Tuesday, 6 October 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr Michael John Duffy made and subscribed the oath of allegiance as member for the division of Holt, Victoria. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House of the death of Sir Keith Cameron Wilson, a former senator and former member of this House. Sir Keith, the father of the Hon. Ian Wilson, the current member for Sturt, died on 28 September 1987. Sir Keith represented the State of South Australia in the Senate from 1938 to 1944 and represented the division of Sturt from 1949 to 1954 and from 1955 to 1966. As a mark of respect to the memory of Sir Keith, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places- Madam SPEAKER —I thank the House. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, left on 30 September on overseas official duty. He will return on 14 October. In his absence, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins, is the Acting Treasurer. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to Senator Button's statement last week that he, Senator Button, would prefer a United States dollar-Australian dollar exchange rate of US65c to US68c. Is it the policy of the Government to induce a further depreciation of the Australian dollar in coming months? If so, why was this strategy not outlined in the Budget Papers? If it is not the Government's policy, does the Prime Minister consider it appropriate for Senator Button to express such strong views on the value of the Australian dollar? Finally, as the Budget was framed on the assumption of a US dollar-Australian dollar exchange rate of around 72c, what impact would the realisation of Senator Button's preferred exchange rate have on the Budget forecasts for inflation, the current account deficit and the so-called balanced Budget? Mr HAWKE —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Let me say that it is not the intention of the Government to try to produce any particular result in regard to the level of the dollar. I used somewhat colourful but I think direct language when I said, `When you float the dollar it bloody floats'. And it does. Let me say this in regard to the statement of Senator Button, as I have said publicly: what Senator Button was saying was nothing more than a statement of the obvious; that is, that exporters, whether they be manufacturers or exporters of primary products, obviously, as a matter of economic benefit, would be happier with a lower level of the dollar. That is merely a statement of the obvious. It was not an intention by the Minister to speak the dollar down; nor was it so regarded by me. He indicated to me in conversation that he made the observation, in fact, in a background discussion with, I think it was, three United States journalists. Indeed, as he pointed out to me, it was put in the context of referring to the statement that I had made-the one to which I have just referred. As to the other part of the question by the Leader of the Opposition, which relates to the assumptions upon which the Budget was framed, nothing that has happened or that I expect to happen leads me to expect that the assumption upon which the Budget was framed will be other than accurate. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany led by Dr Walter Wallmann, President of the Bundesrat and Premier of Hesse, and Dr Wolfgang Gerhardt, member of the Bundesrat, Commissioner of Hesse in Bonn and Minister of State for Science and Arts. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr CHYNOWETH —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of any progress in the emigration of Soviet Jews from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question. I am sure that in the answer that I give I will have the support of the whole of the House. The Government, since its election in 1983, Madam Speaker, as you know, has made clear to the Soviet Government its concern about human rights in the Soviet Union, including the important question of the rights of Soviet Jews. The latest figures to hand show that 782 Soviet Jews were granted exit permission in August of 1987, bringing the total for the year to 4,681. Jewish emigration since April has averaged about 800 per month. Of course, this is a very welcome advance on the total of 914 for all of 1986 but is less than the 2,000 per month allowed to leave during the 1970's. On 8 September the Soviet authorities gave permission to emigrate to a further group of 10 long term refuseniks, including, Madam Speaker, three from the list which you handed over in Moscow in July of 1986. Those three are Dr Prestin, Dr Josef Begun and Dr Brailovsky. I know, Madam Speaker, that that will be a matter of particular joy and pleasure to you. Equally, today I am delighted to say that I have been informed that Ida Nudel, the prominent woman Jewish activist about whom you and the Government have made representations, has received permission to leave the Soviet Union. This brings to eight the number of cases from your list of 18 which have been positively resolved. In conjunction with Mr Shevardnadze's visit to Australia, a family reunion list was handed to Soviet officials. That list contained 52 cases involving 124 family members. On 23 July the Soviet Embassy passed over in response a list covering 89 individuals who were being permitted to depart. A number of these individuals were of Jewish background. The Soviet authorities have since allowed a smaller number of other cases from that list, including at least one of Jewish origin, to depart. The Government is encouraged by and welcomes-as I know all members of the House will-the developments which are taking place. We will continue to pursue this important issue of principle vigorously with the Soviet Union. The Foreign Minister and I will certainly be taking it up when we visit the Soviet Union later this year. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to a report in the Australian Financial Review on 2 October 1987 that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy `has been warned by the Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics that the Australian dollar is substantially undervalued in real terms and could rise to at least 80 US cents'. I ask the Prime Minister: How can one reconcile the substantially different views on the value of the dollar emanating from the Department of Primary Industries and Energy and from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce? Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition seems to have some difficulty in comprehending what Senator Button said. Given his performance over the last couple of years in matters economic, that is not something about which we should be surprised. Whereas previously in the dim dark days he gave some indication of having a grasp of economic realities and even some commitment to economic rationality, all that has long since passed. For his edification I remind him once again of what Senator Button said. He said no more than that it would be a matter of pleasure and indeed of profit-perhaps the two are synonymous-to exporters in this country if the dollar were to be at a significantly lower level than it is. That is indisputably correct. That would be a matter of pleasure and profit to them. Senator Button was not seeking to talk down the dollar to that figure, nor I suggest was he saying that that is the level at which it would be. The level to which the exchange rate will go is a legitimate matter for differences of opinion. Indeed, without going into any detail or revealing confidences, I can say that at the time that we were considering floating the dollar, the then head of the Treasury, who is now one of the colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition, argued very strongly against it-which I suggest is not a sign of economic perspicacity. One of the reasons he put was that he expected that the dollar, if floated, would in fact increase significantly in value. This is an area in which in the last two or three years all economic commentators have been conspicuously at variance in their predictions of what would happen to the dollar. It does not surprise me that somewhere within the government bureaucracy there may be some who hold the view that has been alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition. The fact that that view has been expressed does nothing to detract from the answer that I previously gave him. Mr WRIGHT —I direct my question to the Minister for Consumer Affairs and refer him to a report in the June/July edition of the journal Australian Productivity, which he will be aware is published by the Australian Productivity Council. I specifically refer to the claim that Australia is very lowly regarded by Europeans as a nation that produces quality goods. In view of that claim, I ask the Minister what plans he has to assist in this Government's objective and desire to lift exports, but more importantly to lift the quality of Australian manufactured products? Mr STAPLES —I thank the honourable member for Capricornia for his question and remark to the House on his involvement in consumer issues, in Queensland in particular, and also on this issue which he has raised with me on other occasions. I have noticed the article. It is a very important article which I may take the chance to distribute to honourable members on both sides of the House as soon as I can get enough copies of it from the Australian Productivity Council. Mr Holley, the Executive Director, made some quite important comments in that document relating to Australia's perceived performance by other countries, particularly European, at the World Economic Forum held in Switzerland a short while ago. Australia was rated 21 out of the 22 countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for its outward orientation in international trade activity. I think that is something about which all members of this House will be concerned, as should be all Australians, and importantly those in industry. We do recognise the need to promote Australian goods vigorously not only in Australia but also overseas, and to be seen as a producer of high quality goods. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, has made considerable comments about this, as has the Minister for Science and Small Business on many occasions. In Europe and Japan the quality of goods is quite an obsession. That is to be expected where wage and other costs are high. In a competitive environment quality becomes a determinant for consumers when they are looking for goods to buy. Quality makes a virtue out of necessity, or, indeed, a necessity out of virtue. Quality is of mutual advantage both to the consumer and to industry. I hope that in the coming years-hopefully in the coming months-the idea of quality will be taken up not only by industry but also by consumers in regard to what they purchase and particularly in regard to what they seek from Australian goods. Senator Button has on many occasions made mention of the fact that when people overseas go to the shelves in their shops and pick up something that is labelled `Made in Australia', the implication in their minds should be that it is a quality product. I believe that consumers in Australia also have a role to play in developing the quality ethos in Australian manufacturing. Consumer demand is-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr STAPLES —The Opposition obviously is not interested in quality, but this Government is interested in it. Not only is it a quality government, but also it is interested in Australian manufacturers producing quality goods for sale overseas and in Australia. Consumer awards were announced in the Budget under my portfolio. I hope to involve business, the media and unions, as well as consumer groups, in developing an ethos for quality goods in Australia, to the mutual advantage of industry and consumers. Consumers should be able to know what business, the media and unions consider to be quality goods. I hope that in future the Opposition will pay more attention to quality in manufacturing in Australia and encourage its friends in business to take up that challenge. Mr SPENDER —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister intend to propose to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) which is to be held in Vancouver next week specific measures which the Commonwealth might adopt to seek to achieve a speedy and just resolution of the Fijian crisis? If so, can he outline those measures to the House? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I treat it with the seriousness with which I know it is put. I will put to CHOGM the same things we had to say to the meeting of the South Pacific Forum. At that meeting the countries more immediately and directly concerned with Fiji agreed that the resolution of the tragedy that has occurred within Fiji must ultimately be a matter for the Fijians themselves. All members of the Forum were prepared to provide their good offices. It was suggested that I might go there with the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands, but we were not going there with some suggestion that we, as outsiders, would have a formula to impose upon Fiji. I believe that this matter will be discussed by CHOGM and that the same attitude will prevail at that meeting. I believe that there would be some statement of principle of concern as to developments in Fiji, and that we would provide to the participants at CHOGM the best information that we have about the developments and the discussions that we have been able to have. The central point that I would convey to the honourable member is that we will continue to say that the only source of legitimate authority that we recognise in Fiji is the Governor-General. I believe that the honourable member who asked the question would agree with me that the Governor-General is to be congratulated for the strength, determination and tenacity that he has shown in very difficult times. I am sure that the Commonwealth will take the view that there should be a statement of principle expressing the very strong view that there should be a return to the parliamentary system of democracy. I believe that that will be the attitude of the Commonwealth; it is certainly what we will be putting. Should those in Fiji believe that there could be some role undertaken by the Commonwealth, I have no doubt that those attending CHOGM would be prepared to provide that. I conclude, as I began, by saying that in the end we must recognise that the working out of the situation in Fiji must ultimately be something that is resolved by the Fijians themselves. Mr SNOW —Would the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy outline the outcome for the dairy industry of the recent meeting of agricultural Ministers? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for his question. I understand his interest, along with that of several other honourable members, in the dairy industry. The Australian Agricultural Council met last Friday basically to discuss whether we should continue with the levy. Because the New South Wales Minister had invoked the comfort clause we had to come to a decision about the matter. At the outset of the meeting I read a statement and the meeting was then cleared of officials and others. Following that, the Minister from New South Wales, Mr Hallam, announced that he was withdrawing his application for the revocation of the comfort clause. We had a very full and constructive discussion about the realities in the dairy industry-the reality of its structure, the fact that that structure varies between States, the reality of the international market situation and the reality of New Zealand and closer economic relations. For the first time the States did not simply buck pass to the Commonwealth the overall problem of production that has to be exported. I believe that that marked a change from the usual way these matters are handled at Agricultural Council meetings. There have been many discussions at various levels, including the industry level. I must pay tribute to the Chairman of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, Mr Pat Rowley, who has been trying to put together co-operative arrangements between the industries to take into account what I describe as some of the ultimate realities in this industry. Ministers Hallam and Walker from New South Wales and Victoria respectively are also prepared to engage in very constructive and co-operative arrangements involving the industry in an effort to get some discipline, to get a more sensible way of handling the transfer of milk interstate on some regulated basis rather than simply having mavericks determine the pace of what will eventually be a broader reality. Products-even milk-can freely cross State borders by arrangement. We need to have some means whereby that can be done in a controlled and disciplined fashion so the interests of producers and consumers can be looked after. It was a very constructive meeting and I believe that there is a chance that this matter can be resolved on a co-operative basis involving industry and perhaps, at the end of the day, involving some market sharing, with people fully understanding what realities they face. Mr SHARP —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories will recall his election promise that funding for the tourism overseas promotion scheme (TOPS) would be nearly doubled. Does the Minister know that when TOPS was abolished his Department was processing applications worth $15m, applications which complied with the Government's guidelines and which he promised would be processed immediately? In view of the fact that the industry committed funds in good faith and submitted applications following his campaign promise, what compensation will the Government pay for the breaking of that promise? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for the first question he has asked me in his new role. First of all, I do not recall any election promise about doubling the funds for TOPS. Certainly statements have been made by me prior to the election, at various forums, that the Government had committed $9m for the provision of TOPS payments for the year 1987-88. I might inform the honourable member that, despite the fact that the Government has decided to discontinue TOPS, that promise will be honoured, and $9m has been made available-$6m to honour commitments made with ministerial approval and the additional $3m for the Australian Tourist Commission for additional promotion. I remind the shadow Minister, who is the new boy on the block, that that question coming from his side of the House about tourism promotion seems to be rather inappropriate. Although his glorious Leader might laugh, I note that when he was the Treasurer the commitment to tourism of governments ahead of the Hawke Government was zilch or zilch minus. His great achievement in seven years of government was to allow the Tourist Commission to stagnate with barely an increase in funds in comparison with the trebling of funds under this Government, to introduce a sales tax on the building of tourist boats which stopped an industry stone dead and which fortunately this Government reversed retrospectively to the day of its introduction, and to introduce a $20 departure tax which this Government has seen fit not to increase. That is his glorious record in tourism promotion, so a question from his side of the House on tourism promotion is quite inappropriate. In addition, I might point out that one of the first statements the Leader of the Opposition made in the election campaign was to the effect that, in government, his side of the House, his parties, would eliminate my Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, which statement was greeted with not only alarm but also quiet amusement by all sections of the tourism industry. It was well known also that he had made the statement that, in government, he would totally remove $1.2 billion worth of industry assistance provided by this Government. So, it is fairly obvious to everybody in the tourism industry that TOPS would have been eliminated anyhow. Tourism has become the biggest industry in Australia, greatly to the credit of this Government, which has supported and recognised its extraordinary potential. The fact that we have removed TOPS is to me a matter of personal regret but it is a fact of reducing government expenditure. TOPS was an open-ended scheme which could have led to extraordinary outlays in government finance. Most members of the tourism industry have suggested to me since that they expected that it would happen. The tourism industry is now in a very healthy, comfortable position, having a prosperity they would not have dreamed of four or five years ago. They are quite happy that the Government's decision to remove TOPS and to invest that money in other activities of the Tourist Commission was a proper one. Mr Sharp —On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table a document which confirms the existence of that commitment-- Leave not granted. Dr KLUGMAN —I am not sure whether my question should be directed to the Prime Minister or the Minister for Community Services and Health. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member should make up his mind. Dr KLUGMAN —It is regarding the ID card. In view of the fact that Mr Ewart Smith has so demoralised the Opposition that Question Time has become a bit of a farce today, what has been the Government's decision regarding the ID card? Madam SPEAKER —To whom did you finally decide to address the question? Dr KLUGMAN —The Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I announced that in the light of the position that we would not be able to proceed with the Australia Card. Given the indication by the Senate vote-I think it was 40 : 30-of its intention to proceed by way of disallowing regulations, we decided not to go ahead with the Australia Card. We have decided to investigate the possibility of using the tax file number system. I might say that it is very interesting to see what has happened with the Opposition on this issue. I remind the House of what happened when this matter was before the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. All Opposition members were party to the majority recommendation. I know the honourable member would be interested to be reminded of these extracts from the majority recommend- ation from chapter 4 which is headed `Alternatives'. This is what the Opposition was party to: 10. That legislation be enacted to require financial institutions to provide information reported to the Australian Taxation Office in an acceptable format. Then paragraph 12 states: 12. (a) That the use of the tax file number be extended to cover all the financial transactions proposed in the Government submission for use of the Australia Card number by the Australian Taxation Office, as well as for social security purposes. . . . . . . (d) That the integrity of the tax file number be upgraded to that of the proposed Australia Card number based on the following premises: (i) that taxpayers with a continuous tax record exceeding five years not be required to make an application; (ii) that the file numbers of these taxpayers be verified by normal audit processes over a period of time; (iii) that all other taxpayers and persons who do not currently possess a tax file number verify their identity to the same level of integrity as proposed under the Australia Card program; (iv) that the interview process for verifying identity be conducted by the Department of Social Security or nominated agents; and (v) that temporary arrangements be made where necessary to facilitate payment of tax before verification of identity. That was the unanimous decision of members of the Opposition on the Joint Select Committee. As a Government having been denied by the Opposition the possibility of going ahead with a system of the greatest integrity, we shall now pursue our investigation of the use of the tax file numbering system and we shall investigate it, certainly in the light of the observations of the Joint Select Committee. I must say, though, that increasingly those opposite are starting to look very tatty indeed. I remind those opposite that it really is a case of the leopard not being able to change its spots. Madam Speaker, you do not have to rely on a judgment from this side of the House about the record of the Liberal-National Party Government on the question of tax avoidance and evasion. In 1981 its own royal commissioner condemned it for its record over the preceding five years when he said that in that five years the tax avoidance industry was the fastest growing industry in the country. When the Opposition was in government it allowed tax avoidance to become the fastest growth industry. It has stopped this Government bringing in the system of the greatest integrity-the Australia Card. Now it looks as though the Opposition, having given its unanimous approval to the upgraded tax file system in the report of the Joint Select Committee, in pursuit of its tatty political opportunism will try to stop that too. Once again, the people will make their judgment about the Opposition and it will be condemned, as it should be. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services. Does the Remuneration Tribunal's 1986 review state, for the purposes of travelling allowances, that the home base of a Minister shall be his principal place of residence? What is the Treasurer's principal place of residence? What was the Treasurer paid in his travelling allowance for 1986-87? If the Minister does not know, will he supply me with these details as early as possible? Mr WEST —So far as the home base of the Treasurer is concerned, I have nothing to add to what the Treasurer has already told this House. As to the second part of the question regarding the yearly totals of ministerial travelling allowance, it has been the practice of this Government, not of the former Government, to release publicly the annual total payments of travelling allowance to Ministers. I have discussed this with my colleague, who is directly responsible, but of course as portfolio Minister I accept responsibility also. I have discussed with the Minister for Home Affairs the release of the 1986-87 figures. It is the Government's intention to release these figures. It has been our previous practice not only to release them but to seek verification from the Ministers and also from the office-holders of the Opposition on whether there are any significant errors in the Department of Administrative Services figures. When Senator Ray has finalised that process, the figures will be released, as they have been under this Government. Then the honourable member will be able to compare our figures with those of the Opposition Leaders. Perhaps we ought in due course to move on to see that the shadow Ministers' figures are also released. Mr COHEN —I direct my question to the Prime Minister and I preface it by congratulating the Government-- Mr Tuckey —When is the Prime Minister going to let you leave? Mr COHEN —Just hold your horses. I preface my question by congratulating the Government on the work it has done with Soviet Jewry. I am sure the Prime Minister would be aware that some four years ago approximately 12,000 to 15,000 of the black Jews of Ethiopia, popularly known as the Falashas, in what was one of the great sagas of flight from oppression, managed to escape to Israel. Many hundreds, possibly thousands, died in the gruelling march to freedom through the Sudan. Regrettably, Press and media publicity stopped this mass escape, leaving almost as many behind and the families divided. I ask the Prime Minister what action, if any, the Government has taken to place pressure on the Government of Ethiopia to allow the balance of the black Jews of Ethiopia to join their families in Israel. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his question without notice. I acknowledge the very deep interest and concern he has in this issue. Indeed, on a number of occasions, the honourable member has spoken with me about this matter. I am not in a position to give the honourable member a detailed answer at this point. I shall consult with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and provide the honourable member with a detailed answer. Mr RUDDOCK —I have a question for the Minister for Defence. Has the Minister had drawn to his attention an advertisement in the Weekend Australian of 11 July seeking for Rockwell a commercial manager, Australian industry involvement, with responsibility for offset development, negotiating notional credits allowed for technology transfer? I repeat: `notional credits for technology transfer'. Does this reflect a fair view by some companies of this Government's attitude to valuation of technology transfer from offsets, whereby a real product outcome is forgone for technology of questionable value to Australia? If not, what action does the Government intend to take to ensure that the national interest is protected, and when can a detailed response be expected from the Government on report No. 270 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts dealing with implementation of the offsets program, which clearly identified this deficiency in assessing technology transfer valuations? Finally, does this approach of Rockwell suggest a severe shortcoming in the offset arrangements concluded for Australia's vital submarine purchase? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for his question. I must say that I have been waiting anxiously to receive a question one of these days from my opposite number, but the honourable member will do for starters. I was not aware of the particular advertisement to which the honourable member for Dundas drew my attention, but I am aware of the general points he is seeking to make through his question. I must say that from my point of view in the defence area-and this has governed the attitudes which I have sought to have the Department adopt in negotiations with the submarine contractors-we place emphasis more and more, in the contracts we sign, on Australian industry involvement as opposed to offsets. For example, on the FA18 program undertaken by our predecessors we were talking about a 30 per cent involvement in the area of offsets and Australian industry involvement. In the submarine program, in the combat systems area as distinct from the platform, which, of course, Rockwell is involved in, 45 per cent of the value of the project is in Australian industry involvement and another 15 to 20 per cent of the value of the project is in offsets. I happen to have the view that, when we are developing defence equipment projects in this country, in terms of our long term strategic requirement we do better to ensure that we have the capacity to support that equipment in-country and, whereas it is problematic whether the offsets program will provide us with that capacity to support equipment in-country, there is no doubt at all that the Australian industry involvement program will do that. I have sought to place the emphasis, as I said from the outset, in dealings with companies such as Rockwell, in dealing with the people who are producing the platform of the submarine, on increasing the quotient of Australian industry involvement. It is possible for a variety of projects to be suitable for offset purposes. Some of those projects will be of a high technology variety; some others may be of a type that the honourable gentleman indicated. A value of having such a high level of Australian industry involvement now as opposed to the past is that more and more of the offsets program can, in fact, be drawn from the Australian industry involvement part of the project. This has been particularly successful in the helicopter deals that we have done recently. So an item of equipment which is useful and which counted in the project as part of the Australian industry involvement can then slot into the tender company's overall project. As a result, for example in the helicopters, parts of what is produced under the Australian industry involvement program will also be slotted into the offsets program and it will be possible to export those items of equipment to the United States of America and elsewhere where those helicopters are sold. I do not think that this Government needs to explain to anybody its commitment to Australian industry involvement in the defence area. The Opposition simply needs to contrast its best effort, which was the FA18 program in which it managed about 30 per cent Australian involvement, to our negotiation, three or four years on, of the submarine contract where we are talking in the order of 70 per cent involvement. Mr Ruddock —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could the Minister obtain additional information to enable him to answer the question? Madam SPEAKER —The Minister has agreed to do that. Ms CRAWFORD —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, concerns child maintenance payments. Given the Minister's commitment to the introduction of the Child Support Authority which guarantees child maintenance by the non-custodial parent, can he assure the House of the Government's intention to proceed with this project? Can he outline the timeframe for the introduction? Mr HOWE —The Government is intending, firstly, to proceed in this session of Parliament to legislate to establish the Child Support Agency; secondly, to carry certain amendments in the family law area which have been previously announced in terms of improving the level of payment that is awarded by courts to custodial parents; and, thirdly, to make amendments in relation to the Social Security Act specifically providing for a separate income test. Providing this legislation passes through the Parliament, it is the Government's intention to have the Agency in operation as early as possible in the new year, but certainly no later than 31 March. This legislation and the Government's approach in the child support area are designed to overcome very significant problems whereby two-thirds of all supporting parents effectively receive no maintenance payments. The establishment of the agency will certainly ensure that the vast majority of supporting parents will receive maintenance payments. The creation of an independent income test is a coherent element in the Government's policy which is designed to provide positive incentives for sole parents to enter the work force. It is designed also to ensure that the Government recovers some of its very considerable expenditure in relation to sole parents. Such outlays will be increasing as a result of sole parents being made eligible for further assistance under the family package. The Government has a determination to go ahead with this legislation. We hope that it will have the support of the Opposition and the Parliament because we believe it is a very significant reform that, on the one hand, will help to achieve our objectives in relation to child poverty and, on the other hand, will enable us to offset, I think in a very responsible and fair way, some government expenditure in relation to this group of people who, I think it is recognised, of all social security beneficiaries, tend most often to be those who are poor. Mr HOWARD —Did the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support discuss with his counterpart in South Australia the report of the Bureau of Transport Economics on the closure of the Bridgewater railway line in Adelaide before that report was released? If so, what were those discussions, when did they take place and what was decided? Will the Minister explain why two copies of the report-a draft and a final report dated only one day apart-contained significant differences and why both were made public? Mr DUNCAN —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I did have the opportunity of having some discussions with the Minister in South Australia. My understanding of the position was that a copy of a draft of the report from the Bureau was supplied to the key parties involved in this matter, and certainly the South Australian Government, by an officer of the Bureau some time before the finalisation of the report. I have been advised by the Bureau that that draft was supplied for the purpose of checking figures which were to appear in the report relating to the position of the State Transport Authority in South Australia. The arrangement that had been made was that the South Australian Government was to be supplied with a copy of the final report before it was released to the media, including the Press; and that report was supplied to the Minister in South Australia. He contacted me and said that he was concerned to find that the final report and the draft report differed somewhat. I also was surprised to learn that. I had had no involvement in the process of compiling the reports, except to authorise the Bureau to undertake the study in the first place, which I had done happily in an endeavour to resolve a difficult situation in South Australia. The only other involvement I can recall having had in the matter was that I was approached by the honourable member for Mayo, or he approached my office at some stage, and he sought my assistance in requiring the Bureau to take evidence from him in person, I think. I made inquiries from the Bureau as to the processes that it was pursuing in relation to this matter, and I was advised that the Bureau was intending to take verbal advice, evidence or submissions from the Hills Residents Association, I think it is called, from the unions concerned and from the South Australian Government, and from no other parties. I simply endorsed that as the position and reported back to the honourable member that I was not going to request or direct the Bureau to hear evidence in any manner other than the way that it had determined that it was going to accept evidence. I might say to the House that I did that because this study was to be done within a limited timeframe. It was not to be an extensive study; it was necessary to produce the report at an early time. I thought in all the circumstances that the Bureau's decision in relation to evidence was entirely proper. Mrs DARLING —I refer the Minister for Social Security to a situation which existed earlier this year when social security beneficiaries who were transferring to full time study and who were eligible for Austudy had their social security benefit cut before the Austudy payments came in, causing quite severe hardship in some cases. Could the Minister inform the House what steps the Government has taken to alleviate this situation? Mr HOWE —As announced at the time of the Budget, the Government has in fact acted to deal with the situation as described by the honourable member for Lilley. People applying for Austudy in 1988 will be able to continue to receive unemployment, sickness or special benefit up to the time that they commence studies. Currently, social security benefits are cancelled immediately it becomes known that a person will qualify for Austudy. This has resulted, as I think the honourable member was suggesting, in some intending students being left with no income support until payments of Austudy commence. The new arrangements in 1988 are aimed at minimising any gap in payment when a person transfers from social security benefits to Austudy. Of course, as a result of this new mechanism, people will sometimes be paid rather more than they are actually entitled to. If there is a necessity to recover any overpayment, that will be the responsibility of the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Madam SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff for 1986-87. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on the Review of Systems for Dealing with Fraud on the Commonwealth. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Council on Overseas Professional Qualifications for 1985-86. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —Pursuant to section 99 of the Telecommunications Act 1975, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Telecommunications Commission for 1986-87, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Telecommunications Commission report on service and business outlook dated September 1987. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —For the information of honourable members, I present an interim report on the Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract, together with the text of a tabling statement. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr Fife —Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to ask the Minister whether he intends to initiate a debate on this paper. With a matter of such importance that has been discussed in this House, we would expect that he would make a statement on it. Mr Young —We will see how quickly we get rid of the appropriations. Madam SPEAKER —Is the honourable member moving that the debate be adjourned? Mr Fife —I shall move that the debate be adjourned, but I would like to make it clear that the Opposition would expect this matter to be debated. Mr Young —Madam Speaker, the Government is always in favour of debate. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on the conduct of Australian Broadcasting Corporation personnel in the New South Wales town of Brewarrina in August this year, together with the text of a tabling statement. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr Fife —Madam Speaker, I would like to express the same sentiments in relation to this matter. We would like to see it debated, and I accept the assurance of the Leader of the House that it will be debated during the current session of the Parliament. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) —Pursuant to Regulation 23e of the Army and Air Force Canteen Service Regulations 1981, I present the Army and Air Force Canteen Service Board of Management annual report for 1986, together with the Auditor-General's report and audited financial statement and balance sheets. The Clerk-I present a copy of the petition filed by Colin Graham Smith. The petition has been forwarded under section 369 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 by the Registrar of the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. Madam SPEAKER —I wish to advise the House of a decision taken on 25 September 1987 by the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House in respect of the Speaker's chair. In March last year the Committee decided that the existing Speaker's chair should be transferred to the chamber of the House of Representatives in the new Parliament House as the Speaker's chair in that chamber. Since that decision was taken a good deal of work has been carried out to identify the issues involved in relocating the chair. These matters include the chair's present condition, the need for restoration after the move, practical considerations involved in its removal and relocation and the need for modifications to overcome previously recognised shortcomings. The assessment of these matters provided an opportunity to give further consideration to the appropriateness of removing the existing chair from the present chamber. This chair was a gift from the United Kingdom branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association. It is a replica of the original chair designed for the House of Commons chamber and contains timber from the Westminster Hall and from Nelson's flagship, HMS Victory. Presented in 1926, it has served as the Speaker's chair in this chamber for the whole of Parliament's occupation of this building. In doing so, the chair has become the central piece of this particular chamber, without which, I suggest, the chamber could become just another room. The design brief for the new Parliament House drew attention to the possibility that certain items might be transferred to the new building. One of these was the Speaker's chair. I have no doubt that in considering the matter last year the Joint Standing Committee made its decision to transfer the chair on the basis of tradition and the symbolic link with the Westminster Parliament. In reviewing the decision, the Committee recognised these points; however, it also recognised the significance of preserving the integrity of the current chamber. It was felt that removal of the chair would completely destroy the character of the chamber and diminish its value as an historical testament to Australia's parliamentary development from 1927 to 1988. In this context it should be noted that in 1984 the Joint Standing Committee recommended that, after its vacation by the Parliament, this building should become a museum related to the Australian Constitution, Federation and the Commonwealth Parliament. The new Parliament House will be a contemporary building, reflecting Australia's current traditions and values. It will incorporate a great deal of Australian skill, craftsmanship and materials. This will be particularly so in the two legislative chambers. Construction of the new building presents the opportunity for design and fabrication of a new chair in keeping with the distinctly Australian character of the new chamber. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —It would be appreciated if those who are interjecting ceased while I am on my feet. In considering all the issues involved-that is, symbolism, tradition, the contemporary Australian parliamentary scene, the design theme of the new building and the practical issues-by a majority decision the Committee concluded that the chair should remain in the provisional Parliament House and that a new chair should be designed and fabricated for the chamber in the new Parliament House. It decided that the new chair should be made in Australia by Australian craftsmen and from Australian material. The Committee also resolved that an opportunity should be available for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to provide some financial contribution towards the cost of the construction of the chair, if it should so wish, as a means of maintaining its links with the House of Representatives. The Committee has requested the Parliament House Construction Authority to prepare designs for a new Speaker's chair. It is expected that the Committee will be able to consider preliminary designs at its next meeting towards the end of October. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Madam Speaker, the Opposition regrets and rejects the decision that you have just delivered on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. Mr Hayden —The chair led to the return of the Liberal Party's fortunes. Mr HOWARD —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade can content himself with his mindless witticisms but I think members of the Australian public have a keener sense of a certain degree of symbolism and of historical continuity in the affairs of this nation than the members of the Government apparently give them credit for. No political party, no parliament and no nation should be a total slave to tradition or to history. But any parliament which on such flimsy and insubstantial grounds rejects the most visible link that this chamber, this body of people, this body of representative Australians, has with the fountain of our parliamentary system, has insufficient regard to history and symbolism. The reasons advanced by you, Madam Speaker, for this decision may have satisfied a meeting of the Enmore branch of the Australian Labor Party but I do not believe that they ought to satisfy a gathering of this Parliament. As you acknowledged, the existing chair was a gift from the United Kingdom branch of the now Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in 1926. It is a replica of the original chair designed for the House of Commons that was used there until its destruction in World War II. The transfer of the present chair to the new Parliament House would represent a continuation of tradition. Having listened to the explanation given by you, Madam Speaker, and having heard something of the discussion and debate that has gone on about this issue, I believe this is yet another example of Sir Humphrey having won a famous victory. There is no doubt that a large number of people associated with the new Parliament House are as determined as they possibly can be to destroy some of the more traditional elements of the chamber, of which the chair was the most obvious and the most visible. With great respect, Madam Speaker, your explanation is unconvincing: it gives absolutely no substantive grounds as to why the existing chair could not be moved. I suggest that it beggars both the belief and the common sense of most Australians for you to stand up and say that it is impossible in this day and age to transfer that chair some few hundred yards without doing damage to it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I did not say that it was impossible. You must read the statement again. Mr HOWARD —I am glad that you say it is not impossible, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for that guidance. In fact, in March 1986, it was not only not impossible but also eminently desirable. I say to you, with the very greatest respect, that you have not advanced one scintilla of justification or explanation as to why the decision you took in March 1986 ought to be reversed. We can only be satisfied that, amongst the members of your Committee on the Government side and amongst those who advise the Government on these matters, there is a deliberate design to break the traditional link that that chair represents. Government members interjecting- Mr HOWARD —Government members do not like it. They get very excited about this matter. I acknowledge, Madam Speaker, that in a strictly formal sense this decision is something that in the first place had to be made by the Committee, but it is something that you know-and the members of your Committee must have known-goes to the sensitivities of many people both within and outside this place about the nature of this institution. For it to be presented in a clinical fashion, as being yet another recommendation of your Committee, without any prior canvassing, in a broader sense, of the views of the parliamentary parties in this chamber-and I know that I speak for all of my colleagues on this side of the House-is something that I simply do not accept. Mr Charles —Why did you block Supply? Mr HOWARD —Your colleagues on the other side of the House can guffaw, interject and make all the little witticisms under the sun. No doubt the wisecrack machine in the court jester's office and in the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) will work overtime on the subject. But the reality is that in the life of any country, in the life of any parliament, a certain modicum of tradition, a certain modicum of convention, a certain modicum of symbolism, is a very important element. Mr O'Keefe —Do you remember 1975? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr HOWARD —I am unconcerned by the volley of interjections. A certain modicum of symbolism is both necessary and desirable. Just as a political party, whether of the Right, the Left, the Centre Right or Centre Left, or whatever you like, has its traditions and its sensitivities, so ought a parliament. The history that this Speaker's chair has, the symbolism that it represents, the continuity that it affords in terms of the historical tradition and the antecedents of this Parliament, and its very design and nature make this particular decision quite unacceptable in the view of the Opposition. It shows an insuf- ficient balance between practicality and symbolism. The last thing, Madam Speaker, with great respect, that anybody can advance, given the history of the building over the last 4 1/2 years, is a cost of several thousand dollars. Given the history of the building and the nonsense that has gone on in relation to this building over the last 4 1/2 years and the still unexplained extravagances and expenses that have occurred under the eye of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), neither you, nor anybody on the other side of the House, should start advancing expense as one of the reasons why you have taken this decision. All I can say is that, if you have taken this decision on the basis of expense, you have a remarkably selective approach to frugality, given the experiences that have gone on in relation to this building. Madam Speaker, I find your explanation totally inadequate. You have not advanced, on behalf of the Committee, any convincing reason. It is perhaps a measure of the contempt that the majority of members of the Committee obviously feel for questions of symbolism and tradition relating to the functioning of this place. If those members do not hold that view, perhaps they will be able to indicate during the course of this discussion that that is not their view. We regard it as a totally unacceptable decision by the Committee and the Opposition rejects it. I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith: That this House rejects the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House announced by Madam Speaker and authorises the transfer of the Speaker's chair from this House of Representatives chamber to the new Parliament in accordance with the Committee's 1986 resolution. Mr MacKellar —It should be a free vote, too. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.10) —I second this motion. Madam Speaker, I am absolutely appalled at the effrontery of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House, of which you are Chairman, in its disregard of the symbolism of our past and the desire that I thought most members had to try to ensure that the elements of the Westminster system could be transferred to the new Parliament House. We need to understand a few things. We are about to debate the situation in Fiji. Apparently all honourable members on the other side of the House are quite prepared just to dismiss the rule of law, all of the elements of our tradition and all of those things that have anything to do with democracy and Westminster. They are prepared to get rid of a symbol which some honourable members opposite probably do not even recall was used after the bombing of London so that the House of Commons could build an exact replica. It is not just a chair that was handed down to us when this Parliament House was built. I have been advised that the chair was used as a model from which the present chair in Westminster was designed. Another part of the Australian Labor Party's absolutely fallacious presentation to the Australian electorate is that the Labor Party is in some way worried about our heritage. If anybody thought that Labor wanted anything to do with our heritage, we have been shown the position in true and proper perspective today. We know that it is not concerned about our history, that it is not worried about our traditions, that it wants to get rid of our flag and that it has constituted a constitutional commission to scrap the present Constitution and put in place of the Senate that has true and proper powers goodness knows what. It is very important that the people of Australia understand what this Labor Party is doing through a motion which, I understand, Madam Speaker, was initiated by your deputy. He can take little credit from it, and neither can any other honourable member who seeks to refuse the transfer of that chair to the new Parliament House. It is important that the people of Australia have an opportunity both to see and to understand a little of the beginnings of the democratic tradition in the new Parliament House which we on this side of the House believe is sacrosanct. That chair is a symbol of those traditions. In 1986, after due and proper consideration, it was decided that that chair should be transferred to the new Parliament House. Like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), I accept neither that cost nor difficulties of removal is an adequate excuse for the decision being made belatedly, towards the end of 1987 when we are about to move into the new Parliament House, that it suddenly cannot go there. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, it is a victory for the Sir Humphreys of this place, the National Capital Development Commission, or the Parliament House Construction Authority. If we are going to a new chamber a decision not to protect a symbol of our origins would be a very unfortunate decision indeed. Madam Speaker, I can assure you that the reason for moving this motion is not only that we on this side of the House reject the concept that is part of the resolution you have referred to us but also that we believe it is necessary that we continue to have in the new Parliament House all of those things from this place that are important. One of the important items is not just the chair and its symbolism; it is also our Standing Orders and our systems. Madam Speaker, if you as the custodian of those values are now going to throw them aside, this place will be the poorer and your term as Speaker will be remembered not for what you have done in other areas but for the fact that you have been prepared to bow to those who seek to remove those symbols. I think it is essential that this chamber have an opportunity to vote as a whole on a matter of such importance. As the Leader of the Opposition or one of my colleagues said, I trust that it will be a free vote. It is a matter on which rests a great deal of symbolism and importance. I hope that the vote can be taken in a free and open way and not, as it seems will be the case, on the basis of some preconceived Caucus decision. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.15) —The Government is not going to facilitate the suspension of Standing Orders. Madam Speaker, we did give leave to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), as he requested, to speak on the subject of your statement. He did not indicate at that time that he wanted a debate on the matter. That is something that came through his mind about 15 minutes after he started speaking. One has to be continually amazed at what the members of the Opposition think are the important aspects of our constitutional rules. They do not mind blocking Supply; they do not mind blocking legislation through regulations; they do not mind stacking country electorates, with a 20 per cent discrepancy between city and country electorates when they are in power. None of these things are important to them, but they are all crying crocodile tears about the Speaker's chair. Anybody listening would say that members of the Opposition who have spoken should be given high chairs and dummies. That is what they need. It is as if it would have an influence on the performance of future generations of parliamentarians in this country if the chair did not go up the hill to the new House. According to the mentality of the Opposition, that will be the criterion by which future generations of parliamentarians will be judged. If the chair is not there, we will be inadequate; but if the chair is there, we will perform much better because it has some magical influence upon us when we perform in the House. The Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House has recommended that a chair be built in accordance with what is going into the new chamber. I do not find that difficult to understand, nor do I find it difficult to understand that the millions of Australians who will come and look at this chamber as a museum-which it is rapidly becoming because of the Opposition's views-will see the chamber in its original state with the chair. This is what is being done around the world when new parliaments are built. This morning when I travelled over from Adelaide I read in the Press that the State branch of the Liberal Party is going to change its rules to give the State Executive more power over preselection because it is not satisfied with the quality of candidates that the Liberal Party is getting. I would have thought if the State branch of the Liberal Party in South Australia or any other State were listening to the broadcast of Parliament today it would give the State Executive complete power, because it could not be impressed by the fact that, of all the issues facing the Australian people, the parliamentary executive of the Liberal Party of Australia and the parliamentary wings of the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party regard as the most important on this first day back in Parliament the issue of whether the chair goes up the hill. If honourable members opposite keep making that their major issue, not many of them will be going up the hill because the people will make a judgment about that. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), one of the architects of the events of 11 November 1975, is telling us that the chair is more important than some of the other events that have taken place while he has been in parliament. I do not think too many people will take much notice of his contribution about what are and what are not the important issues facing this Parliament. The charade put on by the Opposition in coming back to the Parliament today and making this the No. 1 issue on top of all the other things facing the Australian people today just shows up how inadequate the Opposition is. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the Minister can make a mistake once but from then on he is telling untruths. Madam SPEAKER —Order! What is the point of order? Mr Tuckey —The Opposition did not introduce this matter to the House; you did, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Speaker made a statement and the Leader of the Opposition asked for leave of the House to make a reply. Mr Tuckey —The Minister is constantly referring to this as an Opposition motion. It is not. It is your motion, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The motion to suspend Standing Orders to move a motion in regard to the Speaker's chair originated with the Leader of the Opposition. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) must have left his Party executive meeting early, for I shall just explain the tactics. They said, `The Speaker is going to make a statement about the chair'. The Leader of the Opposition said, `Big issue-the chair. Forget about Fiji; forget about unemployment; forget about taxation. Here is one we are going to clean them up on. This afternoon in the House of Representatives everyone will be listening. We want to know what is going to happen to the chair'. The honourable member was not listening to the tactics. The Leader of the Opposition said, `I shall con the Leader of the House to give me leave to speak, and at the end of that I shall move the suspension of Standing Orders and really put on a brawl'. `Hear, hear'-up went all the hands-`this is the big issue'. It is no issue. Honourable members make a nonsense of themselves raising matters such as this when it has been considered by a committee. Mr Spender —Have an open vote. Mr YOUNG —We shall do exactly the same as you did when you were in government about open votes. I keep reading the record of the Fraser Government about all its open votes and all the nonsense honourable members opposite talk about in the Liberal and National parties. I do not think the Australian people would want us to continue with this farce. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett. N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Courtice, B. W. McHugh, J.Crawford, M. C. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton. P.Darling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. 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.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Donald Prosser, G. D.Cameron, Ewen Reith, P. K.Cameron, Ian Robinson, IanCarlton, J. J. Rocher, A. C.Cobb, M. R. Ruddock, P. M.Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D.Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J.Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W.Goodluck, B. J. Webster, A. P.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Woods, R. L.Hewson, J. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Brown, Robert Macphee, J. M.Morris, Allan Peacock, A. S.Uren, T. Adermann, A. E.Keating, P. J. Edwards, HarryMildren, J. B. Moore, J. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Miles C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron Donald Prosser, G. D.Cameron, Ewen Reith, P. K.Cameron, Ian Robinson, IanCarlton, J. J. Rocher, A. C.Cobb, M. R. Ruddock, P. M.Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D.Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McCFife, W. C. Smith, W. L.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Webster, A. P.Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hewson, J. R. Woods, R. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wooldridge, M. R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Courtice, B. W. McHugh, E. J.Crawford, M. C. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. 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.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Macphee, J. M. Brown, RobertPeacock, A. S. Morris, AllanAdermann, A. E. Uren, T.Edwards, Harry Keating, P. J.Moore, J. C. Mildren, J. B. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LEO McLEAY —I do indeed. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr LEO McLEAY —The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), in his remarks during the previous debate, claimed that I was the author of the idea to move the chair to the new Parliament House. In fact, that is not so. I can understand how the Leader of the National Party may have got his information wrong, since no representative of the National Party was in attendance at the committee meeting at which that decision was made. The fact is that I am not in favour of moving the chair; I believe it should stay in this building. I feel that was the right decision to make. I was not the author of the proposition that the chair be moved. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Aldred,Mr Burr,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawker,Mr Katter,Mr Moore,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock,Mrs Sullivan and Dr Wooldridge. 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 Dobie,Mr Fife,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Hawker,Mr Katter,Mr Moore,Mr Nehl,Mr Tuckey and Mr White. To the Speaker and 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 taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Peacock,Mr Prosser,Mr Shack,Mr Sinclair 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 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, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: 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. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Dawson electorate respectfully shows that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal, and that the card will not stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Murray electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal, and that the card will not stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal 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 Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fairfax electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal, and that the card will not stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal 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 Millar. 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 Downer,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Porter and Mrs Sullivan. 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 N.A. Brown,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. 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' as there is a disturbing uncertainty regarding the possible health effects of this process on humans. This process has also been shown to reduce the nutritional value and affect taste, colour and texture of food, thus necessitating further unwanted additives. We oppose the introductions of regulations that will facilitate (a) the `Food Irradiation' process by State Governments, and (b) the dumping of irradiated food products on Australia, to the detriment of our food producers. We call on the Government to impose an immediate moratorium on all aspects of `Food Irradiation' in Australia. We urge extreme caution in processes involving radiation, where there is evidence indicating possible detrimental health effects. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of Cobalt-60, Caesium-137 or other radioactive substances. And your Petitioners in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for the possession of child pornography, and has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X-rated videos, (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia connections. Because 98 per cent of Australians in other States have banned X-rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and it's availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Because anyone can have these tapes in their possession for private use. Because the Government does not intervene in that. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth,Ms Fatin,Ms Jakobsen and Mr Rocher. 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 Lionel Bowen,Mr Cadman and Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. We, the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve is trading performance. 4. in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their business and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefit Tax Legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Cadman and Mr Rocher. The Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern: about the evil caused by the fact that ex-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence, are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra. And your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that such circulation be prevented. The laws regarding obscenity in the media should also be revived and enforced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin and Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Hawke. 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 and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Identity Card, to be called the Australia Card, and a National Identification Numbering System, is not in keeping with the established rights, privileges and customs of the Australian people: It is, therefore, the will and desire of the said petitioners that the proposed legislation be neither introduced in its original form, nor amended in any way, but totally withdrawn. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Nehl. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned do respectfully showeth that pornographic material relating to children is deleterious to the health and welfare of children and society as a whole. We respectfully urge the Government to ban all child pornography from entering or from being produced in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Fatin and Ms Jakobsen. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively sheweth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action nor permit any action to be taken to make any change without the approval of the Australian people by referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Fatin and Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: The proposed Australia Card ignores the lessons of recent history which demonstrate how easily the instruments of government can be abused and corrupted. It will impose unnecessary restrictions on civil and personal freedom and put into the hands of the government potentially totalitarian powers, which are out of place in a democracy. Contrary to Federal Government claims, overseas experience indicates, that national identity cards will not eliminate tax frauds and welfare cheats. 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 and Mr Sinclair. 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 Rocher 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 shows: We are concerned that- (a) the proposed changes in legislation to Unemployment Benefit for young people adds to the already ill-conceived and over-bureaucratic welfare system and (b) the abolition of CEP and the inadequacy of other training programs and (c) cuts in funding for education, public housing and other welfare areas mean that young people's needs are being neglected by the Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Commonwealth Government immediately takes steps to- (a) establish an anti-poverty level of income for all young people regardless of whether they are in training, retraining, education, employment or unemployment. The first step in achieving this is the full reinstatement of Unemployment Benefit for sixteen and seventeen year olds with automatic indexation linked to CPI increases. (b) increase educational opportunities for all young people. The first step in achieving this would be to create 120 000 new places in higher and further education. This would make up for the 100 000 people turned away from TAFE courses and 20 000 people from universities and CAEs this year. (c) establish a long term job creation program. The creation of 53 100 jobs for those young people who have been unemployed over 12 months is required immediately. Your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Speaker and Honourable members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned strongly protest 1987 cuts to ESL programs for adults, conducted by the Adult Migrant Education Service (AMES) in New South Wales. Evening ESL classes have been cut by 25%. The ESL Correspondence course is to be abolished in a few months' time. The English-in-the-Workplace Program has been reduced. Full-time on-arrival courses have been abolished. AMES day centres have had their teaching hours reduced. Community programs have lost teaching hours. We call for- (i) the full and immediate restoration of AMES teaching programs in New South Wales to at least 1986 levels and (ii) a substantial increase in funding to AMES programs in the 1987 budget, in view of the recently announced increases in the immigration intake. by Mr Lionel Bowen. The Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephones and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That Telecom Business Offices provide a valuable service to their respective local communities; 2. That they should not be closed by Telecom on arbitrary commercial grounds; 3. That Telecom should be prevailed upon to reverse its decision to close the Business Offices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. To the Honourable, the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that the financial burden placed upon parents living in remote areas endeavouring to provide tertiary education for their children is unbearable; that ``distance'' students can in no way be considered to be on an equal footing with coastal and metropolitan students with regard to educational opportunity and accessibility; that students from remote areas attaining academic excellence are denied tertiary education because of the costs involved; that we call upon the Government to rectify this deplorable situation and provide equal opportunity for tertiary education for children in remote areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of Parliament assembled. The humble petition of these electors sheweth that as: In Australia, tobacco kills about four times as many people as the total killed by drink, drugs, murder, suicide, road accidents, rail accidents, air accidents, poisoning, drowning, fires, snakes, lightning, and every other known cause of accidental death all put together. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will prove your worth with effectual action against the promotion of tobacco. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerr. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. We consider that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. We therefore ask the House to take action to prevent the implementation of this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: The decision by the Department of Defence to close down the Macksville Sub-section of 41 Battalion, Australian Army Reserve, is of grave concern to the unit members and citizens of the surrounding districts. The decision to direct unit members to Coffs Harbour, some 60 km distant, would impose sufficient hardship to prevent many continuing in the reserve and be a major deterrent to potential members. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to: Intervene to stop the proposed closure and sale of land at Wallace Street, Macksville, and initiate action to have a permanent Depot built on the Army's Macksville land. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. 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 per cent of the Gross National Product of Australia. And your petitioners, as 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 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, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia. The petition of citizens of Tenterfield concerned about increased bureaucratic regulation of our already overgoverned existence and concerned further as to the possible abuse of this implement humbly beg and petition the honourable members aforesaid not to proceed with legislation to implement an identification card. by Mr Sinclair. 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: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business, anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Industrial Relations Bill will increase industrial disputation, bankrupt companies, and give the union movement total and absolute power over the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's Industrial Relations Bill to save Australia from the actions of militant unions and give our economy a chance of recovering. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need for the Government to promote new initiatives for the settlement of the Fijian crisis. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.41) —Events in Fiji move from bad to worse, and it is in these circumstances that the Opposition proposes as a definite matter of public importance: The need for the Government to promote new initiatives for the settlement of the Fijian crisis. From the time of the first coup in May of this year, and with the continuing crisis in Fijian democracy, the Opposition has believed that the Commonwealth should be involved. At the time of the first coup the then shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs proposed that there should be a mission to Fiji made up of Commonwealth foreign Ministers. That was not taken up. I add that had it been taken up maybe-one does not know-the foreign Ministers could have assisted in moving Fiji to some kind of a resolution of its crisis. Since the second coup we have again put two specific proposals. The first is that we should get quick Commonwealth agreement on sending to Fiji a senior and distinguished Commonwealth emissary, preferably from outside the South Pacific region, who would be seen by all parties to bring an objective appreciation to the crisis and who could assess at first hand what could be done to return Fiji to constitutional and democratic rule and make very plain to Colonel Rabuka how his actions were viewed by the Commonwealth and by the wider international community. The second proposal is to set up a small group of Commonwealth foreign Ministers to act as a means of engaging Colonel Rabuka in constructive dialogue and to work on mechanisms to assist in achieving a just and speedy political settlement of the crisis within a Commonwealth framework. They are the proposals to which we seek a response from the Government. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) is to take place in Vancouver in a few days time. While we await the Government's response we may ask this question: What is the Government's policy? Does it have something better to propose? I should like to go back to an answer given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to a question from his own side on 24 September of this year. He said: The Government welcomes yesterday's announcement that a council of state is to be formed in Fiji, headed by the Governor-General . . . and comprising a balance of coalition and alliance members. We believe that the announcement constitutes a fundamentally important step towards a return to full parliamentary democracy in Fiji-a goal which I believe is supported by all honourable members. Certainly, we do support that goal. Of all governments, the Australian Government should have been the best informed about events in Fiji. There is an ongoing constitutional crisis. It is a region of natural interest and influence for Australia. We have long and close ties with that country and we have major commercial investments in it. Yet at 3 o'clock on the day following the Prime Minister's answer to this House Colonel Rabuka staged his second coup. The Prime Minister failed to foresee the risk of that coup, a risk which Mr Derek Scarr, the Senior Fellow in Pacific History at the Australian National University, described as painfully misleading. He failed to see it despite the obvious and crucial need to monitor events in Fiji and despite, on one report, a warning given by Colonel Rabuka. I refer briefly to a report in the Australian newspaper of 1 October: Australian diplomats in Suva dismissed a warning from Colonel Rabuka two weeks ago that he might mount another coup if the objectives of his May coup did not look like being achieved. One does not know what was said. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) obviously does, but if there was even a hint of that kind of message going through it was the sort of thing that should have been considered gravely and very seriously. Yet the Prime Minister's failure and the Government's failure to assess the risk of a second coup are symptomatic of Government neglect of the South Pacific region. I remind the House of two things. First, it was three years before the Foreign Minister first visited the South Pacific. He went before to other countries such as Nicaragua and Hungary, countries which are not exactly at the centre of our interests. Second, at the time of the first coup the Foreign Minister was kept in exile overseas. When asked about this on a radio program he explained the reasons in these terms: I should mention to you that on Tuesday night I spoke to the Prime Minister after a hijack had taken place and seemingly the situation had deteriorated. I advised him that I was taking steps to book a flight from London Tuesday night, the first available flight, to Australia. What then happened? Senator Evans called. Senator Evans did not seem to think that it was necessary for the Foreign Minister to return. We then had a conversation between the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister. The Foreign Minister said this: I advised him- that is, the Prime Minister- that I preferred to hear that sort of advice- that is, the advice that he had received from Senator Evans to the effect that there were no problems that required his return- from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister contacted me later after he returned to Canberra and said quite firmly that as both the coup and the hijack were over I should continue on the task I'd been given. Two things can be said of that. The Prime Minister seemed to show contempt for his Foreign Minister, which he should not have. He should have had the Foreign Minister back here as soon as possible. The Prime Minister also seemed completely to misunderstand or to be ignorant of or indifferent to the gravity of the coup. What has been Government policy since then? The Government has said that the Governor-General is the only person who will be recognised as head of state and we agree with that. That is quite right. The Government has said that it does not recognise Colonel Rabuka's actions such as his self-appointment as chief of state and the revocation of the Constitution. We agree with that. The Government has said, through the Foreign Minister and again today through the Prime Minister, that the resolution of the problem is a matter for the Fijian people. That is correct but we have an interest in the resolution of the problem and the Commonwealth has an interest in the resolution of the problem since we are dealing with a country of the Commonwealth, a country that was regarded as the showplace for democracy in the Pacific. I think the Government's attitudes can be summed up by the words `wait and see'. The Foreign Minister was recently quoted as saying that this is a classic case where patience and observation are the main virtues we have to apply. Patience is no doubt a virtue; observation is no doubt a virtue. But are we simply to remain observers? Are we simply to be patient? Do we have nothing to propose? Are we empty of ideas? Mr Bilney —The Opposition is. Mr SPENDER —Are we to allow others to make the running? There was an interjection from a former member of the foreign service, who said that the Opposition did not have any ideas. We have put up two specific proposals. On the subject of ideas and before passing on to something else, let me remind the House as well that the Foreign Minister has said correctly, as I understand him, that the Government is not entertaining sanctions and, yet again showing patience, again observing what is taking place, the Foreign Minister and this Government allow the union movement to impose sanctions-sanctions which are stupid and unworkable and which have been shown to be unworkable in the past-and to arrogate to itself the power of determining foreign policy in this area. The Government should act against this speedily and firmly. What has happened? Nothing: patience and observation once more. Let us look to recent events. They have moved ominously and rapidly. The outcome of yesterday's talk between the Governor-General, Colonel Rabuka and others bodes ill. It is plain that conventional diplomacy is having little if any effect on events in Fiji. As far as we can see, conventional diplomacy is having no effect at all. It is plain that Australia by itself has no capacity to influence events in Fiji; nor, apparently, do other countries. There is no sign that anything that has been said or done by the United States, by Great Britain or by New Zealand has had any effect on the policies being pursued by Colonel Rabuka and his supporters. What should we do? Must we not look at new measures to achieve a just and speedy resolution of the crisis and the return of the country to democratic rule? Or do we simply surrender to be observers-but observers of what? Are we to be observers of a country moving down a road towards a kind of government that I do not believe anybody in this House would support? It seems that the proposal plainly and undeniably is to entrench a minority over the whole of the inhabitants of the islands. In short, do we continue as we are or do we search for new initiatives, however difficult the situation, however bad it may presently appear and however quickly events may move? We are not talking about imposing solutions. We are not talking about finite propositions. We are talking about constructive diplomacy. We are talking about looking at ways and means of breaking the impasse. Fiji will undoubtedly be on the agenda of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Vancouver which begins on Sunday. Honourable members will recall that at Question Time today I asked the Prime Minister this question: Does the Prime Minister intend to propose to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Vancouver next week specific measures which the Commonwealth might adopt to seek to achieve a speedy and just resolution of the Fijian crisis? If so, can he outline those measures to the House? The answer was, in effect, no. I quote part of the Prime Minister's answer to me: . . . there should be a statement of principle expressing the very strong view that there should be a return to the parliamentary system of democracy. We would all agree with that. But what will a statement of principle, coming from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, achieve? It will achieve nothing. The Prime Minister went on to say: Should those in Fiji believe that there could be some role undertaken by the Commonwealth- honourable members should listen to that- I have no doubt that those attending CHOGM would be prepared to provide that. He went on to say that, ultimately, the resolution is for the Fijians themselves. As I have said, ultimately, that is so. But what does the Prime Minister mean when he said, `Should those in Fiji believe there could be some role undertaken by the Commonwealth'? Does he have Colonel Rabuka in mind? I think not. It is perfectly absurd and it is astonishing that the Prime Minister could say, `We will, effectively, wash our hands of effective action. We will confine ourselves at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting-a unique opportunity for concerted Commonwealth action-to do two things: issue a platitudinous statement of principle and be ready to respond to any initiative from Fiji'. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. We have an historic possibility. I say no more than that. The two proposals that the Opposition has put up merit the most serious and urgent consideration. I do not suggest that they are the only proposals that could be considered. I do not suggest that there may not be other and better ones. But they are too specific concrete proposals for how we could go about breaking the impasse and returning Fiji to parliamentary democracy, as we all want it to be. In this we should play a lead role; we should not be observers. We should not simply sit by. We should not let others make the running. We should not leave it to other countries. This is our area and an area in which we should have great influence and which is of great concern to us. It is for us to play a lead role at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. One other thing must be said about that meeting. If the Commonwealth is to be a viable and living international entity, it must be able to provide leadership. If it cannot provide some kind of concerted action towards resolving the Fijian problem, not imposing an answer, it has reached a very sad state in its history. I do not believe that is so. I believe that with energy and determination the Government could put to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting specific proposals that may help to break the impasse, and I believe it is the Government's duty to do just that. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(3.56) —Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to welcome warmly the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) on his return to Australia. I knew he was going to come to Australia in haste to save the country and the region because he released a statement on 29 September which, in the modest and so attractive way of the honourable member for North Sydney, stated: The shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, John Spender, has terminated his current overseas trip because of the crisis in Fiji. He was about to slip into his `Sir Les Spender saves the world' routine, with the crumpled hero from North Sydney arriving to the cheers of an unobservable throng of supporters. There was a real reason why he was in a hurry to come home but I do not think it had much to do with Fiji. I have no doubt that he has a genuine concern about Fiji. But, considering what he was doing overseas, and in particular allowing for the fact that he is in opposition and not in any type of executive position, Fiji is not the sort of issue on which he would have any sort of definitive influence. So what was the real reason? I suspect that it was simply that, in his short absence, a number of people behind him suddenly realised that a job opportunity was opening up. To be the shadow shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs for the Opposition had growth prospects. So, nine statements were released by seven different Opposition members on the issue of foreign affairs. One was from the shadow shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer-his seat is not mentioned; his address is given just as Parliament House, which was rather discreet of him-who was fighting hard to keep a toe-hold on the issue. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), who is the shadow Minister for transport and aviation, no less, managed to get in on the act. How does the shadow Minister for transport and aviation manage to get in on the act? He released a statement referring to the hijacking of Australia's foreign policy. As hijacking takes place on aircraft, the shadow Minister for transport is therefore presumed to be entitled to join in on this. But the best statement was made by Senator Puplick who, in an interview, said of the Gulf imbroglio: . . . if somebody shot Saddam Hussein the war could be over within a week. So, the Opposition's foreign policy took on a new dimension. It believed that an assassination would resolve a difficult problem. I really think that all this had more to do with the sudden return of the honourable member for North Sydney than did his concern about the issue of Fiji. Nothing in his speech serves to convince me otherwise. Of course, he has taken to engaging in the new initiative of word processor diplomacy. Since he has been home he has issued a number of statements on this matter. In particular, on 1 October he issued two statements. In the first statement he said that Colonel Rabuka wanted compromise and that the Commonwealth must act. Then events unfolded in the course of the day and so he put out statement No. 2, which omitted the comment that Colonel Rabuka wanted compromise and added a few other sentences. But, largely, it was a similar sort of statement. We saw from the Opposition benches the lazy man's way to be a success in foreign affairs. In those circumstances, it is rather difficult to take the man seriously. What he has put forward here today does nothing to encourage me to change my mind on that. He has come up with a proposition, and it is a proposition which, in principle, has much merit; that is, that there should be Commonwealth agreement to send a senior emissary to Fiji to test the water, as it were; that this should be followed up by a visit by a group of Commonwealth Ministers; and that these Commonwealth Ministers, in a small group, should engage Colonel Rabuka in constructive dialogue. In principle the idea has much merit. But in practice how relevant is it? If we thought there was some prospect of being able to put those sorts of propositions into operation, it would have been done well before now. The fact is that, if those sorts of initiatives are to be undertaken, there must be a mood that accepts them; there must be an atmosphere which is receptive to the proposal. In particular, the main players-not just one, not just Colonel Rabuka, but the Governor-General and others-have to be of an inclination to respond positively to these proposals. One of the things that one learns as Foreign Minister in handling foreign policy, in working with professional diplomats, in dealing with other countries, in protecting the interests of one's own country and in looking after concerns in the region-all of these things come together in this case-is that one cannot engage in a public dialogue on all the detail of what one is doing. One cannot outline various propositions that are being explored or lay down the next set of steps which could be initiated if current conditions were to go in a direction which was not regarded as terribly helpful. In stating this, of course, I must emphasise that the situation in Fiji is taking place within the sovereign territory of the nation of Fiji. It is, in the end, fundamentally an issue for the Fijians to fix up. It is, as was correctly pointed out by the honourable member for North Sydney, an issue in which Australia and a number of other countries have important national interests because it arises in our region. There could be various forms of consequences in the region if the situation were to deteriorate in some quite undesirable way. I acknowledge all of those things. But we do not conduct our diplomacy publicly-at least, not in all respects in which we are engaged in it. Because I have said publicly that it is preferable to be patient and to observe does not mean-and the implication certainly cannot be justified-that the Government is doing nothing but that. We are extremely active in regard to Fiji. We are in frequent contact with Colonel Rabuka. We do the best we can to shore up confidence in and support for the role of the Governor-General. We see him as critical, as things now stand, to any chance for a successful resolution of the issues in Fiji. It would be counterproductive for me to detail what we might try to encourage and what we might try to influence in a subtle and helpful way. The best thing we can do right now is not to be strident and not to convey the impression that we wish to interfere in the affairs of Fiji. At present the relationships there are at a delicate stage. People need room to move, if they are going to move. Maybe they will not move or maybe, if they do move, the final movement might not be in a direction that we care it should occur. If we start to lay down prescriptions and become querulous or strident about it and, more particularly, if we seem to be paternalistic about it, it will be totally counterproductive. The honourable member for North Sydney made quite a number of points. Essentially, the concrete things that he came up with were those two propositions about Commonwealth agreement. I say this to the honourable member: we are in regular contact with the Commonwealth Secretariat, the British High Commissioner in Fiji, our New Zealand colleagues and other colleagues such as the United States. We are in contact with London and we have spoken to some Commonwealth countries about this concern that we share generally. If the two propositions that the honourable member has put forward are practical propositions and are appropriate for implementation, that time has not yet arrived-- Mr Spender —Will you raise them at CHOGM? Mr HAYDEN —Let me finish. That time has not arrived either in fact, in the circumstances that we see in Fiji at present, or in terms of the evaluation of people with whom we have been talking. Quite clearly, there is much to commend a constructive and serious exploration of possible roles for the Commonwealth at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that today-if the people of Fiji are prepared to accept that role. I stress that, if they are not prepared to accept it, we cannot impose it on them. We could seek to persuade them to see that there are certain roles which could be undertaken, but we cannot impose it on them. Once we try to do that, we will certainly be going down a road which will be disastrous in terms of any pretence we might try to lodge towards influencing the unfolding of events in that country. I take up a few other points that the honourable member made. I appreciated his phone call the other day in which he said that he believed the Government was acting in a way which was appropriate in the circumstances. Putting to one side some of my earlier provocative, puckish but friendly comments, I reciprocate by saying that the comments he put forward today were designed-putting to one side the politics, of which there was not unexpectedly a little-to be constructive. But it is wrong of him to say that there is something seriously defective in our understanding of what is going on in the south west Pacific or in Fiji, particularly in regard to this issue. We cannot claim to have an absolute and perfect knowledge of events that are about to unfold in that country or, indeed, in any other country. It is true that we were not aware that the second coup would occur at the point at which it did. But we were aware that Colonel Rabuka had said to the Great Council of Chiefs, for instance, that, if things did not sort themselves out in the way in which he believed they should, he might have to act to clean up the situation. He mentioned that to our High Commissioner at a function. He did not say that he would call another coup. He said that he might have to take action to tidy it up, clean it up, or whatever the exact formulation was. We were watching events to see what might happen. The Governor-General knew of these comments; the Great Council of Chiefs knew of these comments; other leading players knew of these comments. They live there; they are Fijians. They are involved in what outwardly seems to be a very simple and uncomplicated society, but which in fact is hierarchically structured, very complex and, at various levels of that society, quite secretive about what is going on. The Governor-General did not know that there would be a coup; nor did the majority of the Great Council of Chiefs; nor did many other people; nor did any representative of any other mission in Fiji. I shall not waste time going over the comment that we have neglected the South Pacific, except to mention that I have visited more of the countries-all of the countries except one, in fact-of the Pacific Forum than any other Foreign Minister. I am the only Foreign Minister to have undertaken a comprehensive visit to those countries and to do so officially, not as a resting point on the way from North America to Australia, nor as part of some obligation such as an independence celebration or something of that nature. I invite the honourable member for North Sydney to undertake similar visits to that part of the world. I invite him to do so quite soon. I invite all honourable members to take an active interest in visiting that part of the world. Mr Spender —I trust you also believe that the Government should pay for it. Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member wants the Government to pay for it. An allowance is provided to him. Mr Spender —I have just about spent that, as you could well understand. Mr HAYDEN —I checked the other day and he has not yet made a claim on his allowance. The honourable member has not made a claim. He has to submit an application with an outline of his proposed study program, and he has not yet done that. He has not indicated where he might want to go. I invite him to spend the money by visiting this important part of the world because that is why we introduced this benefit for honourable members like him. It is much more important for him to go than for other back bench members of his Party to go. The honourable member was quite wrong when he said that no country, no one, has any influence and hence new initiatives are necessary. I believe that countries are able to exercise a degree of influence from time to time but how much influence they are able to exercise is hard to measure. At this stage my feeling is-perhaps the honourable member could have said it better-that not a lot of influence can be exerted by us, the United States of America or other countries. But some countries have the potential to improve that influence by persisting with the line which has generally been agreed on by countries which have representation on the ground in Fiji, by seeking influence, by seeking low key operations and working separately or collectively as the circumstances warrant. One person who has had quite an impact on Fiji is the Queen. I have been quite impressed by the extraordinary impact that the Queen has had by her firm statements about what is happening in Fiji and statements about how concerned she is. She certainly reinforced the position of the Governor-General. I can assure the honourable member-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(4.11) —I get the impression from listening to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), and following the course of Australia's response to the events in Fiji, that the Australian Government and, in particular, the Foreign Minister have been caught like a kangaroo on the road in the headlights of an oncoming car. They have stood there startled, unprepared and unaware of what to do next. From the long discourse of the Foreign Minister this afternoon, we are still none the wiser as to what the Government's thinking is on future events in Fiji and what further responses might be practicable. That is not surprising coming from a government which has conducted Australia's relations with the South Pacific in such a way that that relationship, in general terms, has become one of the unsung disasters of the 4 1/2 years of the Hawke Government. In all of those 4 1/2 years the Opposition has repeatedly warned the Government that it must pay closer attention to matters in the Pacific. We have heard speeches from the honourable member from Kooyong (Mr Peacock) when he was the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, speeches from the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) when he had that role, speeches from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and even from me repeatedly emphasising that the Government must pay closer attention to matters in the South Pacific. These speeches may have gone unreported-that is one thing-but, more seriously, they have gone unheeded by a government which, apparently, is more interested in visits to Central America and other parts of the world and issues pertaining to Central America and other parts of the world than it is in our region. It is not surprising that, after 4 1/2 years of complete inactivity in our region, the Government professes great surprise about what has happened in Fiji. The Minister for Foreign Affairs claims that he has made visits to the Pacific. He has made one visit to a number of South Pacific countries in the 4 1/2 years he has been Foreign Minister. I point out to the House that he has also made one visit to Central America in that time. In 1986 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) refused to go to the South Pacific Forum. It was not sufficiently important for him to attend; he sent his Deputy instead. The Government, throughout its terms in office, has repeatedly cut back on its aid budget for the South Pacific. Again there is a very substantial decline in real terms in aid for the South Pacific in the 1987-88 Budget and this comes at a time when the Government has just given tax deductible status for donations which assist Nicaragua. The Government has a curious sense of priorities there. I will not go into the details but, in addition, our relationship with France in the region could be described only as chaotic. When this Government came to power one of its early regional initiatives was to abandon the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meetings which had been so painstakingly put together by the Fraser Government. We should not have been surprised by this because, on 7 June 1979, the now Foreign Minister said of the Commonwealth to the House of Representatives: . . . I am far from being a glowing approbater- that is a new word; I suppose it means somebody who approves- of the concept of the Commonwealth of Nations and Commonwealth heads of government these days. In other words, the Foreign Minister has never looked kindly on the Commonwealth and that is one of the reasons why the Government quite happily wound up the Commonwealth heads of government regional meetings. The only initiative in the Pacific we have had from this Government is the establishment of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, an initiative which has simply weakened the role of our allies in the region and done nothing to strengthen our role in the region, the role of the United States in the region and the security of the region in the interests of future generations of Australians. It is against that important background that this Government has found itself confronted with a coup in Fiji. Let me look at the Government's initial response to the 14 May coup. This Government was characteristically negligent. The Foreign Minister was, by coincidence, in New York I think at the time-perhaps he could not have helped that-but he would not come back to Australia and the reason he would not come back was that the Prime Minister rang him and asked him not to come back. Mr Howard —He said, `Leave it to me, Bill'. Mr DOWNER —Indeed he said, `Leave it to me, Bill' and when the Foreign Minister eventually returned to Australia well after the coup had taken place, he was mightily unhappy with the way the Prime Minister had conducted Australia's response to that coup. Regarding the second coup, the Government has clearly ignored the warnings that the Foreign Minister admitted this afternoon it had received from the Australian High Commission in Suva. According to a report in the Australian, to which the honourable member for North Sydney referred and the Minister for Foreign Affairs admitted existed, the High Commissioner had cabled Australia a week or so before the coup took place warning that it could take place. Yet when the coup took place the Government was amazed. It claimed that it had never predicted that such a thing would happen. It claimed that it had no intelligence whatsoever and that it could not be expected that Australia have intelligence that such a coup was going to take place. We discovered that that information was incorrect and that the charges of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) that Australia's intelligence seemed to be ineffective were correct because the Government was not responding to the advice that it was receiving from its High Commission in Suva. The Government stands condemned for its negligence in that respect. It is interesting to compare the details of the way the Government has responded to the coups. After the first coup the Prime Minister, who took charge of affairs on that occasion, attacked the whole of the Fijian nation with a series of abusive statements but he gave no constructive alternative solutions. The Government came up with nothing constructive. Understandably, it was concerned-we supported this concern-about the demise of democracy in that country. No member on this side of the House or, for that matter doubtless, on the other side of the House would ever condone power being gained through the barrel of a gun. But the Government did nothing after the first coup and that has been the critical period. After the second coup the Foreign Minister, rightly, immediately flew back to Australia but the response of the Government was, once more, fairly unimaginative and, in the view of the Opposition, it lacked leadership. We have supported some of the Government's responses. Obviously, we support its condemnation of the coup. We have supported the Government's decision not to recognise Colonel Rabuka or any emissaries of Colonel Rabuka, and that is correct. We have supported the termination of the defence co-operation agreement and we have also supported the Government's decision not to impose any official sanctions. However, we have not supported the Government's decision to cut off altogether aid to Fiji because if we cut off aid-just as occurs when we impose economic sanctions-we would be striking at the livelihoods of ordinary Fijians. We would not be striking at the coup leaders and the military who have imposed the coup. We continue to provide aid to Nicaragua and we continue to provide aid to Vietnam but it suits us at the moment to cut out aid to Fiji. It is a curious situation and what the Government is doing in taking that decision is leaving a vacuum which can inevitably be filled by other people. There have been some reports, which may or may not be justified, of the representative of Libya in Rome saying that Libya will fill any vacuums in the aid vote created by Western countries withdrawing their aid to Fiji. Whether or not that is to happen, whether that report is alarmist or whether it is accurate-and it may well be alarmist-the simple fact is that it points to the danger of a vacuum being created and that vacuum being filled. But our objection is a more deeply humanitarian objection than that. Our objection is that the Government is striking at the livelihoods of ordinary Fijians rather than striking at the people who have been responsible for imposing the illegal coup. We have said again and again that we oppose the decision of the Government to sit on its hands and not act against the self-imposed boycott of Fiji by the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia. The Government says no to official sanctions but it does nothing about trade union sanctions which are de facto sanctions against Fiji. Yet, that sort of imposition by the Waterside Workers Federation is clearly illegal under section 30k of the Crimes Act and is of doubtful legality under section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. Ultimately what the Government has failed to do is come forward with the sorts of constructive init- iatives that have been proffered by the honourable member for North Sydney and me when I was the acting shadow Minister. We have heard nothing from the Government about whether it has put forward those initiatives to our Commonwealth partners or to the Commonwealth Secretary-General. All we have heard from the Government is that it will be thinking about these things. It has been negligent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(4.21) —The kind of windy rhetoric we have just heard from the Opposition benches masks the fact that the Opposition fundamentally agrees with the course the Government, and specifically the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), has taken in handling developments in Fiji. It is perfectly right, as the Foreign Minister pointed out earlier, that the Opposition has issued a great number of statements in the absence abroad during these events of the nominal Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs matters. I looked at those before entering the debate just to see the extent of agreement. It was very difficult for me because the terms of the matter of public importance are: The need for the Government to promote new init- iatives for the settlement of the Fijian crisis. It is very difficult for me to see, and it is even more difficult after this debate to discern, what those new initiatives are and on what matters the Opposition disagrees with the Government. I am looking at the transcript of an interview with the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), the acting Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, on 29 September. A number of questions were put to him. The first question was: You object to the cutting off of foreign aid? He answered: Yes of course we support many of the measures that the Government has taken against this illegal coup but we do object to the cutting off of foreign aid for a variety of reasons. To deal with that point first: the honourable member for Mayo-in what I sense was a reversal of position-said that he thought the cutting off of foreign aid is in fact not a good idea. What the Australian Government has done is to cut off military aid and defence co-operation aid to the Government of Fiji. That is a very clear demonstration of disapproval to the people who organised this coup. It has not cut off civil aid. Indeed, it has made it specifically clear that those students from Fiji who are studying in Australia will continue to be supported. They are engaged in courses which will ultimately result in the betterment of ordinary Fijians. So, in that respect we have done precisely what the Opposition thinks we should be doing. The second point of agreement was demonstrated when the interviewer asked the honourable member for Mayo: Would you recall the defence advisers? The honourable member said: Yes we would. We certainly support the measures the Government's taken in relation to defence co-operation with Fiji. We strongly support those measures. He went on to say: . . . the Government has done precisely the right thing there. I think in diplomatic terms it has done the right thing by saying it wouldn't recognise any new Government established by Colonel Rabuka and that it will not accept any diplomatic representative from Fiji who is a representative of Colonel Rabuka. The Opposition is unable to find any point of disagreement with the way we have handled the diplomatic aspects of the crisis. The interviewer went on to ask: And of course that means you would be unwilling to recognise the new Fijian High Commissioner to Australia? The honourable member for Mayo said: We'd agree with the Government on that. So, I discern very little in what the sorcerer's apprentice had to say while the sorcerer was away, by way of disagreement with the way the Government has handled the crisis. Indeed, I return to the earlier coup in Fiji when the Australian Government was extremely active in trying to bring about some kind of resolution, some kind of peaceful settlement. No one from the Opposition benches has bothered to recall that at that time the South Pacific Forum agreed that a delegation should be sent to Fiji-provided members of it were not going to have their heads shot off by those in authority in Fiji-to try to arrive at some compromise. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Foreign Minister were leading participants in setting the groundwork for that agreement by the South Pacific Forum. It did not come off because, something we have now become accustomed to, the parties in Fiji were too pigheaded to allow it to go ahead. There are further points of agreement. The Opposition agrees with us that we should continue to regard the Governor-General as the sole constitutional authority in Fiji and that our actions should conduce to shoring up his authority. That is precisely what we have been doing. The Opposition agrees that sanctions are not a helpful way of attempting to resolve this crisis. The Opposition agrees with us that a resolution of the matter ultimately has to be for Fijians themselves. So, it is with a sense of disappointment that one looks at these new initiatives that the Opposition feels ought to be taken. I listened carefully to what the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) had to say. He said, `The Opposition has no finite proposals'. I say amen to that. The proposals appear to boil down to what this Government did in relation to the last coup in Fiji; that is, to organise senior emissaries followed by a small group of Ministers to engage Colonel Rabuka in dialogue, much the same as our response, although rather better orchestrated, last time, and to bring up some form of proposals at the Vancouver meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government. I see very little disagreement because, as the Prime Minister made clear in answer to a question today, thought is being given to what would be an appropriate response by the Commonwealth Heads of Government, and you can bet your bottom dollar that something of a constructive kind will come out of that. In quoting what the shadow Foreign Minister and the acting shadow Foreign Minister had to say, I suspect we do not exhaust the range of views in the Opposition about what should be done because that well-known and popular spokesman for the Opposition, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, has uttered a somewhat different view. I notice in a report in the Age that he is quoted as supporting the coup. He says: I am sure that Colonel Rabuka has the support of the bulk of the people there in Fiji. They are very strongly on his side. Talk about the bull in the china shop! This must reflect a good part of what the people in the Opposition think. They are rather attracted to jackboots riding roughshod over democracy-they do their share of it themselves-and they are attracted to men on horseback who exert their authority. I regard that intervention by Sir Joh as exceedingly unhelpful, something that cannot help but complicate the way in which this very delicate crisis is being handled. I believe the Australian people have welcomed and supported the way in which the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister have handled this series of events in an area close to us and of great importance to us. Having read all that the Opposition has had to say and all that it has had to suggest on this question, I think: better the Foreign Minister handling this than all the Opposition members put together. What has he done of a constructive kind? The first thing is that he said we must keep calm, we must be patient and observe what is going on. That seems to me the essence of sound sense-that we should monitor the situation and arrive at a response that is likely to be helpful in a quiet sort of way, and that is not done by making statements through the newspapers. Secondly, we have engaged in the most thorough and active protection of Australians and the interests of Australians. I did not hear a word about that from members of the Opposition. I do not suggest that that is because they would not support the Government in the stance it has taken, but it shows a certain poverty of spirit that they do not acknowledge that the Government has been exceedingly active in protecting the interests of Australians resident in Fiji, of whom there are large numbers, Australians who do business there, Australians who visit Fiji for purposes of tourism, and journalists who go there. It seems to me to have been handled in an excellent way by the Minister that we should support actively the position of the Governor-General and his role in a peaceful solution, that we should avoid heavy-handed interference and that we should develop a position for Vancouver. The Fijians have to resolve this situation. The way in which the Australian Government is assisting that resolution has been entirely proper, and it is disappointing that there should be such poverty of constructive suggestions from the Opposition as to how we might better do that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The time for the debate has expired. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.32) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Budget is now almost passe. It was introduced on 15 September. It was commented upon fairly publicly in the very excellent response given by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) the following Thursday evening. It was given an initial favourable response, and then people realised what it was all about. Well it might be asked how and why and in what way are we in the Federal Parliament still considering it. I think there are elements, however, that have emerged since the presentation by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of the Budget that demonstrate not only the way in which the Government is deluding the Australian people but, more fundamentally, that in the management of our economy, Australia is really far from over the worst of the economic conditions about which a great deal was said during the election, a great deal was commented on in terms of the implications of high taxes and the burden on the citizen, and a great deal now needs to be registered, for the price is yet to be paid. Most Australians will still be in a position where the cost is something they need to recognise, and will recognise, before the year is out. Certainly the election of the Hawke Ministry is like a life gold pass to a political nirvana. If one endangers national security, makes misleading statements on Customs forms, fails to submit a tax return or declares an interest in Cabinet, misleads the Parliament on contractual arrangements for coastal surveillance, or brings the Government into disrepute by lack of attention to legislative detail in the ID card legislation or, as we learned today, if one happens to produce one day after a draft report a report from a technical body for which one is responsible, which happens to come to entirely different conclusions, it does not matter. This is a government which really fears the truth above all. The facade of ministerial propriety is much more important to it than the reality. The capital offence in the Hawke Government is telling the truth. Last year Senator Ryan told the truth about home interest rates. Honourable members will remember she was carpeted and then given responsibility for all the jobs no one else wanted in this year's ministerial reshuffle. In the House the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) told us the truth-or we think so-or at least part of it. He was carpeted by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), but his career has been temporarily secured because, like all of those who are members of the Labor Ministry, it is based not on ability, not on what is good for Australia, but on a factional deal. Meanwhile, off-stage left, before an audience of Labor lawyers, we have had the much more important Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who has also been telling the truth. He wore a deeper hole in the well-worn prime ministerial carpet, but the truth he told is too important to be hidden. It is nothing less than an admission, by one of the two senior Ministers whose names appear on the front of the Budget Papers. They state: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Budget Statements 1987-88. Circulated by the Honourable P. J. Keating, MP, Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia and Senator the Honourable Peter Walsh Minister for Finance . . . Senator Walsh was one of those people who subscribed to those Papers. Had I time I would go through in detail some of those comments. But he is the one who has really blown the top off the Treasurer's Budget Speech. He has contributed nothing less than the admission that the policy on which the nation has been guided by the Treasurer and by the Prime Minister and its keystone-of course the Budget-are on the wrong track. It is nothing less than a complete vindication of the Opposition's concerns about Government complacency in the face of Australia's very serious underlying economic position. And it is nothing less than a condemnation of the efforts of the Government-especially those of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer-to hide that truth from Australians. On 16 September the Treasurer was hailed as a financial Apollo-at least by a few financial journalists. Today he is revealed as nothing more than a modern Icarus, whose flimsy wings have melted in the heat of the truth. Just consider these quotes from what we all know were Senator Walsh's carefully considered comments: `Australia is certainly not out of trouble', he said. `I'm a bit worried that the Budget might be oversold', he said. `Certainly, if there was another commodity price slide, the International Monetary Fund will be knocking on the door again', Senator Walsh said. `I can give you', and here Senator Walsh was speaking anecdotally, in that famous phrase, `a list of 200'-expletive deleted-`programs off the top of my head that can't be justified by social justice, equity or economic efficiency grounds, and the reason we haven't abandoned them is because we don't have the political courage to do so'. Honourable members will remember the Treasurer's petty response to that. `All that Senator Walsh was doing', he said, `was giving us a run again on his long run views on certain expenditure programs, views which have been broadly rejected in the Expenditure Review Committee over eight sessions'. What a condemnation of the Expenditure Review Committee. If honourable members look at the Budget, there is little doubt that if criticism of the new areas, new pockets of poverty in the middle-income group, are added to those 200 expletive deleted programs that cannot be justified by social justice, equity or economic efficiency grounds, they will see that neither on the basis of social justice nor on the basis of economic management has the Australian Labor Party succeeded in the Budget. But most damaging of all have been the comments of Senator Walsh that Australia has been a lucky country for a long time. It is not so lucky any more, and if we do not challenge most of the absurd notions the majority of Australians have about what they are entitled to and what is essential to them and what is not, then we are going down the Argentinean road. It is not only Senator Walsh who has told us since the Budget that the Government should have followed a different stratagem; we have now learned there is a third view of the economic management of Australia according to Ministers of the Hawke Government. We all need to remember that the third version of the gospel comes from no less a person than the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. All honourable members will remember that he said only a few days ago, `For a variety of fundamental reasons I still think the Australian dollar won't go higher than it is now. From an industry point of view I would prefer the Australian dollar to be around US65c to US68c and I hope that it will follow in the next few months'. People need to understand that from the point of view of those of us involved in export industries we could not agree with him more that if the dollar were lower those whom we represent would be able to get more for their product. We have to remember that this third version of economic management in Australia immediately caused a drop of 2c in the value of the Australian dollar on the money markets. It then managed to generate what I think we all thought was rather an interesting comment from the Treasurer in the Age on Monday, 5 October. When speaking of Senator Button, he said, `The only utterances on the exchange rate you ought to be concerned with are those from myself and the Prime Minister. We control monetary policy'. His remarks followed those of Senator Button and, while the Treasurer declined to comment on the dollar's value, we need to remember that we now have three ways by which the economy should be run. We have the Treasurer saying, `Everything in the garden is lovely. Never mind that we had a fortuitous increase in income. We did not cut spending. We came out with a figure that I want you all to believe'. The Government really said there is a $27m deficit-- Dr Theophanous —Two and a half billion. Mr SINCLAIR —But we all know that it is no less than the honourable member for Calwell said-$2.5 billion. But that was the Treasurer's general assessment: the economy is right, do not worry about it. Then we have Senator Walsh saying, `Do not be deluded. The Budget is not really what we say it is. There has not been any sort of real expenditure cut. Above all, there are those 200 expletive deleted programs which cannot be justified on the grounds of social justice, equity, or economic efficiency'. We have had those two views and now we have a third-the view of Senator Button that, because of the Budget, a quite fallacious position has developed in the money markets and the Australian dollar is too high. I want to say a little about the dollar, but I think it is important that we all remember that the Prime Minister has said, `When you float the dollar, you'-again expletive deleted-`float'; and one needs to remember, as far as an `expletive deleted' float is concerned, that this Government has the value of the dollar where it is only because the Reserve Bank of Australia has been intervening in the money markets for at least 12 months. We all know that it is a dirty float; we know that the Government is really in the position where Senator Button is saying to his colleagues, `Look, I am fed up with your intervening for the sake of trying to retain the confidence of overseas investors to keep funds coming into the country. I want the dollar to come down to where I think it ought to be, and I do not agree with your economic management'. Only a few weeks after the introduction of the Budget, we have three versions-that of the Treasurer, that of Senator Walsh, and that of Senator Button. I wish to goodness that somewhere along the way they would realise that the Opposition worries about the economy from the point of view of the average citizen. As the National Party of Australia sees the position, the Treasurer had the chance in the 1987 Budget to begin atoning for his failures in the previous four Budgets. With a significant majority for the Government and with three years of its term to run, the Treasurer could have, and should have, taken the type of action which Senator Walsh urged. Instead, the Treasurer squibbed it, just as he did at the Tax Summit or after his `banana republic' remark. The bovver boy of the New South Wales Right talks tough but cannot hack it in the rucks. Instead of the tough spending cuts demanded by our grave current account deficit, instead of the cuts in tax demanded by the need to boost effort, incentive and investment, we have a Budget built on complacency and self-deception. The complacency has been exposed by the Minister for Finance. The deception lies in the claim that the Budget is balanced-a claim designed to dazzle financial markets. The Treasurer is abroad, pleading with overseas investors to invest in this country simply so that our credit rating will not be reduced further. I shall say something more about that in a moment, but the claim has also been designed to dazzle the media. That deception has been clearly exposed in the debate in this chamber since the presentation of the Budget. The balanced Budget rests on creative book-cooking-a combination of tax increases, asset sales and one-off revenue increases. The Government's position on asset sales is that of a household, unable to pay its food bills, which decides to raise money by selling the crockery. Of course, one can pretend to balance a budget in that way. But for how long? The crockery will not last indefinitely. It is all rather like the Treasurer's tax return or his continuing travel allowance, which the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) asked about today. It is not what should be done that the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) does; far from it-it is what he can get away with. The crunch has to come, as it must, when he pretends to balance the Budget by including one-off Reserve Bank profits, windfall Mint sales of gold coins and $1 billion of asset sales. Tax is the third element of the Government's creative book-cooking. This year taxes will increase by $5.5 billion. Of that increase, $3 billion will fall on individuals. What I want to say to the Treasurer and the Government is that many ordinary Australians are finding life very tough. The Government must understand that the paper shuffling, which for this Government passes for a reasonably affluent society, is not the way in which ordinary households balance their budgets. Even the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have admitted that the surge in tax revenue was such that they did not know the final outcome until a few days before the presentation of the Budget. This Budget continues the deception that tax reform under Labor has benefited ordinary taxpayers. In fact, there are significant real increases in provisional tax, company tax, fringe benefits tax-which will increase by 33 per cent this year-and sales tax, and an overall tax increase of about 1.5 per cent in real terms. That is the price that ordinary Australians are paying for a government that is spending money without any concept of eliminating the programs to which Senator Walsh referred. It is true there has been a welcome change of heart on negative gearing, but how that change of heart conflicts with the pre-election rhetoric of the Treasurer and with the off-the-cuff response he made to retail sales figures! The Treasurer's friend, New South Wales Premier Unsworth, said, `I think it might be helpful if you could do something to try to interrupt the market flow. There have been a few property sales that we are concerned about'. Instead of doing things on a proper basis, the Treasurer, in an off-the-cuff response, has intervened to prevent property sales to overseas purchasers, in circumstances that one must suspect. It is only the appalling rise in home rentals in Sydney that has forced the change of heart. The Budget includes a collection of sleight-of-hand measures, apart from taxation, which go right to the credibility of the Treasurer. First, there is the claim that $1 billion of domestic debt and $1 billion of overseas debt are to be repaid. That would be commendable, if it were true. To repay that existing debt, the Government would be borrowing new funds. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul, if honourable members will pardon the pun. Genuine debt reduction can occur only with a Budget in surplus. Then there is the claim that the Government will reduce the size of the Public Service by more than 3,000. Again, that would be very commendable, if it were true. But what Australians have not been told is that all the Government's new measures-the family program and the identity card, among others-will need about 3,000 additional public servants to administer. I am fascinated to know whether the additional public servants-almost 2,000 of them-who were to be put on to handle the Australia Card will still be employed. Knowing the way this Government operates, I have little doubt that those additional public servants will be employed, irrespective of whether an identity card is introduced, because the Government does not seem to understand that part of its difficulties lies in the public sector. As far as pubic servants are concerned, the net loss from those figures is next to nothing. This is the kind of thimble and pea trickery that the Treasurer hoped would be obscured by the dazzle of the so-called balanced Budget. The Budget might have been seen superficially as one that was good for the paper shufflers, but for ordinary Australians it does nothing. The Treasurer was given a chance at the beginning of a new parliament. Whether or not he has acted in this way because of his leadership aspirations, one can only conjecture, but this Budget shows he has missed his chance. Even its forecasts are bleak: unemployment `flat'; a slight moderation in wage and inflation growth, but still well out of line with our competitors; very low real growth in investment; and a one per cent fall in the output of the rural sector. Speaking for the rural sector, I can say that many Australians are trying to work out whether they will be able to survive this year with the measures taken by the New South Wales Government on borrowings. With increased interest rates on home mortgages, it is almost impossible for the ordinary home owner, not just those in the rural sector, to survive. Above all, no major improvement is forecast in what Senator Walsh has rightly identified as our fundamental problem-the current account deficit. Even the expected improvement depends on some brave assumptions about low import growth. It is a Budget based on hope, not on realism. As another example, there is nothing in the Budget to recognise the enormous problems Australia faces within a few years, with declining domestic oil production producing a huge import bill-as high as $3 billion-by the early 1990s. The implications of that for our present chronic current account deficit are obvious, yet the Government has made it clear that it will continue with a resources rent tax, cash bonus bidding for oil exploration areas and a capital gains tax regime which severely hinders effective oil exploration policies. There is nothing in this Budget which recognises the sham of Labor's uranium policy-now admitted even by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin). That policy, which makes scientific history by isolating `good' and `bad' uranium and which prevents the proper development of Australia's uranium resources for the world's growing electricity generation needs, also denies Australia valuable export income. But this Budget is stymied by the Government's continuing refusal to accept the need to abandon that stupid policy. There is nothing in this Budget to encourage productive investment. The restoration of negative gearing on real estate may be welcome, but the delay in rectifying the mistaken ban on this measure has cost home renters dearly. There is nothing in the Budget to encourage small business, to restore incentive and reward for effort. There is nothing to support the rural sector, which together with mining remains the backbone of our export economy. The sooner the Government realises that our traditional exports must be encouraged the sooner we will have a chance to get out of the difficult circumstances we are now in. Instead, there is a broken promise on wool research funding and the virtual abolition, after a long decline under Labor, of fuel freight equalisation at major cost to Australians living and working in remote and isolated areas. The clear message of this Budget is that the Government is going to be forced, either in a mini-Budget early next year or in next year's Budget, to take the action it has put off taking this year. That delay is likely to be costly. Because he squibbed the chance this year, the Treasurer will have to bite deeper next year, if he finds the determination to attack our fundamental economic problems-and I stress the word `if'. In the meantime our problems grow. The damaging effects of the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax on incentive and investment will continue. People need to remember that those taxes are part of the reason why the Treasurer presents this fraud of a Budget to us. The National Party opposed both these taxes from the start and our position has not changed. Until there is genuine tax reform-and by that we mean a reduction in the total tax burden paid by the individual and therefore in government spending-there can be no real potential for economic growth in this country. I have already said that the problems lie in the fallacious presentation of the Budget. It means fewer jobs for our children, a weaker productive sector, a less competitive economy, less money to fight real inequities in our society, a weaker defence force with fewer service men and women, higher taxes, new pockets of poverty and no redress of the fundamental macro-economic problems the Treasurer's blinkered vision ignores. That is the legacy of this Budget. It will remain long after the Budget itself is forgotten. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(4.52) —We have just heard what must be the most intellectually bankrupt response from a major leader of a party to a Budget in the seven years that I have been in this House. How intellectually bankrupt it was will come out in the context of my speech, because not only was there absolutely nothing new in it, but also one would think that there had not been an election, that the Australian people had not approved certain courses of action, that the people had not rejected some of the formulas which the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) has put forward here today. All we have had from him is the mouthing of the New Right, the continuing attempt to implement the philosophy and approach of the New Right-the very approach which was put to the Australian people in the last election only two months ago and decisively rejected by them. Besides the formulas of the New Right, the only thing that the Leader of the National Party had going for him, so to speak, was to quote from comments supposedly made by Senator Walsh. I will have something to say both in relation to the attack on the Budget by the New Right and the comments of Senator Walsh. In the first part of my speech I want to reply to the arguments and claims that have been made on the Budget from this perspective. This is not to deny that there are some weaknesses in the Budget and some alternative ways of dealing with the central questions of the current account deficit. I will be making some suggestions in relation to this in the second part of my speech. Let me begin by stating that the claims made by the Leader of the National Party and Senator Walsh that the Budget is in fact in deficit are quite mistaken and misleading. On the contrary, it could be argued that the Budget is more than balanced, that it is, in fact, substantially in surplus. It should be remembered that the overall figures in relation to the deficit relate to both the domestic and foreign components. But many economists would argue that if we are looking at the Australian economy and its chances for growth and productive investment in the future, the key variable is not the overall Budget deficit but the domestic Budget deficit. When one looks at the domestic Budget one sees that it is not in deficit but that there is a massive surplus to the tune of $3.7 billion. As a consequence, it is clear that the Budget is decidedly contractionary in nature. I would like to remind the Opposition parties and Senator Walsh that this significant contraction of the economy has been achieved primarily by the winding back of public sector services. In 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, the Government has seen fit to withdraw funds from every major category of Budget outlays. We should remember that in broad macroeconomic terms this Budget alone will achieve a net withdrawal of government funds to the tune of $2.5 billion in both 1987-88 and 1988-89. So much for the comments of the Leader of the National Party who clearly does not know what he is talking about when he says that there have been no reductions. Of course, this does not take into account the asset sales. I believe that now the Budget is in balance and the domestic Budget is showing a very large surplus, we should strongly oppose any further reductions in public services. The simple fact of the matter is that Senator Walsh was wrong and should not have made those comments. The cutbacks that have already occurred have imposed burdens on the community as a whole and, in some cases, disproportionate burdens on certain individuals. For example, as a result of the May mini-statement savings, a large proportion of the widow's pension was eliminated from the Australian social security system. This pension, brought in by a Labor government decades ago, has become part of the expectation of women in Australia; should they become widowed, they know they will be looked after. Suddenly, since May, women who had not yet turned 45 years of age as at 14 July 1987 and who no longer had care of children under the age of 16, have been required to register as unemployed and undergo the rigours of the scrutiny of the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security offices before they are granted income assistance. Many of these women are working class people who, since the unfortunate deaths of their husbands, have spent many years bringing up their children with the expectation that they would be receiving the widow's pension indefinitely. Suddenly, they are thrown on to the heap of the unemployed, in many cases with no experience of paid work and little hope of coping without training and work skills. This is just one example of how cost-cutting decisions can create substantial human suffering. It is not an abstract exercise. It is something which has a direct effect on people. Another area is child care, and I must say that I particularly object to Senator Walsh's attack on publicly provided child care and his insistence that it should be cut. Child care is an important social need and we should be looking at expanding both the number of places available in child care and its forms. The Federal Government has in the last three years scrutinised its expenditures and eliminated waste and duplication. More cuts in the provision of services will have dangerous social implications for our country. Further reductions in services not only will result in many poor people being unable to gain reasonable opportunities in life, but also will reduce the quality of life for us all. This is because non-welfare services such as the provision of culture and the protection of the environment are generally not provided by the private sector and need to be provided through the public sector. The Australian people in the recent election decisively rejected the ideas of the New Right in relation to the dismantling of public services, even though they were being bribed by promises of tax cuts. It is now time to accept the judgment of the people and stop these incessant attacks on the Australian public sector and the services which it provides. I am very pleased that the Government has moved away from the philosophy of cuts in the September Budget and has, in fact, begun the process of redistribution through the introduction of the family assistance package. This package is of great importance in providing support for children, especially for children of poor people. It represents the implementation of the initial stages of the Government's commitment to abolish child poverty by 1990, a commitment which all Australians should applaud. Let us hope that many more initiatives of a redistributive character such as this will be forthcoming in future Budgets. Leaving aside the humanitarian and moral considerations in opposition to further cuts in public services, the economic argument for such cuts is, to say the least, extremely dubious. As I have already indicated, the domestic budget is substantially in surplus. In the last two years, the massive cutbacks in public sector funding were based on the view that by withdrawing funds from the public sector we would have much more money for investment in the private sector. However, all the evidence is that private sector investment, especially in productive enterprises, is at best stagnant as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP). Thus, even though this Government has done more than any other government to free up funds to stimulate private sector investment, the private sector's performance in aggregate has been, to say the least, weak and singularly unimaginative. Indeed, investment in new plant and equipment, having recovered slightly as a proportion of GDP during 1985, is now at a low level. Nor should we be fooled by figures which tend to suggest that the proportion of tradable goods sector investment is on the increase when the base upon which that proportion is derived is itself still shrinking. I remind the House that all this is happening at a time when there has been a 25 per cent increase in the profits of the private sector-that is, the non-farm corporate gross operating surplus. In all this time the working and unemployed people of this country have had to suffer from the selfish demands of the peak employer groups who have insisted on both greater productivity and further reductions in wages. Real wages have been reduced by more than 7 per cent in the last five years. The Labor Government has been able to provide this reduction in wages under the accord with very little industrial instability and substantial moderation from the union movement. Yet, notwithstanding all this, all that is forthcoming from the private sector is not greater investment but further demands from business leaders for wage reductions and cuts to public services. Rather than heeding these calls, which are no more than rationalisations for the appalling performance of business sector management, we should be focusing our minds on ways and means in which we can get co-operation between the public sector and the private sector so as to maximise investment and productive output and thereby resolve our current account problems. Thus, the Government rejects the approaches of the New Right that I have outlined. Instead, in my view, the Budget could have been more adventurous in tackling the current account problem, but in a way totally different from that advocated by the New Right, the Leader of the National Party of Australia and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). We should note that the Treasury is not confident about the pace of adjustment in relation to the current account deficit. Pages 48 to 52 of Budget Paper No. 1 discuss the issues involved at a theoretical level but provide no evidence that the pace of adjustment being pursued is in fact adequate. It is stated that not too much weight can be given to any particular scenario and, in relation to such scenarios, it is stated at page 50: Their outcomes are very sensitive to the future behaviour of the terms of trade, the real exchange rate, domestic and external demand, key export and import price elasticities and the debt/equity mix of capital flows. The range of plausible outcomes is fairly wide. Given this situation, it becomes very important to promote export industries and import replacement directly through Budget measures. Unfortunately, there are no new initiatives in industry development in the 1987-88 Budget; nor are there any incentives to ensure investment in targeted industries and in those regions of the nation where unemployment is high. Indeed, in some areas there has been a reduction in such support. For example, direct grants in industry research and development have fallen from $63.4m in 1985-86 to $40.3m in 1987-88. While there is some increase in the total assistance to manufacturing of $40.7m, or 11 per cent, all of this increase is directed to existent industry plans and programs. No new industry plans and programs were announced in the Budget. This is disappointing in view of the Treasurer's statement prior to the Budget that more needs to be done at the micro-economic level to ensure the acceleration of the J-curve effect. It should be recognised that the Budget Papers themselves forecast only a 3 per cent increase in industry investment, which is too small to deal with the magnitude of our current account problems. A moderate stimulus through the Budget for industry development would have been a direct encouragement for investment and would have allowed us to adjust the current account problem at a faster rate. It would also have allowed for an increase in economic growth and employment. Such an industry strategy could be based on the proposals contained in the Australian Council of Trade Unions document Australia Reconstructed. It would involve some additional government expenditures in giving direct assistance to particular industries, especially in the manufacturing sector, which need promotion. We could also have considered tax concessions for those companies which are prepared to invest in new productive enterprises. I hope that the review of company taxation announced by the Treasurer will treat favourably the idea of a company tax system which favours greater investment. The general point here is that, with a relatively small additional expenditure, we could have stimulated investment substantially and created more jobs. This is especially important when one considers the employment situation. In the past few years the Government's record in the creation of employment has been excellent. However, unfortunately, our unemployment rate still remains at about 8 per cent. That very high level of unemployment could have been attacked by the implementation of an industry policy of the kind I have mentioned. I hope that the measures I have suggested will be taken into consideration in developing possible future policy for industry and that they will be favourably considered when formulating the next Budget or any mini-Budget that the Government might consider introducing between now and the next Budget. It is very important-and it must be stressed-that any increase in industry assistance of the kind for which I am arguing not result in an increase in consumption expenditure but rather an increase in capital investment in productive enterprises. In this way the Government could achieve simultaneously a hefty reduction in unemployment and a much more rapid pace of attack on the current account problems. If industry incentives and direct assistance of the kind which we recommend were forthcoming, it would be possible to produce more goods and services in Australia for export and for import substitution. This would have the net effect of cutting into the foreign debt in a significant way. I hope that in the next Budget we will put into place an industry strategy which will help us substantially to reduce unemployment and directly to attack the current account deficit through greater investment in Australian production. I conclude by saying once again that we totally reject the approach of the Opposition and the suggestion of Senator Walsh that the simple act of further cutting government spending will somehow turn around the current account problem; it will not. We need the direct and positive measures which I have mentioned. We certainly do not need any further cuts in the services which we provide for the Australian people. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(5.08) —The House is debating the 1987 Budget-a Budget which, when first introduced, was received almost with delirium by the Press Gallery in Canberra; it was also received very well by financial markets. For about a week everybody was told that this was the most brilliant Budget that had ever been produced in the Commonwealth. Unfortunately for the Government, a Minister of the Crown, Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance, made a speech in Western Australia which pulled the rug from under that perception of the Budget and made it quite clear that the Government was missing a major opportunity to bring about a more rapid recovery in our external balance of payments and a more rapid reduction in our horrendous level of overseas debt. Unfortunately, history is repeating itself. In 1983 and 1984, the Government had an opportunity to put Australia on a much sounder footing than it is at present. When the Government came to office the country was in recession. That recession was caused by a world recession and also the worst drought experienced this century. Things were pretty grim at the beginning of 1983, and throughout 1983 things picked up quite substantially through events that were in no way brought about by decisions of the Government. Firstly, the effects of the international recession wore off. World recovery was quite substantial and the Australian economy, with the usual time-lag, benefited from that. Secondly, the rains came, the drought disappeared and there was a restoration of prosperity, to a degree, in rural Australia. So when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was framing his 1983 Budget and whilst he was complaining that he had inherited a Budget deficit of between $9 billion and $10 billion, a claim which is totally incorrect, he had the opportunity of framing a Budget that would make a substantial contribution to putting Australia on a very sound financial footing after the ravages of the 1982-83 recession. I shall go back over what happened precisely. The Government claimed loudly that it inherited a Budget deficit of between $9 billion and $10 billion. That was not correct. The actual Budget deficit for 1982-83 was $4 1/2 billion. A forward estimate for the subsequent year prepared in February said that if nothing whatsoever was done and if there was no recovery in the economy, no breaking of the drought and no international recovery and if no cuts were made in forward government expenditures it was possible that the Commonwealth deficit for the succeeding year, 1983-84, might be somewhere between $9 billion and $10 billion. That was in a set of Treasury Forward Estimates prepared in February 1983 for the financial year 1983-84. As it happened, of course, none of those conditions applied. The revenue forecasts on which that Treasury analysis was based were quite wrong. They were made nugatory by the buildup in the world economy and the breaking of the drought. So in 1983 the Treasurer could have quite easily come in with a Budget which was close to balance. The Budget deficit at the end of that very bad year 1982-83 came in at $4 1/2 billion. It would have been quite possible in a good year, which it was, to budget for almost a zero deficit or at least over a couple of years to bring the deficit down to zero. Had that happened, Australia's overall debt position and particularly its overseas debt position would not have moved in the unsatisfactory way it has since. Our overseas debt would not have moved from a net $20 billion in 1983 to a net $80 billion now if the Treasurer had over those two financial years budgeted for a balanced Budget. But the Treasurer did not do that. He took the easy path and in the course of two financial years, when things were picking up, he increased the public sector borrowing requirement-that is, extra government spending that had to be found from somewhere-by $15 billion. The deficit of the first Keating Budget, the 1983 Budget, was $8 billion, nearly twice the deficit of the last Fraser Government Budget. That is what this Treasurer did in 1983. In 1984 he repeated the procedure; he increased spending again by about 7 per cent in real terms. In 1983 and 1984, when things were on the upturn, the proceeds of the upturn were squandered and Australia was pushed into the realm of Argentinean levels of overseas debt. That is where the whole problem began. In February of 1987 the International Monetary Fund delivered to the Government a report which the Government did not make public. It says this: The difficulties that surfaced so sharply in 1985/86 reflect internal imbalances of a longstanding nature upon which the large terms of trade decline of the past 18 months were superimposed. In plain language, the International Monetary Fund analysts are saying that yes, Australia did suffer a decline in its terms of trade in 1985 and 1986 but that was not the beginning of the problem; those problems of declining terms of trade were superimposed on a problem of the Government's own creation-overspending disastrously in 1983 and 1984. That is where all our current problems began. I submit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are going through a similar cycle; that things have eased up a bit. The mild recession we had about a year ago has eased off. There is a possibility of the Government taking tougher measures now without causing great difficulties in the community. Yet once again the Treasurer is taking the easy course. In May 1986 the Treasurer admitted for the first time that the strategy he had been following in 1983-84 of excessive growth had failed. He made it quite clear in the John Laws interview in May of 1986 that if we continued down this path we were heading towards a banana republic. That caused a shock at the time because it was going against all the propaganda the Government had put to us over the previous two years. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his address to the nation of June 1986, after he had said that the Australian economy was in a state equivalent to a state of war, asked the Australian people to make sacrifices, which they were all too ready to do in June and July of 1986. But in August 1986, in the Budget of last year, the Government squibbed the whole situation. It did not bring in the massive cuts in government spending that had been foreshadowed and it also squibbed the wage equation. So all the goodwill that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister had built up amongst the people in readying them for stern measures was frittered away in August of 1986 because the Government thought it might have an election at the end of 1986 and eased off. Then we were told, since things did not improve after that mess of a Budget, that squib of a Budget in 1986, that further measures would be needed and would be taken in May of 1987. Some measures were taken. We were told that about $4 billion was being cut off spending. In fact, it was being cut off Forward Estimates only. A billion dollars of it was to be taken from the States. A billion dollars was to be gained from assets sales and not really from cuts in government spending. About $600m of it was in extra profits in trading by the Reserve Bank of Australia in Australia's currency. So only a bit over $1 billion represented real cuts in Government spending and none of those cuts were of a kind that were going to follow through for any substantial time. So once again we had this legerdemain by this Mandrake of a Treasurer trying to make out that tough things were being done, but once again the action was purely cosmetic. The Government, in the election campaign, promised $500m or $600m in extra social welfare spending over and above what had previously been committed. So the Budget which we are now debating was merely a wash-up, an accounting statement, of what had been said in May, together with additional expenditures resulting from the Government's election promises. So it was really a nothing Budget in the face of a continually expanding foreign debt and a still very large external current account deficit. So, basically, the fundamental problems of the Australian economy were being dealt with with kid gloves and not with the determination that we had been told was necessary by both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister some 12 or 18 months before. Of course, the really serious thing about this is the way in which so many people in Australia, and certainly the ladies and gentlemen in the Press gallery, were conned. I have never seen such a sickening set of write-ups as I saw on this Budget on the day after the Budget and in the succeeding days. But not all of the journalists were taken in. Certainly, the usual sycophants, who hang around the Treasurer's office and who regurgitate the rubbish that is fed out from there day by day, were taken in. Incidentally, if they do not they get clipped over the ear, hauled in and sworn at-- Mr Tim Fischer —Cut off the list. Mr CARLTON —Yes, they get cut off the list and intimidated. Mr Wright —Oh! Mr CARLTON —Well, they do. The honourable member for Capricornia knows jolly well what goes on in these matters. But it is not only the journalists who are so treated. A senior economist from one of our major banks had the effrontery to make a statement on radio which was not wholly sycophantic of the Government and he was rung up and abused by the Treasurer that day. That was a disgraceful thing to happen, but it happens all the time. But Mr Ross Gittins of the Sydney Morning Herald let the cat out of the bag when, on 21 September, a week or so after the Budget, he wrote: I seem to be the only person in Australia with the temerity to be left unsatisfied by the perfection of the balanced Budget. I'm playing Oliver Sleezebag to Paul Keating's gruel-doling Mr Bumble the beadle. In his final paragraph, which I add has very serious implications for the role of the Public Service and the role of Treasury officers in this matter, Mr Gittins wrote: There is a subsidiary reason why the media and market reaction to the Budget was so approving: Mr Keating has converted the Budget lock-up from an aid to time-constrained journalists to an instrument of media management. Stage one was to exclude business economists from the lock-up . . . to cut journalists off from any source of independent professional analysis on Budget night. This was done last May with the May economic statement, and it was repeated for the Budget. Mr Gittins continued: Stage two was to fill this vacuum by supplementing the usual junior Treasury advisers in the lock-up with a bevy of deputy secretaries. These gents worked the tables assiduously-with opening gambits such as `not much to criticise, is there?'-trying to knock down objections before they got up. The subtlety of their technique seems to have stopped it working in my case. All I can say is if that is what happened-if the Treasurer excluded from the lock-up independent analysts from the financial institutions and instead of relying on supplying junior Treasury officers to provide technical information to journalists, had deputy secretaries of the Department going in there and selling a political case-that is an absolute disgrace. It is a disgrace on the part of the Treasurer and it is a disgrace on the part of the officers who were prepared to take part in that process. Earlier this year, with very great regret indeed and after a great deal of delay, I was forced to make some comments about the role in public debate of the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Trevor Boucher, when he entered into the debate on the fringe benefits tax. More recently, Mr Boucher entered into the identity card debate, on the side of the Government. I have not made any public comment about this because it is no longer in my specific area of Opposition responsibility, but I do so now. The Opposition finds this kind of intervention totally unacceptable. The extension of that kind of intervention to senior officers of the Treasury-to deputy secretaries, no less-is a totally unacceptable road for this Government to go down. It is the same sort of road that has been followed by the New South Wales Labor Government which has absolutely prostituted the Public Service in that State to a situation where it is almost impossible to distinguish the heads of government departments from the political functionaries of Sussex Street. We do not want that sort of behaviour in the Commonwealth. If its whole purpose is to obfuscate and to mislead as to the true nature of the Budget, it is even more of a disgrace. We are greatly indebted to the Minister for Finance who, speaking in Perth over the following weekend, said: On the macro situation Australia is certainly not out of trouble. Indeed I'm a bit worried that the Budget might be oversold and that it will, even if the Government's not complacent, make the public complacent, and think that we can slip back into our old slothful ways and we don't have to worry any more. Certainly, if there was another commodity price slide, the International Monetary Fund will be knocking on the door again. . . . . A country which has a high level of foreign debt and a continuing large current account deficit is a country which has few options. . . . . We've been a lucky country for a long time, not so lucky any more and if we don't challenge most of the absurd notions that the majority of Australians have about what they are entitled to and what's essential to them and what isn't then we are going down the Argentinean road. So said Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance in this Government, totally discrediting the line that had been taken by the Treasurer a week before and which, at his instigation, had been peddled by deputy secretaries to the Treasury, no less-civil servants who should be neutral in these matters-to journalists who are ever too eager to soak up this rubbish. It is an absolute disgrace. At least the cat is out of the bag and at least we know that the adjustment that we are seeing-there is some adjustment-is not sufficient to keep us out of trouble if there is the slightest wobble in the international economy or if, heaven forbid, we were to run into a drought. The International Monetary Fund analysts said this: The crucial question is whether the efforts made so far are sufficient to the task and whether the maximum speed that seems political feasible may not be too close to the minimum speed below which accidents are likely to happen. That is what this Government has done to us. It has us on an absolute knife edge. We are on the abyss of an international debt which can swallow us up. It will take only the slightest tremor of a drought, of an oil price increase, of a drop in the world economy-anything at all-and Australia will then truly see just how far down the Argentinean road it has gone and it will hold the Treasurer of this country fully and wholly responsible for that decline. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(5.28) —It appears from the final remarks of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who has just resumed his seat, that the Opposition has embarked upon a strategy to promote doom and gloom. That seems to be the thrust of most of the speeches that have been made by members of the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia. I am quite amazed that the honourable member for Mackellar would question the courage of this Government to make the tough economic decisions. It is on the record that this is the Government that has brought about what is clearly a balanced Budget. That should be compared with the effort of the previous Fraser Government which left a massive deficit that almost touched $10 billion. If honourable members want to make a judgment about the Budget let them refer to those who are affected by it and see what they said. Business, whether large or small, welcomed and applauded it. Investors, again whether large or small, praised it. For an independent assessment, and independent adjudicator, an independent judge, we go to the overseas money markets. What did they say? Again, it was praise, praise, praise. It is not a question of saying that everything is perfect. We know that it is not. I think Senator Peter Walsh was correct in saying that there is still a long way to go because we do not want everybody in the community to say, `It is all over; the problems have gone'. I believe the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, was correct in saying that we still have a hard task ahead of us, but we have turned the corner. For the honourable member for Mackellar to stand up and call this a nothing Budget really questions not so much his honesty but certainly his credibility. The people realise what has been done in the Budget. Is it nothing to give families an extra $60 a week? Is it nothing to increase the money given to every rural organisation for rural reconstruction and rural adjustment? Is it nothing to provide an extra 20,000 child care places for children? Is it nothing to provide another 5,800 places for tertiary students? I think you would agree with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this Budget has gone a long way towards changing the quality of life of millions of Australians. It seems that the Opposition always wants to harp on overseas debt. The facts are that we have a massive international debt, but the vast part of that debt, over 60 per cent of it, is owed by the private sector. It is owed not by government, but by business. It is owed not by the Federal Government, but by private enterprise. Another 20 per cent is owed by the States and statutory authorities. Regrettably, I must admit that my State of Queensland is in the lead in regard to that debt. I want to refer to a specific aspect of government spending and give credit to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and the Government generally for the money that has now been allocated in the ongoing fight in the area of research, screening and prevention programs against the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). This year, $20.5m is being spent, which is an increase of 78 per cent. We Australians need to appreciate just how serious the situation is. Recently I had the privilege, along with a number of other members, of representing Australia at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Kuala Lumpur. This was one of the important issues on the agenda. Prior to going I prepared some notes because I took upon myself the task of speaking on that subject. I read that Dr Jonathan Mann of the World Health Organisation has estimated that as many as 10 million people world wide could be infected with the acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus, known as AIDS. He said that the epidemic was just starting. Yet he points out in statistical terms that 10 million people in the world are already infected. It is claimed by United Nations experts that, before the disease has run its course, one out of every four people of the world's population will not just be infected with but will die from AIDS. This will occur despite all the medical brilliance of modern man. Despite all of the magnificent intellect, there is no cure in sight and it is believed that a vaccine is a long way off. More than 51,500 cases have already been reported in 113 countries, but the true number is believed to be hundreds of times higher. Dr James Curran, the Director of the United States Center for Disease Control, has stated publicly that it is now estimated that 1 1/2 million Americans alone are believed to be carrying the AIDS virus. He said that studies project that one in every 30 American men between the ages of 20 and 50 have already been infected. I ask the people who are listening to the broadcast of this debate, who read Hansard and who follow the activities of parliament to realise the importance of the Government's action in making this additional money available. To July this year, Australia has already had 562 reported cases and 308 Australians have died from AIDS. Those figures have caused some headlines. They certainly did so when they were released last month, or the month before that, by the National Health and Medical Research Council. But the thing that shocked the nation was not just the number-not just the fact that 308 Australians had died-but that an 11-month-old baby had died from the AIDS virus and that she was one of six children below the age of nine who had died from the disease. That statistic shocked me, and I believe it made many people say, `What the hell is going on? What are we doing when children below the age of one, children aged four and five, are dying of this virus? They are not homosexuals; they have not swapped syringes; yet they are the victims'. It is no wonder that families are starting to say, `What is happening?'. I believe that they will welcome this Government's initiative in allocating additional funds to the fight against AIDS. Virtually overnight people are realising that AIDS is threatening not only homosexuals, prostitutes and drug users, but also heterosexuals. In fact, it is threatening every Australian family. It appears that it is only when the dramatic, heart-rending cases are raised that people will listen. It seems to be a traditional belief that we should never think of these diseases or talk about combating them in dollar terms-what we might save in dollar terms-because we should be talking about human beings. I can understand that, but I say to this House that, unless we start to convince governments of the world that we must look at this issue in dollar terms, they will still hide their heads in the sand like the ostrich. Whether because of political ideology, because of fear of financial losses from the fall in tourism, or because they feel politically uncomfortable in regard to such admissions they will still deny that there is a problem. The facts are that governments throughout the world are pushing down the numbers and hiding the facts. It is because of this denial that I believe there is an urgent need to present to the governments and the political leaders of the world the economic consequences for their individual countries of what will happen if the AIDS virus is not contained and if the AIDS epidemic is not held back. I do not believe we will stop it unless a cure is found. But I believe we can contain it, and that is a responsibility of every government, irrespective of its position in the ideological sphere of the world, be it the Left or the Right. All governments need to appreciate the future financial costs that will have to be borne if the disease is not contained and if it is not ultimately eradicated. The economic implications for the nations of the world are staggering, frightening and must be realised. They make the debt crises of some Third World countries fade into the realm of the trivial in comparison with the costs of the AIDS crisis in human and monetary terms. Yet governments and, I think, taxpayers have yet to realise the pending impact on their economies. They have not begun to appreciate the impact on so many aspects of administration and on so many areas of society. They have not thought through the impact of massive proportions on a nation's future work force as more and more people will not be able to be productive; on a country's revenue-raising and producing population; on sickness benefits and welfare payouts; on medical costs and the delivery of health services; on the costs of providing new hospital facilities, new psychiatric facilities, new facilities in prisons, additional health and support personnel; on the costly medical research training and the need to provide expensive treatment to those who are affected. There is one Swiss treatment that costs $40,000 per patient per year. As I said, if one multiplies that figure by the 10 million people who are known to be already affected, it boggles the mind. The impact is not just in medical areas. In developed countries the impact on insurance linked to occupational superannuation and life insurance premiums is also mind-boggling. Insurance companies have realised what is happening. In America some companies are already re- writing insurance policies to exclude injury or death from sexually transmitted diseases. Some insurance companies are trying to ban homosexuals from being insured. Some insurance companies are insisting on information relating to sexual activities of would-be clients seeking life insurance. Some insurance companies are looking to make antibody tests compulsory for all large policies. Life insurance companies and their federations claim that premiums could double for everyone between the ages of 25 and 40 unless companies can properly underwrite for AIDS. The time is coming when anyone seeking life insurance will be asked to have an AIDS test. I noticed in the Queensland Courier-Mail of 3 October a report that the Australian Medical Association (AMA) is now calling for compulsory tests for prisoners and migrants and is also asking for voluntary tests on other people. So one can see an attitude developing in that people are saying, `Enough is enough'. It is estimated that in the insurance area alone Australian companies could pay out as much as $400m on AIDS deaths in the next 15 years, so the whole actuarial basis of life insurance, retirement and death benefits is being radically undermined. This cost ultimately will be borne by the total community. Additional premium costs will be borne by the insured. It is estimated that across the board there will be a minimum increase of 10 per cent in the cost of life insurance premiums to cope with the payouts. This will add $220m to the annual costs of life insurance in the Australian community. It is an enormous cost but it is a pittance compared with the costs of health care, the costs of providing the facilities that I have mentioned that could rise to something like $1,000m by the year 2000. It is estimated that AIDS could cost Australia as much as $10 billion when all the demands are met, when we supply the hospitals, when we supply the psychiatric services and when we supply the additional facilities in prisons. That massive expenditure has to be borne by the Government and, ultimately, the taxpayer. It has been suggested that we need to contain the disease. Yet we cannot afford even to introduce blood testing or screening for all of the migrants and refugees coming into this country. There will be no end unless we take action. I support the call by the AMA. I know that it tends to take away the rights of people but if migrants are coming to this country and must undergo some medical tests, there ought to be a legal requirement that they undertake a blood test for AIDS. I support the AMA that prisoners particularly ought to be compelled to undergo these tests. Somehow, somewhere, we will have to come to grips with the hundreds of thousands of tourists coming into this country. We may get them to make only some type of statement as to their health condition but we cannot just say, `There is nothing we can do about it'. We have a special responsibility. We have a special responsibility not only in the areas of migrants and refugees but also, as I have said, to the visitors who are pouring into our land. AIDS is a world problem and Australia can be proud of what it has been doing. I stress that it is a world problem that has to be addressed on a world-wide basis within the Commonwealth. We need a country to give a lead. I am advocating that we need to set up an international nation by nation surveillance scheme to discover which sections of the community are most affected and to assess the effectiveness of AIDS prevention programs. We will do this only if we get co-operation. When I was in Kuala Lumpur, I found that countries did not really want to talk about this problem. They certainly would not admit that they had a difficulty. They were not prepared to come forward with statistics and I doubt whether they would really welcome the opportunity of being part of a survey. But that is what we need. We need to undertake a program, particularly as we are a member of the Commonwealth, a great group of nations, to develop an effective surveillance scheme. We need to co-operate in analysing the medical data that is becoming available for this will reduce costs. We need to share educational material; we need to share research results; we need to share information. Someone must do this because the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association does not have the human or financial resources. I ask this Parliament to support the proposition that we give the lead, that we take upon ourselves as a nation the responsibility, which is a right of all member countries, for getting a detailed report on that country's initiatives and activities-that is, all the medical, social, educational and legal initiatives that they are taking. We should ask how they are co-ordinating their campaign at all levels of government, how they are promoting access to medical care for victims, what assessment system is in place and what educational and media material is being used. Finally, we as a country should use our influence to target and spotlight this issue on a multicultural and a multicountry basis. I advocate that Australia should recommend as a matter of urgency that a Commonwealth countries health Ministers conference be held to begin a co-operation pact, that we have a joint physical and practical effort to fight this threat to mankind. As I have said, we are part of a major group of nations throughout this world and we have much in common but we need to take advantage of, and become an example to, the rest of the world and show what we can do if we work together to fight this threat. We need to give a lead with the World Health Organisation in its global strategy and we need to undertake a policy of containment. I stress that matter because so many people say that there is no cure. However, we can contain the spread of AIDS. There is a need to develop a multi-nation strategy of containment. There is a need for greater co-operation, a need for nation by nation surveillance programs to be put in place. The advantages would be many. For a start, those nations that are hiding their heads will find out where they are lacking once they have completed some type of questionnaire and prepared an in depth, all-encompassing report. They will know that they are not pursuing the correct medical approach, that there is not the access to the medical help their victims need. They also need to play a greater role in education and media activities. This would also overcome the unnecessary duplication that is so costly. We can learn from the mistakes of others and borrow from their ideas. I say again in conclusion that AIDS is the greatest threat to mankind. Unless action is taken, unless our country can give a lead, particularly among Commonwealth countries, I state the facts and figures again: one in every four people in this world will die of AIDS. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.46) —I guess if there were one word that I would use to describe the sentiment which this Government is attempting to wrap around its 1987-88 Budget it would be self-satisfaction. We all know that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has exuded an air of benevolent confidence. The indicators are looking good, we are told, and the country is in far better shape than he had expected a year ago, or even as recently as the mini-Budget brought down last May. These favourable economic factors have allowed the Government to aim for a deficit of $27m for 1987-88, a figure which is claimed to be highly responsible when one considers that it was preceded by a peak deficit of $7.9 billion in 1983-84 and subsequent annual reductions through $6.7 billion, $5.7 billion and $2.7 billion last year. Given those figures, there is a detectable note of self-satisfaction in the Treasurer's claim that this is a rate of reduction which allows the Government to claim that skilful economic management is bringing back the deficit to a responsible level at a pace which, given the economic parameters, is successfully achieving the twin goals of maximising economic activity yet minimising the economic and social dislocation that would have occurred if the deficit had been reduced more rapidly. Despite all the favourable indicators emphasised by the Treasurer and by the mask of confidence that shrouded his speech in this House on 15 September last, I have to admit to a strong sense of unease. I think it is an unease which can be explained by three quite simple observations. Firstly, despite the convenient excuse of a rapidly deteriorating terms of trade offered to us in 1986 as the reason for all of our ills, today we find ourselves in difficult economic circumstances which, I believe, are more accurately explained by the extravagance and irresponsibilities of the Hawke Government in its first two years of administration. Secondly, it is my perception-I believe it is a perception which is shared by many of my colleagues on both sides of the House-that the world economy today is in a particularly sensitive and potentially unstable situation and that the Australian economy is highly exposed and vulnerable within that order of things. Thirdly, it is my firm belief that most Australians have a very clear understanding of the precariousness of our present circumstances and are willing to accept and respond to leadership which would take us more resolutely through this difficult period of adjustment and, hopefully, towards a stronger and more secure Australia. If those observations are correct, the Hawke Government has not only created much of what ails us today but also has produced, in its 1987-88 Budget, an economic blueprint which is seriously insufficient to lead Australia into 1988 and into a world which will, in all likelihood, be infinitely more hostile, more competitive and more unsympathetic than it has been at any time in the living memory of most Australians. Even if the world situation were more certain, the extent of Australia's foreign debt and associated interest service commitments, the totally inadequate levels of new capital investment, inflation, interest and productivity rates which compare most unfavourably with our major international trading partners, doubts about our ability to alter substantially the inherent imbalance in our current account and the speculative nature and volatility of so much of the present activity on the financial markets, and the potential for these factors, whether separately or in combination, to produce sudden and disruptive pressures on the Australian dollar, make for circumstances unparalleled in the past 40 years and, therefore, warrant a Budget considerably more responsible and forward thinking than the document which this House is now debating. This is a Budget which is more suitable to the comfortable times of the 1960s and 1970s rather than as an economic chart for the management of Australia through its present economic difficulties. History may well show that September 1987 was that point in time when the Hawke Government failed to understand the importance of either the circumstances now confronting Australia or the consequences for the nation, and its people, of its failure to respond to those circumstances in a responsible and businesslike manner. The year of truth for the Hawke Government was 1986, as it belatedly recognised that the Australian dollar had become a highly sensitive barometer of our economic well-being and that the foreign exchange markets were losing confidence in both the Government's economic policies and its management of those policies. It was the foreign exchange markets that forced this Government to abandon policies and attitudes which were totally inappropriate for this country in the 1980s to begin the uncomfortable task of telling Australians just how precarious our standards of living were and to make a start on policies more in tune with reality. The Treasurer grasped around for something to blame for this about-face and discovered the terms of trade. Certainly the terms of trade were falling but, as his advisers would have pointed out, they had been trending downwards since 1973 and their most recent period of decline had begun in early 1984, only 12 months after the Hawke Government came to office. Despite that, in 1986 they became the culprit for all our economic ills, offering a convenient means to avoid any admission that the Hawke Government's extravagant expenditure programs and Budgets of 1983-84 and 1984-85 might in any way be responsible for the collapse in the dollar. The Treasurer coupled to that convenient excuse the now immortal reference to Australia's potential to become a banana republic. He certainly grabbed the headlines with that one. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), not to be outdone, completed the drama with his remarks, during his forgettable address to the nation, comparing our circumstances to those of a nation at war. Well, if it was war, the Government's own response was rather as though it were little more than a skirmish. We saw only patchy evidence of its extravagant expenditure programs being reined in. The free-falling Australian dollar was quietly given an umbrella, and monetary policy was firmly applied to dampen the economy to a point where the current account could be brought back into balance with minimum negative impact on economic growth and employment. Many Australians, including a number from within the Government's own ranks, have observed the economic events of recent years and have a genuine concern with the Government's management responses-a concern that its first two Budgets were fiscally extravagant and its last two fiscally timid. They have a concern that there is a perceptible mood in this nation for the need for change and sacrifice and that the Government has failed to take advantage of and utilise that nationalism. They have a concern that changes in policies and attitudes are essential to achieve the twin goals of an economy in tune with a rapidly changing world, yet less vulnerable to its economic vagaries. Australians have in the past responded positively and rationally to the needs of their country, and will so respond on this occasion, just so long as they are told what our problems are and what is needed to overcome those problems and, above all, given the leadership to take us through that readjustment and its attendant hardships. And that, unfortunately, is where this Budget has failed so dismally. Australians are not fools. They instinctively know that we are not comfortably placed in the economic scheme of things, that there is a great fragility in the world's trading and financial markets and that any serious dislocation of those markets would have tragic repercussions for a country such as Australia. I believe that 1987 was one of those rare moments in history when Australians intuitively sensed the necessity for adjustment and were willing to contribute to and work for a better and more secure Australia. The pivotal need was for leadership-to identify the road ahead, to identify our new objectives and priorities-a vision splendid, if you like. Unfortunately and tragically for this nation, this Hawke led Labor Government has let that opportunity slip by. This Budget is not a blueprint for such a vision or for the achievement of national pride. Unfortunately, it is a Budget of lost opportunities and misplaced self-satisfaction. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(5.55) —I want to speak tonight mainly on the question of tax evasion. I want to concentrate on the now proposed extension of the tax file number. Whilst I realise that that Government decision has been brought about by a decision of the Opposition once again to break with tradition and not to support the passing of regulations once legislation has been passed-- Mr Tim Fischer —Did you support the ID card? Mr SAUNDERSON —I made the point that that is the reason why the extension of the tax file number has been brought about. That extension is something I have supported for quite some time. In a paper I wrote some two years ago I discussed the question of an ID card and put forward a case against it. I raised the question of using the Australian Taxation Office and an extension of the tax file number. I do not intend to take credit for the notion of using the tax file number, as it came from a number of royal commissions. However, it is important to discuss the notion because it appears as though the Opposition is now going to walk away from any form of attack on tax evasion. I think that is very cynical, and it would be a disastrous thing for Australia if that were to come about. The result of the debate on the ID card was that a joint select committee of which I was a member was created. There were four Government members and four Opposition members. That committee provided what I believe is one of the most comprehensive reports relating to identity cards and tax evasion and other fraud. I believe the recommendations really need to be supported in the long term, particularly those contained in the unanimous section of the report and in the majority report. It is worth mentioning that some reports of recent times have indicated that the majority report was the Opposition's report. The facts are that Opposition members did sign the majority report. They were the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), a Liberal; the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), a member of the National Party of Australia; Senator Puplick, a Liberal from New South Wales; and Senator Haines, a Democrat. However, I too was a supporter of that majority report and assisted in writing a substantial part of it. Coming to tax evasion, when this debate takes off and any legislation necessary for the extended use of a tax file number to crack down on tax evasion is introduced into the House, it is important for people to realise that in the section of the report to which all eight members were signatories, the committee was of the view that tax evasion must be tackled as vigorously as possible. The committee believed that the Australian Taxation Office had powers and information available to it that were not fully utilised. I do not think anyone here would disagree with that comment. The fact that we know that information is available is an indication that we are not proposing another identity card by a different name. We are saying that the Tax Office has powers, has the right of access to information and at present receives that information. Its difficulty occurs in matching up the information. By requiring the use of tax file numbers in those areas, one is not simply opening up new avenues of information; it will not create new information banks or new dossiers on anyone; it will simply allow a better matching of information to which the Tax Office at present has access. Other important recommendations need to be looked at. One of those is the question of the computerised births, deaths and marriages records. There is fear in the community that by centralising and computerising records of births, deaths and marriages the Government in some way is trying to create another dossier, or computer bank, of information. At present records of births, deaths and marriages are kept in separate registries. No links exist between States, and in many instances records are manually maintained. The information is not, therefore, as accurate as it ought to be. When the former counsel to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union appeared before the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, he made the point that one of the major areas of identity crisis was being created by this very problem that existed in records of births, deaths and marriages. In the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union people were obtaining identities of people who had just died. They knew that by operating in other States and utilising the names of people who were dead they were almost certain to be able to avoid detection. This was a crucial factor in their capacity to be able to operate in some of their illegal activities. Also it assisted in the creation of identities for purposes of bottom of the harbour schemes, which were to be developed later. It is clear that there is a need to improve the registries of births, deaths and marriages in each State. Because we are a very mobile community and people move around from State to State, it is important also to make sure that there is a link between the information so that a death in one area is recorded and accurately registered against a birth in another area. In this way people in one State know that a person who was born in one State has died in another and, therefore, the records are kept up to date in every State so that birth certificates are not issued for people who have passed away. The recording of births, deaths and marriages is important and ought to continue. It ought not to be seen as some means of introducing the ID card. It would be important for people to read the report of the Select Committee. Another recommendation made to the Committee that, to my knowledge, has not been acted upon concerned the practice of departments not informing the Australian Federal Police of possible causes or situations where fraud could arise. A number of examples were given of people who were known to possess numbers of Medicare cards. In some instances the Committee was told that one person had 23 cards and others had 45 false identities, and so forth. The point was made that the Department of Health was aware that an individual had a large number of Medicare cards in different names, but it did not inform anyone other than to check to make sure that it was not being defrauded. When, eventually, the Federal Police came to the Department and said, `Look, we found this person has a large number of Medicare cards and we think you should be concerned about it', the Health Commission said, `We know all about it. We are right on top of this, but they are not defrauding us'. The Federal Police said, `Yes, they are not defrauding you, but they are defrauding the Department of Education'. Quite clearly, it is a ludicrous situation where a department is aware that someone has obtained a number of identities utilising a service it provides, yet it does not believe it is in a position to inform the police. The officials of the Department felt they were bound by certain regulations and could not inform the Federal Police that there was a possibility fraud was about to occur, maybe not in that Department but in other departments. The Committee's recommendation was that the Government should examine that and see what could be done to ensure that where cases are brought to the attention of management it would take steps to bring about some investigation by the Federal Police. The other area covered by the unanimous recommendations related to payment under the tertiary education assistance scheme. A number of accusations of fraud in that area have been made. One of the problems pursued by the Department itself was the fact that it was basically a mail order department. Because it does not have agencies spread throughout the country and in rural areas, basically it operates by mail application and by telephone discussions. Therefore, it never sees the vast majority of its clientele and does not, in many instances, have them verify information. One recommendation was that the payment should be made through the Department of Social Security. That would help in eliminating areas where people may be obtaining social security payments as well as what are now Austudy payments. An extension of the tax file number is not an infringement of people's civil liberties. It does not contain the connotations that some people have argued, whether rightly or wrongly, that relate to the carrying of a card with a photograph on it. A tax file number would be utilised to be registered against bank accounts and in other areas where financial transactions or asset disposal or purchase is taking place to ensure that transactions are recorded and, therefore, information is able to be matched by the Tax Office. It could be used by the Department of Social Security where payments are being made to recipients of government services so that incomes can be matched by the Tax Office in relation to information that it needs to be able to match to ensure that people are not in private employment as well as receiving social security payments they would not normally be entitled to. In our recommendations in the majority report a series of processes were recommended that would allow for the upgrading of the present tax file system so that it would become a more secure system and would allow for the introduction of a process probably about 12 months earlier than that which would have been envisaged by the use of an ID card. In summing up, the report contains a letter that emphasises the point I made earlier with regard to the concept of a tax file number. The basis for the majority report's option-that is, the extension of the tax file number-came from a request I made during the hearing to the Health Insurance Commission, and the processes by which the integrity of the tax file could be lifted were given by me to the Tax Office as a basis by which it could calculate the proposed benefits. That is contained in the rear of the report on page 290. What really concerns me about the debate on tax evasion is that the Opposition was quite happy to be involved in a committee to consider the Australia Card. Probably the Opposition was looking for an angle by which it hoped to embarrass the Government. At that time the Opposition was not unhappy about that situation and was willing to sign a majority report recommending the use of tax file numbers. Now that it appears that that will be a reality, the Opposition no longer wishes to commit itself to it. I believe that shows the Opposition is not serious about the use of a tax file number or about tax evasion. The only thing it is interested in is supporting, as it has done in the past, the tax cheats in the community. It is not prepared to make recommendations to enhance our tax system and eliminate fraud. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(6.11) —`Stunningly brilliant', `Keating in command' were the headlines which greeted us following the 1987 Budget. There is no denying that the Budget was politically clever and was well orchestrated so that the newspaper headlines on the day following its presentation influenced the masses. But now that the political commentaries have evaporated into oblivion and the economic analysis has begun, we can see how economically irresponsible the Budget really was. Of course, we have no need to look further than a Government Minister-none less than the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh)-to see how the Government has been undermined and has reinforced the coalition's charges of economic complacency. Senator Walsh criticised the euphoria over what was termed a balanced Budget. He said: I'm worried that the Budget has been oversold and it will make the public and the Government complacent and think that can we can slip back into our old slothful ways and we don't have to worry any more. Senator Walsh went on to discuss the need to hold down consumption by saying that, if people were encouraged to spend more than they saved, Australia would be sent further down the Argentinean road; if it went any further, the position could well be irretrievable. We must look at the implications of what the Budget has done, particularly in terms of Senator Walsh's comments. We recognise there have been no real expenditure cuts and we know that the Budget Papers tell us that the current account deficit will be about $11.5 billion. As a representative of a rural electorate, I would welcome the forecast, if it proved accurate, of interest rates falling from their historically high levels. Even if no interest at all were payable, I believe that many of my constituents would be in serious difficulties. Of course, we are aware that the reduced deficit has been achieved by the sale of national assets and from a $1 billion increase in revenue from fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax. The balancing act reminds me of a householder who balances his weekly budget by selling his motor car and buying a bicycle or by adding to his overdraft. The payment of $1 billion does not in any way affect our overseas debt, which is still growing at the rate of $1 billion a month, and it will not affect it until there is a domestic surplus. Interest payments today are now our largest export. It is clear that this situation is not sustainable; the real question is how long this country can get away with it. We must ask ourselves whether foreigners are going to continue to lend to us and allow us to keep carrying this debt. Today the nation's debt is 40 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). Though Australia is nowhere near in the same league as New Zealand, which has a debt of 70 per cent of GDP, such borrowing requirements indicate to me, opposed to the Budget strategy, that our interest rates will continue to be higher than those of our major overseas competitors. Of course, the repayments made by the Government are absolutely meaningless until we earn more than we spend and stop selling off the farm. The bottom line of the Budget failed to present policies to boost our competitiveness and trade opportunities. Absolutely nothing has been done to reduce the heavy reliance on fuel as a source of government revenue, and the productive sector will continue to remain burdened with disproportionately high government-influenced costs and interest rates. The real issue is whether we move ahead of our competitors or fall further behind. Recently I was interested to read of a study commissioned by the National Farmers Federation and conducted by the Canberra-based Centre for International Economics. That study pointed out that, simply for Australia to halt its continuing slide into a severe foreign debt crisis, the balance of trade must be improved by at least $10 billion a year. That, of course, is the bottom line in the outcome of this Budget. I believe the writing is on the wall for this country's living standards in the next century. With our indebtedness worsening, Australia is simply borrowing to preserve its standards of living. The choice now is stark: living standards must fall or trade performance must improve. There is absolutely no doubt that, if we continue the way we are going, Australia will be in no shape to weather a likely international economic downturn in 1988 or 1989. The plan, therefore, should be to identify national priorities, both domestic and overseas, that may help Australia from sinking into a debt morass from which no Third World country in recent times has recovered. It is obvious that massive action is needed to improve our trade balance. To improve it by just $1 billion a year, we would need to see world commodity prices rise by 6 per cent, tariff cuts of 82 per cent, a fall in labour costs of at least one per cent, some major tax restructuring and, most important of all, a cut in real domestic spending. All of those things would be needed for an improvement of just $1 billion. For an improvement of $10 billion we would need to do 10 times this, simply to hold the line on our rising overseas debt. I wish to look briefly at what has happened to rural industries in this Budget. I remind the House that this is a time when we need to improve productivity and export performance, but one result of the Budget will be the mauling of research funds for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) from $367m to $354m. An increase of some $30m would have been necessary just to keep pace with inflation, so the proposed cut represents 11.3 per cent in real terms. I am convinced that, if Australia is to remain a world leader in science and technology, CSIRO must continue to have the support of Australian governments. The other major policy change, and an abandonment of a government promise, is in the promotion of the wool industry. A government promise to match growers' funds was broken just six weeks after the election. Of course, we know wool prices have improved, resulting in a significant increase in levy funds from growers. But once again the Hawke Government has backed away from its promise. I remind the House also that, despite an improvement, the price of wool today in relation to costs is nowhere near as attractive as it was in the 1950s. Mr Tim Fischer —Only 40 per cent of the people have benefited from the current boom anyway. Mr PETER FISHER —That is quite right. However, I believe a better example is the fact that in 1951 five bales of wool were needed to buy a normal family sedan car. Even on today's wool prices, 25 bales of wool would be required to purchase a similar car. The same sort of example can be given in almost every industry. In this Budget we saw absolutely no modifications of the wine tax and nothing done to change the disastrous effect that the 10 per cent sales tax has had on the citrus industry. Mr Braithwaite —And a Clayton's underwriting of sugar. Mr PETER FISHER —The same thing has happened in the sugar industry, but a major blow was inflicted on the citrus industry with the implementation of the 10 per cent sales tax on previously exempt fruit juice. This decision in the last Budget came at a time when the industry was reeling under the effects of world price collapses. With the high levels of stock and a competitive, sluggish market the citrus industry has had great difficulty in fully passing on this tax to the consumer, and thus a further financial burden has been added to the industry. The community is now feeling the effect of lower prices for our commodities and is particularly feeling the effect of the attack on rural Australia. Every production incentive that has been removed over the last four years of this Government is now coming home to roost, not just for rural Australia but for the total Australian community. The lower standards of living are a stark reflection of our trade deficit. The two major policies in the Budget, the introduction of a family package and the reintroduction of negative gearing, were not new dynamic policies but were simply panic moves by the Government to counter failed policies. We remember, of course, what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said some time ago when the Opposition was trying to convince the Government to reintroduce negative gearing. The Treasurer said that Australians would not be fooled by the cynicism and political expediency of the Opposition's suggestions. He said that to try to defend this out- rageous rort-he was referring to negative gearing-`on the basis that it helps some renters is extraordinary'. Mr Braithwaite —Who said that? Mr PETER FISHER —The Treasurer said that. He went on to say: The great majority of rental properties are not affected by negative gearing and negative gearing has not succeeded in providing an adequate number of rental properties. So the Government has had to go back on two of its major policy initiatives. As I have said, they are the outcome of failed policies. We know now that there are 100,000 people homeless in this country. We know that there are 400,000 people living permanently in caravan parks. Most tragic of all is the fact that there are now one million Australian children living in poverty. So the poverty package introduced by the Government in the last Budget was not a new initiative but simply an initiative necessary to cover up past faults. I will very briefly mention another impact that Government policies have had on rural Australia over the last few years. We all know that throughout most of the country, particularly the broadacre cereal growing areas, the last 18 months have been the most traumatic in the history of our development, with generations of farming people leaving the land or going on to welfare. We are seeing a massive flight of people from our rural areas. The Wimmera region in my electorate-and I expect the same figures apply across rural Australia-has seen a 2.8 per cent drop in population from 1981. This is particularly alarming in some of our smaller rural shires. I conclude by saying that this Budget's biggest single item is social welfare, expenditure on which has risen by 10 per cent. Health expenditure has gone up nearly as much. In fact, welfare, health and interest on public debt will eat up one half of Budget outlays, yet our hospitals and our health services delivery throughout this country have never been in worse shape. We continue to tax our workers, our wealth producers, at punitive rates so that we can dish out funds to wealth consumers. Therefore, the real question about this Budget is: How long will its strategy remain in place and can it be successful in reducing interest, inflation and in improving our productivity? If it does not, we will not cope with any significant international economic downturn. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.24) —The 1987-88 Commonwealth Budget is an extraordinary display of showmanship, heady optimism and large omissions. It seems hardly necessary to remind the House and the Australian people that as this Budget is brought down our gross foreign debt is of the order of $115 billion. This future that is being created for our children and our children's children is a shocking indictment of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). There is no clear evidence that the Government has focused on the fact that this debt will, at some time in the future, need to be repaid and that it simply cannot keep increasing year after year. Yet the Budget Statements-the Treasurer's own figures-estimate that our overseas debt will continue to grow at nearly $1 billion a month. This is the fifth annual Budget brought down by a Government and a Treasurer which has given us record overseas debt, even by Third World standards. But if the overseas debt is not bad enough, the Budget Papers contain other figures which are also very disturbing. Our productivity rate, one of the measures of our international competitiveness, which would allow us to start the process of winding down our foreign debt, has in the past averaged more than 2 per cent. Under the policies of this Budget it will increase by one half of one per cent. How can we remain internationally competitive if our productivity is well below that of our major trading competitors? How can we describe this Budget as a good one when our productivity is one-quarter that of the normal rate? Investment in plant and equipment, which is the engine of economic growth, improved productivity and stronger international competitiveness, is alarmingly low. It is likely to be lower than in 1983-84 when the first Budget was brought down by this Government. Furthermore, despite the pizzazz about the forecast-and I emphasise `forecast'-drop in our inflation rate, it will nonetheless be at least double that of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average and much higher than that of our major trading competitors. Our national productivity is far too low. Our inflation rate is far too high. Our investment in plant and equipment is far too low. Unless we can get our productivity up, our inflation down and our investment up we have no hope of being internationally competitive and accordingly we have no hope of bringing our overseas debt under control. This Budget increases personal and company income tax collections by 9.2 per cent over the last year, significantly higher than the estimated inflation rate. A balanced Budget, as the Treasurer has improperly called it, that arises by increases in personal and company tax collections simply avoids the issues of productivity, investment and overseas debt. The higher taxes go, the less inclined our workers are to be more productive and the less inclined business is to make investment. Despite all the showmanship, the outlays of this Budget are still at a much higher figure than the average outlays in all the years of the Fraser Government. The Treasurer's particular brand of optimism has conned some of the media and a sizable basketful-not all, but some-of the financial commentators. This is a Budget for the hot money financial markets, the property speculators, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labor Party branch activists. Taxation has what we might describe as an opportunity cost. There is an immediate gain to some individuals and groups but, by virtue of the disincentives to work and invest that it creates, and by virtue of the costs associated with its collection and distribution, there is a medium and long term loss to the entire Australian community. Australia deserves better than a Treasurer who relies so heavily on good luck. While the moves toward the lower rate of increase in spending in real terms and toward some balance in the Budget documents are realistic, taken as a whole, the Budget is a disappointing retreat from the reality of Australia's economic circumstances. Those of us involved in national affairs have a responsibility to the country we leave to our children and our grandchildren, those in future generations, and they will not thank the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or the Treasurer for this Budget. It is a sad prospect for those men who are so desperate to win a place of relevance in Australia's history. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The CHAIRMAN —In accordance with standing order 226, the Committee will first consider schedule 3 of the Bill. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(6.28) —The consideration of the items in groups of departments has met the convenience of the Committee in past years, so I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order of groupings shown in the following schedule which has been circulated to honourable members: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Department of Finance, Department of the Treasury, Advance to the Minister for Finance-together Attorney-General's Department Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, Department of Industrial Relations-together Department of Transport and Communications Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Department of Administrative Services Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Department of Employment, Education and Training Department of Social Security Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Department of Community Services and Health, Department of Veterans' Affairs, Department of Aboriginal Affairs-together Department of Defence Department of Primary Industries and Energy I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Committee that the proposed order for consideration of departments' estimates has been discussed with the Opposition and it has raised no objection to what has been proposed. The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of the Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the Minister? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Schedule 3. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $154,427,000. Department of Finance Proposed expenditure $115,654,000. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure $725,727,000. Advance to the Minister for Finance Proposed expenditure $170,000,000. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(8.00) —Much has been said and written over the past two or three years about Australia's rapidly rising foreign debt, and we heard a little about that this afternoon. That there has been a rapid rise in that debt is indisputable as the evidence shows that foreign debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) increased from its nadir of 9.6 per cent in 1975-76 to 50.5 per cent at June 1987, with almost all of that growth taking place since 1982-83 and coinciding with the relaxation in the Government's controls over the foreign exchange markets and financial institutions. It is my personal conviction that, while I would prefer that our foreign debt be not as high as it is and not have risen at such a rapid rate, the actual level of debt is not in itself the matter of critical concern. Historically Australia has suffered, or perhaps enjoyed, a particularly large foreign debt to GDP ratio. Those who express concern today about the size of that debt would have considered our circumstances prior to 1950 and back into the nineteenth century to have been a tragedy. The statistics available show that between 1900 and 1950 the debt to GDP ratio did not fall below 20 per cent and exceeded 50 per cent for 45 of those 50 years. The war years of 1914-18 and 1939-45 were apparently not an explanation for these high figures as the highest ratios were recorded in the years 1900 to 1909 and from 1929 to 1941. In passing I would make the non-predictive-I emphasise the word `non-predictive'-observation that such peaking has, coincidentally, preceded both world wars. While similar data is not available prior to 1900 there is some indication that our foreign debt to GDP ratio was probably very high for quite some years prior to 1900. All this is simply to put into perspective Australia's heavy reliance, over perhaps 100 or more years, on very high levels of foreign debt. Indeed, it may well be suggested by historians at some future time that the less than 20 per cent debt to GDP ratio over the 25 years to 1975 was a much more noteworthy event than our long history of 50 per cent plus ratios. However, there are legitimate concerns with several aspects of Australia's present foreign debt situation, such as its composition, the investments made with it, the role of the private sector in taking up the major proportion of that debt, and the implications for Australia of the servicing of that debt. As to the composition of the debt, there must be concern that such a high proportion is in the form of loans, rather than equity, and that, in turn, much of those loans have been negotiated in overseas currencies. Mr Chairman, you would understand that many Australian farmers who took overseas loans in 1984 and 1985 expressed in foreign currencies will tell you of the fearful consequences they have faced in meeting seriously inflated servicing commitments following the collapse of the Australian dollar. Looking to the investments made with the assistance of foreign debt creation, I must immediately admit to there being an absence of reliable data. However, the results of some research by reputable academics and financial analysts suggest that I am on fairly safe ground in suggesting that a disturbingly high proportion of that debt has been channelled into financial, property and corporate takeover activity, rather than into productive resources with employment and/or exporting opportunities. I wish to emphasise that point. To a large extent this is confirmed by the private new capital expenditure statistics published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This expenditure has remained stagnant in real terms for the three years to June 1987 and such a trend is completely incompat- ible with the meteoric rise in foreign debt over those same years, unless one accepts that there has been an unproductive utilisation of much of that debt. That our overseas borrowings are not being used for the creation of productive resources is little short of a tragedy when one considers our present economic ills and the critical need for wisely directed capital creation. This Government has much to answer for in creating the climate that has caused and encouraged this almost frantic creation of financial or paper wealth; in the inability or disinclination to seriously reduce our high nominal and real interest rates; in our volatile financial markets; in a continuing concern over Australia's productivity and its future direction; and in the failure to appreciate the significance of the low levels of corporate profitability which have largely prevailed since the mid-1970s. Another concern-that of the importance of the private sector contribution to foreign debt-is well documented, and I need only state here that while this type of debt was negligible before the mid-1960s it now comprises 60 per cent of total debt. It is this factor, when taken in association with the servicing of a predominantly loan oriented foreign debt liability, which has the most serious implications for the future of Australia. Interest on total foreign debt stood at 20.7 per cent of GDP at March 1987, having risen from 5.3 per cent of GDP at June 1981. In looking back over historical data it is a matter of solemn observation that the only other time in the past 80-odd years when this ratio exceeded 20 per cent was over the period 1929 to 1935. I would feel some reassurance about this comparison if I had confidence that our foreign debt inflow had been directed into productive resources, but this is almost certainly not the case. Certainly wealth has been created, but it is a nominal or paper wealth based largely on an unaltered capital assets base. There is an even more chilling consideration. Economic cycles are a fact of life and at a time when this nation is more marginally and more highly leveraged than at any time in the past 40 years, we must accept that high levels of speculative debt and their interest servicing commitments will add a troubling dimension to the next serious economic downturn. There is much pessimistic discussion at present, comparing our circumstances in the 1980s with those of the late 1920s. I do not want to add to that speculation, other than to say that there are far too many similarities for us to be complacent about the potential repercussions for this nation if the world economy were to enter a period of sustained recession. My discussion of Australia's foreign debt has been largely in terms of the influence of the private sector in creating, utilising and servicing that debt. Clearly there is a public sector involvement in this debt problem. Information contained in this and previous Budget statements shows that net public sector borrowing requirements in recent years have been more than double the levels that were typical for many years prior to the mid-1970s. In the initial period of rapidly growing public sector borrowing the Commonwealth Government was the sole participant, but from the late 1970s State and local governments entered that market and gave strong impetus to its continuing growth, to a point where gross public sector borrowings reached 8 per cent of GDP in 1983-84. The recent Budget forecast is for that percentage to be pulled back to 2.2 per cent of GDP in 1987-88, and while the restraint evident in that trend cannot be disputed I suggest that four years in which to achieve a 5.8 percentage point decline in public sector borrowing is a further indication of the Hawke Government's lack of commitment to responsible economic management and a misdirection of its policies. The policies of the Hawke Government, and particularly its failure to improve the climate for new investment in export oriented resources, have placed the Government in the paradoxical situation where it is a Labor government that will leave most Australians poorer and a very few Australians considerably richer. It is an extraordinary achievement for a Labor government of this country to have a situation where the number of very rich Australians is growing but the number of very poor Australians is increasing at a greater rate. The gap between the very rich and the very poor in Australia has never been greater. It is a legacy of this Labor Government that the people of Australia will live with this situation-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(8.10) —Mr Deputy Chairman, may I take this opportunity of congratulating you on your appointment to your position as this is the first time I have addressed the chamber with you in the chair. At the outset let me say that it is a very great pleasure to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) tonight as this is, of course, the first part of what is an historic Budget. It is truly an historic Budget because it is the first Budget since that of 1970-71 that is in balance. With a deficit of only $27m, it also incorporates a 2.4 per cent real reduction in Commonwealth spending. That, I must point out to the chamber, is the biggest cut in Commonwealth spending in the 35 years for which comparable records have been kept. The decisions in this Budget, of which Appropriation Bill (No. 1) is obviously so important, lay the groundwork for a continuity of sound economic policy and management in this country under the Labor Government. I listened with interest to the comments of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) a few moments ago about how in this country supposedly there are an increasing number of very wealthy and an increasing number of very poor. I find it interesting that when this Government puts up measures such as the assets test, designed to give precious social security dollars to those in need and take them from those who have no need, and when this Government puts up a measure such as the ID card to stop tax evasion, which is predominant amongst the very, very wealthy, and social security fraud and to channel those precious social security dollars to the very poor, those opposite, including the honourable member for Warringah, oppose those policy initiatives. Yet in the next breath in this chamber they say that this is wrong, that is wrong and the Labor Government is doing nothing about the problem. The hypocrisy that is apparent in that sort of stance is the very kernel of the problem for them in trying to come up with a tax policy. They have fought one election without a decent tax policy and they are well on the way to another election without a decent tax policy because they cannot face the issues squarely. One of the most important parts of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) is the appropriation under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet of $1.52m for the Economic Planning Advisory Council. EPAC, as it is more commonly known, was established by this Government in April 1983 following the success of the National Economic Summit Conference and, dare I say for all the redneck right wingers on the other side, it is a direct derivative of the consensus model which this Government has brought to bear upon the previously warring factions of industry and labour. As a result it has derived spectacular economic successes not only before the trade crisis that we faced but also since then in our recovery. EPAC has been instrumental in that economic management path not only in communicating and participating in the formulation of economic policy but also in the development of a whole new knowledge of economic policies and prospects which the great mass of Australians are now starting to be attentive to. In establishing this new body the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in his second reading speech in 1983, spoke of community participation and of the need to identify feasible and desirable goals and targets for the economy as a whole. These feasible and desirable economic goals and policies are initiatives, hopes and national aspirations and goals that unite labour and capital in this country in the common good. Of course EPAC is not just another government mouthpiece; EPAC is spectacular in its success because of its independence. It has a charter that provides for it `to give freely and without unwarranted influence'. While EPAC is designed to consult with the Commonwealth Government, it is in no way bound to emulate the Government's views. Its publications, several of which honourable members no doubt have seen, recognise the key issues confronting this country and address them most sensibly. EPAC is not purely the dream of an economic technocrat in the bureaucracy; rather its research and investigation include many areas-social policy, industry, employment and other aspects of government relating to Commonwealth expenditures. One of its more important focuses is the labour market and trends in the prices and incomes arena which the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has charge of. The appropriation for EPAC in 1987-88 will ensure that its future and its spectacular role in economic planning in this country are assured. Its role is as important today as it was when it took up its original charter in 1983 in response to the recession that the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) produced in this country through the budgetary processes of 1980-81 and 1981-82. In the short time left to me I wish to refer to an issue which I believe it is absolutely fundamental that EPAC explore and address its mind to very quickly. I would go so far as to say, especially with the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Holding) sitting at the table tonight, that if EPAC needs more funds to do it this Government should be ready to provide funds. The issue is the single greatest threat confronting our manufacturing industry in this country at the moment: the looming skills shortage. It is now quite apparent, as this week's Business Review Weekly, for instance, points out, that there is a skills shortage that major private sector manufacturers cannot cope with. This should not come as a surprise to any of us. It was once said that Australia was some five years behind the economic cycles of the United States of America. That is no longer the case. On a recent visit to the United States I found that the skills shortage and the predominance of employment problems-white collar and blue collar-in the United States were astounding. It was not unusual to have an inner city region of a major capital city with huge numbers of unemployed-usually ethnically based: negroes or Hispanics-at levels of 18 to 30 per cent. Yet only six miles down the road there were McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Pizza Hut outlets advertising for full time shop assistants. In fact, some of those food chains were even taking out advertising space on billboards and so forth not to advertise their product or their service but to advertise for labour. That incongruity in the market-place, that paradox, is now confronting Australian manufacturing. We must do something about it very quickly. Unlike American policy makers who seem not only not able but also not inclined to do anything about it, this Government has set up the employment education and training ministry. But we must go further than that. Not only must macropolicy involvement of EPAC be undertaken very shortly but also I believe that EPAC needs a special brief to explore the whole problem-the macroproblem economically and also the various instrumentality problems relating to education and to such things as communication and transport that so affect the mobility of the work force in this country. It is a task, with a goal, to which EPAC would be well suited. Should it not have the funds to look at this issue, we should give them to it. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(8.20) —I rise in committee tonight to discuss the role of the Australian Taxation Office in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 and also to discuss something that I raised earlier this afternoon and to which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has now responded. Today I asked the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) for confirmation about the place of residence of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the travel allowance paid to him. In response, the Minister said: So far as the home base of the Treasurer is concerned, I have nothing to add to what the Treasurer has already told this House. He went on to say that the disclosure of the allowances paid not only to Ministers but to other members would be tabled in due course. I welcome that, although still no time limit has been given. Unfortunately, after that question and answer, the Prime Minister is reported by Australian Associated Press as follows: Outside Parliament earlier today, Prime Minister . . . said Mr Braithwaite was mysteriously silent about the position of his own colleagues . . . `There is a real issue, I believe, of office holders having to spend a considerable period of their time in Canberra to do their job properly' . . . The report also states: Because Mr Keating's situation, and that of others, could be open to misinterpretation, it was appropriate for the Remuneration Tribunal to examine the matter and clarify it, he said. I would have no difficulty with the submission that has been made to the Remuneration Tribunal if such recompense was indeed required and if there has been misinterpretation. But I suggest that it goes deeper than misinterpretation. If there is a need for clarification by a further ruling by the Tribunal, perhaps it suggests that past practices have not been absolutely in accordance with the Tribunal's finding in the past. This is the reason for my comment. Referring to the comment that the Minister for Administrative Services made about the place of residence of a member, I refer quite deliberately to a comment made by the Treasurer not to this House but on the AM program of 29 June pertaining to his having put his Canberra address on his election nomination form. The Treasurer said: I have made it quite clear where I live. Yes of course I have signed where I live at this time, which is Canberra. The point I want to make is that the 1986 review by the Tribunal indicated quite categorically-this is not open to misinterpretation-that the home base of a Minister, as it was referring to a Minister at that time, is his principal place of residence. The Treasurer has acknowledged that his main place of residence is in Canberra and proffered as further proof his address on the electoral roll in Canberra. I am suggesting that that is a normal place of residence in accordance with the Tribunal's ruling of 1986. I entered this debate much earlier but I now go on to point out that the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in making an application to the Tribunal on 4 June 1987, wrote: In recent years however, some Ministers and office holders who have sought to maintain a semblance of family life in Canberra have been subjected to criticism because travelling allowances are payable in Canberra. In the Government's view this matter can be best resolved by the Tribunal again reviewing the conditions of payment to reflect current arrangements applying in Canberra so as to remove any ambiguities which might have arisen in recent years. I suggest that this letter was deliberately written in order to overcome the embarrassment that the Treasurer is currently facing in connection with the payment of this allowance. I say quite categorically that it may be that Ministers who live in Canberra and have their residence in Canberra because of their job should be recompensed. But what I am saying is that at this stage the Tribunal's rulings do not allow for that. The Minister for Industrial Relations admits that there is an ambiguity at the least. At the worst, there may have been an improper payment of the allowance. That is one aspect which I asked the Minister for Administrative Services this afternoon to bear in mind. I have been challenged on the basis that other members and other office holders have done a similar thing. All I can say is that I am referring to sub-paragraph 1 (c) of the Tribunal's ruling relating to travel allowance for Ministers which states: The `home base' of a minister shall be his principal place of residence (and he shall nominate his principal place of residence to the Special Minister of State). I am saying that over the past four years the Treasurer has had his principal place of residence in Canberra and it is nonsense to suggest that a travel allowance should be paid to any member, under the terms of the Tribunal's ruling, for not travelling but for staying at his principal place of residence. On evidence from the Treasurer's own lips, his principal place of residence is Canberra. This is also evidenced by the fact that he is enrolled within an electorate in Canberra. Another aspect I wish to follow up is one that I initially raised with the Australian Taxation Office on 28 November. I asked the Commissioner of Taxation for a ruling about travel allowance being paid to a person who did not travel but who stayed at home. I did this because of the double standard involved. As a practising accountant, I know how difficult it has been for normal taxpayers in Australia to justify, in the eyes of the Commissioner, a claim for travel allowance. In fact, I had one case in which the Tax Commissioner initially disallowed an allowance for a single person genuinely living away from the rented flat which was his normal domicile. That case caused great difficulty. Yet it did not seem to me that the Commissioner was challenging a more blatant case. I wrote to the Commissioner on 28 October 1986 and received an initial response. I then wrote to the Commissioner on two separate occasions asking what was going on. On 9 July I was forced to write to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in these terms: Over seven months ago I wrote to the Taxation Commissioner for a ruling on the taxability of travel allowance paid to Parliamentarians . . . Despite an acknowledgment that a reply would be sent once the matter had been examined I have received no answer, despite sending two follow-up letters . . . Finally, in response to that, I received on 15 July 1987 a response from the Commissioner of Taxation which stated: You wrote on 28 November 1986 about aspects of how the income tax law operates in relation to daily travel allowances received by Federal parliamentarians. These allowances are fixed by the independent Remuneration Tribunal on the basis of an appraisal of the costs that members can be expected to face by reason of having to carry out duties in Canberra. That refers to travel allowance. It continued: They constitute assessable income for income tax purposes, in contrast with living-away-from-home allowances the tax treatment of which is now determined according to the fringe benefits tax law. That was not material. It continued: The costs for which members' daily travel allowances are paid are by and large deductible for income tax purposes. Again here I say that the travel allowance was paid for a member who did not travel away from his normal place of residence. It also stated: . . . it has been the general practice to accept claims for deductions up to the amount of the allowance without detailed vouching. This continues to be the case . . . I suggest that there is a double standard here. The man who is administering the tax Act is prepared to penalise the normal taxpayer in terms of the living away from home allowance, which is what the travel allowance is, the type of thing that I, as a normal taxpayer, have to justify in my books of account. Yet the Tax Commissioner is failing to interpret the Income Tax Assessment Act and is relying on the Remuneration Tribunal in regard to the Treasurer. I pointed out earlier that the Tribunal's rulings have not been applied in the way in which they should be applied. So there is a double mischief. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $419,525,000. Mr REITH(Flinders)(8.31) —In the 10 minutes allotted to me to discuss the proposed expenditure under this portfolio of about $500m, I want to pick up two or three matters. In particular, I want to refer to the Constitutional Commission because it is a matter of great significance and because I think it is worthy of the Committee's attention. The Commission was established in December 1985, as was announced by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). The Opposition, from the word go, had some doubts about the concept of the Constitutional Commission. Basically, the Attorney-General's argument was that the politicians had failed and that we had to go outside the political arena. In fact at one stage, whilst recognising the need for some sort of balance, he talked about Malcolm and Gough being the great duo. Mr Lionel Bowen —Malcolm Fraser. Mr REITH —I think that the reference to Malcolm Fraser probably got lost in the Cabinet discussions somewhere along the line. Mr Lionel Bowen —No, he went to South Africa. Mr REITH —He went to South Africa. The fundamental flaw is that one cannot ignore the reality of politics. Politics, and those who are involved in politics, must play a major role in questions of constitutional reform. Professor Blainey was a fairly early critic of the Commission. In January 1986, shortly after the announcement of the setting up of the Commission, he said that the Government, by hand-picking the members of the Commission, had: . . . turned its back on one of the brain-waves of history, the idea that in making the Constitution the people should be masters not only of the last step, but of the first step . . . He was very critical. He stated: . . . too many of the 39 names have been chosen because they are sympathetic to Labor's view of what a reformed Constitution should say. I make that point at this stage because we are moving down the track with this Constitutional Commission. I think that that fundamental flaw is now coming very much to the fore. Those who are currently in politics do not have the opportunity which was previously afforded them by the Constitutional Convention, which this Government abandoned, to debate and discuss the matter so that they can put their views on the public record. Be that as it may, the original cost that we finally extracted from the Government was about $3.9m in 1986-87; there were additional estimates of $629,000. These are big figures which are aimed primarily at the publicity area. I acknowledge that there is a fine line between promoting public debate on this important matter and pushing a particular line using taxpayers' funds. Of course, that is what the Government was going to do. It has a record of doing so. It was very keen at the end of 1983 to do that with regard to some of its constitutional referenda proposals. The estimate this year is up to $2.28m. That figure is considerably higher than the figure given in the summary of estimates which was produced shortly after the Constitutional Commission was established. At that stage we were told that in 1987-88 the figure would be $1.476m. There is no doubt that the Constitutional Commission is chewing up the taxpayers' cash during a year when it ought to be winding down because, of course, it must report by 30 June. Our policy during the election was to scrap the Constitutional Commission. Obviously, the election result was such that that policy is now history. We will now look at the proposals that the Constitutional Commission and the Government move towards. We have already stated on the public record that we think the concept of four-year terms has merit. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said that during the recent election. In the last election we had a policy to promote a constitutional referendum on the question of trial by jury, which is a recommendation contained in one of the advisory committee reports. We also stated in our policy that the concept of citizens-initiated referenda was something which we would look at and which we thought had merit. I think that that subject still needs to be debated and looked at in this place because it is a very interesting concept. It is one which, of course, may well not find favour with the Australian Labor Party because it is a concept that provides the possibility of people power intruding into Labor's corporate state-big business, big unions and big government. That is a very cosy arrangement which has been one of the hallmarks of this Government. I will be very surprised if we see a favourable response from the Government in regard to citizens-initiated referenda. Last Friday the Constitutional Commission brought down some recommendations which we discussed in our Party meeting this morning. The decision of the party room today was to make it quite clear that the Opposition parties would not have a bar of stripping the powers of the Senate. It is one of Labor's old favourites to attack one of the basic elements of the system of checks and balances that is provided in our Constitution. It wants to rip into, and effectively do away with, the Senate by making it a mere rubber stamp. We make it absolutely clear that we will not sit back idly and see those sorts of proposals gain any currency. We see the Constitution as being absolutely fundamental to people's rights in this country. The Senate is an important part of providing and protecting people's rights. When one casts aside the Government's rhetoric and looks at the reality of its proposals, one sees that it has a record that needs to be watched very carefully. The proposed ID card system was designed to give the Government power over individuals by allowing governments to accrue and run dossiers on people. The Bill of Rights-in fact, the Bill of wrongs-was a Bill which was going to attack and take away people's rights. These sorts of proposals which strip away the powers of the Senate will find no favour with the Opposition. We do not believe that it is in the interests of the Australian people that the Senate be stripped of power and made a rubber stamp. The ultimate conclusion of that, the ultimate logic of those sorts of proposals, is that we would see not only a reduction in the powers of the Senate but also an increase in the powers of executive government. That is not something which we in the Opposition will give any support to whatsoever. If the Government takes up those proposals further, we will raise the matter across the country. I would have liked to raise, and should raise, a number of other matters. I am concerned about the cutbacks in the funding for the Australian Federal Police which have been confirmed by Minister Tate's office and I would like to hear what the Attorney-General has to say about it. I would also be very interested to hear what is being done about witness protection. The Government has had more reports than it could count recommending action in that area. It had the 1983-84 Special Prosecutor's report, the National Crime Authority's (NCA) 1984-85 annual report, which stressed its importance, and the NCA's 1985-86 annual report again picked up the matter. I would appreciate some comments from the Attorney-General on this matter. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(8.41) —It is a pity that the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) has tried to misrepresent what the Government is about in the Senate. He talked about stripping powers but what this Government wants to do, and has always wanted to do, is ensure that democracy prevails. If honourable members want to make a comparison of the attitude of the Liberal and National parties with that of the Australian Labor Party they have only to look at the activities that this Government has enabled the Senate to undertake under the committee system. In the restructuring that is now taking place one finds that not only is there a greater opportunity for members of the Senate to be involved in supervising activities of government, the bureaucracy, the administration-in other words, the Executive-but also there are more joint house committees and House of Representatives committees. I think the comments of the honourable member for Flinders are very much party politically motivated. I return very quickly to the matter before the chamber. Sometimes, and regrettably, the portfolio of the Attorney-General is too often seen as a very technical and legalistic area of administration. Most people do not realise how important this ministerial field is, especially when it comes to preserving and protecting the quality of life of citizens in this country. That misunderstanding is thrown aside when one delves into the various activities and responsibilities of the Attorney-General and his ministerial team under the new structure we now have. There is always that expected responsibility where the Government, through the Attorney-General, is responsible for the provision of legal services and the Federal courts. But most people do not appreciate fully that this is the area of administration that is waging the fight against crime at a national level, against drug-related crimes, against white collar crimes and against organised and internationally linked crimes. That is why I welcome the amount of money that is in this measure. I take to task the honourable member for Flinders, who said that the Australian Federal Police are being downgraded and cut back. I will demonstrate how wrong he is in a moment. Mr Reith —I suggest you ring-- Mr WRIGHT —I will give the honourable member the figures. He can say what he likes when he is on air but it is the figures that count and had he bothered to read the detail presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) he would have realised that he was wrong. This Government has decided, with good reason, to produce a leaner and more efficient administration but despite the tough economic circumstances that prevail, despite the need constantly to upgrade the costly technical weaponry, the Government has continued to expand its operations and has continued to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. It is waging against crime a fight that is praiseworthy. The honourable member for Flinders can argue that matter later, but clearly this Government has provided the resources, though they be expensive in human and technical terms. The Government is stepping up its fight by increasing the number of staff. That has been seen in the number of additional personnel who will be involved in one of the main weapons that this Government put in place in June this year, and that was the Proceeds of Crime Act. That Act came into force only a few months ago but it strikes at the very heart of crime. It strikes at the profits of drug trafficking and other organised and large scale criminal activities. It is the objective of this Government to ensure that crime does not pay. The Opposition talked about this matter for years when it was in power but did nothing. This Government has made sure that it is not just a matter of apprehending the criminal; society has demanded that criminals involved in these activities be stripped of their illegal gains. That is what this Act does and what the additional personnel will achieve. It is good that we have a legislative commitment and that we make laws, but those laws mean very little unless we have the weaponry to ensure that they are enforced. That means spending money on human resources and technical backup. Under this measure the Government is providing an additional 70 people at a cost of $6.2m over the next two years to pursue proceeds of crimes action. It is part of this Government's overall assault on crime on a nationwide basis and it is working. I note that the Director of Public Prosecutions has already identified 80 cases where the new Act applies. We are not only apprehending criminals but also building in a deterrent for them because would-be criminals will know that they will get caught and will lose everything that they think they have gained. Tax avoidance is also an important issue and, regardless of what the Opposition has been saying, the strategy undertaken by this Government did not rest solely with the Australia Card. One notes from the appropriations that the war against the tax avoider is not a single handed campaign; it is under this Budget that the Australian Government Solicitor has been given 60 additional staff to help close off tax rorts and conduct a systematic crackdown on tax avoidance. This additional staff will undertake tax recovery. I have pulled out some figures: some 70,000 appeals are still pending and they involve $1,144m. So the additional staff will overcome the backlog and, I believe, will save Australian taxpayers millions of dollars. In addition to this we have the blitz on bankruptcy fraud. Special investigation units are being set up and about $112m is involved just in this area. I come to the point that the honourable member for Flinders made. He talked about cutting back expenditure on the Australian Federal Police. What is actually happening is that the Government is strengthening Australia's front line law enforcement agency. The manpower levels for 1987-88 have been increased by 104. Opposition members should make some comparisons with what they did. Since 1983 Federal Police staffing has increased by 25 per cent, an increase of 639 personnel. We are spending $150m, which is something like $10m more, this financial year. We are providing not only additional personnel but also backup by allocating special computer facilities that are needed to strengthen, further improve and expand the Federal Police's information management in criminal intelligence and investigation areas, particularly those relating to drug trafficking, organised crime and major fraud. Another $6.3m has been allocated over the next three years for specialised computer projects. Money is being brought forward; action is being taken by this Government because it understands that it has an obligation to provide, regardless of the budgetary climate, additional funds for the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, the National Crime Authority and the co-operative schemes we have, such as the one with the Thai Government. This Government is putting in place the reality that criminals can get caught. It is no good having the laws or penalties that are a deterrent unless the criminal knows that he runs a high risk of being caught. This takes money, human resources and technical weaponry and this Government-the Hawke Government-is meeting those needs. In the few minutes I have left, I make special mention of another government initiative covered by this portfolio and I refer to the ministry of consumer affairs. This issue is of special importance to me because, as honourable members will know, I raised it in my maiden speech just over three years ago. I suggested the need to take a national approach to consumer protection and consumer affairs and for a long time I advocated that this be a separate ministry. The Prime Minister promised this. He committed himself to it and I give him full credit for the total personal support he has given. I give full credit also to the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), who is the first Minister for Consumer Affairs. The honourable member for Flinders laughs, but the Opposition shadow Ministry does not even recognise a ministry for consumer affairs. Its interest in the protection of people in this nation is such that it has not appointed a person to carry out that role. I suggest to the honourable member that he ought to think clearly through this issue and understand that consumer protection requires a national approach. Without encroaching upon the excellent works being done by consumer protection agencies at the State level, we need to understand that companies do not recognise State boundaries. They want some uniformity when it comes to advertising laws, labelling laws, packaging laws, health standards, safety requirements and warranties. That can best be done at a Federal level. This is the Government that has acted. It has been the Attorney-General, backed up now by the new Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples), who is putting in place the answer to this need and protecting the Australian community, not only, as I mentioned before, in the fight against crime but also in the vitally important area of consumer affairs. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.51) —I want, in the context of these estimates, to discuss three issues. The first relates to constitutional reform, the second to the Family Law Act and the third to the plight and circumstances of marriage counselling organisations. The first matter I want to bring to the attention of the chamber is the amount of money that is presently provided to an organisation called the Constitutional Commission. This year the Budget Papers reveal that some $2,279,000 has been allocated towards assisting this organisation in the development of proposals for reform of our Constitution. Experience would suggest that, notwithstanding the organisation's diligence, its efforts, the publication of papers and the like, unless a good deal more is done to persuade the Australian people that its proposals are worthwhile reforms all its efforts will be for naught. Since the enactment of our Constitution in 1901 only some eight or so amendments have been carried under section 128 of the Constitution. In more than 80 years some 36 proposals have been advanced and many of those proposals have been rejected. As I have indicated, few have been generally accepted by the Australian people. It has been accepted or is current wisdom that referendum proposals will not pass unless they are supported by all political parties. We had the experience, for instance, when we tried to deal with the question of synchronisation of elections between the House of Representatives and the Senate, that even when the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties agreed and there were dissentients among the minority parties in the Senate, and some dissentients among the major parties as well, the dissenting view prevailed. I very much regret that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) saw fit, when we were in Brisbane, to terminate the role of the Constitutional Convention. I recall well the circumstances, and while his view and mine might differ somewhat as to the extent to which one was able in that environment to work productively to develop proposals that might win a degree of acceptance, I would have to say that I am of the view that the proposals that will emanate from the Constitutional Commission, notwithstanding goodwill on this side of the chamber, will be unlikely to meet with success unless a good deal more effort is made on his part to involve the Opposition and State parliaments in a process whereby they will play a role in the consideration and development of the proposals. We have a proposal for constitutional reform dealing with the term of the Federal Parliament. While there is generally agreement for proposals to extend the term of this place to, say, four years, that matter is caught up in other proposals, as I understand the work of the Constitutional Commission, to have a limitation on the right of a Prime Minister to seek an early dissolution of the Parliament if its term is extended from three years to four years and to eliminate the prospect of an early dissolution being sought by way of the Senate exercising its present rights in relation to the passage of Budget Bills. I would have to say that such proposals seem to me to be fraught with very considerable difficulties. They are verging on trying to establish a fixed term of three years with possible early dissolution in the last year of a parliament. It seems to me that this is another one of those back-door methods of trying to achieve a reform that the Australian Labor Party has had in mind since 1975. I would have to say that such proposals are unlikely to convince this side of their virtue and, that being the case, their prospect of success at a referendum must be very much doubted. I could deal at length with the arguments as to why I think it is desirable to maintain the present system, which gives a degree of flexibility in relation to early dissolution. It is a fact that early dissolutions may not be necessarily desirable where governments have large majorities, but where there is instability with party allegiances, where there is multiparty involvement, say, in this chamber-which is a prospect that could emerge at some future time-there may be very good reasons for early dissolution to enable a Prime Minister to obtain a mandate on a particular question of principle. Yet the proposals we have before us from the Constitutional Commission are unlikely to provide the flexibility our present system provides to deal with those important questions. I will be writing more on those questions in time, but I wish to foreshadow to the Attorney that in my view they are unlikely to meet with any measure of agreement. That being the case, it seems to me it would be very much better if the Government were prepared to look at again having a constitutional convention at which these proposals could be tried out upon us and the States to see whether there can be a measure of agreement between the people who would be prominent in any debate as referendum proposals are considered. The second matter I wish to raise relates to reform of family law. The Attorney and I served jointly on the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, which deliberated long and hard on the questions of the grounds for divorce and whether or not there should be some reform of the present grounds. The Committee, when it deliberated, took the view that there should be no change in the grounds upon which divorces are granted in this country. But I remind the Attorney that one aspect of the Committee's deliberations was in relation to whether or not the period of separation of the parties under the present Act ought to be extended. While there was a detailed discussion in the report about that matter, the Committee left open the question as to whether or not at some future time this whole question of a longer separation might be looked at. I remind the Attorney also that in paragraph 3.51 the Committee had this to say: As related in paragraph 3.27, the Committee is divided on the question of grounds for divorce. A majority believes at the present time there should not be a change to section 48. Some members accept the reasoning as outlined as a full and complete justification of the 1975 changes, and others wished to await the outcome of the work of the Institute of Family Studies and a longer period of operation in order that the effects of the Act might be more fully assessed. Nevertheless, the Committee is able to recommend that there be no change to the provisions of the Act relating to grounds for divorce. I should like to suggest to the Attorney-General that it may be appropriate at this time when we are setting up new legislative committees of this Parliament that one of the matters that a committee might be invited to look at is the review that the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act said ought to take place further down the line when a great deal more factual information was available and the Act had been in place for a longer period. The third matter I wish to raise is the aspect of the estimates which indicate that there has been a reduction of 28.7 per cent in the funds available for family conciliation centres. That means that in the area of marriage and family services generally a significant percentage reduction has occurred in the funds available for marriage and family counselling. That is an unfortunate movement and one that is in conflict with the direction in which the Attorney is able to move. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(9.01) —This year's Budget continues the fiscal responsibility that has been the hallmark of this Government. It was only five years ago, or five Budgets ago, that we remember the Hawke Government was elected and we were faced with the prospect of a domestic deficit of $9,800m, a tax system full of holes where many in the community could choose whether they paid tax or not. Also we had an economy that was going backwards. We lost 200,000 jobs in one year. Not one job was created. Yet, in just five years that deficit has been wiped out. The first sentence the Treasurer (Mr Keating) uttered in delivering the Budget this year when he said that the Budget was in balance, absolutely floored the Opposition, because sitting here having a look at the Opposition-- Mr Webster —You flatter yourself, George. Mr GEAR —My friend the honourable member for Macquarie interjects. But we could see the faces of the members of the Opposition and we could see the doom and gloom. The Opposition was absolutely staggered. How could this Government take all that fiscal irresponsibility that the Opposition left it and bring in a balanced Budget in five years? If honourable members can go back just a couple of months to the election. Mr Howard was promising the world. He was promising a 38c tax rate and to wipe out all the reforms the Government had made and somehow pay for them-he was not going to tell us how-yet here we are now just a couple of months after that, with a balanced Budget, a growing economy and three-quarters of a million jobs since the Government came to power. Certainly, Mr Chairman, you would agree with me that the past five years have transformed Australia into a more dynamic economy from the mess it inherited from the Liberals, who sat here for seven years and watched the country go backwards. But the office of Attorney-General is now charged, given events in recent days, with combating fraud against the Commonwealth. Since the election, as I said before, this Government has instituted a policy of fighting tax evasion and fraud wherever it exists. I should like to remind the Committee of just a few of those. Mr Webster —Good. Mr GEAR —`Good', says the honourable member for Macquarie. Well, here we go. The first thing the Government introduced was the prescribed payments system. Doom and gloom were preached. Small business was going to go to the wall. We heard all of those predictions-not one of them true. The revenue gained from the prescribed payments system is now in excess of $500m. That is $500m which we never had before and which was going in tax evasion. The Government ended deductibility for so-called business lunches and the shadow Treasurer at the time said that 80,000 jobs would be lost, that business would incur huge costs because people still had to be taken out to lunch. It never happened. In actual fact, more people are working in the hospitality industry now than before September 1985 when the Government announced the changes. So, once again, the Opposition was wrong. We shall always remember the principal part played by the Opposition in the fringe benefits tax. It fought us all the way on the fringe benefits tax: doom and gloom again. Bob Ansett said, `Axe the tax'. There were all those predictions about business going to the wall. It has not happened and the Government's revenue predictions have been very modest. In actual fact, they have been exceeded to the tune of about 200 per cent. The Government introduced the capital gains tax-something that has been lacking in this country for years and years. Australia was one of only two Western countries that did not have one, yet the Government was fought on the capital gains tax all the way, even though it is a very modest tax compared with that of some of our trading competitors. The Opposition has fought against all of those taxation measures that have been aimed at putting some decency back into the system. On every occasion the Opposition has been proved to be wrong. As I said, at the last election the Opposition said it would throw huge tax cuts, which would come in in February and be paid for over time. There were no explanations about where the money was going to come from. The only scenario one could have if a policy such as that were adopted would be a collapse of the Australian dollar and interest rates going through the roof. The people of Australia were not fooled by you dummies. They rejected them for a third time and put the Hawke Labor Government back in, on the basis, I might add, that the Government was to introduce an Australia Card. The Australia Card, as we know now, has been scuttled by the Opposition-a compliant, opportunistic Opposition which came in on the tail end of the debate. All the way through the Parliament the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) did not think it was important enough even to speak on, yet now he is a man of high principle who will throw out the Australia Card because of a technicality. All I can say to that is that it was a victory of emotion over reason. I refer to an article that appeared in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald by Mr Simon Davies of the Australian Privacy Foundation, which was instrumental, I might say, in scuttling the Australia Card. The Liberals, as I said, were mere opportunists; they were a pimple on a backside. Just to show what the Australian Privacy Foundation thought of the Liberal Party, let us see what Mr Simon Davies had to say. He said: The Liberals proved to be less than adequate campaign partners. That must be the understatement of the year. He continued: Although Mr Howard had personally assured me the foundation could count on his Party's co-operation all the way, when asked to help with the underwriting of $25,000- not give $25,000; just help with the underwriting- . . . he refused, saying `the Liberals are in the business of promoting themselves, not other people'. He went on to say about the Nationals: The Nationals were marginally more helpful. Senator Ron Boswell rang the Foundation at the outset of the campaign seeking assistance for a private member's bill for a referendum on the Card. But Senator Boswell was blocked by shadow cabinet and his bill was usurped by the Liberals. When my disappointment was conveyed to Wilson Tuckey, he responded- and these are Mr Tuckey's words, not mine- `Boswell will do what he's bloody well told or we'll toss him'. What a great old civil libertarian attitude. In other words, `Toe the line. Don't do what you want to do, just do as we tell you'. Here is the Opposition's great civil libertarian, its spokesman on the Australia Card, talking about his colleague in that way. Mrs Harvey —It is disgusting. Mr GEAR —As the honourable member for Hawker said, it is disgusting. It really is. The Australian Privacy Foundation told the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) he was useless. Honourable members knew that all along. The honourable member for O'Connor never really led the debate about the Australia Card. He crawled out from under a rock when he found out there was a bit of dissension out there in the community, and yesterday-- Mr Ruddock —On a point of order, Mr Chairman: we are discussing the estimates of the Attorney-General's Department. I should like to know to what part these comments are being addressed. Perhaps it is in relation to the Law Reform Commission and the failure of the Government to pick up its recommendation on privacy. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The appropriation debates, even on particular departments, are usually rather wide ranging. I thought the honourable member was getting to the fact that the Attorney-General's Department covers most of the law enforcement in this country. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Mr Chairman. It seems I have touched a nerve over there. Indeed, because of the demise of the Australia Card, the Attorney-General's Department now has to go out and protect the Commonwealth revenue. We had the most effective system to do that-the Australia Card-but because of opportunists like the Opposition members we have to go to the second best. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It is not in order for honourable members to refer to other honourable members as opportunists. I request the honourable member to withdraw that remark. Mr GEAR —I withdraw. Let us talk about the second-best system that the Attorney-General must now institute, the upgraded tax file number system. Yesterday the honourable member for O'Connor said: A high integrity tax file number which would be required for purposes such as opening bank accounts would be blocked in the Senate. Today the honourable member reiterated that statement. In effect, what he is saying is that there is no way the Liberal Party will support any system that follows the money trail and that can be useful in determining a person's income. The Liberal Party says, `All you can have is a tax file number to be used for internal purposes in the Taxation Office, but if you try to use it outside the Office, which system was endorsed last year by members of the Joint Select Committee, we will not wear it'. It is about time the Liberal Party realised that this Government is fair dinkum about tax evasion and that, despite the Liberal Party's best efforts, the Government intends to proceed. It is about time the Liberal Party achieved some integrity and looked at the effects of its actions. Before the next election the Liberal Party will have to begin telling the Australian people about its new tax policy and the source of revenue. As long as the Liberal Party opposes the measures introduced by the Government to restore some decency to the taxation system, its job will be just that much harder. I shall take a great deal of pleasure during the next election campaign in reminding the Australian people how the Liberal Party has performed in Parliament and how it has fought this issue and every other issue introduced by the Government to restore integrity to the taxation system. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(9.11) —I thought the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) might have got into at least second gear during his speech, but he stayed in first gear. I wish to raise three areas of the Attorney-General Department's appropriations: marriage and family services, censorship, and the Institute of Family Studies. The allocation in the 1987 Budget for marriage and family services is a mixed bag of increases and cuts among the various programs. An additional $434,000 has been allocated to marriage counselling organisations and an additional $9,000 to marriage education. I commend the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for at least indexing those amounts. In the last two or three Budgets the amounts have remained static and have therefore decreased as a result of indexation. However, this area of appropriations overall has seen an increase of only $24,000, due to cuts in other areas. Reductions of $114,000 in salary and running costs and of $171,000 for family conciliation centres have been made in the Budget. I could commend the Attorney-General for a number of things, as I believe he has the concerns of the family very much at heart, particularly problems associated with marriages. I understand his personal feelings on these matters. I commend him for the increased funds for marriage counselling and marriage education, although in the latter case the increase is minuscule and has been too long in eventuating. However, I ask the Attorney-General two questions: What is the justification for the savage cuts to family conciliation work; and what will be the impact of the salary and running cost cuts on the capacities of organisations and agencies involved? In regard to my first question, have the family conciliation centres been ineffective or counter-productive? If so, surely the response should be to address the problems and not to cut the programs. If not, just how fair dinkum, to use a colloquialism, is the Government about family conciliation work? In regard to the second question, can the Government give an assurance that its cuts to salaries and running costs will not neutralise other funding increases and demoralise marriage and family workers in the process? The second area I wish to discuss is that of censorship allocations. The Attorney-General will be aware that the report to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the consultation on the National Agenda for Women dealt specifically with the problems of pornography and violence in the media. The Attorney-General is aware of research which has shown the harm being done to children by ineffective and lax censorship controls in Australia. He has been aware that resources available to the censorship boards have been insufficient. The Budget increase will go some way towards addressing those problems. It will be to no avail, however, if the broader policy negligence of the Government relating to X-rated videotapes and the gradual decline of censorship standards in general are not addressed in the very near future. The third area of concern to me is the funding cuts to be forced on the Institute of Family Studies. I am most concerned about this aspect. Notwithstanding the Institute's valuable and internationally recognised work, its budget is to be cut. Primarily, the cuts come in information collection and dissemination, which are its intrinsic functions, and salary and operational costs. I again ask the Attorney-General: What impact will these cuts have on the Institute's performance, and how does its performance warrant this fiscal vote of no confidence? The Institute needs more resources, not less. Indeed, I go further. The Government should be considering how the Institute's human and research resources can be given direct weight within ministerial decision-making along similar lines to youth and women's affairs research and researchers. The real importance of the cuts to the Institute's budget is that it reflects the absence of an overall family perspective and strategy in the Government's decision-making. During the election campaign the Government declared its commitment to fight child poverty, yet the greatest cause of child poverty over the last decade has been marriage breakdown. In this Budget, and in the Government's program generally, we see no review of family law. All we see is a reduction in resources for those in the best position to provide policy guidance and assessment in this area. We see only a decision to throw money at the problem and to ignore the poverty traps created. We see the Government ignoring the underlying social factors that interact with economic factors. The cuts to marriage conciliation and to the Institute of Family Studies outweigh the commendable increases in other related areas within the Attorney-General's Department. Such cuts are unacceptable because they are shortsighted and counter-productive. The Attorney-General owes this chamber and those who work with and for families a detailed explanation of the policy settings and the justifications for these cuts. References to the hard times we are facing will not suffice. What is required is an explanation of Government priorities and the criteria used to identify preferred mechanisms to achieve social goals. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.18) —I realise that time is limited this evening, so my contribution to the debate will be necessarily brief. I wish to mention one aspect of growing importance to a number of my constituents and, I believe, to the Australian community at large-that is, the question of foreign ownership, which has its origins in the business and consumer affairs section of the Attorney-General's portfolio. I refer specifically to purchases in recent years by Japanese interests of a number of farms, buildings, houses and hotels. It is estimated that about $8 billion has been spent over the past two years by Japanese interests, including such financial giants as Nippon Life Insurance Co., Kumagai-Gumi Co. Ltd, and Kawasaki Steel Corporation. On the Gold Coast alone, some $3 billion is estimated to have been spent by Japanese interests on real estate. I understand that all the five-star hotels constructed since 1985 between Southport and Mermaid Beach are now owned by Japanese interests. This is obviously a most sensitive issue and not one that anyone would wish to blunder into, but I raise it as a matter of concern. I have carried out a great deal of research into just what amounts to foreign ownership in this country. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that we are selling off the farm at an alarming rate. The blame can only be laid at our own door. Why should the Japanese not take advantage of a bargain? With our weak devalued dollar and the strong yen, we cannot compete with many of the Japanese interests. On top of that, of course, consumers in Japan save 17 per cent of their earnings, compared with the Australian average of only 3 or 4 per cent. The other features of Australia are our political stability and the deregulation and the freedom of the equity markets. They have made Australia a very attractive proposition. But it has got to the stage where the Government has got to ask itself to what extent it is prepared to allow much of our central business districts-certainly to a large extent, in Queensland to only a slightly lesser extent in Sydney and to a lesser extent again in Melbourne-to be owned by Japanese interests. Again, I hasten to add that in the short time available to me I do not intend to make any blanket, generalised statements, but instead intend to raise a concern of mine about foreign ownership-it is shared by many other people-which I will follow through in later days in this place. We have to take into account the previous experience of other parts of the world in regard to massive purchases by Japanese interests. Hawaii now is largely owned by Japanese interests. We have to take into account that Australia is too small a market; we cannot absorb $8 billion in two years and retain the sort of freedom and ownership by Australian nationals that we would wish. We cannot compete with the private investment of a great many of the massive Japanese corporations. It has been estimated that an office block in Tokyo sells for $20,000-plus per square foot-that is if it ever comes up for sale-whereas in Sydney and Melbourne the cost is only a fraction of that per square foot. I am still in the process of getting exact figures and I do not wish to be reckless in my comparisons, but it certainly is a small fraction of what the cost is in Tokyo. I ask the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to what extent he believes his Government should be monitoring the situation. We know that last week the Government announced that it would restrict foreign investor ownership of residential properties. But the truth is that the Foreign Investment Review Board is a farce. It is very easy to avoid its very lenient requirements. It has been estimated that the approval rate for overseas investors is 99 per cent. The major requirement is that a foreign investor can purchase more than 50 per cent of an Australian property only if it can be shown that no one else in Australia would be a bidder. In other words, the Japanese can bid well above the paying price of Australian interests and therefore satisfy that condition. Alternatively, foreign investors can acquire a small Australian company-even a $2 company-and lend it money, thereby circumventing the very loose requirements of the Foreign Investment Review Board. I will take the matter no further on this occasion except to ask the Attorney-General again to respond to a growing concern in the Australian community. It is not the fault of foreign investors; it is part of the macroeconomic weakness of this Government's policies that allow overseas investors to scoop up once in a lifetime bargains. In fact, it is beginning to look like a fire sale in this country when each and every property seems to have foreign interests showing more and more interest. It is no exaggeration to say that unless the loopholes are closed, particularly in regard to the Foreign Investment Review Board, Australians will not remain masters of their own destiny in the years to come. Again, it has been estimated by the experts that the $8 billion that has been spent in the last two years would represent only one per cent, perhaps 2 per cent, of the potential foreign investments over the next few years, particularly by the Japanese but not only by the Japanese investors. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.24) —In the short time that I have to reply I will deal quickly with the comments made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). I found his remarks interesting. They do not really come within my portfolio, as he would know; they come within the portfolio of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I will arrange to have his remarks drawn to the attention of the Treasurer. I am aware of the significance which he places on them. Might I just say in passing that, whilst it might be a recent phenomenon that investment has increased, the opportunity has been there for some time. The honourable member would be aware, for example, that the Premier of Queensland has attracted massive investment in a place called Yeppoon, which did cause some discussion. The issue at the time was whether it was in the interests of Queensland to have that investment. I am sure that Queensland at the time thought that it was and still thinks it was. It is not only Japanese money but also money from other countries which seem to be attracted to Australia, which is a pretty good piece of the world, I acknowledge. I would be wrong to try to reply to the matter as its does not come within my portfolio. I will arrange for the Treasurer to deal with the remarks of the honourable member for Gippsland. Coming back to the issues raised that fell within my portfolio, I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I found the most effective contributions were made by honourable members from my side, of course, in the sense that they were able to be constructive and praiseworthy of the work that has been done. That is no criticism of those opposite because some of them did raise a number of matters that I think will need to be answered. I will first deal with the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who raised a number of matters which I thought he would raise. I think he suffers from the problem that his Party does not believe in the issue he was discussing, namely, the existence of a Constitutional Commission. It is his Party's policy to do away with it. It lost the election although I do not think that that was necessarily the one reason it lost it. The honourable member used words that I think were of some interest. He said that constitutional reform is of great significance. Having said that, perhaps I might assume to have won him over to the issue. Perhaps we might at least look at it on a bipartisan basis and not have the stereotyped nonsense that we have put up with from oppositions and politicians over the years when trying to alter the Constitution in the interests of our nation. We had a Constitutional Convention that was in permanent session from 1968 to 1983-15 years of politicians, professionals, doing nothing but arguing. When some common arrangement was made about what would be put to the people by way of referendum and we got to the referendum stage they decided to disagree again. It is no wonder, as the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) eloquently pointed out, that of the 38 referendum propositions we have put to this country we have passed a measly eight in a period of 87 years. The point that ought to be mentioned-and I take some interest in it-is that I have established this Constitutional Commission, despite vigorous opposition and comments that it is a waste of time. How can it be a waste of time when, I remind the honourable member for Flinders, we have on the Commission people such as Sir Maurice Byers, Mr Justice Toohey, Professor Zines and Professor Campbell-people who are not caught up in the day to day thrust of trying to score political points? They are trying to establish what is wrong with this document. There must be a little wrong with it; it was prepared by the British in 1890 and it is a British Act of Parliament. Surely we ought to realise that something can be done about fixing it up. If Opposition members do not know that, they do know know their own history. It happens to be a British Act of Parliament prepared in the 1890s. Mr Moore —You did not say that. You said, `It was prepared by the British'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It was. For example, the requirement for appeals to be made to the Privy Council was put in by the House of Lords. Honourable members opposite should wake up to themselves. That is the position. The Constitution had to be approved by the British Colonial Secretary before it was submitted to the British Parliament. Do honourable members opposite not understand that problem? Do they still think that it is a great document? It is remarkable to think that they were able to get it right back in the 1890s. But the Opposition knows that Australia has come into independent sovereignty and has a lot of problems from the point of view of understanding how it might grapple, for example, with the national economy, or trade and commerce between the States. All these matters are of significance but why do honour- able members opposite belittle their fellow Australians who have assembled to look at the document, who took evidence from a large number of Australians, who prepared reports which I think are very good, even though they have been criticised here? The honourable member for Dundas got quite pessimistic and said that it is all a waste of time. I do not think it is. When we go to the Australian people next year on this matter-I would like to do this around December because of time constraints-I would like to put to them the proposition that we have a four-year term of Parliament. I think most people are saying that that is a good idea. I say to honourable members opposite, `If you think this is a good idea and I think this is a good idea, we have a chance of getting it carried'. The next matter mentioned by the honourable member for Dundas was trial by jury. I do not think that would be a contentious matter to put to the Australian people. Why should they not have the right to trial by jury? Mr Reith —It is our policy. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is Opposition policy now that it has found out about it. I come now to the matter of religious freedom in the States. Do Opposition members not think that that right should be included in the Constitution? Following a judicial interpretation on the matter, that is no longer deemed to be the situation. Do Opposition members not think that people should have the right to free speech and the right of assembly incorporated in the Constitution? But those things are not in the Constitution. Do Opposition members not think that the Australian people should have the right to vote? That right is not in the Constitution either. Mr Reith —You are back to the Bill of Rights. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It would be a dreadful thing to have a Bill of Rights that provided for people to have the right to vote, the right to free speech and the right of assembly! It is typical of the Opposition to adopt that sort of antediluvian attitude. It might be a little contentious to put forward the suggestion that all elections in Australia be held on a democratic basis and that electorates be permitted to have a tolerance above or below the quota of no more than 10 per cent. Some propositions might attract a little discussion, not in respect of their fairness or equity but because some members who have won seats by means of a gerrymander might lose them. Those propositions ought to be put to the Australian people. We also ought to remove from the Constitution outmoded provisions such as the one that states that every law can be disallowed by Her Majesty the Queen. At present laws can be reserved for the approval of Her Majesty the Queen. I do not think such a provision is relevant. If proposals were put forward to change those sorts of provisions, we would be able to make a flying start in doing something about the Constitution for the first time in 87 or 88 years. Is there anything horrendous about any of those propositions? Of course there is not. However, it took the Constitutional Commission to identify these issues. In the past political parties have lambasted each other at constitutional conventions in trying to come to a decision about these matters. For 15 years it cost the Australian people an arm and a leg in financial terms for us to discuss matters on which we were not even able to agree about whether they should be put to the Australian people. It is ridiculous for the Opposition to talk about the cost of putting such propositions to the people by way of referendum when one considers the enormous amount spent on allowing professional politicians the luxury of arguing with each other. It is a ridiculous situation. That is why it is about time the politicians were excluded from performing that role and the people were allowed to express their opinion about what ought to happen to the Constitution. Dr Theophanous —Hear, hear! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Thank you. It would be a good idea if the Opposition were to concentrate on those matters I have mentioned. I think they have some merit. I do not think the Australian people will object to them. Putting those matters to the Australian people would afford the Opposition an opportunity to do something for the nation instead of uttering such nonsense as the people cannot trust whatever the Government puts to them. Persons of the ilk of the Premier of Queensland will say, whatever proposition is advanced, `I do not know what it is, but it is outrageous, and therefore you ought to vote against it'. We have put up with that sort of nonsense for years. Mr Moore —It sounds like Hawke and the ID card. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that even the honourable member does not agree with the Premier of Queensland, and that is to his credit, but look at what has happened to him. Mr McGauran —I do. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is no wonder you have so much Japanese investment. Much can be done for this nation if we put aside our political posturing and ask the people to consider calmly whether they think these propositions are fair. Mr Reith —That is what the honourable member for Dundas said. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member for Dundas said that to put such propositions is a waste of time. He said that only eight out of 38 propositions have been carried in the past 87 years. He posed the question: Why do you want to try again? I want to try again and do it a little differently. Such propositions will have no hope of being passed if members of this Parliament continue to say how bad they are and to point to the fact that they have not been passed on previous occasions. Opposition members simply oppose such propositions because they are in opposition. They question the point of having the Constitutional Commission. During the last election campaign they said they would abolish the Commission. The Opposition has no interest in the Commission. In fact, it is rather ridiculous of Opposition members to talk during consideration of the Estimates about a body that they propose to do away with. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous. The honourable member for Flinders raised two matters. He said that it had been reported in the Press that it was proposed to reduce the Budget allocation to the Australian Federal Police. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) made it clear that no reduction was proposed, that what was mentioned was a bid for resources. In fact, the Australian Federal Police has been allocated another $9.3m and an extra 104 staff. So it is wrong for the honourable member to suggest that any cutback is proposed. Mr Reith —I was concerned only because Senator Tate's office confirmed the article. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have informed the honourable member of the true position, and he will now be able to correct anyone who says anything different. The honourable member for Flinders also raised the matter of witness protection, which is causing some concern. I am advised that witness protection is a matter primarily for the Australian Federal Police; it provides full witness protection. The National Crime Authority relies for such protection on arrangements made with the New South Wales and Victorian police forces. The matter is being examined, I understand, by the Australian Police Ministers Council. I understand also that during the last Parliament the parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority indicated that it would be conducting an inquiry into witness protection in Australia, and it has sought submissions from the Commonwealth and State law enforcement agencies. The chairman has reported that the committee would be resuming its inquiry in September of this year. The Government is anxious to get some further advice as to what should be done, as it acknowledges the seriousness of the situation. Apart from raising the matter of the Constitutional Commission, the honourable member for Dundas referred also to the problems in the family law area. He mentioned the recommendations brought down by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. I propose in the near future to introduce some amendments to the Family Law Act. I would think that they will be relatively minor amendments. The most important thing that we must acknowledge in the area of family law is the burden placed upon the judiciary by those parties who cannot reconcile their differences. They constitute about 7 per cent of those who seek a divorce, while those who are able to reconcile their differences constitute 93 per cent. Those 7 per cent probably cost the community some $90m. The number of judges has been increased from 25 to 55. Legal aid would cost the Australian community about $60m also. One can see that an enormous amount of resources is required by a relatively small number of people who cannot solve their own problems. The Australian taxpayer must also meet the cost of social security payments that result form that situation. As the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) said, when a family breaks up it creates poverty. Such people have enormous needs, and that creates numerous problems. It is tragic to think that one family law judge has been murdered and the wife of another judge has been murdered. Bomb threats to family law courts in Sydney are made frequently. Court officers seem to spend more time on the street than in the court building because of the security risk. I am keen for people to understand the great pressure that judges are under. It is important to acknowledge that the Government wishes to give a high priority to the family. It is a little late to do anything once the parties have reached the divorce courts. Some people take the view that the parties may come together when they get to court. By the time the parties get to court we as legal practitioners are concerned with how they might make the required adjustment and how such things as custody, maintenance and property settlements will be dealt with. Such issues create heat between the parties. The parties having decided that there has been irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the process of going to court is costly and draining in human resources. I congratulate all those who work in that area on their dedication in trying to help the parties. In that context, I propose to introduce amendments to the legislation to provide for delegation of authority to grant divorces where the parties can come to agreement quickly between themselves, following the necessary counselling and conciliation. The Family Court judges will be relieved of some of the burden by the creation of the position of master. At present, the courts of summary jurisdiction deal with 80 per cent of all maintenance cases. The proposed amendments will allow parties in agreement to have their divorce granted in the courts of summary jurisdiction. That will relieve the family courts of much of their present burden and delays. It is unwise to allow to continue delays of 2 1/2 to three years. The present system is using a lot of financial resources and, as I said, very few of the people involved are really in dispute. I notice that in Western Australia about 66 per cent of the people appear in person, having been able to solve most of their troubles. That is an effective result. Mr Reith —What about contested cases in magistrates courts? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Contested matters would have to go to the Family Court. I do not think the States can be burdened with all that work because they have plenty of other work to do in courts of summary jurisdiction. I think the honourable member for Dundas talked about family and marriage guidance and went on to refer to conciliation centres. This picks up a number of remarks made by the honourable member for Macquarie. I am unable to give the marriage guidance people what they need. They do an enormous amount of work for nothing. They are extremely valuable and ought to be given more encouragement. I am able to give them a 9 per cent effective increase this year. I recognise that that is not enough but that is the best I could get from the Budget decisions. I know they need more. Their history shows that they have always been working basically without reward. They help this country by giving marriage guidance when the parties first find it difficult to cope with the problems they face. The honourable member for Dundas also mentioned the two conciliation centres. There is one in Victoria and one in New South Wales. There is a difference between the two. The centre at Noble Park in Victoria was developed as a model based on mediation. I looked at it and I think it is doing good work because basically it is part and parcel of the Dandenong Family Court. A number of matters have been referred by the court to the Noble Park conciliation centre. So it is experienced and very well qualified to deal with parties that are already part of the court process. Whilst the centre is a model, it obviously has been a great asset to the Dandenong area. The difficulty is that it costs $420,000 for one centre. I think this is good value. The centre is related to the Dandenong Family Court and that is where the value is. Wollongong adopted a different model which concentrated on the delivery of counselling and advisory services on a one stop basis. An evaluation found that that model was duplicative of existing community agencies. It was not related to a family court as was the centre at Noble Park. On that basis, Noble Park's funding has been continued but, following evaluation, the funding for Wollongong has not been continued. As I said, they were both pilot projects and assessed on that basis. We would all agree that we would be much better off if we could reduce pressure on the court by increasing marriage guidance for the parties. The Institute of Family Studies was mentioned. I understand that the reduction was about $100,000. That is relatively small. The Institute of Family Studies is doing good work. Mr Webster —Shouldn't it have been increased? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We have to look at the actual work it is doing. It is doing excellent work. I think that will be maintained. In fact, it is a statutory requirement under the Family Law Act. The honourable gentleman has taken a keen and valid interest in censorship. He did not mention it but I know that he knows that a committee of the Parliament has been dealing with censorship. The Senate Select Committee on Video Material finds that censorship is not an easy problem. The Film Censorship Board will admit that most of the films it deals with are trash-that is the expression-but the Board must work within the guidelines set down. The films qualify for a classification even though they are trash. Films which are classified X or R certainly are not suitable for young children. They depict rather dramatic violence. The honourable gentleman has expressed concern at that, as many others have. I think the community is probably more worried about R-rated films than X-rated films at the moment because there is more violence in the R-rated films and the issues are concerning the community. The community has to produce a report and I think this will not be easy. In the community there is the view that adults are entitled to see whatever they like, even if it is trash. The problem the honourable member mentioned is that the material also affects young children. That is the problem that the Committee is grappling with. I hope it will be able to report soon. The matter cannot be solved in a parliament; the community must decide its standards. It is a pity that when the Censorship Board decides something is trash it does not say that it is not worthy of any classification, but the law at the moment means that most films qualify for a classification no matter how ridiculous or horrendous they are. It is deemed that adults are not likely to be influenced by the trash. Sales of the trash represent only about 6 or 7 per cent of the total sales. I think I have covered most of the matters raised by honourable members discussing-- Mr Reith —You didn't say anything about fixed terms. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I said four-year terms. I know the honourable member wants me to keep talking all night. I would welcome the honourable member's support in relation to four-year terms and the Senate not refusing Supply. That is another matter he might consider because if he-- Mr Moore —How about fixed terms? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —A fixed term does not mean anything if the Senate is going to refuse Supply. Mr Moore —Ha! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, that is true. The honourable member has to realise that. I have been here 18 years and we have had an election every two years for one invalid reason or another. It just cannot go on. We cannot run this nation having an election every two years because the Senate decides it is going to do this or that to the Government. I do not think it is simply a question of fixed four-year terms. I find the recommendation of the Constitutional Commission that the Senate should not reject Supply in the first three years of a government valuable and I hope that the Opposition agrees with that. After all, that is a reasonable proposition because the Supply in question is the appropriation for annual services. I can understand the other arguments that have been developed about the Senate not being able to reject legislation. It might be very difficult to suggest that it not have that power. The power to reject legislation gives the Senate the independence that the honourable gentlemen want, but the Senate should not have the right to reject Supply because it allows the ridiculous situation of the Senate being able to force the House of Representatives to an election without the Senate having to go to an election. The question of the independence of the Senate went out the window many years ago. We saw the recent effort here when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) stood up and clearly indicated what he told the Senate to do in respect of the ID card. It was clearly a party room decision, as it was when Supply was refused back in the 1970s. It was not an independent evaluation of the situation in the Senate; it was a party room decision that the Senate would block Supply. Such action brings this nation to a standstill. That is the problem one has to look at if one is talking about-- Mr Moore —What about the Labor Party's party room? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman should listen for a minute. There has to be some clear view about how long a parliament is entitled to reign. I think the Commission's view has some value. It says that a parliament should last for at least three years and that if the Senate wants to refuse Supply in the fourth year it may, in which case there would be an immediate double dissolution. I think that would be a fair test. That would mean that a parliament would go for at least 3 1/2 years and we would not have the nonsense we have at present when there can be no continuity. I think that has answered everything that has been raised. I know that it is not to the Opposition's satisfaction. It would be to the benefit of the nation if the Opposition agreed with me but that will take a little time; the Opposition needs a bit more education. The test will be in about December of next year when we will be able to go to the Australian people so that they may say yes or no to a number of these issues. If all honourable members were to think about their country, they would agree with me that, once the questions are put to the people, they might look at them and say, `This concerns me for once-the right to vote and the right to trial by jury'. That is not the case now. Opposition members should not fudge the issue: that is not the case now, and this is the problem. If we get a few yeses to the questions, we will at least be able to change this document after 88 years. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce Proposed expenditure, $1,104,618,000. Department of Industrial Relations Proposed expenditure, $69,873,000. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(9.51) —The estimates before the Committee at the moment, relating to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Department of Industrial Relations, have a fair bit to do with the education of everybody in Australia, to which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) has just referred. One thing that needs to be understood is that business investment is the most significant thing that we can achieve in the area of industry and commerce. That is not said by the Opposition; it is a direct quote from the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who has said that business investment is the key to the future of Australia. But what has really happened in these circumstances? Business fixed investment as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) last year reached a 10-year low. In other words, compared with the last 10 years, business investment as a percentage of GDP is at an all time low. That is the record of this Government. As the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, will acknowledge, business investment is absolutely critical to the economy of Australia. Business investment on plant and equipment led the decline by falling just short of 4 per cent in 1986-87. Not one person in the chamber or listening to this debate could honestly say that any form of business investment involving a fall in the elements of plant and equipment indicates that the future of the investment curve is anywhere near healthy. No one could say that. Dr Tom Valentine from Macquarie University is well known to those who follow monetary policy. He has said that the tax burden which Australia's businesses are forced to bear is the principal reason for our poor investment performance. That is a straight indication of the reason for poor business investment in this nation. Mr Cunningham —Whose inheritance was that? Mr MOORE —I do not know about the inheritance. We have had four years of this Government's action and I am referring to the figures of last year. Mr Courtice —Wait until next year. Mr MOORE —I am not worrying about next year. I am saying that after four years of this Government the record is the worst in 10 years. Dr Valentine made that comment. He is no fool; he knows what he is talking about. He said that the tax burden which Australian businesses are forced to bear is the principal reason for poor business investment. The major business houses of this nation will also admit that, if they want to maintain their rating as a major corporation, they have to invest outside Australia to maintain the earnings and growth required for their standing within the corporate sector. That is well known. I do not have to quote Mr Elliott or even Mr Holmes a Court as saying that. It is well known to the Government. There is nothing in the Budget that alleviates this burden in any sense. In every respect the imposition on business by this Budget is quite heavy-even to the degree that the great coalition of interest between big government, big unions and big business is such that the Government acknowledges that there will have to be some new conference on business taxation. As the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) will know, the rate of corporate tax in Australia is 49 per cent. In the United Kingdom it runs at 37 per cent. That sort of differential does not encourage the investment in this nation that we want. Our rates of taxation send people off-shore to invest in order to maintain their level of commitment to their shareholders, their level of profitability and their return on capital. These are the things that all honourable members should address. Mr Cunningham —What do you think we have been doing for four years? Mr MOORE —I do not know what the Government has been doing for the past four years because the business investment rate is the lowest for 10 years. Any clown can see that from the figures. In addition, let us look at the balance of payments. This country is running at a record level of debt and the Government has done nothing in the period of four years to remedy that. It continues to run a deficit month by month of $1 billion. The Budget Papers show that in the current year it will run at a loss of $14 billion, adding to the gross external debt of $110 billion or $120 billion. Interest payments on that external debt will be in excess of the amount spent on the national defence budget. That is the record which Government members claim is so great. As a consequence of these losses on trade figures and as a consequence of continuing losses in terms of domestic deficits alone, the exchange rate has fallen to give some relief in that area. That ought to do something to help business investment. But, because of the high interest rate structures in this nation, foreign investors come and invest in our high interest rates, which forces up the exchange rate. This has happened in the last few weeks. We have seen the clear demonstration of how the Reserve Bank of Australia, somewhat reluctantly I hear, on the instruction of the Treasury, has sold down the Australian dollar to keep the exchange rate at a level which makes it easier for Australian business to compete with imports and deal with import substitution and export sales. These problems are a direct consequence of this Government's policies, not anyone else's. Government members should understand that. Given the high interest rate structure and the way in which foreigners invest at those rates, and given that the interest rate differential at the moment is above the inflation rate, we are not likely to get the sort of investment that is necessary to turn around the Australian economy. Who will invest money in business when he can get 12.6 per cent from Commonwealth bonds on today's market, or 10 per cent for the 10-year bond rate? Given the Government's projection in the Budget Papers of an inflation rate of 7 per cent, although I think that is probably generous and that the rate will be higher than that, the real rate of return from investment in government securities or other securities will be far higher than from investment in business ventures. I say to the Minister at the table that, if the Government holds business investment as the key to Australia's recovery, how will it get that sort of business investment when interest rates are so high that they attract investment in that area rather than into business. That is the conundrum we have to face and it is something to which I have not heard one member of the Australian Labor Party address himself. If we want recovery, as the Treasurer has said we do, we should invest in business. But why would people invest in business when the return is less than from investment in government securities? That is the cause of many of the problems. In my remaining few minutes, I turn to the area of personal investment. Less than 7 per cent of Australians own shares in our corporate structure. By comparison, over 20 per cent of Americans own shares in their corporate structure. If we want to reward incentive and encourage people to invest in Australia, we must do something to redress that situation. A more inquiring mind will point out that only slightly over one million Australian adults hold shares. Of those people, 13.5 per cent reside in Western Australia and 5 per cent in Tasmania. One in every three of those people is aged over 55. In other words, these people represent a very poor component of the Australian capital structure involved in investment. The Opposition has always stood behind employee share schemes. They are a way in which individuals can play an important, participatory and involved role, by way of their employment and their investment contribution to the corporate sector of Australia, which will do the nation a world of good. If we encourage the individuals of this nation to contribute not only as investors but also as employees, we will do far more than anything else I can think of in relation to-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(10.01) —The appropriateness of the Government's decisions has been raised in many of the contributions to the consideration of proposed departmental expenditure. Some honourable members have looked back and have highlighted the stark difference between the approach of the Hawke Government and that of the previous Fraser Government. Some have looked forward and have explained how they see the future of Australia. In my contribution I would like to look forward and, in particular, cover aspects associated with the appropriations for the departments under discussion. Over the last 10 years a series of major power construction projects has taken place in Victoria. All of this development is situated in my electorate. The importance of the economic approach of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in achieving a balanced Budget can be realistically exemplified within McMillan. For the benefit of honourable members, let me digress for a few minutes and take them back 10 years to 1977 when site works started on what is known as the Loy Yang projects. The estimated cost of Loy Yang at that time was $1,600m. Between 1977 and 1982 the confrontationist climate in the industrial relations arena had a disastrous impact on this major project. Let me quote from page 39 of Loy Yang Power Project: the June 1987 Estimate Review, which outlines the project's progress. Some of the items listed on this page include the start of site works in February 1977. In February 1978 the project ran into what was called the steel fixers' dispute on the raw coal bunkers, which lasted for three months. In May 1979 there was a carpenters' dispute which lasted for four months. In April 1980 there was the start of a major industrial dispute involving concrete batch plant operators and a steel workers' demarcation dispute. There was a complete lockout which lasted for eight months. In April 1981 the Victorian Liberal Government at that time and the management of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV) finally decided that something other than confrontation was needed. They established a project-based organisation and appointed a local project manager. In 1982, of course, the people of Victoria also made a judgment on that sort of progress. They decided that such a government should not be re-elected in Victoria, and the Cain Government was elected. It was not long, of course, before the Hawke Government was elected. The Cain Government instigated a costing review of the projects. The cost estimated at June 1982 prices had risen in 1982 to $2,330m for Loy Yang A and $1,875m for Loy Yang B. In regard to Loy Yang A, which was the first part of the project, there was an increase of $700m-an enormous jump. Bearing in mind that the great bulk of this money is borrowed funds, the increased costs created serious problems. Honourable members would also be aware that at that time we were approaching D-day on the world economic scene, which resulted in a savage increase in interest rates-an increase which was needed to attract capital funds into Australia. In 1983 at the Federal level, of course, the Hawke Government was elected. It had major economic management responsibilities ahead of it. Correct Federal government economic management was to become critical for the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. For the purpose of this debate let me return to the present time, October 1987, when we are already seeing the results of the reduced Budget deficits and can point to a reduction in interest rates of more than 5 per cent in the last 12 months. Today the State Electricity Commission of Victoria and interconnected bodies are appearing before a State Government committee where an evaluation of future power construction development is taking place. That committee is known as the Natural Resources and Environmental Committee. The question being asked, of course, is this: Can the SECV continue to borrow huge sums to complete Loy Yang B? I believe that there is in this area real evidence that the Hawke-Keating policy approach is correct. According to evidence presented to the State Committee, the SECV's debt-to-equity ratio is, to put it mildly, disastrous. Let me quote from a submission presented to that Committee by the Victorian Trades Hall Council, the Gippsland Trades and Labour Council and other bodies. They refer in some detail to the latest report of the SECV, that is, the 1985-86 financial report. They detail the debts and assets of the SECV. The submission states: The written down current cost of assets is stated to be $11 081.9m whilst total liabilities are $7 566.3m, thus, the SECV's debt stands at 68.3 per cent of its assets. It is no wonder some people say that, if it were a private company, it would perhaps be getting close to being declared bankrupt. Honourable members should remember that the report that I am talking about is for 1985-86. The submission continues: Capital works for 1985-86 totalled some $914.2m of which only 28.4 per cent was internally funded. A big proportion had to be borrowed; hence the importance of interest rates to the development of industry in that area and to Victoria and the McMillan electorate. The submission continues: A result of the SECV being extremely weak financially is that it . . . will be strongly tempted to look at proposals involving the minimum of capital cost, i.e., capital cost could well become an over-riding criteria. Efforts could well then be made to justify a proposal that results in the SECV needing to find a minimum of up-front finance. Indeed, we suspect that a financially weak SECV, unable to recover its position . . . is highly likely to lead to poor decision making unlikely to be in the long-term best interest of the State . . . It would be all too easy to attempt, for instance, to blame past industrial disputation in the Latrobe Valley as the case to move a financially expedient solution. Hence the importance of the Hawke Government's decisions on economic management. The critical timing of the Budget outcome and the resultant lowering of interest rates can be easily understood when we consider that, with a debt load in 1985-86 of $7,500m, and considerably more now, a one per cent reduction in interest means a reduction of $75m to the SECV. A 5 per cent drop means a saving of $375m. One can see how that will immediately create in Victoria a climate in which decision-makers in this area will certainly be able to look forward with much more confidence to the outcomes of their decision-making. I am sure that as the inquiry progresses the final decision will be, and should be, to complete Loy Yang B, units 3 and 4, on schedule. In conclusion, I refer to page 66 of the submission to the inquiry and read some of the conclusions that have been presented to the inquiry: The key reasons for this conclusion are- The installation of Loy Yang B3/B4 is the most economic proposal in terms of total cost of energy produced. The development continues the use of brown coal for power generation. This maintains the Victorian brown coal industry whilst utilising a low grade fuel resource which, at this stage, has no other major use and of which there are very extensive reserves. Ensures the continued development of the Latrobe Valley (be it that some peaks and troughs of employment will occur) and hence ensures the positive contribution of the area to the State as a whole. Optimises the use of existing infrastructure and industry-skilled work force and, at the same time, ensures a minimum generating cost from the Loy Yang Project by developing it to its designed 4000 MW potential. The Loy Yang Power Project: the June 1987 Estimate Review clearly indicates how successful the project has been since 1982, since the change of government in Victoria, at maintaining the cost levels that are so important to the future management of that area. In 1982 prices Loy Yang A was to cost $2,323m but it has now been completed at a cost of $2,273m, which is a decrease in costs since 1982. It is a sign of real economic management. If those decisions had not been taken by the Victorian and Federal governments I am sure that the Latrobe Valley would have been in great difficulty in competing against perhaps the Oakland project, the brown coal competitor which is raising its head at the present time as a likely alternative. The Latrobe Valley is miles in front and it now has the policies to see that it stays in front. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(10.11) —Mr Deputy Chairman, tonight in this debate on the estimates for the Department of Industrial Relations I draw your attention to a most extraordinary inconsistency between, on the one hand, what is contained in Budget Statement No. 2 about some aspects of economic policy and, on the other hand, what this Government does and what it says. Honourable members would think that the Budget Statement, which is prepared by Treasury officers, would set out some of the philosophy and some of the principles that the Government would act upon in determining its industrial relations as much as in determining its other economic policies. However, one finds the most contradictory and inconsistent propositions imaginable in Budget Statement No. 2 compared with what the Government is doing. I illustrate this point by referring to three particular inconsistencies between what is contained in Budget Statement No. 2 and what this Government is doing. Let me take the first of these and start by quoting a few words from page 46 of Budget Statement No. 2. The authors of the extract I am about to read are speaking about the two-tier wages system which is operating under the present principles. They state: The progressive development of the two-tier system should also allow- wait for it- a greater degree of decentralisation in wage negotiation- I emphasise the words `a greater degree of decentralisation in wage negotiation'- thereby encouraging employee identification with the success of their firms and helping reduce inflexibility in the relative wage structure, while continuing to promote recognition of the need for overall restraint. What the authors of the Budget Statement are saying is: `Here is a desirable course that can be followed to get some identity of interest between employees and the firms they work for. If one promotes the concept that the prosperity of the workers depends upon the prosperity of the firm, one is likely to be taking a very significant step forward in having a sensible wage fixing system. One is also likely to get the much needed flexibility into our wage fixing system which is presently lacking'. The Treasury people say, `Work for flexibility, work for decentralisation in your wage fixing system, work for encouraging some enterprise basis of fixing wages and conditions of employment in this country and you will be on the right track. You will be on the track towards economic progress'. As I have said, one would think that that is supposed to be the principle, the philosophy on which this Government is operating-the underlying principle of its industrial relations approach. But one finds that the Government is doing exactly the opposite. It is turning its face against the move in this country for agreements between employers and their employees on wages and conditions and it is doing everything which it possibly can to cement the rigidities of the centralised wage fixing system in this country. Consideration interrupted. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I shall report progress. The Chairman having reported accordingly- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Barry Jones-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —As I was saying before half time, perhaps it was quarter time, Budget Statement No. 2 contains some very sensible propositions. If the Government wants some advice as to what it should do in this area-- Mr Barry Jones —It could not turn to a better source. Mr N.A. Brown —It could not turn to a better source than Budget Statement No. 2, which says, `If you want to get some economic prosperity into this country, one of the very desirable things you can do is to take a step away from the rigid, centralised wage fixing system that we have in this country and take a step towards decentralisation in wage fixing and by that means encourage some identity of interest between firms and the employees who work for them'. It is a matter of very great regret that the Government is not following the advice and the principles set out in Budget Statement No. 2 but is going in exactly the opposite direction. That is the first of the three examples I will give. I turn to the second example. On page 46 of Budget Statement No. 2 are a number of propositions about the need for a trainee wage for young people entering the work force. On this page a very persuasive case is made out as to why we should be trying in this country to get away from some of the rigidities of our wage fixing, trying to get a more flexible trainee wage for our young people in the reasonable hope that if we do that employees will be able once again to employ young people in the numbers they used to employ them and that more young people will be in the work force and getting better training. Let me give a small piece of history to illustrate just how the Government is once again going in the opposite direction to what Budget Statement No. 2 says it should be going. About two years ago, on 10 September 1985, this very issue of a trainee wage and youth wages came up in a debate in which I took part with the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). We discussed the absurd situation in Australia where, for instance, a 16-year-old bricklayer's labourer, under the South Australian industrial award, is paid $400 a week. If awards continue like that, in due course such people will be paid more than we are. Mr O'Neil —They would not have to get much. Mr N.A. Brown —They would not have to get much more to be paid more than we are. It was put to the Minister for Industrial Relations in this debate that this situation was absurd. Do honourable members know what the Minister said about youth wages on 10 September 1985? He said, `I think there is a case for a junior rate in all awards, yes'. So two years ago the Minister committed himself to this measure. He was then asked by the interviewer, `What are you doing about it?', and his answer on 10 September 1985 was, `At this stage, nothing'. The same question could be asked of him on 6 October 1987: `What are you doing about trying to get youth wages into this country?'. The answer would be the same: `At this stage, nothing'. That is exactly what he is doing-nothing. Is it any wonder that our rate of youth unemployment is so high? Is it any wonder that employers will not take on young people on these wages? Perhaps they would be better off becoming members of parliament. Until we get some flexibility of that sort into our system and until we get away from the rigidity where, in so many cases, young people have to be paid adult wages or near adult wages, we are not going to make any inroads into youth unemployment. The Opposition set the pace, as it did for the whole movement for flexibility in wage fixing in our industrial relations system. It has been vindicated and supported by Budget Statement No. 2, which is as clear a statement as one is likely to get of the need for flexibility in wage fixing. In fact, some of those statements I read from Budget Statement No. 2 about the need for flexibility in our wage fixing system could have been taken directly from the Liberal and National parties' industrial relations policy. I could have written them myself. The Opposition has been vindicated by those propositions. It is very unfortunate, as I said at the outset of these brief remarks, that instead of the Government putting into practice those principles of wage fixing, of decentralisation of wage fixing, of trainee wages and other reforms so needed in our industrial relations system, it is going completely contrary, exactly the opposite, to what Budget Statement No. 2 so rightly says the Government should be doing. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.22) —In my contribution tonight I would like to touch on a couple of issues which are interrelated and which bring together the appropriations under the industrial relations portfolio and the industry portfolio. The first issue is the Australian Trade Union Training Authority and appropriations listed in the Budget documents for that body. The Australian Trade Union Training Authority has as its objective, as stated on page 267 of Budget Paper No. 3: To enhance skills and knowledge of trade union members, enabling union position-holders and officers to effectively perform their functions, as well as to handle significant changes in the union's environment and to fulfil their role in Australia's industrial relations system. I believe this is a very laudable objective of the Authority. We have seen evidence of its success in a number of cases. In particular, we have seen the success of the Clyde Cameron College at Albury-Wodonga. Earlier this year it was my pleasure to attend that college and to address a seminar dealing with the problems of the coal industry, an issue which is of great concern to the Government and to many honourable members on the Opposition side. The problems of the coal industry have not manifested themselves only in the last couple of months. Indeed, they have been progressively building up in Australia. In order to address correctly many of those problems the Trade Union Training Authority in Albury-Wodonga brought together representatives of the coal mining districts right around Australia. We tend to think of coal mining districts as being only in New South Wales and Queensland but that is not the case. Representatives were there also from Victoria and Tasmania. Through the process of discussing various issues of industrial relations and problems in the coal industry, a greater understanding was obtained by delegates, the leaders of the trade union movement, to help them correctly identify the programs and problems that exist within their industry and effect solutions to them. Quite coincidentally, I am very pleased that some six months ago the Authority decided to establish a regional branch in Wollongong and has done so at the University of Wollongong within my electorate. It is headed by no less a person than Mr Merv Nixon, former Secretary of the South Coast Labour Council, a man who is well known to many people in this place, certainly within the trade union movement and in the general community of Wollongong. Mr Nixon brings to that position a wealth of experience, having worked in the trade union movement for a number of years and having held and still holding a number of positions in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He is passing on to people through the Trade Union Training Authority in Wollongong, and by using the facilities and resources of the University of Wollongong technology centre, the very important requirements of the trade union movement so that they can in fact come to terms with the variety of problems within the portfolio areas that we are discussing tonight. That leads me into consideration of what might in fact be the Opposition's policy on this sort of initiative. My recollection-I stand to be corrected if this is not so-is that the Opposition has indicated that, if it were ever successful in getting back into government, it would eliminate, wind up, the Australian Trade Union Training Authority. At every opportunity, from what I can recall, it has derided the Authority's usefulness within the trade union and industrial relations environment. That leads me to consideration of how important this operation is within the Illawarra, simply because of the other industrial base in the Illawarra region-the steel industry. Part and parcel of the appropriation and portfolio estimates we are dealing with tonight is the heavy industry program, which has been included within the appropriation for the iron and steel industry. That picks up on two important issues which are of great concern to the people of the Illawarra. The first, of course, is the payment of bounties under the steel industry plan. There was a conscious effort by this Government when it came to power in 1983 to put in place a plan for the economic recovery of one of Australia's great industries which was facing decimation and ruin. Through the efforts largely of our colleague Senator Button and the other members of the Cabinet at the time, not forgetting the Caucus, the present Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and my parliamentary colleagues from the Illawarra-- Mr Cadman —What about Stewie West? Mr MARTIN —I mentioned my parliamentary colleagues from the Illawarra, including the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). This program was put in place and it has proved to be a significant factor in the redevelopment of the steel industry in Australia and certainly in the Illawarra. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) asked in his contribution why Australian companies are not investing in their own local industry but are going off and putting their money in cash management trusts at 12 1/2 per cent. Let me tell him that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) has not done that. It has invested solidly within the industry through the steel industry plan, to the tune of nearly $800m at this point of time. As my colleague the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) can attest, that has led to the redevelopment of the steel industry not only at Port Kembla but also in his electorate, at Whyalla. It was my very great pleasure to visit Whyalla in the last 12 months-- Mr O'Neil —You were well received. Mr MARTIN —Except by the honourable member for Grey, who was not there. I saw at first hand just how well the restructuring of the industry is taking place. It turn, as part of that restructuring of the steel industry, we have seen a refinement of industrial relations in the industry. My colleague the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) mentioned Westernport. To many people Westernport is an excellent example of just how industrial relations should operate in this country. The steel industry down there, through a division of BHP which operates in that area-John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd-has an excellent industrial relations record. During the last Parliament I had the pleasure to chair a parliamentary committee inquiry which looked at the whole question of the steel industry, including the steel industry plan, and we were impressed no end by industrial relations activities there and the degree to which industrial relations is not a problem in the steel industry in that part of Australia. I say `impressed' simply because in other parts of Australia that same type of approach to industrial relations unfortunately is not as evident, and in fact the Steel Industry Authority has highlighted in its latest report its concern about problems in industrial relations. I am sorry to say that it has highlighted the Port Kembla area as one such area where improvements are necessary. We also see that as part of this heavy industry plan, which has been included in the Budget Estimates, an allocation has been made for new heavy industries. Once again I am pleased to say that the electorate of Macarthur will benefit from that. A major gear manufacturing development is relocating from Sydney down into Bulli, one of the northern suburbs of my electorate, at considerable cost to the company although it will receive assistance under the steel regions heavy industry package. This will bring great economic benefit to the northern suburbs of the Illawarra. As many honourable members would realise, the effect of the downturn of the economy back in the early 1980s manifested itself most significantly in the Illawarra region, an area that had been dependent on purely the iron and steel industry and also the coal industry. Both of those great Australian industries were in some degree of trouble. As I have indicated, had it not been for the Government's foresight in developing a steel industry plan and more recently in working towards something akin to a coal industry plan, both of those industries would have gone out the door. It is because of the initiatives that have been put in place under the heavy industry plans that new industries come into an area and provide employment opportunities where in the past there were none. In an area that unfortunately still boasts unemployment levels of between 12 and 14 per cent, we look forward to that. The Budget Estimates, which pick up on these areas of industrial relations and industry policy generally, are to be commended. They will improve the situation in terms of employment opportunities that exist within the Illawarra and most particularly within the electorate of Macarthur. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations)(10.32) —I thought I should take this opportunity to respond to the remarks of one of the contributors to this debate, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), who made some fairly wild allegations about some supposed lack of consistency between what was in the Budget Papers and the actions of the Government. Let me say that when the honourable member for Menzies was the Opposition spokesman on employment and industrial relations he was renowned for making wild, irrational statements, and nothing has changed since he went to the back bench. Indeed, that perhaps indicates why he went to the back bench. Let us have a look at what he said. He said, firstly, that the progressive development of the two-tier system which was referred to in the Budget Papers and which should allow us a greater degree of decentralisation in wage negotiation was not in fact occurring. He said, over and over, that that was the case. Mr Chairman, the reality is that we have had a tremendous amount of workplace negotiation as a result of the second tier development. I can only assume that the honourable member for Menzies has been in some sort of a mental fog for the past six months because since the decision of the Commission in March this year there has been an unprecedented period in which we have had restrictive work practices and workplace efficiency being addressed workplace by workplace, company by company, throughout this nation in a way that has never been achieved under any previous government and in which we had very much a decentralisation of wage negotiation. Workers were not able to go along to the Commission and say, `You have awarded an x per cent increase. We want it'. They had to go to the Commission and say, `We have gone to our workplace and we have changed the operations of that place. We now have agreements about increasing workplace efficiency; restrictive practices have been reduced and, as a result of that, we should get the 4 per cent increase'. That is what has been happening in thousands of workplaces throughout the country. The honourable member for Menzies ought to get out and find out what is happening in this world instead of coming in here and making wild allegations with no substantiation of his position and simply refusing to face up to what is happening out there. He, and everyone else opposite, should understand that what is going on is the sort of thing they said they supported, that they wanted to see happening. They wanted to see workplace negotiations taking place. They are taking place. Mr Prosser —Rubbish. Mr WILLIS —The honourable member says rubbish, but it is the fact of what is going on right now. The honourable member must be in some sort of limbo land if he thinks that is not what is going on. It is going on in a way that is different, I would stress to the Committee-very different from that which went on when the previous Government was in office, when it destroyed the centralised system and had bargaining in the workplace. We had the most tremendous increase in wages in 1981-82 as a result of an uncontrolled system of decentralised wage negotiation that went all over the place and virtually blew the then government out of office. We certainly do not intend going back to that kind of wage system. I agree entirely with the honourable member for Menzies: we are not doing what those opposite did when they were in office. That is the last thing we intend to do-to wreck the country and have a totally irresponsible wages policy. We are producing a wages policy which, in terms of the Budget Papers, promotes recognition of the need for overall restraint. There is a limit to what people can get out of the second tier. To get to that limit people have to undertake activities which prove to the Commission that they are adhering to the principles. In most cases this involves improving workplace efficiency. That is very much what we require at the present time. It is very much in the interests of the nation at a time when it needs to increase its productivity. It is the appropriate wages policy for the present and it is happening. We do not have the situation that the honourable member for Menzies asserted existed. The honourable member also referred to another section on the same page that related to trainee wage rates. The Budget Papers said that setting apprenticeship and trainee wage rates in line with the work productivity of trainees would help to improve the employment prospects of young people. The honourable member said that that is not what is happening at the present time, but let me tell him that it is happening. In the last couple of years we have developed a system of traineeships which has meant that we have been providing two things: jobs for young people at reduced wage rates and traineeships to give young people the kind of instruction which will improve their workplace productivity. So we are improving their productivity in the workplace and doing it as a lower wage rate than would apply if they were not on a traineeship. The combination of those two things is very much what is needed at present to improve the employment prospects of young people, to provide a more skilled work force and to encourage employers to take on trainees to skill the work force. All of that is very much in the right direction, and it is coming on quite strongly at present. Some 11,000 traineeship places are now committed and the number is increasing quite rapidly. We expect, as the Budget Papers indicate, a very substantial increase this year. So, again, what the honourable member for Menzies asserts is not happening in fact is happening. We are putting in place a system under which, increasingly, the workplace opportunities for young people who, without higher school certificate qualifications, not going on to tertiary education and without any vocational or higher educational skills, are looking for jobs, will place emphasis on the need for them to increase their productivity, obtain a skill and not simply be in the workplace looking for a job which does not involve training, and looking for it at full junior rates. So I assert that the two thrusts of the speech made by the honourable member for Menzies tonight were totally incorrect and showed an abysmal ignorance of what is going on out there. It explains completely to the House why the honourable member is no longer the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(10.38) —I will proceed in this debate to reply to some of the red-faced fulminations and arm-wavings of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). Mr Chynoweth —How come he gets another go? Mr N.A. Brown —I can speak again at the committee stage. The honourable member should read the Standing Orders. I will deal first with the first point made by the Minister. He took some exception to my use of remarks made in Budget Statement No. 2. Mr Chairman, I remind you again of the proposition I was putting. It is simply that the Budget Statement makes out a very good case as to why we should be moving towards a decentralised wage fixing system. Presumably what the Treasury people who prepared this document had in the back of their minds was that the present system is too centralised. Otherwise, they would not on 15 September have been making out a case as to why we should have a more decentralised system. It is completely pointless for the Minister for Industrial Relations to say, `Look at our great achievements; look at what has happened under the two-tier system.', when the Treasury officials who prepared Budget Statement No. 2 make out a very good case as to why we should be attempting to move towards a decentralised system. I trust that that is now clear to the Minister. The second point that should emerge from the debate is this: I did not say that no cases of enterprise agreements had been entered into under the two-tier arrangement. What I said was that everything the Government is doing is consistent with making the centralised system far more centralised and that it will not take any positive steps towards making the system more decentralised or more flexible. We have heard from the Government's paymasters, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), that in a few weeks it will trot off to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and submit that the two-tier system should be brought to an end. If the Minister wishes to make another contribution to the debate, he might make a factual contribution and tell us what the Government will do if that occurs. Will the Government go along to the Arbitration Commission next time and say, `Yes, we want a continuation of this move towards enterprise based agreements. We want the two-tier system to continue.'? In the face of opposition from the ACTU, is that what the Government will say? The point being made by the Opposition in this debate and the point it has made over and over again-and I do not know why the Minister has to degenerate into arguments as to why someone is or is not a shadow Minister-- Mr Hand —Well, tell us why you aren't. Mr N.A. Brown —If the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs goes outside the chamber, I shall tell him the whole story. It is a most interesting one. I concede for the moment everything the Minister for Industrial Relations has said about achievements so far, but the point the Opposition is making is simply this: forget about political point scoring and concentrate on what overseas commentators, our own economists, thinking people and the Treasury people who prepared Budget Statement No. 2 tell us about our industrial relations system, that is, that we should be trying to achieve a system in which there is more common interest between employers and employees. If something is done to bring employers and employees together, to get them to try to reach agreement on wages, conditions and terms of employment, a very big contribution will be made towards increasing productivity and having a happier work force that produces more in a more profitable and more successful enterprise. The Government should forget about point scoring. The Opposition is saying simply that that is the way the Government should be going. If the Government took off its blinkers it would realise that. The Treasury people who prepared this document have told the Government that that is the way to go, but all the Minister for Industrial Relations does is make pompous speeches about the great virtues of our centralised wage fixing system, which is one of the things that are dragging Australia down. We simply say to the Government, `Wake up to yourself and follow some of the advice given by the Treasury people'. To move briefly to the second point about a training wage, I quoted from what the Minister said two years ago. He said, `Yes, youth wages are a good thing. Let us have some youth wages. Employers might be able to employ more young people'. Two years ago the Minister was asked what he was doing about youth wages and he said, `Nothing; we are not doing anything about it'. If the Minister were again asked today what he was doing about youth wages, the answer would be the same, `We are not doing anything about it'. Again he produces this spurious argument, `Well, we have this little traineeship scheme and you can get trainee wages under that'. They are not the youth wages we were talking about two years ago. They are not the youth wages which are so needed in this country and to which the Treasury people referred in Budget Statement No. 2. It is no answer whatsoever to say that there are now a few trainee positions in place because after a lot of blood, sweat and argument with the trade union movement, the Government has very reluctantly indeed agreed to allow a trainee wage to be set up under some of those trainee schemes-but by no means all schemes. Once again what we say to the Government is: forget about the point scoring. If you want to make some inroads into youth unemployment, if you want to do something about setting up a better training scheme for young people, look at what Budget Statement No. 2 tells you you should do because, at the moment, you are doing the opposite. To take that a bit further-again, briefly-the Budget Statement says that the Government should do something about apprenticeship. It says that the Government should do something to shorten the terms of training under apprenticeship. It says that the Government should do something to introduce adult apprenticeships and something to provide apprenticeships in fields where they have not been granted before. Again, what has the Government done about that? It has done nothing. This is the same as was said in 1985. What has been done about youth wages? Nothing, said the Minister. What has the Government done about reforming our apprenticeship scheme? It has done nothing. It is all very well for the Minister to get some pleasure out of this point scoring, I suppose, as to why I am not a shadow Minister. If he replies in this debate he might entertain us with the inside story of the brawls in the Australian Labor Party which led to his losing half of his portfolio-having the employment portfolio ripped off him by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). As I understand it, this was done without even telling him before the announcement was made. Suddenly there it was in the newspapers. Such was the recognition given by the Labor Party to this great achievement of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations that at the first opportunity the Prime Minister ripped off the employment part of his portfolio and said, `Amuse yourself with the bone that is left in industrial relations'. So if we are going to have this point scoring instead of talking about the serious issues perhaps we will now hear the inside story as to why the once great Minister for Employment and Industrial Relation is now only the Minister for Industrial Relations. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations)(10.43) —Mr Deputy Chairman, better to have half the responsibilities than none, like the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). I also point out that I have much more responsibility in the area of the Public Service than was previously the case. I repeat the point that seems totally to have escaped the honourable member for Menzies which is that what the Treasury paper is saying is that the present two-tier wage system is moving us towards a more decentralised system. That, of course, is what is happening. The carrying out of that system is very much down that track. The whole thrust of the comments of the honourable member for Menzies is ludicrous and misses the point entirely. The next wages system consideration by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will not be until May of next year. Honourable members opposite will hear what we have to say about that at that time. In relation to what is happening in the employment field let me say that the statements made by the honourable member for Menzies about nothing happening in the area of adult apprenticeship, shortening apprenticeship times and increasing opportunities for training in various ways are totally incorrect. Time prevents me from going into the details of those. The honourable member for Menzies will hear in the very near future that a great deal is happening in that area-far more than would ever have happened had he remained Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, as he was at some time, without any distinction at all, except for the fact that there was a massive increase in unemployment during the period he was that Minister. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Progress reported. Motion (by Mr Hand) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.50) —I would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to a unique event which took place in Sydney last weekend, the national welcome home parade for Vietnam veterans, which saw a record breaking turnout, given the expectations associated with the buildup to the parade, of well over 100,000 people from Sydney and around Australia to observe a march of well over 22,000 Vietnam veterans. Whilst we did have an excellent bipartisan motion in both Houses of Parliament prior to the national welcome home parade, I take this opportunity to offer congratulations to Mr Peter Poulton, the Chairman of the Australian Vietnam Forces Reunion Committee, the key committee organising the huge exercise associated with bringing about the national welcome home parade, to all the members of that committee and to all the others who participated or lent their support by one method or another, including the Sydney City Council, the Chief Commissioner, Sir Eric Neal, and other commissioners and staff of that Council. I add that the Government, and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in particular, assisted through the provision of transport to bring hundreds of veterans to Sydney. This too was greatly appreciated. As a result, we saw a magnificent gesture of warmth, affection and support for Vietnam veterans who were extended a long overdue welcome home to Australia in a very symbolic and direct way. It was very moving to participate not only in the main parade and the main receptions associated with that parade, but also in the very moving dawn service at which the address was given by former Brigadier Kahn. His address, as remarked upon by the Minister present at the dawn service, myself and others, was truly memorable and set the scene for a very moving dawn service at the Cenotaph at 4.30 a.m. last Saturday. It also set the scene for the subsequent regimental memorial service, the parade itself and the other events of the weekend, including what I understand was a highly successful concert in the Domain. Unfortunately, functions in my own electorate of Farrer caused me to miss that particular concert. I think that the Parliament should take this opportunity-certainly I do as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs-to extend congratulations to all involved with the national welcome home parade. I would just like to add two things which should be recorded. I did not make a big issue about them prior to the parade because I do not think it should have become a vehicle for pushing special political barrows. There are four categories of people who went to Vietnam who have not received full recognition, particularly the Vietnam Service Medal. They are, firstly, the Citizen Military Forces observers; secondly, a small contingent of Royal Australian Air Force personnel who flew in and out of Vietnam; thirdly, war correspondents. Given the fact that war correspondents by convention were always deserving and recognised by way of awards in World War II, in Korea and in Malaya, this should happen again in the case of Vietnam. Fourthly, there are those who served on HMAS Sydney and other support ships operating between Australia and Vietnam. To be fair, that last category has now got, under amendments to the Veterans' Entitlement Act, repatriation cover and the return from active service badge. But the Minister for Defence has recently indicated in a three-page letter that he cannot agree to amend the royal warrant to allow for the issue of that particular medal. I have discussed this informally with the Minister at one of the receptions in the immediate aftermath of the parade. I hope that he might think again about an award for those four categories to give proper and due recognition to them in the aftermath of the national welcome home parade. It would be seen as a very appropriate gesture for the Minister to do that and also to examine another dimension in terms of medals which would not be proper for me to raise at this stage ahead of 1988. Finally, I add that those who did march have a right to feel that they gave very dedicated and disciplined service for their country in a very difficult war in Vietnam. I make no apology for myself, amongst others, for having participated in that controversial conflict. I know in my heart that, whatever the rights and wrongs and although the outcome was a defeat for the then South Vietnamese Government and for the allied forces, those people who are in Vietnam tonight will know how difficult, extreme and harsh are the economic circumstances they face under with the North Vietnamese communist Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(10.55) —Tonight I wish to pay tribute to a former member of the Queensland Police Force. I wish to read to the House a letter from one of the officers of the Queensland police force which was given to the member for Archerfield, my State colleague Mr Henry Palaszczuk, who has worked closely to assist in exposing the activities of some of the most unsavoury elements of society in Queensland. I am indebted to him for this opportunity. The letter states: Please take the time to read this rather long expose of the Queensland Police Force. In 1978, after several threats from members of the force, I wrote to the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Burns, and have during the Lewis Administration written to all police Ministers, except, understandably, the current one. I remind the House that this letter was written in October 1981, when the Minister for Local Government, Mr Hinze, was the Police Minister. It continues: In the past four years, I have been transferred three times without requesting any transfers, and, during this time never been investigated or charged with any offences. In later 1977, I was performing duty at the Fortitude Valley Police Station and was transferred to Woolloongabba-no reason given and in August this year I was transferred to Townsville-no reason given again. The reasons underlying my transfers and the threats made against me are that firstly, I have been the Police Force's most successful university student, having received an award for coming first in my psychology course and secondly, against my own self interest, I have attempted to expose the corrupt practices, such as drug running, bribery, grafting from massage parlours and gambling dens that are being perpetrated by the Lewis Administration. It was necessary to take me off the streets at the Valley as I stated my intentions of dealing firmly with any offenders whether or not they were protected. Through a network of simple-minded non-commissioned officers and the like this information, undoubtedly, filtered through to the big time grafters in the Department and thus I was transferred. On one occasion, I heard a detective, who had recently survived a court battle involving a corruption charge, relating to the attempted bribery of Inspector A. V. Pitts attempt to persuade a gentleman involved with the Ugolini Realty gaming parlour, one of the many protected by Murphy, to pay him money on behalf of Murphy, in return for allowing him to operate without prosecution. I have been well aware, during my thirteen years of service that there are certain massage parlours and gaming centres that weren't to be touched. The era of honesty ended with Whitrod. Any person who had a reasonable intellect or who was honest, like I pride myself on being, was subject to a new form of treatment. After being transferred to Woolloongabba, I lost, without explanation, the study concession available to other officers and finally I received a transfer to Townsville. Fortunately, have been allowed to remain in Brisbane until after my university examinations this year. I receive my degree this year and will be resigning from the force. In fact, I advised the Department in 1977 that due to the corruption of the force, I would be resigning when I completed by studies. This latest transfer is designed just to make sure that I do actually leave. Last year I had a new house built and naturally the Department realised that I would not be moving. I have admired what you have been doing to try and clean up the Police Force in this State and I am quite sure, from your statements that you are well aware of the corrupt elements in the force. Under Whitrod, these elements were suppressed but since Mr Lewis has come into power they have flourished, understandably. In late June this year, I resigned from the Queensland Police Union of Employees due to the corruption within that organisation, particularly the unhealthy alliance between the Executive and the Police Administration/National Party (both being synonymous). I wasted a stamp in writing to the Premier concerning this matter and received a reply from some Under Secretary who undoubtedly sent a copy to Lewis. Shortly after, I was transferred. My protests against corruption have decidedly worked against me as I have spent a particularly worried last 4 years, whilst at the same time attempting to study without concessions. Unfortunately, the Department continues on as large as ever with their corrupt practices. Massage parlours are thriving, drugs bigger and better than ever, particularly on the Gold Coast and honest officers are victimised. I have not compromised myself in any way since this Administration came into power and now that I am leaving I do not have any regrets regarding my stand against corruption within the Force. I think you would have to be a member of this Force to appreciate the low, immoral conduct that is indulged in by, not just junior officers, but many senior officers right up to the top echelon. I know of no other way now that I can assist in exposing the corruption in the force. I anticipate that I will have to leave Queensland within a short period of time as I am quite sure that I will not be left alone-if you know the method of operation of the Murphys and Curries of this force, you will appreciate what I mean by this statement. If a royal commission was established into the operations of the Police Force, I would be prepared to give evidence before same. I do not exaggerate or bend the truth to suit myself and I feel confident that such enquiry would accept my evidence. I doubt, however, that the Labor Party in Queensland could, thanks to the Gerrymander, secure such a Royal Commission. If one were appointed by the Government, undoubtedly it would be used as a whitewash. I wish you every success in your endeavours to expose the corruption of the Bjelke-Petersen/Police Administration coalition. I feel confident that you know of those members in the parliamentary wing of the National Party involved with police in drug activity and I would be delighted to have such people receive their just deserts. Thanking you for your service to Queensland. Yours Faithfully . . . . The letter was signed by a former member of the Queensland Police Force in October 1981. Recently, a Constable Dillon of the Queensland Police Force-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 11 p.m. Mr Milton asked Madam Speaker, upon notice, on 17 September 1987: (1) Will the same public service guidelines in relation to the non-smoking areas in Public Service Departments apply to the new Parliament House; if not, why not. (2) Will the (a) parliamentary committee rooms, (b) party rooms, (c) library, and (d) lifts be designated as non-smoking areas; if not, what are the reasons in each case. Madam Speaker —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The guidelines are under consideration by the Parliamentary departments, and recommendations concerning their applicability in the new Parliament House will be made to the Presiding Officers. Advice concerning the policy when approved will be provided to Members and Senators and other occupants of the new Parliament House. At present, all areas of the Library, with the exception of the Members' inner Reading Room Area and some individual staff offices are subject to a non-smoking rule. The Library Committee will be asked to consider whether this arrangement should be confirmed or altered for the new Parliament House. Presently smoking is not allowed in lifts and this policy will extend to the new Parliament House. The following notices were given: Mr Young to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for related purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain legislation relating to the Australian meat and live-stock industry, and for related purposes. Mr Humphreys to present a Bill for an Act to amend the National Health Act 1953, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 6 October 1987: Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 207. Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 219. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1987-M33/87-AUS-MEAT Accreditation Required for Slaughtering, Boning, Processing and Packaging of Meat for Export. Australian National University Act-Statutes- No. 196-Enrolment, Courses and Degrees Amendment No. 23. No. 197-Fees Amendment No. 2. No. 198-University House Amendment No. 12. Australian Protective Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 202. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 208. Bounty (Computers) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 218. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinance-1987-No. 2-Supreme Court (Amendment). Companies Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 206. Excise Act- Declaration-1987-No. 9. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 212. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations- Orders-1987- No. 15-Export Control (Animals). No. 16-Export Control (Fees) as amended (Amendment). Fertilisers Subsidy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No 205. Fisheries Act-Notice-No. 191. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos 214, 215. Futures Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 203. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of Ministerial determination made pursuant to section 106aa, dated 15 September 1987. Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 211. Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 210. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 221. National Health Act- Declaration pursuant to subsection 85 (2), dated 22 July 1987. Notices for the purpose of subsections- 4(1), dated 21 June 1987. 40ag(8), dated 5 June 1987. 47(2b), dated 3 and 28 June 1987. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 209. Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1987- No. 5-Marine, Part 41. No. 6-Marine, Part 34. Passports Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 217. Proclamations by their Excellencies the Governor-General and the Administrator fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Australian Protective Service Act 1987-25 September 1987. Television Licence Fees Amendment Act 1987, Radio Licence Fees Amendment Act 1987, Television Licence Fees Amendment Act (No. 2) 1987 and the Broadcasting Amendment Act (No. 2) 1987-14 September 1987. Public Service Act-Determinations-1987-Nos 67, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77. Radiocommunications Act-Standard-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 220. Security Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 204. Ships (Capital Grants) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 213. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Directions-1987-Nos 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Trade Practices Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 216.