Wednesday, 23 September 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 15 September, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.01) —Madam Speaker, the Loans Bill is an element of the annual Budget which authorises the Government of the day to raise certain revenues during the financial period to which the Bill refers. The Loans Bill 1985 sought to extend the borrowing authority available as it was drafted as standing rather than annual legislation. The Opposition parties, with the Australian Democrats, were successful in moving in the Senate an amendment to the 1985 Bill which restored the legislation to an annual basis. The 1986 Loans Bill again sought to extend borrowing authority. There must be a lot of loans going on around here, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Yes, perhaps the level of conversation could be reduced. Those who wish to keep talking might like to leave the chamber. Mr MOORE —The Loans Bill 1986 sought to extend the borrowing authority in exactly the same manner as in 1985, and again an Opposition amendment restored the legislation to its annual basis. The Loans Bill 1987 seeks to extend the existing borrowing authority by the inclusion of a supply clause. The borrowing authority under the annual Loan Act ceases to be available on 30 June, and further authority is not available until the next Loan Bill is passed, usually a process carried out in the Budget sittings. Borrowing authority under the proposed change would be extended into the following financial year by the amount included in the Supply Bill (No. 1) for defence purposes, that Bill having been passed before the end of the financial year. Since the amount included in the Supply Bill (No. 1) for defence purposes is invariably very large, being roughly five-twelfths of the annual defence vote, that amount of the authority would almost certainly exceed the amount which otherwise the Government would need to seek by way of a Loans Bill at some point during the financial year. If so, the Government would thus in practical terms achieve the freedom from security under the procedures associated with the Loans Bill which it sought to achieve on a statutory basis in 1985. This Bill, therefore, is an attempt to take away from the Parliament its annual scrutiny of loan raisings and really pre-empts the Parliament in another area of scrutiny, the scrutiny of Government legislation, and because of that the Opposition will be moving an amendment to restore this Bill to the context of the 1985 and 1986 legislation. I have discussed the effect of the Loans Bill, but I wish to use a few moments to cast a few reflections on the Budget itself. There is no doubt that the deficit is continuing to grow and that the elements associated with it are causing concern to the citizens of Australia. The Loans Bill itself authorises the Government of the day to raise short term funding to cover the deficit that occurs in the current tradings of Government operations. In other words, current expenditures by government go on on a day to day basis but income flows to government are seasonal in that at certain times of the year large amounts are received. For example, pay as you earn tax comes in on a regular basis, but corporate tax, provisional tax and certain sales taxes come in at different periods throughout the year. To even out the cash flow, borrowings must be undertaken. It is interesting to note within the Budget Papers that the amount of interest that has been paid in this time shows that in the last four to five years the Government has incurred an increased debt and is adding to that debt every year to the extent that in 1980-81 total public debt interest was $2.5 billion. In the year just concluded-1986-87-that debt had risen to just short of $8 billion, a massive increase over that period. This increase in the interest payment on debt is reflected not only in the amount of money that has been continually added to in the national debt sense but also in the high levels of interest rates that have been paid by the Government during that period. As a consequence, it is worth looking at the way in which the Government has attempted to fund this over that period. Let me quote from Budget Paper No. 1: The 1986-87 Commonwealth budget deficit was $2716m, which was more than accounted for by a foreign currency requirement of $3214m. This quite clearly indicates that the Government had a substantial amount to pay for on the foreign account. When we look at items that are to be paid for we see that there is a considerable element of defence spending. The way in which the financing of the Commonwealth Budget deficit was handled is interesting. I referred the other day to net overseas borrowings in relation to the comments made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about redemption of debt. That was a misleading comment, which is borne out by these Budget Papers. He said that this year the Commonwealth would attempt to repay $1 billion worth of overseas debt and $1 billion worth of domestic debt. Budget Paper No. 1 indicates that every year there are movements both ways. While the figures used are net figures, it is an indication of the size of movements that occur. Therefore, the statement made by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech was highly misleading. Let me refer to this particular section in Budget Paper No. 1. It shows, under the heading `Net overseas borrowings', that there were net Treasury bond subscriptions of some $627m. This was made up of gross Treasury bond subscriptions of $3.4 billion, less maturing bonds of $2.7 billion. This is the order of transactions that occur every day in relation to movements within the Reserve Bank of Australia and they show the falsity of the Treasurer's claim. We see in relation to domestic transactions that in that year the Government was forced to pay an amount of $700m to meet redemptions that fell due in that period. I do not have with me the redemptions that are likely to fall due in the current year, but if overseas borrowings continue at the rate itemised on page 359 of Budget Paper No. 1 it is quite clear that in the current period there would be a number of redemptions and loan raisings to continue to fund the level of debt we currently have. As we are still running a balance of payments deficit and as we are still projecting a domestic Budget deficit of $27m, when in reality we depend so much on the outcome of asset sales and certain collections from the Reserve Bank in future years, it is inevitable that borrowings will continue. Because of that, we have to look at the source of some of these borrowings and the way in which they are handled. Having pointed to those movements and, therefore, to the rather ridiculous claim about the retirement of debt that was made in the Budget Speech, let me just briefly go to another sector which I think has been overlooked in relation to the Budget itself. Despite all the claims about the high level of taxation-the extra $5 1/2 billion in this Budget to make it nearly balance-let us also look at the question of government spending. We heard quite recently from the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, on this subject. He indicated his concerns in relation to government spending and its approach to this Budget. He underlined and pointed out to the public that it was not a really drastic attempt to look at ongoing government spending. He could easily identify 200-odd projects which had no real significance, except to the economy, and which were gross extravagances. That is an indication to me that the expenditure side of the Budget was not appropriately addressed. At the same time, the Budget was greeted with an avalanche of income. Where did it come from-the extra $5 1/2 billion that is outlined in the Budget Papers that bring forward the result that has occurred? In the main it has come from the private sector-the ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers. The increase in their contributions is projected to be in excess of the projected inflation rate. If the inflation rate is 7 per cent and their contributions are projected to be more than that, quite clearly Australians are paying more tax in the current year and more people will pay higher rates of tax as a consequence of those inflationary moves. Up to a million people in Australia could be paying higher rates of tax in the current period as a result of this Budget. In the Budget Papers corporate tax is projected to be 14 per cent higher than in the previous year. It is little wonder that the Government has not addressed itself to the spending cuts that are necessary, as Senator Walsh indicated, when the avalanche of money continues. Those are the elements which I think are important to take into account when we address the Loans Bill. The Loans Bill facilitates the Government's program on a daily basis. Australians facilitate the Government's program on a daily basis by paying tax at the required rates, which everyone knows are now too high. When we hear the comments that are being made about this Budget, it is quite ludicrous to think otherwise. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(10.13) —The Loans Bill 1987 which we are debating authorises the Government to borrow, for, even though the Budget has a negligible deficit of $27m, it is necessary for the Government to borrow to cover outlays from the Loan Fund. This Bill seeks authority to borrow $1.2 billion. Most of the business community and the financial markets have been advocating a lower deficit for years and the Government has responded remarkably quickly. The deficit is down from 4.1 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1983-84 to zero only four years later. This has been achieved by searingly difficult cuts to outlays which have reduced expenditure from over 29 per cent of GDP to under 27 per cent. Some broadening of the tax base by entirely appropriate and fair taxing of income which previously was exempted has accounted for the remainder of the reduction in the deficit. As a result, the requirement to borrow in this Budget is tiny. The reception of this balanced Budget has been euphoric. The expectations of the business community and financial markets have been entirely satisfied. I want to make some general comments about the Loans Bill. The Loans Bill is the most idiosyncratic of Budget measures. The idiosyncrasies go back to just after the war, and were introduced by the Chifley Government. So the critical comments I am about to make relate to well-established tradition. The Loans Bill authorises borrowing for defence purposes. On the face of it, this is extremely odd. Why not seek borrowing for investment, as is normal in businesses and households? The reason, apparently, is that by seeking to borrow to finance defence the Commonwealth is able to avoid seeking Loan Council approval for its borrowing. Defence expenditure is exempted from Loan Council coverage, so the quirky little subterfuge of stating that borrowing is for defence purposes allows the Commonwealth to avoid seeking Loan Council agreement. This is a devious arrangement in which every government since the war has been involved. It should cease in the interests of clear presentation of the Government's accounts. More important though is the confusion of current and capital outlays which this subterfuge enables. Until the Second World War, current expenditure was charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and capital outlays to the Loan Fund. This convention showed clearly the difference between current outlays and revenue. That was the deficit or surplus which mattered. Borrowing, on the other hand, was properly used to finance investment and, provided the rate of return and other goals of that investment were being achieved, the borrowing was justified. However, the Curtin Government started to disguise its budgetary situation by breaking this convention and charging capital expenditure to Consolidated Revenue. Governments since then have maintained the same practice. This deceptive accounting was much criticised in the immediate post-war period but has been standard practice since then. It was apparently introduced to obscure the extent of the Budget surpluses which were occurring immediately after the war. This obfuscation is one of the reasons for the extraordinarily low level of public debt in Australia. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), the previous speaker, seems to misunderstand the Australian situation. This convention has allowed the Commonwealth to be a net saver in every year since the late 1940s; that is, in every year for the last 40 years, total revenue has exceeded current outlays. In every year, part of the funding for investment has come from current receipts. Only a portion of investable funds have had to be borrowed. That is the reason why Australia has one of the lowest levels of public debt of any Western country. A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development showed that, of 20 industrialised market countries, only Finland has a lower proportion of public debt to GDP than Australia. This study compared gross public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product in 20 countries in 1983. In Australia, public debt was about 25 per cent of GDP; that is, excluding the debts of public authorities which are excluded in most other Western countries. In the United States of America, the equivalent figure was 44 per cent. The figure was 25 per cent in Australia and 44 per cent in the United States. In Japan the figure was 67 per cent and in Britain it was 54 per cent. Australia has far less debt than that all of those countries. In fact, the average for all 20 countries was 50 per cent. So the proportion of public debt to GDP in Australia was half that of other Western countries. This shows how cautious Australian governments have been throughout the post-war period. Another important comparison is the decline in public debt in Australia. The level of public debt now is about the same as at the end of the 1960s-20 years ago-and is far below the level as at the beginning of the 1950s. It is true that public debt has been increasing slowly for the last 10 years, but this increase has now stopped-that is obvious when we have a balanced Budget-and the proportion of debt to national income is now lower, as I have said, than it was 20 years ago. These facts totally obliterate the alarmism of the Opposition that public debt is too high. Of course, it would be nice if there was no public debt, because we would have no interest to pay on it, but all organisations have to borrow in order to invest. Governments are no different. Families have to borrow in order to buy houses; businesses have to borrow in order to build and to buy equipment; and governments have to borrow in order to build their infrastructure. Investment is the central necessary condition for economic growth and development. Governments provide the skeleton of transport and communications infrastructure, water and sewerage, ports and airports, which is essential for economic expansion. Like businesses, it is entirely responsible for governments to borrow in order to finance productive investment. The alarmism that is being propagated by the Opposition about government borrowing is not only unnecessary but also is entirely misguided for not only do we have relatively little public debt but also pressure to reduce debt further could retard investment, slowing future economic growth. One of the reasons which is sometimes given for reducing government borrowing is the suggestion that it might crowd out private borrowing. The most common version of the argument is that public borrowing competes for scarce supplies of savings and so forces up interest rates, and higher interest rates then deter private investors. However, experience shows that even if this effect operates at all, its impact is very weak and because in recent Australian history there has been no correlation between the levels of public borrowing and interest rates. A recent paper by Professor John Neville of the Economics Faculty of the University of New South Wales shows that if there is any relationship between the levels of public borrowing and interest rates, it is clearly not a simple or direct one. Interest rates have decreased as public sector borrowing has increased more often than not in recent years, and the reverse is also true-that is, as public sector borrowing has gone down in the last few years, interest rates have gone up. It may seem difficult to argue this case this week, because following the balanced Budget which was introduced last week, banks immediately reduced home loan interest rates, but the fact of the matter is that banks were planning to do so before the Budget was announced and the reason was that the general level of interest rates was falling, and that was happening because interest rates in Australia are principally determined by interest rates overseas and by the expected change in the value of the Australian dollar on foreign exchange markets. At present, the Australian dollar is rising and the Reserve Bank of Australia is undoubtedly relaxing monetary policy so as to allow interest rates to fall and constrain the exchange rate from rising further. The expectation of further falls in the Australian rate of inflation also supports a further fall in interest rates. It is true, however, that many people in financial markets believe that reducing public borrowing will contribute to reducing interest rates. Their expectations are obviously important in determining what they do. Given this importance of market expectations, it is clear that every effort should be made to avoid misconceptions by key market players. One very important step which could be taken to reduce the risk of misunderstanding would be to reintroduce capital budgeting. There is a strong case for separating current outlays from investment. It is obviously reasonable for the public sector to borrow in order to invest, as I have already argued. When assets have a long life and a potential to yield a return over that life, it is reasonable and often convenient to pay for them over time. It is also usual to repay loans for short-lived items such as cars or equipment at a faster rate than long-lived items such as buildings or infrastructure. It is worth recalling that over 75 per cent of public sector non-residential investment is tied up in infrastructure. This contrasts with about 45 per cent of private non-residential investment, which is tied up in infrastructure, including buildings. Excluding equipment, the Bureau of Statistics figures show that public investment in infrastructure is almost twice as large as private investment. If both sectors were to finance their long-lived assets by long term borrowings, we would therefore expect that public sector borrowings would be around twice as large as private borrowings. However, a considerable proportion of public investment is financed from current revenue. The extent to which the public sector covers its outlay with revenue is one of the best-kept secrets in Australian public life. Few Australians are aware of it, and our integration into world financial markets exposes us to the influence of market participants whose knowledge of Australian public finance is slight. In view of the importance of market expectation, it is vital that the scope for misunderstanding in the market is minimised. Budget deficits are commonly regarded overseas as current expenditures in excess of current revenue. Defined in this way, there has been no Commonwealth Budget deficit in Australia since 1949-50. Current revenue has exceeded current expenditure in every year. The Commonwealth Budget deficit during that time comprised a mixture of capital and current expenditure exceeding our total current revenue. This distinction is certainly not understood in financial markets outside Australia and is probably not understood to any extent within the country. It is important, however, because market participants who believe that Commonwealth Budget deficits signify profligate spending may adversely affect general market expectations. All Australian States, all commercial enterprises and many industrialised nations distinguish between capital and current spending in their accounts. The Australian Government did so until the 1940s, as I described at the beginning of these comments. The practice was stopped in the 1940s, as a means of disguising Budget surpluses. Governments used the device to bring down Budgets which were more restrictive than they appeared. The present practice of setting capital expenditure against current revenue normally produces a government deficit that will not appear as such under conventional accounting practice. At a time when Australia is especially vulnerable to market perceptions it seems unwise to deliberately present our performance in a poor light. Therefore, there would be great value in separating capital from current expenditure in the Commonwealth Budget so as to present the real budgetary situation as clearly as possible and so avoid potential damage to Australia's interests in the capital markets. A stricter separation of capital and current expenditure in the Commonwealth Budget would reduce the excessive weight currently placed by financial markets on a misunderstood deficit. Within the Australian Public Service at present there is a strong argument for the virtues of transparency in the public accounting of public authorities. A stricter separation of capital and current expenditure in the Budget would be a simple and cheap move towards transparency in budgeting practice. I hope that serious consideration will be given to this proposal. It is not new. Other commentators have suggested the same change. Given the Government's success, it is an appropriate time for considering this reform in the way the Budget is presented. By clarifying Australia's public finance situation this change could contribute to improving the climate for both private and public investment and therefore for the growth prospects of the whole nation. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.28) —The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) in making his comments for the Opposition in the second reading debate has misconceived the purpose of the Loans Bill. I ask the House to remember that it is a machinery financing measure which has been used by successive governments since 1911. The inclusion of a supply clause this year in the Bill simply enables continuity of its provisions until the next annual Bill is passed in the Budget sittings in 1988. The supply provisions in the 1988-89 Supply Bill (No. 1) for defence purposes will be subsumed by the amount included in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1988-89, that latter amount being the limit of authority allowed under the non-supply provisions of Part II of the Loans Bill of 1987. This provision has been included in the Loans Act for many years. The Opposition has expressed concern that its ability to scrutinise borrowings by the Government will be inhibited. The Bill will not detract from the Parliament's ability to debate the Budget or the associated deficit measures. The deficit and borrowing requirements are announced in the Budget Speech and Papers. These are debated at length by the Parliament. So if one looks at this in toto, all the material is available that is needed for the Opposition or any member of this Parliament to make an informed contribution to the considerations that need to be made in these Bills if they are seen as a whole. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton P.Cross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W.Johns, G. T. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. McVeigh, D. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. 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.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Hall, Steele Sinclair, I. McC.Halverson, R. G. Smith, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Katter, R. C. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 22 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(10.40) —I wish to take this opportunity to thank the electors of Hunter who, at the Federal election on 11 July, returned me for a second term to this proud office. I would like particularly to thank all those who worked so hard to return me to this place. As everyone is aware, there is much concern within my electorate because of the downturn in the coal industry. I assure all miners that this Government is committed to developing a strategy that fully involves all parties in ensuring the industry's long term viability. One of the reasons for my success in the election was the generous attention that this Government has given to the Hunter electorate. The Federal Government provided more than $100m in grants to my electorate during my first term and voters in my electorate can rest assured that their needs will continue to be met. I am delighted today to announce that under the local government funding arrangements a total of $14 1/2m has been allocated to councils in the Hunter Valley for the year 1987-88. These allocations represent an increase on the 1986-87 figures and are an indication of the Federal Government's commitment to local government. These untied grants will leave the councils free to use the money as they wish in order to benefit ratepayers. Cessnock City Council will receive $2 1/4m; Dungog Shire Council, half a million dollars; Maitland City Council, nearly $2m; Merriwa Shire Council, a third of a million dollars; Muswellbrook Shire Council, nearly $1 1/4m; Newcastle City Council, $5 1/4m; Port Stephens Shire Council, almost $2m; and Singleton Shire Council, $1 1/4m. Another piece of pleasing news for the voters of the Hunter electorate is the announcement that Medicare offices will open in Cessnock, Singleton, Muswellbrook and Raymond Terrace in the next 12 months. This will mean that private health funds in these centres will cease to operate as Medicare agencies with effect from the close of business on 31 March 1988. I am sure the voters of Hunter will be pleased with this extension of Medicare offices. I take the opportunity to deliver two more items of good news to my electorate. In the Budget the Government announced the further allocation of $644,000 to the water treatment works at Chichester Dam. That makes a total of $11.6m of Federal funding for this project, which will greatly improve the cleanliness of water supply for people in the Hunter Valley. A further item of good news is the grant of $76,000 for the Hunter Prelude Early Intervention Centre from the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). This grant, which is expected to be made this year, will be supplemented by a contribution of $20,000 from the Hunter Prelude Early Intervention Centre and will be used for the construction of a new centre to include a therapy room, waiting room, staff toilets, staff rooms, disabled toilets, playroom, kitchen, laundry, mother's room, et cetera. I would like to believe that every member of this House is working conscientiously, pursuing constructive ideas which will benefit our nation and improve the quality of life of its citizens. Government members are pursuing worthy goals and the voters of Australia appreciate that fact. That is why they gave us a record vote of confidence just some weeks ago and returned the Hawke Government to office with a record majority. Voters gave the thumbs down to the coalition, which suffered the biggest defeat it has ever had. Voters recognise that the Liberals and Nationals are still a hopelessly divided rabble. Voters recognise that the Liberals and Nationals are deceitful posers, yesterday's men, and voters rejected them and what they stand for. One would have thought those opposite would have learned something from 11 July but they have learned nothing. They continue their absurd posturing, their doublespeak, their Australia Card lies, their nose in the garbage bin and their hands in the taxpayers pockets position. They are still not prepared to face the truth that they were not born to rule. Consider the Australia Card: the New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr David Lange, a former Chairman of the Auckland Civil Liberties Council, agrees that the ID card would cut down on tax and welfare fraud. Mr Lange argues that the state should be entitled to just as much information as a bank. `There is no civil liberties problem with that', says Mr Lange. Further, Mr Lange says: It is staggering that every time the civil liberties argument is used, it is used to protect the civil liberties of the wrong-doer. That is just what those opposite are doing. They are protecting the cheats, the evaders and the avoiders. Why do they do that? One might well ask. Mr Lange gave an account of a former client of his whom he represented, when he was a lawyer, because she had been charged with murder. Found not guilty because of insanity, this woman escaped to Australia and was recently found living here, having 13 unemployment benefits paid to her. When Mr Lange raised this matter in the New Zealand Parliament, when he put forward these logical arguments in favour of an ID card, a National Party member of parliament announced that he would set up a nationwide petition against the ID card, and described the ID card as nothing more than a well established communist concept of people subjugation. So once again the old communist bogey raises its ugly head. The Liberals and the Nationals are trying to tell us that the people of Australia are against the Australia Card, and to prove their point they speak of the large crowds which have attended anti-Australia Card rallies. Sensible people will remember that similar sized crowds came out in support of the Joh for Canberra campaign, but perhaps those opposite may prefer to forget any thoughts about Premier Joh. I have heard members here say that they have received thousands of letters in opposition to the Australia Card. Let me tell them that in the sensible, sane electorate of Hunter I have received three letters expressing concern about the Australia Card, and they came from people who are not identified with my side of politics. But I have received hundreds of votergrams. I put it to honourable members, quite frankly: where did these votergrams come from? They come from the bloated, affluent members of society. Labor supporters would not even know what a votergram is; they would not know how to go about arranging to have votergrams sent out to various members of Parliament. One person said to me, `Look, they will be able to counterfeit the Australia Card'. Mr Aldred —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Am I to take it from what the honourable member says that he is assuming that all Labor supporters are really quite stupid? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Bruce will resume his seat. Mr FITZGIBBON —I was not saying that Labor voters are stupid; I was suggesting that some other people, who use deceitful practices, might be straying from the sensible path. People come up to me and talk about fraud. Immediately I whip out my American Express card and my Bankcard and say to them, `I will give you $100 if you can come to me with evidence of any counterfeit American Express card or Bankcard ever having been used'. It is just not possible. I make the same offer to any member of the Opposition: if they bring me any evidence of any fraud or counterfeit practices involving an American Express card, or any other credit card, they have a hundred bucks. They do not need it because they have several other practices which ensure they have sufficient wealth to stay on that side of the House. That is one of the truths of the matter. Some of the votergrams sent to me are quite innocent-I believe there are some people out there who are genuinely trying to find out the truth about the Australia Card-but of course most votergrams just repeat the conservative nonsense we have heard in this House. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said, remember the hullabaloo about the capital gains and fringe benefits taxes. The Opposition tried to scare the pants off the voters then; it failed miserably and now the people have grown so accustomed to its scare tactics that they are not likely to be fooled any longer. Yesterday the Opposition called for a mini-Budget to redress the shortcomings of the Budget delivered last week. Senator Chaney, in the other place, had the gall to criticise this balanced Budget. Had the coalition been in government for the last four years, Australia would not have had a balanced Budget; we would unquestionably have been burdened with a deficit approaching $20 billion. Worse than that, Australia would really and truly have become a banana republic. Had the Opposition changed its ways, had it learned something from the 11 July debacle, it would have joined with all other fair-minded Australians and congratulated the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on his remarkable Budget success. But members of the Opposition cannot discard their pampered tantrums; they remain narks. Speaking earlier in this debate, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said, `This Treasurer has a truly lamentable record'. These words are from a former Treasurer who brought this nation to its knees, a former Treasurer who allowed tax avoidance and evasion to develop into an art form, who gave us double digit unemployment and double digit inflation, and who gave this nation a $10 billion deficit. Remember that the former Treasurer gave us all the nasties in the good times, when this country had no trading crisis. The present Treasurer, on the other hand, has delivered brilliant Budgets in the very worst of times. The Leader of the Opposition should do the sporting thing and congratulate the Treasurer, and thank him for giving a failed Treasurer so many lessons in economic craftsmanship. The Leader of the Opposition can criticise this Budget in public as long as he will stay in opposition, but he knows full well that in private conversation his colleagues, that mob sitting opposite, are expressing admiration for the genius of the Keating Budget. What do others say? We have all had a chance to see this list of editorials and selected Press comments on the Budget, and it is a wonder those opposite have not quoted from it more frequently. We see the headlines `Good news for tenants, says Real Estate Institute'; and, in the Sydney Morning Herald `Figures reveal how badly the Libs blew it'. `The Budget for recovery' proclaimed the Courier-Mail, while Australian Council of Trade Unions Secretary Bill Kelty said that it was the `right Budget at the right time'. The pensioners welcome the Budget, local government welcomes the Budget and business welcomes the Budget. In the Australian, we see, `Budget exceeds all expectations'. The West Australian ran the headline `Keating's fifth Budget is best', while the Age said, `Restraint, responsibility and conscience', as well as `Dream budget has the critics at a loss for words'. In the Australian Financial Review we see, `Business welcomes Budget'. The National Farmers Federation welcomes the Budget result; everyone welcomes the Budget-except those narks opposite. Let me read an editorial from the Northern Territory News: The Federal Budget brought down last night by the Treasurer, Mr Paul Keating, has been well received. The horrific $8 billion deficit the Hawke Government inherited in 1983 from the incompetent Fraser Government has been erased and for this Mr Keating deserves full congratulations. The incompetent Government of Fraser! Have these fellows opposite not learned anything? Have they not improved since 1983? Of course not. They remain the same incompetents that they were then. This Government is about framing strategies for our continued national recovery. We have made hard decisions which have been necessary and people appreciate the integrity of our decisions. This Labor Government-the best government this nation has had-is all about fairness. We seek a fair and equitable society where all people pay their fair share of taxation and every citizen gets a fair go. We inherited a system from the previous Government which was unfair to the nth degree. We had separate laws for the rich and for the poor. The pay as you earn taxpayer was being ripped off by bloated tax cheats who made avoidance and evasion the only growth industries in the period when the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) was Treasurer. This Labor Government has kept its promises. The Budget has no tax increases and no major additional spending cuts. Above all, we have kept faith with Labor's commitment to the most needy in our society. Can anyone believe that those opposite would have introduced a major social reform, such as our family assistance package, which will provide real help to more than half a million families? Does anyone seriously believe that those opposite could have produced a balanced Budget and sustained economic recovery and brought down unemployment, inflation and interest rates? Of course not! Few Australians live in cloud-cuckoo-land. The Treasurer was being quite modest when he referred to the 1987-88 Budget as one of historic proportions. He called this Government a responsible government. The Labor way of governing is with compassion and authority, good sense and competence. Perhaps those opposite would like to be reminded of one journalist's conclusion about Budget night: No wonder that, by the end of the evening, Parliament House looked like an ornithologist's nightmare. There was a pin-striped and red-tied cat surrounded by the tattered feathers of two mauled birds, a pair of specs and a sun-tanned smile. Honourable members opposite were not born during the Menzies era but most of them were reared during the Menzies era. They have developed this belief in themselves-the idea of divine right-so they honestly believe that they were born to rule and they just cannot shake off that attitude. But let me tell honourable members opposite that the days of governing through largesse and patronage are gone. What is required of good government today is sound economic management and that is what we are able to give. Mr Hunt —Get old Bob Menzies back; that is what we need. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Gwydir shall not interject and he almost certainly should not interject from out of his place. Mr FITZGIBBON —I love it when the honourable member for Gwydir interjects because it shows his paucity of views. It is a pleasure to hear from him. Menzies had his lucky run. He used the communist bogy and our terms of trade were running quite favourably. But then the conservatives fell from grace. During the Whitlam period we had our economic problems. I will not say that Whitlam was the greatest economist of all time but he did some very good things. He opened the way for local government to get Federal money and he brought back our boys from Vietnam. Honourable members opposite have just shown that even in the good times they had no economic competence at all and this country was in one hell of a mess. After it had gone through one of the greatest crises in its history we brought it back from the brink of disaster. Quite frankly, this country would have gone down the gurgler had we not won the election in 1983. Honourable members opposite know that, the electorate knows that and come the next election, honourable members opposite will be staring defeat in the face. I have great pleasure in commending the Bill to the House. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(11.00) —This Budget reflects clearly the Government's lack of any sense of direction in economic strategy. This has been true of this Government throughout its entire period of office. It was first elected by default on the back of the 1982-83 recession and the severe drought still in being at the time. The Government's alleged economic success in its first 18 months to two years of office was very much built upon the benefits of the wages freeze implemented by the last Liberal Government and the fortuitous breaking of the drought shortly after it came into office. Good luck, rather than good sense, helped the Government in those initial stages of coming to office. This absence of any strategic direction on the part of the Government has continued right up to the present. Even the Government's campaign for the last Federal election on 11 July set no clear objectives and provided no vision for the future. The election was again won by default rather than on any blueprint on where to take Australia in the years to come. As always, the Government has built this Budget on imagery rather than reality. It is little wonder that Labor's Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has quite properly said that the Budget has been oversold. The Budget Speech is built upon the sand; it is built upon several false assumptions for which the Government will eventually have to pay. In the Budget the Government has also done a complete turnaround on some previously stated positions. A classic illustration is the gross hypocrisy of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the 180 degree turn he has managed to execute in relation to negative gearing. The Treasurer, in his Budget Speech, uttered these profound words: Since we have restored the integrity of the tax system by subjecting capital gains to tax, we are now in a position to permit the restoration of deductions against taxable income without exposing the revenue to the threat which existed before July 1985. The full interest costs of owning and maintaining rental property will now be deductible against income from any source. . . . . Tonight's decision restores the symmetry between investment in property and other assets such as shares or farms. It will enhance the attractiveness of investment in both commercial and residential rental property and have a beneficial effect on the supply of residential accommodation in particular. These finely tuned words of the Treasurer are in marked contrast to his early description of negative gearing as an `outrageous rort' and his accompanying attack upon many legitimate businesses and individuals who had properly regarded it as a reasonable tax deduction. The shifting sands upon which the Budget is built are no more amply demonstrated than in the Treasurer's carefully marketed version of the deficit for 1987-88. The Treasurer, in his opening remarks to Australia's current Budget, said: Madam Speaker, the Budget for 1987-88 is in balance. The deficit has been cut to just on zero, a mere $27 million. The Treasurer's words are an appalling corruption of reality. For the first time in our history the proceeds of assets sales, estimated to be just over $1 billion, are included as a major item in reducing the deficit. No matter what defences the Treasurer may mount to excuse the inclusion of asset sales in this manner, he knows perfectly well that it is contrary to all normal accounting practice to use the sale of a capital item as an offset against recurrent expenditure. Only the current Treasurer, with his scant regard for financial integrity, would allow the Commonwealth to stoop to this new form of creative accounting. It is also abundantly obvious that the transfer of extraordinary profits from the Reserve Bank of Australia is the other major factor contributing to the artificial reduction of the deficit. It is anticipated that Reserve Bank profits for the coming year will total $2.7 billion, plus a further $0.2 billion from the profits of the Royal Australian Mint. When the extraordinary element of the profit transfer from the Reserve Bank and the Mint is added to the total expected from the sale of assets, the underlying deficit is really about $2.5 billion. Mr Webster —Outrageous. Mr ALDRED —It is; it is quite alarming. The House should also be disturbed to note that the similar profits made by the Reserve Bank over the past financial year stem, in large measure, from its speculative role in shoring up the Australian dollar. Are we to assume then that in the coming year the Government again intends to make a killing on Reserve Bank profits by creating another crisis of confidence in the Australian dollar? At worst this is a most irresponsible manner in which to conduct a nation's monetary affairs and at best demonstrates a very blinkered view of economic responsibility. As in so many other aspects of its economic management the Government's presentation of the deficit is more a matter of public relations than of the normally rigid strictures of public finance. I now wish to turn away from this Government's slick presentation of this highly suspect Budget to the very serious questions that arise from consideration of the major underlying economic indicators for Australia. It is the terrible direction in which these indicators are heading that has so rightly worried Senator Walsh and caused him to speak of possible involvement by the International Monetary Fund in Australia's financial affairs. Other serious commentators have also given tongue to their concern about these indicators, and we in this House would be neglectful of our duty if we did not share that same concern. I turn now to examine the alarming state of several of those indicators. I consider first the fact that the Australian dollar has lost approximately one-third of its value since this Government was elected to office on 5 March 1983. No matter what language this loss of value in our dollar is dressed up in, including the short term benefit to exports, the fact remains that the value accorded by the international community to a nation's currency is a reflection of how it values the credibility and strength of that nation's economy. The fact that the Australian dollar has fallen from 95c against the United States dollar on the last day in office of the Fraser Liberal Government, to its record low of 59.8c on 31 July 1986, then to the present figure of just over 73c, gives little cause for celebration by Australians. It has always been an economic truism that a weak currency reflects a weak economy, and the Treasurer has never been able to provide any significantly compelling arguments that would alter that damning judgment. In fact, his common argument that the fall is only because the Australian dollar has been floated only reinforces the point that I have made. The fundamental weakness of the Australian economy is at its most transparent in the consistent failure of the Labor Government's fiscal policy to control inflation. Our inflation rate continues at a level well above that of other Western nations and that of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average. In 1984-85 Australia's inflation rate was running at 5.8 per cent. Yet in marked contrast in the United Kingdom it was 5.5 per cent, the United States 3.9 per cent, Canada 3.8 per cent and West Germany 2.2 per cent. Mr Webster —It takes the gloss off this Budget. Mr ALDRED —It most certainly does, and shows it for what it is. The OECD average rate was only 4.7 per cent. By 1985-86 the discrepancy had become even more noticeable. Our inflation rate was 8.4 per cent, while in the United Kingdom it was 4.9 per cent, the United States 2.9 per cent, Canada 4 per cent and in West Germany, an extraordinarily low 1.1 per cent. For 1985-86 the OECD average rate was 3.6 per cent. As we moved to 1986-87 Australia's inflation rate had climbed to 9.3 per cent, while in the United Kingdom it was 3.6 per cent, the United States 2.2 per cent, Canada 4.3 per cent and West Germany minus 0.5 per cent. The Budget Papers for the coming year forecast an increase in the consumer price index of 7 per cent. However, no realistic justification is given for this optimistic outlook on events yet to come. The mere fact that in those same Budget Papers average weekly earnings are expected to increase by 6.5 per cent, well above the rates of our competitors in world markets, must alone raise heavy doubts as to the estimated inflation rate for 1987-88. Yet again the Government's concern with imagery blinds it to the realities of the market-place. In similar vein the Government has optimistically predicted that investment in plant and equipment will increase by 3 per cent in real terms in the coming financial year. It yet again offers little detailed argument to support this hopeful outlook. In this context it must be recalled that investment has in fact declined significantly in the last two financial years, taxes remain high, the Government's wages policy is not designed to put us in a competitive position, and this Government has never provided any significant incentive to investment in plant and equipment. It seems that this Government has always regarded incentives for investment in plant and equipment in the same slanted way in which the Treasurer has previously regarded negative gearing, that is, all such incentives are rorts. The false assumptions upon which the Budget is based again show up in relation to the productivity estimate. Last year productivity, like investment, fell. Yet somehow the Government produces a positive estimate which is not sustainable in argument. Undoubtedly one of the most disturbing underlying indicators in Australia's economic situation is the state of our balance of payments. Both components, the balance of trade and the balance on current account, have declined dramatically since this Government was elected. The balance of trade has, for instance, fallen from a surplus of $185m in 1983-84 to a $1.9 billion deficit in 1986-87. Under Labor, the balance on current account has doubled to gargantuan proportions. In 1983-84 the deficit for the balance on current account was $7.3 billion and by 1986-87 the deficit had shot up to $13.6 billion. It is these figures and their uncertain future in 1987-88 that have so troubled Senator Walsh. As he clearly understands, this appalling situation reflects Australia's acutely non-competitive position in world trading. This arises directly from the profligate spending of the Government, most especially in its first two years of office, and the excessive wage increases it has encouraged its mates in the Australian Council of Trade Unions to seek. If the irresponsible economic policies have put our competitive position to shame, it is nothing to the extent that they have eroded our national sovereignty by putting us in hock to the international community. In June 1983, the year the Liberal Party lost government, Australia's total gross debt was $35 billion, or 21 per cent of our gross domestic product (GDP). Interest payments to service that debt totalled $2.75 billion. At the end of March 1987 Australia's total gross debt had grown to a mammoth $109 billion, a huge 42.7 per cent of our gross domestic product. The interest payments we were paying to service this millstone around our neck totalled $8.2 billion. Today it is estimated that our foreign debt bill comes to a staggering $113 billion and is growing at the crazy rate of $1 billion a month. It can therefore be seen that after nearly five years of this big spending, big taxing Labor government, our foreign debt has grown by nearly $80 billion and our level of debt as a percentage of gross domestic product has increased by nearly one further quarter of GDP. The result is that we now pay $5.5 billion more in interest on debt than we did in 1983. Mr Webster —That's money down the drain. Mr ALDRED —It most certainly is, and it cannot be recovered, except by a Liberal Government. The seriousness of our foreign debt problem was highlighted in the latter half of 1986 when, on 10 December, Moody's Investor Services took away Australia's AAA credit rating and on 3 December Standard and Poor's did likewise. Australia had only ever had a AAA rating, and in losing this we joined the ignominious club of only three other nations ever to lose a AAA credit rating. This Budget is like a shining glasshouse, having a superficial beauty but insulated from the tempest rising outside. Its artificial assumptions, like plates of immaculate but fragile glass, will shatter as the storm pressure rises. One cannot run permissive fiscal, monetary and wages policies, as this Government has done since first elected, while that absolute measurement of a nation's well-being, its competitive position in the world, continues drastically to deteriorate. One cannot take charge of one's own destiny to resolve these problems, economically or politically, while failing to tackle vigorously the foreign debt bill that is systematically eroding one's national sovereignty. In this Budget the Government has again pursued rhetoric over reality, and all Australians will ultimately pay for that cowardly choice. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(11.15) —I support the Government's Appropriation Bills, or what honourable members opposite, prior to the July election, referred to as the horror Budget. While it is generally agreed that, in politics, people have short memories, I feel that the history of this Budget is worth recalling for several reasons. From the outset of the last Federal election campaign, the Opposition's advertising managers were anxious to repeat their tactic in the 1984 election of scaring the people into voting for the conservative parties. Honourable members opposite surely must remember, to their constant shame, the underhand trick of causing undue anxiety in the minds of pensioners over the assets test. In exactly the same way, the rumour mongering began the day the election was called. The question was asked subtly by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), `What is the Government trying to hide? Why an election before the Budget?'. But of course he was only too happy to answer that question: the Government wanted to hand down a horror Budget with extra taxes, greater government spending and every other unpalatable nasty one could think of. Last Tuesday night the Treasurer (Mr Keating) handed down this so-called horror Budget and from that Budget we can tell a lot about the credibility and quality of both the Government and the Opposition. Last Tuesday, this Government balanced the nation's Budget effectively for the first time in 17 years. We did it without any increase in taxes and without any undue hardship or difficulty to any segment of the community. Following this amazing effort, what was the reaction of those opposite? They claimed, `not enough cuts', `an easy Budget', `a soft Budget', and `a missed opportunity'. Certainly, the Government appears unable to win by those standards. When there is no election we cannot be trusted because we will be too hard. When we honour our promises we are accused of going soft and being complacent. Fortunately, however, the double standards of the Opposition were recognised from the outset by the voters of this country. That is why we are here again in greater numbers occupying the treasury bench. Perhaps the most revealing criticism is the charge that last Tuesday night we missed an opportunity. What opportunity was that? Obviously a Budget three years before the next election will not require the same thought as one put before the poll-at least that is how the Liberal and National parties would think. That is the type of tactic-the `election Budget'-that has given politics and politicians a bad name. The electorate has become used to the pre-election sweeteners. For the rest of the time the parties were committed to Budget cuts and stringent measures. It is true that in the last few years the circumstances have warranted a great deal of economic belt tightening. That is not an exercise which any government, let alone a Labor government, likes to do. It is certainly not electorally popular and one wins no extra votes from it. Nonetheless, it is an important exercise and one that must be engaged in properly if the long term interests of the nation are to be served. We have made those difficult decisions in the past. We have angered some of our traditional supporters in doing so, but we have done it because to have done any less would have been to sell our future short. But what is the Opposition's response? More cuts, more savings, more hardship. In the Labor Government's view, that response is simply not good enough. We fought the election campaign on the basis that, by our hard work and sacrifice, we had turned the corner and that, while times were still difficult, we were through the worst of it. Despite the fact that we face no election, it is not the aim of this Government to bring down a harsh Budget just for the sake of it. By this Budget, the Government is showing its confidence in its pre-election forecast that the economy is clawing its way back. So much so, in fact, that we can start to address responsibly some of the areas of the social wage which the times have prevented us from doing. We have always vowed to the people that we would restore government initiatives in social services when we were able to do so in an economically responsible way. We are now in the position to do so. This Budget heralds the fulfillment of one of our election promises, namely the elimination of child poverty by 1990. At a time when our opponents are saying to cut harder, cut deeper, this Government is committed to living up to our moral as well as our economic responsibilities. From Christmas this year, half a million families will be better off, the benefits going to assist over one million children. Assistance will be in the form of cash payments, income tested, of $22 a week for each child, with $28 a week going to help subsidise the higher costs of providing for 13- 14- and 15-year-olds. There is also $15 a week rent assistance for low income families renting privately. Let us contrast this with what the Opposition had promised prior to the election. In the fine print of the `fistful of dollars' policy, we quickly found that the big winners were the rich. In addition to eliminating the taxes on capital gains and fringe benefits, it was those on higher incomes who had the most to gain from a Liberal win. The vast majority gained little. Certainly, there was not much appeal in such a grab bag of tax lurks to the people of my electorate of Banks. The Labor way is to give back money to those most in need of it; certainly there can be none more needing of it than children, living on or below the poverty line, and their families. I would now like to take up one of the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition. His claim is that somehow the figures are rubbery, that there is something dishonest in their presentation, that, in fact, the Budget is not balanced. He suggests a number of reasons for this. Firstly, he argues that more taxation has a great part to play in the balance of this Budget. This is true, but what he fails to do is to convince us that the new tax measures are wrong. I remember the Treasurer being bombarded with abuse by members opposite about the fringe benefits tax, or what they termed the `farewell Bob tax'. The public, we were told, would not wear it; they would see the tax as a fine on incentive and would reject the Government outright for it. We were told that capital gains tax was another disincentive to hard work and gaining higher income. Well, they were wrong, hopelessly wrong, as is proven by our presence here today. The people of Australia have looked at our offerings in tax reform and have agreed that we were right. If our tax take is higher, it is only because we are rightfully assessing as income money which for years had been ignored. Why should free lunches, free cars, lower interest loans and the like be ignored? They are benefits which ordinary workers have to buy with hard earned cash. Now, at last, they are being assessed and taxed like any other income. The same goes for capital gains. Money derived from shares or property sales is money just the same. It buys goods and services just as easily as money earned through work. Why then should it not be taxed as well? It simply does not make sense to argue that the figures are rubbery, that there is a dishonesty in having collected so much tax. If there is a dishonesty anywhere, it is with the people opposite who for years ignored the problem of leaving the average worker to shoulder more and more of the tax burden. A reasonable and just tax base has been re-established, and so government receipts are now properly in order. Secondly, the Opposition, in one of its more memorable exercises in double standards, insists that government assets sales cannot be counted towards reducing the deficit. This is in spite of every rule of accounting procedures, and indeed against the practices of members of the Opposition themselves. When the Government, any government, buys an asset, it is written off on the ledger as a cost to revenue-money had to be acquired somewhere to acquire the asset. It follows logically, as night follows day, as the shadow Treasurer was once fond of saying, that any sale of an asset should be written up as a corresponding increase in revenue. Certainly, this is the procedure adopted in all other nations when drawing up Budgets, whether they be for householders or nations. It was most definitely the procedure the Leader of the Opposition used in every Budget he ever brought down. Even more importantly, it is the procedure he would no doubt follow if he were ever to become Prime Minister. The Opposition has often openly advocated the sale of government held assets, ostensibly to improve productivity, but also to reduce the deficit. I have not seen the Leader of the Opposition criticise the accounting methods of Mrs Thatcher. It seems that when a conservative leader engages in such practices, it is a noble effort to improve competition. When his opponents do it, they are engaging in a vain short term attempt to aid the economy. Which story is true? Finally, the Opposition would argue that Reserve Bank profits made during fluctuations of the Australian dollar cannot be credited. These profits will not be repeated, it is suggested, and so therefore cannot be put on the positive side of the scale. How can this be when so much of all economic decision-making is based upon considerations and factors with only short term effect? Certainly we would not be hoping for a return to the wild daily fluctuations of the dollar which gave rise to the profits. Yet, nonetheless, those circumstances arose, and one fortunate by-product was a surplus for the Reserve Bank. We deal in other short and long run situations which create the need for immediate answers. At the moment, we are dealing with a decline in our terms of trade that has seen $96m slashed from our national income. We have made substantial cuts in many areas of government spending to accommodate that problem. Some of those cuts have been difficult to make, like the six weeks delay in pension rises. They have been necessary, however, for the economy's good and so we have initiated them, even if only in the short term. But the savings in expenditure for that time are no less real than the profits we are now in receipt of from the Reserve Bank. In the coming year, this Government will deal with an entirely new set of problems. No doubt there will be difficulties and boons which we could not have foreseen, but in our usual professional way we will deal with them. One thing remains certain: the Leader of the Opposition claimed two years ago that the times would suit him. The world and Australia's trade difficulties should have made the last election an easy one for the Opposition. Yet the people of Australia resoundingly rejected its policies of hardship and despair, shabbily masked by a grab bag of so-called tax incentives. Now the times will suit us. Labor has seen us through the bad times. Labor will see this nation through to the good times again. But the future we look to is one of equal opportunity for all classes, with all sections of the community benefiting from the nation's prosperity, not just those rich enough to have cushy salary packages and capital gains. To this end, the Government's Budget looks towards growth and development in the long term, while seeing to the present needs of the poor and less well off. It is a Budget which justly honours the commitments and promises which Labor made to the people during the election. I shall now turn briefly to the Government's intention to proceed with the introduction of the Australia Card, because of its future budgetary implications and because this matter has been raised on quite a number of occasions during this debate by members on both sides of the House. The Australia Card will bring to the Commonwealth additional revenue of at least $1 billion each year following its introduction. This revenue will come from those people who, at the present time, are not paying income tax on earnings or are not declaring interest or dividends or capital gains, and it will do away with double dipping in the welfare area. It is sheer hypocrisy by the Opposition to oppose such a measure, because on the one hand it criticises the Government for not reducing the social welfare allocations, while on the other it opposes the single most efficient method of achieving such a result. By its actions, it is protecting welfare and taxation cheats. Additional revenue of $1 billion received after the introduction of the Australia Card will assist in further reducing taxation and enable the Government to fund further worthy projects in education, employment, et cetera, and to be in a position to more adequately target welfare assistance to those on the lower end of the income scale. The Opposition is creating fear and confusion in the minds of many people in the community by its nefarious statements in relation to the Australia Card. Honest, law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the measure and indeed will gain from its introduction. They will realise its benefits, because it will bring fairness and equity to their way of living. I fully support the Government's actions in proceeding to implement the Australia Card. I am proud to be part of a government which has not shirked its responsibilities in taking the hard decisions necessary to take Australia through these difficult economic times and to reverse the disastrous position left to us by the Opposition in 1983. I commend the Budget Bill to the House. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(11.30) —I shall disgress a little from the Appropriation Bill at the start. As I will not have the opportunity of participating in the Address-in-Reply debate, I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to convey to Madam Speaker and the Chairman of Committees my congratulations to them on their appointment to those very high and responsible offices. In a spirit of fairness, I think that both of them did an excellent job in the last Parliament and that, in the week and a half that we have been here, they have indicated that they are going to do an excellent job in this Parliament. To you, personally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I extend my congratulations on the position to which you have again been appointed, that of a Deputy Chairman of Committees. I was most impressed by your tolerance, leadership and ability to calm troubled waters in the last Parliament and I hope that those splendid talents that you possess will rub off on your fellow Deputy Chairmen of Committees. I also ask you to convey my congratulations to all the honourable members who have made their maiden speeches. I thought that on each and every occasion they gave thoughtful and courteous maiden speeches. It is not easy to stand up in this Parliament and convey to the people of Australia the reasons why one has offered oneself for selection and what one hopes to achieve here. We have lots of talent, and it will be with a great deal of interest that I trace the progress of the new honourable members on the ladder of fame, from whichever side of Parliament they come. I apologise for transgressing from the Appropriation Bill to what is more fittingly said during the debate on the Address-in-Reply, but I will not have the opportunity to speak in that debate and I think that these things are important. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Your comments are noted. Mr McVEIGH —I want to address the Appropriation Bill on several matters. I would like to open this part of my speech by mentioning the Budget brought down by the Federal Government last week. A balanced Budget generally attracts favourable comment. Therefore, in the light of the fact that, in the first analysis, this Budget did indeed appear to be balanced, the vast majority of Australians believed it to be acceptable. Under closer investigation, however, one discovers that there are certain flaws in the ideological structure of the Budget plan. Of paramount important are the questions surrounding the accounting system, such as it is. Informed critics at the time thought that the failure of the Budget was the fact that it did not bite into spending cuts. With reference to this issue, let me echo some of the problems outlined by Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance, over the weekend. First, in Monday's Australian Financial Review, Senator Walsh was quoted as saying: I am worried that the Budget has been oversold and it will make the public and the Government complacent. Senator Walsh is worried, as I am and as I am sure lots of Australians are, that the Budget did no go far enough to cut expenditure, which is needed in order for Australia to be bailed out of what I believe is a precarious economic position. Last week's Budget provided a sterling opportunity for the Government to initiate expenditure restraints necessary to build up savings able to be used to pay off our very high external debt. Alas, and Australia will suffer on account of this, it neglected to take this initiative, preferring merely to take the irresponsible measure of making the picture look brighter than it is without having the foresight to recognise what effect this action might have on the future. Commentators believe that a feature of the Budget was the receipt side. The prominence given to this issue, however, has taken emphasis away from the far more important issue of our external debt. No steps have been taken actively to reduce the debt. The Government, for its part, has failed to set a pace of economic adjustment to counteract the deficit. Therefore, it has effectively lost a year in which this problem can be addressed and, in turn, rectified. Without attention, in a year's time this debt will have increased and accordingly the problem will be exacerbated. In sum, therefore, our economic situation will be far worse than it is now. In the light of this argument and what has happened in this Parliament and outside since, I believe that, on balance, Senator Walsh's view is correct. Let me now depart from the issue of the Budget and approach the great debate of socialism versus free enterprise, because of its Budget implications. In recent years, there has been too much expectation of governments doing everything. Increasingly, people are not prepared to make sacrifices to do things themselves or to give displays of what was common in the earlier years of Australia-namely, mateship. There are many records of Australian mateship. Last Saturday I presided at the centenary of German settlement in a village in my electorate. In reading the history of the German settlement-and this applies to Irish, United Kingdom and, I suspect, all settlements in Australia-a strong emphasis on the family emerges as does a willingness to help and to share in times of adversity and of plenty, and the fact that the last thing those people thought of was going to the government for help. It is disappointing to think that we do not have that type of rugged individualism and the mentality of getting on with the job of looking after ourselves. That is now replaced by the fact that the moment someone is in trouble he or she thinks, `What can the Government do to help me?'. Mr Cowan —The handout mentality. Mr McVEIGH —It is as the honourable members says. I want to take a more philosophical stance on the issue. In the words of Terrence Hawkes, the well-known English cognitive scientist of repute: The physics of man reveals that men have created themselves. That is, man reconstructs the myths, the social institutions, virtually the whole world as he perceives it, and in doing so, he constructs himself. In the light of this pronouncement the issue here is not whether we should be socialists or free enterprising. The point I am trying to make is that we should stand by the ideals that we create for ourselves. Nowadays too many people align themselves with the values of the free enterprise system yet, in times of trouble, they are willing to change their allegiance to be bailed out of trouble. A genuine free enterpriser should be steadfast in the faith up to the very point where money may be made or lost. If he or she, however, rushes hell for breakfast to the Government, he or she is not honest. Given that, one must have a certain admiration for the honest socialist who lives by the ideals he espouses. I do not agree with his ideals but I acknowledge that he believes in government intervention and he wears that on his sleeve. An instance of a group claiming to be free enterprise is the great Australia company the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I recall that as a member of the Fraser-Anthony Ministry, after a very detailed analysis of that company's position, we injected a huge sum of Commonwealth money into the company for a variety of reasons. But we found that the moment it got the money, instead of getting itself out of trouble, it gave that money-the taxpayers' money-to improved conditions for the working people. Another instance which is part of the coalition policy is that there should be no payment for inspection services. We believe that this is a waste of taxpayers' money when these things should be self-regulating. An example is the chemical residue in meat passed by the Australian Inspection Service. When the meat arrived overseas, people there found there was a problem and would not buy it. So why the hang should we have an inspection service here? It should be a matter between buyer and seller on the old-fashioned concept that a handshake seals the deal. I do not want to criticise my fellow primary producers. They are free enterprise people. But there should be no inspection services provided by government at cost. It should be done by industry. The moment these people got into trouble with the chemical residue problem, which had nothing to do with the Government, they went crying to the Government, `Bale us out of trouble'. I can understand their doing that. But I say, `If you are a free enterprise person, for God's sake be a free enterprise person. If you are a socialist, be a socialist. You cannot be a bit of both. Be a free enterprise person, not a closet socialist'. I say that as a very firm philosophical comment. We need to have a greater mechanism for bringing responsibility home to people. I will not be very popular in the States for saying this but I am not in the business of being popular; I am in the business of helping Australia now and in the future. I always get upset when State governments of whatever political faith condemn the central government here in Canberra for levying too much taxation but, on the other hand, are always asking for increased handouts. Again, it is the free enterprise-socialist argument: one must be one or the other. I submit that surely in this day and age it is not an unreasonable attitude to suggest that we copy the Canadian system. It is a simple one in which the provinces indicate what percentage of taxation they want raised and that appears on people's assessment notices. At least it brings a bit of honesty into the system and gets away from politics and a cheap political campaign based on trying to achieve popularity but not worrying about the people or conditions out there or trying to create more employment. Another issue I want to address primarily concerns the Government's approach to the election campaign. It was merely a response to the polls. I readily admit that the Government was far more sophisticated and refined in its electioneering techniques. In effect the Government is like the person who wins an Olympic gold medal. It was hungry for victory and was prepared to make the sacrifices and the effort. It knew how it could win and it stuck to the job. I do not want to buy into the argument of why my side of politics did not win. The first of the two major faults to which I wish to refer was the Government's pre-occupation with political strategy and tactics as opposed to the real issues. I admit that by doing that it won. Parliament was dissolved under the guise of the Australia Card issue. Yet at no time during the election campaign did the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) debate the issue. It is nonsense to say that the Government has a mandate to initiate the Australia Card policy which is a massive invasion of privacy. The Government should have been obliged to debate the issue on its merits and attempt to sell it to the Australian people. We have only to look at the polls. Those opposite have not sold anything to the people. They have not targeted that problem. Each poll indicates that fewer people want to accept Big Brother looking over their shoulders. As Australian citizens, surely they have the right to decide whether they should have the Australia Card. Instead, the campaign merely became a competition of sorts among political personalities. For my part and for the future of Australia and the voters to follow, I plead for a deeply negative public response to the present preoccupation with electoral tactics and strategy. Let us hear about the issues and be informed when candidates seek to avoid them. Let all political strategists remain far in the background where, I submit, they belong. The second fault to which I will refer today is the all-pervasive power of the media. A multitude of lenses have been focused on this power with an overwhelming response drawing us to the conclusion that the media have the potential to dictate public opinion. Within the sphere of politics specifically, election campaigns, opinion polls and so on are used by the media as the avenue for influencing public opinion. The media are playing along with the Government in its game of personalities and therefore neglect to report the real issues. Polls also give a persuasive if spurious aspect of neutrality, spurious because they favour the front runner until the day, when in the frequent manner of such phenomena they are proved to be wrong. Let me now move on to the penultimate issue I wish to address today; that is, the role of the arts in our society. I am disappointed that there has been less funding for the arts in the Appropriation Bill. Too often the arts are looked upon as being vulnerable without a role to play in the effective running of our society. But I suggest that contrary to this popular opinion, the arts play an intrinsic role. As a nation we have always prided ourselves on encouraging and developing fine sportsmen and women as well as producing premium quality primary products and manufactured goods. The arts, however, have always been seen as the poor cousin of these major achievements. This neglect of the arts sadly is characteristic of our own society, as history illustrates clearly. If we delve into the past we will see how the arts have actually added to the economic product of the nation. Let me cite a few cases of historical significance. Firstly, in the sixteenth century no one contributed so consistently to economic activity as did Shakespeare. Another example, from the seventeenth century, is Moliere. In our modern times are Messrs Gilbert and Sullivan and George Gershwin. I raise the question: what now does the future hold for our artists, painters and poets? What will the future think of the economic input of such people as David Williamson, Sir Sidney Nolan and Bruce Dawe, Australia's foremost poet, who lectures at the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education in Toowoomba? Furthermore, the artist is also vital to ordinary industrial progress in the modern world. The basic point is a simple one-after utility comes design; after things work well, people want them to look well. Design depends not alone on the availability of artists, it invokes depth and quality of the whole artistic tradition. It is on this that modern industrial success has come to depend. In the context of these contributions that the arts make to society, it is imperative that the Government, in return, fulfils its obligations to the arts. The obligations of the Government to the arts is threefold: firstly, it must provide for the education of artists; secondly, it must support the arts, both financially and intellectually; and, thirdly, it must support the cutting edge of innovation to sustain ad interim what only time will make commercially rewarding. During the final stages of this speech I wish to deal with the issue of mediocrity, specifically as it is displayed by the Government and, more generally, how it is encouraged by our society. Let me return to the point I made earlier in my address regarding the Budget. I noted that the Budget has certain flaws in its ideological construction. This is a direct result of the Government's failure to attempt to achieve economic recovery. This failure on the part of the Government to achieve the best possible results for the country forces its efforts, at best, to be labelled mediocre. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) certainly supports this view. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, on page 756 mediocre is defined as `of middling quality, indifferent, neither good nor bad'. What better words could one wish for to describe the Budget of the Treasurer (Mr Keating)? The Government's Budget overall continues towards a philosophy of mediocrity. What an example to set for the rest of Australia-if you know you cannot do it, do not even try. Sadly, the rest of Australia seems to be following this example and is adhering to this philosophy of mediocrity. Let me cite a few examples where this philosophy is in practice. First of all, there is our education system. No longer does it encourage our children to aspire to, let alone achieve, excellence. They are merely encouraged to do their best. I suggest that they do not know what their best is until they are pushed. Therefore, our education system forces our children-the adults and leaders of the future-to pursue mediocrity. Secondly, we have such events as Australia's premier horse event, the Melbourne Cup. This is a race whereby the best horse is penalised with a handicapping weight in order to bring it back to the level of the other horses. The great Australian foot race, the Stawell Gift, is not off scratch. We do not want a Ben Johnson to win, rather we give people a start. We do not look for the best, we always try to give the lightweight the opportunity of beating the champion. Some other matters are: public interest in the fiasco surrounding the managing directorship of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in September last year. We brought Mr Geoffrey Whitehead out from England via New Zealand. He made a hell of a mess of the ABC. What did we say instead of sacking him? We said, `Well done, fellow, here is a hand out of $200,000'. David Armstrong made a muck of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. We did not sack him. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said, `Err on the side of generosity in paying him out'. We did. The Australian taxpayer paid him $504,000 for making a muck of things. We are not about that; we are about the pursuit of excellence, not mediocrity. We should go over to East Germany to see the great pride it has when its athletes win. The present Government is guilty. It seeks to penalise those people who have been successful by imposing additional tax burdens. I ask the question: are the rich a dirty secret? What is wrong with the creation of wealth and the creation of jobs adding to Australia's export income and decreasing its overseas debt? Today voters are highly politically literate. They know when someone is talking down to them and they do not like it. It is about time the Prime Minister and the Treasurer stopped talking down to people. In the final analysis, it remains clear that good gardening needs a master gardener. In the Prime Minister and the Treasurer we certainly do not have master gardeners, we have two duds. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(11.50) —Mr Deputy Speaker, firstly, I congratulate you on being re-appointed as a Deputy Chairman of Committees. It is pleasing to see your smiling face in the chair. I ask you to pass on my congratulations to the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees on their re-election. I am very reassured that the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) has rejected the Budget on the grounds of ideology. If he had accepted it on the grounds of ideology, I would have been greatly concerned. I was interested in his analogy of the Melbourne Cup and Stawell Gift. I ponder just a little in comparing the Stawell Gift and the Melbourne Cup to the Queensland electoral system and the present gerrymander that exists there. I wonder about the principle of a handicap in that event. The Government has achieved a Budget outcome unprecedented in recent times. The deficit of $27m is the lowest as a proportion of the total economy in the 35 years for which comparable records are available. This compares with the deficit in prospect for the year 1983-84 of nearly $10 billion when the Government took office. It represents a reduction from 5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) to virtually zero. This year we will see the first net retirement of Commonwealth overseas debt since 1980-81. It is the first redemption of external and domestic bonds in the same year for over 50 years. All has been accomplished with no increases in taxes and with no new taxes announced in the Budget. For the business community in particular the Budget satisfies all its economic expectations. No longer does the deficit exist as an all purpose cop out for a failure to invest. Accordingly, a 5 per cent increase in business investment is forecast. There is no reason why this should not occur. Also of interest is the announcement in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of a review of the business taxation system. He stated: The overriding objective of this review is to identify options for financing reductions in the company tax rate through sensible broadening- I stress the word broadening- of the company income tax base. At this stage I refer honourable members to an article in the Australian Financial Review dated Monday, 21 September. It is headed, `Australian taxes low by OECD standards'. It states: Australia had the fifth-lowest level of taxes of the 23 OECD nations . . . I think there is a need in the debate about taxes to project these sorts of comparisons with other nations. It galls me just a little when we hear the continual cry from the other side that Australia is a high taxing nation. It is about time that the Australian community is presented with the facts in a genuine debate on this issue. The article continues: The only OECD nations with a lower tax take are the US . . . Spain . . . Japan . . . and Turkey . . . But of interest, as this article outlines, is that if we take into account social security levies borne by corporations, Australian companies get off comparatively very lightly. The article continues: On this basis, the tax burden of Australian companies was the second-lowest in the OECD. . . . Once social security levies borne by employers are added in, Australian companies enjoyed the second-lowest tax burden in the OECD in 1985-86, paying 2.8 per cent of GDP. The myths of high tax need to be dispelled. The problem is that in the loose way we compare tax rates we do not account for the various degrees of differences in tax and welfare systems of nations. In many nations corporations pay levies to provide welfare, whereas we pay for our health, community services and other services through general revenue. It is necessary when we compare Australian tax levels with those of other nations to take account of those factors. One of the more important aspects of the Budget is the family assistance package. As the Treasurer said in his Budget Speech, this is a `landmark' social reform. The family assistance package is one of the aspects of the Government's policy speech, which was delivered before the last election, that gave me the most pleasure. For many of the families living in an electorate such as Scullin the family assistance package will be of great importance. It is necessary to stress that the aim of the family package is to enable the children in low income families to have equal access to and equity in the rich resources that Australia has to offer. Part of the Government's overall strategy is to have, by 1990, a scenario in which no children live in poverty. I think that all honourable members would applaud that ideal and that goal. The package which we will introduce before Christmas will affect over half a million families in need and give added benefit to more than one million children. The new scheme will provide a family allowance supplement of $22 a week per child. The package recognises the higher costs associated with teenage children. For each child aged 13, 14 or 15 the benefit will be $28 a week. In addition, there will be rental assistance for families renting privately, with an extra allowance of up to $15 a week. The Treasurer stated in his Budget Speech: This means, for example, that families with incomes up to $324 per week who rent privately and have three children, two aged under 13 and one 14, will receive a supplement of $87 per week free of tax. That represents $69 a week more than these families would have received under the old family income supplement. This should be compared with the $20.46 that they were offered under the discredited tax policies which the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia presented at the last election. When we speak of the need to introduce measures such as the family assistance package, it is necessary also to dwell on aspects of wealth distribution in Australian society. In fulfilling a commitment that by 1990 no Australian child need live in poverty, it gives me, and I am sure many Government members, no pleasure to concede that the level of poverty has continued to increase over the past decade. But we should compare that fact with the recent revelations about the wealth of a privileged few in Australian society. Although I do not wish to dwell in a doctrinaire way on that aspect in this debate, I want to bring to the attention of honourable members an interesting editorial in the Australian Financial Review of Thursday, 10 September 1987. It is an interesting exposition of the need for public interest in wealth distribution and honourable members should read it carefully. It followed revelations in different business journals about those Australians who had become billionaires. The editorial makes this point: Wealth of this kind has been derived from Australian enterprises which employ hundreds of thousands of people and whose welfare is therefore of national concern. It develops the point that many of those people who have become, in the editorial's words, the `new rich' have a distinct responsibility to place importance on the welfare of Australia in general. The editorial states: Rightly or wrongly, attention is being focussed on what is seen as a growing disparity in the distribution of wealth in Australian society. It makes this point: It is not good enough to say that the ambitions and activities of someone who owns $1 billion of Australia's wealth is none of the public's business. The use of that money cannot only change the entire character of a local industry, it is also capable of altering the national economic structure. The editorial makes a point which is perhaps debatable but which I repeat for the information of honourable members: Personal wealth is a reflection of the potential opportunities offered by a free society- I stress the following point- but it also means that those who acquire it have some obligation to the society which encouraged their success. As I said previously, I feel that the Government will have to consider the need, as stated via the party platform, at least to have a proper inquiry into Australia's wealth-into its distribution and origins and into how much is owned or controlled by overseas interests. It is in Australia's interest that we have a rational debate on these issues to see ways in which we may address some of the imbalances which are developing between the haves and have nots in Australian society. Another important aspect of the Budget is the Government's continuing development of its policies and aid in a number of important industries-steel, heavy engineering and textile, clothing and footwear, to name a few. The Government's record since 1983 shows that, in a slow but sure way, it has addressed many of those industries which had perhaps become a bit flabby and needed to be investigated to ensure that they play the most productive part they can in the Australian economy. I welcome the recent joint announcement by the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) of a new policy for the pharmaceuticals industry. Although it is small compared with other Australian industries, it is very important. It is one in which Australians have been to the fore in developing new ideas and which exemplifies the need for Australia to heighten its research and development. Because of the way in which drugs and other factors impinge on our pharmaceutical benefits scheme in terms of drug prices, and so on, it is important that we consider the recently announced measures in the pharmaceutical package. We need to provide the most effective drugs at the least cost to the Australian community to insure Australia's health. It is also of interest to note that great emphasis has been placed in the Budget on the need to have industry policies which are interleaved with training policies. In Budget related Paper No. 9 under the heading `Skills Formation in Australia' the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) has put up for public debate a series of options and points about skills training in Australia. Another document which is now circulating needs proper debate. It is entitled Australia Reconstructed and is the report of the combined Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and Trade Development Council mission to Western Europe. Whilst I will not dwell on the overall aspects of that in this debate, we might get some opportunity to do so later. All honourable members should embrace this document and look at some of the alternative ways in which Australia can put itself back on a stable road. The Budget's main emphasis on expanding training is to be welcomed. It provides a solid basis for the consolidation of the Labor movement's successes in industry policy and it gives scope for industry development plans as indicated in the ACTU strategy document to be discussed. I want to make a small observation about our tendency in the education field to place great emphasis on skills training. We should not blind ourselves and think that this is the only role education has in Australia. Simon Marginson, in a document entitled Education System: Public Education and Equality, placed on record four roles of education. The first is the allocation of credentials. The second is the indirect contribution to economic development through the fostering of knowledge, skills, creativity and the experience of working with others; and specific vocational training. The third is culture. The fourth is political development. He said that, although most emphasis is placed on economic aspects, all four dimensions are important. In referring to the contribution to economic development he made this point: . . . there is debate about whether students should be seen simply as `human capital' without any control over their future economic lives, or as conscious and active people who will themselves shape the future economy. In our careful way as we develop these training packages we will need to take into consideration the individual's needs as well. As I said earlier, now more than ever the climate for investment has been created. Unfortunately for some, the pursuit of macroeconomic goals has become an end in itself. Such people have forgotten that government is about people, not statistics. Already some individuals have suggested that we need to proceed further down the road of spending cuts. The ideologue of the New Right, Andrew Hay, stated that the major weakness of the Budget is its failure to cut deeper into spending. Others such as the Executive Director of the Victorian Employers Federation, Ian Spicer, are anticipating a surplus in 1988-89. One of the most vexatious features of our current political process is that when the expectations of the business and financial community are not only met but exceeded it takes only hours for revised and more extreme demands to emerge. In no time we will hear from the extreme Right calls for further savage cuts lest Australia degenerate into a Third World dictatorship. The Government must ignore this cacophony of self-interest and greed. Surely we have come to the end of that road. Australia is at the crossroads. The Budget is all but balanced. It is now time for us to set off in earnest down a different road where macroeconomics considerations are combined with the vigorous pursuit of social justice. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(12.10) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) has just said that there is a tendency for the macroeconomic considerations of the Budget to become an end in themselves to the neglect of other considerations. I put to the honourable member that getting the macroeconomic framework right is essential. It is not the only matter that we have to devote our attention to but it is certainly a necessary condition. I want to direct my remarks primarily to that area. Last week was certainly the week of the balanced Budget and of an almost unprecedented Budget euphoria. It looked and sounded good. The money and foreign exchange markets reacted accordingly and very favourably: good for the Government and cheers for the markets. However, at the weekend the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, made his dash for truth. Now it does not sound so churlish to say, as I said on Budget night, that we have a patina of fiscal rectitude, a veneer, with the reality beneath the sheen not nearly so good. The Budget, as Senator Walsh said, has been `oversold'. For that read that the Australian people have been conned. The gloss given to the reality of this Budget in the speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) borders on the dishonest and the euphoria, I fear, is unlikely to last in the months ahead. In referring to misleading statements in this Budget I do not refer only to the several references-the first right up front in the speech-to this Hawke Government inheriting a prospective deficit of $10 billion, now `wiped out', as the Treasurer said preening himself. The truth is that, firstly, there never was any reality to such a deficit. I am not interested in letters such as the one the Treasurer read out to the House last week, doubtless from a self-serving public servant. Secondly, the deficit in the Government accounts right now has not been wiped out with this Budget. The actual position is an underlying deficit of the order of at least $1 billion; indeed, as a number of Opposition speakers have set out, it is more likely of the order of $2 billion to $2.5 billion. The statements, the glosses in this Budget which, as I have said, are bordering on the dishonest, do not end there. Apart from misleading claims about the deficit, there is also the whole central claim that this is a Budget entirely appropriate to Australia's economic circumstances, a `blueprint for the continued national recovery of Australia', as one Government speaker has put it. That is a false claim. The Government has clearly gone soft on the resolve it demonstrated even last year in the wake of the Treasurer's banana republic perception and the characterisation of Australia's situation as `akin to war' by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Government has gone soft on the resolve it demonstrated then to come to grips with Australia's massive current account deficit imbalance and our vast, relentlessly rising overseas debt. We debated this matter yesterday, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will say at this point only that the Budget may be, as many have argued, broadly in the right direction-but, as my Senate colleague John Stone has put it, what is a step in the right direction when what is required is comprehensive and resolute action to stem this country's steady move into international bankruptcy? That is the central, the great issue. Thirdly, turning to more specific claims of a misleading, indeed dishonest character, the `balanced' Budget has been achieved on the spending side of the equation by `a 2.4 per cent real reduction in Commonwealth spending', the `biggest cut in the 35 years for which comparable records are available', a `cut in outlays by $3,500m'. I will examine that distortion of the language in a moment. The fourth dishonest claim to which I refer is on the other side of the Budget, the revenue side. The Treasurer averred, `We have adhered to our election commitment not to increase taxes'. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) and other members of the Government have dwelt on that point at length in this debate. To that I say, `Oh yes? Maybe there are no rate changes, at least in income tax although there are in indirect tax, but there is a very hefty increase in taxation in a real sense'. The fifth of these misleading statements I particularly want to refer to is the proposal to repay $1 billion of Commonwealth overseas debt and the same amount of domestic bonds, with the proud boast being made by the Treasurer that `No other Commonwealth Government in more than 50 years has made repayments of both external and domestic debt in the same year'-the clear implication being that our debt situation is coming under control. In fact, that is entirely misleading. It is a cosmetic exercise. The obscure reference in the footnote on page 383 of Budget Paper No. 1, which refers to juggling the figures of major asset sales for `commercial confidence reasons', I believe provides a clue. In reality, the changes do not make an iota of difference to the crippling, perilous overall debt situation of this country. I refer to the claim about `the biggest cut in Commonwealth spending in the 35 years for which comparable records are available'. I referred in the debate yesterday to pages 66 to 71 of Budget Paper No. 1 where we see set out a comprehensive list of expenditure cuts and two items among hundreds of snippets of spending cuts-cuts from, mind you, forward Estimates of expenditure, not actual expenditure-stand out. They hit us in the eye. The first of those is general purpose payments for the States, which have been cut by $1,000m-a real cut of upwards of 4 per cent, which I do not dispute. But when we work it out, Commonwealth spending in real terms on this Government's own activities will actually increase slightly. It is a case of knock the States; that is the easy way out. The second point, a point I made yesterday, is that the real gloss, the really misleading point, is that asset sales of about $1 billion are shown as a negative outlay, for goodness sake. A projected $1 billion of asset sales makes up nearly one-third of the vaunted cuts in Commonwealth Government spending. That may be an international convention but when the sales are of that order in relation to the change in spending, it is nothing other than a tortuous usage of the language. It is patently dishonest to trumpet $3 billion-plus of cuts in Commonwealth spending. In plain terms, that is seen by the man in the street as an addition to revenue. In fact, the true place in the Budget for this is as a component in the financing of the deficit, not as a factor conditioning or reducting the deficit. The truth is that the Government has passed up the opportunity, tragically, to undertake some meaningful cutting of excessive government expenditure and thereby the opportunity to push ahead with the absolutely crucial adjustment process to reduce the external deficit and contain our crippling overseas debt. That is what had to be done. The fourth dishonest claim I want to deal with is the Treasurer's gloss: . . . we have adhered to our election commitment not to increase taxes . . . The Budget Papers plainly show that the aggregate of income tax on individuals, including the Medicare levy, is projected to increase by $3.1 billion, or 8.1 per cent which is above the rate of inflation. That is a point I think you, Mr Deputy Speaker, addressed in the House the other day. When we add an income tax on companies, the increase is 9 per cent. That is despite the tax cuts of 1 December and 1 July. A major factor in that is the effect of so-called fiscal drag; that is, the effect of taxpayers moving into higher tax brackets. A person earning up to $19,500 per annum, or $390 a week, pays 29c in the dollar for any extra income earned, but if his income rises to say $22,000 per annum, or $440 a week, the rate on any additional income rises to 40c in the dollar. So his tax goes up very significantly. This has the effect, as we stressed during the election campaign, of making taxpayers, on average, pay substantially more of their income in taxes even after these cuts than when the Hawke Government came to office. As the leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) pointed out in his Budget reply, in 1987-88 the Government will collect an average of more than $230 extra from every Australian taxpayer. In no way is that a contribution to the incentive for increased effort and productivity which the precarious situation of this country calls for. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would not be so churlish as not to acknowledge that the top rate of 49c in the dollar, or 50.25c including the Medicare levy, is a welcome improvement on the top rate of 60c, or 61.25c with the levy, of this time a year ago. It certainly is. But it is still too high. It is still an exploitative rate, a rate that invites avoidance and evasion and is inimical to incentive for increased effort and productivity. With the proper restraint of government expenditure marginal rates can be, as they must be, brought down much further. In the United States last year a top rate of 28c in the dollar, or 33c including the five points threshold abatement impost, was implemented by the Congress on a bipartisan Republican and Democrat basis. That was a great achievement. In the election campaign a top rate of 38c in the dollar was proposed by the Liberal and National parties. That rate is achievable and, for my part, I will not give up the advocacy of that or, in time, an even lower rate. I come back to the Budget predictions. As I have said, there is a total of $3.1 billion in additional direct taxes on individuals and there are additional indirect taxes of nearly $1 billion, which again is up by 9 per cent excluding the crude oil levy. Just let me say this: since the Treasurer failed to win his consumption tax proposal at the 1985 Australian Taxation Summit, indirect taxes other than the crude levy have gone up, without any compensation to low income groups as would have occurred with a properly implemented consumption tax, by nearly $3 billion, or of the order of nearly 33 per cent. I put it to the House, and to the Australian people, that they would have been better off paying a properly structured consumption tax with compensation provisions built in. For my part, I remain an unrepentant advocate of such a tax. So we have had this increase in the taxation of individuals, and an increase in indirect taxes-and increased rates are built into that automatically, despite the Treasurer's claim that there has been no increase in taxation. Finally, for companies, taxes are projected to increase by over $1 billion-an increase in the order of 13 per cent. This will result particularly from the larger than expected increase in fringe benefits tax. Yet the Government wonders about the continuing hesitancy in business investment. So we have this very large increase in receipts and when we add the very large, and not likely to continue, Reserve Bank of Australia profits, there is a total increase on the revenue side of the order of $6 billion. All in all, that is not a bad outcome, from the point of view of the Treasurer, in the context of his boast that this Government has adhered to its election committment not to increase taxes. Mr Webster —A Clayton's balancing of the Budget. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —My colleague is right; it is a Clayton's balancing of the Budget. The fifth point is the proposed reduction of $1 billion in the Commonwealth domestic and overseas debt. To quote the Treasurer's boast: `No other Commonwealth Government in more than 50 years has made repayments of both external and domestic debt in the same year'. So what? The whole exercise makes scarcely an iota of difference to this country's perilous overseas debt situation. The assets sales have been brought in to provide finance for the balancing of the Budget. Next we are told that some $3.7 billion of maturing Commonwealth bonds will come up during the year. We have the happy circumstances of an overfunding, to use the words of the Treasurer, of last year's deficit due to successful raisings and a lesser deficit outcome, and that resulted in a build-up of around $1 billion in the Commonwealth cash balances of the Reserve Bank. In effect, the Government proposes to roll over $2.7 billion of that maturing debt and to retire $1 billion using this last year's outcome. In addition, perhaps stimulated by the prospect of important assets sales overseas in Tokyo and Paris, the Government has decided to retire $1 billion of Commonwealth overseas debt. I ask the honourable members to note that, as the current account deficit continues very large, so the overseas debt still increases. That retiring of overseas debt only means that someone else has to borrow $1 billion in the Government's place, plus the extra borrowing to fund the currently accruing current account deficit. Directly, or indirectly, this retiring of overseas debt is to be financed by an anticipated growth in 1987-88 of about $1.2 billion in the stock of treasury notes in non-official hands-in other words, an increase in short debt. So we end up with a balanced Budget; we have $1 billion less of assets abroad but we also have $1 billion less of debt so the net position is unchanged; and, domestically we have $1 billion more of short term debt and $1 billion less of long term debt. As I have said, the net indebtedness of the Commonwealth is unchanged and the whole cosmetic exercise makes scarcely an iota of difference to this country's perilous overseas debt situation. That central issue has been barely addressed. We are relying on the rest of the world to continue to pick up the tab for our national overspending, our living beyond our means, if the rest of the world will-that is the big risk-and whether we go down the Argentinean road. Growth has been put before a more rapid containment of the current account deficit and the debt problem. The Treasurer and the Government will need sheer good luck, including the continuation of a favourable international environment, to get through this year maintaining the value of the Australian dollar, maintaining the decline in interest rates, plus any progress at all in the deficit and debt problem. As I said yesterday, this amounts to our losing a year in the long haul to contain the current account deficit and the overseas debt-that long haul back from the Argentinean road to a path of sound economic development. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(12.30) —In speaking in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, it is worth noting that this is the seventh occasion on which I have had the opportunity to debate an annual Budget. Mr Hand —And you have done it very well, too, I might add. Mr MILTON —I thank the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs very much. I have opposed two Howard Liberal-National Party Budgets and I have supported, with a few criticisms and some reservations, all five Budgets presented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). There is no doubt that it is a spectacular achievement to reduce the deficit to $27m, or virtually zero. In other words, it is a balanced Budget. It is particularly gratifying to note that the promise of support for low income families of $250m has been honoured. This was an election promise and it has now been honoured. Unfortunately, some low income parents remain in difficult financial circumstances as a result of some poverty traps. An example of such a case is the reversion of the class A widow's pension to a class B widow's pension when student children reach the age of 18. I hope to speak in more detail on this problem when speaking later on the estimates of individual departments. At this stage I will be dealing with one of my ex-constituents, Mrs Olive Richards, who has had a number of problems as a result of this loss in her income. Another area of concern is the cut from $367m to $354m in the funding for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). I have to agree with some of the critics who have said that the Government appears concerned only with those areas of scientific research which can be immediately applied to boost export earnings. Australia has established a world-wide reputation in a number of areas of basic and applied research which could, and probably will, suffer as a result of the 10 per cent funding cut. The spring issue of Ecos, the CSIRO magazine which deals with research findings in relation to the environment, covers a number of research projects, such as land degradation in the Murray-Darling Basin, the economic loss and environmental damage caused by rabbits; and the grave potential dangers for world populations of a warmer earth. These are all research projects from which no immediate increase in export earnings will result. However, whether it is combating increased salinisation of the Murray-Darling Basin, or preserving forests in lower rainfall areas in the south-west of Western Australia, these research studies could result in a big improvement in our export earnings in the long term. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for some of my parliamentary colleagues to be rather scathing about basic research because there is no immediate and obvious return. I can only warn that if we continue to cut funds available for scientific research, whether those cuts are in CSIRO funding or in tertiary educational research funds, Australians as a whole will suffer the loss in the long term. The main curb on possible wastes in research areas could be through the application of accountability criteria which could be built into all research programs. Hopefully, the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) will promote this more positive method of using scarce resources to the best advantage. Coming back to the Budget in general, I would like to concentrate the remainder of my speech on the proposed sale of public assets by some people both inside and outside our Party. The Budget includes asset sales of $1,000m, but I reject the argument by Opposition members-and that includes the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) who preceded me in this debate-that, as a consequence, the Budget is not truly balanced. Opposition members conveniently forget that the Budget includes repayments of $2,000m of Commonwealth Government internal and external debt. As the Treasurer has commented, and I commend him on this initiative, no other Commonwealth Government in more than 50 years has made repayments of both domestic and overseas debt in the same year. Let us hope that the private sector can be equally responsible, as it is the private sector which is largely responsible for the huge proportions of our overseas debt. The Government has produced a climate of lower interest rates and anticipated lower inflation. How long will it take the private sector to respond to this challenge with new investment? Its record has not been very good to date. It is precisely for this reason that I am concerned at the calls for the sale of public enterprises. I have no objection to the sale of surplus Government assets. Mr Connolly —What about the Pipeline Authority? Mr MILTON —But I am concerned when proposals are made to sell such vital enterprises as Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and Telecom Australia. I know that the honourable member for Bradfield is in favour of those proposals. I will explain why I am totally opposed to them. The philosophy of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has always been very clear in its overall public enterprise objective. The platform states: The democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features. That objective does not mean complete socialisation of industry, as we all recognise the realities of our mixed economy. But it does recognise the need to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in our economy. That is why it is so important that public enterprises which provide essential services to the Australian public should be preserved under public ownership. I can remember the great debate within the Labor Party in 1981 and 1982. It was a debate in which I took some considerable part. Some people considered the socialisation of industry-or the socialist objective, as it was called-as a hindrance to winning government. The supporters of privatisation lost that philosophical argument at that time and they will lose the economic arguments now. It is in this context that I am taking the opportunity in this speech to strongly support one of the main objectives of Labor Party policy, namely: . . . the establishment and development of public enterprises based upon Federal, State, and other forms of social ownership, in appropriate sectors of the economy. Let me make it clear that I am not denying that in the economic climate of 1987 there is a grave shortage of capital resources in Australia. Airlines, banks and telecommunications industries are all industries requiring many hundreds of millions of dollars in new capital to provide the resources to compete with private enterprise and to provide services to the public. But the answer to the question, `Should the Commonwealth Government use some of its scarce resources to continue to develop our existing public enterprises' must, in my view, be a resounding yes. As part of a democratic socialist philosophy there were three underlying practical aims for the adoption of public enterprise policies by the ALP in the 1920s. Those aims are as relevant today as they were when they were adopted in the 1920s. First was the need to supply public services to the people when private enterprise was not prepared to risk its capital because it could not see an immediate capital or profit gain. Second was the aim that public enterprise, by providing good quality products and services, with satisfactory working conditions and wages for its employees, could prevent exploitation by private corporations monopolising the market. Third was the aim that the profits of public enterprises could be used to supplement government revenue and enable a reduction in overall taxation. Yesterday my friend and colleague the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) indicated in a speech the large profits which many public corporations provide and which are used to bolster revenue. Of course, that too can reduce taxes. But what is also possible is that these profits, instead of going into revenue, could be used by those enterprises to invest in more capital. In that sense the Government, and conservative governments before the present Labor Government, have starved those institutions of funds. It took this Labor Government to provide an injection of capital, for example, to the Commonwealth Bank. If Qantas, Australian Airlines, the Commonwealth Bank and Telecom were privatised, the loss to the Australian people would be fourfold. Firstly, all four corporations are profitable and could be made even more profitable if the Commonwealth Government was prepared to provide the necessary capital for their further development. If the corporations are sold to private interests the profits will be lost to public revenue and additional taxes will be required to make up the shortfall. Secondly, when public enterprises have been sold overseas they have been deliberately undervalued by investment analysts and sold at a heavy discount, with stock exchange investors reaping huge capital gains. Thirdly, these four public enterprises, having been developed with the aid of taxes of generations of Australian taxpayers, would be sold as existing profitable corporations to private industry. What a windfall for the new private owners! They are not required to risk their capital on developing the infrastructure costs associated with airlines, banks and the telecommunications industry; it is all to be handed to them on a platter, even if the enterprises are sold at a fair valuation, which, as I have explained, is most doubtful. Fourthly, it is argued that the Commonwealth Government does not have the capital to continue to develop the four public corporations. In my view, this argument is the most deceptive of all because it is true only in the context of an economic strategy which gives dominance to market forces. This strategy presupposes the deregulation and the free flow of overseas investment into Australia are of long term benefit to all Australians. This argument, in my view, is seriously flawed. The continuous free flow of overseas investment is being used not for productive investment in Australia but for speculative ventures. Deregulation is allowing overseas currency speculators to dictate to Australia how our internal financial affairs are managed by the Government. Overseas financiers can decide that the Government should not be putting money into public enterprises and therefore they can cause a run on the Australian dollar. The value of the dollar would fall, interest rates would rise, business confidence would be eroded and the Government would be forced into an economic crisis. The Government should accept that the time has come for us to fix the value of our dollar and to regulate exports and imports of capital so that we can have more control of our own financial affairs. In the above context it is a fallacious and self-serving argument to say that because we must balance our Budget we cannot provide the necessary capital to develop our public enterprises. Capital investments made now to produce future profits will be of benefit to all Australians. A Budget deficit used for such purposes is economically sound, despite the political opposition of overseas financiers. Finally, if the public corporations concerned are to be sold to private investors, the necessary capital for the initial purchase and subsequent additional capital for development of those industries must come from somewhere. Since, on the Government's own analysis, the capital is not available in Australia, it must come from overseas. Thus the new private owners must borrow overseas capital and would, of necessity, also consider a rationalisation and amalgamation of the public enterprises with existing private enterprises. How will all of this speculative capital affect our balance of payments? After an initial scramble amongst the millionaires, as was witnessed during the recent and continuing media take- overs, we could, for example, find that Ansett Airlines of Australia had swallowed Australian Airlines, Pan American World Airways had swallowed Qantas, L. M. Ericsson Pty Ltd had swallowed Telecom and the Westpac Banking Corporation had swallowed the Commonwealth Bank. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for La Trobe will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a courtesy I inform the House that the Leader of the House and Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Young, will be absent from Question Time today on Government business. Any questions normally addressed to Mr Young should be directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis. The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, is acting for Mr Young as Leader of the House. I regret to inform the House that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, is still unwell and questions normally addressed to him should continue to be addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the United Nations Security Council resolution 598 calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq War. Will the Australian Government be supporting the call by the United States of America and Britain for an international arms embargo on Iran following that country's refusal to agree unequivocally to United Nations Security Council resolution 598? Mr HAWKE —I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. May I put my answer in the context of the most recent events which no doubt have prompted the Leader of the Opposition's question. I remind the House that the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade emphasised in his statement that he issued on the latest incident that that was the result of mounting tensions in the region. Fundamental to Australia's response is our unqualified commitment to the rights of freedom of navigation. The fact is that the laying of mines in the waters in question was unquestionably a breach of international law. On the basis of the information available, the Australian Government believes that the United States acted in self-defence in response to a clear threat to the safety and security of its ships and of the crews of those ships. If freedom of navigation in the Gulf is to be maintained, as it must be, clearly a settlement of the Iran-Iraq conflict is essential. In the context of the Leader of the Opposition's question, which, as I have said, I welcome, I want to say on behalf of the Australian Government and, I am sure, the Opposition and the people of Australia, that we again urge Iran and Iraq to establish an immediate ceasefire leading to negotiations without pre-conditions. This Government will continue to work for effective action in the United Nations on the basis of Security Council resolution 598 which, we believe, provides an honourable and proper basis for negotiations to end this dispute. We will continue to press within the United Nations for action along those lines and, specifically, we believe that it is appropriate that there should be an embargo on the provision of arms to Iran as the Leader of the Opposition suggested. Mr HOWARD —With your indulgence, Madam Speaker: I welcome the Prime Minister's response. I would like to say that on this issue the Opposition strongly associates itself with what the Prime Minister has said. Mr MILDREN —I direct my question to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. All honourable members are aware of the Minister's contribution to the dramatic increase in activity in the tourism industry during the first two terms of the Labor Government. Can the Minister inform the House whether the recently announced Budget contains any measures to ensure future development? Is the Minister aware of criticism of some decisions that have been taken related to tourism? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for Ballarat for his question. He happens to represent one of the great tourism cities of Australia-that is, Ballarat-and it is no surprise that he has asked this question. There were some factors in the Budget which will effect, in a favourable way, the tourism industry in Australia. I think that it is worth pointing out two very pertinent statistics. Firstly, the turnover for tourism in 1983, when this Government assumed control in Australia, was $8 billion. The turnover in 1987 is $27 billion. There has been a nice little increase of almost 300 per cent. Secondly, while 900,000 international visitors were attracted to Australia in 1983, this year close to two million visitors will come to see this beautiful, bountiful country. I have noticed some criticisms of a couple of decisions taken in the Budget that are worth drawing to the attention of the House. It is a pity that the new shadow Minister is not here. I think that he is in Hobart attending the Australian Travel Industry Association conference. He put out a Press statement last night saying that the abolition of the tourism overseas promotion scheme (TOPS) would lead to multiple bankruptcies in the tourism industry. That is simply a nonsense. I suggest that it ill becomes any member on the other side of the House or any shadow Minister to be too critical of what this Government has done for tourism because in seven years of the previous Government tourism was mentioned three times. Once was to introduce a new departure tax of $20 which, I might add, this Government has not increased since 1983, and another time was to introduce a 20 per cent sales tax on the provision of tourism boats in Australia, a measure which stopped an industry stone dead. I am happy to say that this Government not only took the tax off it but it took it off retrospectively to the day it was introduced and that has revitalised an industry in Australia. The other great achievement of the previous Government was to increase funds for the Tourist Commission over a seven-year period from $7 1/2m to $10m, which stands in stark contrast to the increase from $10m to $30m in the first four years of Hawke governments. The shadow Minister's criticism was about the abolition of TOPS. He claimed that businesses would go to the wall. That is a nonsense. Let me put it quite clearly: the Government decided to abolish the scheme simply because it was ballooning out of all proportion. While we have abolished TOPS, in the Budget there was a $6m provision to honour every approval that was made under the scheme. Anybody who spent money before the approval was granted was crazy because the scheme prescribed quite definitely that no grants would be made for money spent before the approval was given. So how the abolition of the scheme could lead to multiple bankruptcies is absolutely beyond me. The shadow Minister might be able to elucidate on that point. The other decision that has been criticised is a decision to reduce the depreciation rate on tourism buildings from 4 per cent to 2 1/2 per cent. I point out that there are generous depreciation provisions in place to assist in the construction of facilities in Australia. I might add that $14,000m worth of facilities is in the course of construction in Australia at the minute. Apart from the 2 1/2 per cent depreciation rate, there is also the five-three rate which applies to a whole host of provisions in new hotels, et cetera. For instance, expenditure on lifts, air-conditioning ducts, and so on, can be written off at either five years or three years under those generous provisions. I suggest that the criticisms that have been put abroad in a Press release from the shadow Minister do not stand up in any way to examination. I hope that the shadow Minister, although he is not here, will take a more positive attitude to the tourism industry and perhaps be able to-- Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I was obliged to leave the House for a few minutes. When I came back the Minister was still talking. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. If he continues to raise frivolous points of order, I will deal with him. I call the Minister. Mr JOHN BROWN —I did not think it was of any significance to anybody in the House that the honourable member had left the place. Nobody noticed. He certainly did not increase the average intelligence by coming back. I hope that the shadow Minister will spend his three years in opposition and the next 10 to 15 years after that trying to put together a reasonably positive alternative policy for tourism instead of wasting his time with these crazy criticisms which will elicit for him an appreciation from the tourism industry. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Table No. 2 in Paper No. 2 in the election Budget of the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Unsworth, issued last night, reveals that the New South Wales net State and semi-government guaranteed debt and other obligations rose between the end of June 1986 and the end of June 1987 by $2.5 billion to $18.5 billion or 23 per cent of the gross State product. A confidential International Monetary Fund report on the Australian economy, dated 27 February this year, has come into my hands. On page 29 it says: Within the public sector, the efforts of the Commonwealth to put its own house in order cannot be successful without parallel efforts by State and local governments. Does the Prime Minister agree that the New South Wales Budget strategy has been and remains fundamentally flawed and at cross purposes with the need to reduce the total net public sector borrowing requirement? Mr HAWKE —I am fascinated that the shadow Treasurer is examining so closely international assessments of economic policies in this country. So that we can put it in perspective, I would suggest that, as he goes about the enormously difficult task of trying to develop an economic policy for the Opposition, he study closely and analyse the assessments that have been made by overseas authorities of the current policies of his Party at a Federal level. I remind the honourable gentleman of the sorts of things that have been said very recently about the prospects for Australia if Australia as a whole had unleashed upon it the economic policies for which the honourable member has responsibility. They have been universally damned by people overseas who had to make a judgment, in the middle of this year, about what would happen to this country if it had unleashed upon it the economic policies of the Liberal Party of Australia. Without being exhaustive about those overseas analyses of the Liberal Party's economic policies, I will just give the shadow Treasurer a few snippets from some of them. I refer first of all to what the Business Review Weekly of May had to say about the Liberal Party's policies. Mr Peacock —What about Unsworth? Mr HAWKE —Do not worry about Barrie Unsworth's policies. I would have thought that the honourable gentleman should get his own into order. Mr Sinclair —On point of order, Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to the necessity for the Prime Minister to be relevant to the question. Madam SPEAKER —I am listening very carefully to the Prime Minister, and I also listened carefully to the question. Mr Sinclair —The question was related directly to the State Budget of New South Wales and I suggest that the Prime Minister return to it. Madam SPEAKER —I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —This, for instance, was what was said by the chief foreign exchange dealer with the Commonwealth Bank: If the Opposition starts to look like winning, I think it will weaken the Australian dollar rate. Peter Beaumont, the senior dealer of Citibank, said: Any strong showing by the Opposition in the coming weeks would rate poorly for the currency. Paul Smith, the chief foreign exchange adviser for Westpac, said-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question, please. Mr HAWKE —Could I just finish this quote, Madam Speaker? Opposition members-No, no! Madam SPEAKER —Order! I remind Opposition members that I am running the House, not them. The Prime Minister may finish the quote and then return to the question. Mr HAWKE —Thank you, Madam Speaker. This was the quote from Paul Smith, the chief foreign exchange adviser to Westpac: The Liberals' chances are rated as nil. Most financial people think that Keating has done a good job as Treasurer. That is what they had to say about the Liberal Party's prospects. I am interested in the assessment made in overseas quarters about policies in this country, and it is right that, as far as Australia is concerned, we have to bring the public sector borrowing requirement as a whole down. What we have done as a government is to take a lead with a very significant reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement at the Federal level, and we have made it clear to the States that we will be expecting them to follow the lead that we have undertaken. I believe that, in total, the Budget brought down by the Treasurer of New South Wales is one which is appropriate to the circumstances. I can assure the honourable gentleman that we will be continuing to say, not only to New South Wales but to all the other States, irrespective of their political complexion, that they will need to follow the lead of the Commonwealth because, as the Treasurer said in his Budget Speech, and as other Ministers in the Government have been heard to say recently, there is no cause for complacency in this country. This country cannot live beyond its means and expect to sustain a standard of living on the basis of the savings of people overseas. I recommend that economic philosphy to the shadow Treasurer as he goes about the awesome task that he has of trying to shape an economic policy for the Liberals that begins to be relevant to the needs and challenges of Australia. Mrs DARLING —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer the Minister to newspaper articles suggesting that the Budget decision to tighten income test rules on friendly society bonds and other deferred income investments purchased on or after 1 January 1988 represents a 3 1/2-month postponement of income test action by the Department of Social Security. Is there any real basis to this statement? Mr HOWE —I have seen the articles in question. Such reports show a lack of understanding of the way that the current income test applies to deferred income. Pensioners who are influenced by such articles or by financial advisers to place their funds in such investments before 1 January could regret that decision. They should be aware of the full facts. After 1 January the return accruing in each year will be treated as income received in that year in the same way as most capital guaranteed investments. The present income test allows the return in each year to accrue without effect on pension, but the entire return on the investment is treated as income when the investment matures or a withdrawal is made. For example, a married pensioner couple who invest $10,000 in a 10-year bond producing an annual average return of 15 per cent would receive, on maturity of the bond, some $30,000 more than they had invested. That $30,000 would be regarded as income for pension purposes and would preclude the payment of any pension to the couple for a full period of 12 months. In other words short term gains can be more than offset in the longer term and institutions and advisers should ensure that this is fully understood by their clients when they are presenting a list of possible investments to pensioners and potential pensioners. The new approach will promote greater equity for clients and should be seen as a step towards further consistency in the treatment of investment income. Mr BEALE —My question is directed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. I refer the Minister to the additional information he provided to an answer that he made on Monday when he said, referring to a report by the Department of Aviation only 11 days after the coastal surveillance contract was let to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd: That report certainly created some continuing concern, but it was not concern that anyone could do anything about . . . Is the Minister aware that that Department of Aviation report included such phrases about the Amann people as `did not appear to know much', `had done no work on it', `did not know how a check and training operation gets developed' and `were out of their depth'? In view of the fact that the then Minister knew of that concern why were steps not taken immediately to cancel the contract, at which time no penalties would have been involved? Mr DUNCAN —I have not seen that document so I do not know the precise details which the honourable member has raised. I will obtain a report on the details of the matter and will get it to the honourable member. Mr White —You've changed it. Mr DUNCAN —The honourable member either wants the information or he does not. Mrs HARVEY —Is the Attorney-General aware of claims made in the Adelaide Advertiser newspaper of last Friday by the South Australian Director of the Marriage Guidance Council that the alleged failure of the Federal Government to increase funding for the Council in real terms in the 1987-88 Budget will lead to reduced services and the possible closure of offices? Is this claim correct and what is the Government's policy on the funding and function of the Marriage Guidance Council? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This Government-as have previous governments-has always recognised the value of the marriage guidance counselling service. It has also recognised that the service has given great help and benefit to a large number of Australians to help them retain their marriages. In terms of that service it ought to be recognised that most of it has been voluntary, on virtually an unpaid basis. It has always had a large component of dedicated people. Nevertheless, it started to attract government support over a period of time. The figures show that in last year's Budget the service was allocated $4.9m divided among the marriage guidance area, which got the bulk of it, and an education program as well as what was called an allocation of funds to the national body. This year's Budget shows a total allocation of $5.3m, which is a 9 per cent increase in funding. I would not want it thought that that was deemed to be adequate. When we look at the service's total commitment to the Australian community seeking marriage guidance, obviously there is increased demand on the service. Outgoings, whether for rent or mortgage repayments, have been increased and there has been a need to attract additional staff. That is the problem. But in terms of strict Budget considerations there was a 9 per cent increase. I admit that it is not sufficient but it is all that could be obtained in the limited constraints of this Budget. I hope that in the future more generous consideration can be given to the service's needs. Mr BEALE —My question is directed again to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. Is the Minister aware that within a few weeks of the coastal surveillance contract being awarded to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, Amann requested certain significant changes to that contract? Is he also aware that the most significant change requested was an alteration to the type of aircraft used? Is he further aware that an aircraft change would have justified cancelling the contract? Given the serious concerns by then expressed by the Department of Aviation about Amann's ability to meet the terms of the contract, why did the then Minister not cancel the contract forthwith? Finally, will the Minister undertake to read and then table all the documents relating to the tender process so that the Australian people can be fully informed on how this sorry debacle came about? Mr DUNCAN —As to the last point, I have already made it clear that when the appropriate freedom of information procedures have been undertaken the Minister for Transport and Communications intends to make public the documents as requested by the honourable member. As to the issue of the notification of change of aircraft-I am aware of that matter-as I understand it, the situation quite simply was that the tender did not require a particular make of aircraft. In the circumstances, when the fact that there was to be a change of aircraft was notified some weeks later no contractual question was involved. Mr GORMAN —My question is to the Minister for Science and Small Business. What are the prospects for further reductions in interest rates on housing loans? Mr BARRY JONES —I answer this question in my capacity as the Minister responsible for the housing industry. Mr Donald Cameron —Are you responsible? Mr BARRY JONES —Yes, for the industry. The short answer to the question asked by the honourable member for Greenway is that prospects are very good indeed. The overwhelming success of the 1987-88 Budget and the withdrawal of the Commonwealth Government as a net borrower this year will further reduce pressures on financial markets and help to sustain recent falls in housing and other interest rates. Let us look at the positive developments since the Budget came down. All the major savings banks have reduced their housing loan interest rate to 14.5 per cent. Some of the building societies are charging their customers less than 14.5 per cent. Some deals are being offered to first home buyers which give them a starting interest rate of less than 14 per cent. The St George Building Society, a very large building society in the honourable member's State, has such a scheme. The rate of interest on bank bills, a key interest rate indicator, has fallen by 0.5 per cent to 11.4 per cent. These developments augur well for the ability of housing lenders to compete for funds and provide a ready supply of more affordable housing finance. On 16 September, the Managing Director of the National Mutual Royal Bank Ltd forecast that housing loan rates would fall again in the next couple of weeks in light of the favourable financial implications of the Budget. So all those things-the fall in housing loan interest rates, the restoration of negative gearing for investment in rental housing, and the expected strong growth in employment-point to an improved outlook for housing industry activity. Total dwelling commencements for 1987-88 now appear to be at the top end and to slightly exceed the recent Indicative Planning Council forecast range of 126,000 to 130,000. Mr Porter —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask the Minister to table the document from which he read the whole of that answer. Madam SPEAKER —Was the Minister reading from a confidential document? Mr BARRY JONES —Just from rough notes. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister has been asked to table it. Mr BARRY JONES —No. Mr TIM FISCHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Did the Government announce in the Budget last week the end of the existing defence service home loans scheme as at 15 September 1987? Following widespread concern and criticism has the Government today backed down on that Budget decision? Has it also deferred the introduction of the cash grants replacement scheme? Will the Minister assure the House that a fair and just replacement scheme ultimately will be drawn up in consultation with the Returned Services League (RSL), veterans' organisations and the Services, taking into account the compensatory nature of the defence service home loans scheme? Mr HUMPHREYS —I know the honourable member is very concerned for veterans in the community. Perhaps I can put his mind at rest by informing him that in the Budget the Government put forward a proposal for discussions with the RSL and other interested bodies to replace the current loans scheme with a grants scheme. These discussions are now under way. To allow them to proceed with least inconvenience to potential applicants it has been decided to offer the option of either the present loan or new grant arrangements to applicants who lodge their applications prior to 1 January 1988. Opposition members-Oh! Mr HUMPHREYS —I ask honourable members to wait just a moment and not get too excited. We intend looking after the veterans. They should not worry about that. The Government has decided to allow all those now eligible, both serving and ex-service personnel, who apply for a loan to do so under the conditions that applied before 15 September 1987. Mr Braithwaite —You backed down. Mr HUMPHREYS —We did not back down at all; we are just making sure that they are not inconvenienced. The proposal, announced in the Budget, to replace the defence service home loans with a grant will be discussed with the RSL and other interested bodies prior to any final decisions being taken. While these consultations continue, it is business as usual. The Defence Service Homes Corporation will continue to accept applications to provide loans and its usual range of services. These conditions will continue to apply until 31 December 1987. Any new arrangements will be introduced on 1 January 1988. Mr BEDDALL —Can the Minister for Resources inform the House of the allocation in this year's Budget to continue the program of providing small country towns with an adequate water supply? Can he further advise the House of the amount of funds available for Queensland this financial year and whether all of this money has been currently allocated? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. The issue that he raises, the provision of adequate water supplies, is of importance to all Australians, be they city or country dwellers. Some $66m is being provided in this year's Budget under the Federal water resources assistance program but, more specifically, this Government was the first to recognise the problems experienced by people in small towns in obtaining adequate water supplies. In 1983-84 and 1984-85 financial assistance was provided to small towns under the community employment program under the administration of my colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations. But from 1985-86 onwards assistance for small town water supplies has been provided under this Government's country towns water supply improvement program. The funding for that program this financial year is some $5.5m. Mrs Sullivan —For a full year? Mr PETER MORRIS —Yes, $5.5m, but not just for Queensland. The projects that have been approved for the program in the last two years will benefit some 44,000 people. Specifically, $1.54m has been approved for Queensland. That has been allocated to projects in Karumba and in Cooktown and for new projects which I am currently reviewing. Under the country towns water supply improvement program the far north Queensland town of Karumba will gain a permanent water supply. That assistance was denied year upon year to the people of Karumba by the Queensland Government. The provision of water supplies there will enable the development of that very important prawn and fishing centre. The completion of the project this year gives effect to the campaign promise of this Government in 1983. It followed energetic and extensive representations by the then honourable member for Leichhardt. The question that the honourable member for Rankin raises-and he has also been an enthusiastic applicant for water supply improvement in his area-is the provision of assistance in that area. Since the program's inception, nearly $750,000 has been provided for projects benefiting country towns in the electorate of Rankin, with $303,000 of that amount being spent on improving the water supply in the Boonah-Kalbar area. Other towns to benefit in that area were Clifton, Killarney, Peat Crossing and the Rosenthal area. I can assure the honourable member and the House that this Government will continue to maintain its efforts to ensure that people do have adequate water supplies, particularly in Queensland-and in the country areas of Queensland. Mr HOWARD —My question is to the Minister for Community Services and Health and relates to the ID card legislation. Is it not a fact that the key operational clauses of the Australia Card legislation-namely, clauses 40 to 54-can come into effect only after the first relevant day and second relevant day specified in clause 32 (1) are fixed by regulation? Until this regulation is made, does this mean that the Australia Card could not be required for any proposed transaction or for any specified purpose relating to taxation, investment, real estate purchase, share transaction, banking, social security or welfare? Will such a regulation be subject to disallowance in either the House or the Senate? Finally, does the Government intend to push ahead regardless with the ID card legislation involving considerable public expenditure and inconvenience in the full and certain knowledge that even if the Bill were to be passed by a joint sitting the opposition of a clear majority of senators will, by subsequent disallowance of the crucial necessary regulations, render that Bill totally inoperative? Dr BLEWETT —As I understand the Bill, there are two provisions with regard to relevant dates. They were designed in such a way to ensure that there will be a sufficient point in time for most of these financial transaction activities to be properly verified. That is why there are two relevant dates included in the legislation. I am not at all aware that those relevant dates could be overthrown by a decision of the Senate. Mr Howard —I seek leave to table a document that demonstrates that, in practice, the Australia Card will not be able to be brought into effect. Leave granted. Ms FATIN —Can the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support indicate to the House whether he has any intentions to further investigate the uniformity of road vehicle regulations? Mr DUNCAN —The lack of uniformity between States of road vehicle regulations still presents significant barriers to efficient transport within Australia. Certainly this is a major difficulty, as was referred to earlier this week by the Chief Justice of Western Australia. There are no less than 16 different authorities administering transport laws in different States and Territories in this nation. In fact, the Inter-State Commission has been investigating statutory provisions, regulations, rules and orders, by-laws, policies, practices, et cetera which adversely affect the efficiency of land and sea transport of goods and passengers between the States and quite recently published an information paper on road vehicle regulations as part of this investigation to increase efficiency. That paper shows the complex maze of regulations that impede road transport operators from understanding their responsibilities when they operate interstate. There is a bewildering range of rules and regulations which apply and I am sure that every person in this House is aware of them. It is important-and it is one of the Government's high priorities-that we should seek to have a much more efficient transport infrastructure in this nation. The Inter-State Commission will be holding public hearings, starting in Canberra on 19 October, as part of the investigation into the uniformity of road vehicle regulations. I wish to stress again that increased efficiency in the nation's transport system is quite critical to our future economic development and security. We must get out of the mentality that we are simply administering complex systems of transport and into the business of transporting people and goods as efficiently, safely and quickly as we possibly can. I see increased uniformity in road transport regulations as a high priority and as a step in the right direction. I will be pursuing the appropriate industry forums and mechanisms to achieve this goal as quickly as possible. Mr BURR —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that the Parliament has reaffirmed that sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act should remain on the statute book, can the Attorney guarantee the Parliament that no attempt will be made by this Government to repeal those sections of law during the term of this Parliament? Can the Attorney give a guarantee that those sections of law will be enforced without fear or favour? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I administer the law, not all the policies that might appertain to the various portfolios with which those sections are connected. As the honourable gentleman knows, they relate to industrial activities and, in the past, the Government sought to amend those sections and was unable to do so because of objections from the Opposition. I have no advice as to whether the Government would want in this term to make a further attempt to amend those sections. My answer is that at this stage I have no knowledge of the matter. The carriage of amendments would be a matter within another portfolio. I think that I can give the assurance that there is no indication at this stage that we will try to do the impossible and convince the Opposition to change its mind. I would not be able to prevent normal legal action under sections 45d and 45e. If people feel that there is justification for taking action, they will take it. They do not need my consent. Mr MILTON —Has the Minister for Consumer Affairs been made aware of the many calls from the Australian public for a resumption of the inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation into food irradiation and other forms of ionising radiation? Has he considered the recommendation submitted by the Committee during the last week of the Thirty-fourth Parliament that the inquiry should be continued by a House of Representatives committee? Mr STAPLES —I thank the honourable member for La Trobe for his question. He is a very keen member. He has been jumping up for several days trying to catch your attention, Madam Speaker. I think that he is just about ready for the Australian high jump team. He has raised an important issue. There have been a large number of letters and calls to my office about food irradiation. There is obviously considerable concern in the community about the process. During the last Parliament the former Minister for Health, now the Minister for Community Services and Health, asked the Australian Consumers Association to investigate the issue. It examined the impact of food irradiation in respect of consumer health, the environment and the economic viability of the process. The investigation drew on extensive overseas and local research and there were meetings with people and organisations in Australia. The report is very detailed. In one word, it is a `cautionary' report. The food irradiation process has been rejected by the European Parliament. The United Kingdom is holding off from making a decision on the matter. The food irradiation process is limited in use in the United States of America. As the honourable member for La Trobe has said, the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation was considering this issue, on its initiative, towards the end of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. In view of the work which has already been substantially undertaken by that Committee and the need for more information and consideration by the community at large, I inform the House that I intend to take the opportunity to renew this reference to the appropriate House of Representatives standing committee in the appropriate manner when the committees are re-formed in the near future. Mr COWAN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer the Minister to the recent Australian Council of Trade Unions congress resolution criticising Alan Bond and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) for their investment in Chilean mining projects. Does a Department of Trade minute, approved by his predecessor in 1985, say that the Department is targeting Chile for exports of mining and agricultural equipment and wants to lay the groundwork for substantial manufacturing, infrastructure and consultancy input into the Escondia copper project, in which BHP has a major stake? Will the Minister make available details of his Government's progress? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I am only the Minister representing. I would need to obtain some assurance from my colleague when he returns on the information that can be made available to the honourable gentleman. I am aware of the other aspects of the matter which the honourable gentleman has raised. I am assured that negotiations took place in the private sector to enable trade to continue normally. I am aware of further remarks by Mr Bond when he explained his situation in respect of the report that he supported the regime. The honourable member deserves a detailed answer, which I shall need to obtain from the Department. I shall do so, if possible, by tomorrow. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.48) —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition making a statement forthwith concerning the regulatory requirements of essential elements of the Australia Card legislation. The Opposition believes that the Australia Card legislation is effectively dead and that it is incumbent on this Parliament today to give it a decent burial. The legislation is effectively dead for two reasons. The first is that it has been the subject of incompetent and slothful drafting and administration by the Minister responsible. The second, and more important, reason is that day by day what public support there was for the identity card legislation ebbs away from the Government. The evidence which we bring to the House today demonstrates beyond refutation that the legislation has serious technical flaws. An incident having occurred in the gallery- Mr HOWARD —I can't beat that! Is he one of your mates? Madam SPEAKER —Order! That was certainly dramatic. Mr HOWARD —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will do anything to upstage me. The reason why the Opposition believes that the ID card legislation is effectively dead is to be found in a very careful reading of the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3]. The operational clauses-40 to 54-specify the circumstances in which the card is to be produced and for what purposes. The clauses cover deposits and accounts with financial institutions, investments, the operation of trusts, primary production and rental income and foreign-- Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the House to come to order. It is very difficult for the Leader of the Opposition to be heard. He has to strain his voice because honourable members on both sides of the chamber are all talking. A little hush, please. Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker, the key and absolutely fatal weakness of the Government's Australia Card legislation is to be found in the very simple fact that the operational clauses of the Bill-that is, clauses 40 to 54-will not come into operation until what are classified in the legislation as the `relevant days'. Very crucially, those relevant days are not fixed by the legislation; they are not fixed by proclamation; they are not fixed by Executive decision or Executive announcement. Those two relevant days which are absolutely crucial to the coming in of the principal operational clauses of the Bill can be fixed only by regulation made under the legislation when it is passed by this Parliament. As every member of this House knows and as the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) should have known, any regulations made under a Bill or an Act of this Parliament can be the subject of a disallowance motion by either the House of Representatives or the Senate of the Parliament of Australia. On behalf of the Opposition I say that in the event of this legislation passing, in the event of its going through a joint sitting and becoming a law of this country, the Liberal and National Party senators in another place would vote to disallow any regulations which appointed relevant days under the legislation. I anticipate that on this issue the Australian Democrats would join the Liberal and National Party senators in voting to disallow those regulations. The House should be aware that if those regulations are disallowed major operational provisions of the Act cannot come into force. Although the Australia Card can be established, although the Register can be established, although all the elaborate apparatus related to the database can be established, although the Government can recruit the required 2,000 or more public servants and although the potential invasion of privacy will still be there, for all operational and practical purposes the Australia Card legislation will be dead. It will be absolutely stone dead unless those relevant days can be fixed. I say to the House, Madam Speaker, that because of the way in which the Bill has been drafted there is no way on earth the present legislation can bring to fruition the Government's dream of having a national numbering system for every Australian. Let us remember that we have now had over 12 months of debate and argument in this country about this piece of legislation. It was last October when the Opposition parties said that they were against this legislation. In those 12 months we have had mounting opposition. What we have analysed and what we present to this Parliament is what we believe to be an irrefutable argument against the coming into operation, for practical purposes, of the legislation. I repeat on behalf of the Opposition, Madam Speaker, that the Australia Card Bill is absolutely stone dead. What it deserves from this Parliament, what it deserves from the Government and what it ought to get from the Government is a decent burial. The Government ought not to have the effrontery ever to bring this legislation to this Parliament again. I repeat: If the Government brings forward regulations in the event of the Australia Card Bill being passed into law, the Liberal and National parties will vote in the Senate to disallow those regulations. If we are joined by the Democrats in the Senate those regulations will be disallowed and the Government's Bill will be worthless. The Australia Card legislation will not, for practical purposes, ever see the light of day and the Australian public can rest content in the knowledge that the Government of this country is in the hands of people who would allow such a tactical flaw and imperfection in this legislation with all the vast resources of the Attorney-General's Department at his disposal. Have the Minister, with all the vast resources and the apparatus of all the Government funded servants of the Labor Party at his disposal, and the Attorney-General been able to discover this flaw? No. The Australian public has been deceived. People have been worried out of their wits about the Australia Card. They have been frightened. The Government has allowed a costly debate to go on in this country, yet it is revealed as having legislative feet of clay. The Government is revealed as not knowing the most elementary principles of how legislation should operate in this country. It is revealed as having misled the Australian public for months and months. I say to the Government: cut your losses, realise that you are beaten. You are beaten not only by the tactical flaws in your own legislation but most importantly, you have been beaten before the bar of public opinion in Australia. That is the most important and telling defeat that you have suffered on this legislation because this Bill will ultimately never become the effective law of this country, not so much because of its technical imperfections but because the Australian people are revulsed by it. The Australian people do not want it. If you try to ram it down the throats of the Australian people you will pay very dearly in political and other terms. Madam SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.57) —I second the motion, Madam Speaker. I think that what everybody needs to understand is that there has been an increasing ground swell of public opinion around Australia about the implications of this draconian identity card legislation. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said, it is a piece of legislation that has not just emerged before the Parliament; we have expressed our concerns around Australia. In every town, village, city and suburb there are demonstrations about the implications of this piece of legislation as it effects the numbering and identification of ordinary Australians. We seek to ensure that the Australian people now know that as a result of the way in which this legislation has been drafted it never will come into place. If it is introduced and passed and if a great deal of money is spent by the Government in setting into place the computers, in putting into place the public servants, in documenting and photographing every Australian, the key element of this legislation that requires that before there can be any requirement to produce that identification card there shall be a nomination of a relevant day will be disallowed within the Senate. As my colleague the Leader of the Opposition has said, the purport of the document which we seek to bring to the attention of the Parliament and which is the substance of this motion to suspend Standing Orders is that under clause 32 (1) of the Australia Card Bill there is reference to the first relevant day as follows: ``first relevant day'' means a day declared by the regulations to be the first relevant day for the purposes of this Part, not being a day that is earlier than 1 March 1989; The second relevant day is the second relevant day for the purpose of that part. Individuals around Australia are concerned at the implications of the Bill. People will be called on to produce the card. Wherever the requirement to produce the identification card is set down in the legislation there is specific provision that refers to the relevant day. For example, clause 40 refers to financial institutions. It states that they shall not `on or after the first relevant day . . .'. In the clause dealing with investments it states that a `prescribed borrower-shall not on or after the first relevant day . . .' In the clause that deals with primary production and rental income it states that a marketing authority, produce agent, and real estate agent are all required `on or after the first relevant day . . .' The substance of this whole de- bacle into which the Government has led the Australian people is that it has produced a piece of legislation which can have effect only if a regulation declaring those relevant days is not disallowed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth or by either House of the Parliament. It is important that everybody know that the paper tabled by the Leader of the Opposition today has fundamentally flawed the identity card proposal. We all know that the Government cannot amend the identity card proposal if it has a joint sitting. We have voted against the legislation in this place and we all know that in the Senate the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party, together with the Australian Democrats, will oppose the legislation subject to the consideration, by a committee, of clauses that have not yet had an opportunity to be examined-clauses containing amendments that the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) has referred to, that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has referred to and that Senator Ryan has referred to but that nobody in this place has seen. What we have said is that the legislation itself is draconian in its implications because no individual should properly be required in a democratic society to produce identification in the way that this legislation purports to do, and on that basis the relevant day regulations will be disallowed, and as they are disallowed so the whole of this sad and sorry escapade by the Government to try in some way to regulate and numerate individual Australians will come to an end. It is important that Australians comprehend what the document tabled by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon has done and why it is essential that we suspend Standing Orders. Everybody must recognise that the Leader of the Opposition today has produced a paper which says that unless the regulations can be passed to require those relevant days to be declared, the identity card legislation is finito. Might I say well may it rest; it will never rest in peace. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(3.02) —Let me make this first point about the alleged defect in the Australia Card legislation: if there be an alleged defect in the legislation, it has arisen from this Government's determination to give the Parliament a full say in these issues. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The two previous speakers were heard in silence. Honourable members will give the same courtesy to the Minister for Community Services and Health. Dr BLEWETT —Indeed, in a piece of legislation which was obviously going to receive considerable debate within this Parliament it was not possible to put down a specific date without allowing some flexibility, and of course that flexibility relates to the regulations passed by this Parliament. If proper debate was to be provided on the Australia Card issue, the legislation had to be framed in that way. So the alleged defect in the legislation relates to the decision of this Government to provide the fullest possible opportunities for debate on the Australia Card Bill in this society. That is why the particular clauses referred to by honourable members opposite were written in the way they were. Let us be quite clear that the Opposition parties have now decided that no matter whether the Government observes all the constitutional provisions-that is, takes the Bill through all the requirements of the Constitution-they will not accept that constitutionally made decision but will use this particular technical point to throw out the Bill. Let me say what the Government has done. This Government has followed all the requirements of the Constitution in relation to the Australia Card Bill. It introduced the Bill into this House and received the support of the House, and of course the Bill was then rejected by the Senate for the first time. The Government again introduced the Bill into the House of Representatives; again it was supported by the House and then for the second time it was rejected by the Senate. The result is that the double dissolution provisions of the Constitution were brought into play. The Bill was taken to the electorate, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made it quite clear that when the Parliament returned there would be a joint session on the Australia Card Bill. We have again, under the proper provisions of the Constitution, introduced the Australia Card Bill and passed it through the House, and we will now take it to the Senate. If it should be rejected by the Senate, we will introduce the proper constitutional provision-that is, a joint session. If the Bill is passed by the joint session it will have observed all of the requirements of the Constitution. So it will be simply a political decision made by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats to deny the Government a Bill which has passed through all the constitutional provisions. Mr Peacock —You should resign. You have maladministered the legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence; the Minister should be heard in silence. Dr BLEWETT —That is what the Opposition is saying. I do not know what the attitude of the Democrats is, but the Opposition is saying it does not care whether we have observed every requirement provided for under the Australian Constitution; even if the Bill goes through all the processes laid down by the Constitution, including the joint session, it still will continue with a policy of negativism and obstruction, and it will deny the ability of the Government to enact a Bill which has passed through all the constitutional processes. Mr Porter —Have a double dissolution on the regulations. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Barker interjects again I will warn him. Dr BLEWETT —Let us not talk about a flaw in the legislation; let us talk about the constant commitment of the Opposition to deny the effectiveness of this measure, a major measure of our tax policy, by saying that even if we pass the Bill through all the proper constitutional provisions it will still try to throw it out or deny the effectiveness of the Bill. That is to deny all the constitutional processes under which this country has operated for 87 years. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(3.08) —Mr Deputy Speaker- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SIMMONS —The way in which I have been greeted this afternoon in responding to this motion to suspend Standing Orders is typical of some of the hysteria which has been associated with the whole community debate on the Australia Card. It is pertinent to look at public opinion over the last few months. I notice that today's Bulletin shows a significant decline in public opinion, but there is a significant correlation between the level of public support for the card and the level of the hysterical campaign that has been conducted by the Opposition for the past few months. I remember that the Saturday after the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced the election there was a full page advertisement in most metropolitan newspapers indicating that the Government strongly supported the notion of the Australia Card. I believe, and certainly most members on this side of the House would believe, that people knew that if this Government were returned it would have a mandate to proceed with the Australia Card. It was not encumbent upon this Government, having put the issue of the Australia Card on the political agenda, continually to mount the debate during the course of the election campaign. If the Opposition thought that this was such a hot political number during the election campaign, why did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) not get up and make a big song and dance about it then? Why did the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) and many of the front bench spokesmen not do exactly the same thing? I noticed in today's Melbourne Age an article by Claude Forell which states: Mental health week seems an appropriate time to wonder whether there is any correlation between the startling statistics of mental illness in the Australian community and the rising hysteria directed against the proposed Australia Card scheme. Wherever this card has been debated over the last few weeks, Opposition spokespeople have indicated in the most horrific way what the Australia Card will do and what it will not do. For the last two years or so, certainly in my electorate, I have attempted to debate the issue of the Australia Card in what I believe has been an atmosphere of goodwill. Earlier this year the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) came to Bathurst and we had what I believe was a very productive debate on the question of the Australia Card. That debate has been repeated on a number of occasions. It was certainly a prominent feature of the campaign in my electorate during the recent election. Of all the people who rushed into my electorate during the election campaign to support their various candidates, I do not recall one instance where this whole matter was raised for public discussion. For some convenient reason, members of the Opposition from both the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia decided to duckshove the issue and put it aside from the political agenda. In the last few days we have heard in the debate on this issue all sorts of spurious claims as to when the card will be required to be produced and when it will not be required to be produced. This is part of the total hysteria that has been associated with this campaign ever since it has been debated-and debated it has certainly been. This is the third occasion that this debate has taken place in the House of Representatives. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! the time for the debate has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.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.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Katter, R. C. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Macphee, I. M. Brown, RobertSpender, J. M. Morris, AllanGoodluck, B. J. Hayden, W. G.Adermann, A. E. Duffy, M. J.Hewson, J. R. Hollis, C.Carlton, J. J. Keating, P. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report of program management performance review of the Australian Taxation Office entitled A Taxing Solution. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mrs DARLING —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mrs DARLING —Last night at about 5.30 p.m. I put a statement on the desk in Parliament House of the Brisbane Daily Sun and the Courier-Mail. The statement gave facts and figures regarding movements through the domestic terminal of Brisbane Airport. The first sentence of that statement reads: Federal Labor backbencher Elaine Darling (Queensland) has defended Federal Government expenditure on the Brisbane Airport Domestic Terminal, against criticism by the Minister for Finance, Senator Peter Walsh. That is the only time that I mentioned Senator Walsh. I went on to to cite those figures. In this morning's Daily Sun the lead sentence of an article reads: Queensland Federal Labor backbencher Mrs Elaine Darling has savagely attacked Finance Minister Senator Walsh over his criticism of the funding of Brisbane's new airport. The entire article is based on this savage attack, which is mentioned on a number of occasions. At no stage did I again refer to, let alone attack, the Minister for Finance. I take this as being not just misrepresentation but fabrication. 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 re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Burr,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawker,Mr Jull,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton and Mr Tuckey. 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 Ewen Cameron,Mr Dobie,Mr Fife,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Tuckey and Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Beale,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Saunderson and Mr Scott. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Cobb,Dr Harry Edwards 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 taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Lyne Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian Legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-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 Cowan. 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. 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,Mr Porter and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: 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 that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to act to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's memorial to Australia's former servicemen and women and war dead. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government 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 Blunt,Mr Tim Fischer and Mr Ruddock. 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 Cadman,Mr Dobie and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the proposal: Is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud, and to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud, Will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private matter, Will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer, and 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,Mr Hunt and Mr Reith. 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 Blanchard and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephones and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling and Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: We are opposed to the imposition of a Capital Gains Tax. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Honourable House repeal any Act and reject any Bill which imposes this disincentive to economic growth. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The intention of the Hawke Government to unionise independent contractors, sub-contractors, the self- employed, partnerships, sole traders and family businesses will remove the freedom of independent small business to- (a) set their own prices (b) work their own hours (c) control their own businesses (d) negotiate their own contracts; and will create impossible working conditions which will include the payment of- (a) union superannuation (b) compensation (c) payroll tax (d) annual leave loadings (e) public holiday loadings (f) PAYE tax deductions (g) limited incomes (h) inflexible awards and conditions; and (i) fixed hours of work. We the undersigned call upon the Government to restore incentive and opportunity to the Australian economy and to abandon these coercive measures. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That we support the Government's decision to make Telecom Australia pay sales tax and customs duties to assist consolidated revenue. 2. We do not agree that such charges should be passed on to customers of Telecom Australia in the form of hidden taxes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray. A. That the Government make Telecom Australia answerable to the Prices Surveillance Authority before increasing telephone charges. B. That Telecom Australia's decision to place time limits on local calls by private telephone users be rescinded. C. That local calls made from public telephone boxes be subjected to a three minute time limit in the interests of ensuring that public phones are readily available for emergency and community purposes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small business and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the Superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. 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 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 showeth that: Any proposals to time local telephone calls gravely concerns all country people. Isolation and communication was the second biggest problem facing rural women according to the `Survey of Rural Women' questionnaire and any attempt at timing local calls will only add to this problem not decrease it. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to ensure that Telecom do not proceed with the timing of local telephone calls. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. 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 that 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 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, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to ACT legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And 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 (C4) zoning on the Kurnell Peninsula, in New South Wales, be removed and that this be replaced by a zoning more appropriate to the unique ecology of the area and to the historical significance of the Kurnell Peninsula, being the birthplace of the nation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2 per cent 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 pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Government's Australia card will be an attack on the civil liberties and privacy of all Australians, will not achieve the claimed results, will provide a boost to organised crime and will be an enormous burden to the private sector, especially small business, already snowed under with government charges, taxes and red tape. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to abandon legislation for any type of national identity system and work toward building a society based on trust not suspicion. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the 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 Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That whereas the Federal Government has reduced Australian aid to impoverished overseas countries, the following residents of Australia urge the Federal Government to restore in real terms the amount of Australian foreign aid being granted to the agencies of the United Nations and directly to deserving countries, and that the overall aid commitment to assist those people throughout the world who are suffering more than Australians be increased in the 1987/88 Budget. Furthermore, that the Federal Government make a commitment to reach a target of 0.7% of the Gross National Product of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the wake of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government close down the Lucas Heights reactors immediately and permanently, and that no new nuclear reactors be built within Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth. The tobacco industry wants kids. Statistics show that the younger a person gets addicted to tobacco the harder the addiction is to throw off. More people are aware of tobacco hazards, thus the industry is working harder to get more certain lifelong (short!) customers. Tobacco advertising is aimed at your kids by associating the things kids want-poise, friendship, sporting involvement, confidence, music and festivity, sexiness-with smoking. Advertising is a legitimate part of business, but an industry that tries to get people addicted with a deadly drug, for profit purposes, should not be allowed the same right as a business with more benevolent aims. 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 Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. Petitions received. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr Adermann, Mr D. M. Cameron, Mr Kent, Dr Klugman, Mr Lindsay, Mr Ruddock and Mr Scott be members of the Committee of Members' Interests. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker wishes to inform the House of the following nominations of members to be members of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House: Mr Dubois, Mr Lee and Mr McLeay have been nominated by the Government Whip; Mr Dobie and Mrs Sullivan have been nominated by the Opposition Whip; and Mr Hunt has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The urgent need to lift the restrictions and burdens on Australia's mineral and energy exports. 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- Question (by Mr Lionel Bowen) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. McVeigh, D. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Woodldridge, M. R. L.Lloyd, B. Brown, Robert Macphee, I. M.Morris, Allan Spender, J. M.Hayden, W. G. Goodluck, B. J.Duffy, M. J. Adermann, A. E.Hollis, C. Hewson, J. R.Keating, P. J. Carlton, J. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(3.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes a number of amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Act 1967 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Cash Bidding) Amendment Act 1985 which will improve the administration of petroleum exploration and development activities in Australian off-shore waters, correct some anomalies in the legislation and ensure that the option is available to the Joint Authority in the future to use cash bidding as a means of awarding exploration permits over highly prospective acreage. In late 1985, the Government announced the outcome of its review of the 1979 off-shore constitutional settlement (OCS). The outcome was that the Government considered that the arrangements entered into by the Commonwealth with the States and the Northern Territory to administer activities in Australia's off-shore waters were working satisfactorily, and the Government therefore decided not to take action to regain title over the territorial sea and coastal waters. The review of the OCS did, however, identify certain administrative functions in the Commonwealth's off-shore petroleum legislation which required change. These changes are to repeal the special arrangement with Western Australia whereby disagreements in the Joint Authority-the Commonwealth and relevant State Minister-are resolved on a Premier-Prime Minister basis; and to allow those matters which were previously dealt with by the Joint Authority at the discretion of the Commonwealth Minister, to become automatically matters for Joint Authority decision. The Government's decision to abolish the special arrangement for resolving disagreements within the Western Australia Joint Authority reflects the Government's view that the treatment of the States and Northern Territory under the off-shore petroleum legislation should be uniform. This Government rejects the claim upon which this special Western Australian arrangement is based-that is, that the economic importance of petroleum and related activity to Western Australia places that State in a unique position. Rather, the Government considers that the importance of off-shore petroleum operations to Western Australia is no greater than that of other States or the Northern Territory. Our experience has been that, where a Joint Authority has been involved in decisions, the consultative provisions of the off-shore petroleum legislation which are generally applicable have proved entirely satisfactory. Under these general provisions, which are to be retained in the legislation, Joint Authority decisions are made after consultation between senior Ministers of the respective Governments, and the consultative process provides ample scope for full consideration of all factors relevant to the interests of the Commonwealth and to the States and the Northern Territory, and the resolution of any differences of view. If, after consultation, disagreement remains within the Joint Authority, then, consistent with the Commonwealth's responsibilities, the Commonwealth Minister may decide the matter. The second issue arising from the Government's OCS review also relates to Joint Authority decision making. Under present arrangements some matters, for example, the award of exploration permits, must be referred by the designated authority-the State or Northern Territory Minister-to the Joint Authority, while other matters, for example, inviting applications for the award of exploration permits, may be referred to the Joint Authority at the discretion of the Commonwealth Minister. Because decisions of the designated authority in the latter category have the potential to be referred to the Joint Authority, it has become practice for these matters to be dealt with administratively as if they must be decided by the Joint Authority. This practice has evolved in order to avoid the significant administrative delays which would otherwise occur if the Commonwealth Minister were to decide that a matter should be referred to the Joint Authority. The amendments contained principally in clauses 5 and 13 and in the schedule of the Bill will formally make the Joint Authority automatically responsible for these matters. A further consideration in the Government's decision to refer all these matters to the Joint Authority has been the apparent confusion, particularly for new companies wishing to undertake off-shore petroleum operations, about which authority is responsible for the decisions on such matters. A number of other amendments contained in the Bill are, like those relating to the OCS arrangements, being introduced to improve administration of off-shore petroleum activities and to remove some anomalies in the legislation. Under the current legislation, a location can be declared over a petroleum discovery in an exploration permit only if the location contains a block in which an exploratory well has been drilled and from which petroleum has been recovered. This has led to the situation where a discovery which straddles a permit boundary, and for which only one exploratory well has been drilled, cannot be fully developed. This arises because a location can be declared only in the permit in which the exploratory well has been drilled and, hence, subsequent production licences or retention leases cannot be granted over the whole discovery. While the problem could be overcome by drilling a second exploratory well in the other permit, this practice may not be justified economically or technically. A further difficulty with the current legislation is that the size of a location is generally set at nine blocks. In many instances, this size is much larger than necessary to cover the discovery, though, on occasions the nine block location has been too small to cover some very large gas discoveries. To overcome these difficulties, clause 9 of the Bill amends the current legislation to allow the Joint Authority to declare a location over any block from which the Joint Authority is satisfied petroleum can be recovered. The Joint Authority will also be able to declare a location over as many blocks as is necessary to cover the discovery. The Bill also provides for the expansion or reduction of a location area if further information indicates a change in the extent of the petroleum discovery. Clauses 6, 8 and 10 of the Bill will repeal what are known as `over-the-counter' awards of permits and production licences. If, following the advertising of invitations for the grant of an exploration permit or production licence over an area, the Joint Authority decides not to grant a title or grants a title over part of the area then, under existing legislation, there is provision for the Joint Authority to accept applications for the award of a title over the area or any remaining part of the area. The Government believes that the most efficient approach to the award of off-shore titles is by competitive tendering. Given this principle and the regular release of off-shore petroleum acreage, the Government sees no need for `over-the-counter' awards of titles. The amendments contained in clause 11 of the Bill follow representations from petroleum companies. Under existing legislation, applications to register a dealing affecting the interests in a title under section 81 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act must be accompanied by an instrument evidencing the dealing and an instrument prescribed in regulations, if any. The instrument evidencing the dealing is available for public inspection and, as these instruments can contain sensitive contractual information, a number of companies have sought protection for this confidential information. The Government shares the industry's concerns and the amendments seek to provide adequate protection for confidential information while safeguarding the public interest. This is achieved by providing companies with an option of submitting the prescribed instrument mentioned above. Where the prescribed instrument is lodged with a registration application then this instrument, rather than the instrument evidencing the dealing, will be available for public inspection. In the case where companies elect not to lodge a prescribed instrument, the existing legislative approach applies-that is, the instrument evidencing the dealing will be available for public inspection. In this way, it will be open to the companies to decide what documents should remain confidential, but it is expected that companies will take advantage of the new arrangements only where it is clear that the release of any confidential information contained in the document would be detrimental to the company. The regulation which sets out the particulars of the prescribed instrument will ensure that, in the public interest, all necessary details are included. These details of the dealing include the parties to it, the title affected by it, the nature of the transaction and the value of the consideration upon which registration fees are based. Industry has objected to the inclusion of the value of the consideration of the dealing in the prescribed instrument, arguing that this information is commercially sensitive. However, given that the registration fee is based on the value of the consideration of the dealing, the Government believes, in the interests of public accountability, that the consideration should remain a requirement of the prescribed instrument. Industry has also argued that these amendments should be applied retrospectively to instruments evidencing dealings which have already been approved. This would have the effect of removing documents from public inspection. Because these documents have already been available for public inspection, the Government's view is that they no longer have a confidential status. In addition, a retrospective application of the amendments could impose a significant administrative burden on some designated authorities. Clause 14 of the Bill relates to the 1985 amendments to section 118 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act which provided for the early release of basic data and interpretive information supplied by title holders to government, subject to appeals provisions relating to the release of interpretive information after five years. It was the Government's intention that these amendments to section 118 should apply to data and information supplied both before and after the amendments were proclaimed on 22 July 1985. The amending legislation was, however, defective in that the new section 118 provisions do not apply to data and information supplied before the date of proclamation. As the early release of information facilitates a better understanding of the petroleum potential of off-shore areas and, consequently, encourages further exploration activity, the Government wishes to rectify the situation and clause 14 amends the Act appropriately. Release of commercially sensitive information would of course be subject to the usual appeals provisions set out in the Act. Following a recent review of procedures relating to the verification of royalty collections by the Australian Auditor-General's Office, it has become necessary for the Commonwealth to clarify its rights to obtain documents related to off-shore petroleum operations. Under the current legislation the Commonwealth Minister is able to acquire copies of documents received by the designated authority, but is unable to direct the designated authority as to what documents and records the producers should be required to keep and make available. The proposed amendment at clause 15 will correct this deficiency and thus ensure that the Commonwealth is able to obtain all documentation necessary to ensure that its responsibility in relation to the collection of royalties on petroleum production are met. Prior to the proclamation of the 1985 amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Act, fees payable upon the registration of a transfer under section 78 or a dealing under section 81 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act were calculated on the basis of 1.5 per cent of the consideration or value of the title affected by the transaction or, if the transaction was related to a previous dealing for which the 1.5 per cent fee had already been paid, a flat $300 fee. An unintended transitional consequence of the 1985 amendments to the Fees Act has been that a dealing registered under the principal Act prior to the proclamation of the above amendments on 22 July 1985 may not be recognised as a related prior dealing for the purposes of reducing the fee payable. The clause 18 amendment will rectify this situation and will ensure that, where appropriate, the flat $300 fee will be charged. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Cash Bidding) Amendment Act 1985, which came into force on 22 November 1985, is currently subject to a two-year sunset clause. If the Act is to continue in force, Parliament needs to re-endorse its support for the cash bidding system. The Government has completed a review of the effectiveness of cash bidding and proposes in clause 19 of this Bill to remove the sunset clause. The cash bidding system provides an alternative to the work program system as a means of awarding petroleum exploration permits in highly prospective areas. The Government's aim by introducing cash bidding was to provide an efficient and equitable system of permit award-an objective which on past experience was not being met by the work program system in circumstances where competition was intense. For the two-year trial period, the use of cash bidding has been confined to the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands adjacent areas, consistent with the Government's agreement with the State and Northern Territory governments that the use of cash bidding in other off-shore adjacent areas would await the review of the operation of the system in the Territory of the Ashmore and Cartier Islands adjacent area. In this way, it would be possible for an assessment to be made of the concerns that had been expressed by sections of the exploration industry and certain State governments and the Northern Territory about the impact of the cash bidding system. These particular concerns were that the cash bidding system: would decrease exploration activity because of reduced funds and increased risks and costs; would disadvantage small to medium size Australian companies; and was inconsistent with the resource rent tax (RRT). The review has assessed these concerns in the light of experience of the first and, to date, only cash bidding release of off-shore petroleum exploration acreage in the Timor Sea region of the Territory of the Ashmore and Cartier Islands adjacent area. Applications for five highly prospective areas in this region were invited on 25 November 1985 and closed on 28 February 1986. A total of six eligible bids, from consortia involving 16 companies, for four of the five areas were received. Three consortia were successful. Offers of permit award were made by the Joint Authority to these three successful consortia on 3 March 1986, with all three consortia accepting the offers within the allowable 30 days. The permits, AC/P5, AC/P6 and AC/P7, were formally granted on 4 April 1986 for a single six-year term. The successful bids totalled over $31.5m with all successful bids being at least $10m. Given that applications for the above areas were invited just prior to the collapse in world oil prices, the results of this cash bid round were particularly pleasing. The size and number of bids clearly showed that companies saw good prospects for satisfactory commercial returns from the areas offered despite considerable uncertainty surrounding the world crude oil market outlook. In addition, the award process represented a considerable streamlining of administrative effort. Applications were able to be assessed and permits awarded in a little over one month. This compares with the three to four months needed to process applications and award permits under the work program system. The criticism concerning the impact on exploration activity suggested that cash bids would adversely affect exploration activity either in other areas held by the companies or in the cash bid permits themselves. While the impact on the former cannot be assessed, the evidence suggests that the level of exploration activity in the cash bid permits is not significantly different from that in work program permits awarded in late 1985 and in 1986. The three cash bid permits have been in force for nearly 18 months, and in that time seismic surveys have been completed in AC/P5, 385 line kilometres; AC/P6, 550 line kilometres; and AC/P7, 1,387 line kilometres. This work is expected to lead to drilling activity in the second year of the permits, activity which no doubt has been deferred because of the collapse in oil prices-a fact which has affected exploration activity world wide. Another claim made at the time the legislation was introduced into Parliament was that cash bidding would increase the risks and costs of exploration. At the time, the Government argued that in assessing whether to lodge a cash bid, companies would take into account the expected risks and costs involved in exploring in a permit, and the size of their bid would reflect that calculation. The cash bid, in itself, would not affect the risks or the costs involved; rather, it is the risks and costs which would influence the size of the bid. Further, the Government argued that it could be expected that the cash bidding system would reduce the risks and cost facing companies compared with the work program system. Under the cash bidding system, companies are free to undertake the most commercially viable exploration program consistent with the prevailing economic conditions and prospectivity assessments. Under the work program system, however, companies are committed to an exploration program designed up to three years in advance and must face the considerable risk that changing circumstances will make that exploration program uneconomic. The Government's arguments have been vindicated. The evidence is that companies involved in over 39 per cent of active work program permits have sought deferments of commitments following the collapse in oil prices at the beginning of 1986. This has involved considerable administrative effort on the part of governments and companies. The companies in the cash bid permits have, on the other hand, been free to assess their position in the light of the dramatically changed world oil market. Cash bidding was also criticised because it was expected that large foreign companies would dominate the bidding. The Government has always acknowledged that it would be difficult for smaller companies to participate in off-shore exploration because of the costs and risks involved. Regardless of the award system for exploration permits the stronger companies could be expected to dominate. The Government did note, however, that it expected no change to the existing practice in the industry-namely, that consortia including Australian companies would be formed to bid for permits. The first cash bid release has confirmed the Government's judgment. Of the three successful consortia, each has Australian interests of 40 per cent or more-the average Australian ownership over the three permits being 62.7 per cent. Of the 11 companies involved in the successful consortia, six are Australian including some small to medium-sized firms. Over the total bidding round, there were 16 companies of which nine were Australian. The evidence, therefore, suggests that Australian companies are not being discriminated against in their attempts to explore in highly prospective areas because of the introduction of the cash bidding system. The claim that cash bidding is inconsistent with RRT cannot be established objectively but, rather, is a philosophical question. The Government views the RRT and cash bidding system of awarding exploration rights as complementary measures-namely, together they collect for the community a share of the economic rent resulting from the exploration for, and the exploitation of, Australia's petroleum resources. This is a view shared by a number of other countries. The review has, therefore, concluded that: the cash bidding system has met the Government's objective of providing a more efficient and less regulatory system of award and administration of exploration permits than the work program system; there is no evidence available to suggest that exploration activity has declined because of the use of cash bidding; there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Australian companies are not disadvantaged by the cash bidding system; and there is no justification for the claim that cash bidding is inconsistent with RRT. Despite the conclusions of this review and the demonstrated willingness of the industry to participate in the cash bidding system, the industry remains opposed to the system. Further, some States and the Northern Territory are not yet convinced of its merits although all are concerned that they should receive a share of any cash bids. The Government, however, is convinced that cash bidding is superior to the work program system as a means of permit award in circumstances where competition is expected to be intense because of the high prospectivity of the areas on offer. The Government supports the continued use of the cash bidding system and will maintain its commitment to the States and the Northern Territory to consult them before permits in their adjacent areas are proposed for release under the system. All of the amendments, except for the repeal of the cash bidding sunset clause, are not expected to have any financial impact nor will any of the amendments increase regulation in the petroleum exploration and development industry. In the case of the cash bidding amendment, the level of revenue that might be raised by the award of permits under the cash bidding system cannot be estimated as it will depend on the number of areas released during each financial year and the industry's appraisal of and response to the acreage released. The proposed amendments contained in this Bill have been the subject of consultation with the States, the Northern Territory, and the industry, and with a few exceptions the amendments have general support. The amendments are essential to the effective and efficient administration of the Commonwealth's offshore petroleum legislation and I commend the Bill to the House. I also present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Smith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(4.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend several sections of the Wheat Marketing Act 1984 to implement, in relation to the Australian Wheat Board, certain provisions of the Government's policy on the reform of statutory marketing authorities and to incorporate in the Act provisions consistent with the Government's policy on equal employment opportunity. The majority of the Government's proposals outlined in the White Paper, `Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities', which was released in January 1986, were incorporated in an amendment to the wheat marketing legislation last year. One area of that policy which was not fully addressed at that time was the funding of industry organisations by the Board. The Government's position is that where there is a requirement for consultations between a statutory marketing authority and its industry, decisions on payments to the industry for those consultations should be left to the authority concerned. However, because the funds of statutory marketing authorities are derived from either grower levies or from the sale of a compulsorily-acquired product, it has been considered desirable that guidelines be issued to ensure that any moneys paid to industry organisations will be for consultations consistent with the statutory objectives and functions of the authority. In particular, such moneys should not be available for agro-political purposes. The Bill provides for the issue of such guidelines to the Board and subject to those guidelines for it to meet expenses additional to travel incurred by the Grains Council of Australia in relation to consultations with the Board. The Board is already accountable to growers through a statutory requirement for members to consult at least annually with the Grains Council to present the Board's annual report. The proposed guidelines would restrict the level of funding to 50 per cent of the Grains Council's operational expenditure in any one year. Details will need to be included in the Board's annual operational plan and financial statements. The Board will also be able, if it wishes, to meet the travel expenses only of any person or body with whom it consults for the purpose of carrying out its functions. Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) The Bill provides that the composition of the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee will be consistent with the policy in the White Paper that such committees comprise only an independent chairperson and representatives of the relevant industry who have been nominated by the nationally recognised industry body. The current provisions of the Act, which were put in place prior to the development of that policy, allow for the Chairman of the Board and two representatives of the National Farmers Federation to also be members of the Committee. This approach was adopted in the belief that a broad-based committee would be better able to select the most capable and effective persons to be members of the Board. While that Committee fulfilled its responsibilities in a highly satisfactory manner, it is nevertheless considered desirable that the situation for the Board should be consistent with the guidelines established in the White Paper on statutory marketing authorities, that those who finance an authority should be represented on the Committee which determines who will be recommended to the Minister for appointment. To further ensure the objectivity of the selection process, it is essential that membership of the Committee is independent from the membership of the Board. It is therefore proposed that the representatives of the National Farmers Federation and the Chairman of the Board will no longer be members of the Committee. The National Farmers Federation and the Grains Council are agreeable to this change. Should it be considered desirable for the Chairperson of the Australian Wheat Board to continue to be consulted in order for the Committee to have a better understanding of the qualities necessary for a person to be an effective Board member, then such a requirement could be incorporated in the selection criteria issued to the Committee or in the terms and conditions of appointment of the presiding member. Finally, the Bill provides for the Board to develop and implement an equal employment opportunity program which is consistent with the Government's policies being progressively introduced for other Commonwealth authorities. Details of such programs will need to be included in the Board's corporate and annual operational plans and in its annual report to Parliament. I would point out that the Board already has recognised the need to be a progressive employer and has reflected this in its corporate objectives. Part of its strategies to meet this objective is the development and implementation of an equal employment opportunity program. The proposed amendments should not involve any additional Commonwealth costs or revenue. They are being put forward as part of the program of implementing the reform of statutory marketing authorities. The benefits of these reforms are already evident in the operations of other major authorities. I commend the Bill to honourable members and I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the income tax law to give effect to a number of earlier announcements made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), some of which were foreshadowed in a draft exposure Bill released on 4 June 1987, and to some Budget initiatives. They include measures designed primarily to prevent abuses of the new imputation system of company tax, and changes to the capital gains, superannuation deductions and gift provisions of the income tax law and the taxing arrangements for certain educational allowances. Two Budget announcements to be given effect by the Bill vary the level of the rebates of tax available to recipients of certain Commonwealth benefits or allowances, and provide for the calculation of 1987-88 provisional tax. The Bill will also amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to make it clear that certain earlier amending action modifying State and Territory limitation laws applied to additional tax for late payment. Finally, the Bill will remove the existing requirement to impose annually provisional tax or instalments of company tax. I will now outline in more detail the significant measures in the Bill. Franked Dividends Paid as Part of a Dividend Stripping Operation This Bill will introduce anti-avoidance provisions to combat dividend stripping operations that seek to exploit benefits provided under the imputation system. The Government's intention to introduce such measures was made clear in the Treasurer's announcement of 10 December 1986 which outlined the imputation system now in operation, and the measures were contained in the draft Bill released by the Treasurer on 4 June 1987. Under imputation, the franking rebate will mean that resident individuals and certain trustees will effectively receive franked dividends tax free. The potential double benefit for such taxpayers of both a tax deduction for the cost of shares purchased in a dividend strip, and a rebate on the dividends distributed on the shares, is similar to that which was available to companies prior to the introduction of legislation to limit or deny the intercorporate dividend rebate in cases involving dividend stripping. To prevent such abuse of the imputation system this Bill will deny the entitlement of resident individuals and certain trustees to a franking rebate where dividends are paid as part of a dividend stripping operation. To deter companies from engaging in dividend stripping schemes to gain the benefit of franking credits, and to prevent individuals and trustees who otherwise would be denied a franking rebate under the measure proposed from achieving the same end by interposing a corporate structure, the Bill will also deny franking credits to companies where dividends are paid in the course of a dividend stripping operation. Dividend Stripping Schemes Another measure contained in the draft Bill released on 4 June 1987, and now included in this Bill, will extend the present rules relating to dividend stripping operations that give rise to an income gain or loss, by limiting or denying the entitlement of a resident company to the intercorporate dividend rebate in respect of a dividend paid after 4 June 1987 as part of a dividend stripping operation which gives rise to a capital gain or loss. The measures proposed will ensure that the cost base of shares or other relevant property acquired as part of a dividend stripping operation is offset against dividend income in determining entitlement to a rebate. A rebate will be denied in such cases where they involve the payment of a dividend to an associate of the dividend stripper. Asset Revaluation Dividend Schemes The Treasurer's announcement on 4 June 1987 also foreshadowed the introduction of legislation to counter certain schemes which seek to avoid income tax properly payable on the disposal of assets by means of the payment of rebatable dividends out of profits arising from the revaluation of the assets concerned. This Bill will deny the intercorporate dividend rebate in respect of a dividend paid, after 4 June 1987, out of profits arising from the revaluation of an asset which is disposed of, or an interest in which is disposed of, either by the sale of shares in the company holding the asset or by the sale of an interest in an entity which has a beneficial shareholding in that company. The proposed measures will apply only where the company that revalues an asset is not listed on a stock exchange, and its revalued assets are not less than 75 per cent of the net worth of the company at the time of disposal of the shares or other relevant property. These measures will also apply to corporate unit trusts and public trading trusts that are taxed as companies under the income tax law. Tax Avoidance by Private Companies Sections 108 and 109 of the Income Tax Assessment Act are designed to prevent avoidance of tax by private companies and their shareholders at the shareholder level by disguising dividends as non-taxable loans or advances, and at the corporate level by disguising dividends as tax deductible remuneration. Although the scope for avoidance in this area has been diminished under the imputation system, the need for these provisions remains. Accordingly, as foreshadowed by the Treasurer on 4 June 1987, these provisions will be amended by this Bill so that, while preserving their originally intended purpose, technical deficiencies that have prevented their proper application will be remedied. Capital Gains Tax: Change of Residence The Bill will give effect to the announcement on 23 December 1986 that two changes would be made to the capital gains and capital losses provisions of the income tax law in relation to taxpayers who cease to be Australian residents. First, the existing law will be modified where a taxpayer has been an Australian resident for a total period of less than five years in the 10 years preceding the time he or she ceases to be a resident. In these cases the rules which deem certain assets to have been disposed of on change of residence will not apply to assets owned at the time the taxpayer last became a resident or to assets acquired by the taxpayer since that time as a result of the death of a person. The second change will enable a taxpayer to elect that the deemed disposal rules not apply to the assets that otherwise would be taken to have been disposed of. Capital Gains Tax: Distributions by a Trustee The Bill will also implement the change announced on 17 December 1986 where a taxpayer receives a distribution of certain tax-free income as a beneficiary or unit holder of a trust. This amendment ensures that, in calculating capital gains, the cost base of the interest or units in the trust will no longer be reduced by that part of a tax free distribution which represents income freed from tax by the allowance of certain building depreciation deductions. By this measure, trusts will be able to pass on the benefits of depreciation allowances on income producing buildings to beneficiaries or unit holders. Capital Gains Tax: Bonus Shares and Bonus Units Another amendment gives effect to the announcement made on 10 December 1986 to change the capital gains tax treatment of partly paid bonus shares and bonus units issued after 1 p.m. on that day. The existing law treats bonus shares and most bonus units as having been acquired when the original shares or units were acquired. Under the existing law, where original shares or units were acquired before 20 September 1985, the issue of partly paid bonus shares or units can potentially confer capital gains tax exempt status on new investments made after 19 September 1985-for example, through the payment of calls of capital in respect of the partly paid shares or units. In such cases, the date of acquisition of the bonus shares or bonus units will now be taken to be the date on which the liability to make the first such payment arose. This Bill will also implement changes announced on 10 December 1986 in relation to bonus shares issued after 30 June 1987 where some or all of their paid-up value is a dividend. The effect will be that such bonus shares issued after 30 June 1987 will be subject to the capital gains tax provisions irrespective of the date of acquisition of the original shares in respect of which the bonus shares were issued. A reliable estimate of the revenue effect of these capital gains tax related amendments cannot be ascertained. Deductions for contributions to superannuation funds for certain gainfully employed persons The Bill will give effect to the Treasurer's announcement of 22 December 1986 that employees would not lose the deduction available-which is set at a maximum of $1,500 per year-for their contributions to private superannuation funds by reason only that they are the subject of superannuation benefits provided by an employer as a result of an agreement of the kind referred to by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its national wage case decision of 26 June 1986. The amendments made by this Bill will apply to cases where the employer-provided superannuation cover is under an agreement made or ratified by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, or a State industrial tribunal, in accordance with the Commission's decision of 26 June 1986, or any subsequent modification of that decision in a national wage case. The Bill will apply also to cases where the contributions are made under an agreement that has not been so ratified but is substantially identical to a ratified agreement applying to employees in the same industry. The amendments will apply for the 1986-87 and subsequent income years. Educational Allowances Over the last two years the Government has made a number of changes to deliver more educational opportunities for young people by continuing to improve and rationalise student allowances. As part of this process, the Government changed the assistance for the isolated children scheme and the veteran's children education scheme to make them more consistent with the mainstream provisions of the Austudy scheme. The Austudy scheme replaced the former tertiary education assistance scheme, the adult secondary education assistance scheme and the secondary allowances scheme. Consistent with the taxing arrangements for Austudy, payments from 1 January 1987 under the veterans' children education scheme and the assistance for isolated children scheme, to students aged 16 years or over, are to be made taxable by this Bill. The Bill will also extend, from 1 July 1987, the availability of the beneficiary rebates to recipients of the education allowances that are to be made taxable by this Bill. The beneficiary rebates ensure that persons wholly or mainly dependent on certain Commonwealth benefits or allowances do not have to pay income tax. The revenue effects of these changes is estimated to be negligible. Beneficiary Rebates As part of the 1987-88 Budget measures, the maximum rebates of tax for taxpayers in receipt of the beneficiary rebates I have just referred to and the levels at which the rebates begin to shade-out are to be varied for the 1987-88 income year. For married persons the maximum rebate will be increased from $280 to $430 and no tax will be payable in 1987-88 on taxable incomes up to $10,350. For other persons the maximum rebate is to be decreased from $190 to $180 reflecting in combination the Government's decision in the May statement to align the level of the single sickness benefit with single unemployment benefit, the reduction in tax rates and the increase in the tax free threshold. The new rebate of $180 means that no tax will be payable in 1987-88 by single beneficiaries on taxable incomes up to $5,850. The rebates will shade out where taxable incomes exceed the threshold levels and will shade out completely where a married persons's taxable income is $13,790 or more, or $7,290 or more for other persons. These measures are estimated to have no cost in 1987-88 and will cost $8m in 1988-89. Provisional Tax for 1987-88 Provisional tax is that part of the pay as you earn system designed to collect tax on non salary or wage income within the year in which the income is derived. As such, it is generally accepted that the amount of provisional tax charged should approximate as closely as practicable the amount of tax actually imposed for the year. This Bill provides for 1987-88 provisional tax to be calculated on the basis of 1986-87 taxable income increased by 11 per cent, and by applying the 1987-88 rates of tax and Medicare levy. The increased low income thresholds to apply for Medicare levy purposes in 1987-88 will be taken into account. Generally, rebates and credits will be allowed in the provisional tax calculation at the levels allowed in 1986-87 assessments. Taxpayers who estimate that their taxable income for 1987-88 will increase by less than 11 per cent, or who consider that their rebates or credits will be at a higher level, will continue to have the right to `self-assess' and have the provisional tax for 1987-88 recalculated on the basis of their own estimates. Gifts This Bill will also amend the gift provisions so the income tax law to allow deductions for gifts to the Lionel Murphy Foundation and to the Australian-Hellenic Memorial Trust Fund. The estimated cost of admitting the Lionel Murphy Foundation is $80,000 in 1987-88 rising to $400,000 in 1988-89 and subsequent years, and of admitting the Australian-Hellenic Memorial Trust Fund is $60,000 in 1987-88 and $70,000 in both 1988-89 and 1989-90. Application of statutes of limitations to tax debts Honourable members will recall that legislation introduced in this House during the Budget sittings of last year, and subsequently enacted as the Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Act 1986, modified the application of State and Territory limitation laws in those cases where an objection or appeal has been lodged against an assessment or decision of the Commissioner of Taxation. The effect of the modification in such cases was simply to continue the relevant State or Territory limitation period so that it would be taken to have ended on a later date measured by reference to the date on which the objection and appeal process is finalised. The modification was necessary to counter abuses of the objection and appeal processes by those persons who sought to defer payment of taxes for as long as possible, and then to rely on the limitation laws to avoid payment of the taxes altogether. The persons concerned-generally participants in the tax avoidance schemes of the late 1970s-have failed to take heed of the warning underlying the 1986 amendments-that is, that this Government will do all in its power to ensure that payment of taxes that are rightly due to the people of Australia cannot be avoided on the basis of a legal technicality. Despite this warning, a technical argument has now been raised to the effect that the modification does not apply, as intended, to additional tax for late payment of the tax that is the subject of an objection or appeal. The Government does not accept this argument but, against the background that a significant loss to revenue would arise if the argument were upheld by the courts, has decided to make a clarifying amendment of the relevant provisions of the law. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the Income Tax Act 1986 to formally impose the rates of income tax payable by individuals and trustees generally for the 1987-88 and all subsequent financial years. It will also impose the rates for 1987-88 and subsequent years payable by companies, registered organisations and unit trusts treated as companies on incomes for 1986-87 and subsequent years. In addition, it will impose rates of tax on superannuation funds, ineligible approved deposit funds and certain other trusts. The rates to be imposed by the measures in this Bill are those declared in the Income Tax Rates Act 1986. The personal rates for 1987-88 reflect the significant cuts in income tax from the second and final phase of the reform of the rate scales which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced in the September 1985 tax reform package to apply from 1 July 1987. A four step tax scale now applies. At the lower end of the scale for resident taxpayers, no tax is payable on taxable incomes up to $5,100, an increase in the tax-free threshold from the 1986-87 level of $4,890. On taxable incomes in the range $5,101 to $12,600 the rate is 24 per cent. In the range of $12,601 to $19,500 the rate is 29 per cent. From 1 July 1987 the marginal rates applying to income in the ranges $19,501 to $28,000 and $28,001 to $35,000 are both reduced from 43 per cent and 46 per cent respectively to 40 per cent, and the top marginal rate has dropped from 55 per cent to 49 per cent. Those general rates also apply to non-residents who receive Australian social security and repatriation pensions that are taxable in Australia, or who were residents at any time during the income year. For all other non-resident taxpayers, the rate of 29 per cent applies to incomes up to $19,500 and the general rates apply to income above that level. For 1987-88 and subsequent years a rate of 49 per cent applies to all unearned income of resident minors, subject to shading in arrangements for such income just over $416. The rate of tax on trustees assessed under section 99a of the Income Tax Assessment Act, and on other categories of income subject to anti-avoidance provisions of that Act, is 49 per cent in 1987-88 and subsequent years. The company tax rate will be 49 per cent. This increased rate was announced in the September 1985 tax reform statement to help defray the cost of the new imputation system which commenced on 1 July 1987. The 49 per cent rate also applies for unit trusts treated as companies. Registered organisations are to continue to pay at a rate of 20 per cent. Finally, the opportunity is being taken to impose income tax as a standing measure, under the Income Tax Act 1986 as proposed to be amended by this Bill, rather than by means of an annual imposition Bill. Of course, if there are changes in tax rates, legislation amending the Income Tax Rates Act 1986, which declares the various income tax rates that I have just outlined for 1987-88 and subsequent years, will be put before the Parliament. As part of this process of reducing the volume of legislation brought before the Parliament, and as there is no legal requirement for the practice, the Bill will also repeal the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1986 that impose a liability to pay provisional tax or instalments of company tax. The provisions of the Bill are explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum that accompanied the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987 which I have just introduced. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1987 will amend the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to declare and impose the basic rate of Medicare Levy for 1987-88 and all subsequent income years. As announced in the 1986-87 Budget, the basic rate of the levy will be 1.25 per cent of taxable income. That rate has been effective since 1 December 1986. The Bill also contains increases in the income threshold levels below which people with low incomes will not be called on to pay any levy. For 1987-88 and subsequent income years, individuals with taxable incomes of $8,980 or less, and married couples and sole parents with family incomes of $15,090 or less, will not be required to pay the levy. The income threshold for married couples and sole parents will increase by a further $2,100 for each dependent child or student. For example, a married couple with two dependent children will pay no levy until their combined taxable incomes exceed $19,290. The gain to revenue from the December 1986 increase in the rate of levy is $370m in 1987-88. The estimated cost of the increased low income thresholds is $10m in 1987-88, $70m in 1988-89 and $40m in a full year. The new low income thresholds will not be reflected in tax instalment schedules until 1 July 1988. Until this year, a Medicare Levy Bill has been introduced into the Parliament each year declaring and imposing the levy for the particular year of income. The opportunity is being taken to declare and impose the Medicare levy as a standing measure, so that in future years amending legislation will be required only if the rate of levy or the low income thresholds are to be changed. The explanatory memorandum on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987 about which I have just spoken contains an explanation of the provision of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will make a number of amendments to the sales tax law. One of these will exempt from sales tax certain ultra-high frequency (UHF) television transmitters purchased after 30 April 1987 and before 1 January 1993 for use in regional areas. Exemption from sales tax is to be granted for certain tourist publicity and tourist promotional materials acquired by foreign national tourist organisations. Other exemptions are to be authorised complementary to the proposed agreement between Australia and Singapore governing the status of Singaporean forces training in Australia. The Bill will also bring the sales tax law into line with the customs and excise laws in relation to vice-regal exemptions and make other minor technical changes. UHF transmitters The exemption for the UHF transmitters covers transmitters purchased by commercial television licensees to implement the Government's policy of equalisation of regional commercial television services. It also covers transmitters purchased for what is known as band II clearance-the clearance of existing very high frequency (VHF) television channels 3, 4 and 5 to alternate UHF frequencies-and is an important step in introducing new commercial FM radio services in regional areas. In addition the exemption extends to the small number of transmitters which are expected to be purchased for the remote commercial television services and for community self-help rebroadcasting facilities. Since the exemption does not run for the full period of the implementation of equalisation and band II clearance, it will act as an incentive to licensees to fulfil the Government's policy objectives sooner than prescribed, while recognising that the Government should not gain sales tax revenue from commercial purchases which it has itself dictated. The exemption applies to transmitters, not including ancillary equipment, purchased for use in non-metropolitan areas and the metropolitan areas of Hobart, Canberra and Darwin, but will not generally cover replacement transmitters. It is estimated that total revenue of around $14.5m in June 1987 prices will be forgone in the period to 1 January 1993-of this total, the cost to revenue for the 1987-88 financial year is expected to be $400,000. No additional administrative resources will be required to implement the exemption. This measure provides important assistance to regional commercial television licensees and reinforces the Government's policies on introducing new commercial television and radio services to country audiences. Tourist publicity and promotional materials The exemption for certain tourist publicity and promotional material will apply to the goods, or classes of goods, specified in the Bill where they are for use by, or in some cases free distribution by, a national tourist organisation of a foreign country or an appointed representative of such an organisation. Goods that will qualify for exemption include scale models, showcases, timetables, audio-visual works such as promotional films, cultural items such as national costumes, and printed matter such as books, magazines and pamphlets. The exemption arises from Australia's obligations under an instrument of international tourism policy adopted by the Council of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in November 1985. A requirement of that instrument is that member countries admit from other member countries, free of import duties and taxes, certain tourist publicity and tourism promotional materials. It has been suggested by some member countries and national tourist organisations that Australia is not complying with the requirements of the instrument because wholesale sales tax is payable in Australia on the importation of goods including tourist publicity and tourism promotional materials. However, the Australian Government does not accept that the wholesale sales tax is an import tax. Sales tax applies in a non-discriminatory manner to all goods whether they are imported or locally manufactured. The Government considers, therefore, that there is no inconsistency between the imposition of sales tax on materials imported for the purpose of promoting tourism to countries overseas and Australia's obligations under the OECD instrument on tourism. Nevertheless, in a spirit of co-operation the Government has decided to introduce the sales tax exemption that is now before honourable members. It will cover an organisation that is an official `arm' of government, or any non-government organisation appointed by a foreign country to be that country's official representative in Australia in matters relating to the promotion of tourism to that country. Because sales tax is applied in a non-discriminatory manner both to domestically produced and imported goods, and in line with the Government's policy that local industry should not be disadvantaged by taxation laws that favour imported goods, the exemption will apply to both imported and locally manufactured goods with effect from 1 July 1987. The cost to revenue of the proposed exemption is estimated to be in the order of between $50,000 and $100,000 in a full year. Status of Forces Agreement with Singapore The exemptions to be provided in terms of the proposed agreement with Singapore match those extended under Australia's status of forces agreements with the United States and Papua New Guinea and will operate from a date to be proclaimed following the signing into force of the agreement. The cost to revenue is estimated to be less than $500,000 in a full year. Amendment of Vice-Regal Exemptions The proposed amendments to the vice-regal sales tax exemptions are identical to those introduced by my colleague the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) when he presented to the House the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986. That Bill had not been passed by the last Parliament when it was dissolved in June of this year; the amendments to the vice-regal sales tax exemptions are now incorporated into this Bill. As outlined by my colleague, the proposed amendments will limit vice-regal sales tax exemptions to articles for the official use of the Governor-General, the Governor of a State or a member of the family of the Governor-General or of a State Governor. Personal use articles purchased by such persons will no longer be exempt from sales tax, nor will articles for the personal or official use of non-Australian members of the staff of the Governor-General or of a State Governor. This will place Australian and foreign staff members on an equal footing for sales tax purposes. Minor Consequential Amendments Other amendments will make minor technical corrections to references in the sales tax law to provisions of the customs law consequent on changes to the customs law. I commend the Bill to honourable members and, in doing so, I present the explanatory memorandum on this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(4.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government's decision to amend the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975 to ensure that certain exports of coal to steaming coal markets, at the lower prices operating in those markets, do not attract the coal export duty, which is currently set at $3.50 per tonne. The coal export duty was introduced in August 1975, at a time of high industry profitability as a way of distributing to the wider community windfall profits accruing to coal exporting companies. Over the years, the duty has been modified to recognise changed economic circumstances in the industry. The present policy objective of the Act is to make dutiable only high quality coking coal destined for world steel industry markets. These coals attract a price premium relative to steaming coal, which is exempt from export duty. As a result of changing demand in the international market-place, some Australian mines producing coking grade coal are presently unable to sell all their production into coking coal markets, but they are able to sell a less highly refined or washed version of the coal into steaming coal markets at the lower prices applying for this product. However, the existing parameters defining the characteristics of the coal on which duty under the Act is based is having the unintended effect of rendering this lower quality product liable for duty. In view of this, the Government has decided to change the param- eters on which the duty is based by reducing the prescribed ash content of the coals from 12 per cent or less to 10.5 per cent or less and raising the crucible swelling number-a measure of the coal's coking characteristics-from over 3 to over 5. These changes will ensure that the policy objective of the Act, which is to make only high quality coking coal subject to duty, is continued. Financial Impact The proposed amendments in this Bill have no direct financial implications, as the Bill seeks to continue existing coal export duty arrangements in operation since 16 May 1987. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.45) —Just before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was indicating my concern that proposals had been made by influential people in the Government that Qantas, Australian Airlines, the Commonwealth Bank and Telecom should be sold to private investors. Mr Reith —A very good idea. Mr MILTON —I am not surprised that members of the Opposition should support such proposals. Indeed, it has been the policy of the Opposition and I recognise that. That is why it is rather surprising to find that some influential people in the Australian Labor Party, both within the Government and outside, have made these proposals. Nevertheless, they have been made. In my speech earlier I pointed out the loss which Australian people would suffer if these privatisation proposals were to go ahead. I also pointed out that evidence from overseas would indicate that the final outcome for Australia could very well be that all four public enterprises that have been mentioned could be swallowed up by large overseas corporations. Of course, there would need to be changes in the existing legislation which presently governs the operation of those public enterprises so that such mergers could go ahead. But I really do not think that this would present any obstacle to the Government determining to sell off those public enterprises. I think it is very important for the Government and for other people in the Labor Party to recognise the strong opposition to these proposals which has emanated from most of the State Labor Party branches in their recent conferences. Most of the debate has been opposed to privatisation proposals and most of the views have been fairly unanimous in that opposition. I think, in those circumstances, it would be very wise for those people who are talking about selling off our public enterprises to note that debate. I certainly hope that the Government will heed those calls and that I will not find myself again in this House having to join in a debate in support of public enterprises. However, I have placed on the Notice Paper a notice of motion which should come up early next year and I will have the chance to add some more to this debate. It will be a long and a lively debate-the Labor Party is very good at those kinds of democratic processes-and I am sure that the final outcome will mean even more support for public enterprise than presently exists. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Mr NEHL(Cowper)(4.48) —I certainly welcome the opportunity of speaking in this House about the current Budget because I think it is one of the greatest hoaxes that this country has ever had foisted on it. Mr Reith —Well put. Mr NEHL —As the honourable member for Flinders has said, that was well put because it states the basic situation in a most succinct fashion. This Budget is a hoax; it is a con. As has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), and many other speakers on this side of the House, the real deficit in this Budget is $2 1/2 billion-not an innocuous $27m but $2 1/2 billion. The sad thing about this Budget is that the Government has not had the strength to take the hard decisions that should have been taken. Traditional political wisdom would say that the first Budget of a government returned was the time to be tough, to take the hard decisions, to do what needed to be done for the benefit of the country, and to do what was necessary for the salvation of the people of Australia. Take the hard decisions now then there will be time for those decisions to take effect and by the time the next election comes-this is the traditional wisdom-the Government will be able to soften its decisions. It has not even had the common sense to do that. All it has said is that things will go on as they are. It is living in a fool's paradise. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is living in a fool's paradise. He has all the fringe benefits tax money and the other tax money dropping like manna from heaven. He is saying, `Whoopee, let's go on spending the way we have been doing'. There have been no cuts in Government spending. Any sensible person in this country knows that there must be cuts. Some of us were fortunate enough to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer speak at the National Press Club today. He quoted from a secret International Monetary Fund (IMF) report, which had fallen off the back of a semi-trailer. It made the point very strongly that the Government is on very shaky ground. It has brought forward this Budget on the basis of assumptions, and if those assumptions move aside ever so slightly it will be in very great trouble. There should have been a decrease in Government expenditure. There should have been a decrease in Government taxes. It is interesting to look at the Budget Papers. I have with me the Commonwealth Public Account 1987-88. If one looks at table 3 relating to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in 1986-87 expenditure and revenue was $73,782,794,295-that is, $4,585.70 per head for every Australian. This year that figure has increased to $80,663,140,000 or $4,937.40 per head. It is an increase of $6.88 billion. It is an increase on a per capita basis, for every man, woman and child, of $351.70 in just one year. The Treasurer comes in here time after time, smiles-which is a rarity for him-and says, `No new taxes, no increase in taxation'. But if there are no new taxes and no increase in taxation, how is it that we are taking in an extra $5 1/2 billion in taxation? Is that not a con? Is that not a hoax? It is only in the last few days that the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, has spoken of the danger of complacency about this Budget. I think that a most unfortunate thing has happened since the Budget was presented. We often accuse Australia of being the great country of apathy. The word `complacency', used by Senator Walsh, is certainly a significant one. Unfortunately, the great majority of our fellow Australians are saying, `It is a good Budget. He has balanced the Budget; that is all right'. They do not realise the ramifications and the real problems. There is a delicatessen owner in Coffs Harbour with whom I am friendly. Last Saturday morning, when I walked through the arcade in which his delicatessen is situated, he said, `Garry, you can't complain about this Budget, can you?' Mr McVeigh —You would have been upset by that. Mr NEHL —I certainly was because the re- ality is that we should complain. We should not be hoodwinked. We should not have the blinkers put on us by the bland presentation, `She's okay, mate'. That is what they said on the Titanic before the iceberg hit. Mr McGauran —Small business has the most to lose. Mr NEHL —The honourable member for Gippsland is right. Mr McGauran —Did you tell him? Mr NEHL —I did. He is a small businessman. The point is that the present Labor Government has no political courage. It could not bring itself to take the tough steps and introduce the hard measures that should have been taken. It took no hard decisions. There were no cuts in spending. It just took another $5 1/2 billion in taxes. There has been absolutely no action in this Budget to solve the foreign debt problem. Our foreign debt is increasing at the rate of $1 billion a month. This has been going on for years. It has been increasing by $1 billion a month since Labor took office. That is the rate by which our foreign debt is increasing. The Government is taking no steps to improve productivity. Heaven knows, we will not get out of the disastrous financial situation that we are in unless we can increase productivity; no country could do so. We are trading in a world market. We are living in a time of great competition. There is no way that we will become competitive unless we can control costs and improve productivity. This Budget takes no action to decrease the high unemployment rate which has bedevilled this wonderful country for so many years. Mr McGauran —The forgotten people. Mr NEHL —Yes, as the honourable member for Gippsland says, the unemployed are forgotten. Time after time since I was elected to this Parliament I have drawn the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and of the responsible Minister to the fact that within the electorate of Cowper unemployment has reached the level of 25 per cent. Mr Hicks —Shameful. Mr NEHL —As the honourable member for Riverina-Darling says, it is a great shame. I have said again and again that just because unemployment throughout Australia is about 8 per cent, the Government gets concerned-and quite rightly-that youth unemployment is up to 23 per cent, but in the electorate of Cowper it is 25 per cent. The reason is, of course, that the climate is so superb. I went swimming last Saturday and Sunday mornings. People with any good sense, if they have to be unemployed, would much rather be unemployed in Port Macquarie, Crescent Head, Nambucca Heads, Coffs Harbour, or any of the wonderful places in Cowper, where the cost of living is less. Heating costs are far less; clothing costs are less because one does not need all of those jumpers. Fresh fruit, vegetables and fish are much cheaper. The Prime Minister is a frequent visitor to my electorate. He enjoys visiting it. He loves the avocadoes, bananas, kiwifruit and all the other marvellous tropical fruits that we have. But sooner or later, as long as he remains Prime Minister-which I am sure will not be beyond the next election; there has been too much of a good thing already-he and the Government will have to realise that they cannot just look after the steel regions in which unemployment is nowhere near the level that it is on the north coast of New South Wales. They should be fair dinkum and prepared to care about all Australians. That is what we in the National Party and the Liberal Party are about. We care for all Australians. We do not have sectional interests. We are not just concerned about the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the coal miners and the steel workers. We care about all Australians. Ever since the Hawke Government came to power in 1983 we have had the perpetuation of the greatest lie in Australian politics and the greatest deceit since Federation-that is, that the Fraser-Anthony Government left a Budget deficit of $9 billion. That is not true. It is totally untrue and incorrect. The last Budget deficit of the Fraser-Anthony Government was $4.4 billion. The first Budget deficit of the present Prime Minister and Treasurer was $8 billion. Mr McVeigh —That is double. Mr NEHL —It is double. Yet day after day they come in here and smile, laugh and talk about that figment of their imagination. Mr Millar —Whatever happened to Goebbels? Mr NEHL —Exactly; as the honourable member for Wide Bay says, they are experts. Of course, we on this side of the House must realise that we are up against experts in propaganda. Since they came to government in 1983 they have learnt the lesson well-they learnt it from Neville Wran when he was Premier of New South Wales-of spending Government money to promote the Government. Mr Reith —Our money. Mr NEHL —The people's money. They are not spending Party money to promote the Party; they are spending Government money to promote the Party. They learnt the lesson well from Neville Wran. Of course, that is what they have been doing ever since they came to government. In the first two years of this Treasurer's stewardship public sector borrowing was up by $15 billion. Let us face the fact that, whilst it is popular and frequent to cite the total foreign debt, which is well over $100 billion, we are owed something by overseas countries as well. Our net foreign debt has quadrupled since the present Prime Minister and Treasurer came into office. In June 1983, our net foreign debt was $21 billion. It took a total of 80 years from Federation to build up a net foreign debt of $21 billion. However, in the next four years, under the Hawke-Keating Government, that net foreign debt quadrupled to $83 billion. It would seem that, in framing the Budget, Mr Keating and the Labor Cabinet have totally ignored our overseas debt. This country is borrowing to pay the interest on other loans. That is a recipe for disaster. Mr McGauran —For future generations especially. Mr NEHL —As the honourable member for Gippsland says, we have mortgaged my grandchildren and the honourable member's grandchildren, if he ever has any. Mr Reith —He hasn't even got any children. Mr NEHL —There is time for him yet; he is only young. We must be serious about this. We have mortgaged the future of many generations of Australians to come. We must be competitive if we are to survive in the world economy. Our competitiveness is going down the hill like Jack and Jill. The predicted current account deficit for 1987-88 is $11 1/2 billion. As I said at the beginning of my speech, and as was revealed by the honourable member for Kooyong at a National Press Club luncheon today when he quoted from a secret IMF report to the Government, there is no room for accidents. There is no margin for error. Any variation in the basis on which this Budget has been predicated will see disaster. It would be so easy, as Senator Walsh has said, to go down the Argentinean road. Not one member of this House would, in the course of his personal finances, deliberately borrow money to pay interest. Mr Braithwaite —But the Treasurer does. Mr NEHL —Would the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) borrow money to pay his interest? Of course not. No sensible person would do so. Mr Ian Robinson —I wouldn't buy clocks either. Mr NEHL —One certainly would not buy clocks. This Budget provided a great chance, a great opportunity, for Australia. To mix the metaphors, the Government has muffed the catch; it has dropped the ball. The Government had an opportunity to cut expenditure and to get Australia back on the road to prosperity through improved productivity. Since Labor has been in office there has been a marginal improvement in productivity, but in this Budget weekly earnings are forecast to rise by 6 per cent, the same rise that has occurred in the last two years. How can we be competitive if our productivity remains at almost the same level and our weekly earnings go up by 6 per cent? It does not compute. Continued pay rises without increased productivity is a simple recipe for sending Australia broke. At the same time, the Budget contains absolutely no provision to ease unemployment. As I mentioned earlier, there is a forecast of 8.3 per cent unemployment and 23 per cent youth unemployment in 1987-88. The unfortunate reality is that the trade unions control this Government. This Government does the bidding of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That is why no action is being taken to deregulate the labour market so business can create jobs. That is what we need for our young people and family people-men and women in their thirties and forties, with a couple of kids and a mortgage, who are out of work and have no chance of ever getting a job. The problem is too serious not to give it attention. However, there is nothing in the Budget to provide employment opportunities. What we need to do is to free up small business. Small business and the farming community are the biggest employers in this country. We need to deregulate and take away the crippling taxes which are stopping them from going ahead. The Hawke-Keating Government is the highest taxing government we have ever had. The Government said that there were no new taxes in the Budget. But, as I have already said, this Budget collects an additional $5.5 billion in taxation. The fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax are still there. Those taxes are hitting small business. I am not ashamed to say in this place once again that pensioners are still being hurt by the assets test. The assets test is still a despicable tax which is hitting the older generation-people who survived the Depression and were in great trouble then and those who fought in World War II. Those are the people, many of whom reside in my electorate, who are being hurt. We still maintain that the assets test must go. The Government is taking 24 per cent of gross domestic product in taxation just to balance the Budget. This Budget is a Budget of high taxes and high expenditure. Small business is being crippled by taxes and strangled by red tape. The country electorate-people in regional Australia-will be harshly affected by what has been done to the fuel freight subsidy. According to the Budget Statements, total outlays for that subsidy will be cut by $8.5m, or over 52 per cent, this year. This will involve increasing the consumer paid contribution by 4c a litre to 10.2c a litre. The Australian motorist is paying far too much taxation on fuel. For country consumers of petrol and diesel to be hit by another 4c a litre is a disgrace. Those are the things in this bland Budget of pap that should be made clear to the people of Australia. The Budget will not help anyone in Australia. What we need to do to help Australia and Australians is to take the hard decisions, to cut expenditure and taxation and to restore incentive so that people can go out to work and keep a fair share of what they earn without having it ripped off by the Government. We must restore incentive for workers, small businessmen and farmers to work harder. This Budget does not tackle the real problems. Inflation is still too high and productivity is still too low. Unemployment is still far too high; taxation is still far too high, and interest rates are still too high. It will be a long road to the next election but at that time the Hawke-Keating Labor Government must be tossed out for the salvation of Australia. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(5.08) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I offer you my congratulations on your re-election to your high office. Would you convey my congratulations also to Madam Speaker on her re-election to that high office? The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) was unconvincing in his claim that this Budget was a hoax. Mr Nehl —Oh, no. Ms JAKOBSEN —Indeed he was. He had the gall to mention the $8 billion deficit in the first Hawke-Keating Budget whilst denying that it was a direct result of the $10 billion deficit that the Fraser-Howard Government left this Government. We have been reducing that deficit ever since. This is the first opportunity the Government has had to bring in a balanced Budget. I am sure that most of my colleagues on this side of the House are delighted with that result. We have made the tax system fairer and, as a result, the country fairer. It may not have escaped the notice of honourable members that the Government's Budget strategy has been the subject of much discussion inside and outside this Parliament in recent days. Mr Fitzgibbon —All favourable. Ms JAKOBSEN —Mostly favourable. Not only was it heralded in the Press and the money markets for its contribution to the continued improvement of Australia's economic position but also it was accepted by the wider community. The response of the banks was swift and decisive. They reduced interest rates. It was amusing to hear the honourable member for Cowper talk about interest rates being high. They were always higher under the Fraser-Howard Government than they have ever been under this Government. Although the preconditions for a drop in interest rates had existed for some months prior to the election, the Budget outcome provided the stimulus needed for the banks to make their move. I can assure the House that the home buyers in my electorate have no argument with that reduction in interest rates. Mr Gear —But they have a good memory. Ms JAKOBSEN —Yes, the honourable member is right. Confronted with the evidence of its own irrelevance, I suppose that the Opposition was forced to beat up any trivial issue which came to hand. Even so, one cannot help being surprised by the spectacle of members opposite flocking like vultures to devour the scraps offered by the remarks of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in Perth at the recent Labor lawyers conference. Even the honourable member for Cowper stooped to it-I was surprised at him. Mr Fitzgibbon —Vultures fly. Those on the other side of the House cannot. Ms JAKOBSEN —Can they not fly? It may interest the honourable member for Cowper to know that many members on this side of the House do not now, and never have, agreed with the Walsh view of the world, let alone of the economy. It remains, however, that the views of the Minister for Finance, while well informed, cannot be said to be the majority view of the Government any more than the privately held views of any other Minister, or backbencher, can be seen to be so. I would go so far as to venture that the much vaunted praise of the Opposition for Senator Walsh's stand might be reason enough for him to exercise his somewhat perverse capacity and reassess his economic and political perspective, although that might be drawing a pretty wide bow. Mr White —Is he not a colleague of yours? Ms JAKOBSEN —Yes, he is a colleague and a friend. Senator Walsh has a reputation as an economic rationalist, but he is only one member of the Government and the Government has responsibility to bring down Budgets which are both economically and socially responsible. That is what the Hawke Labor Government has done since it was first elected in 1983, and it did so again on this occasion. To a large degree, the senator's remarks have been taken out of context by the Opposition and, in some senses, by the media. Mr White —It is a media beat-up. Ms JAKOBSEN —The honourable gentlemen should know about media beat-ups. To cut child care subsidies and penalise supporting parents was plainly not on, given the Government's avowed commitments in these areas and I am sure that Senator Walsh was aware of that. Neither was it an option to renege on our support for the $250m family package, which will mean so much to so many Australian families, including more than one million children. I point out to the House that that $250m is only for the course of this financial year, and there will be a further $250m in the next financial year. Neither was it an option to deny the provision of the $4,500m necessary to finance the personal income tax cuts introduced in December last year and July this year. The family package represents proof of the Government's commitment to end child poverty by 1990. Do not doubt that commitment. Remember our promise to create 500,000 jobs? Remember the crowing of those in the Opposition when that promise was made? They were so confident that we could not deliver, presumably because they were so spectacularly unsuccessful in that area when they held the reins of government. It is a matter of record that the 500,000 job commitment was achieved and surpassed. So it will be with the elimination of child poverty. By 1990, low income parents will be assured of the resources required to provide adequately for their children. It bears repeating that, from Christmas this year, the new family allowance supplement will replace the family income supplement with much higher rates. Under this package, families earning $300 per week or less will receive $22 per week for every child under 13. That money will be paid on top of what they already get in family allowance. Certainly, the people in my electorate appreciate the generosity of that gesture by the Government, and there need be no more harping about the commitment of this Government to family and family support. Families with older children will get $28 per week to top up their family allowance payment for children over the age of 12; that is, 13-, 14- and 15-year-old children. A working family with three children and renting privately might still be eligible for some payments, at least until their income reaches $522 per week. Child payments will maintain their value over time as a result of the targets that the Government has set, and its historic movement of tying family payments to an index pension. By 1990, the Government will raise the total payments for children to 15 per cent of the married rate of pension for children under the age of 13, and 20 per cent of the married rate of pension for 13- to 15-years-olds. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) points out, this is the first time that we have linked child payments to pension and recognised the extra cost of providing for older children. Special payments will also be made to families with disabled children and rental assistance will be available to low income families in private rental. The Budget also contained a number of changes in the way that maintenance will be treated in the social security system. They are part of a package of measures which will link the social security and family law systems from the start of the new child support scheme in 1988. As honourable members will be aware, this scheme is designed to ensure that maintenance is collected from the parent no longer living with the children. A child support agency will be set up under the Australian Taxation Office to collect maintenance, which will then be distributed to the recipients by the Department of Social Security. Too many Australian children live in poverty because parents who no longer live with them do not pay child maintenance. It is a sad fact that people in a nation as wealthy as Australia avoid the responsibility for their children. An estimated 70 per cent of non-custodial parents do not pay child maintenance on a regular basis. When parents fail to provide adequate support for their children, ultimately it is the taxpayer who must adopt financial responsibility for those children through the social security system. The new child support scheme will ensure that, where parents have the capacity, they contribute to the support of their children. This will tend to reduce the reliance of sole parent families on the social security system. I hope that this measure will be welcomed by the House in a bipartisan fashion, given that so many of those people on sole parent benefits are women and given the bad name, if you like, that sole parents have in the community as a result of the fact that they are dependent on pensions. So often, their dependency on the pension is no fault of their own. The Budget also contains good news for pensioners and fulfils election promises that this Government made to them. The May statement and the Budget combined to reinforce our Government's commitments to protect indexation for pensioners and to help combat poverty traps by giving pensioners scope to increase their earnings. From 1 November, eligible pensioners will be able to accumulate up to $1,000 of earnings credit without losing fringe benefits or having their pensions reduced. This will make it easier for them to supplement their social security payments by taking casual jobs when they are available. Furthermore, from 1 January next year, pensioners will be able to retain their entitlements to fringe benefits despite short term fluctuations in the level of their income. I am sure that other honourable members have had visits from elderly people when they have a problem with their overseas pensions, particularly the United Kingdom pensions when the dollar was going up and down and the value of the pension was changing week to week and month to month. This will help to alleviate that situation. It will be of particular benefit to people receiving income such as superannuation or an overseas pension which might be subject to changing exchange rates. It will stop pensioners from having to worry about small movements in the level of their private income, and it may relieve the work load of some members of parliament. I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your appointment to office. I am sorry that I did not mention it earlier. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Thank you. Ms JAKOBSEN —In the Budget the Government has, quite rightly, accepted its responsibility to uphold the undertakings made recently during the election campaign, one of which was that the major program deductions have already been made in the May economic statement. Compare that honest approach to the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Opposition, which preaches economic rationalism and offers the electorate tax cuts which it could not afford from expenditure reductions which it would not identify. We on this side of the House can be forgiven for thinking that those opposite were proposing to resume office and once again pursue the irresponsible and ad hoc policies which originally led to the outrageous Budget deficit of almost $10,000m which was inherited by the Labor Government when it came to office in 1983. That is what I was trying to say earlier to the honourable member for Cowper when he was claiming that this Budget is a hoax and that we had caused the deficit. That legacy has now been wiped out as a consequence of the single-minded attention of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Expenditure Review Committee in the last five Budgets. Needless to say, Senator Walsh is a member of that Committee. The 1983 $10,000m prospective Budget deficit is the measure of the Opposition's economic vandalism and will not be forgotten either by the Government or the people of Australia. Together with the unbelievable performance of the Opposition in the recent Federal election, this has condemned it once more to the political wilderness where it can wallow in the luxury of hindsight and never have to make the up front decisions that matter. This Budget incorporates a 2.4 per cent real reduction in Commonwealth spending-the biggest cut in 35 years. The dampening effects desired of cuts in government expenditure of this magnitude must always be weighed against the possibility of triggering a recession. As a consequence, the Government has been careful to ensure that economic growth is maintained, even if only at a low level, and that the stimulus for additional growth is concentrated on the export sector in an effort to reduce our balance of trade problem. Of this recent export growth no less than half has come from the sale of manufactured goods. The dramatic pick-up in this area is a direct result of the Government's economic policies together with the devaluation of the Australian dollar which has rendered our exports more competitive in the world market. It is obvious that an increase in the number of products manufactured in Australia means an increase in the number of jobs available for Australians. That is good news for those unfortunate enough to be unemployed. In recent years the trade union movement has developed an understanding of the importance of the social wage to the people of the nation. Its mature attitude to wage restraint has contributed substantially to the improvement in export growth and allowed the reduction in unit labour costs necessary for our competitiveness overseas. To compete successfully in the international market-place Australia must raise its educational and training standards. We must lift the skill level in our work force. I take the point made earlier by the honourable member for Cowper about the percentage of young people who are unemployed. To a large degree their unemployment relates almost directly to their lack of skills or qualifications. That is certainly an area that the Government will be looking at in terms of traineeships and so on. The current restructuring of our economy has cast employment and training systems in a crucial role and the Government has moved to streamline and co-ordinate action in this area by forming the new Department of Employment, Education and Training. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) recently presented the Government's plan for achieving skills formation goals as part of the Budget Papers. I recommend that all honourable members read it if they have the opportunity. The Minister points out that it will be necessary to increase the level of participation in education and training and to improve the flexibility and quality of our education and training systems. By way of comparison, it is worth pointing out that the Fraser Government starved the education system during its term of office and reduced participation rates. This Government has been working since it was elected to improve those participation rates. In Western Australia we are currently fortunate enough to have a 50 per cent participation rate of people in year 12. However, I realise that in some other States the rate is not quite that high. The Budget builds on recent changes to student allowances by amending the student assistance schemes for Aboriginal children, isolated children and the children of veterans to bring those schemes more into line with mainstream income support programs. If young people are to stay in the education system more student places must be provided. An extra 5,800 higher education places have been approved in this Budget for young school leavers. It is especially important to note that funding for the Australian traineeship system is to increase from $14m to $45m, providing 13,000 places for new trainees. The traineeship program has great potential for assisting young people into employment in areas where apprenticeships are non-existent or not feasible. Furthermore, a new program to provide short term vocational training opportunities for unemployed young people will be introduced at a cost of $31m. The traineeship system in my electorate unfortunately has not been able to get off the ground because of the number of small business people there, many of whom would like to be involved in the traineeship system but are unable to. The group traineeship system is the one that I will be looking at to see whether we can get it going in the Cowan electorate. Mr White —That will be better, will it? Ms JAKOBSEN —I am sure that there are quite a few people in that area who are prepared to get involved in discussion with governments and unions to get one of those schemes off the ground. As mentioned earlier, the Government's skills formation strategy will complement these programs. We have made the tax system fairer with this Budget. Because of the earlier innovations of the Government in terms of the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax we have received more money than was originally anticipated. Those funds have made the difference when it comes to balancing this Budget. I suggest that the members of the Opposition who underestimate the cost to the Government of coming up with a balanced Budget look at this again. In the long term future when they may eventually achieve government again I would like to see whether they could come up with the same feat. Mr Charles —Twenty years at least. Ms JAKOBSEN —I thank the honourable member for Isaacs. That is correct. It will be a long time. Hopefully some honourable members opposite have long memories. By the time they get to government perhaps they will have started thinking about how difficult it is to come down with a balanced Budget. To my recollection the Howard-Fraser Government never achieved that. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(5.27) —Had the Treasurer (Mr Keating) genuinely managed to deliver a balanced Budget, media euphoria would have turned to an hysteria boarding on the religious with the media no doubt demanding his beatification. St Francis of Assisi would have had nothing on St Paul of the Treasury. But there is not sainthood yet, not with the Treasurer's sleight of hand in nearly balancing the Budget. His claims are a myth. If we remove the $1 billion realised from one-off asset sales and the $2.6 billion windfall from the currency dealings of the Reserve Bank of Australia we have a Budget deficit of $3.5 billion. This brings the Treasurer's balancing act down to earth. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), the Government's second most senior economic spokesman, has confirmed the Opposition view that the Budget was not hard enough and that government spending in welfare in particular should have been and could have been slashed. This Budget is based on several assumptions, including assumptions that inflation will fall from 9 per cent to 6 per cent-which is nearly 50 per cent higher than that of our trading partners-and assumptions that overseas investment will remain at today's levels, or higher. But what happens if United States interest rates rise? Funds will pour out of Australia as people take advantage of the more attractive rates offered in the United States. Another assumption is that there will be no world recession. Australia has little influence internationally. We follow world trends; we do not lead them. We have a foreign debt of $110 billion. When the Hawke Government came to office in 1983 our foreign debt was $36 billion. In just four years of this big spending Hawke Government our foreign debt has blown out by $74 billion. At the moment we have a frightening trade deficit. This year we are trading in the red to the tune of $13.6 billion. Last year the trading deficit was $14.3 billion. Australia has been trading in deficit since 1981-82. Even during the world trade recession in 1982-83 and 1983-84 the trade deficit was in the area of $6 billion and $7 billion respectively, which is considerably lower than our present circumstances. The Treasurer has admitted that the magnitude of our trading problem is that we still have a long way to go. If Australia is to sell more overseas we must ensure our goods are competitively priced. The Treasurer stated: In particular, we must make sure labour costs in Australia are competitive with those of our trading partners. Does the Treasurer propose measures to ensure that labour costs are competitive? Of course not. What he does foreshadow is a review of the business sector over the next year. This Budget does nothing to help the private sector and stimulate investment by reducing company tax. He is assuming the unions will support wage restraint; he is assuming inflation will not rise; he is assuming interest rates will not increase; and he is assuming there will be something of a revolution in the work place to improve productivity. This is the second biggest spending and highest taxing Budget since the Second World War. The Treasurer has relied on revenue increases rather than spending restraint. By failing to cut Government spending, Australia's debt spiral will continue, and we will indeed be heading down Senator Walsh's Argentinean road. The Budget shows an increase of 8.2 per cent in revenue. The ratio of tax to gross domestic product is up, despite the promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the contrary. The percentage of personal to total tax has risen to 57.8 per cent which takes Australia from twelfth to seventh on the list of countries with the highest personal tax. Individual tax is now at an historically high level. In the early 1950s a person needed to earn 15 times average weekly earnings to reach the top tax scale. Twenty years later it had fallen to five times average weekly earnings. Today it is around 1 1/2 times earnings as inflation pushes more and more wage earners into higher tax brackets. In the current year pay as you earn tax receipts will rise by nearly $2 billion. Next year it could rise as high as $5 billion, for the simple reason that over 1986-87 and 1987-88 more than one million taxpayers will move into the 40c tax bracket, and a further half a million will move into the 49c in the dollar bracket. This bracket creep which fills the Government coffers will, no doubt, allow for further tax cuts before the next election, at a time when it is most electorally expedient. When the Hawke Government came to office in 1983, an average wage earner with a wife and child living in suburban Australia-in Belmont in Geelong, in Newcastle in New South Wales or Eltham in Melbourne-brought home $338 per week. He was taxed at the marginal rate of 30 per cent and paid $58, or 17 per cent of his weekly wage in tax. In 1987, the same taxpayer earned $445 per week. His tax increased to $91, or just over 20 per cent of his wages. In just four years of Hawke-keep, a clerk, handyman, labourer or shop assistant has seen his average weekly earnings increase by 31 per cent, but the increase in his tax has risen by 56 per cent. Tax increases have outstripped wage increases by almost 25 per cent. Is it any wonder that middle Australia sees little point in working longer and harder hours when it is the Government, not the individual wage earner, who reaps the benefit? This Budget has done nothing to stimulate and encourage business investment. It is true that there is the promise of a review of the structure of the business taxation system, but that seems more ominous than encouraging. Unless the review advocates positive incentives for business investment and encouragement for the creators of wealth, the economy will at best stagnate, at worst suffer a sharp decline. Business leaders will follow the example of John Elliott's Elders-IXL and move off-shore to centres more conducive to higher productivity, flexibility and profitability. More and punitive taxes will restrict business investment, prune productivity and curb competitiveness. With a corporate tax rate of 49c in the dollar what hope have we of being more competitive when our major trading partners have a corporate rate of 35c or less? The family package, the Treasurer's Christmas present to low income earners, will do nothing to encourage the recipients to help themselves. A tax free payment of $87 per week to a family with two children, earning $324 a week and renting privately will encourage the welfare mentality. It removes incentive for the family to seek further earnings. Already 28.9 per cent of our Federal Budget is spent on social security and welfare. We cannot continue to bleed those contributors of wealth to support the consumers of wealth who neither make, nor are expected to make, any contribution. As a rule of thumb we can see from these figures about a third of the Budget is spent on social security and welfare. The theoretical view of the Hawke socialist Government that the state will care for everyone who does not want to care for himself, breeds a handout mentality. It is possible in this country for a person to be born, educated and supported throughout his life by the social welfare system. Middle Australia cannot be expected to keep on supporting these wealth consumers and non-contributors. Senator Walsh has nominated 200 government projects in the social welfare area which he believes should be cut. Yet in Senator Walsh's own words, the Government lacked the political courage to curb welfare spending. It has, in fact, expanded welfare handouts to those it considers in, or near, poverty. Just as the Treasurer assumes his Budget outlook is correct, let me foreshadow two of the things which could go wrong. Wage restraint will not last. Factional alliances will crumble; indeed they have already crumbled, as we see in the reports of the meeting in the Government party room only yesterday. The employer paid fringe benefits tax has reaped much more than the Government expected in 1986-87. The Government estimated it at $325m. It proved to be a bonanza that brought in $535m, and estimates for this year are $750m from that tax. The fringe benefits tax has certainly raised government revenue but at a great cost in overheads to the private sector, particularly to small business. The Budget Papers estimate revenue gains from capital gains tax to be in the order of $50m to $100m. This is a far cry from the National Taxation Summit estimates of the Treasurer of $25m. The unintended consequences of capital gains tax have yet to be understood by accountants, lawyers, small businessmen and investors. The coalition is totally opposed to a capital gains tax. The Budget brings into question Australia's ability to remain self-sufficient in crude oil production beyond the next decade. Reserves in the Bass Strait fields are already two-thirds depleted and current estimates point to production running low by 1997. This poses a grave problem in the very near future. We cannot allow wells to run low before obtaining sufficient supplies to satisfy consumption. Currently revenue earned from crude oil excise exceeds $2 billion. Not only would that revenue be lost to the Government, but also the import of crude oil would present Australia with crippling balance of payments problems. Current Bass Strait production is around 450,000 barrels a day. The Government cannot be accused of encouraging the oil industry to further exploration. The introduction of the resource rent tax has been a positive disincentive for further investment. In 1983 exploration began to fall back due to the fall in world oil prices and the lack of incentives. At one period during 1986, 38 of the 45 drilling rigs in Australia were idle. Currently about 20 out of 40 are in use and five are being sold or moved overseas. According to the Budget Papers, in five years production is estimated to fall to 250,000 barrels a day. This means that in five years, unless other reserves both on and off shore are brought on line, we will need to import around 300,000 barrels a day. This would add about $3 billion to our foreign trade debt. Not only would $1 billion in revenue be lost but our balance of payments would bear the further burden of a $3 billion per annum debt. What will happen if oil prices rise to, say, $40 a barrel? Argentina-here we come! Senator Walsh is the only Government economic spokesman to give any indication of the true state of our economy and to expose the sham of the Treasurer's so-called balanced Budget. Like the Opposition, he has no wish to be chased down the `Argentinean road' by International Monetary Fund creditors. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(5.40) —The Appropriation Bills constitute Australia's first balanced Budget in more than a decade. This remarkable Budget has vindicated the decision of the Australian people who on 11 July returned the Hawke Government for a third term, with an increased majority. They opted for a continuation of the sound stable growth that the Australian Labor Party has delivered since 1983, and has again delivered in this Budget. The people of Australia strongly repudiated the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia with their discredited and ill-conceived tax policy. The Opposition's economic policy is now only a wreckage, a ruin of its own creation. The deficit forecast for 1987-88 of a mere $27m stands as an important milestone in Australia's economic recovery. By bringing into the tax system those who had previously shirked their responsibilities and by targeting increased government assistance towards those in need, this Government has, in a domestic sense, balanced the books. In 4 1/2 years it has erased the stain on our national ledgers left by the Fraser-Howard team with its shameful projected deficit of $10 billion. This Budget, perhaps more than any other in recent memory, has been resoundingly endorsed by the financial markets and the business community. Home buyers have also heralded the resulting drop in home interest rates. Across Australia leading economic experts have commended the Government-save, of course, for our new resident swami, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). Out there in the electorate the good news about the Government's new family assistance package is spreading, giving a welcome and much needed boost to hundreds of thousands of families. This Budget does much more than square the domestic ledgers. The $500m family assistance package will mean real increases in the standard of living for more than a million children. By Christmas, this Government will have more than doubled income support levels for children-a practical demonstration of Labor's commitment to social reform. The family allowance supplement is a major step towards the elimination of child poverty. This Budget, within a sound and responsible economic framework, brought in the largest increase ever made to child payments. The thousands of families in my electorate-in Chelsea and Mordialloc, to name just two areas-who will benefit from this package need no reminding. The starkness of the choice offered to them on 11 July could not be better demonstrated than by the following example: a family earning about $320 a week, with three children and renting privately, as many are in my electorate, will receive an additional $81 a week free of tax under the recently announced family supplement package. The best that the Liberal Party could offer those families, with its `grab bag for the rich' policies, was a paltry $20.46. The Government's family assistance package, however, goes further and sets benchmarks which will see child payments linked to an indexed pension, so that their real value will be maintained. The extra cost of older children and the costs facing families renting privately have been recognised. The family allowance supplement will be paid at a rate of $22 a week for each eligible child under 13 and $28 a week for each child between 13 and 15, after which most students will go on to Austudy. It is interesting to note also that families with a combined income of up to $600 a week can be eligible for assistance. I urge all families who believe that they may be eligible to contact the Social Security office in their local area in the near future to ascertain their eligibility. All present pensioners and beneficiaries and families receiving the family income supplement will automatically go on to this new family allowance supplement, but all other families who are not in that system but who may be eligible should receive advice as to their eligibility. As I have said, families earning up to $600 a week may be eligible for some assistance under the Government's family assistance package. In short, the family package provided for in this Budget takes direct action to help wage and salary earners and their families. The scale of assistance provided to families on lower and middle incomes is probably best stated by the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Bill Kelty, when he recently said: . . . left to our own bargaining capacity it would take at least 50 to 60 years to increase the real wage rates of the lowest wage earners (to rates) represented in the family package. This Budget provides for a new and dynamic direction in education and training in Australia. Since 1983, this Government has substantially increased funding and programs and places in secondary and tertiary education. It has significantly improved the quality and accessibility of the education system. It will have dramatically increased the retention rate of students in year 12 from a dismal 36 per cent, or about half that of our major Western allies, to over 50 per cent by the end of 1987. That magnificent increase is a remarkable and proud achievement of the Hawke Government which was not missed in the recent election by the people. The projected retention rate of 65 per cent by 1990-by the end of this Parliament-will be another step down the road to a better education for our children. The `Skills Formation in Australia' paper, incorporated as an integral part of this Budget, and the statement yesterday in the House by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) seek to build on these achievements in education and to ensure that education and training mechanisms are properly tuned to the needs of Australia's economic recovery. Significantly, this important Budget initiative will see the restructuring of technical and further education funding to reflect our national priorities and skill formation objectives and to encourage greater industry participation. It will fund an extra 4,000 higher education places and increase by 12,000 the number of young people eligible for Austudy payments. It will introduce a new skills training program in conjunction with industry. It will substantially increase the number of trainees under the Australian traineeship system. It will expand the adult training program to assist an estimated 13,000 adults this year. This move will further employment, education and training initiatives under the Aboriginal employment development policy. There will be a significant 12.3 per cent boost in funding for apprenticeship programs. I am particularly pleased that the Government has continued support for community based support programs for young people and will move towards a single program to maximise assistance to the most disadvantaged. I can testify to the valuable contribution made by the Community Youth Support Scheme (CYSS) projects in our community. The Mentone CYSS and BAYCYSS in Chelsea in my electorate of Isaacs would have to be among the best run programs in Victoria. This Government has demonstrated, right from the start of its historic third term, that it is meeting the challenges that Australia faces. With this Budget and the `Skills Formation in Australia' strategy, we will see an increase in the level of participation, quality and flexibility and the responsiveness of our education and training system. The new Department of Employment, Education and Training, in partnership with industry, will provide Australia with rational, co-ordinated and relevant education and training programs-the sort of innovative policy so glaringly absent from the Opposition's Budget response. In the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is a projection of another tremendous growth in employment. By the end of next year one million jobs will have been created since this Government won office in 1983. There will have been the creation of a tremendous growth in employment with one million jobs being created in 5 1/2 years. This is in contrast to the loss of a quarter of a million jobs in the last 12 months alone of the previous Fraser Government. That growth has exceeded all expectations. Indeed, I believe it is unsurpassed anywhere in the Western world: we have seen economic growth and economic upturn, but we have not seen them combined with a tremendous upturn in employment, as we have seen in Australia under the Hawke Government. I should like to touch on just a few of the social security matters we have introduced and given notice of introducing. One that I am particularly close to is the child disability allowance. It will be introduced from 15 November to replace the existing handicapped child's allowance, which is paid under two categories-for the severely disabled it is income test free; and for the substantially disabled it is subject to a financial hardship test. The child disability allowance will make no distinction between severely and substantially disabled children. It will be paid income test free to all disabled children covered under the current categories of handicapped child's allowance. Child disability allowance will be $112 a month, which is an increase of $20 over the present allowance. As I said, that will be introduced from 15 November. Previous speakers have spoken of the earnings credits being introduced for pensioners. A pensioner who gets a job, say, as a Father Christmas, may earn $250 a week for four weeks and maintain his full pension right across the 52 weeks of the year because he is able to earn the $1,000 maximum earning credit which can be proportioned over the entire 12 months. We have seen flexibility in pensioner fringe benefits levels whereby someone can earn up to 25 per cent more than the allowable fringe benefit level for three months before losing the fringe benefits. That flexibility in the system should be applauded by everyone. We should also remember that this Government brought in the indexation of fringe benefit levels. Under the previous Fraser Government tens of thousands of pensioners lost their fringe benefits because of the failure to index fringe benefit levels. Under the present arrangements pensioners are protected from loss of fringe benefits because of that indexation. I remind pensioners that the levels are now $75 for a single person and $126 for a couple. I go back to taxation. During this debate and over the last 4 1/2 years of this Government we have heard the doomsday people. When this Government brought in the taxation reform package, which we have implemented slowly but surely over the last couple of years, we heard screams that this would not work, that business would go downhill and that people would be bankrupted. There were all sorts of cries about draconian measures. Yet the stock-market boom is continuing, property values are starting to sky-rocket, business is moving ahead very quickly and the entire economy is booming. At the same time the taxation policies of this Government have been very successful. To name just two areas, in the past 12 months the fringe benefits tax, which was going to ruin everybody, has brought in for the Government $535m; and the prescribed payments system, a new system that was gong to cause all sorts of people in the building industry, for example, rack and ruin, has brought in $765m. That is a total of $1.3 billion. We do not see too many builders going out of business. Business is still booming but the Government has been very successful in making people across the entire spectrum of our society pay their fair share of tax. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), talked about the capital gains tax. It is projected to earn this year between $50m and $100m for the Government. Again, people were screaming about that but it has not stopped people investing. It has not stopped business and the share market from booming and it has not stopped the economy from growing. All we are seeing is a fair share of taxation being paid by people across the board. The new initiatives for families and young people provided for in this Budget are tremendous. These vital new programs have been funded without increasing the deficit because this Government has had the will to restore fairness and equity to the taxation system. As I said, the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the crack down on tax avoidance have ensured that all Australians pay their fair share of tax. This broadening of the revenue base has enabled the Government to provide tax cuts for wage and salary earners and to pay for vital new policy measures for families and young people. The alternative Budget outcome reflects the stark choice the Australian people faced in July. The Australian Labor Party, led by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in the tradition in which it has governed since 1983, offered responsible tax cuts and programs paid for through tax reform and steady economic growth. The result: significant new programs and the deficit now a negligible $27m. In contrast is an inevitable $6 billion deficit which would have flowed from the irresponsible taxation policy of the Opposition. Its alternative would have been `optional taxation for the wealthy' and its massive `tax cut now-pay later' policy would have produced a deficit blowout second only to the shameful legacy of the Fraser-Howard years. Alternatively, of course, the Opposition would have had to have massive cuts in programs and services, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is now suggesting. He, of course, is not telling anyone what those massive cuts would be, as he did not throughout the Federal election campaign. If he were to balance the books, the cuts would be in the vicinity of $6 billion. What would those cuts be? It is anybody's guess. All Opposition members call for more money for various things, including the Opposition spokesman for defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who is sitting at the table. They would not be getting it if about $6 billion were to be taken out of the economy. This Budget virtually erases the $10 billion legacy inherited by this Government. It has confirmed the correctness of the Government's economic direction and paved the way for continued progress towards economic recovery. I congratulate the Government on this Budget. The new initiatives for families and young people are well targeted and will give many hundreds of families in my electorate a fair go. Honourable members opposite who are now so piously sounding off with their fresh demands for program cuts and reductions should direct their energies to getting their own house in order. In their case they have to start with the stumps. Only when they can rid themselves of the intellectual baggage of the New Right and jettison the discredited Howard tax policy can they credibly respond to a Budget such as this. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have seen a responsible government bring in a responsible Budget for the future of Australia. I congratulate the Government and commend the Bill to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(6.00) —I see I am speaking not to a large audience, but a very distinguished one, including the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) who had some words to say last week on the ANZUS alliance and the importance of divorcing the joint bases in Australia from any trade negotiations-a point of view with which I thoroughly agree. It is an absolute disgrace that the matter was ever raised in the first place. I note that when it was, it was fairly quickly hosed down because the people who had raised it realised the import of what they were saying. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) is also in the audience. He had a few words to say this morning on factions in the Australian Labor Party-again a point of view with which I thoroughly agree. I thought he spoke very well; he very articulately indicated the position in the Australian Labor Party and spoke of the great brawl that took place in the Caucus room a day or so ago. So it is a distinguished audience. Mr Ian Robinson —Don't forget the rest of us, although there are not a lot here. Mr WHITE —I am getting support from behind, as well. I welcome the opportunity to continue the remarks that I commenced last night on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88. Last night I was talking in particular about the defence service home loans scheme, which the Government threatened in the Budget. That was causing a great deal of unrest in service establishments throughout Australia, and also amongst the veteran community. Since then the Government has backed down and has agreed not to pursue the proposal as outlined in the Budget Papers. I have no doubt that the powerful speech that I made on the subject last night had something to do with that. What is of interest, of course, is that the Government clearly said in the Budget Papers that the loans system would change. I quote the Budget Papers: Persons currently waiting for a DSH loan will have the option of accepting the cash grant instead of a loan. New applicants after 15 September 1987 will be offered the cash grant only. It is clearly written, in black and white, in the Budget Papers. The intention of the Government was clear: as of last Tuesday, it was going to change the system. Then the pressure started to mount. The honourable member for Herbert would be only too well aware, coming from Townsville where Lavarack Barracks is situated, of the pressures that were mounting all around Australia, and no doubt in Lavarack Barracks as well. In the end, good sense dictated that changes should be made, and the Government backed down. I am pleased to see that changes were made. I do not want to harp on it, but I note with some amusement the way the Government now says that the proposals-which I have just read out from the Budget Papers; the Government was going to change it as from 15 September to cash grants only-have been changed. A joint Press release from the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) says: In the Budget the Government put forward a proposal for discussion with the RSL and other interested bodies. There is no mention of discussion. The proposal was clear-cash grants after 15 September. The Press release goes on: These discussions are now underway and in order to allow them to proceed at the least inconvenience to potential applicants- they did not mind inconveniencing them a week ago; it is a bit different now- it has been decided to offer the option of either the present loan or the new grant arrangements to applicants who lodge their applications before 1 January 1988. That is good. I very much hope that after 1 January we see a sensible scheme in place. I can assure the Government that there will be a flood of applications now because people will be very concerned that the changes proposed in the Budget Papers a week ago will come into effect after 1 January, and servicemen will be particularly disadvantaged. I hope that the Government will now set about putting a proper scheme in place. If it is determined to make changes, it should carry out its promise of two years ago to privatise the scheme. It should make an option available: either the loan or a cash grant at a reasonable figure-not $10,000, which bears no relationship to the value of the $25,000 loan. It should make sure that the waiting times for applications are brought down, and it should increase the value of the loan or the grant so that it is meaningful to a person buying a house today. After 20, 30 or more years of service $25,000 does not go far for a serviceman establishing himself in his own home when he has been moving around the country all those years. I am pleased to see these changes and I hope the Government takes note of the sensitivity of this scheme to service men and women in the Australian Defence Force. The worst thing about the scheme is that it indicates the Government's approach to service men and women in Australia. Despite promises from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the previous Minister for Veterans' Affairs over the last few years that no one would be disadvantaged if there were any changes and that everyone would be consulted, in the end no one was consulted-not the service chiefs, the Returned Services League or any other interested body. It is the degree of discourtesy and lack of concern shown by the Government towards service personnel in Australia that is causing the current problems. The service men and women out there are saying to themselves, as well as to me and anyone who cares to listen, that the Government does not given a damn that their conditions of service are gradually being eroded day after day. If honourable members want a good example, take the case of the defence service homes fiasco, which hopefully has now to some extent been straightened out. I turn to the Budget, Appropriation Bill (No. 1). The defence budget for the year 1987-88 totals $7,404m. It is interesting to note that last year the Government proposed spending $7,415m on defence; in fact, it spent some $200m less. It is interesting to note that despite all the hype about funding in the Defence White Paper, the proposal in this year's Budget is actually $11m less than the Government proposed to spend last year. The Government says it is minus one per cent, by means of clever, creative accounting. The fact is it is spending $11m less than it proposed to spend last year, and if we take inflation into account by any sensible arithmetic that must mean a real negative growth of something between 6 and 7 per cent if the Government's inflation predictions are correct. It has serious implications for the White Paper, with which the Opposition generally agrees, because the original report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities and then the White Paper were predicated on a real increase of something like 4 per cent a year. Then it came down, it could be done on 3 per cent a year; last year it was zero growth and in 1987-88 it is minus one per cent. That is a very generous figure; I think it is nearer to minus 6 or 7 per cent. So it is with a degree of scepticism that I and many others who are interested in defence greet the remarks of the Minister for Defence when he says that the White Paper is on track. The White Paper clearly is not on track. There are considerable changes to the proposals that originally came forward, and it will be with great difficulty that the Minister will keep it on track. I hope he can, because the general thrust of the White Paper is good. One of the biggest problems with the funding of the defence vote in Australia is the imbalance between capital expenditure on defence and expenditure on improving or maintaining conditions of service. The biggest single problem we have in the defence field in this country is the enormous wastage rate in the Services. The Government says it is concerned but I have yet to see it express that concern in practical terms. The Budget contained nothing that would alleviate the deteriorating conditions of service. The biggest problem that the Services have is this wastage. The conditions of service which are causing it have been shuffled off by the Minister for Defence. If we talk to service chiefs, any senior officer, any non-commissioned officer, (NCO) or private soldier in the Army, the Royal Australian Navy, or the Royal Australian Air Force, they will say that things are crook and that conditions of service are deteriorating. What does the Minister do? He shoves the biggest single problem he has off to the new Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) and says, `Listen, this is a bit tough for me. You had better look after it'. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel is a very pleasant woman and I have no doubt that she will be an able Minister-- Mr Tim Fischer —She is preoccupied with the Canberra Raiders at the moment. Mr WHITE —The honourable member is quite right. She has a fairly parochial view for maintaining her seat in Canberra, but with the best will in the world she does not understand what is happening in the Services. Why would the Minister for Defence hand over the most difficult problem he has to the most inexperienced member in the House? The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, who is confronted with this problem, says, `We will fix this. What I will do is hire an adviser who will point me in the right direction'-to use her words. So she goes around and finds Mrs Mayer, the former Labor member for Chisholm, who was defeated at the last election and she sets up Mrs Mayer with an office and staff in Melbourne, which is reported to have cost a total of half a million dollars, and she says, `Mrs Mayer will fix the biggest problem we have in the defence forces. We will give her the problem. She can do another survey and another investigation'. It is no wonder that there are great guffaws amongst defence personnel if that is the way the Government is going to tackle their conditions of service. I wish to spend a few minutes on the question of why people are leaving the Services. In a general sense, they feel that the Government has neglected them; that it has not paid sufficient attention to their conditions of service; and that they have become second class citizens. Largely, I agree with those general attitudes. Of course, there is the old question of posting turbulence, which is a management problem rather than a political problem. The Services are doing their very best to overcome this problem but it cannot be overcome completely if ambitious and experienced officers and NCOs are working their way to the top. They have to have a range of experience and that means that they have to move around. But when they move around one of the important things for them is to get a reasonable education for their children, particularly in the competitive world that we are in in 1987. There are 70,000 uniformed men and women in the Services. How many do honourable members think would be a reasonable number who should get some education allowance for their children to remain at school when they are posted off? Of course, not all of them are married but the base figure is 70,000. Honourable members might think that some hundreds of people would get this allowance. In fact, the number of people who are serving in Australia and who are getting some form of educational allowance for their children to stay at school is 59 out of 70,000. It is no wonder that they are finding it difficult to maintain a home and to educate their children if that is the sort of approach that the Government takes to an education allowance. It is not that the allowance is so bad; the problem is that people cannot get it because of the maze of regulations and restrictions that surround it. On the question of pay, let me deal briefly with why people are leaving the Services. Until recently the Remuneration Tribunal was left in the Department of Defence where it should never have been. I think it is on the move, or it has moved out and that is a good thing. While the Remuneration Tribunal was in the Department of Defence all the resources of the Department of Defence were used to support the Government's case in opposing the Services. It was a nonsense and it was recognised as a nonsense and the Government has at last decided to move it out. One of the problems we saw in the last service allowance case a few weeks ago was that $700 was given when people were expecting between $2,000 and $3,000 and that became a joke in the Services. People are saying, `If that is what the Government thinks of us, we are off'. This has given rise to other anomalies. In some cases, because of that service allowance and the Government's failure to adjust some of the pay for lieutenant colonels and above, or their equivalent, majors are sometimes earning more than their lieutenant colonels who are superior officers. I instance a ridiculous case in an infantry battalion which I visited recently where the second in command, who has extensive responsibilities but not as many as his commanding officer, is taking home more pay than his commanding officer. How can the Government allow those anomalies to continue and still say-as the Minister for Defence says frequently, `We are concerned about the wastage and about the conditions of service'. It is a nonsense. Flying pay has not yet been addressed by the Tribunal. When we are talking about manpower, if there is one area of the forces where there is a big, black, gaping hole which is getting worse day by day, it is in trying to find pilots to man our operational squadrons in the Air Force or to man the flying instructor positions where people are supposed to be training all the new pilots who are required to replace those who are going. It is an enormous and worrying problem for all of us. About two-thirds of the flying instructors, who should be in establishment positions training pilots, are missing. Only one-third of the flying instructors are there trying to train the pilots who are required because of the massive resignation rate. I turn now to the question of housing. About 22,000 houses are owned or controlled by the Defence Force. On the admission of the Defence Force, 12,000 of those houses-over half of them-are below its own scales and standards. The Government has been saying for some time, `We will fix this'. It is not just this Government that has caused the problem; it has been caused by a succession of neglectful governments over the years. This Government is going to spend $75m fixing service housing. The service men and women say, `Good. At last something is being done'. But when we look at the figures we find that over half that amount will be spent on new base housing at Tindal, and in Rockingham in Western Australia. Certainly it is going on housing, but when the Government talks about spending $75m on improving housing, people expect that some of that $12,000 will be spent on improving the houses they are living in. But half of that $75m is going on new bases. I say to the Government that it should not use that sleight of hand trick. It is not spending $75m in upgrading existing housing; it is spending less than that. I turn now to the Hamilton report. A few cosmetic changes have been made. I see that Senator Newman is in the gallery and I welcome her presence because I think she knows better than anyone just how superficial the Government's approach has been to the Hamilton report. The Government keeps saying, `We will implement the Hamilton report'. The Government announced in this House that another 40 people or so would be appointed. The Hamilton report is old and almost dead and people have given up hope that any part of it will be implemented. Establishment loans for people leaving the Services have been withdrawn. We have a 2 per cent reduction in Defence Force retirement and death benefits pensions. A recent survey shows that the long hours that service men and women are expected to work are calculated at between 52 and 55 hours and it is likely to get worse because the Government has now lopped nearly 1,000 uniformed positions off the Defence Force units in this country. The Government will expect the same sorts of returns from less people, so the people who are there will have to work much harder. I am trying to point out the problems that exist. If the Government does not address them this problem of the wastage of manpower will get much worse. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(6.20) —In making my contribution this evening to the Budget debate I will not dwell at any great length on the Budget in its macro sense, but I do wish to make certain comments on and speak about certain areas of the Budget that affect all Australians, particularly Australians in the northern part of our continent. This, the fifth Budget of the Hawke Government, in conjunction with the May economic statement, is a Budget for the benefit of all Australians. It is a Budget that has been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of Australians. I refer to the editorial of the Australian of 16 September 1987, the day after the Budget was announced: By balancing the Budget, the Government has thrown down the gauntlet to the private sector and the States. It has done all that could be reasonably expected of it. The pressing economic problems facing Australia-a chronic current account deficit on the balance of payments and declining business investment-can only be resolved by the private sector. For the first time in more than 50 years a Government will be paying back some of the public sector's overseas debt. The cut in spending in real terms is the largest in 35 years. Moreover, the Government has insulated low-income earners and the deserving from the brunt of its spending cuts. It has been faithful to its traditional supporters and is entitled to expect restraint from the unions in second-tier wage negotiations. That was part of the editorial of the Australian of 16 September. But it was not the only editorial or the only favourable comment that was accorded the fifth Hawke Government Budget, not only by members of the media but also by those in the private sector and financial analysts and experts throughout the country. In far north Queensland many areas have been directly affected by the 1987-88 Budget. None is more important than the large rural sector in far north Queensland. I refer first to the sugar industry, an industry that over the last few years-in fact, during the time that the Australia Labor Party has been in government-has suffered as a result of flagging overseas international prices for its product and other factors, including economic and weather factors. The Sugar Mill Adjustment Committee (SMAC), which is involved in mill rationalisation within the sugar industry, has recently made recommendations to both the State and Federal governments for additional financial assistance for the Babinda and Mourilyan sugar mills in far north Queensland. In recent times a mill in that area, namely, the Goondi sugar mill, was purchased and closed down, and the sugar cane that was formerly crushed by that mill is now being crushed by both the Mourilyan and Babinda mills. It is a rationalisation that will be a success in the long term. But the industry has had its difficulties in that region. It has only been the far-sighted efforts of the Federal Government, and particularly of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), that have made this rationalisation a reality. The money was supplied on a two to one basis by the Federal and State governments. I am very pleased to note that SMAC, in its most recent recommendations to the Government, has indicated that additional funding should be made available to the Babinda and Mourilyan mills. There is, of course, one area in which I believe the State Government has failed in its efforts to assist the mills-that is, State government stamp duties and other incidentals and costs involved in this mill rationalisation have not been written off. Almost one-third of a million dollars is being sought by the State Government. Its only answer to the sugar industry in that part of Queensland is that the Queensland Government would be kind enough to give them a loan; therefore, further interest would be incurred as far as the repayments of that money are concerned. I believe the State Government could play a fair and equitable role by writing off such incidental costs. The 1987-88 Federal Budget demonstrates, I believe, the Government's commitment to non-metropolitan Australians and the development of their industries, such as the sugar industry. In particular, the Government's economic strategy, directed at improving industry competitiveness and so laying the basis for a return to growth in living standards, will be welcomed by all of those associated with the primary production sector. Highlights of the Budget which affect this portfolio are a new national afforestation program, costing $15m nationwide in the first three years of its implementation, and outlays of up to $8m to help retrenched coal miners find new employment. I turn to the national afforestation program. As I have indicated, $15m has been allocated for its implementation over the next three years. The program will commence in this financial year with an allocation of $2.5m. The objective of the program will be to stimulate a sustained increase in the level of investment by States, individual landholders and industrial forestry companies in the development of hardwood-I emphasise `hardwood'-plantations and in the rehabilitation of degraded land through reafforestation. Everyone will be aware that through the neglect of a number of State governments timber resources have dwindled to an almost negligible proportion. Once again through the shortsightedness of a number of State governments, there has been no reafforestation as far as hardwood plantations are concerned, more concentration having been directed towards the area of softwood plantations. The Government's commitment to establish a broad acre afforestation program with emphasis on native hardwoods was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his rural policy speech during the election campaign. The program will complement the objectives of the national soil conservation program, the national tree program and the national rainforest conservation program which, although effective individually, do not meet the need for large-scale afforestation. Details of the national afforestation program are being resolved with the States. It is necessary that they, as well as industry, play a role in this program. It is expected to include three components: broad acre plantations, land rehabilitation, and research and development. I now make specific reference in the primary industry field to the Federal water resources assistance program. Queensland has received almost 60 per cent of the funds allocated for this program in the 1987-88 Budget. Of the $66m allocated for the Federal water resources assistance program, $34.5m will be made available to Queensland. Very importantly-I note that the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) is in the chamber-$29m will be made available for the Burdekin Dam program. Mr Lindsay —The Hawke Burdekin Dam. Mr GAYLER —I am not sure whether it should be called the Hawke Burdekin Dam. I have heard it referred to in north Queensland as the Lindsay Dam. It is important that that program continue. It is also important that $4m has been made available for the Bundaberg irrigation scheme. The country towns water supply improvement program (COWSIP), which plays a very important role in the more remote areas of Australia, will receive an injection of $1.14m. During 1986-87 a similar amount was made available for COWSIP in Queensland and included just over $1m for the Karumba water supply and some $113,000 for the Cooktown water supply. Those were important programs. Because of the growth in the areas their existing water supplies had become insufficient and the upgrading was a total necessity. In fact, Karumba did not have a reticulated water supply. Despite a number of promises made by the then Minister responsible for water supplies in Queensland, Mr Hinze, on his number of visits to the area, nothing was done until Federal Government funding was made available as a result of a 1983 election campaign promise by the then Leader of the Opposition, Bob Hawke. The Government has allocated $6m to the national soil conservation program for the financial year 1987-88, an increase of 9 per cent over 1986-87 expenditure. Of that allocation, $4.8m will be provided for projects by State government soil conservation agencies and $1.2m for projects by other organisations that can contribute by way of research, demonstration, community involvement or publicity. The national soil conservation program was established in 1983-84 to stimulate national efforts to control land degradation. The 1987-88 allocation brings the total expenditure under the program to some $21.15m. Some 150 projects are being funded throughout Australia to control one of the most important, if not the most important, long term problems for agriculture and the environment. I now turn to rural industry research funding, which is very important to people in northern Australia. The allocation for rural industry research has been increased from $42.1m in the financial year 1986-87 to $48.9m in the financial year 1987-88. Commonwealth policy is to support matching funding, dollar for dollar, with industry contributions up to 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production of the industry-for example, one per cent for fisheries. The increased allocation reflects increased research activity and funding by industry. I welcome the Commonwealth Government's decision to establish a Sugar Industry Research Council. The Government will provide $52,000 from the 1987-88 Budget for the Council's first year of operation. The Research Council, which will be established under the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, will monitor and evaluate the research requirements of the sugar industry and will determine the allocation of funds to research projects beneficial to the industry. It is interesting to note that, until this year, all research within the sugar industry was funded by the industry itself. I also welcome the Government's decision to allocate $42m to the rural adjustment scheme. That compares very favourably with the expenditure of $34m in 1986-87. Having regard to the parlous economic state of some of our primary industries, it has been welcomed by the primary industry sector. I refer briefly to the programs that have been funded in the 1987-88 Budget for pensioners and the family. This Government has an unchallenged record in those areas of welfare. Sixty-five per cent of the social security budget is paid to pensioners-aged, invalid or widowed. The May statement and this Budget reinforce this Government's commitment to protecting indexation for pensioners and to help beat poverty traps by giving pensioners room to increase their income. There will be a relaxing of the fringe benefits income test. If income does not drop below the 125 per cent level within the three-month period, eligibility will cease. These levels have been carefully considered by the Government and, as such, encourage those who are still able to partake in the work force. In the election campaign the Government promised another step forward in the improvement of the social wage-the new family allowance supplement. The Prime Minister has said that, by 1990, no Australian child need live in poverty. In December 1987 the Hawke Labor Government will introduce a family package which promises real increases in the standard of living of more than half a million families with more than a million children. In the last 10 years the number of children Australia's poorest families has more than doubled. Today more than one in five children-more than 800,000 of them-in families have to depend on income support from the Government. Most of them are in families which have suffered from the impact of unemployment, around 220,000 children, or marriage breakdown, around 440,000 children. The Budget provides major assistance to Australian families, especially those on low incomes. A new integrated approach to providing family assistance payments is being introduced. In December of this year the benefits will start to flow to those needy families. As a result of the May economic statement, supplemented now by the 1987-88 Budget-the fifth Hawke Government Budget-it is impossible not to commend without any equivocation the Bill to the House. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(6.39) —The Budget may seem attractive at first glance, but it has really turned out to be of limited real strategy. It is not an effective cure for the long ailing economy of this country. The deficit is to be reduced by selling off public assets-selling off part of the farm or, to put it in another context, selling part of the shelf stock. This has never worked in any effective economic situation and it will not work in the long term for this Government. It will not work because there have not been the counterbalancing decisions that needed to be taken and they are certainly not part of this Budget. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) quoted from a newspaper editorial. I am afraid that it would take more than quotes from some single editorial to effectively put forward a case in support of the Budget. His contribution, while worthy in many respects, certainly did not give any hope or heart to believe that this Budget will be successful in the present economic dilemma that confronts us. The Government's move to sell off-in many directions which have yet to emerge in reality-perhaps the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines, Telecom Australia and other bodies is turning out to be privatisation for the wrong reasons and for very dubious motives. It appears that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is desperately looking for a one-off revenue windfall from selling off these assets. He wants to use privatisation to gain sufficient revenue so that the Government can continue its big spending programs without having to face up to the difficult problems of cutting spending. But once that one-off revenue gain has been and gone, the nation's economy will be in an even greater mess than it is currently in. All that the Hawke Government is doing is delaying the evil day when it will have to face up to the fact that its economic policies are on a destructive course. Privatisation of some government owned services, properly and carefully implemented, could have a beneficial impact on our future economic development. This afternoon, we heard honourable members speak rather fiercely against privatisation, but there are many questions that have to be closely considered. For example, there is little point in privatising a government service if that action leads to a reduction in the overall service provided, especially in country areas, or to the creation of a private monopoly whose actions would continue to dominate by the power play of the unions or for other reasons. The Prime Minister, in his obviously long term plan-a headlong grab for revenue-seems to be ignoring important implications such as these. The Prime Minister and his colleagues are guilty of gross hypocrisy on this whole issue because it was only a couple of years ago that they were trying to crucify people on this side of the House in both the National and Liberal parties for promoting any form of privatisation. The national account figures for 1986-87 make it obvious that we needed a Budget to stimulate private investment. Unfortunately, this did not occur, and what we have seen in the private sector for too long is merely a process involving paper money and not genuine investment. We have seen the stock exchange move in a particular way. Much of this is merely shuffling paper from one place to another, without real investment and without consideration of what the needs of this nation are. I refer to the vital requirements that there should be investment in plant and equipment, and that manufacturing industry should be brought up to the highest point of proficiency when we have to compete in a very competitive overseas market and a competitive situation in our own market. We have too many imports because they are cheaper and because we do not have the competition in this country. There is no doubt that we are on a disaster course unless some change can be brought to bear. We needed a Budget that would stimulate the private economy and private enterprise and get us on some course of real growth, but we did not get it. The Budget suggests a 2 per cent growth rate. All the predictions in the previous several Budgets on growth rates have never been attained. If the prediction is not attained on this occasion, the consequences will be even worse than those experienced on those previous occasions. No one should be fooled by the Budget announcement that the Government will repay $1 billion of government-in other words Commonwealth-overseas debt during 1987-88. What we need to remember is that Australia's gross foreign debt currently stands at $110 billion. Despite the rather fictitious claims about the deficit when the present Government took over-referring, of course, to the internal deficit-what Government members have failed to acknowledge in the debate on the Budget thus far is that, when this Government came to office in March 1983, our gross foreign debt was only $30 billion, compared with the $110 billion that we face today. To pay off this enormous debt would be equal to a contribution by every man, woman and child in Australia of about $6,500. That is bad enough, but the real snag in all this is that the interest bill alone on our foreign debt is running at about $7 billion. It is equal to what we spend each year on health, education or defence, and that figure is far too high. We have had the flamboyant announcement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that we are beginning to reduce our foreign debt, but when the fine print of the Budget is taken into account, the claim is without foundation or proof. Likewise, the Government has been somewhat dishonest, if that is not too strong a word, in its claims about taxation. Let us take some of the real figures in this respect. In the Budget Speech, the Treasurer made much of saying that the Government was adhering to its election commitment not to increase taxes or introduce new taxes. Mr Chynoweth —It did not. Mr IAN ROBINSON —The honourable member should just listen to some of the figures which relate to this matter. The total tax revenue in 1987-88 is forecast to increase by 8.5 per cent to a massive $71.2 billion. This follows a 12.5 per cent increase for the previous year. The consequence of that is that ordinary taxpayers will pay an additional $3 billion this year; yet we have the claim made that taxation is being reduced. It is taxation by stealth that is the real issue. I refer to the indexation, particularly, of excise. Let us take the figures on excise. Five years ago beer, for example, was at 60c a litre, and that brought in $1,123m. That excise has now risen to 83.3c per litre for high alcohol content and 73.2c per litre for lower alcohol content. That pushes up the revenue for this year to $1,462m, an increase of $339m in that space of time. Mr Cunningham —Less than the CPI. Mr IAN ROBINSON —Of course. It is very easy. This Government has introduced indexation but did not say a word about it in the Budget. It does not come out and honestly say, `We are increasing excise on beer and cigarettes'. Worst of all is the increase on petrol and diesel. Five years ago, there was 7.15c per litre on that, and now it is 20.09c per litre. The Prime Minister said that the Government would try to keep it down to an increase of not more than 6 per cent, but this means another increase of at least 2.5 per cent by the beginning of next year. What has that done? It is good on the revenue side because the yield has increased from $6,816m five years ago to a massive $9,646m for the current financial year. That is an increase of $2,830m on just this one item of excise on fuel. The users, whether it be the ordinary motorist, transport operators, or the air services of this country, are being taken to the cleaners by this enormous charge, which is then passed on to the unfortunate people who have to pay for freight or fares, or to get themselves to and from work, let alone their usage of fuel for other purposes. Petroleum product excises have accumulated an increasing share of total Commonwealth revenue from taxes specifically for this purpose from a level that was perhaps reasonable a few years ago to now accounting for 70 per cent of revenue in this field of excise. That is far too high. It is intolerable and, of course, it is kept hidden as so many other things are hidden in this Budget and in the Government's attitude to taxation. The forecast was that inflation would fall. How can it fall when prices keep rising? Supermarket prices, the cost of motor vehicles, homes, furnishings and whatever keep rising. That is the real burden that is falling on the community, a burden that is getting heavier and heavier month by month and year by year and this Budget does nothing to reduce it. There are supposed to be some goodies in the Budget such as the allocation of additional funds for technical colleges, training schemes, short term vocational training for the unemployed and for the development of Aboriginal employment. These are fairly extensive allocations. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who is at the table, no doubt knows all about the allocation for the development of Aboriginal employment. That allocation is increased by $49m. Mr Hand —Do you support it? Mr IAN ROBINSON —I do support it but we do not have the details of how it will work and what will be done. This is the history of the whole matter. The Prime Minister headed that famous promotion of youth. He was on television and an enormous amount of money was spent on advertising. But then the Priority One program was withdrawn because it failed. Will we see the same thing happen again? Mr Hand —My program won't be withdrawn. Mr IAN ROBINSON —I wish the Minister good luck. We will support him if he can put forward a scheme that is practical and that will work. The consequences of this Budget for families, for the people of Australia, are really horrendous. As I said a moment ago, cost escalation is the real bugbear. Let us take just one item that was introduced in legislation in the last few months: taxation hitting the kids of this country who go into their first job having spent part of the year completing their education and job training. Perhaps they have been under the Austudy scheme or the earlier tertiary education allowance scheme. They then have to account for the income received from those schemes, add that to their income for the part of the financial year that has just ended and, for the first time, under these tax changes they are obliged to pay tax on the lot. Instead of facing the prospect of refund on their tax return-on an average wage, around $600 or $800-the very reverse will happen. The Treasurer who sits on the front bench when he is ever in the House never has time to apply himself to the simple, ordinary things that affect people at the grass roots level. This problem has been raised but there has not been an answer as to why kids are being hit with massive tax bills for the financial year ended 30 June last, in sharp contradiction to the way tax has been imposed for many years on people in their first job for part of the financial year. All of us are getting queries and inquiries in our electorate offices about this. This Government has no sympathy at all for the youngsters of this country who deserve some help when they are triers and are prepared to go out and get a job. When they get a job they are in a desperate situation if they have to face this tax bill, their first rent and first on-cost in being employed, including travel costs and so on. It is the sort of thing for which this Government is totally without sympathy and never recognises such cases when they are put to it. There seems to be a far greater interest by this Government in the corporate sector of the community. It is now going to investigate company tax. Can honourable members imagine the Government getting down to the detail of the sort of tax that is hitting the individual that I just mentioned? It will not do it-not on your life. Those opposite will not hurt their friends in the corporate sector no matter what recommendations come out of any report that is submitted, no matter how honest that report may be. That is the real history of what we have been seeing on the part of this Government for so long. Let us think what the Treasurer said about negative gearing. When he found that his facts were wrong after the advocacy of the Premier of New South Wales and many others who could see the disaster that had begun to occur, he reversed the policy. What did the Government do next? It took away the depreciation allowance on buildings. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who is at the table is nodding his head which means that he is totally in agreement with this. The consequence again is that that sector of the community that is prepared to invest, create employment and try to do something constructive for the progress of this country and to provide employment, accommodation and all that goes with it has its incentive taken away. We are told that this Government is doing a great job. The Budget is so bereft of the real things of worth that it really is a tough Budget and will turn out to be tougher as this financial year goes on. We are told about recruiting for Commonwealth departments under the new structures of the Minister for this and that-it is a bit hard to sort out which Minister is for what-and that this will save $107m in a full year and reduce staff levels by 3,100 by the end of 1988-89. But the same Budget Papers did not tell us what it was going to cost to bring in the Australia Card, the great identity card, and what the extra requirement would be to staff the service that would operate it. The detail is not there so all we can hope is that this afternoon's procedure in this House in which the truth of what is really in that legislation has been brought to light by this side of the House will mean that the Government will not get the chance to do a double flip again by saying what the reduction in Public Service numbers will be, what savings in government administration will be and yet, on the other hand, failing to really own up to what it intends to do under the provisions of the Australia Card. In this Budget we find that every section of the community is left with a degree of uncertainty, but no more uncertainty than is found in rural Australia. Despite all the dilemma of the past three years, with the serious drought problems and difficulties on the export market-which the Government says is the reason for its financial problems-there is no recognition of a worthwhile nature of that section of the community that produces the bulk of our export income. The Government has no sympathy at all for the real needs of rural Australia. I believe that we will not see this financial year end without another mini-Budget to drag this Government out of the hole that it has got itself into in so many ways. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(6.58) —As this is the first time that I have spoken in this House under your control, Mr Deputy Speaker, I add my congratulations on your elevation to the Chair-an excellent choice of this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I thank the honourable member. Mr CHYNOWETH —The honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson), the previous speaker, mentioned the farmers. There are not too many farmers in Dunkley. We have a few Collins Street farmers at Mount Eliza but we do not have many in my electorate. However, from my travels throughout the country it appears to me that farmers are going along very well under this Government. They have come from a state of just about absolute poverty under the last Howard treasurership and have been lifted up from those dire straits through the excellent work of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin). Farmers are now getting a fair return for the amount of effort they have put into their farms. I am quite certain that in the future some of our people on the land will be congratulating this Government. One has only to look at the results around Ballarat and Bendigo in Victoria where both great Labor members for those areas increased their vote. This is because the farming community is coming back to the Labor Party, their traditional Party. I am quite certain that in the future we will find more and more farmers backing-- Mr Snow —It happened in Eden-Monaro. Mr Price —And Chifley. Mr CHYNOWETH —I am informed that it happened in Eden-Monaro and Chifley. All the farming areas are coming back, once again, to their traditional representatives in this House-the Labor Party. Moving back to the Budget, the 1987-88 deficit was just about zero-$27m. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) commented that Peter McGauran could probably fix this $27m up with his Bankcard. However, I do not think that Peter-- Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member is not allowed to impugn the motives of, or reflect on the character of, another member and he is required to address another member of this place with the correct terminology, his electorate. I ask that you draw his attention to that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There is no point of order on the first issue. On the second issue, the honourable member should be aware that he should refer to Ministers, members and office holders by their title. Mr CHYNOWETH —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Hand —The honourable member for Gippsland. Mr CHYNOWETH —Yes, the honourable member for Gippsland. I have been down to Gippsland and I have seen the property of which the honourable member for Gippsland is, I think, a part owner. It is a magnificent area. Mr Hand —He owns most of Gippsland, actually. Mr CHYNOWETH —I did not think he owned the lot of it. However, the deficit is only $27m. One has to look at this in the light that just a few short years ago the Opposition, when in government, had a Budget deficit of just on $10,000m-a huge deficit. In this short period, under very adverse economic conditions, we have turned this around. This is an excellent result. It has been done at a time when we have also increased the number of jobs that are available. We have increased funding to a huge range of areas which, for many years under conservative governments, were neglected. This Budget incorporates a 2.4 per cent real reduction in Commonwealth spending. The areas in which we have cut the spending have hurt some of our traditional Labor people-not too many-in some areas where people were getting away with abuse of Commonwealth funding. We have tightened up all the way round. We have tightened up in the social security area. This has been important and has saved many hundreds of millions of dollars. For years the general public were telling us that there were too many people cheating on the system. This Government has tightened all that up. We have made certain that the tax dollar goes to those who need it, those who are worthy recipients of it, and not to those who abuse the system. The 2.4 per cent real reduction in Commonwealth spending is the largest cut in 35 years. This is a long time. I was only 11 years old at the time of the last large cut. I think Bob Menzies was probably in government at that time. It is an excellent achievement. We have cut the outlays by about $3,500m. To improve our balance of trade our export growth is coming not from the traditional areas of mining and farms, although a lot of it still does, but from a huge increase in manufactured goods. I have a simple way of knowing how the job situation is going. We have a couple of local papers in Frankston. One of them has an employment section. In the last six months there have been five to six pages of job vacancies, all in the manufacturing area. It has not been like that for years. There is a huge resurgence in the manufacturing industry. As a fitter and turner, I keep an eye on the trade and one only has to look at the job vacancies for skilled tradesmen. We just cannot get first class machinists, fitters and turners or anybody in the engineering area. There is a huge demand. All of this has come about by the Hawke Labor Government's policies in the restructuring of the industry and making our exports cheaper to the rest of the world. Mr Hand —TCF? Mr CHYNOWETH —Exactly; textiles, clothing and footwear is another area in which restructuring has come about through discussions with the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and, of course, the all powerful industry committee of the last Government, of which I am pleased to say I was a member. I am quite certain that the resurgence in Australian industry will continue. We have skilled people in Australia. We are not locked into some sort of tradition. We can think differently from other people; we can come up with innovative ideas and our manufacturing industries will pick them up and run with them very quickly. In the employment, education and training area this Budget has created about 5,800 new places for young school leavers. We have also saved $100m in unemployment benefits. That saving will increase as more and more people who are out of work at the moment find jobs. I would not be surprised to find that there is another huge saving in this area. There will be no new taxes or increased taxes. We have heard a lot of bleating from the Opposition about the amount of taxes that are coming to the Government now. Those taxes are coming about through reforms made by this Government, reforms such as the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the prescribed payments tax. The prescribed payments tax is directed mainly at the building industry. Over 50,000 taxpayers in the building industry are now paying this prescribed payments tax. These people did not pay tax before. One could say that they were tax cheats. However, one could say that it is in the Australian psyche to try not to pay tax if one can get away with it. These people are not white collar criminals. They are mainly average people who, through working in a particular industry, could get away with not paying their fair share of the tax for many years. We have tightened up. Receipts are coming in, and I am quite certain that the Treasurer and even the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) would be pleased with the returns that they are getting in the tax area. Tax collections came to over $1 billion above Budget estimates. One reason for this has been the share boom which is now subject to capital gains tax. On every dollar profit that is made the Government gets something. All that changed only when the Labor Government came to power. It was not there under the Liberals or the conservative Government. Mainly the share-market, or the stockmarket, was something that their friends could indulge in. It was a way of not paying their fair share of tax. We do have some future prospects for the Australian people. One of them in this year alone, 1987-88, is to generate over 1,000 jobs. From 1983 to 1988 we will have created just on one million new jobs in a short five years. Mr Hand —How many? Mr CHYNOWETH —One million. This Government will have created over one million jobs. It is not actually the Government that has created them, but the stimulus that we have given to industry to assist it and other people who work in semi-government areas to increase their opportunities to participate in the work force. We will be repaying over $1,000m of Commonwealth overseas debt this year, and the same amount in domestic bonds. No other government in the last 50 years has made repayments on external and domestic debt in the same area. I repeat: 50 years! Mr Deputy Speaker, you were not even born when we last paid our overseas debt. It is a tremendous achievement. However, I would like to concentrate on one area of the Budget that particularly concerns me; that is, the environmental area. This is something that many people in this House do not really speak about; they are more concerned with dollars and cents. We cannot talk about the environment in dollars and cents. How much is a tree worth? Those on the conservative side would probably put a dollar a cubic foot on it. Many people on this side would look at its aesthetic beauty and what it is worth for future generations. One cannot put a dollar value on the heritage of Australia. The Government has put some money aside to assist environmental areas. The Budget allocation for the rainforest areas includes $15m for rainforest conservation. This will allow an expansion of the already very impressive national rainforest conservation program which operates in all States, except, of course-honourable members have guessed it-Tasmania and Queensland. We trust that the program in Queensland will be an integral part of the Commonwealth's action in support of its decision to proceed with the nomination of the Queensland wet tropical rainforest for inclusion on the World Heritage List. I hope that, in the days of the Johannes Bjelke-Petersen Government-- Mr Hand —The corrupt one. Mr CHYNOWETH —I do not know about all the people in that Government, but some of them are, yes. I trust that the Bjelke-Petersen Government will do something decent and put aside certain areas of Queensland for future generations, instead of turning the whole region into an area like the tinsel town of the Gold Coast. That rainforest is a beautiful area. It belongs not only to Queenslanders but to all Australians and the world. Australia has a unique opportunity. It is a wealthy country and we can afford to put these areas aside. In years to come, we will be looked upon as savages if we do not allow these areas to be saved for future generations. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has been allocated over $8m for the further development and effective management of Kakadu National Park. That is a beautiful area. I have been there three times-in the dry season and in the wet season, which I trust the tourist industry will start to call the green season. That is when all the waterfalls are flowing. It is a magnificent area in which to be during the green season. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service is doing an excellent job there. Much of the money which has been set aside for it is spent on infrastructure, such as roads and buildings. It is preserving many of the Aboriginal artefacts found in the area and is doing an excellent job looking after the park. I recommend that all honourable members take the opportunity to look at the uniqueness of Kakadu. Perhaps they will come away convinced that there is something in that environment which is worth preserving. A grant of $1.242m has been made to voluntary conservation organisations-excellent groups. The people involved have put a lot of work and time trying to save our heritage. I must admit that during the recent election campaign in Dunkley the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and the Wilderness Society assisted me. They worked hard and letter-boxed all over the electorate. I am certain that without their help I would not have won with such an increased majority. Mr Smith —Did you get an increase? Mr CHYNOWETH —Yes, I did-a substantial one. Mr Hand —Most of us did. That is why we are on this side of the chamber. Mr CHYNOWETH —Yes, most of us did. It has been conservatively estimated that the Liberal Party of Australia spent about $100,000 in the election campaign in my area. It issued expensive brochures and broadcast radio advertisements. One could not listen to the wireless without hearing my opponent's voice. However, we beat the Liberals and increased the majority. A lot of this was due to the work of the ACF and the Wilderness Society. The Tasmanian forest industry published a report called Appeasing the Environmentalists: Unnecessary and Futile Analysis of Voting Power of the Environmental Lobby. That group had a go at the environmentalists and said that there was nothing in the environmental movement. It asked why people should change their vote and become greenies. I would like to prove that the environmentalists have an excellent influence on the rest of Australia. Many of our children at school are doing projects on endangered species, et cetera. All we have to do for the next 10 years is to hang on to what we have and our kids will look after the future. There is no way that the conservative parties can chop down and destroy beautiful areas of Tasmania, mine Kakadu or rip out the guts of the rainforests in Queensland. Our children will look after those areas. All we have to do is save them for the next 10 years. I advocate putting aside huge areas of Australia, fighting battles with the State governments and delaying their measures until our kids take power. Then those areas will be safe for future generations. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 pm., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(7.15) —Today is an historic day in this Parliament because the will of the people has triumphed with the assistance of the Opposition skill. We have been able to demonstrate that the Government, notwithstanding the huge resources of public servants, has not been able to put together a piece of legislation in such a way that it can effectively be passed. Today, in my State of Western Australia, 25,000 people, on a conservative estimate, marched along St Georges Terrace, protesting about the introduction of the Australia Card. Mr Gear —It makes you feel good, doesn't it, Wilson? Mr TUCKEY —It makes me feel very good because it is clearly an indication that some people-including, I believe, 32 members of the Government-have already discovered that the Australian people do not want this mechanism. Indeed, they never really wanted it, once they understood what it meant to them. It is to the Opposition's credit that it set about in a calmer period of politics to explain to people what the system meant. I, in particular, will take some credit for my efforts in explaining exactly what the Australia Card meant to people in a way they could understand. I did so by speaking on the Ray Martin show and other programs, identifying the problems. I pointed out the inconvenience in respect of people's bank accounts. I referred to the intrusiveness involved. Questions were asked in this Parliament, which the Government eventually answered honestly. We raised the problem of ensuring the security of those mythical landlines. I thought that the landline argument was one of the more glorious arguments. Both my elder children are deeply involved in the computer business. I thought when the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) told us that we had this `you beaut' landline that we were missing the opportunity of a lifetime. There was no need for the Government to pursue the baby-sitters of Australia for a little more tax. It should have sold the technology of the landline to the governments of the world, because they all want secure data transmission services. None has one yet. Equally interesting was the Minister's statement that we had some `you beaut' unforgeable identity card. Today I have taken up the challenge. I shall be $100 richer because a New South Wales Labor member of parliament offered $100 to anybody who can produce evidence of someone being affected by a forged Bankcard. My late mother had a card belonging to her forged. She used her card only in Asia, but $6,000 of credit was obtained in Italy with a forgery of the card while my mother still held the original. Mr Hand —That person must have plenty of money. Mr TUCKEY —I have taken up the challenge. I am probably in a long queue, which might be as big as the group of 25,000 protesters in St Georges Terrace. The reality is that the ID system was not going to work. It would not deliver what the Government claimed it would do, but it would intrude on people's privacy and be highly inconvenient to them. Unfortunately, the Government refused to recognise that there were better ways of making the system work and that the Australian Taxation Office is practising some of them. Although the Opposition has been critical of the Taxation Office in the past, we congratulate it on its efforts. I should like to point out where the Government made its great mistake. Having got the legislation through Parliament, having established a huge bureaucracy and having got all the Australian people to queue up and apply for a card, the Government needed to declare that a certain day would be the day on which people needed to use the card. All the obligations were contained in clauses 40 to 54 of the Australia Card Bill. The Government said that the system would not function until the first relevant day. The Government decided to define the first relevant day as a day to be declared by the regulations. The Government did not have to do that. It could have used a power of proclamation or power of gazetting, but it decided on regulations because the Health Insurance Commission believed that they gave it more flexibility. It was a matter of running an extra couple of lines in when nobody was watching. It did that and it has been hoist by its own petard because it can go through all the functions but to make the thing work it has to bring a regulation into this House and into the Senate and it has to suffer the 15 days during which a motion can be put to disallow it, which will be simply carried in the Senate by the majority of the Opposition parties, which are opposed to this thing. That is what will destroy it. The Government can have its Bill, it can have its card, it can have people queueing up but it cannot force anybody to use clauses 40 to 54. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(7.20) —Madam Speaker, I wish to criticise some of the comments made by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) last night which he addressed to you. I quote from the Hansard record of last night. In talking about the Adelaide Hills, he said: You can think about Melbourne, Madam Speaker, where I believe you come from, but it has no beauty whatsoever compared with the great beauty of the Adelaide Hills. I would not argue about the Adelaide Hills having their own beauty but I find it rather insulting to hear from the honourable member that Melbourne has no beauty whatsoever. Where has the man been? Is he so parochial that he has become myopic? Has his time in the doll's house limited his vision to things domestic? Has his preoccupation with State matters denied him a national perspective? All States, Madam Chair, have their particular beauty. Take the State of the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). It has Perth, the Swan River and Fremantle Harbour. Sydney has the most wonderful harbour in the world and the Blue Mountains to the west. Adelaide, of course, has its Lofty Ranges. I have a soft spot for the Lofty Ranges. I go to the Adelaide Hills whenever I go to Adelaide. It is the place where my ancestors in 1839 set their roots down after migrating from Prussia. They established the township of Bethany, now Nuriootpa. Those same great grandparents are buried at Nairne. The honourable member for Mayo attacked Melbourne as lacking beauty. Obviously he has not been to Port Phillip Bay; he has not seen the Yarra shrouded in mist in winter; he has not been along the Bellarine or the Mornington peninsulas. Mr Milton —He has not been to the blue Dandenongs. Mr LAMB —But his greatest sin of all, as the honourable member for La Trobe reminds me, is that he has not been to the blue Dandenongs and he has not been to the Upper Yarra Valley. This is one of the greatest and most beautiful regions in Australia, with the tallest trees in Australia, that vie with the Douglas fir as the tallest trees in the world-400 feet is not unusual-Eucalyptus regnans, the mountain ash. We also see the mountain greys and we have some magnificent fern gullies throughout the Dandenong Ranges. These regions embrace the electorate of the honourable member for La Trobe, my electorate and the electorate of the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson), although I have not heard him speak up for the area. Madam Chair, it is an insult to the residents of the Dandenongs for the honourable member for Mayo to make such remarks. They have produced the most beautiful gardens combining European trees and flowers with our native vegetation. We have public gardens such as the Kawarra Gardens which are famous for their collection of native plants. It is an insult to the farmers of my electorate who have turned the Silvan Valley into the most wonderful and beautiful patchwork of farming communities. It is an insult to the Dutch community which has established some of the greatest tulip farms in this country. The horticulture in the Dandenongs and the Upper Yarra Valley is second to none in the rest of Australia. Wines produced in the Yarra Valley are winning prizes all over Australia. Yet the honourable member for Mayo is ignorant of all this. If people wanted inspiration for creativity where better could they go than the Dandenong Ranges, where such great painters as Tom Roberts and Arthur Streeton went for their declining years and to produce their last great paintings. Great writers such as Vance and Nettie Palmer were inspired by the area of Emerald. I could go on and on. It is no wonder that this is an area to which thousands of visitors travel to share this wondrous beauty. The honourable member's remarks are an insult to the people who live in this area and who take their guests to see this area. I advise the honourable member to come to see for himself what I can describe only as God's own acre. I invite all honourable members when they have time to come to the Dandenongs and the Yarra Valley. When they have feasted upon this magnificent area they may then educate the honourable member for Mayo. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(7.25) —Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in this adjournment debate because-- Mr Hand —Why don't you quit when you are ahead and sit down. Mr NEHL —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs should be careful; he might get more than he asked for. Madam SPEAKER —Just confine yourself to your speech. Mr NEHL —Madam Speaker, I will indeed. I rise to make a point about the future of 8 Platoon of C Company, 41 Battalion, Royal New South Wales Regiment of the Army Reserve. I advised the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) that I would speak on this matter tonight. I am very concerned, as are a great many of the citizens of the Nambucca Valley, that later this month that unit of the Army Reserve will be closed down. I know that the Minister-I give him credit for it-is very concerned about the future of our defence forces. I know that he is a great supporter of the Army Reserve and the tremendous job that our fellow citizens who are involved in the Army Reserve perform. Regrettably, the Department of Defence has made the decision that the Army depot at Macksville should be closed down in September. The lease for the present depot at the Macksville showground will not expire until 30 June 1988. Even though the rent is a nominal $240 a month and the rent will be paid until the end of June next year, nonetheless the Reserve unit is being closed down. This is going to create a great deal of inconvenience for a number of enthusiastic young Australians who are prepared to serve their country. The whole of the Nambucca valley community is deeply disturbed that the Department's decision to direct unit members to train at Coffs Harbour, some 60 kilometres distant, is discriminatory against members of the unit including high school students, meat workers who work at the Mid Coast Co-Operative Meat Society Ltd abattoir at Macksville and others who will probably be forced to resign from the Reserve because of the inconvenience caused by the closure. Madam Speaker, I am particularly concerned because I believe that the defence of our country is of great importance. I recall as a very small child in the 1930s my father, who was an officer in the militia, going on bivouacs, on firing exercises with Vickers machine guns at Newcastle. I know from a whole lifetime of association with the Army Reserve, having served as a member of the Civilian Military Forces myself, that there is a tremendous advantage to this country in having young Australians trained in the Reserve. In closing down the depots we are placing a tremendous disadvantage on people who are prepared to serve their country. As I said earlier, the distance between Macksville and Coffs Harbour is some 60 kilometres. There are high school students who are keen to continue their service in the unit but, Madam Speaker, you will readily agree I am sure, that for a high school student to have to travel 60 kilometres after school, after dinner and then train and go home again is not going to be consistent with their best interests. The same argument applies to the meat workers. There are quite a number of them from the Mid Coast abattoir at Macksville who train with the Reserve but who will be forced either to resign or to travel to Coffs Harbour every training night after the change. The members of that Reserve unit are dedicated and despite the closure of the depot, some would certainly wish to continue to serve. This would mean that they would have to travel either to Kempsey or to Coffs Harbour for Tuesday night and weekend parades. Madam Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to tell the House that it is so very important that the Army Reserve should be supported and in particular to ask the Minister for Defence to continue to give his support to the Reserve and to support me in my moves and the arguments I am putting forward to try to preserve the depot at Macksville. I particularly wish the Minister to receive a deputation representative of the Nambucca Shire Council and the whole of the Nambucca community because the whole community is dedicated and behind the move to retain the Reserve. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(7.30) —I would like to take this opportunity to wish the Canberra-Queanbeyan Raiders well in the grand final against Manly coming up on Sunday. The Raiders have changed the face of rugby league in Australia after entering the premiership only a few years ago, in 1982. Over those years the Raiders have had excellent support from the communities in Queanbeyan and Canberra. Attendances at the games have been excellent, and the Raiders have revolutionised attendances even in Sydney because of the massive support the Queanbeyan and Canberra communities have given them. The Raiders have had excellent support from the New South Wales Government through the local State member, John Akister, and they have had excellent support from their sponsors not only in Canberra but also-and there are many of them-in Queanbeyan. The great reward I believe came to the Raiders last Sunday when coaches Don Furner and Wayne Bennett took the decision to play Mal Meninga in the match against Eastern Suburbs. It was an historic win, 32 to 24. I happened to be presenting awards at a junior soccer presentation at the Marco Polo Club in Queanbeyan just after the match had finished and when I told everybody of the win they cheered loudly. So the win was shared by followers of other codes including, I am sure, followers of another code which I support, Australian rules. Mr Jenkins —Very ecumenical. Mr SNOW —Yes, it is ecumenical. In the week before the win the Raiders had a great boost from their local community. There was a motorcade, which I was very pleased to join, travelling from Civic in Canberra to Queanbeyan. I thank the Whip for giving me time off. Mr Hicks —That is all right. Mr SNOW —The honourable member will not be getting time off; he has a lot further to travel. The Raiders were welcomed in Queanbeyan by their patron, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), and by the Mayor and Town Clerk of Queanbeyan in their full regalia. Of course there were also thousands of enthusiastic people in Queanbeyan, and even a few Roosters supporters. There was great backing from their other patron, the Hon. Fred Daly. This week the Raiders have been wisely taking it quietly. They have had record attendances at their training, almost as many as at a match. They were also boosted by the thousands of people at the Canberra Airport who welcomed them back on Sunday night, as well as about 600 people in the foyer of the Queanbeyan Leagues Club. Captain Dean Lance is leading a great team which, with coaches Don Furner and Wayne Bennett using their proven judgment, has one more hurdle to go. Manly is strong in the forwards but the Raiders have built up the momentum which will win them the game. The Raiders have worked for this game all the year and I join the people of Queanbeyan and Canberra in wishing them well on Sunday. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(7.34) —Madam Speaker, I am pleased that you are in the chair this evening during this adjournment debate because I want to draw to the attention of the House and correct an incorrect statement made by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly). It is correctly recorded in Hansard but incorrectly made by the Minister. Yesterday, in answer to a question from the newly elected honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey), the Minister said that she wanted to congratulate the honourable member for Hawker on her election and `on being the first woman from South Australia in the House of Representatives'. That, Madam Speaker is a false claim. Madam SPEAKER —If you do go on you will find that the Minister corrected her statement in the next sentence. Mr WILSON —Hansard records that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) interjected, saying, `That is not right'. I beg your pardon; the Minister did then go on to say, `For the Australian Labor Party'. I see how it could be argued that that was a correction. Madam SPEAKER —An addition, perhaps. Mr WILSON —Yes. I want to draw the attention of the House-and I intended to do this in any event-to the fact that 13 women have been elected to the House of Representatives. In 1966 Kay Brownbill was elected as the honourable member for Kingston. She was the first woman member in the House of Representatives from South Australia. In fact, she was the third woman member in the history of the House, and you, Madam Speaker, became the fourth. Madam SPEAKER —The first Labor woman. Mr WILSON —Yes, you were the first Labor woman. Mr Donald Cameron —The Liberals are always out in front when it comes to emancipation. Mr WILSON —That is right. It is important when we acknowledge the substantial change that has occurred in our society, a good change enabling the creation of greater opportunities for all people in our society to take part in parliamentary and government life, and when people are paying tributes and acknowledging that someone is the first this or the first that, that they bear in mind when pointing out that women are achieving things for the first time that we should hope that these events will cease to be significant, that it will not be for the first time and that women will be playing a significant role across the whole spectrum of life in our society at all ages and stages and in all careers and vocations. We do need to pay tribute to all women, in the present but particularly in the past, who have pioneered the path of women playing a part in our national politics. I know the Senate has a somewhat better record than this House, but I hope that over time the record here will continue to improve. I thought yesterday when this statement was made-certainly it was made in the first instance; it was only as a result of an interjection that the Minister, herself a woman, made the correction-that it is a pity that any of us, but perhaps particularly a woman, should make a mistake such as that, albeit in the circumstance that it was the first occasion she had answered a question in the House as a Minister. Nevertheless, the question did come from a newly elected woman member of the House and quite clearly there was time to think about the answer that might have been forthcoming in those circumstances. It was a pity that there appeared to be at first blush, when one heard the answer, a partisan response. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(7.39) —I was not going to talk about football tonight but so many of my colleagues have spoken about their local teams this week that I would feel remiss if I did not mention that my local Aussie rules team, Glenelg, will be playing Norwood in the South Australia National Football League preliminary final on Sunday and I feel I should wish them all the best for that match. I really want to refer to the speech made in this House last night by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), who spoke on the subject of poverty in Australia. The honourable member blamed poverty on this Government, the late Mr Justice Murphy, the Family Law Act, radical feminism, humanists and working mothers. He said in his speech that this Government has created 700,000 poor people. I do not know exactly where he got that figure but the 700,000 which sticks in my mind is the 700,000 jobs this Government has created. I understand that, by this time, almost one million jobs have been created since this Government came to power. This represents 700,000 new incomes, and there is no better thing that we can give to these needy families than extra income. But when it comes to families, many members of the Opposition do not deal in concrete matters like dollars and cents. They are more concerned with abstract notions of family values, by which of course they mean their values. The honourable member for Braddon later in his speech said: Much of the poverty can be traced back to the change in attitudes to family life. Those changes received a hefty kick along by the late Justice Murphy, who promoted the disastrous Family Law Act, radical feminism and humanism. Since that time, the number of children living in proverty has increased dramatically as people avail themselves of easy legal options for divorce to run away from the fundamental adult responsibility of parenting. Family life has been trivialised by the Family Law Act, till today we have advocates in our industrial relations area saying that child care provisions should not be such so as to retard a career. So his speech goes on. Justice Murphy and others behind the Family Law Act did not, as the honourable member claims, trivialise or create easy options. The Family Law Act dragged the whole matter of family and divorce law out of the Victorian era and gave it a civilised, realistic and just form. Is the honourable member for Braddon advocating that we should return to the bad old days of culpability, with sordid trumped-up adultery and cruelty charges or years of legal separation? The honourable member also talked about parental responsibility. Has it ever occurred to him that perhaps sometimes the responsible thing might be for the woman to take her children and leave the marriage? That woman may then have to get a job to support her children and, if she gets a job, she will need child care facilities. Is the honourable member suggesting that she go on to the supporting parents' benefit at the taxpayers' expense? The honourable member for Braddon also referred to radical feminism. I must confess that I am never quite sure what radical feminism is as distinct from non-radical feminism. Perhaps the honourable member for Braddon can explain that to me one day. It is true that feminists do not encourage women to leave their husbands. They say to women, `You do not have to stay in an intolerable marriage situation if you do not want to. You can get out and, if you choose to get out, we will see to it that the law does not stand in your way and that reasonable support systems exist so that you and your children can live decently'. If we are to talk about poverty in Australia and what this Government is doing about it, let us not resort to conservative cliches about family life and working mothers. Let us talk about the million new jobs and the million new incomes which this Government has given to Australian families and about the family assistance package which provides real material support for a million Australian children. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(7.43) —Before I go on to the subject that I intend to raise, I say to the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) that in 1974, when the then Minister for Social Security, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), introduced changes to the supporting parent's benefit, the cost to revenue was some $40m. Now the cost of supporting broken families is $1 1/2 billion. I believe that the speech made by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) last night and the contribution of the honourable member for Hawker tonight are healthy in that the Parliament has an obligation to turn its mind to just what has happened in terms of the breakdown of the Australian family. I do not think anyone needs to be defensive or offensive. It is probably the most serious problem confronting our country today. Now I wish to raise another subject. Tomorrow I will be presenting to the Parliament a petition with 100,000 signatures. I did not realise how important that petition was in terms of our history until I checked with the Bills and Papers Office, which tells me that in 1918 a petition requesting that Sinn Fein be declared an unlawful organisation attracted 83,509 signatures. The petition I will present tomorrow will become the second largest in Australia's history in that it is beaten by one on education presented in this place on 17 May 1961 with almost a quarter of a million signatures. I just make mention of that to pay tribute to Dr Rupert Goodman, the President of the Australian National Flag Association of Queensland. He travelled to Canberra by bus and returned to Brisbane by train, bringing down this huge bundle of petitions for presentation in the Parliament. Madam Speaker, I hope that tomorrow, when the petitions are being read out, you will allow me to stand and say, `Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this represents 100,000 people and it is the second largest-- Madam SPEAKER —I am not sure that that will be in order. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Well, we will jump tomorrow's problems tomorrow. The only reason that these petitions are still forthcoming is that there is a latent fear in the population that in the chest of every Australian Labor Party (ALP) politician is a desire to change the Australian flag. Yet its own policy is: To initiate and support moves to establish with popular acceptance an Australian flag which will more distinctively reflect our national independence and identity. Implicit in this policy are the following assumptions: firstly, the present flag does not reflect our national independence and identity. I would like honourable members opposite to interject if they think I am not making the right comments. They sit very fearful when it comes to this subject, as they did with the ID card. They have been running scared for months. Secondly, the ALP does not support the existing flag. Thirdly, the ALP will initiate moves to change it. Fourthly, the ALP will support any moves in the community wishing to change it. The hypocrisy that gets in people's throats is when the ALP uses our flag as a logo during election campaigns to promote itself and to reach out for the emotions of people, yet in its own policy is this hidden sleeper to get rid of it. My purpose in rising was to pay tribute to Dr Rupert Goodman and to make mention of the fact that tomorrow the second largest petition in this nation's history will be presented to the Parliament-and all that despite the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) says he is not going to change the flag. The reason for this petition is that people do not trust the Prime Minister or the Australian Labor Party on this issue. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(7.48) —Tonight I want to take the opportunity to read into the Hansard a letter written by my secretary, completely of her own volition, and sent to every major newspaper in Australia. The letter states: Dear Sir, I would like to bring to the attention of all those people who are so worried about the Australia Card and the purported `invasion of privacy' the following. Today, I have had occasion to go guarantor for a member of my family. I was telephoned by an employee of the finance company and asked the following question: Full name and address? Date of birth? How long lived at this address? What was my previous address? Do I own the house? Who is the mortgage with? How much do I owe on the mortgage? How much is the house worth? My telephone number? Is the telephone number actually in my name? What is my job? Who is my employer? How long have I worked there? How much do I earn? Verification of my full time employment What is my driver's license number? When does it expire? What sort of car do I drive? What is the year of manufacture? What assets do I have other than my house? What liabilities do I have-how much owed on each one and to whom? Am I married or divorced? How many children do I have and how old they are? Am I supporting them? What hire purchase do I have or have had-who with? Which bank do I bank with? What is/are the nature of the accounts I run? I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that, from the information given to this finance company, I will shortly receive in the mail a letter or pamphlet offering me a loan. Mr Tuckey —She didn't have to fill that in. Mr CAMPBELL —This is the stupidity of the honourable member for O'Connor. The truth is that real people who live in the real world have to take out loans. The only way in which they can support their children is to take out loans. Mr Tuckey —What was the obligation to fill it in? Mr CAMPBELL —But you, my-I nearly made the mistake of saying `friend'-should go back to the handlebar. You will feel more comfortable there. The letter continues: I am aware of the Credit Reference Association and the information I have provided to this finance company will no doubt end up on their files-and goodness knows where else. To obtain an Australia Card I will only have to provide initial proof of my identity-i.e. driver's license or birth certificate or the like, and then name, residential and postal address, sex and my card will have my photograph and signature on it when issued. The Australia Card Register will contain ONLY the above information, which includes a record of what documentation I provided to prove my identity initially and nothing more can be put on the Australia Card Register about me. It will not contain information about my religion, marital status, family composition, employment, medical history, banking or taxation records. This needs to be compared with the above list of information I have provided to the finance company which is virtually public and probably available to anyone in the industry who inquires. As far as I am aware, there are no laws in place to prohibit the selling or otherwise of the information held on me. She is quite right. My secretary, Susan Hills, has hit the nail on the head. There is absolutely no protection for that information, there is no guarantee that the information is accurate, and she will not know how it is used. I think that the Australia Card debate is one of the saddest incidents in Australia's history. It is my view that the Press in Australia has been absolutely deplorable. No newspaper has been worse than the Daily News in Western Australia. The front page of one edition of this disgusting rag had an editorial which contained so much untruth, so many false statements, that it is quite sickening to read. The front page of an edition of this newspaper also contains an article entitled `Mark of Satan coming after ID Card'. Fourteen column inches is devoted to a fundamentalist Christian crackpot who tries to invoke the Book of Revelations to talk about the mark of the beast. When these bigoted Christians have written to me, I refer them to Luke chapter 20, verse 25, which is far more relevant to this issue. The article actually alludes to the allegation that I raised in the House recently-that the Government intends to put laser marks on people. This sort of misinformation, this sort of disgusting scare tactic, has been put around by politicians. A woman came to my office and said she was told by a politician that this would be the case. No member of this Parliament has been more despicable in his misrepresentation and fabrication than the honourable member for O'Connor. Let us look at the history of members of the Liberal Party, those champions of civil liberties. One can feel nothing but sick in the stomach when one refers to people such as Bill Hassell, the architect of section 54b, which forbade the gathering in a public place of more than three people. That was a breach of civil liberties that the Liberal Party in Western Australia was prepared to force on people. It is an absolute perversion of the truth to say that there is any breach of civil liberties in the Australia Card legislation. Let us look at Alan Jones, who is also a staunch member of the Liberal Party. He was going to shoot trade unionists. I can tell the honourable member for O'Connor that being shot has a very deleterious effect on one's civil liberties. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(7.53) —On Saturday, 26 September, the people of New South Wales will once again go to the polls. This time they vote in the local government election. I urge all members of the House from New South Wales, and all people of New South Wales, to make sure that they vote in that election for the people whom they wish to represent them at the local government level. I hope that those people, rather than voting on political lines, will vote for those people whom they think will best serve their areas, cities, towns, villages or shire councils. At midnight on Saturday, 26 September, many people who have served their local government areas very faithfully and very well over the years will retire. They will no longer be members of those councils. One such person is Councillor Jim Robertson of the Central Darling Shire. The Central Darling Shire is in my electorate. It is the largest shire in New South Wales. Being in a far western region, of course, it has many problems to be overcome. The shire councillors in that shire have to be very special people. Councillor Jim Robertson was born at Running Stream, which is between Mudgee and Lithgow. As a young child he moved to Springwood. He attended Katoomba High School and was a school captain. His first job was as a cadet with AWA Ltd. He left AWA and went to Howard Motors in Parramatta, where he was the chief design engineer. He is an associate in mechanical engineering at the Sydney Technical College. The big change came when in 1950 he threw in his job at Howard Motors, went to Ivanhoe, which is in the far west of New South Wales, and bought and operated the General Motors-Holden's dealership there. He, his brother-in-law and a friend took over the electricity generating operation at Ivanhoe. One can imagine the big diesel generators pounding out electricity in both the summer and winter. Anyone who has been to Ivanhoe knows that in the summer it is a pretty hot operation to look after those motors. The company was known as Colling, Watkins and Robertson, or CWR. On 1 May 1951 he was appointed to the provincial council of the Central Darling Shire. In 1952 he faced his first council election, was elected and has contested every council election since. In 1964 he was elected as Deputy Shire President. In 1968 CWR took over the electricity generating operation in Wilcannia and Jim and his wife, Betty, moved to Wilcannia from Ivanhoe. In 1974 Jim was elected Shire President and will be until midnight on Saturday. He is a past president of the Western Division Shires Association. For the past four years he has been on the executive of the New South Wales Shires Association. In 1981 he was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for his contribution to the community and local government. Well he might have been, because during his time as Shire President a sewerage system has been placed in Wilcannia. Those people who have been to Wilcannia will know the conditions under which the people live. The River Darling flows through the township, but by the time it gets to the town it is usually very low, fairly polluted or full of colloids. He was the Shire President when the water filtration system was recently installed, the sewerage scheme was installed in Wilcannia, a water supply scheme was introduced in Ivanhoe and White Cliffs, and the Wilcannia and Ivanhoe ovals were upgraded. Many other local government improvements were carried out in the Central Darling Shire. I do not know what Councillor Jim Robertson's politics are. All I know is that he is a friend and confidant of many people-Prime Ministers, Ministers, Premiers and other shire councillors. Mr Hunt —A stalwart. Mr HICKS —His advice is keenly sought. As the honourable member for Gwydir says, he is a great stalwart of the Western Division. He is a true character. One thing about the Western Division of New South Wales is that it does develop a number of characters and a number of tough men who must be straight shooters and who must know where they are going for the sake of their people. I know that all members in the House will join me in wishing Jim and Betty a long and happy retirement. Like most people who have led a busy life they will wonder how they found the time to do all the things that they did when they were working. We know that they will live very close to Wilcannia. On behalf of the House, all the people of the Central Darling Shire and the Western Division, and the people of New South Wales, I would like to wish Jim and Betty all the very best in their retirement. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(7.57) —I was stimulated by the speech tonight by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), who waxed lyrical about the attributes of his fine electorate. I think there is no other electorate like the Northern Territory. Certainly, in terms of physical beauty and all the things that might attract one to take a holiday anywhere in Australia, I think that the Northern Territory surpasses the lot. In case people were scared off by the previous member for the Northern Territory, I tell them that most of the population is quite unlike him. The electorate has an ethnic diversity which is matched by few other Australian communities. More than 50 different nationalities are represented. Almost a quarter of the population of Darwin, the capital city of my electorate, was born overseas. With this in mind, and with great pleasure, I inform the House of a restaurant that opened in my electorate last week, on 14 September. It was opened by a Darwin-born Greek businessman, Mr Christo Phillipou. Mr Phillipou typifies the sort of entrepreneur that the Northern Territory needs. In fact, he has attracted a great deal of attention for his culinary expertise over almost a decade. Mr Phillipou's restaurant is in the heart of Darwin and will be, I am sure, visited by most members of this House at one stage or another. It was opened by Darwin's Lord Mayor, Mr Alec Fong Lim, who is of Chinese heritage and a third generation Territorian. The opening of this restaurant typifies, as I say, the sort of business enterprise that Darwin needs in order to attract tourists into the Territory and to give them the service that they so richly deserve. If our tourism industry is to expand, and Darwin is to continue to gain a reputation as a stopover for international tourists-who will arrive in the fine airport with which the Labor Government, I am sure, will provide us-it must have these sorts of facilities. I will quickly list a few of the people who attended the opening of Christo's Restaurant, which will show the bipartisan community support that there is for a local business in Darwin. The Northern Territory Labor leader, Terry Smith, was there, along with the Country Liberal Party Minister, Fred Finch. I have already mentioned the Lord Mayor, Mr Alec Fong Lim. I should also mention Denis Raymond, George Manolas, Amarissa Lymbouras, Peter Wyatt, John Sawyer and Carol Bourke. All of these people, who are only a few of those who actually attended, are long term Territorians who are interested in supporting local business. Troppo Architects, a firm of innovative local architects, designed the interior. The business, being next to one of the major accommodation centres in Darwin, should enjoy great success. Indeed-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Young to move- That standing order 25 (Standing Orders Committee) be suspended for the remainder of this session. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the work it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Construction of survey motor launches for the Royal Australian Navy. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 September 1987: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 188. Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 191. Banking Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 184. Christmas Island Act-Ordinance 1987-No. 2-Motor Traffic (Amendment). Currency Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 196. Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 192. Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 195. Extradition (Foreign States) Acts-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 187. Federal Court of Australia Act- Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 198. Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 197. Jury Exemption Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 186. National Gallery Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 190. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 200 and 201. Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 193, 194. Racial Discrimination Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 185. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Credit Ordinance-Credit Notices- No. 15e-Advance Bank Australia Limited: Visa Card. No. 16-American Express Extended Payment Plan. No. 17-A.G.C. Credit Line. No. 18-Citicorp Reading Credit. No. 19-Salary Deductions. No. 20-Credit (Supply of Goods). No. 21-Australian Films. No. 22-Overseas Visitors Cash Advances. No. 25-Citibank and Citicorp Continuing Credit Contracts. No. 27-HFC Financial Services Limited. No. 28-Mercantile Credits Limited Continuing Credit Contracts. No. 29-CHASE AMP Bank Limited Continuing Credit Contracts. No. 30-Statement of Account Payable on Demand. No. 31-National Mutual Royal Bank Limited. No. 32-Statement of Account. No. 33-NatWest Australia Bank Limited. No. 34-Westpac Continuing Credit Contracts. No. 37-Staff Loans. No. 38-Educational Services. National Roads and Motorists' Association Exemption, dated 18 June 1987. NRMA Employee and District Depot Exemption, dated 18 June 1987. States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 189. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 199. The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 39) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: What guarantees can the Government give that, once an employer has filled in the reason for cessation of employment on the new Employment Separation Certificate, the former employee will not be able to sue the employer for libel. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The new Employment Separation certificate is used by the Department of Social security to (1) verify the date when a person claiming unemployment benefit became unemployed; and (2) determine the reason for unemployment. This is important since under the Social Security Act dismissal from employment for misconduct and voluntary cessation of employment without adequate reasons can result in a period of non-payment of benefit. The question of libel does not arise provided the information supplied by the employer is accurate. In addition, since the employer separation certificate is given directly to the employee it would appear that there could be no defamation on the part of the employer. I emphasise that detailed reasons for termination of employment are not required. For example, where an employee was dismissed for ``misconduct'' a simple reference to this fact is sufficient for departmental purposes.