Tuesday, 20 October 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The following honourable members made and subscribed the oath or affirmation of allegiance: Adermann, Albert Evan, Fairfax, Queensland Brown, Robert James, Charlton, New South Wales Macphee, Ian Malcolm, Goldstein, Victoria Morris, Allan Agapitos, Newcastle, New South Wales Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, left Australia on overseas duty on 9 October. He will return on the evening of 26 October. In his absence I am the Acting Prime Minister. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, left on 11 October on overseas duty. He returns on 1 November. The Minister for Science and Small Business, Mr Barry Jones, has been Acting Minister for that portfolio until today and the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, now assumes that responsibility. Mr Barry Jones leaves today on official overseas business. He will return on 11 November. The Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, is representing the Acting Minister in this House. The Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, left on 19 October on government business in the South Pacific. He will return on 30 October. In his absence the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Mrs Kelly, is the Acting Minister for Defence. As a courtesy, I also inform the House that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, is absent from Question Time today on government business and questions for him should be directed to the Minister for Resources, Mr Peter Morris. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to the announcement last Friday of a record current account deficit for September and to the extremely volatile movements in world stock exchanges in the last 24 hours, which are undoubtedly of concern to both sides of the House. I ask the Treasurer, against the background of those developments, whether he still regards the domestic policy settings for the Australian economy as being adequate to protect our economy to the extent possible against external shocks and, in particular, I ask him whether the Government will still be supporting a 1.5 per cent first tier wage increase for all Australian employees at the national wage case commencing in Melbourne tomorrow. Mr KEATING —The answer is yes and yes. We do regard the pace of adjustment in Australia as being adequate to deal with our current account imbalance. Let me repeat what I said abroad when talking not only to finance Ministers and officials of governments but also to major financial institutions: it is entirely accurate to say that the pace of economic adjustment in Australia far outstrips that of any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country. As a result of that there is an enhanced level of confidence in our capacity to adjust to our diminished terms of trade. Again, one must remember and put in context the extent of our terms of trade decline. When I was speaking in Germany I gave the figures since 1984. The German economy has experienced a 30 per cent improvement in its terms of trade since 1984; in the same period we have experienced a 16 per cent decline. That is a very large shift, a very large change and it is that to which we are adjusting and that is why we are not rebuilding the secondary industry base which the coalition managed to decimate in the years of its last Government. Because we were always sold the line that only commodities mattered and we left all of our eggs in the commodities basket, now that commodities in the broader sense in terms of price buoyancy have failed us, as usual it is left to the Australian Labor Party to clean up. We are making that adjustment. The Leader also asked me about the current account deficit for the month of September. Of course, those figures are evidence again of a fair amount of month to month volatility in the collection of data, but if we look at the figures over nine months we see that for the three months to September, for a start, there is a $615m improvement over the same period last year, and the current account has improved by $1.5 billion, to $9.8 billion, for the first nine months of this calendar year. I can only add that the quarterly pattern of the current account is entirely consistent with the Budget time forecast for the current quarter. Let me say, in terms of the adjustments that Australia is making, that as a result of this Government's changes Australia is better placed to face whatever international conditions may come its way, and I think those changes are being looked upon as changes of quality and magnitude by all of the major financial institutions. I simply make the point that one has to smile at members of the Opposition who are proposing by implication that they would be adjusting faster when the policy underpinning the adjustment they would be having says that what we need to fix the state of our indebtedness is an unfunded tax cut which would lift Australian living standards and pay ourselves more while the rest of the world is paying itself less. I make the point that around the places that matter-in New York, London and Frankfurt, let alone within the bureaucracies-those people opposite are treated as an absolute standing joke. The last election campaign shot to pieces any credibility they might have had remaining about economic competence and as a result they have a lot of rebuilding to do. When they come to understand how their Leader's reputation has been shot to bits in those markets, they will start to understand that his political reputation will be shot to bits with it. Mr BALDWIN —Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade been drawn to reports of recent demonstrations in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, by supporters of Tibetan independence which have involved clashes with the authorities, violence and allegations of severe human rights abuses? Can the Minister advise the House of the Government's response to these occurrences? Mr HAYDEN —Since 27 September there have been several demonstrations by Tibetans in Lhasa, the capital of the Tibetan autonomous region, and those demonstrations were calling for independence from China. Reports of the situation are not entirely consistent but demonstrations were accompanied by violence and at least six deaths occurred as a result. The Australian Government has noted Press reports that the police in Tibet used extremely harsh measures against Buddhist monks during the demonstrations, that over 500 arrests had been made and that there had been a crackdown on Tibetans demanding greater independence for Tibet. There have been allegations in the Press of torture, beatings and harsh prison conditions for those in detention. From 1959, and particularly during the Chinese cultural revolution, the Tibetan people, their religion and culture suffered greatly as a result of oppressive central government policies. The present Chinese leadership has acknowledged the failure of previous policies and in the past few years has been promoting economic development, greater tolerance of religion and respect for Tibet's culture and religion. Australia condemns abuses of human rights wherever and whenever they occur. While Australia acknowledges that Tibet is part of China, the Government and people of Australia remain deeply concerned that ethnic Tibetans should be treated according to internationally accepted standards of human rights. The concern of the Australian Government in all of these respects has been registered with the Chinese Government. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer him to the September balance of payments data released on Friday, to which he partly referred in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, which showed that imports are at their highest level for 12 months. What is the impact of the outlook for investment canvassed recently on the demand for imports and should the demand for imports for 1987-1988 be revised upwards from the Budget estimate? Mr KEATING —I indicated that the quarterly pattern, which is the most difficult in terms of our adjustment to export and import volumes, at this stage of the year is entirely consistent with the Budget forecast. I indicated also that the recent volatility in the merchandise trade balance reflects the fact that imports fell in seven out of eight categories in August, which suggests that again there is some processing problem, looking at the month to month figure. For instance, we had a marked rise in fuel shipment imports, which suggests a processing problem, if one looks at the two months, and higher imports of machinery. I might also add that that includes $100m for the launch of the Aussat satellite which is, of course, very much a one-off feature as an import. Mr Beale —But you get these one-off features every month. Mr KEATING —We do not launch satellites every month; I thought even the honourable member would know that. We have only three. Does the honourable member remember that? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin has been spoken to twice. I suggest that he cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —As I have said, in the three months to September there has been an improvement of $615m compared with the same period last year and in the nine months there has been a more substantial improvement. I can only repeat that the pattern of the seasonal movements in import and export volumes is consistent with our forecast. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Can the Minister give the House any indication of public reaction to his announcement last week of a proposed advisory structure for his portfolio? Mr DAWKINS —Last week I announced a proposal by the Government to reform the advisory structures to the portfolio to better co-ordinate advice coming to the Government across the range of education and training activities. The reason that we continue to need advisory structures is that there is more than just the Commonwealth involved in the education and training system. First of all, the State governments play such an important role, both in schools education and in the technical and further education system. As well, employers and unions have a vital interest in improving the array of training opportunities that are available to build up the skills base within Australia, which is so important to underpinning the revitalisation of our manufacturing industries in particular. Of course, there are those who work within the education system who should be appropriately represented in relation to any policy formulation and advice coming to us. There is also the peculiar situation of universities and colleges which sit as independent bodies responsible in a statutory sense to State parliaments, but which, nevertheless, are funded by us. Within that complex array of arrangements, we decided to change the existing arrangements for advice coming to us on education and training. I think that there has been relatively widespread support for these changes from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the unions which it represents-- Mr Carlton —Why not? It is part of the club. Mr DAWKINS —The most enthusiastic support has come from the Confederation of Australian Industry and they have also attracted support from the Business Council of Australia (BCA). Is the BCA part of the club too? Are these organisations part of Jimmy's club over there? Unions at this stage have been broadly receptive to these arrangements, including those unions which represent teachers and academics. There has been some concern, particularly from parent groups, but I think that concern is misplaced because they will continue to be involved and to have an opportunity to approach me and the Department in relation to the important programs that we provide for the schools. Some people have said that we have not gone far enough. The New South Wales Minister for Education and the Sydney Morning Herald seem to be doing a little double act on this. They say we should not have had any advisory structures at all; that all the advice should have come directly to me and all the decisions should have been made directly by me. I think that is perhaps too sweeping, bearing in mind not only Australian Labor Party policy but also the question of needing to co-ordinate advice in view of the very many players that take part in this area. I say to the honourable member for Herbert that there are some very interesting proposals coming to us in relation to extending higher and tertiary education opportunities within north Queensland. North Queensland has been an area of traditionally low participation rates and, despite the superb work of the James Cook University in recent times, we are looking at ways in which we can extend opportunities for students within that region and north of Townsville. Mr CONNOLLY —I refer the Minister for Social Security to the findings of the Monash University's Centre for Policy Studies that single income families with two children earning $23,000 a year are $266 a year worse off than one year ago and that double income families with two children earning $55,650 are $755 worse off due to the Government's changes in taxes and benefits and the 7 per cent fall in real average earnings under Labor. Will the Minister tell the House where the conspicuous wealth is that he expressed so much concern about, and why is he not concentrating on the welfare of lower and middle class Australians who are being taxed into poverty under Labor? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for raising the question of equity and fairness in relation to the distribution of income, particularly in respect of Australian families. Frankly, I would have thought that fairness and equity were not in the lexicon of the contemporary Liberal Party. The Liberal Party's record when in government in terms of the impact on family living standards is a particularly sorry one. The most important evidence of that assertion was its inability to do that which is fundamental to maintaining living standards, and that is to achieve an effective management of the economy which does not allow the massive blowout of unemployment that occurred during the Liberals' period in government. There were 185,000 jobs lost in the last two years of that period. When considering equity and fairness for Australian families, it is hard to believe that anything is more important than a commitment to employment growth. The record of this Government as against the record of that earlier government in terms of job creation and the reduction of unemployment stands out. To come more specifically to the issues raised in the honourable member's question, which go to the report in this morning's newspapers regarding the Centre for Policy Studies and the Institute of Family Studies, I point out that both groups commented on the relevant family policies issued during the most recent election. I recall that the Institute of Family Studies in response to the program we announced, particularly that relating to the family allowance supplement, made it clear that, whatever else might be said about that policy, it was highly equitable. I recall that at the end of the report our package was described as a guaranteed minimum income for children. When one looks at welfare and the position of low income families, one sees the quite massive gains that will come to families arising from that package. For example, a beneficiary family with three children at March 1983 was some $21 below the poverty line; as a result of the package, by December this year that family will be some $4 above the poverty line-and could be as much as $20 above the poverty line, depending on the ages of the children. In times of severe economic difficulty, times in which all governments are having difficulty managing their economies, this Government has very successfully managed the economy. We are able to deliver very significant gains to very low income families. In terms of the real income levels of more middle income families on which the honourable member has commented and on which the report this morning commented, one must look at more than income transfers. One must certainly look at the tax changes which this Government has made, but also one must look at a whole range of measures which go not only to employment, which is quite fundamental, but also to schemes to get young middle income families into their first homes, into massive expansion of child care and the development of education and training opportunities which have substantially increased retention rates. In other words, one must look at the whole picture. When this Opposition went into the election campaign on the theme of family living standards, with speech after speech from Opposition members about declining living standards for middle Australia, the people of Australia said, `What we are most concerned about is to continue to get responsible and fair government'. We were re-elected on the basis of our commitment to maintaining employment and growth and the living standards of all families, but especially very low income families. Mr BILNEY —Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade advise the House of the Government's reaction to recent events in the Persian Gulf, including the attack on the United States flagged tanker and the possible response from the United States? Mr HAYDEN —The Government has been briefed by the United States concerning the latest incidents in the Persian Gulf between the United States and Iran. In essence, the United States flagged tanker Sea Isle City was attacked in Kuwait territorial waters on 16 October by a missile believed to have been fired by Iranian forces. On 19 October United States naval vessels, having provided prior warning, struck an Iranian platform in international waters in the Persian Gulf. According to the United States Secretary of Defense, the Iranian platform had been used to mount radar surveillance, report on convoy movement, launch small boat attacks against non-belligerent shipping and, last week, to fire at United States military helicopters. As Senator Evans said on 22 September in relation to the Iran Ajr incident, Australia maintains an absolute commitment to the right of freedom of navigation, including the right of all countries of the Persian Gulf to export their oil. All attacks on merchant shipping are condemned and deplored by the Australian Government as a violation of international law. The United States response to the attack on the Sea Isle City, according to the information presently available, was conducted within its inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and represented a proportionate response to an ongoing threat to American vessels and crews. The Security Council has been notified of the United States action. These latest incidents add to the importance of further efforts by the United Nations Secretary-General to seek a ceasefire and negotiated settlement to the Iran-Iraq war on the basis of United Nations Security Council Resolution 598. Australia will continue to work to encourage the achievement of that objective. Mr BLUNT —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. In the light of his answer to the question from the honourable member for Bradfield, I refer the Minister to his speech to an Australian Labor Party left wing conference in Canberra last Saturday in which he expressed the following view: Unfortunately there are sections of our Party and sections of our leadership who pride themselves on tough words for the workers and the pensioners, but who are conspicuously silent when they are teased by displays of great wealth and social irresponsibility. To which of the leadership of the Labor Party-the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer or the Leader of the Government in the Senate-was the Minister referring? Mr HOWE —I make no apology for the commitment I have had as long as I have been in the Labor Party to fairness and equity. As I said in answer to a previous question, the Opposition will remain in opposition until it learns to include those words once again in its lexicon. Those words are crucial, and not only to the philosophy of the party to which I belong. In terms of the traditions of the Australian community fairness and equity are fundamental. As I said also in answer to a previous question, the record of this Government is that there has been a commitment, in very difficult economic circumstances, to fairness and equity. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. In terms of relevance, the Minister was asked to name the people he was insulting on his side. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —I do not think he is being relevant. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not argue with the Chair. The Minister is answering the question. Mr HOWE —In terms of fairness and equity, measures we have brought into this House, such as on the capital gains tax, the assets test on pensions, on entertainment taxes and the fringe benefits tax, have been very strongly opposed by the Opposition. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Before the point of order is interrupted this time, I say that relevance is a certain matter in this place. The Minister is totally irrelevant. He was asked to name his colleagues who he thinks are not looking after the poor. He should either answer or sit down. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Minister is in order. Mr HOWE —As I said, whenever those measures have been introduced they have been opposed by the Opposition. In terms of the context which this Government faces for the next three years, it will be necessary further to continue to make tough and difficult decisions. In terms of what I may or may not have said at a meeting at the weekend, it was made very clear that whatever else we do, we ought to continue to pursue the values that we have exhibited during the period we have been in government. Mr SIMMONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources. Has he seen reports of plague locust activity in western New South Wales? Further, is the Minister aware of fears expressed by some landowners that spraying against these locusts could result in excess chemical levels in livestock for slaughter? Given the devastating effects of migrating locust swarms, will the Minister advise whether there is any basis for these fears? Mr PETER MORRIS —Yes, I have seen the reports. I thank the honourable member for raising this matter, which is of vital importance to people in the rural community. The Australian Plague Locust Commission is monitoring plague locust activity across western New South Wales, in Queensland and South Australia. The standard practice for the control of locusts in New South Wales involves the spraying of insecticides by both landholders and by the Commission. Recently there has been concern about chemical residues in beef, which has led to a reluctance on the part of some New South Wales landholders to spray immature locusts. That concern is utterly unfounded. The insecticide fenitrothion, which is used by the Plague Locust Commission and is supplied to landholders in New South Wales by the Pastures Protection Board, is based on a different group of compounds to that involved in the beef testing incident. The chemicals detected in excess levels in beef were organochlorine compounds. Fenitrothion is not as soluble in animal fats as organochlorine compounds. It is only moderately toxic and it readily breaks down in animals and in the environment. I am assured that if the standard withholding periods for livestock are observed, no excess residue levels in animals should result. I emphasise to the House, and to the farmers concerned, that the successful control of plague locusts depends on the active co-operation of the landholders themselves. I hope that the information which I have provided to the honourable member, given his concern and the importance of the matter, will encourage farmers in locust affected areas, who have previously been reluctant to spray, to take action as quickly as possible. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Acting Prime Minister: Will there be an inquiry into wealth in Australia? If so, what form will it take? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am advised that at the present time the Prime Minister is seeking information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics as to the setting up of a database for wealth in Australia. As and when that report is received, the Prime Minister will make a decision as to whether there ought to be an inquiry. Mr CROSS —Can the Minister for Community Services and Health inform the House as to details of the Federal Government's financial offer to the Queensland Government to assist with the transfer of nurse education from hospital based courses to colleges of advanced education? Can the Minister inform the House of the progress being made in commencing the transfer in Queensland? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for his question. Yesterday's decision by the Queensland Cabinet not to proceed with the transfer of nurse education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education (CAEs), with the assistance of Commonwealth funding, is an insult to the nursing profession in Queensland and will prove a real blow to the health system of that State. Every other State is now either proceeding with that transfer or has completed its plans for transferring nurses from hospital based education to the CAEs. It is important to point out that the States have always borne the responsibility for and the cost of nurse education. What the Commonwealth has offered are supplementary moneys to assist in the transfer being made. Every other State in the Commonwealth has accepted that position, that they continue to bear the major cost of nurse education, which has always been a State responsibility, but the Commonwealth will provide supplementary moneys to assist in that transfer. In fact it is the first time that the Commonwealth has made a contribution to nurse education. Of course, the Queensland Government is saying, `We won't transfer unless the Commonwealth pays the whole bill for nurse education'. That is quite contrary to the responsibilities the State has borne since Federation and quite contrary to the attitude taken by every other State in the Commonwealth. It may well be true that in Queensland the savings will not be as much as in some of the other States because the evidence is that Queensland has spent much less on nurse education in its hospitals than have the other States. One has only to compare curriculum hours in the hospitals in Queensland with those in the other States. But I do want to point out the consequences to Queensland of refusing the Commonwealth offer which, as I have said, has now been accepted by every other State. Every other State is in the process of transferring its nurses from hospital based education to the CAEs, or at least has completed its detailed planning to do so. First of all, already the Queensland Government has lost something like $1.5m in assistance money which has now gone to the other States who wish to accelerate the transfer. That money is lost and Queensland will continue to lose money if it fails to take up the offer made by the Commonwealth. But, even more important for nurses in Queensland, in the future it will be increasingly difficult for them to work in other States where the educational standards are now quite different. So, in the long run, it will penalise severely nurses in Queensland. Perhaps most important of all in an age when everyone, governments and industry, is demanding higher levels of education to fit people for the challenges of the twenty-first century, and when every nurse organisation in this country and every State government has accepted the need for that advancement in basic nurse education, Queensland's refusal to move will damage not only the nursing profession but also the whole health system in Queensland. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. What examples of his leaders' being teased by great wealth did he have in mind when he made his statement at the weekend? Mr HOWE —I have very little to add to the answer I have given to the previous question. I simply reiterate that in tough times, when tough measures are required, this Government has shown itself capable of taking-- Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The point of order is that ministerial relevance in giving answers is being reduced to absolutely nothing. The question I asked related to a speech made by the Minister at the weekend in which he accused leaders of his own Party of being seduced by the company of wealthy people. I have asked him to give us examples of who he had in mind. References to the Government's legislative program are utterly irrelevant to that question. Mr HOWE —Frankly, I think the Leader of the Opposition is exercising a fevered imagination. I have nothing further to add. Mr O'KEEFE —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. It concerns the detention of Mr Ian Fry in South Africa. Is the Minister aware that Mr Fry, editor of the Broadmeadows Observer and an Australian delegate to the World Conference on Religion and Peace being held in South Africa, was taken from the home of the President of the World Conference by South African police at 11.30 p.m. on Thursday, 24 September, questioned during the night and threatened with deportation? Is the Minister also aware that Mr Fry was on a five-nation tour of Africa sponsored by the Uniting Church in Australia? Does the Minister approve of the actions of the South African Government? What steps are being taken to follow through on this matter? Mr HAYDEN —The behaviour of the authorities representing the South African Government is condemned. Australia has made representations, and continues to do so, in regard to the treatment Mr Fry was subjected to. He arrived in South Africa on 23 September. He was detained and interrogated by South African security police from 2315 hours on 24 September until 0630 hours the following day. He was released and permitted to continue his visit to South Africa. No explanation was given for his detention under South African emergency regulations, although it was clear that the police were interested in Mr Fry's church contacts in South and southern Africa. As far as we can establish, he was not mistreated while in detention. The Australian Government made, through its Embassy in Pretoria, a strong protest to the South African Foreign Ministry on 25 September over the treatment of Mr Fry who sought an explanation of the reasons for his detention. We followed this up subsequently. We are still awaiting, however, a response from the South African authorities. The Government, of course, deplores the arbitrary detention and interrogation of an Australian citizen in South Africa and will continue to press the South African authorities for a full explanation. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Minister for Social Security: Was he referring to the Prime Minister when he made his speech at the weekend? Mr HOWE —No. Mr GRACE —I direct my question to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Has the Minister seen an article by Peter Young in today's Australian claiming that 1,800 separations from the Australian defence forces occurred in September 1987? Is the figure correct? Are the other figures quoted in the article correct? Mrs KELLY —I thank the honourable member for his question. The truth of the matter is that none of those figures is correct. The sep- arations for September 1987 were 694, not the 1,800 claimed in the Australian article. As a consequence, all other projections flowing from the basic and false September figures are highly inaccurate and a gross exaggeration. These errors just highlight the appropriateness of the Government's decision to issue annual recruitment and separation figures which take account of monthly variations. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. In the light of the Minister for Social Security having denied referring to the Prime Minister, who in the Government leadership was he referring to, or was his statement completely false? Mr HOWE —The Leader of the Opposition, if I might say so, has an almost wilful ignorance of the organisational structure of the Australian Labor Party and the nature of the labour movement. If he, on the basis of second hand reporting of remarks that I may or may not have made in terms of an internal-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HOWE —Well, let me say that we have had at least one quotation which was pure fabrication. But on the basis of remarks that I may or may not have made, the Opposition seeks to draw some conclusions about disunity in the Government. One does not need to have a very long memory in order to recall, against the extreme unity of the Government, the extreme disunity of the Opposition. In respect of the meeting I attended on the weekend, I certainly do not intend now-as I did not intend then-to canvass publicly what I may or may not have said in that context. I have nothing further to add. Mr JOHNS —Can the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories inform the House of progress towards the staging of Expo 88 in Brisbane? Will Expo provide a further boost to Australia's spectacular tourism industry? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for Petrie for his question. It is a timely one in view of the fact that the Expo Committee has staged in King's Hall today-and I think also for tomorrow-a rather spectacular exhibition and model of the expo site in Brisbane. I am very happy to congratulate Sir Llew Edwards, the man in charge of Expo, for his very Australian view of Expo in Brisbane. There have been attempts by certain elements in Queensland to paint Expo as simply a Queensland manifestation of the bicentennial celebrations. That is not the case. Sir Llew Edwards, to his great credit, has been at pains all around the world to indicate that Expo in Brisbane is in fact an Australian exposition, the first we have had since 1888. I would venture to say that this event will be as successful as any Expo staged in the world, certainly since the War. I hope that honourable members will take the opportunity to have a look at the model in King's Hall and also to take home to their electorates and any congregations to whom they happen to speak the message that a visit to Brisbane for Expo 88 would be a very profitable one. Expo 88 will certainly be one of the highlights of the bicentennial year. Of course, the Australian pavilion will also be something of which all members of this Parliament can be proud. I venture to say that, as 32 countries have now accepted invitations to come to Expo-and very likely the total will be 40-this will be the most successful Expo in terms of international participation. I am also very pleased to note that New South Wales, my own State, has agreed to exhibit at Expo in Brisbane. Mr Donald Cameron —At long last. Mr JOHN BROWN —I agree with the honourable member. Hopefully Victoria and Western Australia will follow-and maybe Tasmania and the Northern Territory. In regard to the second part of the question, which asked whether Expo will contribute to our spectacular growth in tourism, I hope that honourable members have noticed the figures in the papers over the last couple of days indicating a growth of the numbers of Japanese tourists coming to Australia. The figures for August this year indicate that we have doubled the number of Japanese tourists coming to this country compared with August 1986. It is very likely that we will get very close to two million tourists this year. Considering that it took us 195 years up till 1983 to get to 900,000, the growth to two million in four years has been pretty spectacular. This says something first of all about Australia as a destination and, more importantly, about the Government's pursuit of positive tourism policy. Mr HICKS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications. Is the Minister aware that the Channel MTN9 television station of Griffith, which is linked in ownership with 2RG radio station, has been left out of the Government's aggregation program? Is the Minister also aware that common ownership has, by virtue of the small population covered by MTN9 and 2RG, been of significant benefit to the public? Is the Minister further aware that if the Government's proposal to separate the ownership of the television and radio facility in Griffith becomes a reality, the value of both businesses will be greatly decreased with a possible reduction in the services provided? In light of the above, would the Government be prepared to rethink its attitude to joint ownership for those television channels with combined television-radio facilities that have been omitted from the aggregation program, particularly where other television channels and radio stations overlap their broadcast area? Madam SPEAKER —That was a very long question. Mr DUNCAN —Madam Speaker, it will not be a long answer. I am aware of the details of the matter raised by the honourable member, and I will obtain a report for him. I will undertake to look at the suggestion that the honour- able member has made in relation to the matter. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General and Acting Prime Minister) —Pursuant to section 19 of the Governor-General Act 1974, I present the annual report of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General for 1986-87. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General and Acting Prime Minister) —Pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978, I present a report by the Australian Science and Technology Council entitled: Improving Australia's Competitiveness through Industrial Research and Development. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General and Acting Prime Minister) —Pursuant to section 58 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Administrative Review Council for 1986-87. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian delegation to the Forty-First Session of the United Nations General Assembly held in New York from 16 September to 19 December 1986. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian delegation to the Forty-Second Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights held in Geneva from 3 February to 14 March 1986. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 18 of the Advance Australia Logo Protection Act 1984, I present the annual report of the Advance Australia Foundation for 1985-86. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the final report of the Committee of Review of Standards, Accreditation and Quality Control and Assurance. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —For the information of the House, I present the report of the Committee to Review Australian Studies in Tertiary Education entitled Windows onto Worlds. The report was circulated during the parliamentary recess. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Pursuant to sub-section 33 (3) of the Australian National University Act 1946, I present Part 2 of the 1986 annual report of the Australian National University together with the Auditor-General's report. Part 1 of the report was tabled on 4 June 1987. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Pursuant to section 14p of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Act 1984, I present the annual report of the Curriculum Development Council for 1986. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Pursuant to section 17a of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission for 1986. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Pursuant to section 43a of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for 1986. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Pursuant to section 55 of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984, I present a report detailing determinations made under the Act in 1986 in respect of the 1985-87 triennium. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Maritime College Act 1978, I present the annual report of the Council of the Australian Maritime College for 1986. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —For the information of the House, I present statements of expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for May, June, July and August 1987. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources) —Pursuant to section 9b of the Fisheries Act 1952, I present an agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and KKFC Pty Ltd dated 10 August 1987 concerning access to the Australian Fishing Zone by vessels from Taiwan. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Insurance Commissioner for 1986-87. I also present a bulletin on selected statistics on the general insurance industry for the year ended 31 December 1986. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —Pursuant to section 32 of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Inter-State Commission for 1986-87. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975, I present the Inter-State Commission's initial report on waterfront strategy. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) —Pursuant to section 196a of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, I present the annual report of the Judge Advocate-General for the period ending 31 December 1986. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) —Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947, I present the annual reports for 1986 of the Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund, the Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund and the Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund, together with the Auditor-General's reports, audited income statements and balance sheets on these funds. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —Yes, I do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr SPENDER —Last week, in the course of a debate with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) the question of overseas travelling allowance arose, in a somewhat jocular fashion. In answer to my claim that I had just about spent it, he said: I checked the other day and he has not yet made a claim on his allowance. That statement surprised me and when I got back to my office, I checked. I found, as I had thought, that I had written to Senator Ray on 3 August 1987 making a claim against what I described as my anticipated overseas study allowance. I am very glad that the Minister has drawn the matter to my attention because there were two claims and I shall make sure that they are in order. I have no doubt that he will facilitate their being paid. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DOWNER —I do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr DOWNER —On Friday, 9 October, in answer to an arranged question, the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator Richardson, stated that I had said: . . . grants to voluntary organisations are to be increased by 20 per cent this year as part of some prearranged election pay-off. Madam Speaker, it is true that I did say that but the Minister went on to say: The general figure for total outlays for grants to voluntary conservation groups has been determined. The increase was 1.17 per cent, hardly a great pay-off to conservation groups. I just have to say that he- that being me- got it wrong again. Madam Speaker, I point out that I did not get it wrong and that, according to the Minister's own estimates, assistance to conservation organisations will increase in this year's Budget by 18.08 per cent and grants-in-aid to voluntary conservation organisations will increase by 20.6 per cent. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a message from the Senate concurring in the resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Electoral Matters, subject to modifications. Senate's message- The Senate, having considered Message No. of the House of Representatives, has agreed to the following resolution in connection therewith: (1) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 7 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Electoral Matters, subject to the following modifications: (a) paragraph (2), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(2) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators.''; (b) paragraph (5), leave out ``who shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman have a casting vote''; (c) after paragraph (6), insert the following new paragraph: ``(6a) In the event of an equality of voting, the chairman, or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, shall have a casting vote.''; and (d) paragraph (7), leave out ``3''. insert ``4''. (2) That the provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in the Senate's modifications of the Resolution transmitted to the Senate by the House. Ordered that the message be taken into consideration forthwith. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the modifications of the Senate be agreed to. Madam SPEAKER —I have received messages from the Senate concurring in the resolutions of the House relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority and agreeing that the resolutions have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders; and acquainting the House of the appointment of senators to the following committees: Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority-Senators Alston, Bolkus, Hill, Jones and Macklin. Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade-Senators Bolkus, Crichton-Browne, Hill, Jones, MacGibbon, Macklin, Maguire, Morris, Schacht, Tambling and Vallentine. Madam SPEAKER —I wish to inform the House of nominations of members to be members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade: Mr Baldwin, Mr Bilney, Mr Campbell, Mr Charles, Mr Cross, Mr Kent, Dr Klugman, Mr Langmore, Mr Lindsay, Mr Scott and Dr Theophanous have been nominated by the Government Whip; Mr Halverson, Mr Jull, Mr MacKellar, Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton have been nominated by the Opposition Whip; and Mr Hicks, Mr Katter and Mr Nehl have been nominated by the National Party Whip. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Dobie,Mr Hunt,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. In the light of our heritage as a nation we humbly ask you to consider our petition to: Cease current legislative procedure involving the proposed ``Australia Card'', because we believe; 1. That this card will be an immediate infringement upon our civil rights and personal liberties. 2. That no guarantee can be given now or in the future as to the security and privacy of information gained and retained by the Data Bank. 3. That this system of preventing Social Welfare and Tax fraud cannot be conclusively proven and that the ones most likely to be harmed and abused are the innocent, the powerless and the underprivileged of our society. We would remind you that our common Law system is to protect all as innocent until proven guilty. 4. The the recent Federal Election was not our `yes' vote for the ``Australia Card''; in fact less Australians voted for the Labor Government. We therefore call upon you to call a national referendum to deal with this issue. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal to introduce the I.D. (Australia Card). Australian citizens do not need a card as proof of identity and we believe the card to be a gross invasion of our basic rights as free citizens. Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to introduce the I.D. Card without the approval of the Australian people by referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card; That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr McArthur,Mr MacKellar,Mr Tuckey and Mr White. 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 X-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 Beale,Mr Braithwaite,Mr John Brown,Mr Cohen and Mr Ruddock. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for the possession of child pornography, and has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: Make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and Close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X-rated videos, (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia connections. Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X-rated videos . . . Because the trade is still flourishing, and its availability escalates sexual crime . . . Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying . . . Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence . . . Because anyone can have these tapes in their possession for private use . . . Because the Government does not intervene in that. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beazley,Mr Campbell,Dr Charlesworth,Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. 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 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Cohen,Mr Gorman,Mr Hunt and Mr West. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hunt,Mr Shack and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Maranoa electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Lyne electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the 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. 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. 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 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. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 O'Keefe,Mr Peacock and Mr Scott. 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 those 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 they 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 unamimously reject the Australia Card Bill as being contrary to our personal liberties and the national interest. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Prosser,Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the proposal: Is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud, and to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud, Will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private matter, Will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer, and Cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb and Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher and Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Member 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBOs) 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 to re-establish the services provided by TBOs already closed. 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 petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. We advise that we stand against the Australia Card because of the following points: The Australia Card is an unacceptable infringement on the freedom and privacy that Australians have been able to take for granted for so long in our democratic society. The people of Australia should be properly informed of the facts before anything with such far reaching implications as this be brought in, We call for a referendum on the Australia Card before it is too late, There is no guarantee that the private information on the computers will remain confidential, The card will fail to control social security fraud and tax evasion, The Government will have almost complete control over our lives, through the control of our money, There is no allowance made for the loss, theft or destruction of the card, The counterfeiting of cards has been completely ignored, The people have no real choice whether they take the card or not, as it is needed for most everyday activities, eg. jobs, banking, being admitted to hospital etc. and if not used can result in a $20,000 fine. Where's the democracy in that? We call on the Government to cease all efforts to enforce the Australia Card on our country immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should not be considered any further, and in the event of it coming again before parliament it should be rejected because: We do not accept the concept of an ID card as necessary to control social security fraud or tax evasion, It would be an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy and our democratic society, in particular because it being required to work, operate a bank account, enter hospital or enter into any transaction, It would cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on tax payers, It cannot be guaranteed that the aggregated private information would not be misused for other purposes, The people of Australia should be fully informed and consulted in a referendum before legislation for any such change with such wide-ranging effect is considered, and We call upon the Government to cease immediately any endeavour to introduce this invasion upon our lives. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable house direct that the existing 4 (c4) zoning on the Kurnell Peninsula, in New South Wales, be removed and that this be replaced by a zoning more appropriate to the unique ecology of the area and to the historical significance of the Kurnell Peninsula, being the birthplace of the nation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, noting that: the South African occupation of Namibia was declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in 1971; South Africa, in defiance of international opinion, continues to illegally and brutally occupy Namibia and to enforce the system of Apartheid in that country; Australia, as a Member of the United Nations Council for Namibia, has special responsibilities towards the people of Namibia; Call upon the Australian Government to immediately: Withdraw diplomatic recognition from the racist South African regime and close their Embassy in Canberra, Extend full diplomatic recognition to the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO), the sole and authentic representatives of the people of Namibia. Institute total and mandatory economic, sporting and cultural sanctions against South Africa and Namibia, provide substantial material and financial aid to SWAPO to assist in their work with refugees and in their ongoing struggle for independence, Pressure the South African regime in all ways possible to withdraw from Namibia, allowing free and fair elections in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 435. by Mr Duncan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia: (1) Are among the majority of Australians who are in favour of the Government's Australia Card proposal; (2) Want the Government to pursue the introduction of the Card on our behalf. (3) Condemn the actions of Opposition Members and Senators in obstructing the bill and denying us a national form of identification. Your petitioners therefore request that continued efforts be made towards more fairness and equity in the taxation and welfare systems by the introduction of the Australia Card. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled. The humble petition of these Electors showeth that as: In Australia, tobacco kills about four times as many people as the total killed by drink, drugs, murder, suicide, road accidents, rail accidents, air accidents, poisoning, drowning, fires, snakes, lightning, and every other known cause of accidental death all put together. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will prove your worth with effectual action against the promotion of tobacco. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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. This cut has reduced the base for future adjustments. The Government has promised to restore the base as soon as economic circumstances permit. Having regard to state of the economy as portrayed by members of the Government during the recent election campaign, your petitioners humbly pray that the Government restore the pension base in the 1987 budget. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. We consider that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. We therefore ask the House to take action to prevent the implementation of this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, call upon the Government to: 1. obtain from the French Government some form of commitment, which is recognised under international law, that they will not test nuclear devices at the Kerguelen Islands 2. bring this matter to the attention of the United Nations Assembly, if no such commitment is obtained 3. impose trade restrictions on France, including a ban on uranium sales, until a legal commitment is obtained. by Mr Prosser. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office Agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any 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 Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, are concerned that the Australian Government is in breach of its own stated objectives of working towards the UN target of 0.7% of GNP for overseas aid. We therefore request a restoration of the Aid allocation to the 1985 level of 0.46% of GNP in the 1987-88 budget as the first step towards this target. And, your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Your petitioners respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Identity Card, to be the Australia Card, and 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 Mrs Sullivan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W., or any site within Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights or within Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain Northern Region Careproviders Association, Inc. draws to the attention of the House Part III Division III Section 33 of the Children's Services Act which states: A person who proposes for monetary or other consideration to care for not more than ``Three Children Under the Age of Six Years''. Your petitioners therefore pray that this be changed to ``Three Children Under the Age of Five Years'' Careproviders feel that once a Child begins school we should be able to take another full time child in their place otherwise our earning potential is cut by a third. by Mr Bilney. 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 petitions of the undersigned citizens of Maranoa respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to time local telephone calls gravely concerns all country people. Isolation and communication was the second biggest problems facing rural women according to the ``Survey of Rural Women'' questionnaire and any attempt at timing local calls will add to this problem, not decrease it. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that Telecom do not proceed with the timing of local telephone calls. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The humble petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House, the Federal Government's proposal to legislate in favour of the introduction of the I.D. Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will vote against this legislation, and oppose it with every means at your disposal. by Mr Peter Fisher. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The irresponsibility of the Hawke/Keating Government in adopting a high risk economic strategy. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(3.07) —Mr Deputy Speaker, you have read the terms of the matter of public importance and, as those listening to the broadcast will know, this is a difficult day for Australia and for many Australians in view of what has transpired on our stock markets. This is not, of course, confined to Australia. It would be easy for an opposition to come into the House to blame the Government and to dump it on the Government, implying, or indeed stating explicitly, that this is all the fault of the Government. But the Opposition is not doing that. What we want to do, among other things, is to ensure that this Government starts to focus on the fundamentals relating to the Australian economy so that Australia can emerge from the current stock market downturn with our economic fundamentals sound. Why has the Opposition raised this matter of public importance? Why not just fade away after Question Time and say nothing? Because the reality is that this Government has been pursuing a very high risk economic strategy, and that risk has become even more evident and even greater today. This is no time for panic. It is no time for inciting a rush into dumping this matter on the Government. But it is a time for a hard-nosed appraisal and for the Government to recognise that its economic strategy has been wrong. It is a time for the bluff to end. It is a time for the bluster to end. It is a time for the gratuitous lecturing to other countries regarding their economies to end. Indeed, it is simply a time to face reality. The Government, through its high risk economic strategy, has failed to protect Australia from adverse developments in the world economy. Every few days we have been reminded of the perilous state of the Australian economy-even more so today; although, as I say to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who has just entered the chamber, I am not dumping on the Government the fall on the stock market today. But for months the Opposition has been focusing on the slow pace of adjustment of the Government's policies to cope with our huge and growing foreign debt. We have been joined in our criticism not only by a number of commentators detached from this scene, but also by the Labor Government's own Minister for Finance, Senator Peter Walsh, who raised the spectre of moving `further down the Argentinean road'. Now we are reminded once again of the consequences of the Government's failure to grasp the nettle on both fiscal and wages policies, of its failure to muster the political courage to rein in the public sector demand and to keep our costs of production in line with those of our overseas competitors. As the Opposition has repeatedly said, the Government's economic policy leaves no margin for manoeuvre in the event of disruptions to world trade or a downturn in our terms of trade. It also leaves us in no position to cope with any fall-out from the current dramatic fall in prices on the stock exchanges around the world. As I said, this is no time to panic. But maybe it is a time for the Government to recognise that its strategy is wrong. It is just too risky. Take a line through last Friday. Only last Friday we received the September balance of payments figures. Australia's huge net foreign debt continued to grow at an unsustainable rate when the current account deficit deteriorated to $1.35 billion, nearly as large as the $1.39 billion recorded in July of this year. Overall, the balance of payments figures for September were bad news for Australia. They cast doubt on the pace of adjustment on external account and highlighted the incredibly risky strategy adopted by the Government, especially with regard to fiscal and wages policies. Friday's figures indicate that the favourable result recorded for August, I regret to say, may well have been just a fluke. With a deficit of $681m for goods and services, Australia continued to borrow during September just to pay the interest on its net foreign debt, a foreign debt that under this Labor Government has quadrupled, putting us into a position of borrowing not just to try to retire debt-forget that; it is growing all the time-but simply to pay the interest on our net foreign debt. On the export side, exports of metal, metal manufactures, machinery and transport equipment contributed to the decline in total exports. The decrease in manufactured exports raised important questions about the contribution of the manufacturing sector to the adjustment process. Most disturbing was the large increase in imports. I listened carefully to what the Treasurer had to say at Question Time. I agree with him that, if there is some importation of plant and equipment, then down the line there could be some benefit for us. That might have been the only good sign in the figures. But the reality is that if the Government had cut expenditure and public demand, we would have been able to bring in that equipment without an imbalance in our figures. In seasonally adjusted terms, imports in September were at their highest level for 12 months. Well, the Government failed to make substantial cuts in expenditure, leaving little room for expansion in private sector demand, including investment demand, without leading to an increase in imports. At the same time, the rapid increase in unit labour costs continues to erode our competitiveness. The poor outlook for productivity reinforces the fundamental failure of the Government's policy to generate sufficient net exports to service our huge and growing net foreign debt. As I said on Friday, the Government continues to adopt a high risk strategy by not forcing the pace of adjustment on our domestic policies in the face of our high and growing external debt. Now, in the face of a bad news economic day for Australia, the Government must think again. It is time to take another serious look at investment, the engine for economic growth and for raising our productivity. It is time to look at the reasons why investment in plant and equipment has been in the doldrums in recent years. There has been plenty of investment on paper, but very little in plant and equipment. It has been flat while our foreign debt has grown rapidly. As I say, we have borrowed to finance public and private consumption. The only way to bring about a recovery in investment in plant and equipment is to cut taxes, to ensure that wages reflect productivity and to reduce interest rates. In all these areas the Government needs to review its policies to place Australia on a sound footing. The Government cannot go through what is transpiring in Australia today and simply allege that it has the greatest this or the greatest that in the history of Federation. Australia's international credit rating was downgraded last year. That ought to have been the impetus for the Government to stop, look at its high risk strategy and make the necessary adjustments. It did not. We are not using today as an occasion for panic; we are using it as a further example of the need for a change in strategy. If we certainly needed to do it before today, in view of today's developments it becomes absolutely essential. The only way to bring about a sustainable and permanent cut in taxes is to reduce government expenditure, which is something the Government has proved incapable of doing. It was interesting to note that while the Treasurer was overseas he made a number of observations about other countries' economies. In particular, he was very critical of the conduct of economic policy in the United States, including its fiscal and wages policies. Yet this Government has failed to bite the bullet and to bring about a significant reduction in government expenditure in real terms. This Government has failed to rein in public sector demand and has failed to provide enough room for a revival in private sector demand without risking a blowout in our imports. In addition, after the Treasurer criticised the United States for its wages policy, we should look at this Government's wages policy. This Government has failed to negotiate a wages policy which will maintain our international competitiveness. This year average weekly earnings are projected to rise for the third year in a row by 6.5 per cent. I find it difficult to comprehend how the Government can have the gall to criticise other countries' wages policies when we have such an abysmal record. Indeed, the Treasurer appears to be grasping at straws as it becomes more and more obvious that the Government's high risk economic strategy may not pay off. I have said previously, but it is worth saying again, that if everything turned out well Australia might slip by. But as I said a few weeks ago in here, if one thing went wrong, the outlook could be very much worse. That was said before today, and how true it is. The two crucial areas that the Government has to address are its fiscal and wages policies. The Budget was, as we said last month, a missed opportunity, an illusion. The Government barely started to wind back expenditure. By further reducing public sector demand, we would have had more margin for manoeuvre in the private sector and in the demand for imports. The reality and the need is to reduce government expenditure and to release those resources, both labour and capital, from the public to the private sector. This will allow the movement of labour and capital from the non-tradable public sector to the tradable goods sector, thereby underpinning the adjustment effort and, of course, leading to an increase in domestic savings and therefore reducing the need for foreign borrowing to finance investment. These are the things that the Opposition today, without rancour and without wishing to beat up what is transpiring in the stock markets of the world, is saying to the Government. Its strategy is one of high risk. It must take note of where it is taking us. The risks inherent in the Government's fiscal policy are undoubtedly matched by the risks in its wages policy. It simply has not been able to deliver a substantial cut in the rate of inflation. The topics of wage increases and, to a large extent, the rate of inflation have become increasingly politicised in Australia. The Government's wages policy has impeded the pace of adjustment on our current account and contributed significantly to our foreign debt problem. Rising unit labour costs have made our exports and import substitutes less competitive on world markets, and have therefore contributed to the current account deficit. Again, it is all very well for the Treasurer to say that real unit labour costs have declined and that net exports have improved in recent years. But with a more effective wages policy, with a system that limited wage increases to increases in productivity, net exports would have improved much more rapidly and our foreign debt would not be so large. Let us hope that the Government shows a great deal more courage in negotiating wages for 1988-89 than it has shown in cutting expenditure in the 1987-88 Budget. In fact, it will get its chance tomorrow, with the national wage case hearing, to show some resolve in tackling, at this stage, what is one of our most important economic problems. It would be interesting to know whether the Treasurer will tell us today what the Government's attitude will be tomorrow; for much undoubtedly hangs on it. If the Government had followed more prudent economic policies, if it had cut government expenditure and ensured that wages were set subject to market forces, we would have been in an infinitely stronger position; that is, lower domestic demand and a more competitive cost structure would have provided a fundamentally stronger balance of payments. We could have coped with any downturn in world economic activity. That is what I mean when I say that we have no margin for manoeuvre. Under the Government's economic strategy we have been operating on the knife's edge, sailing very close to the margin of error. We have relied too heavily on foreign investors to finance our slow pace of adjustment rather than taking the tough domestic economic policy decisions. As I said at the outset, we may not be dumping it on the Government but we are saying, `Look at the nature of this high risk strategy that you are following'. The tragedy is that the strategy is one of high risk not only for the Government but also for Australia. It is Australians, and not just the wealthy-it is Australians, and not just the Government-who will suffer. Remember that in the past in this House the Treasurer alleged that the stock market was rising because of government policies. While I doubt whether at root the reverse is the case, nevertheless the Treasurer's own words from the past will have to be faced by him. However, today I have concentrated on the risk that he and the Government have imposed on Australia. The Budget of last month was a missed opportunity. But I trust opportunities will not be missed in the near future as the Government perseveres, as it has to date, with this high risk strategy. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.22) —It is rather like living through a time warp; listening here to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), it is as though the last election campaign just weeks ago never occurred. With all the gall that he can muster and all the cheek that only a Liberal can muster, he talks about the pace of adjustment. Yet at the last election he and the Liberal Party of Australia proposed that the way we could respond to a fall in our terms of trade and our national income was with an unfunded tax cut, which would have blown out the Budget deficit and given a false lift to Australian living standards. That was not nine years ago; that was nine weeks ago. That was Opposition policy. We remember how last year in debates in the House the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said, `You wait and see our tax policies'. He sat back smugly and said, `We will fight the election on tax. You wait and see our tax policies'. To paraphrase what he said, it was, `You wait and see the great grab bag of promises we will pull out right at the death to try to beat you over the electoral wire'. We did wait and what we saw was the Australian public reject for the first time ever the promise of a massive unfunded tax cut. The people knew it had nothing to it; they knew it would destroy our economy and the pace of economic adjustment. Here the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, just returned from another defeat with the most incredible economic policy that any major party has mounted in recent electoral history in this country, uses the incredible, indeed foolish, expression of a high risk strategy about a government which has taken the Budget deficit from 3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) to zero in 18 months-something that no other government in the Western world has done and that no other government in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is within cooee of. That is simply a fact of life, not an argument. Around the world people respect the work this Government has done to make the rapid adjustments that Australia has made. But as late as this morning, on the front steps of Parliament House, the Leader of the Opposition said: As far as the Opposition is concerned, our general approach of the last election of being in favour of smaller Government and lower taxation remains. In other words, he is not recanting. He still wants to cut taxes. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in his contribution, said that the Opposition believes it will cut taxes. On the one hand he says that we are not reducing the Budget deficit to surplus quickly enough but, on the other hand, he wants the luxury of saying, in the same contribution, how the Opposition would cut taxes and therefore lift the Budget deficit, without offsetting cuts to outlays. Of course, when the test came in the election campaign and members of the Opposition were asked how the Opposition would fund its reductions in revenue, and hence the increase in the deficit by cuts to outlays, they were mute. They had a handful of nothing. They spoke about the incentive effects and the supply side effects. When that express thing happened in the United States of America-unfunded tax cuts-it led to one of the major economic imbalances in the world, the United States Budget deficit. We have this mindless parroting that only Liberals can do about the Government's high risk strategy. Last year we had domestic demand decreasing-in the negative; this year it is growing modestly. It is the third year of net export contribution to growth. We have made a $7 billion permanent structural change in the balance of payments coming from three years of net export contribution, a 10 per cent decline in real unit labour costs and a Budget deficit of nearly 5 per cent of GDP brought to zero, but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition calls it bluff and bluster. In other words, when left with the poison chalice of a Budget deficit of 5 per cent of GDP, a terms of trade slide, and with it a lift in the inflation rate, and massive cuts to outlays and to wages, what we have done is all bluff and bluster according to the honourable member for Kooyong. I simply say that if that is the best the Opposition can do it will remain as incredible as it is. It is a joke on Wall Street. It is a joke in Frankfurt. It is a joke in London. It does not matter where one goes, whenever the Opposition is mentioned there are smiles and nods. I am told, `Let's forget them; they're finished'. And the Opposition is finished while ever we have this sort of response. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to get all his phrases and lines right and to get the strategy into his head, but one will notice from the contributions he makes that he is short on policy changes. Where would the Opposition cut outlays greater than this Government has? Where would it take what he calls the missed opportunity of the last Budget? Outlays were minus 2.5 per cent. It is the first consecutive fall in outlays in 35 years but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the stupid hide and gall to say it is bluff and bluster. However, the House will notice that there is no talk from him about where the Opposition would cut outlays. We also have this nonsense about how the Opposition would tie wage increases to productivity. There was a 16 per cent increase in wages in its last year in government. There was no attempt at a wages policy. There was no attempt at dialogue with the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). The rhetoric of the Opposition's election campaign was about union power. I can see the Opposition getting a great reception from the ACTU when it says to it, `Let's sit down to discuss wage increases tied only to productivity, but we will boot you to death every time we see you'. I mean, really! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that the Government's strategies are bluff and bluster, that we are failing to protect Australia, that we lack the political courage to rein in public sector demand. We have public sector demand growing in the negative by the biggest factors in memory. We have the biggest cuts to outlays in memory-the only two consecutive falls in 35 years. In other words, he is saying, `If this is black, we will call it white; and if it's white, we will call it black'. That is not what the debate ought to be made of. If the Opposition wants to turn over a new leaf from its irresponsible policies of the election campaign it should say, `We wish to take more of the adjustment on wages or fiscal policy in these ways'. But it will not say that. It tries to undermine the Government's work by trying to suggest that the adjustments are not adequate or that the Government has fallen down on the job of making the economic adjustments in Australia when they are entirely ambitious. Then I get this line about gratuitous advice to other governments. A hell of a lot of market sentiment shares my view this week-perhaps not last week-about the state of American fiscal policy. I would not want to be making policy the way Secretary Baker has had to make it, flying from Washington to Bonn as the markets start to slide. All that has happened because the United States trade accounts are not responding adequately. We have seen the market sentiment to that and the rise in interest rates. The fact is that the state of growth around the world and policy imbalances-- Mr Ian Cameron —Ours are exactly the same. Mr KEATING —The honourable member should listen in silence and have some courtesy. The policy imbalances between these major countries is of national moment to Australia. Our obligation is not to wander around the world saying, `There is a massive trade imbalance between the United States and Japan which could be worked out in Australia's disfavour by bilateral deals between the two countries or, perhaps more significantly, by choking off exports from Japan to the United States'. Should we say, `Oh, we are not going to comment on that. We will get chopped up on the way through, but we will not say anything; it is not our place to comment on it.'? Of course it is our place to comment on it. And the United States, like Australia, ought to be making the complementary shifts not just in the exchange rate, seeing the burden being taken on the exchange rate, but also in fiscal policy. Policy flexibility ought to be enhanced in Europe as well. Those are things which countries such as this one should say. I am not prepared, unlike the honourable member for Kooyong, to be obsequious and fawning at international meetings. I go to such meetings to put Australia's view and Australia's national interest. The view that I put, when asked whether we can have exchange rate stability, was that we could not unless there was more policy flexibility and that without such flexibility the world of imbalances would end up with slower rates of growth over time, which must affect our terms of trade. That view which I put, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might have found a novel thing for me to have said last week, is not novel this week. People are saying that the adjustments are not moving quickly enough. The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States had to say yesterday, `I think the dollar ought to fall further'-in other words, `There is a greater need for adjustment of our trade accounts. We cannot get it out of fiscal policy, so I will tell the markets. I will fly to Bonn and check the story. I will tell the markets that the dollar ought to fall further'. That is precisely what I said; that if there was not an adjustment to fiscal policy the United States dollar would have to decline further. It is no good the honourable member for Kooyong saying that I am making gratuitous comments about other countries. The Government is saying, `We are making the adjustments here; others should do the same; and if there is flexibility in terms of the policy prescriptions the world will be a better place and we will not see Japanese industry choked off by a cross-rate with the United States dollar which freezes Japan's exports'. The fact of the matter is that Japanese industry is adjusting so quickly that the view about now is that it will still prosper at a cross-rate of about 125 yen to the dollar. So even the exchange rate-the cross-rate between the United States dollar and the yen-will not be of sufficient magnitude as an instrument to change the trade balance without complementary domestic policy shifts such as those Australia has introduced. It is just pointless for the honourable member for Kooyong to say, `It is political bluster' and to make such inane remarks as, `The Government is not making progress on inflation'. We have been through a 30 per cent price change with the depreciation from an induced collapse in the terms of trade. Of course there is an unavoidable rise in inflation. But, as we indicated in the Budget Papers, as a result of our wages policy, that will come back to about 6 per cent by the end of this financial year, whereas the United States is moving up to about 6 per cent. So that inflation differential between us and the rest of the world is closing very rapidly. Why should the honourable member suggest that it is not closing? Why try to say that black is white? The gap between us and the rest of the world is closing. The fact of the matter is this: we had an inflation rate of up to 9 per cent while the rest of the world had around 3 per cent; the rest of the world is now moving up and we are moving down. That is called closing. So for the honourable member to have made that suggestion about inflation is inane-stupid. Let me deal with some of the other points which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made. He talked about the pace of adjustment and the policies which the Government is pursuing. The fact is that the Opposition cannot put any views on economic policy until it puts its own house in order. The Opposition has to sit John Howard down and have him say, `That opportunist grab-bag of things we ran with at the election is a dud. We are being horse-laughed in every financial market around the world and our political reputation is in tatters unless we junk these policies'-it is probably in tatters even if the Opposition does junk it-`therefore we will have a new policy'. The Opposition has to go through a bit of that soul searching, just as the Australian Labor Party has had to do, and then honourable members opposite can come back here and say, `This is our policy', and we will see what they have. But they should not come here saying, `This is bluff and bluster. The pace of adjustment is not fast enough. The Government is giving gratuitous advice to other governments'. Nine weeks ago honourable members opposite were running to the wire thinking that they would beat us at a poll by offering tax cuts which every single honourable member opposite knew were irresponsible and would have destroyed the exchange rate. They could ask anyone when they travel about. It would be very instructive for honourable members opposite to do the rounds of the City of London saying, `What do you think would have happened about fiscal policy in Australia if the Liberals had won the election?' They would be told, `Forget it. The exchange rate would have just gone to pieces and interest rates would have gone through the roof'. That is the snap response from every person in the market. That is where honourable members opposite stand. They have had it. They are in strife. If they could sit down and think about a sensible structure, they could come back and then, by all means, we could have a debate. But they should not come in with this sort of low-brow stuff about bluff and bluster and risky strategy. Is it a risky strategy that brings about the biggest fiscal cut ever? Let us look at what honourable members opposite left us-double digit inflation, the biggest fiscal imbalance in our history and double digit unemployment. Honourable members opposite wiped out our manufacturing sector and we are now rebuilding it all. They overvalued the exchange rate and murdered the farm sector they claim to protect. They murdered farmers' incomes; they cut them to ribbons. We have had to pick up from there with a 20 per cent terms of trade collapse, but honourable members opposite say, `No, that is not enough'. Even though they left us with a $10 billion Budget deficit they say that a balanced Budget is not good enough; it has to be in surplus. They say that a minus 2 1/2 per cent growth in outlays is not good enough. Honourable members opposite are wasting my time and their own. Mr Peacock —What an inept performance. Did you drop your dough today on the market? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Peacock —There has to be some reason for that pathetic exhibition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know well enough that one does not continue to interject after being called to order. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(3.37) —I am afraid that I must agree with my colleague the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). I think the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was well off his game today. Perhaps he was quite concerned about the consequences for his Government's economic policy of changes in international markets. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said, today is not a day to promote panic; it is a day to sit down and calmly and coolly analyse Australia's position within the world economy, what the likely prospects for Australia are, and what the consequences of the Labor Government's policies are and what options we have. I was astounded to hear the Treasurer suggest that it is only the Opposition parties that are suggesting that Australia under the Australian Labor Party is running a high risk economic policy. That could not be further from the truth. For the benefit of all honourable members, I would like to quote from a letter written by Professor Arndt which was published in the Australian Financial Review of 21 September. Professor Arndt was commenting on the Treasurer's Budget and referring to the facts that the Australian dollar had risen and that the banks had reduced housing loan rates. He said: How could this happen in an economy with a foreign debt (gross) of more than $A110 billion and still rising, with a current account deficit still well over $A10 billion a year and unlikely to fall below this figure next year or the year after . . . Only on Friday last week we saw how significant and how deep-seated our balance of trade problem is. He referred to Australia as a country where the inflation rate is still 9 per cent. Only in the past 24 hours we saw the Treasurer hedging on his undertaking to reduce the inflation rate to 6 per cent in the coming financial year. Professor Arndt described our economy as one in which the unemployment rate is still 8.5 per cent-and the Budget forecasts for this year suggest that there will be no impact on the level of unemployment. He refers to an economy in which productive capital investment is at a record low level for many years. Professor Arndt went on to say: The answer is capital inflow from abroad in the form of public and private sector borrowing, foreign equity and other portfolio investment on Australian stock exchanges and direct investment in Australian real estate and companies. Obviously Professor Arndt believes, as I do, that the Government's Budget strategy is what could be described in a corporate sense as a cash flow financing exercise, based on borrowings, both public and private, from overseas and a continuing massive growth in government tax revenues-a growth of the order of 75 per cent in the past five years. Professor Arndt draws attention to the risks of this capital inflow basis for our Budget. He says: The inflow has been stimulated by high Australian interest rates and a low Australian dollar, but in the main it seems to reflect a degree of confidence by overseas investors in profit opportunities in Australian stock exchange, real estate and other investment, and more generally in the health of the Australian economy which, given its actual state, is almost inexplicable. Professor Arndt poses the question: What if the confidence should wane? . . . while capital keeps coming in we can finance the current account deficit, balance the Budget and let the stock market set ever-higher records. That seems quite prophetic in the light of the events of today and yesterday. Professor Arndt concludes: But what if the house of cards collapses. That is what Professor Arndt, Professor of Economics at the Australian National University, had to say. Only a few moments ago, the Treasurer said it was only the Opposition that could suggest that Australia has embarked upon a high risk economic strategy. Let me tell the Treasurer that Professor Arndt and many respected economists both within Australia and overseas believe that Australia's economic position and the economic policies of this Government should be reviewed. Quite recently, the Canberra Times, quoting a number of journals interested in the economic situation both internationally and in Australia, highlighted the problems. In relation to the Asian Wall Street Journal, it said: While the September trade figures were the main cause of the dramatic day's trading, the markets were unsettled before the figures' release by a news report appearing in The Asian Wall Street Journal. The front-page- of the Asian Wall Street Journal, an internationally respected journal- suggested that overseas investments in Australia should be sold because of the likelihood of a further deterioration in the economy and the haunting spectre of an increasing rate of inflation. In the light of that evidence it is astounding that the Treasurer can come into this House and, in the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, indulge in something far removed from a rational economic debate and more closely aligned to what was described by the honourable member for Kooyong as simply bluff and bluster. That is exactly what we heard from the Treasurer today, only it was hesitant bluff and bluster. Observers of this chamber will know that quite often the Treasurer comes in here oozing with confidence. Today he did not have that confident approach-he was hesitant, he was not quite sure how to handle this debate. He sought to use his 15 minutes without making any comments which would commit him and the Government to any particular line and cause any reaction in the markets, and he sought somehow to get out of the chamber before he had to say anything significant. But the Treasurer knows, just as we all know in this chamber, that there is growing disquiet about the way the Government is handling the economy of this country. Senator Peter Walsh was the first member of the Government to blow the whistle. His statements were quite sensible but they were denied by the Treasurer and by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Prime Minister really had no choice: he either had to sack the Treasurer, a member of his own faction and a supporter of his prime ministership, and appoint Senator Walsh as Treasurer, or sack Senator Walsh. He did not want to do either. He did not want to sack Walsh and he did not want to sack the Treasurer, so he attempted to say that really Senator Walsh did not mean it; his comments were not serious, they were anachronistic. The Prime Minister said the Government had addressed all those problems. Of course that is rubbish. This Government has not addressed any of the hard decisions. It has not addressed its level of expenditure. It has sought to finance its profligate expenditure programs, demonstrating its inability to take hard decisions, by continuing to tax the Australian middle class. That is why government revenue has gone up by 75 per cent in five years; that is why the Budget projects that income tax revenue will go up by nearly 9 per cent in the coming 12 months. Only last weekend the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) addressed some of the failings of the Government. He said that the Government is full of tough words when it comes to the workers and the pensioners, but, when it comes to being flaunted with conspicuous consumption and displays of massive wealth, this Government is necessarily quiet. Last night, when addressing a conference of the Metal Trades Industry Association, the Treasurer acknowledged that there were flaws in his tax policy. They are major and serious flaws, I might add. They are flaws which actually encourage certain parts of the Australian corporate sector to maximise interest rate deductions in Australia and minimise profits made in Australia. He is actually encouraging borrowing by the private sector, with the obligation to pay the interest on those borrowings, often overseas, and encouraging them to ensure that their profits are maximised overseas. Yet this same Treasurer was trenchant in his criticism of certain small investors in the Australian economy indulging in negative gearing borrowings to finance their investments. When it comes to the corporate sector, when it comes to the large scale corporate operators, this Government turns a blind eye to it. It has an inherent double standard-a double standard that applies not only to that section of the economy but also to those people who are of more modest means. It is a double standard which allows it to use bracket creep to finance its expenditure programs, yet talk about the declining living standards of Australians and a growing crisis in consumer debt. More appropriate than a talk fest on consumer debt would be a serious inquiry into Australia's levels of foreign debt and the implications of that for our future economic policy and what it means for the living standards of Australians in the future. We should be reviewing not only public but also private debt. The Hawke Government has an appalling record. Because of its double standards we have seen in the course of its term in office an additional 700,000 people go into poverty. Yet the Government's back bench is ranting and raving about an inquiry into wealth as a prelude to introducing some sort of wealth tax. We have seen honourable members opposite talk about the need to ensure equity in the Australian economy, yet after the Government's family assistance package there will still be 500,000 people in poverty. There are 100,000 people homeless in Australia, and 150,000 people on public housing waiting lists. It would be appropriate for this Government to review Australia's situation in terms of recent developments in the world economy and to review its policies, including its expenditure policy and its wages policy. What will be its attitude at the national wage case hearing tomorrow? It should review its tax policies to make sure that they are equitable and fair, and it should review its attitude to borrowing, particularly its own borrowings overseas. No longer can this Government rely on cash flow to finance its policies. It has to come to grips with effective fiscal, wages and tax policies. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(3.47) —In the more than 4 1/2 years that I have been a member of this House I have heard on many occasions, and covering the whole spectrum of government policy, essentially the same speech emanate from the Opposition. That speech, as honourable members will be well aware, is simply an ad nauseam, repetitious criticism of whatever Government policy is before the House. Rarely, if at all, has this House been treated to the dubious distinction of having put forward by the Opposition realistic alternative policy prescriptions. In today's debate, particularly on such an important day in economic terms, I would have expected much more of the supposedly revitalised Opposition. Anyone who undertakes a cursory reading of the speeches put forward to the House on this matter of public importance would have his worst fears confirmed; that is, that the Opposition has come nowhere since the last election. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) more than adequately addressed some of the failures of this discredited Opposition when it was in government, and he has also articulated in the past, as have others on this side of the House, the extent to which those failed policies provided an unfortunate underpinning for Australia's wider economy. One need only reflect on the absence of a wages policy in 1981-82. I have been reading, in relation to another matter, some of the old national wage cases, and the sheer absence of policy during that time was a matter of almost criminal negligence. There was an embarrassing vacuum in terms of the previous Government's policy making processes, and consequently we saw the wages explosion of 1981 and 1982 and the subsequent economic collapse. The overvalued exchange rate is the first resort of the economic scoundrel when the hard decisions cannot be made, so we saw the subsequent decimation of Australia's manufacturing sector and, of course, in excess of 200,000 people were thrown on to the dole queues in less than 12 months. To top it all off-the icing on the cake in terms of economic irresponsibility-a prospective deficit of some $9.6 billion was ceded to the incoming Labor Government. One can go through those debates ad nauseam. I think most people in Australia and overseas accept the fact that in the latter stages of the previous Government there was a total collapse in terms of its ability to formulate appropriate, contemporary policies for what was happening in the Australian economy. But be that as it may, a more important failure has emerged since that unfortunate period. Since I have been a member of this House time and time again the Opposition has come into this chamber with a series of contradictory critiques of whatever the Government was on about. Today has been no exception to that broad approach. For example, the Opposition has been talking about tax policy. On 17 October 1987, the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), stated to the Liberal Party New South Wales Division State Council: I have not seen the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party and the Federal Opposition generally working in a more united and cohesive fashion at any time during the past four and a half years more so than it has during the past months. He went on to reinforce his submission that this great united party was coming to terms with its role of opposition. But contemporaneously with his putting that view, the shadow Minister for Finance, Senator Stone, reiterated the National Party policy on a 25 per cent flat tax. He was totally at odds with the position embraced by the parliamentary Liberal Party. Once again this focused attention on the chronic inability of the Opposition to bring to the very important issues that Australia currently faces a united and well-thought out position. The $18 billion credibility gap is still there and it will not be resolved until the coalition parties can put forward one particular policy framework. It is not only my view that those policies are irresponsible: the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) is obviously at odds with his new finance spokesman as he said, when those policies were put forward by the outgoing Premier of Queensland during the election campaign, that some 80 per cent of Australians would be required to pay more tax. That is a view of the implications of that policy with which I heartily agree. On 20 June 1987, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), stated: Flat tax was never real . . . it is a little like flat earth I think . . . simply unachievable. So there are fundamental and ongoing conflicts in the policy formation of the Opposition. Let me go to some of the important issues. Mr Ian Cameron —What is your policy? All you have done is put up taxes-$5.5 billion since August last year. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will cease interjecting. Mr Ian Cameron —Well, I get sick of all this hogwash that goes on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member for Maranoa has more cheek than the rear end of an elephant. Time and time again, in representing his constituency, he comes into this chamber and-- Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. You have warned the honourable member for Maranoa which means that he cannot answer. That cowardly young man knows it, and he then insults him. He should be asked to withdraw what he has said and to proceed with his speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for North Sydney knows as well as I do that what was said by the honourable member for Maribyrnong was not unparliamentary. It might not have been the right thing to say. Despite the fact that the honourable member for Maranoa has been warned and does not have the right to interject, the honourable member for North Sydney should know as well as I do that no one has the right to interject at any time. Mr GRIFFITHS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise to the rear end of an elephant for drawing that-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maribyrnong will not pursue that line. Mr GRIFFITHS —I withdraw that comment, Mr Deputy Speaker. I again go to the substance of my contribution. I say in passing that the office of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has been relocated. I understand that he was located on the third floor but the attendants thought it might be safer if, for the next week or so, he was brought down to ground level least he be persuaded, in light of the collapse of the share markets, to step out of his office window. We are looking after his interests in that regard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maribyrnong will stick to the matter before the House. Mr GRIFFITHS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a constitutional inability not to respond to vigorous interjections. I will try to restrain myself for the latter part of this speech. In terms of the Government's approach to the important issues confronting this country, we have not relied only on cuts to domestic demand, which is the usual and easiest prescription for responding to a current account deficit of the order that we face. That, by definition, is a temporary measure and it does not go to the fundamentals. It addresses symptoms, not causes, and in my submission and that of the Government it is an inappropriate policy response. Our central objective in terms of economic policy is to make export expansion and import substitution our nation's primary economic challenge. The whole focus of economic policy formulation has been addressed to those twin, and very important, fundamental objectives. We are not, as was the previous Government, hiding behind artificial tariff barriers and so on. We have a wages policy, unlike the Opposition. The two-tier approach has, as a central component, a mechanism to try to improve productivity, to improve work practices and, hence, to confront the challenges of our much needed export expansion. As a corollary there have been improvements in the social wage. In terms of employment creation-the major and most fundamental mechanism to attack poverty in this country-our Government has a record that stands second to none. There has been a 30 per cent improvement in export opportunities and a 30 per cent improvement in the trade weighted index for the Australian dollar for those who are increasingly moving to export tradable goods. The balanced domestic Budget in 1986-87 is almost unique in any country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and compares favourably with the 5 per cent deficit in prospect when we came to government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Consideration resumed from 15 September, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 15 September, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 8 October. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 1, clause 1, line 5, leave out ``Loans'', insert ``Loan''. No. 2-Page 2, clause 3, definitions of ``next financial year'', ``relevant appropriation Act'' and ``supply period'', line 1 to 19, leave out the definitions, insert the following definition: `` `relevant appropriation Act', in relation to the current financial year, means: (a) the Supply Act (No. 1) 1987-88; or (b) an Act, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Act, appropriating the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the service of that financial year, being an Act that is expressed to have effect subject to this Act.''. No. 3-Page 2, subclause 4 (2), lines 31 to 38, leave out the subclause. No. 4-Page 2, subclause 4 (3), line 39, leave out ``or (2)''. No. 5-Page 3, subclause 5 (2), lines 7 to 11, leave out the subclause. No. 6-Page 4, subclauses 9 (2) and (3), lines 9 to 21, leave out the subclauses, insert the following subclauses: ``(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the expenditure of money appropriated under the heading `ADVANCE TO THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE' in a relevant appropriation Act for the current financial year. ``(3) Nothing in this Act shall be taken to authorise expenditure (otherwise than for the expenses of borrowing) after 30 June 1988.''. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(3.59) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The purpose of the Loans Bill 1987 is to make provision for the financing of the prospective Budget deficit in 1987-88 together with the associated prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Senate has returned the Bill to the House with amendments moved by the Opposition and supported by the Australian Democrats which effectively remove the Supply provisions from the legislation. As the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), who represents the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), indicated in his second reading speech, those Supply provisions were included to obviate the need for urgent passage each year for what is, in effect, a machinery financing measure and to provide continuity of borrowing authority in the hiatus between the expiry of one Loans Act on 30 June and the commencement of the next Loans Act. This continuity is desirable so as not to close off any possible advantageous borrowing opportunities in overseas markets during the first few months of the financial year. It is unfortunate that Opposition speakers on this Bill have asserted falsely that the inclusion of a Supply provision in this legislation would impinge in some way on the Parliament's ability to debate financing of the Budget deficit, that the inclusion of a limit of defence expenditure appropriated in a Supply Bill is insidious and that the removal of the proposed Supply provisions would leave the Government with the same borrowing authority that it has had on previous occasions. As a reading of the Bill and the associated explanatory memorandum or a rudimentary understanding of parliamentary procedures clearly demonstrates, these assertions are wrong. First, the inclusion of a Supply provision in an annual Loans Bill in no way detracts from Parliament's ability to debate or consider issues raised in that Bill. The Bill will remain an annual measure and in addition to Parliament having the ability to peruse its provisions for annual borrowing authority, the Supply provision would also be subject to scrutiny each year. In this context, the amount included in the Supply Bill for any one year for defence purposes will be subsumed by the larger amount included for defence in the subsequent Appropriation Bill for that year, the latter amount being the limit of authority permitted by the long-standing non-Supply provisions of part II of the annual Loans Act. Furthermore, with the size of the Budget deficit and the estimated borrowing requirements being announced in the Budget Speech and Papers, there is ample opportunity to consider these issues in the lengthy and wide-ranging debate allowed on the Budget. Opposition members have made much of the assertion that removal of the Supply provisions in this Bill would merely restore the status quo. Nothing could be further from the truth. In recent years there have been two changes which have significantly reduced the borrowing authority under the dual Appropriation Acts which could have been drawn upon by governments in the Supply period. First, changed funding arrangements for expenditures on roads, involving the use of a trust fund set up specifically for that purpose, have eliminated the authority previously available under the former Roads Act; and, second, the inclusion of expenditure on housing assistance in the annual Appropriation Bills for 1987-88 demonstrates the volatility of borrowing authority available under the Housing Assistance Act. In current prices, the amount of borrowing authority that would have been available under these arrangements, had they not been changed, would have been of the order of $1,180m in 1987-88. I turn now to the Loans Bill as a whole. Members of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats have laid great store on the importance of this Bill. I agree that the legislation is important, but only in a machinery or accounting sense. I reiterate to the honourable members opposite that it does not provide for additional expenditure; it merely provides the legal authority to finance expenditure that has already been approved by the Parliament. Finally, as the shadow Treasurer acknowledged in 1985, the Opposition's amendments will not add one iota to the power or authority of Parliament. However, through restricting the flexibility of the Government to arrange borrowings at the most advantageous times, they will potentially add to the overall cost of the Commonwealth's borrowings. Any such increases can be clearly laid at the feet of the Opposition and the Democrats. Any reading of the Senate debate and the contributions that were made to that debate by Senator Stone will show that those contributions and the supporting statements of the Leader of the Australian Democrats were an exercise in parliamentary humbug of the most extreme kind. They have done neither themselves nor the Senate any honour. In view of the inflexible and obstructionist behaviour of the Opposition and the Democrats and the need to get the Loans Bill into place quickly for this financial year, the Government has no option but to accept these amendments. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(4.05) —I cannot let the remarks by the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding) about Senator Stone and other honourable senators go unremarked. I think it is quite wrong of the Minister to suggest as he has, in effect, that Senator Stone does not know what he is talking about on this matter. If we were to have a contest between the Minister and Senator Stone on their respective understandings of this particular matter, I would back Senator Stone any day. The fact is that the Government, in a series of proposals on issues of this kind over the last couple of years, has tried to bring in provisions which reduce the amount of parliamentary scrutiny. Senators have quite correctly drawn attention to this. The Australian Democrats have supported the Liberal and National parties in the Senate. Quite properly, the Senate has acted as a House of review and I think that the Minister's remarks are quite petulant and, certainly in the case of his remarks about Senator Stone's contribution, quite unworthy. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 15 September, on motion by Mr Duncan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(4.07) —The Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987 seeks to amend the Australian Land Transport Act by reducing the amount of excise collected through the Australian land transport program trust fund in order to hold total Federal road finance at $1,245m for 1987-88. This is the fourth year in a row that expenditure on roads has been held at that level. This Bill gives effect to an announcement in the May statement. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill. However, we on this side of the House condemn the Government for its lack of commitment to important spending on infrastructure. It is a major fault of this Government that it has continued to ignore cries from a very significant number of Australians of all political persuasions for government to get out of their lives, to stop interfering with them in every conceivable way and to stop spending their money. The failings of big government are now well recognised throughout the world yet this Government refuses to budge on reducing the size of its expenditures. Taxes should be spent on things which only a central government can do and only then on things that a central government can do well, such as on the organisation of large infrastructure developments like appropriate road and transport systems. Until this Government realises that there is not an endless amount of money which can be drawn from the taxpayer to support its bankrupt view of the economy, important and easily identified infrastructure spending, such as that embodied in the Australian land transport program, will remain the target for the Government's Expenditure Review Committee. It does not seem to make any difference to the Government that huge savings could be made by its rationalising ongoing commitments. Further, there are, for example, ongoing commitments to Australian Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd. I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Qantas alone will need $400m over the next five years and Australian Airlines will need several hundred million dollars quickly if it is to re-equip its fleet and compete effectively with the other domestic airline. Qantas and Australian Airlines will need this amount of money, and the Government was not even honest enough in its recent announcement about airline deregulation to state its real intention of steamrolling its left wing at next year's Australian Labor Party Conference so that it can facilitate the sale of Australian Airlines. What is needed in order to prevent these large ongoing commitments of some $400m for Qantas and several hundred million dollars for Australian Airlines is for those bodies to be privatised. We in the Opposition would transfer ownership of Australian Airlines from the public sector to the private sector and sell a minority interest in Qantas. If this were done-and I hope that the Minister at the table, the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding), will take note of this-the Government would not have to find these large amounts of money for these bodies and therefore would have more funds for such important matters as support for Australia's infrastructure. Instead, the Government will continue to make cuts such as those made in this Bill rather than face the real issues of government expenditure. This Government is so intent on regulating every aspect of our lives that it has involved itself in an incredible array of activities in which it need have no involvement. These activities all cost money-taxpayers; money and, most of the time, money from which the taxpayer sees absolutely no return. Unless the Government is prepared to reappraise the way it spends money, Australia's infrastructure will fall down around our ears. Already, sealed country roads in every State are being torn up and returned to gravel because there is insufficient money in the system for their maintenance and refurbishment. Although the States and local government have their part to play, the specific trend of road funding since this Government was first elected in 1983 is a serious degradation of the role of the Commonwealth and represents cuts in road spending in real terms. There are things which a Federal Government can do, and road funding is one of them. If the Government refuses to recognise this responsibility, as it has failed to recognise it in the past four years, there is little doubt that a great national infrastructure asset which has been built up over many years will be seriously damaged. I welcome the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) to the chamber so that he can listen to me and hear about the way in which his Government has let down the Australian people by its failure to maintain expenditure on roads in real terms over the past four years. This Bill is a further indication that this Government will continue to refuse to honour its responsibilities. Effectively, this Bill will reduce the excise by 0.723c per litre as from 1 July 1987 to 3.241c a litre. To add insult to this injury, revenue generated by the balance of the excise before these amendments come into force on 1 July will be paid out of the Australian Land Transport Trust Fund into Consolidated Revenue. On top of this, any investment income which accrues from these moneys while they are held in the Trust Fund will also be paid into Consolidated Revenue. In addition, $1m will be taken out of the Australian land transport program excise to pay for the cost of administering this scheme. We in the coalition accept the principle of cost recovery or user pays, but as is the case with the aviation industry, road freight and many other areas, that cost recovery must be fair and equitable. In effect, as a result of what the Government is proposing in this Bill, spending on roads will be reduced by a further $1m-from $1,245m last year to $1,244m in 1987-88. This is a further erosion of spending on roads not only in dollar terms but also in real terms. All this amounts to an assault on road funding, with the result that Federal road financing in Australia will sink to its lowest level in real terms for many years, with road funding measured as a percentage of total Commonwealth Government outlays. The previous Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, whose reputation after the Amann affair is in tatters, said when introducing the original Bill into the House in 1985: The Bill now before the House will be the foundation upon which our overall approach to transport will be based. It provides a use related basis for determining Federal expenditure on land transport systems. Furthermore, the arrangements incorporate an automatic adjustment to match future inflationary movements as measured by the consumer price index. Let me repeat what the Minister said: . . . the arrangements incorporate an automatic adjustment to match future inflationary movements as measured by the consumer price index. He continued: It guarantees the continuity of the greatest road building program in Australia's history, which has been progressively implemented during our two years of government. Together with the Australian bicentennial roads development program, Federal expenditure on roads will total $1,245m in 1985-86. Later he stated: The Bill establishes a trust fund which will operate on a similar basis to the ABRD Trust Fund. It provides that an indexed share of the existing excise charge on motor spirit and diesel fuel will be paid into the ALTP Trust Fund based on collections from 1 July 1985 until 30 June 1990. The clear implication was that money for roads from this program would be indexed according to inflation from 1 July 1985 until 30 June 1990. Minister Morris further stated in 1985: Specifically, in this Bill we have the fulfilment of this Government's long-standing policy commitment to the improvement of our nation's road system-a system which under conservative governments was starved of essential investment funds. Let us note what the Minister was saying. He was first saying that there would be an automatic adjustment to the moneys appropriated for use on roads. He used the word `indexed' to imply very strongly that the automatic adjustment would be indexed to inflation, and talked about the Government's long-standing policy commitment to the improvement of our nation's road system. Well, if ever a statement was made in this House that ignored so many facts and completely bypassed the Government's intention, it was that one. Four years have gone by and the magical indexation of the Australian land transport program fuel excise remains as elusive as ever. The former Minister gloatingly told this House in 1985 that indexation of this amount would solve all the road financing problems for ever and a day. Unfortunately, it was unable to solve the biggest problem which Australia continues to face, and that is the misleading of the Australian people by this Government. This Bill, like others before it, will wind back the excise to be collected so that the effect of automatic indexation will be eliminated. It is exactly as though we had no indexation at all. The Government commits itself to automatic indexation of fuel excise and then proceeds to wind back the amount of that excise as though indexation did not exist-an extra tax, because the Government collects the money for other purposes and earns interest on it. The amount that is indexed is set aside as an extra tax and taken into Consolidated Revenue. The absence of this hypocritical farce would certainly make it easier for State and local governments trying to plan their road construction programs around the vagaries of this Federal Government's decreasing contribution to road financing. This will be the fourth year in a row that Federal Government road funding has stayed at the same figure in dollar terms-$1,245m. That is setting aside the fact that this year the Government intends, by virtue of moving the administration of the program from the Department to funds taken from the program, to reduce the amount by a further $1m to $1,244m. So not only has the program failed to keep up with inflation, which has been eating away at the $1,245m figure by about 9 per cent per year, but also the Government is reducing the amount in dollar terms by $1m from $1,245m to $1,244m. Mr Cowan —And to build a road costs more than 9 per cent. Mr BEALE —I appreciate the contribution from my friend and colleague. He points out quite rightly that every year this program has been maintained in dollar terms at $1,245m, in real terms it has been effectively worth 9 per cent less. Not only that, but 9 per cent compounded over a four-year period means that spending on roads in real terms has dropped by over 40 per cent. Mr Wright —Nonsense. Mr BEALE —Can the honourable member not do the mathematics? A 9 per cent reduction compounded over four year means a real reduction of 40 per cent. The honourable member will have his opportunity to rebut that. He can be assured that the Australian people can do the multiplication. They know that over the last four years the Government's contribution to roads around Australia in real terms has fallen by over 40 per cent. Mr Saunderson —What was your contribution when you were in government? Mr BEALE —I am talking about this Government's contribution. Its contribution over a four-year period, despite its undertaking to index the funds for roads, has been a drop in real terms of over 40 per cent. What a magnificent achievement for the present Minister to feel good about-a reduction in road funding of more than 40 per cent from the Federal Government! That is hardly an example of appropriate spending priorities or of sensible government. For all the claims this Government has made about how good its record on road funding is, for all the self-congratulation in which the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) is indulging, and for all the road and bridge opening which the media has had to put up with-some roads have been opened twice; on one end of the road and then on the other-the real record of this Government can be seen by looking at road finance expressed as a percentage of total government outlays. There are plenty of other ways of looking at the figures. All of them show the Government in a very bad light, but this figure, in particular, highlights the decreasing importance which this Government has placed on road funding. In the last year of the coalition Government, 1982-83, which was the first year in which the coalition-introduced Australian bicentennial road development program had any effect, road funding accounted for 2.12 per cent of total government outlays. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and the honourable member for Aston would do well to write that figure down. I should add that it was thanks to my colleague the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who was the Minister at the time, that the Australian bicentennial road development program was introduced. Regardless of the vacuous claims Labor loves to make about how it introduced the scheme, when the honourable member for Gwydir introduced the scheme in the Parliament in 1982, members of the present Government sat here and complained wildly about it. This Government has been responsible for one of the greatest rip-offs in road funding ever. That is said mindful of how effective this Government has been at creating this rip-off. By collecting only 2c a litre for the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund levy as part of the general excise collection, the Government has effectively allowed itself to collect the indexed portion of the excise. By the end of the extended program, as a result of the Government collecting the indexed portion of the excise, it will have siphoned over $1 billion straight into Consolidated Revenue. Mr Goodluck —The poor old motorist. Mr BEALE —Although it may be argued that the indexed portion of the money should go to roads, it is obvious that the Government is quite happy to continue to corrupt the scheme and pocket the difference between the money raised by the 2c levy and the indexed portion of the excise. It is not only in the area of cutbacks that this Government is doing the wrong thing. It is also ripping off the taxpayer and, in this case, as my friend the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) says, the motorist, to prop up its big-spending social welfare programs which it is absolutely terrified of cutting because it knows that buying votes is the only way from now on that it will stay in office. So, for my attentive audience from Capricornia and Aston, I come back to a comparison between what the coalition did in its last year of office and what this Government has done. I compare the 2.12 per cent of Commonwealth outlays spent on roads in that year, 1982-83, to the current level, less than 1.6 per cent of outlays, which Labor will spend on roads this year. These figures tell the real story. Mr Goodluck —Reduction. Mr BEALE —The ratio of total outlays on roads to total government expenditure is down from 2.1 per cent, which it was in 1982-83, to 1.6 per cent in the current year. That is what is happening to road programs under Labor. This Bill will take a further $1m away from roads to pay for the bureaucrats who administer the Australian Land Transport Fund. According to the Minister's second reading speech, the cost of administering the program is $1m-not $999,000, but $1m. That is the cost-a very convenient round number. When talking about the amount of administrative expenses, he said in his second reading speech: This will be limited to $1m in 1987-88 . . . I leave everybody to use their imagination and decide what that will mean for next year. It is a clear indication that the Government intends next year to cut further the amount to be spent on roads. Once we take away all the false claims and self-congratulatory nonsense, what has this Government done for road financing? It has not done a single, solitary thing. It has sat on its hands since 1983 and allowed road funding to be eaten away by the high level of inflation which, I might say, has been caused by its economic policies. They have created record levels of inflation compared with those of our major trading competitors. The fact is they are almost twice those of our competitors. The Government has made no attempt to adjust its road funding for the inflation factor which it created by its economic policies. The figure has been the same for four years-$1,250m. No one, except those in this Government, would have the audacity to do such a thing, while flying around the countryside claiming to be the saviours of Australia's roads. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government is also misleading the public when it says that the financial implication in this Bill is a saving to the Government of $166m in 1987-88. This is like all of the figuring of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). It is intended to mislead and to paint a rosy picture of the responsible way in which the Government is handling its financial problems. But the truth of the matter is far from that. The truth is that of the $166m, which the Government says it will save by cutting road funding-which is down from $180m as expressed in the Forward Estimates-$67.6m will be saved, and I underline the word `saved', by running down the reserves of the trust funds established for these programs. The Australian Land Transport Program Trust Fund will be run down from $23.6m to zero, and the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund will be run down from $58.4m to $19.5m; a run down of $38.9m. The trust funds are being run down, one to zero and one by two-thirds, so that the Government can finance its road program in the current year. In cutting the Forward Estimates, by simply negating the effect of indexation on the Australian land transport program excise, the Government is cutting funds that never existed in the first place. The money that was talked about in the Forward Estimates simply did not exist. The fact that the Government is running down its trust funds would make everybody wonder what it intends to do next year. Where will the money come from next year if it is running down the trust funds this year? It has run the funds down by $67.6m in the current year and it will have only $19.5m left, so where will the extra $50m-odd come from next year? I can see the eyebrows going up on some of my friends in the National Party of Australia, who are concerned about roads in their electorate, as they wonder where the $50m will come from next year. Another example of the illusory accounting of the Treasurer is the Government's decision to hold funding at the same level in dollar terms as it has for the last four years. Who will that affect? It will affect those who use roads in Australia, and that means everybody. This Government's inability to come to grips with the fact that spending on essential infrastructure is more important than money for Builders Labourers Federation muralists and storytellers, and even more important than funds to be set aside for the design of a women's surf board, indicates the increasingly compromised position of the Party which is now the Government of this country. It does not even know who is running Australia's foreign policy. We read in this morning's newspapers that the waterfront unions seem to be. Spending on roads and other infrastructure is essential if Australia is to return to being an efficient and effective producer and exporter and is to help extract itself from its present economic malaise. It is time that this Government stopped resting on the achievements and initiatives of the previous coalition Government in road funding, and actually contributed something rather than continually identify road funding as an easy mark when the Treasurer finds that his sums are wrong again and that he has to make Budget cuts. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(4.36) —The contribution by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) was simply amazing. He stood there and castigated and condemned this Government for its spending program on roads. But let us put the facts before this chamber. Let us make comparisons because that is what he has been doing. He made comparisons as to what was spent over the last four years and what is being spent this year. Let us go back to the last financial year, 1981-82, when the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia were in power. The total moneys spent on roads in Australia-- Mr Beale —It was 1982-83. Mr WRIGHT —I am talking about the last full financial year. That Government was not in power for the full financial year in 1983. Its last full financial year was 1981-82. During that year the Liberal and National parties spent $685m on roads across Australia. Let us compare that with what is being spent today-$1,250m. It is almost double, in fact it is 82 per cent more. That is the sort of money that the Hawke Government has been spending year after year, in trying to catch up and right the mess that the Liberals and Nationals left us in. This is not the only comparison we can make. How much did the Liberals and Nationals spend on road safety-a vitally important part of the issue now before the chamber-in their last year in government? Not one cent! How much is this Government spending this year? It is spending $6m. The falseness of the honourable member for Deakin coming in here and crowing about the spending of this Government! Those who have listened to the debate will remember that on the one hand he condemned us for being a big government. He criticised us for spending too much money and said that he wanted spending cut. But on the other hand he says that we are not spending enough on roads and in the areas in which he wants money spent. He cannot have it both ways, especially with the circumstances in which his Government left Australia. This Government is spending $1,250m this year. It is maintaining its commitment to the development of a road network that will meet Australia's national economic objectives, despite all the very difficult economic circumstances. We recognise the need for an efficient national transport communications system, and we are funding that. To make a comparison, I have told the House what the previous Government gave to the States in 1981-82 for road funding-$685m. If we make the comparison with the pittance that it gave to local government, members of the Opposition ought to hang their heads in shame. Let us realise that the construction of roads in this country is a tripartite responsibility. There are three parties to it: Federal, State and local government. We have taken upon ourselves the huge responsibility for the national road system, but the State and local governments also have to play their part. It makes me angry when I hear the sort of criticism that came forward from the honourable member for Deakin, but it was typical of what comes from the conservatives. We are copping it in Queensland at the moment from the National Party members. They criticise the amount of money being spent on our arterial roads, our rural roads. Yet in 1981-82, under the Federal Liberal-National Party Government, expenditure on the national road program in Queensland amounted to $59.9m. Under this Labor Government we have spent $116m per year-an increase of 95 per cent. Under the previous Liberal-National Party Government a mere $48m was spent on arterial roads; we have boosted that to $89.8m. In 1981-82, the previous Government spent $31.5m on local roads. In 1986-87, the last financial year, we spent $50.9m in that same category. Let us make the comparison: in 1981-82, under the Liberal-National Party Government-those who are now in opposition-$139.4m was spent on roads in Queensland. Yet last year this Government spent $257m. We have been doing that year after year. The reason we have done that is that the State Government does not carry out its responsibility. We had to do it because the previous Federal Liberal-National Party Government refused to carry out its responsibilities to the States, particularly to Queensland. This year Queensland will receive $254.2m. Under the circumstances that makes us well off. We would all like to have more. Every one of us would like to be able to go back to our electors and say, `These roads will be completed. That highway will be finished'. The fact is that we have to cut back on our spending. As I have said, on the one hand, the Liberals and Nationals say that we are spending too much and that we should cut the deficit-their deficit. What they left us in 1983 was a prospective deficit of $10 billion. We have now brought in a balanced Budget. The only way we have done that is to cut down on spending. This has meant cutting back in every area. But despite that demand and that need, we have been able to maintain and honour our election commitment to rebuild Australia's roads. As I have said, we have done it under difficult economic conditions. If we want to make comparisons, we should compare the last five Budgets of the previous Liberal-National Party Federal Government with the last five Budgets of the Hawke Government. We find that in real terms the Australian Labor Party has spent 24 per cent more than the previous Government spent over its last five years. This is against the demands on the Government to reduce the massive deficit that was left to us. It also has to be understood that, despite the criticism of the amount of money we get from the fuel excise, this money is used for all sorts of expenditure. It is a source of general revenue. There is a debate going on in Queensland at the moment suggesting that we are not spending enough of that excise duty money back on the roads. But people have to understand that this money is used to provide general revenue to State and local governments to help fund health, welfare and community service programs, as well as for expenditure on roads. We need to remember also that this year total Federal assistance to the States alone-that includes road grants-will amount to $24,000m. That amount of $24 billion will go to the States. Yet we are told by the National Party members that it is not enough. But their coalition partners in the Liberal Party keep saying, `Cut back on the funds'. It seems to me that it is a case of: `Cut back on spending as long as you do not cut back in our area'. That is hypocrisy. Total Federal funding to local government this year, which includes road grants, will be more than $1,000m. That is quite significant when we consider that only 6 per cent of Federal revenue is derived from the fuel excise. We find that 20 per cent of Federal assistance to local authorities is for roads. So we are giving far more to the local authorities than we are getting from the fuel excise. It is also conveniently forgotten that the constitutional responsibility for Australian roads rests primarily with the States. Yet, despite that constitutional responsibility, it is the Federal Government which has been picking up the tab, certainly since the Hawke Government came to power. In the case of national highways, we pick up every cent. In 1981-82 the Liberal-National Party Government spent $302.7m. Last year we spent $564m on the national highways. Yet the honourable member for Deakin has criticised us. We are meeting our responsibility. This year we will still spend another $538m. People say that that is a cutback, that the amount has dropped back. Of course, it has dropped back. But what have we done with the additional money? We have put it into arterial roads. What this Government has done is to adopt a strategy. It does not say that because a State got so many dollars last year it has to get exactly the same this year. When bridges have been fixed and roads have been built, we look at other State priorities and at other geographical priorities. Last year we spent $564m on the national highway program and we are reducing it to $538m this year. But last year we spent only $422m on the rural and urban arterial roads and this year, because of the needs and the priorities, we are spending $450m. I do not hear the National Party members criticise that because theirs are the areas that will be affected; they are the ones who will benefit. They were in here when the honourable member for Deakin talked about the general cutback and the general reallocation. But it is the country people who will benefit from the renewed priorities and the different reallocation. It will be those people who live outside the capital cities who will benefit by another $28m being spent on urban arterial and rural arterial roads. That will happen because we have a strategy, a plan, a priority list. We appreciate the importance of maintaining our national highways. There are 16,000 kilometres of national highways linking our cities. We know that this is our main financial responsibility as a government. But let us make sure that the States take up their responsibilities too. In Queensland there are still signs put up by the Queensland Government along the national highways, which have been funded totally by the Commonwealth and with not 1c provided by the Queensland Government, saying, `Look what we have done'; the Queensland Government takes the credit. It quite amazes me that this continues to happen. By 1988 the Federal Government will have spent $5,100m on our country's national highways. This is because the people of Australia, the motorists of Australia, were prepared to pay that extra 2c a litre as a tax. But they can now see what is happening. They are getting proper and decent roads. We could never have imagined back in the 1970s, before this program was put in place, that we would have such roads. As I have said, we have boosted spending not only on national highways, but also on arterial roads this year and every other year. I go back to the point that the States must accept their responsibility and I refer particularly to Queensland. In my State the State Government has been rather lax in its attitude. It certainly has not been carrying out its responsibilities. In 1981-82 it spent only $135.7m on its roads. The Commonwealth Government spent $139m on Queensland roads. If we jump to the year 1983-84 the Queensland Government spent $138m on its roads; the Commonwealth Government spent $254m on Queensland roads. We have kept up that sort of expenditure. Fortunately, there has been a lift in funding by the Queensland Government, but it has to continue. There has to be a continuation of that money coming from the States. Despite all the criticism that the Queensland Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing, Russ Hinze, casts at this Government, let him come to understand that this Government has a strategy, a plan. We know that in Queensland our national highways still need priority, and that is just what we have done. While the amount of money we are spending on national highways throughout the nation has dropped considerably-by about $40m-in Queensland the amount has remained the same; last year Queensland received $117m for national highways and this year it is still getting $117m. That backs up the comment that has been made by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) and others that we do have a strategy, we do have a priority list and we do have a commitment, a commitment that we are meeting at every level-at the local level, at the arterial road level and at the national highway level. I want to move to a very parochial point, but it relates finally to the whole nation. Some months ago I made an appeal to the people of central Queensland to contact me if they knew of any hazards or dangerous spots on our central Queensland roads. Within about 10 days we had more than 90 people write and ring in, citing over 60 different road hazards in the central Queensland region. When I did this, unfortunately the National Party started to play party politics and said that it was a stunt. It was not concerned about the deaths on the roads. It was not concerned about the people we might save if we could fix up some of these hazards. It played party politics. I sent a submission to the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing, Russ Hinze, and again he came back with the typical response: `We can only do something about it if the Federal Government gives us more money'. How pathetic for a Minister of the Crown in Queensland to take such an inhumane attitude to such an important issue as road safety. Obviously, he wanted to duck his responsibility and his Government's responsibilty. Obviously, he wanted to hide away, walk away from and refuse to acknowledge the dangers on central Queensland roads. The Queensland Government has tried desperately to play down the issue. I think we can take the example in Queensland and use it across Australia. I am calling for an all out Australia-wide campaign to alleviate the danger spots. Of course, there must be money available to upgrade continually the general roads and the highways, and money available to councils for general works, but it is time we started to target those danger spots, those spots that the locals know about but the unsuspecting traveller and tourist do not know about. I do not have the facts and figures before me, but I believe that if we set aside alcohol and speed, we would come back to road hazards being the main difficulty that the motorist faces and the main cause of road fatalities. Surely, if honourable members come to example after example as I have and see these problems they will start to appreciate what I am saying. There is one northern entrance into Rockhampton where in 18 months six lorries have turned over because the drivers did not know that the highway turned sharply to the right; but still the Main Roads Department has not put up a sign to warn anybody. I could present to the House case after case of dangerous corners, unsafe intersections, hazardous bridges and dangerous roads which are rippled and on which caravans will be torn apart or go off the road because of the sharp edges, because of the hazardous nature of the road itself. There are blind corners and narrow roads. There are roads on which one can move along at 80 or 90 kilometres an hour and the next minute the road turns sharply to the left or to the right. They are roads that one cannot prepare for because there are no warning signs. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to honourable members that we need to have this campaign. The simple way to do it is not for every department of main roads to survey every road but to appeal to the Australian citizens, to the locals who live in the country areas, who live in the suburbs where the dangerous intersections are, where the dangerous corners are, to contact their members of parliament. Let them ring in and say `I believe that this is a dangerous spot'. Let the members themselves make a public appeal. I call upon the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support to ask the local people to say where the hazards are. They know them; they know how to cope with them and on most occasions they slow down; they take greater care because they are aware of the problems. Mr Lee —It is the visitors. Mr WRIGHT —It is the visitors, the tourists, the unsuspecting travellers who do not use the road regularly, or who have never used the road before, who are in danger. If we can do this it may not cost massive amounts of money in the maintenance and reconstruction of those roads; it might just involve the cost of a simple warning sign. We have had cases in Queensland where that was all that was necessary-a sign to let motorists know as they came up the hill that the road suddenly turned to the left, that it veered sharply to the left. But there was no warning sign until we raised the issue. I say to this Government, to State governments, to local authorities and to members of parliament that we could do so much if we were to warn the people of the hazards. The Queensland Government has put up signs claiming credit for roads it did not build. That is the trouble with Russ Hinze and his Cabinet. They have their priorities wrong. We need to rethink our priorities here. There is surely a need for Federal, State and local government co-operation to address the hazards on Australian roads. This Government has given a lead by the amount of money it has made available to the States and to the local authorities. I believe that it is now up to governments everywhere to welcome people writing or ringing in about the problems. They should contact their members. We need, as I have said, to highlight the hazards. We need to get some action. We need the authorities to reset their priorities and we need to make our roads safer. We can do this, I believe, by using the funds we have got, without becoming the big spenders as the honourable member for Deakin suggested, simply by finding out the problems and acting upon those problems. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(4.55) —I suppose that politics is a game of one-upmanship-you will say something, I will say something, we will try to outdo you. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) made a very good point in his speech on road safety. Many people die on our roads each year. We have had many inquiries and we can talk about the hazards on the roads, but even the inquiry into bus safety by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety did not give us all the answers. I asked a bus driver who had driven thousands of kilometres what was the greatest problem he had and he said that it was the caravans on the road. It is very difficult to know where to start and where to finish. The people in Hobart tonight will be driving home on petrol that costs 52c a litre. It is the cheapest it has been for a long time. When I see a sign stating that a road is a State financed road or that it is a Commonwealth financed road, I grizzle. I think we should get the politics out of it completely. My good friend the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) is at the table. It is the taxpayers who are paying for those roads. It is the person who is using the litre of petrol who is paying for the roads. On many occasions I have talked in this House about the price of petrol. The new honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) had the audacity to say when I was speaking the other night, `What have you done about it?'. At least I have tried for 12 years to point out the problems with the petroleum industry. If I can go back in history, in 1974 the then Whitlam Government had an inquiry into the petroleum industry in Australia. Mr Justice Collins chaired it and it was called the Collins Royal Commission on Petroleum. There are many elements in those recommendations that are still pertinent today. For example paragraph 1 (c) states: Motor spirit and other petroleum products are overpriced. Both wholesale and retail margins are excessively high. That one is not so bad but another point states: . . . there is unfair competition and discriminatory price practices are rife. The market is sometimes chaotic and often not price competitive. I will come back to the point I was going to make: the people of Hobart are driving home on petrol costing 52c a litre tonight, whereas a week ago it was costing them between 64c and 67c a litre. I know that the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), who is at the table, is about to say that Robin Gray imposed 7c a litre on it. Mr Duncan —No. Mr GOODLUCK —Well, I thought from the look in his eyes that he was telling me that. Mr Gray argues that because of a shortfall from this Government he found it necessary to impose a 7c a litre charge to offset costs to make certain that we are able to bring into play all the things he said that he would do for the people of Tasmania. Let me get back to the reasons for the decrease. I read an article in the Melbourne Sun-News Pictorial. It is headed `Sun features Hylda Rolfe, Chairman of the Prices Surveillance Authority'. She argues most vehemently that her Prices Surveillance Authority is very good. One of the things on which I really agreed with the honourable member for Bass in the last election was that if we were elected we would get rid of that Authority. If ever an organisation was a con job, that Authority is a con job. The article in the Sun stated: The study, headed by respected Melbourne academic, Dr John Nieuwenhuysen, said the PSA was little more than a public relations ploy by the Federal Government to encourage union wage restraint. There is a lot of talk about that organisation from the other side of the House. I think the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) is the chairman of a committee which is looking into the retail prices, and so forth. We all know that since the Government came to power the price of petrol has gone through the roof and that, as a result, food prices have gone up. So we have to set up an organisation to offset that. But let me tell the House a few facts about petrol. When this Government came to power the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that petrol pricing was taxation by stealth at the petrol pump. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that he would reduce the price at the pump by 3c a litre. I now return to the Bill because this matter is very relevant. The people of Australia did not mind paying the 2c a litre for the improvement of the roads-but only if they were to get a fair go in respect of the price of petrol. I will give some average across the board figures for the price of petrol right throughout Australia. In March 1983 the price of petrol in Sydney was 43.9c a litre; in Melbourne it was 42.1c a litre; in Brisbane it was 42.2c a litre; in Adelaide it was 43.9c a litre; in Hobart it was 48.1c a litre; and in Canberra it was 46.3c. I wish the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) was in the chamber. If ever the people of Canberra were conned it was by that honourable member in respect of the price of petrol. They should really go out in the streets and start yelling. She said she was going to reduce the price of petrol and now there will be an inquiry by the PSA. Blind Charlie can see what is wrong with the price of petrol in Canberra. Anyway, in Darwin it was 44.5c a litre. Listen to these figures for December 1986. In Sydney the average price was 54.9c. People forget these prices. It is like a sore on one's hand: once it has healed one forgets about it. But the people of Australia are being conned. We hear the Government talk about road improvements, but the money is coming from the taxpayers' pockets. It is not a State thing or a Federal thing; it is coming from their pockets in the price of petrol. I feel sorry for the people of Australia at the moment because many of them are being conned with this petrol pricing. People may buy a new car at an average cost of about $15,000 or a new truck-they have also gone up to billyo-and every time they use those vehicles it costs those people big dough for every kilometre they go. We talk about the poor and the needy. Consider, for example, a person who lives in Bridgewater in Hobart. Regrettably, the person on the lowest end of the scale has the oldest car. Sometimes that car is more important to such a person than his house, his children, his wife or whatever. A car is important to these people. They have to use it for their work, and because of the necessities imposed by a stringent budget it becomes a place of entertainment for them, too; they use the car of a weekend. So in Hobart, if a car is doing 20 miles to the gallon, it is costing $3 to go 20 miles, to use the old imperial system. These increases have taken people by storm-$3 to go 20 miles. Every mile these people go they are paying for the roads. Every mile that truck drivers travel they are paying for the roads also. They must get sick of the sight of signs saying `This is a Federal funded road' or `This is a State funded road'. I say to the honourable member for Bass: You have never heard me get involved with roads as a political ploy. You have never heard me say, `Look I have got that road'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member for Franklin will address his remarks through the Chair rather than through the honourable member for Bass. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am cross-eyed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There are corrections for that. Mr GOODLUCK —But honourable members never hear me saying about roads, `I got that road'. I did not get any roads; the taxpayers of my electorate are the ones who get any such roads. There is one-upmanship in this place. We say, `We did this and you did that'. I have been absolutely appalled over the past 12 years I have spent in this Parliament about the petroleum industry. Nothing has been done about it. People have tried, and I must say that I have tried. I have pointed out the facts to people but sometimes they do not want to listen to them. I return to the comparison that I was making. In December 1986 the price of petrol in Sydney had gone to 54.9c; in Melbourne it was 54.9c; in Brisbane, 51.5c; Adelaide, 52.2c; Perth, 57.3c; Hobart, 64.4c; Canberra 55.4c; and Darwin, 55c. The price of petrol has gone up on average by 13c a litre since honourable members opposite came to power. Let us face the facts. This Government's Prime Minister said, `We will reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre'. He has not been able to do it. Mr Martin —It is 46c. Mr GOODLUCK —We heard it from the honourable member's own mouth. He is not a bad member, but he supports this PSA, which fixes a maximum wholesale price in every capital city. Does the honourable member live in Sydney? Mr Martin —Wollongong-the Brave. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair, and the honourable member for Macarthur will remain silent. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry. I will come back to that really important point. The maximum wholesale price across Australia at the moment is about 50.17c a litre. What do we see when the Prices Surveillance Authority fixes a maximum wholesale price? We see that in certain selected areas right throughout Australia-Melbourne, Sydney, the heavily populated areas-petrol is sold for below that price. So of course the people of Australia are starting to wake up and get mad about this irresponsible way of tackling the price of this very precious commodity. When people use petrol they do so for the reasons that I have mentioned-to get on the roads, for their own pleasure and for transportation. As the price of petrol increases there is a flow-through effect and the price of goods, of course, goes up. I say to the Government on the other side of the chamber: Why do you not tackle the PSA? Why do honourable members opposite not say to themselves, `It is not doing the job that it should and we should be able to do something about it.'? But the Government does not do anything about it. Honourable members opposite were told about this in 1974 by their own Government, which called for that inquiry into the price of petroleum in Australia. Only one speech was made on that report. Do honourable members know whose speech that was? It was mine. That report cost $1.5m. It was pigeon-holed somewhere downstairs. Not one of the recommendations was taken up; and, of course, the old petroleum industry has gone on dirty. It is a dirty industry. Oil companies have a lot to answer for in respect of this particular problem. They are powerful and strong. They do not own Bruce John Goodluck, of course, but they own governments, I am afraid. They are able to manipulate and do what they want to do with the price of petrol. They drop it when they feel like it-like they have done in poor old Hobart in Tasmania. Everybody over there is saying, `Gee, it is good; we are getting petrol at the price of 51c or 52c a litre'. Next week it will be back up to 64c a litre. While this happens a lot of good people get hurt, including many poor dealers who go into operating service stations with an outlay of capital. They are blamed for everything, poor devils. These people are up front at the petrol pump and as soon as something goes wrong the consumers blame them. They forget the next week. They say, `It does not matter whether they go out of business and lose their houses or whatever'. Oil companies have been able to do this with the price of petrol. It is a sad and sorry world, if honourable members do not mind my saying so. The petroleum industry is a sad and sorry industry. All of us here should be ashamed of it. That is why I talk about road funding in Australia and that 2c a litre that the motorists of Australia pay. The Canberra motorists, the Hobart motorists and the truck drivers that pay this money must get sick to the back teeth of seeing the variation in the price of petrol. Many times here in Canberra I have seen one price and have gone back to Hobart to see that petrol is about 8c a litre dearer-and then vice versa; one comes back to Canberra and the price is down in Canberra while it is up in Hobart. This is wrong and it should be sorted out. If we are going to talk about road funding, surely we should get the base right. We should talk to the country people of Australia. Regrettably, they suffer all the time with the price of petrol, because there is not a big market in the country. They pay the full price every day. These people need their cars and trucks probably more than we do, to travel to work et cetera. So we should be doing something about these people. Mr Martin —A subsidy? Mr GOODLUCK —No, not a subsidy, that is not the answer. There should be a way of determining the price of petrol in Australia which would be fair to everybody and would give everybody a fair opportunity. But we do not have the fortitude to face up to it. But the Government has this poor old Prices Surveillance Authority talking about fixing maximum wholesale prices while the next week we see petrol being sold below that price. That is one of the reasons why many people are starting to wake up and say, `What is going on with this? We are paying out in the roads, fine. We are paying out in taxes, fine. But why does the price vary so much from one capital city to another and one town to another?'. People are starting to see this. I say to motorists in Hobart going home tonight: Make hay while the sun shines because although you are going to get petrol cheaply this week you will get it dearly next week. Mr Smith —You're right. Mr GOODLUCK —I am right and the honourable member for Bass knows it. What has been happening in Tasmania for years, because of the small market there in comparison with Melbourne and Sydney, is wrong. But the Hawke Government talks about what it has done for roads. I see that the new honourable member for Denison is here. It is good to see him. This is the honourable member who had the audacity to say to me, `What have you done about the price of petrol?'. At least I have drawn attention to the matter on so many occasions. Mr Duncan —You have waffled about it for years. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member for Makin has not been able to do anything. All the honourable member's Government has done is put the price up by 13c a litre and it is trying to con the people of Australia on what it is doing with the roads. The Government's old Treasurer stood like a slippery trunk at the table talking about stealth at the petrol pump. The old Prime Minister said right on television that he would reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre. It has gone up by 13c a litre since this Government came to power. We on this side do not talk enough about it. Honourable members opposite talk about the poor and the needy but when they put up the price of petrol they are affecting them more than anybody else. They have affected the poor old truck driver; they have affected everybody. Mr Ewen Cameron —That is the J-curve. Mr GOODLUCK —That is right. They all know I am right over there; they all know the situation needs straightening out. So they should not try to allot blame to me, because I have drawn attention to the problem, factually. All members of the Government have said is that they will do this and they will do that, and that they have the prices and consumer watch, or whatever they call it, but they are letting the price of petrol go up and so the old PSA is not worth the paper it is written on. Mr LEE(Dobell)(5.11) —I am a little disappointed that today's proceedings are not being televised. I wish to compliment the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) on the youthful and spritely contribution he made. He did appear to be a little younger during today's contribution than during his last contribution in this chamber. The honourable member for Franklin has made that same speech many times in this Parliament. I have been a member of the House of Representatives for almost three years, and I must say I have heard it at least half a dozen times already. Members of the House who have been here many more years than I have assure me that that speech has been made many times over the years. The simple point which the honourable member for Franklin did not address was why he did not do anything about the price of petrol during the years when he was part of the Fraser-Howard Government. Mr Duncan —He would have had to change his speech. Mr LEE —He would have had to change his speech, as the Minister at the table suggests. In those days the honourable member for Franklin was participating in the decision-making process of government. Unfortunately, during the years when he was part of the Fraser Government taxes on petrol were jacked up, because it was the Fraser Government that adopted world parity pricing for oil. Unfortunately, governments are like people who like the odd drink. When someone becomes used to having several drinks a day there is no way he can cut back. Because the Fraser Government made the Commonwealth dependent upon those slush financial revenues from the oil sector, it has been very difficult for this Government to wind that back. The first Opposition speaker on the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill was the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). He made several allegations, some of which I wish to address this evening. The honourable member for Deakin condemned the Government for its lack of commitment to infrastructure spending, which I consider to be a quite bizarre statement for the honourable member for Deakin to make, given comments he has made in the past. I will go into that in more detail in a moment. The honourable member for Deakin went on in his speech to state that taxes should be spent only on those things which a central government can do well. He referred in that regard to the works embodied in the Australian land transport program. Despite his going on to make a contribution about the privatisation of Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines-which I could not really connect with funding for roads-the honourable member for Deakin was clearly saying that he believed that this Government is not spending enough on roads. That is a very clear difference of opinion from that which the honourable member for Deakin expressed in 1985. With a bit of research, I have been able to obtain a report from the Australian of 27 May that year. In those days, when the honourable member for Deakin was a back-bencher without shadow ministerial responsibilities, he made a Press statement, after a rush of blood to the head. He was at that time seeking to pass himself off as an economic rationalist who, unlike some of the wets in the Liberal and National parties, understood the great issues which had to be faced. As a businessman, he had clearly seen that Government spending had to be cut. On 27 May 1985 the Australian ran an article, under the headline `Liberals urged to aim for $6 bn government spending cut', which stated: The Federal MP for Deakin, Mr Julian Beale, went further than Mr Howard, arguing that the next Liberal government should cut $3 billion from the deficit and take $3 billion from other programs in its first Budget. He mentioned several areas where cuts could be made, although admitting that they would cause uproar . . . The article went on to nominate those areas where the honourable member for Deakin believed the cuts should be made. He stated that he wanted Federal funding for local government to be cut out and-- Mr Saunderson —What? Mr LEE —That is correct; he wanted all Federal funding for local government to be cut out and, of particular interest in this afternoon's debate, he wished to abolish totally all Federal Government funding to the States for the construction of roads. That is a statement made by the honourable member for Deakin on 26 May 1985, yet he comes into the House this afternoon and lashes this Government, claiming that it is not spending enough on roads. By the way, we are spending $1,250m this year, and the honourable member for Deakin says that that is not enough. Mr Saunderson —What a hypocrite. Mr LEE —Two years ago he was saying that we should abolish all Federal funding for road construction and maintenance. As the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) has suggested, the honourable member for Deakin is simply hypocritical when he makes statements such as those he made this afternoon. I would have been interested in any contribution that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) might have made today. Throughout the campaign prior to the 11 July election, the Leader of the Opposition ran around the country saying that, if he were elected Prime Minister, he would cut government spending by 3c in the dollar every year for three years-a total cut of 9c in the dollar. Those cuts could have been made only after massively slashing funding in areas such as road construction, yet members of the Opposition have not had the guts, the courage, to come into this House and tell us what they would really do if they were on the Government benches. I am also disappointed that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) has not interrupted his swotting on economic theory in the back rooms of this building to make a contribution to this debate. Of course, he is now seeking to pass himself off as an economic rationalist who understands the difficult decisions that have to be made. Mr Ewen Cameron —Very successfully, too. Mr LEE —If he is so successful I wonder why no members of the Opposition have been able to argue in this place why government spending should be cut. Why do they not have the guts when we are debating Bills concerned with the spending of government funds to tell us where they would really cut government spending? The truth is that they seek to be all things to all people. As I mentioned previously, the legislation before the House allocates $1,250m for spending on roads. This is divided into two programs. First of all, the Australian land transport program will ensure that $770m is allocated for road construction. In addition, under the Australian bicentennial road development program, $480m will also be spent on the construction and maintenance of our roads. At this stage I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard two tables. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- FEDERAL ROAD FUNDING ABRD ALTP TOTAL $m $m $m New South Wales ... 158.9 243.6 402.5 Victoria... 98.1 151.2 249.3 Queensland... 95.1 159.1 254.2 Western Australia ... 64.7 95.4 160.1 South Australia... 36.2 56.4 92.6 Tasmania... 18.4 28.0 46.4 Northern Territory... 8.8 30.1 38.9 Research, Road Safety, and Administration... - 6.0 6.0 TOTAL... 480.2 769.8 1 250.0 DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL ROAD FUNDING 1986-87 1987-88 $m $m National... 577.9 538.6 Urban Arterial... 252.1 265.8 Rural Arterial... 162.9 184.4 Local... 252.1 255.2 Research, Road Safety, Administration... 5.0 6.0 Total... 1,250.0 1,250.0 Mr LEE —The first table indicates where Federal road funding is spent in the different States throughout Australia. Of particular interest to me, as a member from New South Wales, is the fact that Federal road funding for that State will total $403m in the coming financial year. The second table indicates the different categories for which road funding is allocated. In fact, $538m is being spent on the national highways program. I believe it is the Federal Government's first responsibility to allocate funds for road construction and maintenance in that area. Of great importance also is the fact that funding for local roads will total $255m, which is a substantial contribution to local government and one which will ensure, of course, the creation of quite a few jobs in the local areas concerned. I return to the comments of the honourable member for Deakin in this debate this afternoon. He claimed that since the election of the Hawke Government there had been a `serious degradation of road funding'. The honourable member for Deakin has made another arithmetical error. In the five Hawke Budgets road funding has been 24 per cent higher in real terms than it was in the last five Fraser-Howard Budgets. I see the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) is in the chamber and if he disputes those figures I challenge him to respond when he makes his contribution. In the five Hawke Budgets we have spent 24 per cent more in real terms on road funding than the Liberals and Nationals allocated in the last five Fraser-Howard years. I will simply outline some areas-some would say concrete examples-of where that road funding is producing improvements for road users throughout Australia. The national highways program dates from 1974 when the then Minister for Transport, the Hon. Charlie Jones, the then member for Newcastle, proclaimed our current national highway system. At the moment there are 16,000 kilometres of national highways throughout Australia and they link all capital cities plus a number of major developed areas. In 1974, when the national highways program began, 26 per cent of that area was unsealed and that was a great disgrace to Australia. Some 66 per cent of our national highways was less than 22 feet wide. By late next year, through the efforts of the Federal Government, more than $5,000m will have been spent on our national highways, and that is something of which all of us can be very proud. My area of Dobell, which covers the northern half of the central coast of New South Wales, has benefited greatly by that spending on the national highways program. Anyone who has driven from Sydney north through the central coast or to Newcastle will know that late last year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) opened the Moonie Moonie Bridge which has cut a very substantial amount off the travelling time between Sydney and the central coast and Sydney and Newcastle. In addition, on 20 September this year the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) officially opened the latest extension to the national highway system in my electorate. That section from Wallara Creek to Morisset was carried out in conjunction with the very able New South Wales Minister for Roads, Laurie Brereton. A great deal of work is still going on on the national highway system. Anyone who drives to Sydney from the north these days is aware that a great deal of effort and money is being spent on roadworks on the eastern side of the railway line. By, I think, early 1989 people will be able to travel by freeway from Pearces Corner at Hornsby all the way through to Freemans Waterholes and further north. Not only does this save our economy money by allowing trucks and cars to travel more quickly on better roads but we should not forget that many lives are saved because people no longer have to travel on narrow and dangerous roads. It is very important that this national Parliament continue to allocate very large sums of money for additions to the national highway system and to ensure that the current national highway system is properly maintained. Other members might be better aware of the money that we have spent on the Hume Highway and roads into and out of Canberra. My friends who have travelled from Sydney to Melbourne in recent years are often staggered by the great efforts and achievements that have already been made on the Hume Highway. The last few comments I wish to make in this debate concern first of all the Government's decision to extend the Australian bicentennial road development program for a further five years. I believe that the majority of Australians are prepared to pay the 2c per litre levy on the one simple condition that those funds are spent on road construction and maintenance. The bicentennial road development program has been a great success and probably a large number of Australians are alive today only because we have improved the quality and safety of our roads. I have great pleasure in supporting the legislation before the House. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(5.25) —I rise to speak on the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill with a great deal of pleasure because I am particularly concerned about the road system in New South Wales and Australia in general. The electorate of Cowper runs from Port Macquarie in the south to Coffs Harbour in the north. My particular concern is with the Pacific Highway because it is of such vital importance not just to Cowper or New South Wales but to the whole of Australia. Mr Goodluck —They are lucky to have such a good member. Mr NEHL —I thank the honourable member for his comment. I think it is relevant to point out that not enough money is being spent on roads. It is easy to be critical of the government of the day and say that not enough money is spent on roads but I will give just a little information that I believe is relevant. It is very popular for the honourable members on the other side of this place still to criticise the Fraser-Anthony Government. Sometimes it seems that my friends on the other side blame Fraser and Anthony for everything that has ever happened since. Of course, as the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) knows, that is not the case at all. What we need to do is avoid the continual repetition of the stale pastry that it was the Fraser Government that did it. I point out to the House that in 1975-76 total revenue from fuel was $968m. The total road funds spent by the Commonwealth were $434m. So total road funds, as a percentage of excise, were 61.6 per cent. Total road funds spent out of the total fuel revenue were 44.8 per cent. So 10 or 11 years ago-in 1975-76-nearly half of total road funds were being spent on roads. I think it is appropriate to look at what has changed since then. Total revenue from fuel has grown from $968m in 1975-76 to $6,960m in 1986-87, an incredible growth for which the motorist is paying. It is worth while examining the amount of money which is being spent on roads. Of that $6,960m spent in 1986-87 only $1,171m was actually spent on roads by the Commonwealth or, as a percentage of excise, only 20.7 per cent. Compare that with the 61.6 per cent of excise which was spent in 1975-76. As a percentage of total road funds, fuel revenue was 16.8 per cent. So of total fuel revenue, the amount being spent on roads in 1986-87 was 16.8 per cent compared with 44.8 per cent in 1975-76. This year the amount to be spent on roads is $1,250m. The reality is that there has been no increase whatsoever in road funding in real terms. It is all very well for members on the Government benches to say that road funding has gone up, that the Government is doing this and that, but the inescapable fact is that there has been no increase whatsoever in real funding. I said at the outset that I wanted to speak specifically about the Pacific Highway because of the great interest I have in it as if affects my electorate in particular and the whole of Australia. The volume of traffic on the Pacific Highway is now the greatest of that anywhere in this country. What I have been seeking to do ever since I was elected to this Parliament is to sow the seeds of a commitment to the Pacific Highway becoming a four-lane, dual carriageway, divided highway for its total length, not just for the freeway between Sydney and Newcastle but also from Hexham up to the Queensland border, through all of those wonderful towns which dot the seats of the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). We have on the north coast of New South Wales in those four seats held by the National Party of Australia, which are all well served-- Mr McVeigh —Top members, including you. Mr NEHL —I thank the honourable member. This area includes the best part of Australia. I know it is common for people to come here and say, `My electorate is the best part of Australia'. But even the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has said that the mid-north coast of New South Wales has the optimum climate for the human animal. This is why growth has been so spectacular. Once all the figures are out from the recent census it will be seen that the growth on the north coast of New South Wales has been absolutely sensational. In fact, the preliminary figures are out and they show that this area has the highest growth rate of anywhere in Australia. This indicates the need for that major artery, the Pacific Highway, to be upgraded even further. I would be remiss if I did not, at this point, acknowledge most sincerely and warmly the tremendous contribution made to the work on the Pacific Highway by my colleagues the honourable member for Page-he was formerly the honourable member for Cowper-the honourable member for Lyne, the honourable member for Richmond and the various members of the State Parliament from that part of New South Wales. A great deal has been done to the highway and many improvements have been made. But a great deal more needs to be done. I am particularly concerned by the most recent figures to hand from the National Roads and Motorists Association (NRMA) which show that in driving north from Hexham to the Queensland border it is illegal to overtake on 41 per cent of the highway because of double lines. Frankly, it is unsafe to overtake on about 50 per cent of the highway. On 41 per cent one cannot overtake because of the double lines and on close to an extra 10 per cent it is, in reality, unsafe to overtake. As I drive up and down the Pacific Highway, I notice that the New South Wales Department of Main Roads is continually using more paint and creating more double lines, thus restricting even further the amount of highway available for overtaking. Even though so much tremendous work has been undertaken by other honourable members-and I note that the honourable member for Page, of whom I spoke earlier, has come into the chamber-there is still an enormous safety problem on that highway because on more than 50 per cent of it, it is illegal or unsafe to overtake while one is going north. The highway accident statistics-I will not bore the House with them at the moment-available in this country, the United States of America and elsewhere demonstrate quite clearly that where there is a dual-carriageway, a divided road, the accident rate goes down dramatically. One only has to look at the figures for the Hume Highway to see that this is the case. It is proper to put on record that the Pacific Highway, to most people's surprise, is not part of the national highway system. Everywhere one goes on the Pacific Highway one sees the signs which say `Highway 1'-as well as the signs which praise Mr Brereton for the work that the New South Wales Government is doing with Commonwealth money, and there are more signs of that nature than any other. People think that because the highway is marked `Highway 1' it is part of the national highway system. But, of course, it is not. In reality the Pacific Highway is New South Wales State Highway No. 10. On a national level, it is not classified as a highway at all; it is a rural arterial road. Frankly, I do not really care what it is called. I know and fully understand, as some people do not, that the national highway system is a set system which was the result of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. It cannot be changed and, even if it were, the formula is set. If the Pacific Highway were to be made a national highway it would actually receive less money than it is receiving now. I say to the House and to the Minister that we need on a Federal level, and also, of course, on a State level, a commitment to the concept of turning the Pacific Highway into a four-lane, dual carriageway, divided highway. This must come eventually. The road usage is increasing enormously. In the middle of last year the NRMA established 18 points on the highway between Hexham and the Queensland border where the volume of highway traffic was being measured. At all of those 18 points there are already traffic volumes which justify having a four-lane, dual carriageway, divided highway. Therefore, I want to emphasise that, particularly in the current economic climate, we are not looking for an incredible injection of funds overnight. That would be unreasonable and not very sensible. But I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying to this Parliament and to the New South Wales Parliament-and, of course, to the Queensland Parliament because the Pacific Highway extends into Queensland, through Brisbane-that there must be a commitment to getting there eventually, so that when we undertake planning we plan to have a four-lane, dual carriageway, divided highway. Thus, when it does come about it will be done at the least cost to society and the community. Tourism is of vital importance to the north coast of New South Wales and, of course, to Australia. We hear the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) in this chamber and elsewhere making the point about the value of tourism to this economy. I and every member who represents those areas on the north coast of New South Wales are fully aware of the value of tourism to Australia and to the people we represent. If we do not have a road that will adequately satisfy the needs of the people we do not have the wherewithal to transport those people to those areas. A survey conducted by the University of New England for the Coffs Harbour tourist organisation a couple of years ago identified the fact that some 92 per cent of respondents to the survey travelled in their own vehicles. When we are discussing the growth of the Pacific Highway, and the need to improve it and turn it into a four-lane, divided highway, we are looking at a whole range of features. We are looking at the commercial growth of the area and at satisfying the commercial growth and needs of Sydney and Brisbane as well. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that even where the road has been improved drivers are still only as fast as the slowest caravan, the slowest house being transported, the slowest semitrailer or even the slowest swimming pool being transported, because they all use this highway. Economically it is important that transport should be able to flow freely along that major network. Before I conclude I would like to refer to the road safety requirements. I would like to put on the record the traffic accident levels comparing the Pacific, the Hume and the New England highways. I am looking at the period from 1979 to 1985. The number of fatal crashes on the Pacific Highway in that period was 585 or 84 a year. On the Hume Highway there were 331 or 47 a year. Of course, the Hume Highway's traffic accident record has improved dramatically because of the dual carriageway highway. On the New England Highway there were 161 or 23 fatal crashes a year. On a per annum average over that period from 1979 to 1985 the average is 84 for the Pacific, 47 for the Hume and only 23 for the New England, where the traffic volume is way down. The number of fatalities was 698 on the Pacific, 420 on the Hume and 199 on the New England. That is over the whole period. The annual average was 100 for the Pacific, 60 for the Hume and 28 for the New England. This means that the funding provided for the Hume Highway and for the New England Highway has saved Australian lives. Additional funding should be provided, come hell or high water, as soon as possible to save other Australian lives on the Pacific Highway. One also has to consider injury crashes, as an annual average, which, for the Pacific Highway, amount to 1,376; for the Hume Highway, 803; and for the New England Highway, only 324. In that period one is looking at total crashes for the Pacific Highway amounting to 24,406 or 3,487 a year; for the Hume Highway, 14,949 or 2,136 a year; and for the New England Highway 5,441 or 777 a year. In terms of funding to upgrade the road which serves the most settled parts of Australia, the road with the greatest usage, I ask honourable members: What is more important, the money or the people? In reality, when one looks at the matter logically and sensibly-I do not have time to go into it in great detail-the costs of the deaths, the costs of the accidents, the costs to people who are now quadriplegic or paraplegic, the ongoing costs of treating so many people for decades, and indeed the costs in relation to property are amazing. I believe that over a period of a year the cost of upgrading the Pacific Highway to prepare it for the twenty-first century will be, in the long term, a saving over the cost of the pain, the suffering, the damage and the injuries. I know that constraints face the Government and indeed the whole of Australia. When I spoke on this topic on an earlier occasion, a previous Minister accused me of having double standards. He said that on the one hand I was asking for more money and on the other hand suggesting cuts in spending. The reality is that in the current economic climate there are areas in which we must cut government expenditure and areas in which we must spend. We all have our priorities. I admit that many of the priorities of our colleagues on the Government benches are reasonable and proper, but it is not good enough just to make idle speeches on road safety or merely to say, `We must cut down on accidents'. We must stop children being run over and must put our money where our mouth is. The time to make a start is now. I repeat that I do not suggest that this can happen overnight. We are looking at a 20-year project. But all I ask is that we make a decision nationally at Commonwealth and State level to say, `This is the way to go, this is what must happen for the benefit of all Australians. This is what must be done to cut down the numbers of deaths and injuries that affect so many of our fellow countrymen'. We must make a decision to make this happen when the money is available. We need the commitment so that the Pacific Highway can eventually serve Australia as it should. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(5.45) —The Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Australian Land Transport Act, in the main to alter the excise rate, although there are a couple of other amendments in the Bill allowing for the expenditure of $1,250m on roads. Anyone who examines the record of this Government on road funding and our land transport program introduced under the previous Minister, the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris), a program which has continued to be supported by the Minister at the table, the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), knows that the program has nationwide support, even though it does not enjoy the support of our colleagues on the Opposition benches. The program has attempted to put forward long term funding, even though it is adjusted on an annual basis, with some surety to the recipients of the funds as to the levels of road funding that may be available into the future. Even though this year the program represents a reduction in real terms, it has provided some surety as to the level of funding in the past few years. Although we all regret the fact that from time to time it is necessary to reduce funds by not providing for an increase on previous years fundings because of financial constraints, we must still bear in mind the overall picture. In the tight financial constraints of the Budget-and the Government has received widespread support for its Budget outcomes-it was clear that every area of government activity would be subjected to some form of constraint. Road funding has been a victim, as have most other areas. Having heard some of the points raised by Opposition members, particularly those raised by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), one must look at the Opposition's credibility. As was pointed out by the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), not so long ago the honourable member for Deakin advocated that if the coalition gained power it would provide no funds at all for road funding from the Federal Government to State or local governments. He then had the hide to bleat in this House that a sum of $1,250m is not enough and that the Government should be criticised for reducing the funds by a small percentage compared with last year. But if a coalition government had been elected in July-thank goodness it was not-it would have been presenting a Budget in which no funds would have been spent on roads; there would have been not just cuts, but no funds for roads. Opposition members criticise the Government for not spending enough when it has allocated $1,250m, but those same Opposition members openly admit that if they had attained government they would not spend anything like $1,250m, and indeed would spend nothing on roads. Anybody who doubts that statement should examine the record of the coalition Government to see whether it had a commitment to roads. During the period of the coalition Government, from 1976-77 to 1981-82, each financial year, year by year, it reduced in real terms the allocation of funds to roads. By 1981-82 that Government had dropped the amount spent on roads in real terms to just over $1,000m. It dropped the allocation from an all time high during the Whitlam period in real terms down to a level in today's terms of $1,000m in 1981-82. In every year from 1976-77 to 1981-82 that Government reduced the amount of funds in real terms. Thankfully, that Government was put out of office and the Australian Labor Party came in. As soon as Labor came to office we significantly lifted road funding again and recognised such funding as a priority. We saw the damage inflicted by the Opposition because of the reduction in road funding and immediately lifted it to an all time high level of funding in real terms. The current level of funding of $1,250m in real terms is still nearly $200m more than the lowest level achieved by the Fraser Government in 1981-82. Our record is one of which we should be proud. There is no question that the amount of funds we put in has helped significantly in the roads programs of the last four years. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) said that more funds were required to meet his particular interest, that is, roads in his electorate. It is ironic that Opposition members take part in these debates and express the view that more government money should be spent on roads in their areas and that more money should be spent on local government, and on this and that. Opposition members sit back and allow their spokespeople on the front bench and their Leader to stand up and say, `There will not be more money. There will be less money. We are going to cut this program and that program. There will be nothing for you at all'. In the May statement the Government announced that the 2c per litre surcharge for the Australian bicentennial road development (ABRD) program will be continued for the next five years. That was an important announcement. In the community, the States, local government and the road construction industry there was a great deal of uncertainty about what was going to happen with road funding in general. It was an important decision for the Government-and I am glad that we made it-to continue the levy and the program for the five years following 1988. It has removed doubts from the minds of people concerned about road construction and the provisioning of roads as to what sort of levels may exist after next year. I am not too sure whether people would be happy with what the Opposition is doing. Opposition members are not only talking about no funds at all, but also they are not giving any commitment towards road funding or the ABRD program. I do not intend to talk at great length about funding in general. Most of the points that we have made have been very clear. The Federal Government only has certain responsibilities in road funding, primarily for national roads, although some of the funds it provides supplement arterial and local road construction within States. Some groups in the community like to exploit opportunities to politicise this sort of debate. During the last election the local council in my area decided that it would attempt to support some of its Liberal candidates by attacking the Government's record on road funding. During the election campaign the council erected road signs in areas where roads needed work done on them pointing out that they were an example of people's taxes not being put to work. A number of Federal members in the area criticised the council at the time for politicising the debate. We pointed out that during the period of the Fraser Government the council had been unconcerned about the continual reduction in road funding. It did not seem to find it a problem during the seven Fraser years. But during the period it had the highest level of road funding in real terms ever, during the four years of this Government, it was prepared to embark upon a campaign saying that it had not had enough. It was of great interest to me subsequently to find out that not only had we significantly lifted the level of funding to the city of Knox-prior to our coming to office it was receiving slightly over one per cent of road funding in Victoria-to a figure in excess of 2 per cent but also 6that the council had been unable to spend most of the money it had received over the last five years. As an example of how much money it was getting, in 1982-83, which was the last year of the Fraser Government, it got $600,000 for road funding under the ABRD program. In 1986-87, the amount was $2.9m, after having been at a high, in 1985-86, of $3.6m. During the period 1982-83 to 1986-87, the council had received a total of slightly under $10m for road funding but had been able to spend only about $4.6m. So the council was complaining about not having enough funds and about not being able to fix the roads, but in reality it had been unable to spend the money allocated to it for road funding. If that is not hypocrisy of the greatest order, I do not know what is. I think the council will probably live to regret the fact that it decided to embark on such a campaign. We have certainly exploited some of the areas in which it has failed to act. The greatest tragedy is that it failed to act when the greatest damage was being done, that is, during the period of the Fraser Government, when funds were systematically reduced, year by year, and road construction was set back to a great degree. As I have said, our program has lifted funds to the extent that our record, over any four-year or five-year period, shows that we have probably done 20 per cent better, or more, than the Fraser Government in any period. The Government is to be congratulated on the way it has maintained the level of funding at about $1,250m over the last four years, given the tremendous constraints and pressures that existed to cut funds even further. It would have been very easy for the Government to say, `The road construction area does not affect us. It is the States and local governments that spend it. We do not have to live with the end result. It is easy for us to reduce the funds and save expenditure. It is an easy way of getting $100m or $200m more'. Even though there have been reductions in spending in real terms, I congratulate the Government on maintaining road construction funds at a very high level. As soon as economic circumstances allow, road funding allocations will again begin to rise as, quite clearly, there is a need for it. Given the financial constraints, the Government should be congratulated on the maintenance of the program and of funds at their current level. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.57) —Ordinary Australians spend one dollar in every seven of their expenditure, about 15 per cent, on freight. Freight is carried in many ways around Australia, by sea and by rail. A significant amount has always been carted by road. The competitive factor of the road component has kept the system honest. I wonder how many dollars each Australian may have had to contribute above that one in seven, that 15 per cent, if it had not been for the competition provided by the road transport sector and, in that arena, by the owner-driver, who has been the real engine of competition in the area. He is a great contributor to road costs. The ordinary and typical owner-driver contributes 30 per cent of his revenues in one form of taxation or another. On a 1,000-mile journey some years ago I calculated that the sales tax on the tyres of a rig I operated represented a cost to me of 50c per tonne for that journey. So owner-drivers make a substantial contribution. Any student of the Budget would be well aware that the total of that contribution has never been spent on roads. Not even a fraction of the tax that is taken from road transport fuel is used on roads. Nevertheless, that is the sort of contribution owner-drivers make. Australians are great users of roads with the vehicles they own. Australians have always used and always will use cars. That is their preference. If we had a better road system, instead of State governments continuing to pour thousands of millions of dollars each year into their public transport systems, we might find ourselves financially better off. The States are losing $3,000m a year overall on public transport. I have heard it argued that if they were to set fire to the lot, on a reasonable wear-out basis they could buy all their regular customers a motor car apiece with the money they would save. That is something to be considered. Today we are talking about the priority of road construction in our normal Budget approach. Speaker after speaker, even those from the Government benches, has had to admit that the Government is not increasing its commitment to road construction, irrespective of the fact that travel by road is the preferred method of travel for Australians. What is more, it makes a huge contribution towards keeping the cost of our ordinary freight at a reasonable level. People in my electorate, in particular, are very concerned about the cost of freight, not only of the goods that are bought and consumed to keep home and life together in the rural areas, but also in getting the produce of the region out. The Government, to its credit, is conducting a royal commission into grain storage, handling and transport. Its discussion paper No. 1 tells us that the cost of freight and handling, as a percentage of the total value of a tonne of wheat, is now 52.7 per cent. That goes to many bodies, such as overseas shipping companies, handling companies, et cetera. Of the value of a tonne of wheat 10.4 per cent goes in rail freight. At times, some of that wheat is carted by road. The Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport, in its preliminary findings, said that to get more efficiency into the system, to lower the cost to farmers and to get that 52 per cent down to a much more reasonable level, would require more accent on road transport compared with rail transport. That is true. In Western Australia 1,200 tonnes of wheat is shifted per kilometre of rail track. The iron ore districts are shifting 80,000 tonnes of iron ore per kilometre of rail track. It is easy to see that in many parts of Australia we cannot afford both systems. There has been a wonderful use of figures today. Everybody has chosen the figures that have suited him. But there is only one real set of comparative figures, and that is, how many kilometres or metres of road can be built for a dollar. I am advised that in the last five years the cost of building one kilometre of road anywhere has increased to about 50 per cent more than when this Government came to office. I am not necessarily blaming this Government, although quite a bit of blame must rest there. I am saying that the increase of 50 per cent in the cost represents about 30 or 40 per cent less road. We should take that into account when we start patting ourselves on the back and complimenting ourselves on the way in which we spend money. I was interested to hear that the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) started his argument with the base year of 1981-82. Apparently he assumes that because this Government administered the 1982-83 Budget for three months, somehow it was its Budget. I do not remember it having much input into the estimates. These are the silly sorts of things the Government does. When the Australian land transport program was introduced by the then Minister, he was at pains to make comparisons as to how much his Government had increased road expenditure. He also wanted to go back a whole year to avoid one particular factor; that is, in the last Fraser Budget, the Fraser Government commenced the Australian bicentennial road development (ABRD) program. This is the only contributor to additional expenditure on roads that has occurred since. The Minister wanted to dodge that to try to make a sensible comparison. The honourable member for Capricornia did not even bother to do what some of his colleagues wanted to do, which was to speak in real terms. He wanted to speak in nominal terms and to make comparisons between the amounts of money that were expended in 1981-82 or in 1982-83 and the money being spent today. The honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) told us that in the comparable five-year period his Government spent more in real terms than the Fraser Government spent. That is true, if we do not take into account the fact that the Fraser Government introduced the bicentennial road development program, which is what has made the difference. It was an initiative of a previous government. Anybody who suggests that the generosity of this Governmnent is diverting that money to the Australian people, so that they can have better roads, must realise that that is a load of rubbish. It is money contributed by the Australian people, by the process of a 2c per litre levy on fuel. Thank goodness it is directed to a trust fund where the Treasurer (Mr Keating) cannot get his hands on it. Honourable members can bet their bottom dollar that, if he could, he would have been sneaking bits out of that too, and the money would not have been spent on the very necessary requirement of road construction. The 1987-88 estimate for roads is $764m from ordinary Budget sources. The ABRD program is contributing $480m straight out of the motorist's pocket. He contributes hugely to government revenues, and I will refer to that later. When the ABRD program started in 1982-83 the Fraser Government spent $750m in nominal terms on roads. Is it not amazing that the honourable member for Capricornia continually wants to get back to the discussion about pinching other government's Budgets? This Government is very flexible about other governments' Budgets. Apparently it wanted to steal the credit for the 1982-83 Budget from Mr Fraser. With the problems Mr Fraser had with that Budget, perhaps he would have been pleased to have given it to this Government. But suddenly we have the Treasurer blaming us for the 1983-84 Budget, which this Government wrote in its entirety. It had an $8,000m deficit, and it would like to blame that on somebody else. I tell Government members who spoke previously that they cannot have their cake and eat it. It is nice to take the best of one Budget and to give the worst of its own away. But in real terms, the nominal $750m expenditure in 1982-83 is $994m if expressed in 1986-87 dollars. As I said, that was just at the start of the ABRD scheme. I have already mentioned that in terms of metres of road constructed the situation changes even more dramatically. Let us say, for the sake of comparison, that in 1982-83 $750m would have paid for the construction of 750 million metres of road. It would not have done so really and the cost would have varied from place to place. But, based on a 50 per cent increase in road construction costs, $750m would today pay for only 500 million metres of road. In other words, in metres of road, we are getting 30 per cent less for the same expenditure today. For the last four years this Government has held its expenditure at approximately $1,250m per annum, including the 2c levy under the bicentennial road development program, which is contributed directly by motorists, truck drivers and others. If we again estimate that four years ago we got 1,250 million metres of road, this year we will get 900 million metres of road. That is the sort of comparison that we should be making. I thought it was amazing that the honourable member for Dobell wanted to make that comparison in real terms when, if he had looked at page 205 of Budget Paper No. 1, he would have seen the bar graph in nominal terms and seen that there has been no increase in expenditure whatsoever over the last four years. The Government's real contribution, outside of the 2c ABRD levy, has been decreasing in nominal terms. It has decreased from almost $800m. In fact, I think the Minister, in his second reading speech on the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985, referred to the figure of $810m. It is a little hard to see it in this graph, but the contribution to the Australian land transport road program, which the Minister made such a fuss about when he introduced it in 1985 for the 1985-86 financial year, has been reduced in nominal terms. This Government has maintained the $1,250m level by its very fortunate increase-to be expected, because it is so many cents per litre-in the ABRD levy, a direct contribution by Australian motorists. So we can see for ourselves that there is no great commitment by this Government to roads. To use some of this Government's terminology, it was the previous Liberal Government which took the hard decision and imposed an additional 2c per litre tax. But at least we had the decency to include in that legislation the provision that the money would go into a trust fund and would be spent on roads. We have seen a massive growth in the taxes on fuel under this Government-from about 6c a litre to close to 20c a litre. But no amount of that additional money has been spend on roads, although it has all been taken from the motorists. We have heard all the arguments-the argument of convenience, the argument of cost and the argument of safety. They have all been ignored by this Government. Comparisons of the type that have been made here today are scandalous. Someone talked of priorities. Let us look at other areas of government expenditure. Because of the extravagance of this Government's first two or three Budgets, which resulted in a total of $24,000m worth of increased borrowings, of deficit, we have seen the interest bill jump from $3,300m in the Fraser years to $7,850.9m this year, or $7,851m if you like. That amount is about the same as last year, so I cannot say that that is an increase. But this year the Government is spending $1,032m on culture and recreation, which is an increase over that for last year of 8.8 per cent. It is spending $1,392m on foreign affairs and overseas aid-money being given to people in other parts of the world who may not even thank us for it-which is an increase of 6.9 per cent. On the other hand, the area of transport and communications, which is substantially what we are discussing today, has a vote of $1,661m, which is down 0.5 per cent in nominal terms although, as we know, in nominal terms the road revenue stays the same. Let us look at the other side, at the Government's revenue. Revenue this year from the taxes on fuel levied by this Government will be $7,000m. One of this Government's early policy decisions was to index the excise on fuel. Of course, by doing that, it created its own brand of inflation; it got a self-generating tax. The price of fuel is included in the consumer price index and the CPI is used to index the excise. So by increasing the excise, that increases the price of fuel, which increases the CPI, which means a built-in increase for six months later. Has that not been working? The revenue from last year has increased by $300m or 4 per cent. It is a pity that that could not have been spent on roads. I want to make a final point on all of this. I have made a personal, if casual, representation to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) on this point. The ABRD money is aimed primarily at new road construction. It is sorted out and even parcelled out to local government, State governments and others. That has been the policy, and a lot of roads have been built. A lot of roads have been built with other funding. A lot of those roads, particularly some in my electorate, now need substantial maintenance. The maintenance they need most is to be resealed. Many of them have just reached that critical point where, if they are sprayed with hot bitumen and recoated with aggregate, they will probably last twice their original life. I have seen that happen time and again from my local government and earth moving experience. Once we let a bitumen seal start to crack, the water gets through the seal into the road base, the road base turns back to putty, it squeezes out and potholes develop. Once there are a few potholes, even with a full time gang patching them up, they will not hold in the ground and it gets to the position where the whole road has to be torn up and we have to start again from scratch. It is a tragedy when that is allowed to happen. Many of the local authorities in my electorate, and no doubt all around Australia, need to reseal roads. They have built roads with the money that they have received earlier. They still have numbers of roads to build, to seal, to make more safe and more economic for people. But it is beyond their normal resources now, even with other grants, to carry out a proper resealing program on all the roads that need it. I ask the Minister to consider-it would be to his credit if he did so-making a simple decision that ABRD funds can be used for that resealing program if a particular local authority decides that is the way it would like to spend its money. That is good housekeeping. It should be done, and it is much better that we save the roads that we have rather than go through a program of continually building new roads and having to tear others up. The latter is not good housekeeping and it is not something to which we should contribute. The Minister may say that in that $750m there are sufficient funds for that purpose. But the funds do not always arrive in the local authorities in particular in a way in which they can be spent on resealing. Some local authorities at this stage would probably vote their entire road funding money to resealing, to maintain their roads, if they could. Of course, sometimes roads need to be widened and it is easier for that to be done in the process of resealing. Many roads built years ago were built very narrow. We have discovered in Western Australia that the way to give a road a long life and to make it safe is to make a 25 feet wide seal. One can then put a white line on the edge. The reality is that we do not beat the edges out and the road lasts a lot longer. It is useless for the Government to say that 30 per cent less expenditure on roads than four years ago is a satisfactory target. It is absolutely not. That is the reality of the Government's maintaining the expenditure on roads during that period at $1,250m. The funding made available by the Fraser Government from general revenue built more kilometres of road than is the case today. Of course, the ABRD initiative must be credited to the Fraser Government. It put the tax on and it took the odium of that. It was the Fraser Government that started the scheme and it is ridiculous for this Government to make any claims about it. I suggest that, if the money were not in a trust fund, the Government would have paid it out to one of the other areas that I mentioned earlier and left people with half the number of roads. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(6.17) —We are debating the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill. Having listened to the debate, one would think from the words of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) that this Government was landed with some excellent roads. But the roads were in a state of absolute disrepair when this Government came to office in 1983. Children were unable to get to school and people were unable to get to hospital, partly because of the long drought which existed just before we came into government but also partly because the Government of the day declined to recognise the rapid deterioration of roads, which were being kept in some semblance of order only because there had not been a lot of rain, particularly in New South Wales. I recall when we came into government that children were unable to get to school and people unable to get to hospital because of the bad state of the roads. The honourable member for O'Connor said that the Fraser Government used its petrol tax properly. It was the Fraser Government which locked petrol taxes, petrol prices, into the general system of taxation revenue. It certainly did not use all those petrol taxes-this is a new idea which has come from the honourable member for O'Connor-purely for road works. It is a great concept. But it was his Government which locked petrol taxes into the general taxation system. The honourable member for O'Connor and the honourable member for Cowper spoke of no increases in road funding in recent years. I point out to the honourable member for O'Connor that he ignored the fact that in Western Australia total funding for urban, rural, arterial and local roads increased by $11m between the 1986-87 and 1987-88 financial years. I point out to the honourable member for Cowper that total funding for urban arterial, rural arterial and local roads in New South Wales-his State and mine-increased by approximately $23m. As far as rural arterial and local roads are concerned-after all, we are both rural members-funding was up by $22.6m. So the Opposition cannot talk about there being no increases. There have been substantial increases. I believe that the New South Wales Government will make proper use of those funds, as will local councils. Points that have been made on both sides of the House about the importance of road funding certainly bear recognition in this House. I particularly refer to the point made by the honourable member for O'Connor about freight costs being lower when roads are good. We can look at a road close to this Territory, the coast road or trunk road 51, which joins Canberra-Queanbeyan to the South Coast and the Prince's Highway at Bateman's Bay. That road has a long history of problems. It was originally bitumenised by the Menzies Government, but it included an escape mechanism stating that the road thereafter was the responsibility of State governments. There was to be no special recognition by the Federal Government of any obligation to that road. If one looks at the condition of the road today, while recognising some areas of great improvement, particularly the Doughboy Hill area under the community employment program, one would have to recognise that there is an urgent need for upgrading, particularly between Queanbeyan and Bungendore. When one considers the amount of material that is delivered to the Australian Capital Territory via that road, one realises that there is a strong argument for maintaining it in good repair to minimise freight costs-the costs of the contractors, the owner-drivers and others involved in freighting goods to and from the coast, to and from some of the sand mining areas in the Yarrowlumla Shire. There is an urgent need for higher priority to be given by the New South Wales Government to trunk road 51. Another factor which needs to be mentioned is that funding for arterial roads can save costs on the upgrading of other routes. Great savings could be made by improving trunk road 92, the link between the Goulburn-Queanbeyan-Braidwood areas to the northern part of the South Coast-in other words, the Wollongong, Port Kembla, Milton and Ulladulla areas. It could be improved by putting a reasonable gravel surface on it and later by sealing it. That link would be important for tourists who may want to visit, for instance, the snow fields. It would be an alternative route for people from Sydney, enabling them to go through Nowra, Braidwood and Cooma to the Snowy Mountains. It would also be an important link for the delivery of goods from Canberra to Jervis Bay and from Goulburn to Port Kembla. It would be worth upgrading the Kangaroo Valley link, trunk road 51, to take vast increases in freight delivery and tourist traffic. Tourism can make money for local communities. I refer to the Pambula-Mount Darragh-Bombala link. It would be a great link for tourists interested in travelling an alternative route to the Prince's Highway from Melbourne, to Cann River, to Bombala and then down to the coast. This would open up some beautiful forests and areas which could be used for family excursions and picnics. It could become a tourist attraction. That link is in urgent need of upgrading, particularly between Wyndham and Pambula, and in some areas between Wyndham and Bombala. If the road were upgraded to the extent that has been requested by local people, it would not only assist employment in the area by making it worth while for people to travel some distance to their jobs, but also would assist tourism in the area. People have told me that their vehicles have broken down and they have become unemployed because they were unable to go to work at Merimbula or at Bombala because of the condition of that road. Good roads save vehicle costs. Many people travel between Eden and Towamba. I went on a school bus trip between Eden and Towamba one evening and I recall that on that trip the windscreen wipers dropped off the bus. A bit further on the accelerator pedal dropped off. The bus is in a bad state of repair, certainly; it has to be kept in repair. The proprietor is unwilling to buy a new vehicle because of the dreadful state of the road. Mr Duncan —Would you go for another ride on that bus? Mr SNOW —I may go for another ride on the bus, but I would perhaps have a look at it before I left as one would, on occasions, check an aeroplane before flying. The Eden-Towamba road is in urgent need of repair. I compliment the Bega Valley Shire on the work it has done to upgrade its roads. I urge the New South Wales Government to use that extra $22.6m which has been made available to it for rural arterial and local roads. Another road of importance is the Millingandi by-pass which links Pambula to the Prince's Highway by-passing Merimbula. That road has excellent bitumen for some of its length but it deteriorates. I travelled on it yesterday. It will not be very long before there is an accident on that road if it is not upgraded. I compliment the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) and the previous Minister for Transport on their application of the recommendations of the Cameron inquiry into road funding which was set up in 1985. That inquiry established three principles: first, it called for effort neutrality which really meant that local or State governments were not to be penalised for effort. Secondly, it called for a principle of construction and maintenance. Thirdly, it called for a principle of periodic review of data sources supporting the committee's indicators and their weighting in accordance with Federal objectives. The indicators of road funding and requirements relate first to axle loading. This reflects the effort involved in building and maintaining pavements to withstand vehicle traffic. The indicators relate secondly to road occupancy which reflects the effort that is needed to build a necessary number of lanes to accommodate traffic. Thirdly, they reflect the restoration of roads-in other words, attempts to measure so that roads are maintained at their original standard. Another indicator involves upgrading, which attempts to measure directly the increase in road standards to take into account the increased traffic. I have mentioned some urgent road needs in my own area of Eden-Monaro. There are plenty of other areas in Australia which require attention. I compliment the Government on vastly increasing road funding since it came into government in 1983. Our roads are in a much better state. There is more to be done in a country with a relatively low population and a very large area to be covered. Everyone can see the needs but it is extremely hard for a country with a relatively small number of taxpayers, compared with countries of a similar size, to spend the amount required to improve the roads. I compliment the present Minister and the previous Minister on their dedication to upgrading the nation's roads. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(8.00) —I am pleased to join in the debate on the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987. I wish to talk broadly on the legislation and to point out to the House some aspects of concern to me in relation to the funding for road construction and maintenance throughout Australia. We have to appreciate the fact that whilst the Commonwealth supplies a certain amount of funding to all the States for roads, apart from the national roads aspect, basically it is the responsibility of the States to decide with the local councils where they will direct the funding that they receive. There are three ways in which the Commonwealth provides assistance for roads. There is the legislation before the House, which entails a direct contribution from the petrol tax fund. There is also the Australian bicentennial road development program, whereby a levy of 2c per litre is imposed on all the fuel purchased in Australia. Thirdly, there is the personal taxation fund, which comes by way of an untied grant from the Commonwealth to all the local government bodies. These three sources of finance for road funding in Australia-and to other local government works-are most important to councils. We have a tendency today to place a greater responsibility on local government generally to meet the demands of the community, which are very broad and very great. Having served on a council myself, I always say that roads are the No. 1 local government responsibility. The services of sewerage, water supply, parklands, kerbing and guttering, pavements and the like are very important also, but today we find that councils are faced with a broader responsibility within their areas, particularly insofar as welfare is concerned. Of those three methods of road funding that I mentioned earlier, the two most important are the legislation now before the House, the land transport fund legislation, and the bicentennial road funding program. This is because the money that is allocated for those two funds must go directly to Australian roads, whereas the other method of funding, the personal taxation fund, provides, as I said earlier, untied grants which the councils may spend as they see fit, even to offset increases in rate levels within their particular areas. Australia has a great responsibility for roads. I know that the Government can argue that there is today a need for restraint. We in the Opposition agree with that. We all advocate restraint. But it is a matter of priorities: it is a question of what one lot wants and what the other lot wants. So, as a representative of a country electorate, I want to say that I hold roads as one of the great responsibilities that we have-along with defence, of course. Australia depends so much upon roads because they are the means of carting our produce to markets. They further the tourist industry within Australia. They are important in transporting children to school. There are so many aspects of life today, not only in the country but also in the cities, that are dependent upon the communication field. It is for these reasons that over the years we have seen great advances made in road construction and maintenance. But in dealing with this matter we have to look at four levels of roads. The Commonwealth is directly responsible for national roads throughout the Commonwealth. The arterial road systems are also terribly important to areas of the Commonwealth. There are also our rural and urban local road systems for which the councils are basically responsible. So we have those four different systems of roads throughout Australia. I will not speak about the national roads. I believe that they are very important. I believe that the Government has done its very best to address the problems of national roads. Indeed, I believe it is now the case that we have a bitumen surfaced highway system right around Australia. This is a wonderful achievement for Australia. It is essential. So now in our plans we are looking to see how we can interlock these additional roads. I think of a railroad from the west to the east and of the rich resources that we have in the north of Australia and in the western parts of New South Wales, and I wonder how over a period we can address ourselves to providing the transport, either rail or road, that is so important in bringing these resources to market. Today I tuned in to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to hear about our stock market situation. Somebody remarked that in the 1929 depression the primary industries and the resource industries brought this country's economy back to earth again. We believe that this would still apply today. If there is a depression-I trust that there will not be, and we must not talk about it; but there is a recession and we are having problems selling our products on world markets-we will find that it is the agricultural resources of Australia that will bring us back on to a sound footing. It is so important to appreciate the necessity of good roads in order that we provide the facilities that are so necessary to get our farming products into market in our local towns and cities and also to export points, which is essential. The same thing applies to the resource industries of Australia, including the mining industry. It, too, is very dependent upon the roads. I know that the Opposition has criticised the fact that unfortunately the Commonwealth, over the last four years, has allocated only $1,245m for this category of road finance. This is insufficient. With an inflationary trend of 9 per cent a year, one could say that that amounts to a loss in real money terms of 40 per cent in what the Commonwealth has provided to the States for road expenditure. This has had a serious effect upon these roads I have just been speaking about. In my own electorate of Lyne, from the Port Stephens shire up to the greater city of Taree, we find that a number of our local rural roads and our arterial roads are in need of direct assistance from somewhere. The average person does not know where the money comes from. People know that they pay tax. They are told occasionally that for every litre of fuel that they buy, about 30c-over 50 per cent of the cost-goes to the Commonwealth and the States. The companies that actually provide the fuel receive only between 10c and 12c a litre. So all of the rest is taken up in costs. The majority of this amount goes to governments, particularly the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government. The New South Wales Government takes a tax of around 7c per litre for every litre of fuel sold in New South Wales. As a matter of interest, our petrol tax is now a very important part of the revenue of the Commonwealth. At the moment it is up to $6,987m, whereas last year it was $6,728m. That is a lot of money-approximately one-tenth of total Commonwealth revenue. So the early days of the 1944 petrol tax Act, which was introduced to provide something like a penny to go towards roads, have gone. We have departed from that, and the present system has come to provide an integral part of taxation revenue for both Commonwealth and State governments. So it is not unreasonable that we turn around and say, `Right, we know how important country roads are and so we want greater assistance than we get at present'. The efficiency of industry depends greatly on getting the product to market or taking it to where the manufacturing process will be carried out. We need conveyance along the line. A dairyman must have the tanker call to get his milk, and the vegetable grower must have a truck collect his goods and take them off to market, to the city. No matter what is produced on the farm, transport is important. This is also the case with decentralised industry. Manufacturers who set up their industries throughout the Commonwealth of Australia are dependent upon road transport. I know of a number of industries that have decentralised to my electorate and elsewhere that are unable to use rail services because they are not efficient enough when handling manufactured goods. The product has to be looked after, or handled, four times, whereas, if goods can be put on a truck and sent away to market, they need to be handled only twice. That means a lesser cost to industry, and this is why people today want to use road rather than rail services. I do not criticise Australia's rail system; we all know that we can be more efficient in certain things but the fact is that road transport is the most efficient way of moving goods. Many people, in the city and the country, drive their cars to work. There may not be public transport, or someone may just wish to drive his own vehicle to work. Often when I come to Canberra I travel across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Nine out of 10 cars contain only one person. A National Roads and Motorists Association survey shows that it is the wish of the people who drive these cars, perhaps because of the work they do, to have the freedom to drive their own cars to work. Nobody can take that right away from them-although the bridge toll has gone up to a dollar, and if the tunnel goes in it will be more. That is what the situation is, and we have to realise that. This country is very dependent on our road system generally for its future, for its development as a nation, from providing facilities for the transport of goods to enabling us to get our children to school. The other day there was nearly an accident on one of the arterial roads in my electorate, between Stroud and Dungog. Neither of the councils concerned with that road-they are relatively small local government bodies-have the money to spend on it themselves. They are dependent upon money provided under measures such as that before us tonight. Money goes into the coffers of the States, and on to them. I am sure that in New South Wales, where I have some knowledge of the situation, the average council could spend in one year on essential road and bridge works at least 10 years normal allocation from Commonwealth funding programs. I want to emphasise the efficiency of road transport, its actual necessity and how important it is that we build up our road system throughout Australia. We have to maintain existing roads and certainly build new ones to open up the districts that at present do not have the roads that we believe they should have. I spoke earlier of the tourist industry. Tourism in Australia is flourishing. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) said at Question Time today that the Japanese tourist intake, particularly in northern Australia, has more than doubled. I was in Cairns the other day, and there is a jumbo jet coming in there every day laden with people from Japan and the United States of America. So we can see the growth. We must accept this industry; we must build upon it, and our communications systems will be vitally important to it. I mentioned earlier the contribution of government generally to roads, but we ought to keep in mind that in 1982-83 expenditure on roads came to 2.12 per cent of the Commonwealth's total expenditure. Even though the amount may have increased a little because of the bicentennial road development program, it has now come back to 1.6 per cent of Commonwealth expenditure. Mr McVeigh —That is about 33 1/3 per cent. Mr COWAN —That is right. As the honourable member for Groom says, there is an actual reduction of about 33 1/3 per cent in the Commonwealth contribution to road funding. We cannot afford to have such a reduction in Australia. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) spoke earlier about the Pacific Highway. We would love to see it upgraded. I commend the former Minister for Transport, the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris), because he did his best to get that road improved as far as Newcastle. It will bypass Newcastle within a year or so, which is wonderful news for us in the north of the State. But a bottleneck will be created on the Pacific Highway north of Newcastle because it will not be able to cope with the demands placed upon it by the heavy transport vehicles and the ordinary motor vehicles which will use it. I think that now, because the State has altered the laws relating to the picking up and putting down of passengers, 28 buses travel from Taree to the metropolitan area each day. So we have this tremendous generation of traffic. We want that to take place but, unfortunately, we will have to demand that the Government upgrade the Pacific Highway. I suppose honourable members on both sides of the House, especially the rural fellows, would say that they have roads in their electorates that are just as deserving. Those roads are the lifeblood of Australia. Occasionally we are inclined to overlook the safety aspect of roads, but that is terribly important. We get so wrapped up in getting a road improved and our goods to market to meet demands that safety is forgotten. I know that much of the problem could be solved if New South Wales had the funds and the inclination to put more police on the roads. On busy weekends, such as the Australia Day weekend, when there are a large number of police on their motorcycles and in their cars patrolling the highways and arterial roads, we find that there is very seldom an accident, because people are careful. We do not have the manpower available to maintain such a police presence, and that is a shame. It is for that reason that we have to look at improving the safety of our roads for the people who use them. Australia has a huge circumference and our population is particularly spread out, and I guess it can be argued quite soundly that we are lucky that we have developed our general communications systems in the way that we have over a period of time. I emphasise in conclusion, as my time is nearly up, that the Government of Australia has a great responsibility to allocate priorities to meet the tremendous demand to improve our road system generally throughout the Commonwealth. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(8.20) —Before I turn to the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill-many speakers who have a much greater knowledge of roads than I have have already spoken-I should mention the fact that a few weeks ago I went to Windorah where the Federal Inland Development Organisation (FIDO) had a successful meeting. This meeting of representatives throughout the eastern States of Australia-Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland-met to discuss mainly the upgrading of the road between Broken Hill and Boulia. Mr Duncan —Where? Mr IAN CAMERON —Broken Hill and Boulia. I am pleased that the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support is in the chamber. When I am looking for funding for this road he should give it some money because it badly needs it. We are hoping to upgrade this road to a much higher standard than it presently is. In some places there is not much road at all, only bush tracks. It is intended that this road be called the Burke and Wills Highway. It will allow produce from the northern part of Australia to get to western New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, where the Minister comes from. People who wish to move north will be able to use it to get to Broken Hill and to go through the Warri Gate into Queensland and across Coopers Creek. It is intended that a bridge be built across the Cooper near a station called Nappa Merrie, which is close to the South Australian border. It is very close to the Dig Tree, which is still there and would be very interesting to see in our bicentenary year in particular. If anyone happens to be touring the south-western corner of Maranoa, I suggest he look at the Dig Tree. It is part of our heritage and history. It is over 100 years since the explorers perished in that part of Australia; it is a pretty place to look at. We are hoping to get some funding to put a bridge across Coopers Creek and to upgrade the road system. It is one of these pioneer roads. There are probably a number of them in Australia but of course this one at the back end of my electorate of Maranoa is the most important. I would like to think that the councils involved could get together and co-operate in upgrading the classification of this road. I hope that the Barcoo, Bulloo, Boulia, Diamantina and Winton shire councils involved will get together in encouraging the State Government to upgrade the classification of this road. Unless the road has the appropriate classification it will be difficult to get more funding, particularly from the Federal Government. I am hoping that it will be upgraded to a rural arterial road. The New South Wales side has a higher classification on it and, of course, it is getting more funds spent on it. We are hoping that this road will come into use in the foreseeable future. It is interesting that so many people were prepared to go to Windorah. The President of FIDO, John Field, the Chairman of the Barcoo Shire, Herb Rabig, who lives just west of Windorah, and a number of other councillors from throughout the area were present at the meeting. Obviously members of the National Party of Australia will give me all the support I need to get this road under way. Mr Duncan —Is he listening tonight? Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, he will be, because we are being broadcast, thank goodness. People in that area now hear Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio because at long last I have managed to get a radio station up and running in Charleville. The Channel Country is the size of Victoria, as I keep telling my friend the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). One day he will come there to see me and I will show him a decent bit of Australia. The Charleville radio station is now operating, so people in the back end of Maranoa will at least be able to hear me tonight. I have their interests at heart and I am hoping that the Minister will take on board the fact that there is a great need for a new road and funding in this area. No doubt he will look after my interests. Mr Duncan —Well, I fixed your radio station up for you. Mr IAN CAMERON —We now want commercial television as well. I have spoken to the Minister at great length and I will tell the people of my electorate that I have been trying to get commercial television in the area. I am still battling with the Minister but he is being co-operative. Mr McVeigh —Just. Mr IAN CAMERON —Just. Perhaps if I keep up my efforts the outback areas of Queensland which do not have commercial television will get it. I am the shadow Minister for local government and I am very pleased and proud of that appointment because it is my task to look after all of the shire councils and town councils in Australia. I guess there are about 100,000 of them and something like 900 councils operate all of the road funding that comes from Canberra. There is not enough of it but something like $1.25 billion comes from Canberra. Previous speakers have obviously highlighted the fact that this Labor Government has not given us a fair deal on road funding. There has been nothing like a real increase in the funds that are needed. The Australian Labor Party and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have spent an awful lot of time in this place telling us what is needed. Our balance of payments deficit has doubled again in the last month. Our debt is running at something like $1.2 billion a month. We have to keep our infrastructure in place if we are to continue to expand productivity across Australia. Today the road system is our most important form of transportation. It is more important than rail, road and sea transport because three-quarters of our produce is carried by road. We are an island continent and somehow or other our exports must end up at the seaboard. Roads play an ever-increasing role in our expansion as a nation. It is important that we give much greater emphasis to road funding. I blame particularly the Labor Government which has not kept up the level of funding. Today, the real funding level of $1.25 billion is equal in real terms to what it would have been in 1972-73. It is a disgrace for any government to put us in a position in which we have to catch up six years to equal the funding level in 1982-83. I am not too sure how we do that. We all travel around our electorates and we all see the state of our roads. There will never be enough money for roads-that is quite obvious-but at least we should be making a greater effort and our priorities ought to be headed in this direction rather than wasting money in some of the areas the Labor Party is funding. It is very easy for me to cite a few areas that get unnecessary funding. I expect the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support to make a greater effort to get more funds for roads. If he does not, I will be very disappointed with him. I expect him to perform better than he has been performing in this place of late. No doubt as he gets more experience his performance will get better and he will get more money for our roads. We are very keen to see greater funding given to roads in all the electorates throughout Australia that National Party members represent. Tonight we are debating the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill. This Government is introducing amending legislation to decrease the amount of funding that will go to roads. Can honourable members imagine any government having the gall to do that? This crew seems to have had the gall to introduce into this House a Bill that reduces the percentage of funding that is available from the excise duty that is being paid. The amount of excise is being dropped by 0.72c per litre. That does not sound much, but when we add it all up we find that in real terms there has been no increase in funding to make up for the 8 to 10 per cent inflation that we suffer. I argue that road funding inflation is much more than 8 per cent because out in the back of beyond, somewhere in Maranoa, building a road will cost a lot more than an 8 per cent increase each year. Earlier this evening someone mentioned the amount of road that can be obtained for each dollar spent these days. It is rapidly shrinking. We now have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in some cases millions of dollars, to get one kilometre of road built. This Government has increased excise taxes. The excise tax on fuel has risen from 6c a litre to 20c. All this money is being poured into consolidated revenue and then it is being poured out the back door into social security payments. There has been a $2 billion increase in social security payments. Mr Duncan —Why do you hate the poor? Mr IAN CAMERON —I do not hate the poor; I just wish they would get off their backsides and start working. Then we would not have any poor. I wish that the Government would encourage some capital investment and then we would not have the high unemployment that we have now. We would not have poor people. There are no poor in Australia today; they all get the dole. They get more than $100 a week for doing nothing. No one in Australia should be poor any more. It is a nonesense, a misnomer. The left wingers here want an inquiry into wealth taxes. They hate anybody who is making a profit, but in this day and age one cannot make a profit in this capitalist system. The left wingers want to bury the capitalist system; they do not want anyone to make a profit. How do they think people will have jobs? Who will employ the road workers of this country? Who will employ road builders if we are not prepared to make some profits, pay some taxes and reinvest money in this nation. That is the only way we can do it. We will not do it by wasting government funds on inquiries into wealth. That is a lot of nonsense. Australia is one of the most egalitarian societies in the world as it is. It always has been and will remain so. Some of the punitive tax systems that the Australian Labor Party has introduced of late would be all right if some of the money went back into building roads-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will return to the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, Madam Speaker, I am coming to the Bill. If some of these new taxes were being spent on roads instead of being wasted on social security payments, we would be much stronger as a nation and in a much better position to face the downturn in the stock markets that we have seen in the last 24 hours. Here we are seeing 25 per cent of our wealth being wiped out overnight at one fell swoop. We have a much greater task ahead of us; we will find it that much harder to build our roads because of the economic policies of this Government. It is a disgrace. Thank goodness this Government is losing ground in the opinion polls. If we can maintain our rage against it there is no way that it will be returned to government at the next election. We can look forward to coming back into government at the next election. Apart from the excise that I have mentioned, there is a 2c bicentenary levy on fuel and that money is redistributed back to the national highway system, the local roads and the rural arterial roads. This amount, together with that which I mentioned previously, adds up to the $1.25 billion that we are debating tonight. I am interested in the way this money is distributed. It is interesting to note that New South Wales, being a Labor State, has had an increase of one per cent. Queensland, being a good National Party State, has had a decrease of one per cent. South Australia, which is Labor, is up 1.5 per cent. The Northern Territory, having a good Liberal-National Party Government, is down 10 per cent. Victoria, which is Labor again, is up 2 per cent. Western Australia is up 0.1 per cent and Tasmania, with another Liberal Government, is down 6.5 per cent. This Government is paying blatant political patronage to its supporters in these Labor-controlled States. I think it is a disgrace that it uses what meagre funds are available for roads in this way. We see it happening not only in this area, but also in the general grants area where a large number of rural shires have been disadvantaged by the new criteria which have been introduced. I think it is very disappointing for those of us who happen to live in areas which produce the goods that the Government so badly needs to achieve our balance of payments and to get Australia back on the track. In the case of general grants, with the redistribution of the personal tax payment, we see most of the rural shires being cut down on their funding. This is a six-year program that is being introduced by this Government and most of rural Australia is being disadvantaged by these new criteria. When the National and Liberal parties are re-elected to government at the next election, we are committed to spending 6c of excise in the dollar. Under the existing arrangements, the Labor party is spending 3c plus the 2c bicentenary levy. We intend to increase the amount by at least 1c to take it up to the 6c per litre expenditure. If we do that we will be able to increase our funding arrangements over and above the inflation rate and put the roads of Australia back into the sort of condition in which they should be. I would like to thank you, Madam Speaker, for your patience in allowing me to speak to this Bill tonight. I have much pleasure in supporting it. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(8.37) —The debate on the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill this evening takes place in a very sober atmosphere. The Parliament is somewhat sober following the shock fall on the stock exchanges today and, to a lesser extent, yesterday. To that extent we are reflecting the shock in the community. Whatever recovery takes place in regard to the stock exchange-we hope that it will be a quick and vigorous one-the inescapable fact is that a number of Australians have been financially devastated. I suspect that some of them will have prominent names, but there is also no doubt that a lot of small investors will have been ruined. As we know, experts have been stating that the market has been overheated for a long period now. It has been no secret that a crash in one form or another has been predicted, although no one envisaged a collapse to this extent. This is a very clear warning to the Australian Government that we have to get back to basics. The stock exchange has been something of a mystery to so many of us for far too long now. The fast track money markets have brought great wealth to a number of people who are not contributing in a productive sense. At the same time the Government has been ignoring the productive Australians-the small business people, the farmers, the self-employed, the working men and women of this country. We have to get back to basics. What will really save this country more than anything else at a time like this is the rural industries. I say to the Government: for heavens sake, give something back to rural Australia. Rural Australia will carry us through. In all of the commodity exports there is reason to believe that we can weather the current storm. Mr Cowan —They don't want handouts; they just want the essentials. Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Lyne has just reminded me, no one in rural Australia asked for handouts. In any event, such a request would fall on deaf ears with this Government. These people do not expect it, let alone demand it. But they do demand an infrastructure which will allow them to produce those vitally needed export earnings. To that extent, a road infrastructure is crucial; it is absolutely vital. This Government cannot keep relying on the efforts of the rural producers and, for that matter, the mineral exporters too, yet do nothing at all to assist them in a fundamental way. Without providing a proper road infrastructure this country is sealing its own doom. How often do these matters have to be brought to the Government's attention before it realises that we are killing the goose that lays the golden egg and are destroying our own economic stability by not assisting with the proper construction of a road network? When all the rhetoric of puffed-up Labor members is brushed aside, what is left of the Australian land transport program under this legislation is precious little. Each and every member of the Government who has come into this chamber this afternoon and this evening has aped the style of politics of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), which is that if one tells the big lie often enough, convincingly enough and determinedly enough, people will begin to believe it. There has been a string of cheap imitators of the Treasurer during this debate, all of whom have spun one lie after another about road funding. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member should realise that it is not correct parliamentary language to impute lies to other members, in a general or specific sense. Mr Cadman —Oh, come on. It's been done many times. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mitchell will remain silent. I am sure that the honourable member for Gippsland will not continue along those lines. Mr McGAURAN —The falsehood propagated by Government members in this debate is that there is sufficient allocation for roads. Yet evidence has been produced by every member of the Opposition, of the Liberal and National parties, who has spoken to make that falsehood transparent. Who is kidding whom that the road network in the cities is sufficient and in reasonable condition? In the country the road infrastructure is collapsing. Mr Cunningham —Oh! Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for McMillan is seeking to interject. This is the same honourable member who, in abusive terms, attacked the Warragul Shire Council in recent days and accused its councillors, in a very personal derogatory tone, of not being appreciative of the Government's funding. The honourable member for McMillan told Warragul Shire, firstly, that it gets sufficient road funding and, secondly, that, even if that were not the case, it could take the money out of general purpose grants. Mr Ian Cameron —They have been cut back. Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Maranoa, the shadow Minister for local government, says, general purpose grants have been severely reduced in any event. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) in his own constituency has surrendered his true obligations. He has turned his back on his own people. He should not think that the people of McMillan do not know that. For a great many country municipalities the situation is critical. Within my own electorate of Gippsland, more than one municipality I could identify will this year spend the entire road funding allocation on maintenance alone. Forget reconstruction or new roads-my electorate is battling to maintain the existing network. I would be very happy to show the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) over these areas of Gippsland should he so wish. I very much suspect that he will not take up that invitation. Mr Duncan —Not in the winter, anyway. Mr McGAURAN —I hope the Gippslanders were listening to that trite, trivial, Marie Antoinette type of statement offered by the Minister. No wonder we cannot take him seriously, although Amann Aviation Pty Ltd certainly does not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should not respond to interjections. Mr McGAURAN —Inane and absurd they may be, but I wanted to place in the Hansard record the trite response of a Minister of State, the Minister in charge of road funding. He will not visit Gippsland during the winter. I could take the Minister, together with local shire engineers, to a number of roads that have been deliberately torn up by the shires and returned to gravel because there is no funding for essential reconstruction. What more dramatic demonstration does the Minister need for him to take the issue of road funding seriously? It is an issue that he seems incapable of taking seriously. The lack of road funding has reached crisis point in many municipalities. This is no better demonstrated than in Gippsland, which has special demographic and topographic problems. As Australia's best known and richest milk area, we have a great many thousands of milk tankers traversing our road system every day. It is a very productive timber area and timber jinkers and other heavy transports are on the road constantly. To add to the problem, we have a very high rainfall, a shortage of inexpensive gravel and a mountainous terrain. Gippsland is behind the eight-ball immediately, so much that I believe that there is an argument to be made out to develop a formula whereby disadvantaged regions can have some sort of catch up through a direct grant from the Commonwealth. Otherwise an area like Gippsland, whatever reform is made to distribution-and I note that the Minister has none in the offing-will never catch up. Much of the fault for this lies with the Victorian State Government. The Victorian Labor Government has been siphoning off the lion's share of Commonwealth funding for the urban system. There is no doubt whatever about that. No matter how dedicated the efforts of the Municipal Association of Victoria, the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria or individual members such as me to obtain a breakdown of Victorian road funding, we have failed to succeed. We cannot get a distribution statement from the Labor Government in Victoria as to how Commonwealth funds are spent. The legislation provides for $1,250m in funding this financial year, which is almost identical to last year's financial allocation. That is made up of $770m for the Australian land transport program and $480m for the Australian bicentennial road development program. So there is a dramatic fall in real terms in road funding from last year's allocation, which in itself represented a fall from previous years. Yet we have had an inflation rate of approaching 9 per cent. That is just the consumer price index, but within the construction industry the inflation rate is so much higher because of the fuel component, the heavy machinery component. Not only has the financial allocation for road funding this year in real terms fallen significantly behind last year and the preceding years; it has fallen further behind taking into account the rate of inflation for the road construction industries. We all know the economic cost of a bad road system in this country-the wear and tear on private motorists' vehicles and trucks and how it affects in a number of ways a line of people associated with the transport industry. But something we do not concentrate on often enough is the safety aspect. I have been taken to parts of Gippsland by police who have identified areas where fatal accidents have occurred only because of the state of the roads. One can talk about improvements on the Princes Highway, as the honourable member for McMillan valiantly tries to do concerning the distance between Dandenong and Traralgon, and make disparaging remarks such as he has made about the supposedly insignificant local roads, but it is the condition of the local roads as much as the condition of the highways that contributes to death and injury. It is not simply an economic argument. Time will not allow me to detail the cost to the community, in terms of injury, health costs and hospitalisation, of bad roads. The absurdity of all this is that every motorist is paying at least 19c a litre in fuel excise, yet less than 5c a litre of that sum finds its way into the road network. There has to be hypothecation, meaning that whatever is raised by fuel excise goes directly to the road system. The most difficult and bitter pill for motorists to swallow is that only a fraction of fuel excise costs, such a significant part of the cost of petrol, goes to improving the roads they use every day. The Gippsland Municipalities Association which, incidentally, passed a motion of condemnation of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) for failing to attend the last few meetings-- Mr Cunningham —They would. Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member has just accused the Gippsland Municipalities Association of some sort of political colouring or political bias. The honourable member and his ALP colleagues will never turn up at Association meetings. It is extraordinary. The ALP members turn their backs on the democratically elected members of the local government they seek to serve. No wonder the honourable member for McMillan is always in a brawl with one local council or another. It is the best show in Gippsland since Ben Hur. It is the longest running serial since Blue Hills. The honourable member for McMillan is sealing his own political fate with his inability to resist a cheap impersonation of the Treasurer, like so many of his colleagues. I stress the importance of local roads within our community. There is no doubt that they, more than any other part of the road infrastructure, have suffered from a lack of funding by this Government over several years now. A dual carriageway east of Traralgon and heading towards Sale and beyond to Bairnsdale is quite crucial. Planning for it must start immediately. There is bumper to bumper traffic on the road at peak times. Even outside peak tourist times there is a very heavy vehicle load. This part of Gippsland has boomed. We call it the Riviera of Victoria-Bairnsdale, Paynesville, Orbost, Marlo and Mallacoota. Together with the mountainous region of Heyfield and Licola, it has become the most popular and the most visited part of Victoria. The dual carriageway that runs almost the entire way from Melbourne to Traralgon needs to be extended eastwards so that the dramatic growth in tourism and recreation sports that has occurred in East Gippsland can continue. In summary, every National Party member could speak at great length about the suffering within their country electorates caused by the drop in road funding. It is a matter of priorities. A government has to make hard decisions and decide what is more important than any other issue. To my way of thinking, unless this Government takes the issue of road funding far more seriously than it has ever demonstrated before, this country, which is so dependent on rural industries, will have little future to look forward to. I urge the Government to rethink its strategy and allocation for road funding. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(8.54) —I have the pleasure in this debate on road funding to follow the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who is my next-door neighbour in terms of the area in Victoria east of Melbourne. Together we cover almost the total area of the State east of Melbourne from Officer through to the border. There is a lot of debate in the area on road funding. Tonight the honourable member for Gippsland has chosen to attack me for some reason or other, which means that, very suddenly, I have to defend myself on this issue. Road funding has been an issue of great concern to country Australia for a long time. The honourable member for Gippsland very quickly moved into the seat of the former member, Mr Nixon, who was a Cabinet Minister in the previous Government. The previous Government saw the greatest decline in road funding anywhere in Australia over any period. In the seven years his predecessor was a Cabinet Minister-I spent three of those years in opposition to him-we never heard a word from some of his friends in local government about the decline in road funding. But under this Government, which has presided over a 100 per cent increase in road funding between 1983 and 1985, we have heard nothing but bleating to the effect that we are not doing anything for country roads. There has been no reduction in funding for local roads. Money is available to local government for local roads. I point out to the honourable member for Gippsland that the latest figures on what has been made available to Victoria show that for rural arterial roads there has been a reduction of $2.4m, for urban arterial roads an increase of $2.8m and for local roads a reduction of only $700,000. When one adds those figures, one finds that there has been a difference between this year and last year of $300,000-not a significant amount. From the honourable member's own side of politics and from the very people who are making the noise in the local government area we have had calls for cuts in government spending of $7,000m. What do they want? They want cuts in spending but they want spending on roads. They cannot have it both ways. The honourable member for Gippsland raised the matter of my allegedly speaking to the Warragul Shire on road funding. He has been on local television on this matter. It is a bit of a running sore. I assure the honourable member that the Warragul Press did not run anything on the meeting today in relation to the Warragul Shire. It is amazing that a local newspaper, which covers local roads non-stop, did not bother to run anything I said at the local council meeting last week-not a solitary word. Let me give the House the facts on what has happened in the Warragul Shire. I say this in all respect to a local shire for which I have fought to do everything possible for eight years in my electorate. I will continue to do so. But one draws the line when something as blatant as what has occurred in the last few weeks happens. I have received correspondence from the Warragul Shire in relation to road funding. The shire wanted to fund a road called Christies Road. It wrote to the Road Construction Authority and asked for Federal Government funding. It received a reply from the General Manager, Norm Butler, saying that no Federal government funds were available for the road at that time. I decided I would have a look at the road to see how bad it was. I must say that it is a very poor road. It has been like that for 50 years or more. The area in which the road is situated is unique. It is probably one of the most beautiful residential rural areas of Australia. There are homes worth $100,000 on one-acre or two-acre blocks. It is an area of which any person, any honourable member, would be very proud. I am not saying anything about the people who live there. They are all decent people. They have a bitumen road which goes from their little township of Buln Buln into Warragul. It is fully sealed-a beautiful road. But if they use another road, which is 400 yards shorter, they have to travel on a dirt road, which eventually links up with the magnificent sealed road into the town. A local councillor, who just happens to have been elected to the council recently and who happens to be the only farmer who lives on the sealed section of Christies Road, would like to have all the road sealed by taxpayers. When he pushed it at council, council asked for a report from the police. We had a report from a policeman who happened to live in Buln Buln and who also used the road. He said how serious it was. When I was invited to discuss Christies Road with the council I said, `You have the situation where because of regulations by the Municipal Association of Victoria-not because of Federal Government cutbacks; there are not any-and because of decisions taken at the local-State level, Warragul Shire has lost $70,000 from its local road funds. However, under the States grants money to the Shire under this Government, which has revamped the conditions of how the States receive money and has made $4m available to the States, Warragul picked up $153,000. So Warragul is $50,000 in front'. I said to the Shire, `Fair enough. I admit that $70,000 has come off your road funding. I admit that inflation is eating into the amount of money being made available for roads. That is because of the economic circumstances. We have all heard that argument before'. I said to the councillors around that table, `You have $150,000 extra. I think it is time you stopped writing letters and putting articles in the newspaper accusing the Federal Government and your local member of failing to provide funds when the funds are there and you have the decision'. When the councillors were asked to make the decision themselves on Christies Road, those conservative councillors decided that Christies Road was not that important and that they really did not need to seal it. It could wait until some time in the future. All I am asking is for other people in rural government areas to be honest in this debate on road funding. I am not accusing them of doing anything illegal. They are entitled to fight as hard as they like for the money they require for road funding. I respect them for that. I will fight their case for them in this Parliament. I will fight it with the Minister, as I have today. But what I object to is when they use their offices to accuse me, the Minister and the Government of neglecting the people that we have been elected to represent, when in actual fact they have the money to make decisions on those local roads. It is not for the Federal Government or the bureaucrats who sit in here assisting the Minister or for me to decide, it is for the local representatives to decide. We have made the funds available to the local government. It is not short of money; it has had an increase of $50,000. So it is obvious that those councillors, who will be sitting around the table in 1987 and 1988, will have to make the decision that they are elected to make; the one they preach about all the time about cutting government and cutting government spending. That is where it can start. It can start at the local government level. If those councillors think that 400 or 500 people who are living in an idyllic situation in a rural setting, with one and a half acre blocks and in lovely homes, should have two sealed roads into the local town, so be it. Let them spend the taxpayers' money on that. They have the responsibility. But then let them go to their own electors at the next election and explain why they spent it that way, why they gave a select group two bitumen roads into town when they neglected the things that the people in the town wanted. The honourable member for Gippsland attacked me on that issue, and I will fight it all the way. I have no qualms about fighting it. The major issue in McMillan is similar to that in a lot of other electorates around Australia. We have a major road travelling east through our electorate, the Princes Highway, which is a nationally funded road. It is the one road in Australia that the Federal Government pays money to, because it recognises the importance of the generation of electricity for the population living in that area. We have spent about $114m since 1980 on that road, and we are presently spending $15m a year on it. It is a major artery in Victoria, funded by this Government, and the work on it is progressing. So when the honourable member for Gippsland decides to attack me, he does so on the basis of incorrect information. He has just heard it on the radio and he decided to have a go. I remind the House that when the funding figures for national roads came out last month, it was announced that we were getting $244m. The case was solidly put by Minister Roper in Victoria, and by me, that Victoria should get a bit more. We were successful in achieving another $5.3m. That is not to be sneezed at, and it did not come about because of what the honourable member for Gippsland was saying. It came about because people got in there and made representations. I can assure him and the electors of Gippsland that we are not just sitting back and mouthing so-called government platitudes. We are doing the job that we were elected to do. I am sure that this Government will go down in history as the government that did more for road funding than did any other. I am sure that the honourable member for Gippsland would be very interested in one area I wish to raise. We have had a golden egg in Australia since 1975 or 1976, about the time when the coup took place, when Fraser stepped in and decided that he could manage this country better than the Labor Government could. At that time Bass Strait oil came on stream, and we had the greatest golden egg of revenue to a Federal government of all time. We had the cheapest oil coming out of the ground, we had a boom in world prices, so the difference between the price of the oil coming out of the Bass Strait oil wells and the world price was lucrative cream for the Federal Government. The Fraser Government has on average $3,500m a year to do something with, either to abolish the deficit or to improve road funding; but it did neither. It did nothing for roads and it did nothing for the Budget deficit. It wasted seven years while the Bass Strait oil wells were laying the golden eggs. Now, in 1987, the crunch is coming. The oil that is flowing out of the Bass Strait now is not being sold for the price it was fetching in 1977. In the next 12 months we can look forward to $1,000m less in revenue. There is no longer any golden egg in oil. An amount of $1,000m less will come out of the Bass Strait, which could have gone to road funding. Therefore, this Government has to worry not only about the Budget deficit but also about the decline in money coming from the Bass Strait. It has to look at the future, when it will be buying oil from overseas. It has to make responsible decisions about this. Any honourable member who stands up in this House and says that it is a priority to spend funds on a second access for certain people to travel into a country town might sound good in his own electorate but I am sure that the people of McMillan would not concede that he was doing a good job. We have a responsibility as a government. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has come into the House. He is well aware that the days of the golden egg from the Bass Strait are gone. The days of big funding for roads are gone. With the present state of the economy we have to look to the future to see what our priorities are. We can build good roads at the level we are building them at the present time and successfully keep employment growing, but people have to realise that there is no golden bonanza left. Elected representatives cannot keep mouthing that there will be an endless supply of money, as that does not exist any longer. I can see the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Moonie Oil, sitting on the front bench. I am sure that he is very pleased to think today that he no longer holds some of the shares that he cashed out very successfully a few months ago. Six months ago he had the good judgment to sell his shares and he did quite well out of them. Mr Chynoweth —He bought some more today. Mr CUNNINGHAM —He might have bought them today. He could do very well if he bought them at the bottom price. This Government has a great record in road funding generally. It would like to be able to spend a lot more on roads but it has a responsibility to lower the Budget deficit and interest rates, and a responsibility to the general public of Australia. I am sure that when I talk to the people of Buln Buln, who have one good road into Warragul, and when I give them the choice between having the Budget deficit eliminated and interest rates lowered, and high interest rates and a second road-- Mr McGauran —Under you they would get neither. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I am sure that 90 per cent of them will tell me that they would prefer the lower interest rates on their homes and that they are happy with the road they have. If the honourable member for Gippsland wants to jump in on issues-- Mr Chynoweth —Check the facts. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Yes, he must check his facts. He is right off the beam in what he is saying. I have no doubt about the support. Nothing will come from the Warragul Shire because it knows darn well that it is on very thin ice on this issue. It will not come back publicly and try to attack me in relation to his, and the honourable member is a fool to do exactly the same. Mr McGauran —The council you accused of being corrupt will. So will the policeman you accused tonight. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I am not accusing a policeman. All I am saying is that the policeman lived at Buln Buln and made the report on behalf of the Warragul Shire, which was quite a logical thing to do if he was asked to do it. However, the priorities have to be set. I am sure that the honourable member and his local government members will find that if they lift their own spending on roads, which has declined dramatically in the last seven years, they can take up some of these local road issues. The Federal Government is supporting them with massive amounts of money, and it will continue to do so. I strongly support the Government's position. I am sure that in the future, when people look back on road funding in Australia, they will assess where the problem was. We had a problem during the seven years of the Fraser Government. It had the golden egg from the Bass Strait, right off the Gippsland coast and right off my electorate and the area of the honourable member for Gippsland, but it wasted that money. Now those days are gone and we have to cut back our spending. The great majority of people in Australia proved in the last election, when they re-elected us, that they believe we are on the right track. The honourable member for Gippsland just bleats away. Everybody knows that the case he is putting lacks substance and credibility and is not believed in the community. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(9.09) —I take this opportunity to assure the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) that if the day of the golden source to which he referred is over, the day of more and bigger taxes, under this Government, is not over. We are debating a Budget proposal and we are looking ahead to a year in which the Government anticipates, in effect, a bonanza in revenue from additional taxation. In this context we have the contrast-not unusual for this Government-between the rhetoric on the one hand and the performance on the other. We have the rhetoric set out in the second reading speech by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) in which he refers to the provisions in the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill as follows: These amendments in no way change the Government's commitment to the development of a road network which will meet Australia's national economic objectives. That is really good stuff. He also said: The Government's economic agenda clearly focuses on establishing the basis for Australia's long term economic security. An efficient national transport and communications infrastructure is needed to assist in achieving this objective. But what do we find, as against that commitment? We find that under the programs in this legislation the quantum of money allocated remains as it was last year, and indeed as it was the year before, making no allowance for the impact of inflation in this area so that the program funding has significantly decreased in real terms. That has to be seen in a context of the totality of this Budget. It is not as though the Government is seriously restricting its spending, the need for which was recognised, of course, by Senator Walsh in the other place. The Government thereby squandered an opportunity to make a significant impact on this country's vast balance of payments deficit problem and crippling overseas debt problem. We have had the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tell us that there has been a 2.4 per cent real cut in Commonwealth spending-`the biggest cut in the 35 years for which comparable records are available'-a cut in outlays of upwards of $3,000m. The truth, if we look at this closely, is that, yes, there is a cut of $1,000m, about one-third of that total, in grants to the States. Then we look at the next big item of $1,000m coming from-would you believe it-asset sales. The sale of land in Tokyo and our Embassy in Paris and some like items to the order of $1,000m is entered as a cut in expenditure, nearly one-third of the total. It is all here in the Budget Papers if honourable members want to study it. Nearly one-third of this much vaunted cut-the biggest cut in 35 years-is $1,000m of asset sales! If we look at the remainder, the situation is that Commonwealth spending for its own purposes has in fact gone up slightly in real terms, and more in money terms. That is the true position in relation to this much vaunted cut in expenditure. Yet in this vital area of roads, to which the Minister attested such priority in his speech, the allocation remains constant in money terms-indeed, slightly reduced by virtue of allocating some to administrative charges-and is significantly down in real terms. I emphasise this point in the debate because one sees the impact of this at the city level, as well as at the country level as my colleagues the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and others have emphasised. I want to refer in particular to the freeway under construction between Pearce's Corner and Berowra in my electorate. This is a most important road. Indeed, it has been a concern of mine for many years. In fact I was very active in achieving the original approval for this as a `national highway' from the predecessor of my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland, the Hon. Peter Nixon. I used to be referred to by the then shire President as `Expressway Edwards' for having got that approval through. Mr Cowan —It should be named after you. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —That is not a bad suggestion from my colleague; that may be taken on board. The fact is that this stretch of national highway is of vital significance and of the highest priority. All the traffic from the east, the south and much of the west of Sydney must funnel through Hornsby, in the centre of my electorate, on the way north; it is the only way. From a defence point of view, if ever there were a major accident at Hornsby-the way big trucks thunder through there, there could well be-the road north could be seriously blocked. Of course, this is to say nothing of the fact that the construction of this freeway is very important in providing a bypass around Hornsby and thereby enabling more effective development of Hornsby as a residential and also a commercial and shopping centre. I mention this because, consistent with the squeeze on funds seen in this legislation before the House tonight, it is being freely said that `money for the expressway has run out' and that the completion date, which has been confidently fixed at May 1988, has now been put back to somewhere in 1989, or who knows when. I hope that those statements that I have referred to may be wrong. I would be interested to hear the Minister's view. But perhaps the delay with this freeway is not all because of the Hawke Labor Government in Canberra; indeed, I suspect that the Minister's predecessor, the Hon. Peter Morris, now the Minister for Resources, has done what he can for the project. Perhaps the State Government in New South Wales as an agent for the Commonwealth in this matter, has intervened. It may well be that some of the funds that should have been going to this freeway have been directed by the Unsworth Labor Government in New South Wales to its pet project, the Darling Harbour. I strongly suspect that this has been the case. We have in the Unsworth State Labor Government in New South Wales a government consumed with the provision of `monuments and circuses' for the people-- Mr Peacock —Is that the Unsworth-Brereton Government? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —As my colleague the honourable member for Kooyong says, it is, of course, the Unsworth-Brereton Government. Of course, Brereton insists on getting up front. I am not quite sure what Mr Unsworth thinks about that. But, yes, the Unsworth-Brereton Government is precisely the one to which I refer. Mr Cowan —Neville Wran wants to come back. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —We seem to have heard a lot about him in the Press lately. Perhaps the New South Wales Government is sending out a distress call-not that it would do much good; but there it is. It is possible that in this way there has been a diversion of funds from this very vital highway. But I draw the attention of the House to the way in which this Pearces Corner-Berowra expressway is an absolutely vital commercial and, indeed, defence artery in the north of the city of Sydney, the progress of which has visibly slowed and is, I believe, a reflection of the allocation, or misallocation, of the funds that we are discussing here tonight. The fact is that under this legislation the funding is kept level in money terms despite the fact, as I showed earlier, that for the Commonwealth's purposes in most other spheres there has in fact been a sufficient money increase at least to maintain overall the real level of activity. I hope the Government will direct its attention to this very important issue. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(9.20) —I support the case which has been put in this debate for more funding for roads-national highways, arterial roads and local roads. There is no doubt that the legislation before the House, the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill, short-changes the road system of Australia. In so doing, it has deplorable consequences in so many respects. I briefly refer to the circumstances relating to the Pacific Highway in the electorate of Page and, in particular, that section of the highway between Grafton and Maclean, recognised throughout New South Wales as the most needy section of the highway for upgrading. Grants were authorised by the Federal Minister for Transport, the predecessor of the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), yet this funding has not flowed through in an effective way. We see the most incredible botch in respect of road construction that one could find anywhere in Australia. The blame perhaps lies with the New South Wales Government. There was reference earlier to the New South Wales Minister for Roads and the disabilities that that State is suffering at present. Perhaps it is no exaggeration to say that crucial funding has been diverted from roads such as the Pacific Highway to the Darling Harbour project in Sydney, to expressways related to the development of the Darling Harbour project. If that is the case it is, I believe, a very sad reflection on the administration of the road funds, particularly those funds provided by the Federal Government for essential road works in New South Wales. The problem to which I refer is one in which there have been allocations made for very urgent realignment of sections of the highway which no longer have adequate carriageway for traffic volumes of immense proportions. That reconstruction work has been going on month by month on a stop-go basis for almost two years. What has become of the funds that have been allocated? What arrangements were made between the Federal department and the State department in respect of this project? It boggles the mind to see the equipment and the engineering that would have been involved and to see that stop-start process that has occurred on the worst section of the Pacific Highway in New South Wales. Yet that project comes to a halt because of insufficient funds. The authorisation announced at least two years ago by the former Federal Minister was, of course, seized upon by the State Minister with a further announcement saying, `Yes, the funding is there. The work will be carried out'. In fact, it is a total mess. The work is totally inadequate. The most accident-prone section of the highway is totally neglected. In the limited time I have available I do not want to canvass more than two significant points that have been alluded to in this debate. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) said that an additional $50,000 had been authorised. What can be done with $50,000 on essential road works? Most local authorities, certainly in New South Wales, find that they are unable to construct any new sections of road of a worthwhile magnitude for $50,000. In fact the councils in my electorate have a program, which is part of the New South Wales scheme of things, in which new construction is limited to less than one kilometre a year. In a local government area where, to be effective, there is a need for, say, 15, 20 or 30 kilometres of road to be constructed, the $50,000 that the honourable member for McMillan mentioned would not pay for the construction a fraction of a kilometre of a rural arterial road or a rural local road. The reality is that if we compare the funding for expressways, major bridge construction and so on, to the needs of local government, we see that it has been left behind in a way that is tragic for the future of the road systems in Australia. Shires such as Kyogle in northern New South Wales, one of the larger council areas with an enormous road length, have no increase in road funding. There is no adequate increase in their share of personal tax reimbursement. There is no adequate provision for an ongoing program of road maintenance, let alone adequate road construction. The position is totally unsatisfactory. The contraction in funding makes the position worse and the Government's record is abysmal. The debate throws up the suggestion that there are other categories from which funding can come to assist local authorities. We know that that is wrong. We know that in practice it does not occur. We need to face up to the fact that there will continue to be tragic road accidents, tragic loss of life, tragic depletion of road standards unless this situation is reversed. I strongly support those who in this debate have brought this point so forcefully to the House tonight. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(9.26) —in reply-I thought it appropriate to allow the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) to say a few words. I hope he appreciates that. I well recognise the need for local members to say something in a debate of this nature so they can have it reported in the local newspapers, et cetera. He is entitled, as is anybody else, to undertake that chore. A few things need to be said about the debate tonight. I would like to place on record a quite extraordinary thing. I am sure that most people listening to the debate this afternoon and this evening would have been left with the impression that the Opposition was strongly opposing this legislation. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. The Opposition is, in fact, supporting the legislation. The shadow Minister for transport and aviation, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), showed in his contribution the sort of hypocrisy that one sees from the Opposition when dealing with this particular matter. On 26 May 1985 he, the person who is now the shadow Minister with responsibility for roads in this nation, in outlining his commitment to a radical right philosophy, advocated, amongst other things, the total elimination of road grants to the States in this nation. That is what he believes. He does not believe the tripe and nonsense that he has put on record here this afternoon. At the same time he also advocated the absolute abolition of Federal grants to local government. Any member of this House knows full well what a disaster that would be for the nation's roads and the nation's infrastructure. It would be an unqualified disaster. That is the sort of hypocrisy that we have had to sit here and suffer for the last two or three hours. Mr Deputy Speaker, it does not matter which way you look at it; this Government has implemented the biggest road program of all time in this nation. Australians are seeing and saying that their roads have got better and better. We have achieved this against the tight fiscal disciplines needed to get the fundamentals of the economy right. In those circumstances this Government rightly is proud of its record of road construction. I say to the Opposition: anyone in this nation can see the improvement in the national road infrastructure which has occurred under this Government. I say to the Australian community: you be the judge. Throw your minds back five or six years and see what sort of road system we had at that time. The proof, my friends, of the pudding is in the eating. We have done more to build a national road infrastructure than any government in this nation's history. I am very proud of that record, as is every member on this side of the House, and every member of the Australian Labor Party should be proud of it. If I can turn the coin around for a moment, we listened to the Opposition in this debate saying how bad the roads are all over the nation. This road, that road, that back road, the other front road-every road that honourable members opposite cared to mention in this Parliament tonight-seemed to be in dire straits, collapsing and falling apart. One is led to say to oneself, `Surely this absolute mayhem of road disasters could not have happened just in the last three or four years'. Of course it could not have. That just shows how little credibility honourable members opposite have. What has happened in this nation in the last four years-and that is all the time that this Government has had to set right the mess that we were left with as a result of the legacy of the Fraser Government-- Mr Beale —You call a $30 billion to $100 billion foreign debt setting things right? Have you got our foreign debt right? Mr DUNCAN —We have had only four years to correct the situation, and that is exactly what we have done. I can only put the jaundiced view of the honourable member for Deakin and others on the other side of the chamber down to what has gone on in the stock market today. I think that they must have come in here with something on their liver as a result of that and they are not able to see things in a fair and proper way. I can only put it down to something of that sort, because the record of this Government in the roads area is a tremendous one of which we can be very proud. There are a few matters that ought to be dealt with. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), for example, in a quite extraordinary performance, had the cheek to talk about road safety as if he had invented or discovered it. I just point out to him that, when the Fraser Government was swept from the treasury bench, the Australian Government under Fraser had spent not one dollar on road safety. This Government in this Budget is spending in excess of $6m. We have recognised the problem of road safety and are doing something about it. That is more than can be said for the tatty, sorry record of the Fraser Government on that matter. The second thing that the honourable member for Gippsland said was that funds in Victoria were siphoned off from rural areas to be spent in Melbourne-blaming either the Federal Government or the Victorian Government. He was not very specific about that, but he certainly intended to indicate to the people of Australia that somehow or other these Labor governments, the Federal Government and the Victorian Government, with some sort of sleight of hand, were siphoning off into the Melbourne metropolis funds that were meant to be spent in rural areas. I say to him that nothing could be further from the truth. Seventy-five per cent of the funds spent by this Government on road funding are spent in the rural areas of this nation. Let us get that figure on the record: 75 per cent plus of the funds spent by the Hawke national Government are spent on rural Australian roads-on national highways in rural areas, on rural arterial roads or on rural local roads. That is the fact and it ought to be placed on the record. Another matter that ought to be dealt with was raised by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), which I found particularly interesting. In a strange way he complained that a particular road in his area that ran from Queensland into New South Wales had not had enough money spent on it. He wanted more money spent on it. When pressed a little bit, he admitted that the road on the New South Wales side of the border was in much better nick than the road on the Queensland side. I say to him that, as a member of the National Party of Australia, he had better get on to old Joh and have a chat with him, because the fact of the matter is that the decisions on which roads of the rural variety are done up with Federal funds are made essentially by the State governments. If Joh and the Nationals in Queensland are not spending enough on the back roads of Maranoa, the National Party member for Maranoa had best address his comments to his National Party colleagues in Queensland. To be fair, he ought to give credit where credit is due-to the New South Wales Labor Government for spending the appropriate moneys on its side of the border to have that road in reasonable nick. Petrol pricing details were raised by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). Every year he trots out exactly the same speech. He says, on the one hand, that far too much money is being taken out of the motorists' pocket, pushing up the price of petrol, particularly in Tasmania, of course, and, on the other hand, that we are not spending enough money on roads in Tasmania. I simply say to my friend the honourable member for Franklin that he cannot have it both ways. He knows that perfectly well. But he does not really want the situation changed too much; otherwise he would have to get himself a new speech, and that would be for him a pretty interesting circumstance in which to find himself. There are a couple of other matters I could raise, but I do not want to take the time of the Parliament. I simply say to the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) that the rumours that he is spreading about work being suspended on the Newcastle freeway are nothing more than furphies. They are not true. The work on that road will continue and we will have a very fine road there which, in my view, ought to be named the Morris Highway. Certainly, the former Minister responsible for the area, now the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris), was a great supporter of that road, and there is no doubt that he did a great deal to assist in the building of it. I conclude by saying simply that this legislation will continue the funding of the Australian road system essentially in a fashion which will ensure that we can continue the great effort that has been made under the Hawke Government to build a better road system in this nation. We will continue this building of the road system. We will say to the Australian people in the next election campaign, `You be the judge of the efforts we have made. Do you want to go back to the Fraser years when funding was less than 24 per cent in real terms of what it will be this year, or do you want to continue the real effort to build a national road infrastructure of which we as Australians can all be proud?'. I have no doubt that the Australian people will make the judgment that this Government has done a very good job in road building and continues to do a good job. It will therefore be re-elected at the next election so that we can continue the work that we have already begun for the benefit of the nation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duncan) read a third time. Debate resumed from 15 September, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the States Grants (General Revenue) Amendment Bill concurrently with the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(9.39) —The States Grants (General Revenue) Amendment Bill and the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill basically put into effect decisions made at the May 1987 Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting. The Opposition will not oppose the Bills. The States Grants (General Revenue) Amendment Bill represents $13.5 billion of Commonwealth general revenue payments to State governments, while the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill represents payments of $0.5 billion through the State governments' Loan Council program. These figures should be put in perspective. If we add to the payments under these Bills specific purpose payments for such things as health and education, payments to the State and local government sectors represent about 30 per cent of total Commonwealth outlays. That is a very significant slice of total payments. This tells us that the legislation we are debating tonight is extremely important. What these Bills do not tell us, in their dry legalisms, is that the Commonwealth Government has been cutting its Budget payments to the States progressively over the term of its office, while at the same time it has not seen fit to match the extent of those cuts with reductions in its own purpose payments. Budget Paper No. 4 tells us that outlays by the Commonwealth for its own purposes, net of proceeds from assets sales, are to increase by 7.1 per cent in 1987-88. That represents growth in real terms. However, Budget payments to the other levels of government in 1987-88 are estimated to record only a 2.4 per cent increase-or in real terms, a significant drop of over 4 per cent. I am not criticising the Government for reducing payments to the States; with the economy as it is, that is required. The reason I am criticising the Government is the hypocrisy it has shown in demanding spending restraint from all other levels of government while at the same time not matching the bid it asks the States to accept. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) gave pious sermons to the States at the Premiers Conference on the need for expenditure reductions to meet the country's economic difficulties. A week prior to that, when the May economic statement was presented to the Parliament, they sermonised on the same topic saying that we must adjust to meet our external difficulties. Several weeks after that they sermonised again, for the September Budget. But sermonising, as all know, is not action. They are prepared to ask the States to pull back outlays but they are happy to be easier on themselves. It is just this sort of lax attitude that Senator Peter Walsh, the Government's own Minister for Finance, has been frightened by. As all Australia knows, he has warned that unless there are changes in this Government's economic policy, he can see us facing the Argentinean road. Indeed, beyond seeing it, he says we are heading down it. Alongside that road is a sign that points to Labor's debt, to the $83 billion net foreign debt which this Government has given us. Our foreign debt has quadrupled during the period of the Hawke-Keating Government. The Opposition's view on this has been stated time and again in recent months-namely, that our pace of adjustment is too slow. The Government had its opportunity in the Budget but it was not prepared to make the necessary quality cuts in its own programs. Nonetheless, the call for States to share the burden of fiscal restraint is in itself appropriate. All governments in Australia-indeed, most Western governments that have been profligate-must realise the need to reduce growth in their recurrent expenditure at a time when real incomes have been falling. The States of our nation do represent a large share of the total outlays. Budget Paper No. 1 tells us that total public sector outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) were 41.6 per cent in 1986-87. The State and local government sectors represented just over half of that, at 21.2 per cent of outlays. In addition, when we talk about reducing the public sector borrowing requirement-that is, the money governments have needed to borrow from the private sector to fund their excessive recurrent expenditure programs-we find that there is more to the calculation than simply the Commonwealth Budget deficit. Budget Paper No. 1 informs us that in 1986-87 the total public sector borrowing requirement was 3.8 per cent of GDP, or around $10 billion. The Commonwealth accounted for 1.5 per cent of that amount expressed as a proportion of GDP, and the State sector 2.3 per cent-that is, the States accounted for 61 per cent of the total public sector borrowing requirement in 1986-87. Certainly for many years the States have represented the significant share. So when it is argued that earlier excessive growth in public sector expenditure is one of the main causes of our existing external difficulties, that of course includes State sector expenditure. That we should contain total government spending so as to allow the public sector to make room for the private sector, particularly private investment, is an argument that we can apply equally to State governments. However, recent experience does show that some States are just not prepared to undergo this recently applied restraint. In Sydney, the Unsworth-Brereton Government has budgeted for the highest increase in recurrent expenditure of all governments for 1987-88. In addition, I commented three weeks ago in this House that the net debt of the State of New South Wales grew by some $2 1/2 billion over the last financial year. Mr Miles —How much was that? Mr PEACOCK —It was $2 1/2 billion. Do we smell an election around the corner? Forget responsible economic management; it is pork-barrelling that seems more important to the New South Wales Government than fiscal rectitude. In Adelaide Mr Bannon runs a Treasury that some refer to as the best merchant bank in Australia. It borrows money, hoards it away in hollow logs, and switches it from one type of security to the next, and yet we have to ask where is the long term benefit to South Australians. Government officials are not employed to be bond market cowboys. Governments should stay out of the financial markets as much as possible so as to allow private investors unencumbered access. In Perth, the Burke Labor Government took the honours last year for presenting the largest increases in recurrent expenditure. In my own State capital of Melbourne, Mr Cain claims that he does not have the hollow logs that the other States can call upon. Obviously that is because his Government spends every cent it can get its hands on to expand its expenditure on questionable programs, to increase the number of government employees providing those questionable services or to add to those employees' levels of remuneration. The Cain Labor Government presents an extraordinary record. But what of those hollow logs, the buildup of financial assets that the other States can rely on? These are savings that they can draw on now rather than make the appropriate expenditure reductions that the adjustment tasks require. Those hollow logs were allowed to build up because of the weak hand at the tiller of the Australian Loan Council. After the large legitimate expenditures by States on infrastructure development during the short-lived resources boom, the Hawke-Keating Government capped the States' borrowing ceiling, under the global approach, at too high a level. States were no longer involved in larger infrastructure projects but were still able to borrow large amounts, so they obligingly borrowed the money they were allowed to and of course squirrelled it away. In the process that excessive borrowing, mainly by State Labor governments, contributed as much to squeezing the financial markets and interest rates as the $15 billion deficit of the first two disastrous Keating Budgets. Therefore, while I indicate that obviously the States have the right to pursue their own policies, one has to add that those rights must be exercised with responsibility. They must bear their fair share of the adjustment process, and ought to be prepared to step up the pace of adjustment, as we demand that the Federal Government step up the pace, to help address our external difficulties. I conclude by referring to some specific aspects of the Bills before us. The States Grants (General Revenue) Amendment Bill will implement certain Budget proposals that the States will in future be expected to share in meeting some of the costs of higher education superannuation. This suggests to me a transfer of obviously a minor Commonwealth outlay to the States. However, despite its modesty it represents a welcome step in recognising that the centralisation of power in Canberra is, in many cases, the opposite of what is needed. During the calamitous days of the Whitlam Government the Commonwealth assumed a right, indeed a desire, to intervene in all manner of activities once seen as solely the province of the States. In health, education, road building and innumerable other activities the Commonwealth has established huge bureaucracies. I will give just one example. While the Queensland Department of Health, with its 6,700 or so staff, operates the State's entire public hospital and health system, prior to the recent reorganisation the Commonwealth Department of Health employed some 4,100 public servants not one of whom, according to State governments, provided any direct health service to patients. This is not a bad record of growth in numbers. There is certainly a case for the Commonwealth to review its activities and avoid costly duplication of State functions. It is more appropriate for the States, which employ the teachers, the nurses and the road builders, to be allowed to take the responsibility of conducting their own programs. This does not mean that I am advocating the wholesale removal of Commonwealth funding to the States-I am not on about that-but in many cases block grants would be more efficient than Commonwealth meddling in State affairs. Finally, I refer to the housing industry as the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill involves nominating arrangements for public housing under the States Loan Council program. The legislation before us indicates that those amounts that can be nominated from the borrowings component under the States Loan Council program will be an estimated $357m in 1987-88. That compares with $534m for this program in 1986-87. That is a very large fall. The bare figures may disguise efficiency gains through program reappraisal and may not, in themselves, represent a neglect by the Government of the poor homeless element in the community. There may be quite legitimate explanations. However, there is no legitimate explanation for why the Government has wreaked havoc in the housing industry in this country. First there was the capital gains tax and the abolition of negative gearing and then the record high interest rate policies of this Government. The rental market for accommodation, especially in Sydney, has been appalling. The Government did a back flip on negative gearing probably more out of sympathy for Barrie Unsworth's poor election chances than for the homeseeker. Mr Robert Brown —He will romp home. Mr PEACOCK —However, that back flip was offset by knee jerk reaction to foreign investment in real estate. If I had not realised that the honourable member who interjected probably dropped a bundle speculating on the market in recent days, I would have challenged him to a wager on the statement he has just made and I would have given him a shade of odds. What a macabre and contorted dance we have seen from this Government in the housing area. Mr O'Keefe —You would lose your dough too. Mr PEACOCK —Do not tell me that the honourable member is prepared to put money on the Unsworth-Brereton Government. It is a bit on the nose, mate, I think. I was saying before I was gently interrupted that the Government did a back flip on negative gearing, probably, as I said, more out of sympathy for the soon-to-be-departed Unsworth Government than out of sympathy for the home seeker. However, that back flip was offset by the knee jerk reaction to foreign investment in real estate. What a macabre and contorted dance that was. Nevertheless, what is more important than anything else is the prospect for interest rates. If the Government is not prepared to quicken the pace of adjustment, a move that will allow a sustainable easing of monetary policy, as opposed to the premature easing that we have been seeing, inflation and interest rates will remain high. That is bad for housing; that is bad for investment; and it leaves little prospect of significantly reducing the $83 billion foreign debt, that is, Labor's debt. The quadrupling of that debt has occurred during the period of this Labor Government. Despite the criticisms that have been put-and they are significant and substantial-as I have said, the Bills basically put into effect decisions made at the May 1987 Premiers Conference and the Loan Council meeting and the Opposition will not be opposing them. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(9.56) —I welcome the commitment of the Opposition, as evinced by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), to the general principle underlying the States Grants (General Revenue) Amendment Bill and the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill. It is certainly past time that the Commonwealth Government required greater accountability from the States in channelling taxpayers' money to the States. The honourable member for Kooyong spoke against the tendency of the Commonwealth thrusting into realms which he stated were traditionally the responsibility of the States. He does not suggest the wholesale removal of Commonwealth funding for the States but believes in block grants without Commonwealth meddling. I do not think this is reasonable. What is the logic in giving taxpayers' money to State governments for the provision of facilities and/or training without ensuring that the money is spent for the purposes for which it was intended? Certainly experiences with the misspending of Commonwealth funding in Queensland demonstrate the urgent need for the Commonwealth Government to plan ahead and to introduce accountability provisions. This is done in the Bills to hand. I comment firstly on the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill 1987. Since the Hawke Government came to office in 1983, Australia has benefited from sustained and intelligent management. This has been achieved despite the fact that the economy we inherited from our predecessors was in a state of recession far worse than expected. This Government has now produced a virtually balanced Budget for the first time in 17 years. The Bills now before the House reflect this responsible economic management as well as the traditional Labor commitment to the welfare needs of this country, particularly long term assistance for low and middle income earners. In the interests of continuing national economic recovery, one of the purposes of this Bill is to continue the payment of interest free capital grants to the States as part of the State governments' Loan Council programs. In the 10 year prior to 1985-86 the Federal Government's contribution amounted to one-third of the State governments' Loan Council program but was increased during the difficult times of 1985-86 and 1986-87 to approximately 35.7 per cent. State economies have been assisted greatly since 1970-71 when interest free grants were first introduced. The States are free to administer the grants as they see fit. This Bill provides for $176,104,000 in capital grants in 1987-88 and $357,208,000 makes up the loan portion of the State governments Loan Council programs. In the past five years the States and the Northern Territory have been able to nominate part of the borrowing component of their Loan Council programs for public housing. As a result of a decision made at the Loan Council meeting on 25 May 1987, this Bill seeks to allow the States and the Northern Territory to nominate the whole of the borrowing component of their programs for public housing in 1987-88. Up to $414m will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory as loans on concessional terms for the purposes of public housing. What distinguishes this Government even more than its economic performance is its ability to reconcile sound fiscal management with a long-standing commitment to social welfare policy, something which Opposition members were unable to do when in government. Nothing more ably demonstrates this dual commitment than public housing. It is important that spending in this area is not ad hoc, as it was in past years, but is planned to meet the needs of Australian electorates. This plan must incorporate the accountability provisions to ensure greater accountability from the States. In past years the Queensland Government has reneged on its responsibilities to Queenslanders by grossly underspending in the area of public housing and missing out on the Federal dollar that it could have had to relieve that situation. I have those figures on file. In the past the Queensland Government has had the freedom to spend, or misspend, Federal Government moneys as it wished. This Bill formalises the requirement that the States and the Northern Territory must supply the Commonwealth with certified financial statements which clearly show the way in which they distributed loan funds nominated for public housing-a most important provison, given the situation in Queensland where that State Government exists without a public accounts committee. Before the Hawke Government moved to require accountability for too long the Queensland Government had been accountable to no one but itself regarding expenditure in the area of public housing-as well as in most areas of expenditure in Queensland. The requirement for the States and the Northern Territory formally to report on their expenditure to the Commonwealth was long overdue. Queensland has done very well on Federal funding. In 1987-88 the Federal Government has increased public housing funding to the States and the Northern Territory to $700m. At least $700m a year will also be provided to the States as grants under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement in 1988-89 and in 1989-90. Queensland's allocation is as follows: untied grants, $77,545,000; rental assistance for pensioners, $7,396,000; rental assistance for Aborigines, $15,186,000; crisis accommodation program, $2,553,000; mortgage and rent relief scheme-a most important Federal Government initiative for which the Queensland Government has consistently claimed credit-$4,132,000; local government and community housing program, $1,969,000. This makes a total of $108,781,000 of Federal funding for Queensland alone. An additional $414m has also been made available in 1987-88 for public housing under Loan Council nominating arrangements at the highly concessional interest rate of 4.5 per cent repayable over 53 years. This amount includes $24.966m for Queensland. As a result of the first triennial evaluation of the 1984 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, changes are currently being made to assistance arrangements which will tighten provisions for accountability and use of Loan Council funds to ensure that all revolving funds arising from these loans remain in public housing. The changes will also ensure that States adhere to the non-discrimination principles of the agreement by adding a specific requirement that young, single people be admitted to waiting lists-a most desirable change to these provisions. It will ensure that State governments come to the party in meeting this requirement. We will do this by the provision to allow Federal reallocation of funds if this requirement is not met. Regrettably, this is important, given the past record of the Queensland Government again in not allocating Federal funds for the purposes for which they were intended. Other changes are to revise consultative arrangements for the Aboriginal rental program to ensure greater Aboriginal involvement and a more effective Federal role in overseeing priority setting for Aboriginal housing and to require States to allocate not less than 50 per cent of total funds for public rental housing from 1987-88. Again, these are most important provisions. They are particularly important, given the fact that Queensland currently allocates a higher proportion of its funds to home purchase rather than rental than other States. Public rental housing is desperately needed by those who have not the capital to buy nor the income to pay inflated rental. Funding granted to States for public rental housing is not, of course, the be-all and end-all of the Hawke Government's demonstrated commitment to housing. The first home owners scheme was introduced in October 1983 to assist first home buyers from the low to middle income range to purchase their homes. The scheme has already provided significant subsidies to 255,000 Australian households and is expected to assist a further 52,000 families in this financial year. Nationally the figures show that 292,494 applications have been received for the first home owners scheme grant. Of these 256,473 were approved amounting to $1,140,476,000. To date, $924,869,000 of that has been paid out. In Queensland alone 54,103 applications were received of which 47,659 have been approved. The amount of money approved totalled $217,594,000 of which $176,184,000 has been paid out. In the electorate of Lilley, which I represent, 1,877 applications were received, of which 1,653 were approved. The amount approved totalled $7,549,000, of which $6,112,000 has been paid out already. I now wish to refer to the States Grants (General Revenue) Amendment Bill 1987. In May 1987, the Premiers Conference reached several agreements regarding the level of financial assistance grants and identified health grants. The purpose of this Bill is to fix the actual amount of financial assistance grants and identified health grants to the States in 1987-88 at certain levels which will be estimated to maintain their value in real terms. The 1985 Premiers Conference had decided to distribute these grants among the States according to the actual increases in the all groups consumer price index in the year ending in the March quarter of each year. The level of financial assistance grants and identified health grants was to be maintained in real terms in 1985-86 and increased by 2 per cent in real terms in the remainder of the triennium. This Bill will change this decision by fixing the grant amounts whilst retaining their value in real terms. The 1987 Premiers Conference decided to fix the total pool of financial assistance and identified health grants to be paid to States at $13.539m. This figure was calculated on an estimated 8 per cent increase on the 1986-87 grants level. This represents the forecast rise in the consumer price index in the year to March 1988. The Bill currently before the House also seeks to enact decisions announced in the 1987-88 Budget that, commencing on 1 January 1988, the Commonwealth will limit its contributions to State higher education superannuation schemes operating on an `emerging cost' basis. Before detailing some of the provisions of this sector, I would like to comment that the area of State funding on health programs is another area which has been extensively abused, again by the Queensland Government. The state of health programs, particularly women's health centres in Queensland, is an absolute disgrace. Comparatively there is such a gap between the number of women's health centres in Queensland and the number in other States, notably South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, that the nil situation which has existed in this respect for many years in Queensland is a glaring indictment of the Queensland Government and is indicative of the priority which that Government extends to women and to their health problems. Regarding the Commonwealth limitation of contributions to State higher education superannuation schemes, I wish to comment that the burden shouldered by higher education institutions striving to finance the accrued liability of emerging cost superannuation schemes has been heavy. Given the projected rise in cost of these schemes in future years reaching into the next century, this load can be expected only to increase. An added and increasing burden was put on some institutions as a result of the 14 per cent limit set by the former Government on the Commonwealth contribution to emerging superannuation costs. We in the Government ranks are aware of this burden. As the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) has already indicated in this place, the Government is prepared to play its part in the restructuring of higher education by contributing in a tangible way to the process of growth and improvement that is needed. But all interested sectors in higher education, including State governments, must play a part. The Commonwealth is therefore willing to share superannuation costs with the States. In the coming months, the Federal Government will address a number of aspects of the operation of our higher education system, including Commonwealth-State relationships in higher education and the problems created for institutions by divided responsibilities and accountability arrangements. Indeed, the Minister has already presented to this House a statement outlining these factors and a Green Paper will be presented by the Government before the end of 1987 setting out the many areas of administration and other matters of concern in higher education which the Government wishes members of the community, both the education community and the outside community, to address. This will be a wide-ranging review, relying heavily on input from the education sector, from business and unions and from the community at large. Meanwhile the States Grants (General Revenue) Amendment Bill 1987 requires States to contribute to the costs of higher education superannuation schemes by sharing costs in a way which reflects the respective responsibilities of State and Commonwealth governments which prevailed when the liability was incurred. The basis of the sharing arrangements, as outlined by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, will be that the States and the Commonwealth will share the cost of accrued liability relevant to the period prior to 1974 on the same basis as the Commonwealth matched State funds for higher education at that time. The Commonwealth will bear the full cost of accrued liability between 1974 and 1981, and the States and the Commonwealth will share the cost of accrued liability post-1981 on the basis of the Commonwealth meeting all costs up to a limit of 14 per cent of salaries of staff in superannuation schemes. The Commonwealth will provide full funding for superannuation costs in its grants to institutions and will recover the State shares. Overall, the changes introduced by way of the States grants amendment Bills before this House reflect a sustained and effective commitment to the dual objective of responsible economic management and real and continuing assistance to low and middle income earners, such as those wishing to take advantage of public rental housing. State accountability in spending Commonwealth funding is an integral part of meeting this commitment. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.15) —I wish to draw to the attention of the House a very difficult problem for the cement industry in Victoria. I refer specifically to the cement plant at Traralgon. The problem that is looming is simple and calls for immediate government action. At present there is an importer operating out of Western Australia called Independent Cement and Lime Pty Ltd which has been importing raw cement in the form of clinker cement from South East Asia-specifically from Indonesia, I believe. The cement is being imported at a dump price level. This is an emerging problem and I understand that Cockburn Cement Ltd in Western Australia will be filing an official complaint so as to trigger the anti-dumping laws. I stress that this clinker cement is about three-quarters of the way through the process to get to cement for retailing. The Gippsland cement industry is concerned because it is understood that there is an importer in Victoria who will shortly be importing cement in its finished form, which makes this an even greater problem. I understand that cement of this type can be imported at $A63.50 per tonne, and with delivery and handling costs it rises to about $91. That figure of $91 compares with the Australian price of $123. One can see immediately that the imported cement being dumped in Australia at a dump price level will seriously jeopardise the cement market in Victoria. That Victorian market is about 1.4 million tonnes a year split, 86,000 tonnes for Gippsland and the rest among all the other companies. There are about 770 employees in the industry in Victoria, but that does not include contract drivers. For Gippsland itself there are 102 employees, but one must add to that about 20 contractors. One compares that large employment opportunity with the position of the importers, who have only a handful of employees, mostly shuffling paper, although no doubt some of them will be contractors. Revenue to the State Government in the form of tax from all the companies in the Victorian cement industry is a massive $38m. Of that figure Gippsland provides $2.7m to the State. The Federal take from Gippsland is $810,000 a year and the total amount of money poured into the local community is $4.4m. It is most important that the Victorian importer does not obtain a foothold, as apparently occurred in Western Australia. I am led to understand that a site very close to the unloading port has been purchased in Port Melbourne. It is a $2.4m site and the building of silos is shortly to be undertaken, if that has not already happened. When one takes into account the purchase of and construction on the site, the purchase of some tankers and a pipeline to the unloading port, there is probably an investment of $6m all up by this company. The point I make is that a great deal of taxation revenue is at stake, not to mention the jobs of hundreds of people, and the subsidiary flow-on effects to a number of people who depend on the cement industry for a large part of their living indirectly. I stress that this is a problem which has to be nipped in the bud before it gets hold of the industry. I call upon the Government to take urgent action to investigate the concerns of the cement industry, particularly in regard to the dumping of cement by South East Asia. Korea and Indonesia are just two of the possible originating countries. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.20) —Tonight I would like to carry on something that occurred in Wollongong on Saturday-to pay tribute to Australia's latest sporting hero. I am referring, of course, to the Wollongong whiz, Mr Wayne Gardner. Mr Wayne Gardner is Australia's latest sporting hero by virtue of being the winner of the 500c.c. world motorcycle championship. Wayne Gardner typifies what Australian sporting endeavour is all about. This young man, 28 years of age, became interested in motorcycle riding when very young. Back in those days, and probably until 10 or 15 years ago, motorcycle riding was not regarded very highly in Australia. Wayne Gardner has turned motorcycle riding into a champion form of sport which is now followed by thousands of Australians. At his homecoming on Saturday thousands upon thousands of Wollongong residents not only turned out in the Crown Street Mall to pay tribute to him but also lined the entire street from Bulli Pass all the way to Wollongong, screaming their encouragement for him. This says something about the level to which he has raised this very important sport, not only in Australia but around the world. It is interesting to note that recognition has come only now. If Wayne Gardner is in Japan he is mobbed everywhere he goes. When he arrived back in Australia on Saturday at the airport a planeload of Japanese tourists arrived at the same time. Immediately they recognised him and swamped him for autographs. That is what is happening now in Australia because of the feat of Wayne Gardner. Wayne Gardner's career began when, at 13 years of age, he found an old bike at a rubbish tip at Fairy Meadow. He lives in Balgownie, which happens to be the suburb of Wollongong that I live in. He is the son of Norm and Shirley Gardner of Breda Street, Balgownie. During Saturday's civic reception for Wayne Gardner, once again he showed some characteristics which are sadly lacking in many people who attain prominence in our society, whether they be sporting heroes, National Party politicians or whoever. Wayne Gardner is a very humble champion, unlike a number of other people I could name. When he was feted on Saturday by the people of Wollongong, the Council of the City of Wollongong and many others who turned up at the civic reception, he was clearly moved. He could not quite understand all the fuss that was being made about him. Yet he is probably Australia's second highest paid sportsman these days. I understand that before he rides next year in the 1988 world championships he will already have earned of the order of $4m from sponsorship deals. Many honourable members would have to take a great deal of pride in the results he has achieved. I would also like to pay tribute to his very close friend Mr Nick Hartgerink, the sports editor of the Illawarra Mercury. He has written a book entitled The Wayne Gardner Story, which I recommend to every honourable member. It shows what somebody with perseverence can do. He has taken up a sport which perhaps has not been favourably looked on in the past, and has sustained a very strong commitment to motorcycle riding throughout a number of campaigns that have been levelled against him. Wayne Gardner is a true champion. I hasten to add that he is a champion of Wollongong. Mr Price —He is a true son of Wollongong. Mr MARTIN —He is a true son of Balgownie. There is a great deal of credit in that as well. My congratulations go to him. He carries himself like a true Australian. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.25) —I hope that Mr Gardner has the common sense to see through such people as the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin). He is the sort of member who got up and gave support to Ben Lexcen when we won the America's Cup but who, as soon as Ben Lexcen said that he did not support the ID card, dropped him like a hot potato. As far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned, sport is just to be used for a few votes. Most people will see through what the honourable member had to say. I want to say a few words tonight about the Constitution. Our Constitution is a fundamentally important document in the sort of society we have in Australia. One of the favourite techniques of the Labor Party to undermine our Constitution is to say that the Constitution was formulated at the turn of the century, is now out of date and, as a result, ought to be criticised and changed. I see a member of the Labor Party on the back benches nodding his head in agreement. I would say that he will stay there. Obviously, things have changed since 1901. Any- body knows that. It is a clear fact. The real issue is whether our Constitution is still relevant in the 1980s. The answer is a resounding yes. We need first to understand what our Constitution is about. The Constitution establishes the divisions of power within our society and the manner in which we organise the judiciary, the legislature and the Executive. Mr Price —Lord Reith of Flinders. Mr REITH —Lord Reith founded the British Broadcasting Corporation and ought to be beyond criticism by the likes of the honourable member. Leaving aside Lord Reith, let me say that one of the great things about our Constitution is that it provides a system of checks and balances by the doctrine of the separation of powers among the three arms of government, as well as by introducing checks and balances within them. In Australia we have a bicameral system comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Constitutional Commission recently brought down some proposals which it described as `a new scheme for the Parliament'. To describe its proposals as new is really stretching the definition of the word `new'. Let me take honourable members back to the joint report of this Parliament in 1959 where many of the proposals now described as new by the Constitutional Commission were put forward. Dealing with the issue of the importance of bicameral parliaments as a means of providing a mechanism against the excesses of the Executive, the dissenting report of Senator Reg Wright, as he was then, is well worth reading. Mr Kent —What about the ID card? Mr REITH —The honourable member for Hotham, who was prepared to stand up on the ID card and oppose excesses of government, ought to be interested in this. Senator Wright quoted John Stuart Mill, who said: A majority in a single assembly, when it has assumed a permanent character-when composed of the same persons habitually acting together, and always assured of victory in their own House-easily becomes despotic and overweaning, if released from the necessity of considering whether its acts will be concurred in by another constituent authority. The same reason which induced the Romans to have two Consuls makes it desirable there should be two Chambers: that neither of them may be exposed to the corrupting influence of undivided power, even for the space of a single year. Thirty years on, those words are still true and that provision of our Constitution is still worthwhile. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.30) —Tonight I would like to express my concern about the situation in Sri Lanka. I have spoken before about that once tranquil island, formerly called Ceylon, and about the suffering of Tamils who are a sizable ethnic minority on that island. I condemned the racial violence and oppression against the Tamils; I condemned the communal violence incited and orchestrated by the Jayawardene Government. I, together with the rest of the world, was praying and hoping that India would lend its good offices to help to resolve the ethnic problems and bring peace to all communities of Sri Lanka. Finally, on 29 July this year, an agreement was signed between the President of Sri Lanka, Junius Jayawardene, and the Prime Minister of India, Mr Rajiv Gandhi. When the news broke on the accord reached by the two leaders, together with the rest of the world I hoped that it heralded the end of violence in Sri Lanka. Alas, our expectations were over-optimistic. When in due course I obtained a copy of the agreement, I realised that the accord does not give real autonomy to the Tamil minority, which inhabits the northern and eastern parts of the island. While the accord stipulates that `all arms presently held by militant groups will be surrendered in accordance with an agreed procedure to authorities to be designated by the Government of Sri Lanka'-paragraph 2.9-the accord does not allow the autonomous maintenance of the internal security. Paragraph 2.10 of the accord places the internal law and order maintenance into the hands of Sinhala security forces, the same forces that were until now persecuting, gaoling and murdering Tamil civilians. Paragraph 2.18 of the agreement proclaims Sinhala as the official language. It seemed to me, after reading the agreement, that it would not resolve the ethnic problems, and it would do nothing else but to postpone the day of reckoning. as Dr Brian Senewiratne remarked in his work Sri Lanka-the 1987 Peace Pact: All it has done is to enforce by the use of (Indian) military force, proposals which the Sinhalese Government had previously offered to the Tamils and which they had rejected. Nevertheless, I still hoped that the agreement at least would replace the violence and allow peaceful negotiations to take place. Unfortunately, it did not turn out to be so. The introduction of some 17,000 Indian troops, armed with tanks and artillery, further militarised the situation. Recent Press reports indicate that the Indian troops are involved in an all-out battle against Tamil guerillas, completely disregarding the safety of the civilian population. A report in the Melbourne Age on 16 October stated: Speaking by telephone from the beleaguered city, the President of the Jaffna Branch of the Red Cross, Mr Balasubramanian, said: `The killing of civilians, mainly by heavy shelling, must end. We're not criticising anyone,' he said, `We just want to save the community from perishing. The situation in Jaffna is worse than it's ever been. It's a slow process of death'. Even though the Indian troops sealed off the area and do not allow foreign reporters in, reports leaking out from the area indicate that casualties amongst civilians are high. For instance, the report in the Australian Financial Review of 13 October quotes a Sri Lankan military spokesman as follows: Asked if Indian troops were using artillery and tanks to support infantry sweeps, the spokesman said: `They didn't bring those things in just for fun'. President Junius Jayawardene said yesterday he had sent Sri Lankan troops to eastern areas after guerrillas massacred more than 200 Sinhalese there last week. Survivors said Indian troops stood idly by during the slaughter, which followed the suicide of 13 Tamil guerrillas in government custody. The strange behaviour of the Indian forces, standing by and facilitating massacres, confirms other reports that 200 or 300 trained Tamils were brought in from India to commit the atrocities which were then ascribed to the Tamil tigers. Of course, it is hard to find conclusive evidence supporting such reports, but one cannot discard them, especially in view of the fact that the Indian military does not allow access to foreign journalists or international bodies like the Red Cross to ascertain the facts. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.35) —I spoke in this place on 8 October on this year's Budget allocations for measures to combat the transmission of acquired immune deficiency syndrome-AIDS. I made a number of comments concerning the basic policy questions which are still unanswered in our response to the AIDS epidemic. I want tonight to comment further on this policy area. In my comments on 8 October I quoted a United States National Research Council study of adolescent sexuality, pregnancy and childbearing. I will briefly do so again. In that section of the study on knowledge of reproduction and contraception, the Council identifies as the most critical factor `the need to develop a better understanding of the relationship between what young people know and how they behave'. It refers to analysis of sex education programs, which found that `while a variety of programs were quite effective at increasing teenagers' level of knowledge about conception and contraception, they had little impact on their behaviour'. It concludes: `The relationship between what adolescents know and how they behave is perhaps the most salient issue'. The gap between what young people, indeed citizens of all ages, know and the way they behave and the judgments they make is not perhaps the most salient issue; it is the most salient issue. What the AIDS epidemic has revealed above all else is what has been called AIDS in the moral and spiritual realm. In reflecting on the strategy we should adopt to address the spread of AIDS, we should focus on the success of an intellectual virus which has first invaded the various areas of this society's intellectual and moral defence system, and then rendered that system incapable of discerning those ideas and that behaviour which produce fundamental social degeneration. One of the main contributing factors in this gradual loss of the capacity to identify what is right and wrong has been the paralysis of this Parliament and of governments of all political persuasion. We see evidence of the now familiar pattern in liberal democracies of powerful minority interest groups vetoing or intimidating policy makers. In this case the political power of homosexual groups and progressive opinion makers in our community has prevented parliaments and governments from even speaking the truth about the centrality of promiscuity and homosexuality in spreading death. I say `even' speaking the truth. I should say that that has been the most successful and crucial area of political neutralisation. Because, as our knowledge of God informs us, it is the speaking of the Word which brings forth life. The greatest success of those who have controlled policy discussions thus far has been their ability to compromise the truth, to ensure that the moral interpretation of our predicament is blurred. It has been that blurring of the truth, the watering down of what we say to our young people and ourselves about sexuality, about human relations, about love, about self-control, about human nature, about God, that has produced the obviously weak and self-deluding AIDS policies and laws we have put in place. Many of my constituents have identified that flight from truth as our basic failure. It is time we in this place realised that we are dancing all around the truth for fear of the power of minority groups or certain media commentators. When we take a lead in speaking the truth about promiscuity, drug self-abuse and sodomy, and when we place ourselves under the authority of what is right, then we will be able to equip our children and young people to move from technical knowledge of their bodies to the wisdom and prudence which enables judgment. Then we will truly be fulfilling the high duty to the public good which so often goes unfulfilled. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(10.40) —Tonight I wish to speak about the success of two enterprising people from Bundaberg, Ian and Di Waters. Seven years ago Ian Waters was a butcher and Di Waters was doing relief teaching. They decided to start a new way of life, so they borrowed a couple of thousand dollars and built a bush house on a quarter-acre allotment at Avoca, Bundaberg. On this they grew flower and vegetable seedlings in punnets to supply the local market. Very quickly they were approached by major retail chains asking them to supply locally, so after a few months they employed the first staff member. The backyard block soon became too small so the Waters bought a 1 3/4-hectare block at Branyan, six kilometres from the Bundaberg Post Office. At this stage they were also propagating and wholesaling potted herbs for the Bundaberg market. News of the quality of their plants spread so quickly that they also began to send plants to other parts of Queensland. There was a fair number of native trees on the block and they planted gardens of herbs under these to use as stock plants for propagation. Ian and Di were approached by a local farmer to grow his tomato seedlings for his farming operation. The public heard of their herb gardens of stock plants and started to visit when the operation was still really only a wholesale nursery. Ian and Di then decided to build a retail area and open that section to the public. Tourists and coach groups of visitors started to come to see the gardens. As visitors were often unable to carry plants long distances home, they decided to build a fragrant slab hut and stock it with pot pourri and fragrant oils, locally made herb craft, herbed honeys and other products related to herbs. All three sections of the business have grown quickly and operate successfully. Ian and Di now have a staff of 16 employees. In the last 12 months they have organised a couple of seminars on various matters relating to herbs. The last one was on cash cropping of herbs. This created huge interest throughout eastern Australia with many farmers looking for alternative crops. The Waters feel there is huge potential in this industry but it is an infant industry and much work still needs to be done. The marketing section of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy has figures which show that over $7m worth of dried herbs is imported into Australia annually. We in the Bundaberg area would like to supply this market, and hopefully the export market which exists because of the long term contamination of traditional herb growing areas in Europe due to the Chernobyl disaster. I believe both Ian and Di Waters deserve to be complimented on their enterprise and initiative in establishing the Pennyroyal Herb Farm and Bundaberg Seedlings. It demonstrates the enterprise that is building up and being established under the Federal Labor Government. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.43) —Last year Australia exported nearly 70,000 live merino rams to the Middle East out of a total of 7.7 million sheep that we sent to that part of the world. As government policy states that only a few hundred intact merino rams can be sent out of our country each year, the present quota being 500, and as these rams have to be sold through certain designated auctions in Australia, all of these 70,000 rams to the Middle East had to be sterilised. The rationale behind the quota system, as everyone will know, is to prevent overseas countries having unlimited access to our merino genetic material. Whether one agrees with that policy or not-I am one who opposes the restrictions-I believe there is an overwhelming case for having the merino rams sent to the Middle East exempted from the sterilisation process. Many of these merino rams that go to the Middle East for slaughter come from breeding studs that cull a number of their rams out as unsuitable to sell to their clients for breeding purposes. A percentage of rams also comes from those left over after the Australian buyers have picked through the rams that are offered for sale. A few old rams may also come from those at the end of their working life. Clearly, these rams are not wanted by Australian breeders. They are culls because of such factors as low yield, genetic defects, unsuitable wool type, poor fertility or whatever. If sold in the domestic sale yards they would make about $10 a head. However, if shipped to the Middle East, with its culinary preference for live male animals, they can be sold here for about $25 a head. To comply with the quota regulations to render them infertile all these rams once had to be vasectomised. This was a costly exercise-about $2.50 a head-and the rams had to be done several days prior to loading to allow them to recover at least partially from the vasectomy. This operation involved cutting into the scrotal sac and removing a piece of the vas deferens to block sperm transport from the testicles. However, as the rams had to be held in large, dusty yards, bacterial infection was common causing swelling at the site of the operation and sometimes a febrile reaction and death in a small percentage. Vasectomy was eventually replaced by an injection of a formaldehyde solution into the epididymis at the base of the testicles. The extensive tissue reaction and scarring that results blocks sperm transport. While this procedure avoided exposing an open wound for infection the cost was still high and the irritant effect the formalin had on live tissue often led to large swellings. It placed an added stress on the animal at a time when the body had to combat other stresses such as anthrax vaccination. The odd death would still occur. Of course, neither of the procedures guaranteed 100 per cent infertile rams as neither is 100 per cent foolproof. As well, it often takes many months for all reserve semen supplies to be flushed out of the reproductive system. An argument exists that if the job had to be done, it should have been done properly or not at all. To ensure total freedom of semen each ram would have to be electroejaculated at a later date-an exercise that would be totally impractical and uneconomic. So, we can see that whatever operation is used, it is both stressful and costly, and sterility cannot be guaranteed. However, I also believe that the whole procedure is totally unnecessary. This is because no country that is in the serious wool producing business would want to import these rams from the Middle East. Firstly, the rams are mainly culls, and interested countries would have better stock on hand anyway. There would be no way they would buy a cull ram of dubious fertility when they could buy a better one by less devious means on the open market. Secondly, and of paramount importance, is the point that it would be insanity for another country to jeopardise its health record by importing rams from the Middle East. One has only to look at the extensive lists of health tests that have to be done on rams going from Australia to countries like China to realise how careful they are on this matter. Once sheep arrive in the Middle East they can be exposed to a whole host of serious diseases from which the import breeding countries are free-scrapie, bluetongue, screw worm fly, sheep pox and so on. To think that these countries would put at risk the enormous capital investment they have in their flocks simply to get their hands on a few nondescript culls of unknown fertility and performance is laughable. The sterilisation requirement of live merino rams to the Middle East is ridiculous and should be scrapped. Fortunately, the Department of Primary Industries and Energy has now recognised this and recommended such action to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin). I am delighted to hear that the Minister has accepted this advice which has now been operational since 1 October. I appreciate that the export of any live merino sheep is an emotional decision for some people. However, I urge all in the merino breeding industry in Australia to recognise the necessity of this decision and to give it their full support. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.48) —I want to report to the House and to the people in my electorate of Chifley that the Mount Druitt community youth support scheme (CYSS) voluntarily closed on 3 September 1987. The Mount Druitt CYSS had been established for 10 years. It had annual funding of some $114,000 to cover rent, wages and day to day expenses. It employed two full time project officers and six part time tutors. Instruction included typing, welding, acrylic nail techniques, motor mechanics, small business management and typewriter repairs. The State Advisory Committee had written to me concerning grants for the Mount Druitt CYSS and Jumpstart CYSS on 27 July. I supported the Jumpstart CYSS as I had visited it and discussed its problems. Although my staff had been of assistance to the Mount Druitt CYSS on a number of matters, I had not visited it. I had the temerity to refuse to support the refunding application. Let me outline to the House some of my concerns about the group. I understand that the Penrith office of the Department of Employment, Education and Training sent a letter dated 1 September 1987 to the CYSS advising that it was undertaking a complete field audit of the group and requesting that records and equipment be made available for inspection. It is reasonable to assume that the letter was received on the day that the CYSS decided to disband. There are no minutes available of the meeting of the management committee which made the decision to disband. Surprise, surprise, the Mount Druitt CYSS claims that its premises were broken into on the evening of 7 September and that the following were taken: one Riobi grinder, two speakers, one synthesiser, one drill, one pop rivet set and two microphones. The thieves were obviously pro-private enterprise because none of the Treasurer's Prospect Office Machinery possessions were touched. But more of that later. The break-in does cause a little concern. I understand from those who visited the premises on Monday, prior to the break-in, that this equipment was not to be found at the premises. I understand from those who visited the premises the day after the break-in that there were no visible signs of forcible entry. Did the Chairman, Dr Allan Renshaw, or the co-ordinator report the matter to the Mount Druitt police? Did either of them complete a statement to assist the police in their inquiries? How was the synthesiser used to teach people typing, welding, acrylic nail techniques, motor mechanics, small business management or typewriter repairs? How was the original purchase justified and authorised? I inform the House that Dr Renshaw is a doctor of music. I believe people's sexual proclivities are in the main a private matter. However, in this case, the Chairman of the committee is living with the project co-ordinator, Mrs Val Byrne. Their last known address was 244 East Kurrajong Road, East Kurrajong. The Chairman refuses, I understand, to provide the Department with his current address. Mr John Byrne, the son of Mrs Val Byrne, was employed as a project officer for 3 1/2 years and resigned voluntarily when departmental field inspections failed to discover his presence or contribution. When I visited the premises, Mr John Byrne, now a management committee member, was passing himself off as an unemployed person learning to use the Apple computer. Let me turn to the Treasurer, Mr Terry Cooksley, address unknown. Mr Cooksley tutors in typewriter repairs. A little out of order perhaps but nothing to get excited about. Mr Cooksley is apparently the proprietor of Prospect Office Machinery. This company hired out the office equipment comprising assorted manual typewriters, electric typewriters, computers and printers which the Mount Druitt community youth support scheme used. It is mind-boggling to understand how the management committee was able to accept these arrangements without overriding them as an obvious conflict of interest by Mr Cooksley. But that is not all. Mr Cooksley sublet to Mount Druitt community youth support scheme its accommodation. He used part of the premises sublet to the community youth support scheme to store office equipment. If one rang the unlisted number for Prospect Office Machinery the phone was answered in the premises of the Mount Druitt community youth support scheme, by the staff of the community youth support scheme. Clearly, a private business was being conducted within the premises with the full knowledge of the Chairman, Dr Allan Renshaw and the co-ordinator, Mrs Val Byrne. I also mention that a large double-decker bus was purchased by the Mount Druitt community youth support scheme some years ago. It can be seen from the Great Western Highway opposite Pine Grove, rotting away outside a committee member's home, unused and useless. I demand a complete investigation of the operations of the Mount Druitt CYSS. Just because it has voluntarily closed, there can be, there must be, no slackening of will by the Department even if the Department is not supported by the State Advisory Committee. The results of these investigations must be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I demand a full investigation by the New South Wales Police into the alleged break-in. The Auditor-General must investigate all the circumstances surrounding Mount Druitt CYSS. There are other matters I could raise; for example, the complete absence of minutes, the appointment of directors to the committee, the fact that only nine members attended the annual general meeting and the lack of community support. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.53) —I rise to draw the attention of the Parliament, and in particular the Treasurer (Mr Keating), to a very important project that is currently under way in my electorate of Gilmore in the city of Goulburn, in the heart of Gilmore. It is the completion of the construction of St Saviours Cathedral belltower and spire. The first Bishop of Goulburn, Bishop Thomas, commissioned the well-known colonial architect, Edmund Blacket, to design a cathedral for the city of Goulburn. Construction of this magnificent cathedral began in 1874 and was completed to its present stage in 1884. St Saviours Cathedral serves as a cathedral church for Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory and for about one-seventh of the total area of New South Wales. Therefore, it is a very important part of the religious life of the people in Canberra. The cathedral is a magnificent construction. It is regarded as one of the greatest examples of gothic architecture throughout the world. It took 10 years to build and one of the reasons it took so long was the very intricate and detailed stone carving which took place at the time of its construction. It has been described by many people as probably Australia's richest church interior. Since the completion in 1884 of the first stage there have been a number of attempts to finalise the tower, to build a spire and to install bells. The latest round of that began in 1975 when a committee was formed in Goulburn to complete the final stage of the tower and spire. In 1976 the committee was very lucky to be able to acquire stone from the demolished Fitzroy Bridge which was stockpiled in the hope that there would be money in the years ahead to utilise it for the completion of the tower. In 1983 the committee made an application to the Australian Bicentennial Authority for funding for the completion of the tower, spire and bells as a bicentennial project. It was fortunate enough to get funding for this project and this is what has financed to date the works for the completion of this tower. At the moment there is a need for more money. The bells for the tower were not included in the grant, however, the Goulburn City Council has, through its bicentennial committee, purchased eight bells from St Marks Church in Leicester, England. Specialist architects and a team of selected stone masons have been engaged on the project since July 1986. I am proud to say that construction work is well ahead of schedule and is very much up to a standard that any artisan would like to apply. Funds in hand are insufficient to enable the completion of this unique architectural treasure. At present there is a need for approximately $1.25m to finalise this very ambitious project. The matter is becoming urgent. The reason it is becoming urgent is that very shortly funds will run out. At present all the scaffolding is in place. The craftsmen are there on the job. It is a rare commodity to have craftsmen with these skills. If the project is stopped and money is raised later, it is unlikely that these artisans will be able to be called upon readily. I am afraid that we may lose the opportunity we now have of completing this ambitious project. What I am asking from the Parliament and from the Treasurer is that donations made to St Saviours tower and spire be made tax deductible. It seems ironic that donations made to St Saviours Cathedral restoration fund are tax deductible, but through some quirk of nature it is not deemed by the Commissioner of Taxation that donations to the tower and spire appeal are eligible as tax deductible items. I know that there are a number of people who would be happy to give generously to this very worthwhile project if the Government were able to declare these donations tax deductible. This is a very ambitious program and one of which every Australian can be proud. It is the only construction of its type in the world today. Some of the skills that have applied at present have not been applied for more than 100 years. It is a useful employer and it is something of which every Australian will be proud if we can acquire the funds to complete it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.58) —In the couple of minutes available this evening I want to pay a compliment to a hard-working and enterprising committee that was responsible for bringing about the Eighteenth Wanden Silvan Field Day in my electorate. I was a guest there last week of the President, Keith Poile, and the Secretary, Keith Corbett. We listened to the opening by the Chairman of the Victorian Economic Development Committee, Barrie Beattie, who was able to carry a very strong message there for the theme of this year's Wanden Silvan Field Day, which was the fresh fruit and vegetable export drive. My electorate happens to be one of the greatest producers of horticultural crops, including flowers with which it has been very successful. The opportunities with the lower dollar to increase our export earnings through higher volumes of fruit and vegetable sales, to Europe particularly, have been available not only to enable my local growers to prosper but also to enable Australia's balance of payments to improve. This year we had 200 exhibiters on the 11 acres of the Wanden east reserve. I would say that it was the biggest, best and brightest show that it has had since 1970 when it restarted this long-standing, almost traditional, field day. Once Australia provided Europe with 80 per cent of its apples. But because of competition from other countries and the way our local growers have let things go, it has dropped to less than 3 per cent today. It shows what happens when the work to build up exports is dropped. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. Request for Detailed Information Mr Blunt to ask Madam Speaker: (1) How many persons are employed by each of the Parliamentary Departments. (2) What are their classifications and salary ranges. (3) What are their job descriptions. (4) Will additional positions be created during 1987-88; if so, (a) for what purpose, (b) at what classification and salary range, (c) how will the positions be advertised and (d) what will be the cost of advertising. The following notices were given: Dr Blewett to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Housing Assistance Act 1984. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Upgrade of the Jindalee Facilities at Alice Springs. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 20 October 1987: Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of Australian National University-Report for 1986 (Part II). Archives Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 235. Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 227, 228. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1987--No. 6-Survey of textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) manufacturers. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1987- M36/87-1988 Performance. M37/87-Cessation of 1987 Quota Meat Shipments to the USA. MQ21/87-Buffalo Meat to EEC-1988 Quota Administration Scheme. Bankruptcy Act-Rules-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 223. Copyright Act-Declaration pursuant to paragraph 10a (1) (b), dated 6 August 1987. Defence Act- Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1987-No. 6. Determinations-1987- No. 64-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 65-Pay of Reserve Force Members, Temporary Accommodation Allowance and Recreation Leave. No. 66-Overseas Living Allowance. No. 67-Temporary Accommodation Allowance. No. 68-Field Allowance. No. 69-Rental and Utilities Contribution. No. 70-Complementary Allowances Payable to Member Serving on Duty Overseas. Excise Act-Declaration pursuant to section 78b, dated 12 October 1987. Family Law Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 222. Fisheries Act-Notices-Nos. 192, 193, 194, 195. Health Insurance Act-Statements of particulars of Ministerial determinations made pursuant to section 106aa, relating to- Dr C. L. Dart, dated 26 August 1987. Dr G. Seymour-Murray, dated 7 September 1987. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act-Determination pursuant to subsection 6a (3) fixing wholesale price of liquefied petroleum gas, dated 28 September 1987. National Health Act- Declaration pursuant to subsection 85 (2), dated 11 September 1987. Determinations under subsection 4 (1) for purposes of the following paragraphs of the definition of ``basic private table''- (db), dated 25 September 1987. (dc), dated 25 September 1987. (dd), dated 23 September 1987. Navigation Act- Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Order-1987-No. 7-Marine, Part 10. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 229, 230, 231, 232, 233. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-1987-Postal-Amendment No. 6. Proceeds of Crime Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 224. Public Service Act-Determination-1987-No. 78. Radiocommunications Act-Standards-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 236, 237. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1987/9-Chairperson, Australian Wool Corporation and holders of public offices on other bodies. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances-1987- No. 54-Air Pollution (Amendment). No. 55-Coroners (Amendment). No. 56-Magistrates Court (Amendment). Regulations-1987- No. 12 (Co-operative Societies Ordinances). No. 13 (Gaming Machine Ordinance). Taxation (Administration) Ordinance-Determinations-1987- Financial Institutions Duty, dated 28 August 1987. Interest on Overpaid Amounts, dated 24 August 1987. Interest on Underpaid Amounts, dated 24 August 1987. Payroll Tax (Determination of Rate), dated 29 July 1987. Payroll Tax (Valuation and Deductions), dated 29 July 1987. Stamp Duties (Insurance and Vehicle Registration), dated 29 July 1987. Stamp Duties (Marketable Securities), dated 29 July 1987. Shipping Registration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 234. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Directions-1987-Nos. 27, 28. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 225, 226. The following answers to questions were circulated: Mr Hawke —On 6 October the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) (Hansard, p. 752-3) asked me a question without notice concerning actions taken by the Government to put pressure on the Government of Ethiopia to allow the balance of black Jews in Ethiopia to join their families in Israel. I undertook to obtain the relevant information and can now provide the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government shares the concern expressed about the situation of the Jewish community in Ethiopia. The plight of those individuals who are separated from their immediate families is obviously particularly distressing there, as it is elsewhere in the world. The Government has received representations on behalf of these people from members of the Australian Jewish community and other sources, such as Amnesty International. Regarding the specific situation of those Ethiopian Jews who wish to join their families in Israel, the power and standing of the Australian Government to intervene are obviously limited, as the matter is primarily one between the Governments of Ethiopia and Israel. Nevertheless the Government has done what it can to help. As recently as 31 August this year the general situation of the Ethiopian Jews, especially the restriction being placed on their emigration, and alleged Ethiopian policies of dispersal, was raised with the Ethiopian authorities in a note verbale from our Ambassador in Addis Ababa. The Government will pursue a formal reply from the Ethiopian authorities and we will keep the matter under review. (Question No. 21) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether the British Government freezes the pensions of its citizens living abroad at the rate payable when first drawn. (2) What is the shortfall of income from the UK to Australia for UK pensioners living in Australia as a result of the pension freeze in (a) 1985-86 and (b) 1986-87. (3) What would be the cost to the taxpayer of supplementing UK pensions as a result of the freeze in (a) 1985-86 and (b) 1986-87. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) UK pensions payable in a number of countries overseas are paid at the rate in force when the pensioner leaves the UK or when he or she first qualifies for a UK pension if abroad at that time. The bulk of the UK pensioners paid at frozen rates are in Australia (over 99,000), Canada (over 56,000) and New Zealand (more than 23,000). A further 140,000 former residents of the UK receive payment of indexed pensions while abroad. (2) Precise figures are not available. As at October 1986, however, the UK Government estimated that the extra cost of uprating pensions paid at that time into Australia was at least 73 million Pounds Sterling per year. (3) Based on 1986 figures, the estimated annual savings to Australia which could result from full indexation of British pensions are in the order of $A75 million. The honourable member would be aware that non-indexation of UK pensions has been an issue facing this and previous Governments for over 15 years. In February 1986, I announced our intention to seek a renegotiation of the current reciprocal social security agreement with the UK to provide for indexation of UK pensions. Since then moves have been made to pressure the UK Government. As part of these measures, the Prime Minister has written to the UK Prime Minister and I have made a joint approach with the Canadian Minister for Health and Welfare to our UK counterpart. None of these measures has been successful to date. The UK Government contends that it cannot afford to index its pensions paid into Australia at the present time. However the Government will consider further steps which could be taken to press the UK on this issue. (Question No. 37) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Which countries have the Joint Services Staff College's overseas study tour visited for each course since 1980. (2) For each course identified in part (1), (a) how many personnel were sent on tour and (b) what was the cost of the tour. (3) Do the Service Staff Colleges conduct similar tours; if so, will he provide similar information in respect of each tour since 1 January 1980. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Table 1 advises in respect of Joint Services Staff College's overseas study tours, conducted since 1980: (a) the countries visited by each course, (b) the number of personnel sent on each tour, and (c) the cost as estimated for each tour. (3) The Services Staff Colleges do not conduct similar overseas study tours. Table 1 JOINT SERVICES STAFF COLLEGE'S OVERSEAS STUDY TOURS CONDUCTED SINCE JANUARY 1980 Course No. Countries visited No of personnel sent Cost as estimated Flying costs (RAAF aircraft) Estimated total cost $ $ 21/80 Indonesia, Philippines 51 52,338 68,900 121,238 22/80 India 48 94,863 163,365 258,228 23/81 Fiji, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea 50 73,544 67,838 141,382 24/81 Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore 52 65,155 70,440 135,595 25/82 Philippines, Thailand 53 78,589 82,767 161,356 26/82 China, Hong Kong 52 80,340 79,129 159,469 27/83 Fiji, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea 54 99,505 83,807 183,312 28/83 Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore 53 105,932 76,715 182,647 29/84 Japan 53 138,058 94,342 232,400 30/84 Thailand, Philippines 53 101,565 126,374 227,939 31/85 Fiji, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea 54 115,323 67,192 182,515 32/85 Indonesia, Singapore 54 141,498 98,289 239,787 33/86 Malaysia, Thailand 56 143,114 112,225 255,339 34/86 India, Pakistan 57 193,120 144,243 337,363 35/87 New Zealand, Tonga, Western Samoa, Papua New Guinea 58 124,850 150,098 274,948 36/87 Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore 58 125,624 174,069 299,693 (Question No. 119) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 September 1987: Further to the answer provided to question No. 232 (Hansard, 24 February 1981, p. 84), is he able to say what progress has been made by federal and State authorities on the standardization of fire-hose couplings. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am advised that standardization of fire-hose couplings to the Storz-type is almost complete in fire brigades in Melbourne and all of New South Wales. So far as Federal authorities are concerned, the A.C.T. Fire Brigade has completed conversion of hose couplings to the Storz-type. (Question No. 136) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: (1) Are letters from the Minister's Department forwarded to individuals and corporations marked ``Postage Paid'', without date stamping. If so, are there significant revenue savings from these measures. (2) If letters are not date stamped, will the Minister ensure all letters are appropriately date stamped. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Approximately 30% of Departmental letters posted within Australia are marked ``Postage Paid'' without being date stamped. This bulk postage process is generally used for the distribution of pro forma correspondence. While there are no revenue savings resulting from this procedure it involves an estimated staff saving of one position. (2) As there are savings resulting from bulk postage, a record is kept of the date of dispatch, and the correspondence itself is dated; no change to existing procedures is envisaged. (Question No. 147) Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: What steps will his Department take to ensure that the 200,000 eligible low income families who are not Social Security recipients are aware of their entitlement to the Family Allowance Supplement. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government recognises how important it is to ensure that all potential eligible families are aware of their entitlement to the Family Allowance Supplement. A national project manager has been appointed with specific responsibility for developing an extensive information and publicity campaign. The overall strategy will involve targeting organisations likely to have direct contact with low income families. These will include community organisations, schools, child and community care centres as well as employers and trade unions with lower pay structures or a predominantly female labour force. In addition, a co-ordinated community outreach program is planned and this will involve departmental staff at the local regional office level. These activities will be supplemented by an innovative campaign of media advertising. The Department will automatically transfer those who are receiving Family Income Supplement (FIS) to the new payment. In the course of requesting recipients of Family Allowance to declare their income so that the new Family Allowance income test could be applied, the Department notified each allowee of the FIS income limit applicable in their case and has been granting FIS to eligible respondents.