one morning visited the Life Education Centre at Potts Point. Mr Wesley Noffs, the son of Ted Noffs and the National Director of the Life Education Movement, went to a great deal of trouble to make our Chinese visitors feel at home. He had learnt a little bit of Mandarin and had a speech translated into Mandarin. That was greatly appreciated by our Chinese visitors. They were very moved by the classes of young children whom they were able to sit with to experience the very clever way in which the Life Education courses can explain to young people that they do have the right to refuse any drugs offered to them whether by adults or even their best friends. They are taught to develop their self-respect so that they are able to say no to their friends even if their friends wish to smoke, drink or use harder drugs such as heroin. In my electorate last Saturday the Central Coast Life Education Movement officially launched its second mobile van. The launching was attended by the Deputy Leader of the New South Wales State Opposition, Mr Collins, the State member for Willoughby, and by my State parliamentary colleague, Mr McGowan. The Central Coast Life Education Movement continues to make a great contribution on the Central Coast in educating primary school children in the Federal electorates of Robertson and Dobell, ensuring that they are aware of the horrible effects of drugs. More than that, it ensures that they have the strength within themselves to say no and to keep off illegal and legal drugs. I have great pleasure in supporting this part of the Government's Budget, which I am sure will help many children for years to come. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(9.37) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the first thing I would like to do is to congratulate you on your re-election as Chairman of Committees of this House. No doubt you will carry out your onerous tasks in your usual manner. Tonight, I am speaking to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88. In doing so I would like first of all to welcome the fact that the Budget at long last has been balanced. I do not congratulate the Government for doing that but I welcome it because I believe it should have been done years ago. As a person in business in rural Queensland, I welcome it because I believe that now we have a freed-up monetary system, it is absolutely essential-Keynesian-type economics of deficit spending is not working throughout the world-that we continue not only this year but also in the foreseeable future to have a balanced Budget because we must take pressure off interest rates, particularly the domestic interest rates, which we control. It is absolutely important that the Federal Government, which is the biggest borrower-I will deal later with the Australian Wheat Board, which is the second biggest borrower in Australia-is now not in the market but it still has to appropriate large sums of money to pay back interest on previous borrowings, with which we totally disagree. Since this Labor Government was elected to govern Australia we have seen it go out into both the domestic and foreign markets and borrow $30 billion to prop up its Budget arrangements until this time. At long last it has stopped doing that but it still has to repay up to $7.8 billion annually. Of course, that is not going to decrease unless the Government pays back the $1 billion it has promised to pay back from the sale of assets, although I cannot find anywhere in the Budget Papers where it is shown that that is going to happen. Maybe seeing is believing; maybe it will happen. Along with most other people on this side of the House, the things that still concern me are that debt and the balance of payments situation. We have seen a rapid growth in that area while the Labor Government has been in office. We are now looking at a figure estimated at $11.5 billion. We have to be encouraged to increase capital investment if we are going to get that figure down. We have to create more jobs, expand our base, our gross domestic product, so that we can all show a greater profit and get back into balance. Unfortunately, we will probably have to restrict imports and continue to increase exports. Our exports in volume are actually increasing but the price we have been getting for our products on the world market is down. We must increase our capital investment, and that is one thing that this Government has not done for Australia since it was elected. There has been no significant increase in capital investment, although we have seen the Government do a 100 per cent somersault and reintroduce negative gearing. However, it has also reduced the depreciation allowance on new buildings from 4 to 2 1/2 per cent, which really mitigates the negative gearing arrangement. We have seen the distortions of the great capital gains tax the Government has introduced. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had a great idea. Someone rang him up while he was in Western Australia, and he thought it was a good idea to eliminate the provision of housing by introducing a capital gains tax. I am pleased to see that even some of the Ministers on his side of politics agree that housing should never have been eliminated in this way, but as in all taxation arrangements we see a distortion in that area. This has led to enormous prices being paid not just in Sydney but throughout Australia. We said at the time that that would happen, that people would start spending inordinate amounts on their private homes to avoid paying capital gains tax. This is not to say that we support a capital gains tax; we believe it ought to be abolished. That is the only way we will get capital investment up and moving again. If there is no incentive for people to invest; if they cannot make a profit by investing and selling, they will not do it. It is as simple as that. We operate on the profit motive. Profit has become a dirty word to those on the Government side, but that is the only way we will get this country up and running again. I am strongly of the view that interest rates will come down and stay down with a balanced Budget, and certainly that will help. The States also have to be pulled into line and they must stop borrowing, as must local government. As the Opposition's spokesman for local government, I know that this is an important area we have to deal with because it is the grass roots of politics in Australia. I have always been pretty tough on local governments; I believe a lot of them have gone out and borrowed too much money and, for organisations at that level, are living beyond their means. The States are doing the same, as is the Commonwealth. We know of the massive amounts that have been borrowed overseas, such as the $30 billion we have heard about, to keep us living-- Mr McGauran —Do you tell them that? Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, I do tell them that. I spent nine years as a councillor of the Tara Shire. That shire was actually very good. A lot of councils cannot even pay their interest and redemption with the rates they collect. That is the position they have put themselves in. Some of them spend their total rate collections on interest and redemption payments on loans they have taken out in the previous 5, 6, 7 or 8 years. That is something we must be more responsible about. I am quite happy to tell them about it. If we are not producing and selling the goods to enjoy the standards of the lucky country, the sorts of living standards we have become used to, we have to pull our horns in for a while and make sure that we stop borrowing our way into prosperity. In the end it will not be us who pay for it; it will be our children. I have three sons and a daughter who will be out there working and I do not wish to place the sort of burden on them that Labor governments, during the Whitlam years in particular, have certainly placed on Australia. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) undertook his role of Treasurer very responsibly because most times he balanced the Budget, and he did not overspend. We were living within our means at that time. Mr Barry Jones —What do you mean `most times he balanced the Budget'? Mr IAN CAMERON —Most times; it was only the last year that he did not. Honourable members should look at the figures, and I have often said to the Leader of the Opposition himself that he should look at the figures. I believe he did an excellent job, and Malcolm Fraser was a good old Scottish Prime Minister; he did not waste money. If one looks at the real Budget figures for those years I believe one can see there was really responsible monetary management-much more responsible than what we have seen in the last few years. We see now that the Reserve Bank of Australia made a profit this year of $2 1/2 billion, following a profit last year of $2 billion. The people who have paid for that profit have been the primary producers and small business people of Australia, who have been paying interest rates of up to 25 per cent. That sort of nonsense has to stop too. We freed up the so-called money market and yet this Government has been using the Reserve Bank for the last three or four years to prop up the dollar. The overseas speculators have been making the money but the real producers of this country, the farmers and small business people, have been paying the costs of the Reserve Bank's profits which this Government is now using to help, as it claims, balance its Budget. The Government says it will sell off assets, but of course we have not seen anything sold yet. The Government was going to sell the airports at $350m but they have been taken off the list of sales. I will attend some of the auctions when they take place although I will be surprised if any do. An amount of $1 billion has been provided for in the Budget to help balance it up, but I think the Government will have difficulty because I do not know who will buy these assets. I do not know who is looking for a dry dock in Sydney, and there is also one in Brisbane that has just closed and is for sale. I am amazed to think who the Government believes will buy these things. I assure the Government that it will be pretty difficult to sell some of these so-called assets it has listed for sale. In my area of responsibility, local government, we have seen a cut in expenditure allocations to councils. The figures have been announced, and in Queensland 11 councils are to be paid less than last year. The real increase in spending of 2 per cent that is given back from Federal taxes has been cut, and we have seen a new direction whereby the Government has taken a political position within each State to fund particular areas, I guess areas of influence in the Labor Government, so we are seeing tremendous disparity. This is happening not only in Queensland but also in Victoria, where 50 councils are disadvantaged, and following the announcement yesterday of New South Wales's funding we see that nine councils are disadvantaged. They are not getting the sorts of funds they have been used to getting. I believe that we ought to be at least maintaining the level. We do not necessarily need to go much beyond the inflation rate, but councils ought at least to be given sufficient funds to cover their set expenditure carried over from the previous year, including the in-built cost of inflation. Of course, in a number of areas the Government is not even prepared to do that. We have seen also a decrease in community employment program funding. There has been a cut of 53 per cent, down to $95m to State funding for the program, which will severely affect the operations of local councils. The Government has set up a program upon which the councils have become dependent and all of a sudden, bang, it pulls the rug out from underneath them and they have no funds, no work programs going, and these people who have been employed under these programs are back in the dole queues. The Government is still spending money in that area; there has been no decrease in the rate of unemployment in this country for the last 10 years and we will not get any decrease until we lift that percentage of capital investment. That is a task that seems to have eluded us. There is certainly no such proposal in this Budget, nor has there been in the last three or four for which the Labor Party has been responsible. We also see the status quo in regard to road funding. There has been no increase in road funding to local government for the last three years. The Labor Party gave it a reasonable increase back in 1983 but since then there has been no real increase, and of course the amount of funding government at that level receives has severely restricted its ability to employ people and construct roads. I am strongly of the view that if we are going to increase our exports, we must maintain our infrastructure. There is no point in letting our docks, roads, railways and coal mines-we heard about coal today-fall to pieces if we are to get out of the mess we have placed ourselves in over the last few years. If one drives around the country, as we all do in our electorates, one cannot help but agree that our roads system is in dire need of upgrading, or at least maintaining. Most of Australia's rural roads are not even being maintained at a reasonable level. There is an increase in social welfare spending in this Budget of $2 billion over last year. We are squandering money in this area. I agree with Senator Walsh's pronouncements of late that we need to look at child minding funding, at unmarried mothers benefits and all of the nonsense we have been carrying on with for the last five or six years. We have been wasting funds on welfare. It is not hard to see the figure-there has been a net increase of $2 billion in welfare payments. Meanwhile, the roads fall to bits, the fences fall over and the farms and factories generally fall apart. We wonder why we cannot improve our terms of trade situation. The reason is that we are not directing our resources in the right direction. We are directing them into unproductive areas, not productive areas. Until we turn things around and get rid of this Government and get a government back in place that is prepared to do that, Australia will continue to fall slowly into the mire that this Government has created. The other thing we have seen is a decrease in the land transport program of the present number of cents per litre that have been allocated to road funding. Legislation will be introduced into the House shortly that will reduce that allocation by 0.7c per litre, another broken promise by the Government. This program will not get the funding that was expected. Rural industry is a very important facet of my electorate of Maranoa. The subsidy scheme for fuel cartage has been cut practically down to nothing and we may as well not have it. This program was introduced by the Liberal-National Party some years ago, again to help decentralisation and to help production in rural areas. All we have seen from this Government is a rapid increase in the taxation on fuel, a totally regressive taxation. It is a taxation on produced items of need. It is essential for us today to use petroleum products in all our production endeavours. We have seen this Government take the excise from 6c a litre to 20c a litre. There has been a transfer of well head taxation to excise at the pump. The total tax take from fuel is about $7 billion-- Mr McVeigh —Far too much; give it to the farmers. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is much too much. I am not saying that it should all go to farmers but there is certainly a need for a redirection of those taxes. We have to take taxes off the productive inputs if we are to compete with the rest of the world. We pay nearly as much for diesel and petrol in this country as the Americans pay per gallon for their fuel. They are still using the old United States gallon, but one can still buy petrol in America for about 70c to 80c a gallon. Yet in this country we are now seeing prices going up to over 60c a litre. I have paid 62c a litre and I have seen fuel being sold for 63c a litre. Sixty per cent of that charge is taxation. We have seen an enormous hike in prices and the Australian Labor Party appears to be prepared to place a continuous tax upon us. We have to pay this tax because it is there and we need to get fuel. Once we buy a motor car we have to get it from point A to point B. Once we buy a tractor and start running it round a paddock it just so happens that we have to put petroleum into it. It will not run on water, unfortunately. Mr McGauran —There is a fair bit of profiteering as well by the oil companies. Mr IAN CAMERON —I do not know about that. Mr McGauran —Well there is, as well as the taxation. Mr IAN CAMERON —All right. Perhaps we have to tax these people. I am not frightened of making a bit of a profit. It is amazing how anybody who makes a profit always has to pay some tax in the long run. The more one can turn over a dollar and the more one can make a profit on it the more the Government benefits. I do not hide from profits. I believe that that is what we are on about and we ought to make some. The more we make the better and the wealthier we will become as a nation. Of course, primary industry has been attacked as usual. Because the wool industry has had the first price increase for 15 years the $10m that the Government promised for wool promotion has gone. The only reason we got an increase in wool prices is that the Australian Wool Corporation and the growers, dollar for dollar, have had the guts to go out and spend some money on research and promotion. This has encouraged countries throughout the world to start buying our wool again. The Chinese and the people who are buying our wool are processing it and selling it back to us and to the Americans. There is no government allocation-not 1c-to the beef industry for the chemical residue problem. The Government has been harping about the fact that we are causing this problem. It is a fact of life that, on the levels of contamination in our beef, a person has to consume seven bullocks a day in order to get a toxic chemical dose. That is how ridiculous most of this nonsense is that is talked about our beef. We produce the best and the cleanest grass-fed beef in the world. Every other country that produces beef houses the stock for six months of the year and hand feeds it grain. These residues are found in that grain, whereas we grass feed our cattle. Those of us at Maranoa and other electorates, such as Gippsland, produce wonderful beef. It is a great product and it would do the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) the world of good to eat more of it. He would live a lot longer-- Mr Barry Jones —I have the largest beef cattle herd in Australia in my electorate. Mr IAN CAMERON —Good. If the Minister eats more beef he will live a lot longer because I can assure him that there is not much residue in it. The Government has not allocated any funds to the beef industry. The producers are expected to pay the $100m that it is costing the industry to have the meat inspection services in place. It is a health service and it does not come out of Consolidated Revenue. The same thing is happening with this chemical residue scare. The producers are expected to pay-- Mr McGauran —Hidden tax. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is hidden tax and there is nothing in the Government's Budget to help primary producers. All this Government has done is cut funding. Only $403m is being spent whereas $459m was spent last year. I would like to conclude by mentioning the environment issue that we have in north Queensland. It is amazing that there is no Budget allocation in the arts and environment area for the so-called compensation that this Government is expected to pay to the 3,000 people it will put out of work when it lists this forestry area. The only reason that these areas are still there to be listed is that the Queensland people have preserved the rainforests over a period of years. There are none left in New South Wales and Victoria, but it just so happens that we have some rainforests left. Only 23 per cent of these rainforests are being selectively logged. The rest of them are national parks or they have been set aside by the Department of Forestry. I ask every member of parliament, from the Australian Labor Party and from the Liberal and National parties, to go to Cairns to inspect this area and see for themselves and understand what a nonsense it is. It is a straightout cynical vote purchase. It was something that was promised at election time and it is something for which each and every person in this nation will have to pay in compensation. It is an absolute nonsense and a sham and I do not believe that we should have anything to do with it. I do not believe that this area should be listed as it is not good enough and it is not unique. There are 3,000 people making a living throughout the area. I do not believe that this is something we should entertain and I am totally opposed to it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(9.57) —It is possible to look at an annual Budget from a range of different perspectives. Most of the discussion about an annual Budget tends to focus on the broad macroeconomic strategy that is being pursued and also the outlook for economic aggregates, such as growth, employment, the inflation rate and the balance of payments. Obviously these matters are of crucial importance for the capacity of the Australian economy to provide sustainable, high living standards and reasonable employment prospects in the years to come. So that is a natural and reasonable priority. I think on the broad macroeconomic front there is little doubt that the outlook is looking up in a whole range of different respects. Apart from the basic fiscal outcome of the Budget, with essentially a zero deficit, we are looking also at the beginnings of a turnaround in the crucial current account balance. We have seen a reduction in that from 6 per cent of gross domestic product to 5 per cent last year with 4 per cent or so in prospect for the coming year. So the outlook is pretty good on that front. The one big weakness thus far has been the investment outlook where we have had surveys tending to show a rather weak outlook for new productive investment. But in recent weeks there have been some indications of a turnaround in that area also, particularly in the key tradable goods sectors. We are seeing prospects of an upturn in investment in the metal and engineering sectors which, of course, are of key importance to the manufacturing exports that need to be developed if the Australian balance of payments problem is to be turned around in the long term. In the past year we have also seen a very substantial rise in manufactured exports and the share of manufactured goods in the totality of Australia's exports. All in all, a range of indicators seems to show that things are on the improve. There remain some significant concerns. One thing that strikes me as a potential significant problem is that we may be unsuccessful in turning the balance of payments around. We are now seeing some recovery in commodity prices and some prospective improvement in the terms of trade and, as I said earlier, we are starting to see clear signs of a turnaround in the current account balance. Associated with that, and caused by it to a substantial extent, we are starting to see a strengthening in the value of the Australian dollar, a strengthening in the exchange rate. The dilemma is that, as the current account balance starts to correct itself and the exchange rate starts to strengthen as a result, the very increase in competitiveness that flows from the devaluation and which has given this significant boost to our manufacturing industries and our tradable goods sector, tends to become weakened by the strengthening of the exchange rate. That is a matter that we will have to look at very seriously in the coming months and years. I think it could be a serious potential problem that could undo a lot of the good stuff that is starting to emerge. These are obviously key issues, but in my speech I would like to concentrate mainly on a number of matters bearing directly on the Government's commitment to achieving a more just society and, in particular, the commitment announced before the election to raise the living standards of low income families. I think that the changes made in the Budget in the social security area, particularly the family assistance package, show a real and continuing level of commitment to these goals. The family assistance package has been delivered as promised by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during the recent election campaign. It will go a long way towards fulfilling his undertaking that, by 1990, all parents will have available to them an income which ensures that their children need not live in poverty. The family assistance package, consisting of a family assistance supplement, uniform rent assistance and a new child disability allowance, as well as improving conditions for families reliant on pensions and benefits, extends benefits to at least 200,000 families in receipt of low wages. It replaces the family income supplement with a much more generous scheme with a significantly higher withdrawal threshold of $300 a week plus $12 for each additional child, compared with a withdrawal threshold of $257 under the family income supplement. The extension of immediate rent allowance of up to $15 a week for unemployment beneficiaries with families also recognises for the first time the special difficulties faced by unemployed people with children. I am particularly pleased to see the introduction of the child disability allowance which replaces the previous two-tiered system. Formerly, parents with a child receiving the handicapped child's allowance had their joint income taken into account and, as well, had to document all the expenses associated with the care of the child. They then received an amount which was anywhere between $20 to $92 a month. Parents with children receiving the severely handicapped child's allowance received a non-means-tested allowance of $92 a month. Parents in both categories will now receive a non-means-tested allowance of $112 a month-a substantial increase and a less intrusive method. The Government has also introduced a child support scheme in the Budget in response to a widespread view in the community that the present system needed reform. Because maintenance payment enforcement methods have been totally ineffective, maintenance by the non-custodial parent had, in effect, become voluntary. The Budget confirmed the previously announced establishment of a Child Support Agency which will come under the control of the Commissioner of Taxation. The Agency will collect the maintenance payments by means of deductions at source in the case of pay as you earn taxpayers, and by a monthly payment to the Agency by self-employed people. These payments will be distributed by the Department of Social Security. I believe that the introduction of a scheme of this sort was probably unavoidable, given present levels of compliance. However, there is some concern in the community, which I share, that the onus which is now placed on the custodial parent to pursue maintenance awards could cause severe difficulties for some women. I certainly hope that the Child Support Agency will have sufficient powers of discretion, which it will apply with compassion, not to force such action on women where there is a history of physical or mental abuse in the family. It would be most unfortunate if the pressure on women to summons their ex-partners over non-payment of maintenance was merely replaced by putting them in a position where they were liable to harassment over the measures they were forced to take to obtain maintenance payments in the first place. In addition, I hope that special attention is paid to the plight of women who have had a child as a result of a casual relationship. It must be recognised that present societal values do not particularly recognise the obligation of the child's father to take financial responsibility in these circumstances, thus placing the mother in a very difficult position if she is forced to pursue him. In the old days, I understand that a number of women chose to solve this problem by claiming not to know who the father was-solving the maintenance problem at the cost of humiliation to themselves. I should not like to see this situation restored. The Government has chosen to implement the recommendations of the Cabinet sub-committee in two stages. The steps that I have outlined constitute stage one and will be introduced in March next year. Stage two was foreshadowed, but it will not be implemented for some time. Stage two actually consists of the first recommendation of the sub-committee-that is, that the present judicial power of determination of maintenance levels should be replaced by a legislative formula based on the income of the non-custodial parent, the number of dependent children living with the custodial parent and the existence of children living with the non-custodial parent. This proposal is based on the premise that children of a relationship should continue in a lifestyle dictated by the joint income of their parents, irrespective of whether those parents are living together. At present this is far from the case. The criteria which a judge is required to consider are ambiguous and often conflicting. In addition, there is no attempt to prioritise, so that major consideration may be given to different factors by different judges. The result is that maintenance awards on the whole bear little relationship to the non-custodial parent's capacity to pay. However, despite these reservations, the measures introduced in the Budget to assist low income families are commendable. I congratulate the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) for changes which contain such strong elements of social justice and equity. Nonetheless, there are still distinct problems in the area of Social Security and low income families, some of which result from measures introduced in the May economic statement. Social security and welfare programs contributed about 25 per cent of the $1.6 billion taken off Government programs in the May statement-a move which may have appeased the money markets, but which did little for those who rely on these programs. As all backbenchers could tell one, sole parents were one of the groups hard hit by these cuts-in particular, by the withdrawal of pension and supporting parent benefit entitlements for sole parents with dependent children aged 16 and over. In August, following consultation with affected groups, the Minister for Social Security introduced changes to soften the effect of the changes; namely, sole parents who lose their pension between 1 September and 31 December this year because of the changes will retain eligibility for fringe benefits until the end of 1988. As well, sole parents in full time study and receiving a pension before 1 September will now be able to stay on the pension until they complete their current course, even if their youngest child is aged over 16. These modifications were welcomed by those concerned. However, there are still many sole parents who will be adversely affected by the changes. In principle, it is hard to argue against the idea that a woman with children who do not require constant supervision any longer would be better off no longer continuing to rely on social security payments. I am sure that this is what most of the women concerned would wish for themselves. However, I am concerned that we shall be left with a large pool of women-and some men-who will continue to receive social security payments on a long term basis, unable to obtain work. Instead of their previous situation in which, whilst they were hardly rich, they had secure incomes, they will constantly face the uncertainties of unemployment benefits and the work test, with no real prospect of obtaining work. I can think of few things more demoralising than constantly having to prove one's credentials by ringing for jobs and visiting the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES), knowing that there is no real prospect that one will achieve results. In order for the changes to result in more people in the work force and less reliance on social security, as the Government wishes, there needs to be a real commitment to providing opportunities and appropriate training to assist these people to re-enter the work force. In reality, they are faced by many problems in their attempts to work. Many of them have been out of the work force for 10 to 20 years or even longer. They lack up-to-date skills, self-confidence and the confidence of the employers. A recent analysis of traditional women's jobs advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 June this year showed what an uphill battle these women are facing. For example, in the category of clerk-typist, 30 jobs were offered. Of those, 24 required a person under 40 years of age, with 35 being the most common top age. Of the 378 advertisements for secretarial positions, 186 specified under 40 years with, again, 35 being the most common top age. In addition, many specified skills such as word processing, which did not exist when most of these women were working. Many jobs for women were inserted by employment agencies. Several of these were contacted by the researcher and indicated that they would find it very hard to place a woman over 40, let alone one without recent experience. She was also told that employers were prepared to train young women only in areas such as word processing. In the retail sales area, there were 26 advertisements for the position of sales assistant. Of these 15 specified a junior and most of the jobs which were open to older women specified experience in the relevant type of sales. As clerical and retail sales work are the major areas of employment for women, it is obvious that they face severe difficulties in the employment market. We are constantly reading that employers are having problems finding office workers. It seems that many would rather leave a job unfilled than give it to an older woman, which is a short-sighted and stupid failure to recognise the special qualities many of these women would bring to their work. A number of women who have already approached their local CES office report having been told that because of their lack of qualifications and experience, their ages, and in many cases the areas in which they live, they are virtually unemployable. Another area potentially of serious concern is the conflict between the age limit set for the removal of Class A widows pensions and supporting parents benefits and the Government's commitment to raising retention rates in schools. Whilst there is no doubt that the family assistance package announced in the Budget-especially the family assistance supplement and the immediate payment of rent supplement to unemployment beneficiaries-and the increased level of payment for Austudy for 16- and 17-year-olds mitigated the effect of the May statement provisions, there is no doubt that the financial circumstances of most of these families will worsen to some degree. A study just completed by Karen Coleman of the Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education, based on a phone-in survey conducted by the Sole Parents Action Group, indicates that possibly over 60 per cent of affected children will drop out before completing Year 12. If this does not occur it will cause a reduction of 3.2 per cent in retention in government schools, a situation which the Government has fought so hard to improve. The reasons given for these changed intentions are various. Some children are generally concerned at the financial burden they are placing on their parent and want to get out and start earning money in the expectation that they could obtain work more easily than the parent could. Some children are simply not willing to continue living in the family situation where money is so tight, and prefer to leave home and share with friends, even if they are still dependent on Social Security payments. Ms Coleman makes the point in her study that this Government's good record on providing support for low income families has most likely been a big factor in the increasing retention rates in schools. It would be a great pity if this were reversed because of this decision. Although expenditure on training programs has increased by 37.9 per cent, I am not satisfied that within this there is much to answer the specific needs of these sole parents attempting to re-enter the work force. The $2m set aside in the May statement appears to be the only expenditure aimed at creating new training places for sole supporting parents and older single women with few work force skills. This amount will stretch very thinly indeed over the whole of Australia, considering the number of people involved. I think particularly of women in country towns. What access will they have to bridging courses and training programs, and even if they do acquire skills, what jobs are available to them? Now that programs such as new opportunities for women and the community employment program (CEP) have been abolished, I hope that the Government will look very seriously at directing some of the increased funding in training areas to the needs of these women. Whilst the CEP had obvious limitations, especially a totally inadequate serious training component, in my experience it was of especial benefit to women in providing them with a transition back into the work force by giving them not only work experience but also a record of employment to present to potential employers. I close by repeating my congratulations to the Minister for Social Security for the package he has just introduced. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.15) —Tonight I bring to the attention of the House one of the most remarkable opinion polls that I have read in a long time. The opinion poll relates quite directly to none other than that good old- fashioned socialist, the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) from South Australia. We all know that he is dedicated to the introduction of what I believe is a most horrendous piece of social engineering, namely, the identity card. For the benefit of honourable members, I thought that I would inform them of the results of a survey taken last year on the Minister in his role as the then Minister for Health. It is very interesting to see in the opinion poll, which was taken among members of the Private Doctors Association, the level of acceptance of the Minister. The first question that was put forward to members was: How would you describe Dr Blewett's performance as Federal Minister for Health? The answer indicated that when `bad' and `very bad' are lumped together, the figure came out at a remarkable 96 per cent. Ninety-six per cent of those surveyed thought that his performance was either bad or very bad. The next question asked members how they would describe his performance as a politician. The response, again, was amazing. Seventy-eight per cent described him as incompetent. The next question was: What is your personal regard for Dr Blewett? In that category respondents had to specify `high', `medium' or `low'. Guess what-95 per cent went for the low category. In the second question regarding competence it was stated, further, that of those who described Dr Blewett as a competent politician, 82 per cent-- Mr Holding —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Standing Orders prevent any reflection on a member of this House and provide for a method by which an honourable member who wants to canvass the sorts of issues which the honourable member for Wannon is now canvassing may do so. He does it by way of a substantive motion. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Wannon. Mr Holding —With great respect, Madam Speaker, I put to you-- Mr Tim Fischer —You are reflecting on the Chair. Mr Holding —No. I want to argue this point because I think it is important. If one were to adopt the procedure that is now being adopted, I could come into this House with a scurrilous Press release and, on the basis of the falsity of that, purport to read it out and say that it represents either editorial comment or the opinion of some group. If I were to accept the ruling that you have made, Madam Speaker, that would mean that you would be creating a precedent by which the Standing Orders could be substantially circumscribed. I ask you to consider that aspect. If the honourable member is sincere in the way he is putting his argument, he should do it by way of a substantive motion so the matter can be the subject of full debate. But for a member to walk in here and say, `I happened to read an opinion poll' is allowing a situation whereby that methodology is used to overcome-- Mr Tim Fischer —You are taking all his time. Mr Holding —Of course I am taking plenty of time; it is a very important point. A methodology is involved here which I think could be developed in a way which would have the effect of circumventing the Standing Orders. If that is the honourable member's intention, he is clearly out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Standing order 76 states: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. In my opinion, the honourable member for Wannon is not making a personal reflection on the Minister for Community Services and Health. I call the honourable member. Mr HAWKER —Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is quite obvious that the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs does not want to hear what I have to say. Mr Holding —Madam Speaker, on a further point of order: an allegation can be offensive to a member and reflect on a member if it is made personally, but this is a hearsay allegation. If there is one thing worse than a member using the Standing Orders to make his own direct allegation, it is using what is no more than scuttle-butt and a hearsay allegation to make this kind of gross reflection. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will not debate the issue. Mr HAWKER —I think it is quite irresponsible of the Minister to waste my time like that. I conclude by saying that the Minister for Community Services and Health does not have the confidence-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.20) —I have spoken in this House previously on the new synthetic rock called synroc which research work indicates could be used to contain high level radioactive wastes. As experiments are still being conducted on the viability of synroc by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation at Lucas Heights in Sydney, it is difficult to ascertain many of the practical aspects of how the containment or encapsulation will be carried out. As I have already pointed out in this House, the problem of nuclear waste accumulation is now most severe. Millions of litres of radioactive waste are presently located in temporary dumps all around the world. It has to be remembered that radioactive waste, particularly high level radioactive waste, is highly toxic for many hundreds of years. Mr Tim Fischer —Do you support the honourable member for Kalgoorlie? Madam SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Farrer that all interjections are out of order. Mr MILTON —In these circumstances it is to be hoped that the development of synroc is successful because even if the nuclear industry were to cease activities today it is doubtful whether sufficient synroc could be produced in a sufficiently short space of time to deal with this most serious and irresponsible problem of radioactive waste disposal. It has been difficult to ascertain exactly how the synroc encapsulation of the waste would occur because the experiments at Lucas Heights are continuing. It had appeared that the high level wastes must be retained in cooling ponds for periods of five to ten years before the encapsulation could take place. The five- to 10-year period was necessary to enable the more intense radioactivity and the consequent generation of intense heat to become less intense as the radioactive substances decay. It is worth pointing out that the level of radiation from high level waste is intense: a person standing 10 metres away from an unshielded container containing fresh waste can receive a 500 rem dose and have a 50 per cent chance of being dead in 10 minutes. Some of the longer lived transuranic elements take about 100,000 years to one million years to decay to a level which will not cause death to human beings who come into close contact with the waste. Research work has indicated that all the present known methods of storage of high level radioactive waste will cause the ground water adjacent to the waste burial ground to boil unless the waste is stored for at least 100 years, rather than 10 to 20 years. Whether such 100-year storage ponds are necessary for synroc as an encapsulation material is unclear, but it is interesting to note that it has been claimed by reputable scientific sources that every repository designed to date will give rise to boiling unless the waste is stored for 100 years beforehand. All the effective concentration of the waste is diluted which makes the capacity of a given repository that much less. However, a new scientific solution is at hand. It is known as the thermosyphon loop. Dr Barry Brady, who is the Chief of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Geomechanics, and his colleagues have suggested that high level nuclear waste should be buried as part of a thermosyphon loop, within which circulating groundwater would keep it cool and confined. Initial experiments and computer simulations have produced encouraging results, and plans are being developed to test the scheme in a simulated repository in granite rock. The thermosyphon loop is a way of cooling down the waste in whatever form it may take by circulating water over it, using a thermosyphon, a system of water circulation that naturally occurs in solar water heaters. Instead of treating ground water as an unavoidable nuisance, it puts it to work in a controlled and predictable fashion. With an ample flow of water in the thermosyphon loop temperatures will be much less than they otherwise would be and boiling can be avoided. As I said at the beginning of this speech, let us hope that the method works as we must find a way of immobilising higher level radioactive wastes for the safety of all people on the earth. Millions of litres of radioactive waste is now being produced from nuclear power stations all over the world. Whilst it is true that many countries have recognised this problem, including countries such as Sweden, which is now scaling down the building of nuclear reactors, it is a fact that this high level radioactive waste is a very great danger to mankind. Therefore, I am very supportive of the manufacture of products like synroc. I hope that it is successful and that the thermosyphon loop may also be successful. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Wannon. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.25) —I will try again, Madam Speaker, since the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding) was not too keen to hear what I had to say before. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I am sorry, I call the honourable member for Dunkley. The honourable member for Wannon has already spoken in this debate. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.26) —That is correct. The honourable member for Wannon should learn the rules. Thank you, Madam Speaker. One never ceases to be amazed by mother nature. Although each moment is special, the 24 hours that constituted the 192nd day of the 1,987th year since the birth of our Lord should hold particular significance for many people-indeed, a great many people. It is my purpose today to highlight this particular day in our calendar-11 July. To the careful observer the events of this day have always held special significance. For instance, 11 July is the national day of the People's Republic of Mongolia. Furthermore, on 11 July 1274, Robert the Bruce, King of Scotland, was born. On 11 July 1533, Henry VIII was excommunicated. On 11 July 1916, Edward Gough Whitlam was born. And, of course, on 11 July 1987, the Hawke Labor Government was elected for an historic third consecutive term. However, on this momentous day another cause celebre went almost unnoticed. The human being population of the planet Earth passed the five billion mark. Such a figure is easily stated and, I suggest, more easily disregarded. I wonder how many people who saw the photograph in the Melbourne Sun News Pictorial newspaper of the world's five billionth resident have ever contemplated the problems presented by a changing population. Unfortunately, most people see these problems as just peculiar to countries such as China, India or the continent of Africa. How wrong they are. The population of Australia is greying. By 2021 the number of Australians over 60 will double to in excess of five million, and the number of very old people, over 85, will triple. We are in the middle of a life extension revolution and within a few years most of the health problems that beset people will no longer be problems. The general outlook for Australia's population in the future is one of moderate growth. By 2051 the population will climb to between 27 million and 32 million. In Australia, the tale of greying is not just an epic about the proliferation of old Australians but also relates to the burdens placed upon young Australians; the demand for single housing, the cost of health care, the role of the family unit, and even the long term strategy for politicians. Realistically, the bulk of the costs of supporting the aged population will fall on the public purse. At present 20 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product is spent on social services. By 2021 it will be over 24 per cent. Clearly, the challenge is to meet greatly increased demands for services. For example, perhaps a rise in productivity could give scope for modifying the share of the fruits between workers and pensioners. Certainly new economic, social, and cultural answers must be found. At present there are 15 aged for every 100 workers. By 2021 there will be at least 24 aged for every 100 workers. I am pleased to say that my Government has sought to find these answers by establishing a broader, more equitable tax base, by initiating programs that encourage independence and self-respect, and by forming the Commission for the Future. However, the real panacea lies not in Government, but within the Australian people. They should adequately provide for the twilight years of their lives through participation in superannuation schemes, by entering preventative medicine programs, and by adopting a conserving stance towards the environment in which they live. We must not be fooled by complacency or denied by adopting contingencies that fail in later life when our weary bodies make restitution impossible. The words of Benjamin Franklin, delivered appropriately enough on 11 July 1765, ring a useful reminder to the people of Australia to prepare for senior citizenry: Idleness and pride tax with a heavier hand than kings and parliaments. The Labor Government has adopted a strategy of maintaining people at home for as long as possible. However, older people need to be placed in a setting that is appropriate to their physical needs. We must therefore consider responses to the rapid increase in the demand for single houses, the cases of elderly citizens left without family support, the need to increase research into ways of preventing diseases of the aged, and the imminence of a blowout in health care and social security spending. Other questions remain unanswered. What will be the effect of technology upon an aging population? Should early retirement be encouraged? Are jobs for the young more important? We must prepare now to look after those who have worked so hard in the past that they can now enjoy the fruits of their labour. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.31) —Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election to your high office. This is the first opportunity that I have had to do so. Tonight I wish to deal with the front page revelation from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) about in which direction Australia's economic policy should go. In particular, I wish to refer to his statement regarding the 200 or so projects that he thought were a waste of money, and his specific singling out of the new Brisbane international airport development as one of those projects. I would think that most Queensland members, on whichever side of the House they sit, would be shocked to see that that is Senator Walsh's attitude. Honourable members would probably be even more shocked when they saw in today's Press that, because of the Government's failure to have this project completed on time, Brisbane will now miss out on international airline flights. The project will not now be opened until February of next year, although the airport was supposed to open in September. We know that the Government was to hand over the whole operation to the Federal airport authority but that did not happen. Consequently, we have the amazing situation that a project that has already blown out to $380m will still not be completed until well into the 1990s. One thing that concerns all Queensland members is the fact that the Government has refused to recognise the need in Queensland for a new international air terminal. The history of the past 10 years and the Brisbane international airport debate show that it was a government of the coalition persuasion that decided to proceed with that project. Included in the project were plans for the new international terminal and the new runways, because that Government had the foresight to see the tremendous development of tourism in Queensland. The Joint Committee on Public Works brought out a report in the early 1980s which said that, as far as it could see, there would not be the demand for the new international airport facility until well into the 1990s. Consequently, the Government decided to shelve the project for the new international terminal. However, that happened before the tourism boom, especially the one from Japan, and before the decision to have World Expo 88 in Queensland. We have a most ludicrous situation where Brisbane cannot handle international traffic, but in the Budget the Government has not dedicated 1c to providing a new international airline terminal. Already, British Airways has said that we will suffer. It will not be able to provide additional services because the new facility will not be there on time. It is ridiculous that, during his time the Labor aviation Minister, Mr Charles Jones, saw fit to build an international terminal which, in Mr Jones's own words and decision, was designed as a store shed for the new international airport. Basically, that is what is happening in Brisbane. The international terminal is a store shed, yet next year we look forward to the prospect of Expo 88 attracting in excess of 800,000 international visitors. The last Minister for Aviation would not do this, but I suggest that the new Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) visit Brisbane terminal on a Thursday afternoon, Friday morning, Saturday morning or almost any day of the week to see the absolute chaos that reigns supreme when in a matter of two hours, about seven international flights are being serviced through the temporary international terminal. The situation is an absolute disaster. What amazes me even more is that plans for the terminal buildings have been complete for some time, and when an appeal was made to the Minister to let that tender out to private enterprise so that the terminal could be constructed at about half the cost in readiness for Expo 88, the previous Minister for Aviation refused to do it. The big sufferers will be the Australian tourism industry and Australia as a whole because when we have substandard facilities such as that in Brisbane, that in Sydney and even that in Perth, where things are not yet 100 per cent, we do the best that we can to scare off some of those international operators. With the present economic climate in Australia, we need every international tourist we can possibly get into this country to spend money and create jobs. I appeal to the new Minister to make sure that he gets on with the construction of the new international terminal in Brisbane as soon as he can, let it out to private tender and save lots of money. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.36) —I would like to raise issues concerning human rights and the political situation in Fiji, but before doing so, I compliment the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) on his continuing interest in tourism, and take the opportunity to remind him that he has highlighted two very important points that are fundamental to the political views of the Government side of the House. First, all public expenditure is not bad and the public sector has a very important role to play, not only in social welfare but in providing the necessary infrastructure on which the private sector depends to continue conducting its activities, make profits and create jobs. It is about time that we had an honest debate about public expenditure instead of the Opposition adopting this loony, new Right zealous approach that says that all public expenditure is necessarily bad. The second point that the honourable gentleman raised, perhaps inadvertently, is the necessity and desirability of public ownership and control of important national strategic resources like airports. I am sure that my colleagues in the House tonight will warmly welcome the point that the honourable member made by implication. We are all aware, as a result of the coup in Fiji, such a short distance from Australia, how fragile principles of democracy are and how zealously all of us ought to fight to defend and promote human rights not just in Australia but throughout the world. Since the coup, Amnesty International has learnt of a wave of arrests and short term detention of the supporters of the deposed government and those believed to be critical of the coup. Many of those people appear to have been arrested for their non-violent political beliefs or activities, or for peacefully exercising their internationally recognised right of freedom of expression. Over 100 people were arrested between June and August, including deposed Cabinet Ministers, trade unionists, shopkeepers, journalists and the supporters of the `Back to Early May' movement, an organisation that advocates the restoration of the pre-coup political institutions in Fiji. Those arrests are continuing. People detained are arrested by the police or members of the Royal Fiji military forces under the provisions of emergency legislation issued by the Governor-General immediately after the coup. They are held without charge for short periods ranging from 45 minutes to four days, and are then released. In several cases, they have not been allowed to contact family or friends during their detention and have been released on condition that they do not discuss their experience while in custody. Amnesty International believes that many of those so detained in Fiji may be prisoners of conscience and is calling on the Governor-General and the commander of the royal Fiji military forces, Colonel Rabuka, to review current practices of arrest and detention and to ensure that the fundamental rights of all citizens are respected. I can give a couple of examples of the type of detentions that have occurred. Six executive members of the Fijian Trades Union Congress were arrested on 5 June at the office of the Air Pacific Staff Employees Association. The arrested men were taken to the central police station in Suva where they were questioned and held overnight and their lawyer was refused access to them. That is only one of many examples of detention affecting journalists, trade unionists and those advocating a change in a peaceful manner. Amnesty International recognises that declaration of states of emergency and the issuance of emergency legislation may be justified under the conditions of political or economic crisis but may not be used to imprison individuals for the non-violent expression of their beliefs. Such is the state of the world that, wherever a coup like this does occur, immediately one of the first victims is basic human rights, including the right of the individual of freedom of expression. We all ought to take note of the lessons of that coup in Fiji. Madam SPEAKER —For the information of the House, I inform honourable members that John Platten and Tony Lockett drew for the Brownlow Medal. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.41) —I must say that, rising to my feet in the face of that announcement, I seem to have an almost insignificant matter to raise. I am, in fact, forced to my feet tonight by the action of the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Holding), who is at the table, in denying the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) an opportunity to put into Hansard the things that were most concerning him. Before I move any further into this speech, I want to inform the Minister that his points of order on the honourable member for Wannon denied my colleague the opportunity to participate in the debate and did not allow him to indicate to the House that he had-as would have been anticipated, given his reputation as a member of this place-prior to entering this chamber indicated to the office of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) his intention to raise the matters that he had wished to raise in this debate. So, far from his comments being a scurrilous or unreasonable attack on the Minister, he had acted in the customary way expected of those who want to make in this House comments that may be critical of someone opposite by giving them the opportunity to reply. Because the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs chose to interrupt the comments of the honourable member for Wannon, I have not had an opportunity to convey to the Minister for Community Services and Health the fact that I am about to make some comments tonight that he may, similarly, find critical. That is not something that I do by choice, but something I am forced to do to create some balance in this debate. The Minister for Community Services and Health happens to be in an electorate that adjoins mine. Given the political differences that we hold, we happen, perchance, to have a very agreeable, neighbourly relationship. Only once has this, in fact, been-- Mr Cunningham —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I bring to your attention the fact that the honourable member for O'Connor was sitting with his back to you, between you and the speaker. It is against the Standing Orders and I think he should be told to sit in his own place. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr ANDREW —The honourable member for Wannon must be flattered at the amount of attention that honourable members opposite are giving to the matters that he has raised. I started to say that the honourable member for Bonython and I happen to enjoy as neighbourly a relationship as is possible among members of opposing sides of this House. It has been strained only once and that was during the election campaign when I discovered that a Commonwealth employment program grant had been offered to the electorate of Bonython to restore a bridge that happened to run across the Gawler River between his electorate and mine. I was just a little miffed to discover that while the work was being done on the Wakefield side of the river the grant had gone into Bonython. Mr Scott —Is that where you broke your kneecap? Mr ANDREW —As the honourable member for Hindmarsh is aware, some publicity followed. During an inspection of the bridge I did, in fact, inadvertently stumble and break my kneecap in a culvert. Let it therefore be known that these comments are made in a good-natured vein. According to those people surveyed who deal with the Minister for Community Services and Health, as the honourable member for Wannon has said in his statistics, they are less than happy with his competence. An opinion poll states: Of those who described Dr Blewett's performance as Federal Minister for Health as either good or fair, 60% believed that he should be removed from office, and 50% had a low personal regard for him. Of those who described Dr Blewett as a COMPETENT Politician, 82 per cent thought he should be removed from office, and 80 per cent had a LOW personal regard for him. Those statistics, disturbing as they are for those people in the profession who deal with the Minister, are brought to the attention of the House because of his responsibility for the drafting of this contentious legislation, the Australia Card Bill. What is intended by the Government in sorting out social security fraud can work only when the people of Australia have some confidence in not only the Government but also the Minister responsible for the framing of that legislation. That is no evidence in these statistics that the people who have the closest relationship with the Minister have any confidence in the way in which he is discharging his ministerial duties. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(10.46) —I wish to bring to the attention of the House- Mr Tuckey —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Opposition is one short tonight because of an unfortunate mistake. I would like to have the opportunity to rectify that now. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. One can never turn the clock backwards-good try, though. Mr CUNNINGHAM —The fact that the Opposition is one short certainly did not need to be brought to the attention of the House. During the recess, I had the opportunity to take a study trip to the United Kingdom. I spent several days at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. It was the second time I had been to the plant, having been there three years ago on a study tour. I went this time to see the developments that had taken place over those three years. I am sure that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) will be interested in some of my comments. The total nuclear waste from the nuclear program in the United Kingdom, much of the material from Japan and some from Europe are stored in Cumbria on the coast at the Sellafield plant. People around the world have an impression about the amount of nuclear high-level waste that exists. I assure the honourable member for La Trobe that, if he visited Sellafield, he might find that the so-called millions of litres of waste about which he speaks are a figment of the imagination and that all the high-level waste at Sellafield could be stored inside a building no bigger than Parliament House. The high level nuclear waste is stored in 14 stainless steel tanks. Seven of the 14 tanks are receptacles for high-level waste at this stage and the other seven are beside the tanks in use as a back-up at all times. Each of the #100m tanks is cooled by a water back-up system. They are stored in a concrete bunker with four-feet thick concrete walls, a 12-foot space and a further four-foot thick concrete wall, all of which is completely lined with stainless steel one inch thick. If, by chance, there was a breakdown in the four back-up systems which keep the high level waste cool and one of the tanks burst, the waste would flow on to a stainless steel floor where it would be picked up by a back-up pumping system and fed straight back into a nearby tank costing #100m. There is an enormous built-in safety factor to contain this high-level waste. One needs to go to Sellafield or to a plant in France or Japan to see the amount of waste from reprocessed nuclear rods. A nuclear fuel rod contained material taken from a nuclear power plants after 5, 6 or 7 years of use. In the reprocessing plant, 99 per cent of the material is reprocessed and the uranium made reusable. The high level waste is that one per cent which is very radioactive and must be stored for very many years. The most highly radioactive material has a life span of 250,000 years. As the honourable member for La Trobe says, it is a very serious matter which must be treated with the proper caution. The synroc process, to which the honourable member was referring, is an important part of that. In the United Kingdom at present, the authorities at Sellafield are just reaching the point of putting their glass vitrification process into operation. The high level waste which is at present stored in stainless steel tanks will be processed into a glass which will require only air cooling-not water cooling, as has been suggested. The air cooling can take place in a normal building with the air just being naturally ducted through the building for some 50 years before there will be any need to bury the waste. Whilst it is considered at present that no sites are available at which to bury the waste, it will be 50 years before it will need to be put underground because there will not be the quantity of it about that will need to be stored during that time. So the high level waste is an important issue. A bigger problem at present is mid-level waste which is stored in concrete drums around Britain. It is a bigger problem than the high level waste. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.51) —It is interesting to note how the once well-disciplined Australian Labor Party is suddenly bringing all its arguments out into the open. We have had Senator Walsh disagreeing with his Cabinet colleagues, and now the Government Whip is disagreeing with the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton). But we welcome it; we think it is healthy, and it is good to see that Labor members have had some disagreements which they have kept hidden from us previously. However, that was not why I rose to speak tonight. Today I asked a question of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) regarding the security and the ability of the identification card legislation in a very spectacular area. The defence that the Government has given for the intrusion, the inconvenience and the conscription of the business community, and the opening of new avenues for criminal activity, is that the Government will collect a lot of money from people who do not at present pay tax interest on their bank savings, and the Government will also catch a lot of dole cheats. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) pointed out tonight that only half of the interest that is earned from banks is declared for tax purposes, apparently. That is his figure, not mine. But the point is that under that legislation the banks will be conscripted to enforce the requirements of the legislation. They can be fined $100,000 if after the second relevant day they transact into or out of any bank account any amount of money without the account being validated by a number. Mr Cunningham —Builders do that with subcontractors. Mr TUCKEY —I ask the honourable member not to interject, please. The point about all this is that it now appears-and the Treasurer certainly could not answer on this today-that the State banks, if they choose not to co-operate, will be excluded by the Constitution from that arrangement. One can imagine the temptation for a managing director of a State bank-- Mr Holding —Who says that? Mr TUCKEY —The Treasurer certainly could not answer the question today. I will read the relevant part of the Constitution for the Minister's interest. It is part V, section 51, paragraph (xiii) which states that `Banking' is a power of the Commonwealth, `other than State banking'. In other words, one cannot dictate to State banks in these matters. Mr Holding —Ha, ha! Mr TUCKEY —Well, it is amazing to me that the Treasurer was not able to give an answer off the top of his head on such a fundamental requirement of the legislation. Had it been properly researched, one would think that he would have done that, but he was unable to give me an answer. Mr Holding —That does not mean that what you are saying is correct. Mr TUCKEY —All right; this is not a place where we are entitled to gamble-- Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will keep out of it. Mr TUCKEY —I shall wait until such time as the Minister is able to prove his point. Today I asked what power would be used, and the Government could give me none. The other interesting factor in the speech today by the honourable member for Prospect was the time he took quoting the people to whom I now refer as the tame journalists of this Government. They are suddenly becoming experts on the ID card. If one reads the honourable member's speech, one will find all the hyperbole in the world but no examples. The other day, in reply, a person was allowed 500 words in the Australian to defend the card. I congratulate the Australian on opening up its letters column to try to get a balance, considering that about 95 per cent of those writing are objecting to the card. I read the particular letter, and I have been constrained to write to that newspaper saying that it is a pity that the person concerned gave us excuses, not reasons why we should have a card. That is what the honourable member for Prospect did today: he gave us excuses for the card. Every other Government member is doing the same. They are not giving us reasons why we should have it. We suddenly find, it would appear, that the idea that hot money can be controlled under this system is very debatable. One State bank has only to take the decision that it will not comply with the Government's request in that area-of course, such institutions are not to be fined; the Bill is specific on that-and there is an opportunity for people to put their money with that institution for whatever reason. I thought Anne Summers made an excellent attempt. We know she was a one-time employee of the Government. She told us today that she has to live with the card in the United States of America. She needed it to open a bank account. The lady was so dishonest as not to say-- Mr Cunningham —Madam Speaker-- Mr TUCKEY —She is not a member of parliament. Sit down, you. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not shout like that. Mr TUCKEY —Well, it would have been wrong. I want to say this thing about the lady. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair will make all the rulings in this House, not the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —The simple rule is that one can say that about a journalist, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —There is no need for the honourable member for O'Connor to lecture the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —The point is that I am going to be stopped from saying it about that lady. The point I want to make is that in America one does not need a number on one's account. One may need to produce the card to identify oneself to the bank but not to the Government. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(10.56) —I would like to address the House on a number of matters in relation to my electorate, in particular tourism. During 1987 the number of tourists who visited the Northern Territory increased enormously. Visits to Uluru National Park and Kakadu National Park increased by 330 per cent, in the case of Kakadu, since 1974. By the end of next year it is expected that the number of visitors to these areas will approach a quarter of a million. It is important that people recognise that to a large extent the Federal Government's policies on tourism and capital works development in the Northern Territory have contributed to this increase in tourism. As honourable members will know, the sealing of the Stuart Highway was completed last year. This has meant that a large number of Australians who hitherto would not have been able to visit the Northern Territory because of the prohibitive cost of air travel have been able to visit these places. It is important in that context to recognise that those people have been able to see some of Australia's most important natural heritage spots and resorts of major World Heritage value. These areas are of major cultural value to Aboriginal Australians. In recent days and during the last 12 months, primarily since the transfer of title to Uluru National Park, there have been negotiations with the tourism industry on how to market Aboriginal culture around Uluru in particular. In recent days there have been negotiations between the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Uluru Board of Management and the people of the Multitjulu community on bus drivers manuals so that tourists may be guided on the particular cultural values of the Uluru National Park. That is important because previously a lot of the information that has been given to tourists who have visited the Northern Territory has been way off kilter with reality. Unfortunately, because of misinformation and ignorance, a large number of people who visited the Northern Territory previously had been given the impression that Aboriginal people were not important or significant to the Northern Territory community and economy. The increase in visits by tourists to Uluru and Kakadu is attributable to their being seen internationally and nationally to have not only physical and international heritage value but also major international cultural value. The Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding), the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is at the table, I am sure would have informed the House on many previous occasions of the unique features of these national parks, in particular the Aboriginal art sites around Kakadu and the immense sacred significance value of Uluru National Park. An enormous challenge has been put out to the Northern Territory tourism industry and thankfully, partly as a result of the promotion campaigns by the Northern Territory Tourism Commission, which have been led by the promotion campaigns of the Australian Tourist Commission, the Northern Territory tourism industry is starting to react positively in sponsoring tourism throughout the Northern Territory. There are a number of promotional features of the Australian Tourism Commission's campaign, not the least of which is the role of Paul Hogan. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Ruddock to move- That this House- (1) notes that- (a) on 1 August 1975 the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe was signed at Helsinki, Finland, by 33 European States, together with Canada and the USA; (b) the signatories committed themselves under Principal VII to ``respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion''; (c) the signing of the Final Act raised the expectations of the peoples of the Soviet Union for greater observance by the Soviet Union of human rights, gave rise to the formation of the Moscow, Lithuanian, Georgian, Armenian and Ukrainian citizens' monitoring groups to inform the peoples of the Soviet Union and the world about the Soviet Government's compliance with the Final Act; (d) 9 November 1986 marked the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the largest such citizens' group, the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implications of the Helsinki Accords; (e) three members of the Ukrainian Group, Oleksiy Tykhy, Yuriy Lytvyn and Vasyl Stus died after years of inhuman treatment in Soviet labour camps while a fourth, Mykhaylo Melnyk, committed suicide as a result of continuous KGB persecution, and (f) nine members of the Ukrainian Group are still imprisoned, 6 are in internal exile in remote parts of the Soviet Union, while 14 have been released from prison and are living in the Ukraine and 7 have been forced to emigrate to the West after serving prison terms; (2) acknowledges the concern felt by members of the Australian community over the continued harassment of the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords; (3) seeks assurances from the Government of the Soviet Union that members of the Ukrainian and other public Helsinki Monitoring Groups be released from their incarceration and allowed to emigrate to the countries of their choice; (4) seeks to convey to the Government of the Soviet Union its belief that such humanitarian acts and demonstration that its citizens have freedom of expression will serve to reduce tensions between East and West and help to erase doubts about Soviet commitments to their international obligations; (5) calls upon the Soviet Union to allow Ukrainian Helsinki Monitors, Yurij Shulhevych and Oksana Meshko, together with their families, to emigrate to Australia, where they have family members willing to sponsor them, as immediate demonstration of its goodwill, and (6) requests the Speaker to bring this resolution to the attention of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 21 September 1987: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1987- M34/87-Revocation of Meat Order ``M'' Series. M35/87-Monitoring by the Corporation of 1987 Meat Shipments to USA. Fisheries Act-Notice-No. 190.