Thursday, 26 May 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —I wish to inform the House that Question Time this afternoon will be videotaped with sound for archival purposes. Edited highlights will also be available for use on news and current affairs programs by both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and commercial television networks. I also wish to inform the House that before Question Time today I will suspend proceedings briefly to allow a panoramic photograph of members of the House to be taken. Mr Peacock-It is not the last day. We are coming back next week. Madam SPEAKER —The television cameras will be in the House today; so it is convenient. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable Speaker, House of Representatives, and Parliament assembled. `Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people'. Proverbs 14:34 Considering: 1. the loss of hope among the youth of the nation. 2. the breakdown of the family unit. 3. the increase of corruption in our society. 4. the increasing weight of our national debt. 5. the emerging divisions in our community. we petition you to: 1. encourage every Australian to see his/her responsibility to live uprightly before God and others; 2. encourage commitment in marriage and encourage fathers and mothers to love and cherish their children; 3. encourage the Members of Parliament to live and legislate according to Biblical principles; 4. encourage business in Australia to pursue their transactions in generosity-without greed; 5. support the Christian Church in expressing the friendship of God, and in carrying out its practical responsibilities to the poor, needy and dispossessed, by calling a National Day of Prayer for Australia, to seek God's help to heal our land. We as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred (from 103 citizens), Mr Fife (from 28 citizens), Mrs Harvey (from 27 citizens), Mr Rocher (from 11 citizens) and Mr Webster (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of doctors and their patients and call upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly (from 64 citizens), Dr Harry Edwards (from eight citizens), Mr Shipton (from 99 citizens) and Mrs Sullivan (from 77 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of these pathology laboratory staff, residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: that the performance of pathology tests and the reporting of the results of pathology tests clearly constitute a scientific activity, and not a medical service; that all Sections of the Health Insurance Act which require or presuppose the ``supervision'' of Medical Scientists in the provision of pathology services by medical practitioners should be repealed; that Medicare provider numbers should be vested in public institutions or issued to Medical Scientists with appropriate qualifications and experience for the purpose of providing pathology services; that the outcome of such reform would be a considerable reduction in the outlay of public money for the provision of such services; that mechanisms should be put in place to provide the means for full consultation with the Scientific profession in all matters pertinent to the provision of pathology services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will support a reform of the pathology legislation in the interest of fair, equitable and rational public administration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards (from three citizens), Mr Jenkins (from 305 citizens) and Mr Scott (from 417 citizens). To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron (from 158 citizens) and Mr Rocher (from 482 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: Australians living in rural and non-urban areas rely extensively on the local road network for all facets of their lives. Funding for roads is an essential part of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for the maintenance of the transport infra-structure. Road funding under the Hawke Government has decreased significantly in real terms and local government is particularly disadvantaged by this decline. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: Oppose any proposal to absorb road funds into General Revenue Assistance to either Local or State Governments; and Immediately address the serious problem of a rapidly deteriorating road network which is confronting local government by allocating more resources to local road funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Prosser (from 435 citizens) and Mr Tuckey (from 128 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Murray respectfully showeth that: Australians living in rural and non-urban areas rely to a great degree on the local road network for all facets of their lives. Funding for roads is an essential part of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for the maintenance of the transport infrastructure. Road funding under the Hawke Government has decreased significantly in real terms and local government is particularly disadvantaged by this decline. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately address the serious problem of a rapidly deteriorating road network which is confronting local government by allocating more resources to local road funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd (from 233 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: There is too much crime and violence on television and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. We therefore request the House to urge television stations to improve the standards of shows, news and current affairs programmes by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Smith (from 1,793 citizens), Mrs Sullivan (from 341 citizens), Mr Ian Cameron (from 10 citizens) and Mr Cowan (from 179 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Canberra: The petition of certain electors draws to the attention of the House the increase in noise pollution and the subsequent effect on the quality of life of residents in certain southern suburbs of Brisbane caused by the opening of the new Brisbane Domestic Airport. Your petitioners therefore request the House to take steps to minimise noise levels and alter aircraft flight paths to enable a return to the lifestyle previously enjoyed by the affected residents. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors of the division of Indi. Draws to the attention of the House the current inadequate level of funding for road construction and maintenance and express concern that the House may have placed before it, as part of the government economic strategy, options to further reduce such expenditure, and in so doing placing an increased financial burden upon local government ratepayers. Your petitioners therefore respectfully call upon the House to ensure an increase over current road funding levels through a clear dedication of a proportion of fuel excise collected, indexed for inflation, towards roadworks and that such funding arrangements provide for a clear and reliable method of distribution to local government. by Mr Ewen Cameron (from 73 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles (from 144 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of The House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have became united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb (from four citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action nor permit any action to be taken to make any change without the approval of the Australian people by referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher (from 312 citizens). To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb (from 2,068 citizens). 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 tax payer, 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 (from 1,323 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: We oppose the advertising of alcohol in any form. Alcohol is recognised as Australia's number one drug problem which is responsible for at least 50% of all road fatalities; a high percentage of serious crime and vandalism. Hospital beds are filled with sufferers of the many alcohol related diseases including: cirrhosis of the liver; heart disease; stomach ulcers; various forms of cancer and mental illness. Alcohol also causes much family unhappiness and marriage breakdown, as well as being involved in some cases of child abuse and molestation. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should ban all advertising of alcohol on television and radio because of its persuasive effects on children and young people. by Mr Cobb (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that the petitioners are concerned that the Minister for Health proposes to delete from the Medical Benefits Schedule those item numbers covering the treatment of sun-damaged skin and warts by specialists. They fear that those patients suffering chronically from these problems cannot always be treated successfully by a general practitioner. They protest that they will be financially disadvantaged. They also realise that their problems require early detection and expert treatment, if the petitioners are not to be exposed to increased risk of skin and other cancers. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the abovementioned items in the medical schedule to be reinstated. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly (from 726 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House- That we welcome the Government's move in increasing the tax free threshold for pensions from $5914 to $6142 and also increasing the pension free area for married pensioners from $50 to $70 and for single pensioners from $30 to $40 per week; but we point out that- (1) The $250 pensioner rebate which cuts out completely if a pensioner earns more than $8142 in a year, does not provide complete tax relief to those pensioners who earn above the $6142 tax free threshold, and (2) Those pensioners in receipt of income earnings which take them above the tax threshold are therefore not enjoying the benefits of their full income. Your petitioners therefore request the House to adjust the pensioner tax free threshold by increasing the $250 ``pensioner-rebate'' as a matter of urgency. by Mrs Darling (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House- The hardship that provisional tax is imposing on pensioners who are assessed by the Australian Taxation Office and must pay provisional tax. Your petitioners therefore request that the House exempt all pensioners from paying provisional tax. by Mrs Darling (from 13 citizens). 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 the Post Office at Gymea Bay be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels, cash Pension cheques and transact banking. Many of us are Pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Office is 2.3 kms away with no convenient transport. We maintain that the purpose of the Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Gymea Bay Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie (from 84 citizens). To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament: The petition of certain Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who are residents of the State of Queensland, draws to the attention of the House the objections of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to the proposed Arrangements for the Assistance of Aboriginal Students in 1989, by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. These proposed changes, as of April 13, 1988, are outlined below. 1. Under 16 year old at-home students No Living Allowance payments will be made under ABSEC or ABSTUDY for these students. For Aboriginal students only, the Department of Social Security (DSS) will pay an Education Allowance of $10.00 pw to the Family Allowance Supplement (FAS). 2. Under 16 year old away-from-home students These students may apply for AIC which will be income-tested and indexed. Students who do not qualify under AIC will be paid under ABSEC, but the 1988 rate will not be indexed. 3. Students 16 years and over New applicants will be required to apply for AUSTUDY and be subject to the AUSTUDY income test. There will be special provisions in AUSTUDY for Aboriginal students, including * wider range of courses approved for assistance * $30 pw supplement for students 21 years and over in Category A courses Continuing students may apply for AUSTUDY (with the special provisions) or remain with ABSEC or ABSTUDY which will not be income tested or endorsed. 4. ABSEC and ABSTUDY in 1989 In 1989 ABSEC and ABSTUDY will not be income tested but also will not be indexed and thus will be paid at the 1988 rates. The only students who can receive Living Allowance from ABSEC or ABSTUDY in 1989 will be continuing students 16 and over and students living away from home who are under 16. However, even these students may choose to apply for AUSTUDY which will be income tested, but will have higher rates because of indexation. 5. Direct Education Assistance All secondary and post secondary Aboriginal students will continue to be eligible for Direct Education Assistance (tutorial, excursions, orientation visits, etc.). This includes students who are supported by AUSTUDY, AIC or the DSS Education Supplement and those who may be income tested out of AUSTUDY, AIC or the DSS Education Supplement. 6. Continuing Students Some continuing students will not retain their 1988 rate of Living Allowance, namely- * 18-20 AH and 21-24 AH Category B course students receive $75 pw in 1988, but will receive the AUSTUDY rate of $60 pw in 1989. * 21 year old and over Category A course students will receive a supplement of $30 pw above AUSTUDY rates in 1988 but in 1989 this will only be paid as a supplement to AUSTUDY for students who meet the income test. The reasons for our strong objection being the possible consequences: 1. Means testing: A] will disadvantage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, in that it will create confusion, disillusionment and misunderstanding, as a majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are not familiar with the administrative procedures of the various government departments which they will have to deal with. B] will only take up unnecessary time and cost, as according to the 1986 Census of Population and Housing, conducted by the Bureau of Statistics, approximately 46% of Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders earn between $14,976 and $21,892 per annum, not to mention the 17% who are `not started', and the 3% who have spouse(s) that are temporarily absent, whom means testing may not even effect; as AUSTUDY means testing begins at $16,000 per annum, for one student. 2. Enrolment attendance and retention rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students will fall, as a consequence of the above mentioned misunderstandings. Particularly when parents find they may have to pay for their children's educational needs, up-front in some cases, before being reimbursed. Especially families with more than one child, and those who live on isolated communities with children attending boarding schools in various parts of Queensland. 3. Families who choose to send their children to Catholic Education Institutions will be disadvantaged due to their higher school costs. Therefore may have to withdraw their children from their preferred schools. 4. Problems of racial conflict be created amongst all those eligible for AUSTUDY, as the extra benefits which will be given to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students will be seen as `special treatment', by the wider community. 5. The changes to ABSEC and AUSTUDY can only serve as a hindrance, and contradiction to the Aboriginal Employment Development Policy of 1987, which states: ``The Government's specific long-term objective concerning education and formal training is to increase the participation in primary, secondary and tertiary education, and in formal training courses, until comparability with the rest of the Australian population is reached.'' Your petitioners therefore request the House to not allow the abovementioned changes, and the move towards AUSTUDY. by Mr Gayler (from 214 citizens). To the Honourable the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors showeth: That any proposed redistribution of funds for Nursing and Personal Care staff costs in Nursing Homes will detrimentally affect the quality of care given in Nursing Homes in South Australia and the quality of life of the residents in those Nursing Homes. The Outcome Standards for Nursing Homes, so recently established, will not be achieved and elderly people will not receive the standards of care or quality of life that they need. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will raise the funding level for Nursing and Personal Care staff hours for all States to enable at least the number of hours of care for Nursing Home residents in South Australia to be achieved by all States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Harvey (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members of the War Veterans' community and concerned citizens respectfully showeth: That there has been continuous, substantial and damaging erosion of war veterans' benefits and services since May of 1985 in the areas of: the deletion of the dependants' pension; the removal from the Department of Veterans' Affairs repatriation schedule pharmaceuticals of war widows, their dependants and service pensioners; a reduction in dental benefits; the deletion of the ten per cent disability pension assessment previously allowed when glasses were prescribed; the restriction on the issue of glasses and other associated losses in benefits to partially blind veterans; the lack of protection in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 for intermediate or special rate pension rates disability pensions; the loss of benefits in respect of reimbursement of substantial costs incurred in obtaining medical opinion in support of a claim or an application; the means testing of the war veterans' children education scheme; the deletion of the intellectually handicapped dependants' allowance; the termination of the defence re-establishment agricultural and loans schemes; the loss of the automatic right of admission to private hospitals without prior approval of a DMO; the imposition of a nursing home patient contribution rate for war veterans who are resident in nursing homes or who are receiving psychiatric treatment for war related disabilities; the abolition of the defence service home loan scheme; reductions in the allowances of skin care, podiatry and physiotherapy treatments; and abuses in the use of information supplied by war veterans in responses to life-style questionnaires; vicious cuts in pharmaceuticals and denial of repeat prescriptions. That it is cruel and cynical of the Government to treat war veterans, many of whom are now advanced in age, in declining health and vulnerable, as expendable and unworthy of optimum care and benefits, when they and their comrades gave of their utmost to this country in its times of greatest need; Now, therefore your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled pass appropriate legislation to reverse the decisions of the Government which have brought about the erosion of war veterans' benefits and services. by Mr Johns (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposal for the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That a casino in Canberra would detract from the unique character and status of our National Capital. Your petitioners therefore most humbly request the House of Representatives to reject any proposal or legislation which would permit the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. And your humble petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore (from 1,100 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectively showeth- That there is a general dissatisfaction in the community at the levels of road funding made available by the Federal Government. While noting the commitment of the Government to maintain a high standard of roads in Australia, we are specifically concerned at the real cutbacks for road funding in the Local Government area. We especially note that roadworks are a labour intensive industry and cutbacks will create unemployment and hardship in rural areas. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, give due consideration to increasing the amount of funds available to Local Government authorities for roadworks. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe (from 1,093 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House: The tax exemption for Gold Miners, Gold Partnership and Gold Mining Companies. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House withdraw the exemption provisions provided to taxpayers (Gold Miners, Gold Mining Partnerships, Gold Mining Companies) Under section 23 (o) of the Australian Income Tax Assessment Act. by Mr O'Keefe (from 165 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Member of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not to televise the Jack High Bowling Tournament in 1988 is cause for distress to the 500,000 bowlers and many non bowlers who, for years, have enjoyed this interesting programme on television. 2. The unilateral decision was taken after verbal assurances had been given that the 1988 event would be televised. This action is deplored and we feel should be reversed by the parliament in the interests of your many constituents. by Mr Rocher (from 1,096 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that we believe the Commonwealth owned land at Buckland Hill should be retained as public open space so as to recognise- (i) its premier status in Perth's European heritage as the place of Willem de Vlamingh's landing in 1697, (ii) its historically established identity as an open area since being the first site considered for the Swan River settlement in 1827, and (iii) its importance for the future recreational needs of the people in an area already under pressure for high density residential development. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House urge the Government to: 1. Confer ownership of the Buckland Hill land upon the people of Western Australia as a Bicentennial gift. 2. Require as a condition of that gift that the land be reserved by the Government of Western Australia as inalienable public open space for the future benefit of the people of this State and the nation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens 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 (from 47 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the employees of the Australian cement industry in Geelong and concerned citizens respectfully showeth their concern for the adverse effect on employment and the local economy if dumped cement is imported into Australia from overseas. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will take all steps appropriate and necessary to prevent the importation of dumped cement into Australia. by Mr Scholes (from 1,325 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully requests that the Federal Parliament objects in the strongest possible terms to the use of chlorofluorocarbons as being detrimental to the ozone layer. Your petitioners therefore pray that steps be taken to end the use of chlorofluorocarbons. by Mr Scholes (from three citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens in Australia, draws to the attention of the House that the irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutritional value of food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your petitioners therefore request that your honourable House: 1. Withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and from the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. 2. Take all possible steps to prevent and disallow the irradiation of food in Australia. 3. Ban the export and importation of irradiated foods and animal feeds. 4. Take steps to obtain a testing device to make possible the identification of irradiated foods, as soon as one becomes available. by Mr Scott (from 107 citizens). 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 there is great concern in the level of service currently offered by Telecom Australia in the Bredbo and surrounding districts; that this level of service is such that there is considerable unacceptable delays in the connection of new services; that there is unacceptable regular delays in the connection of calls; that there is unacceptable difficulties in the use of the Public Telephone in Bredbo; that these matters are causing personal hardship and the community is at risk in the cases of emergencies. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: request Telecom to take immediate action to upgrade all aspects of telephone service in the Bredbo and surrounding districts. by Mr Snow (from 85 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: Grave concern with the insufficient level of Government grants provided for carrying out improvements to the Canberra/Batemans Bay (MR51) Road. Your petitioners therefore pray that your House will call upon the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to allow for and provide special substantial direct funding to carry out the necessary improvements to the road, and, further, call upon the New South Wales State Government to accept greater financial responsibility for the upgrading and maintenance of the said road. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Snow (from 558 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria being members of the Sunshine Fly Casting Club based in the electorate of Calwell, draws to the attention of the House that the Tariffs Concession Branch of the Australian Customs Service has revoked the tariff concession formerly applicable to fly fishing reels. As a result the import duty will rise from 2% to 25%. Although some types of fishing reels are manufactured in Australia, fly fishing reels are not. Fly fishing reels are a distinct type of reel which represent a totally separate segment of the fishing reel market. As there is no Australian industry to protect we respectfully submit that there is no case for imposing this duty. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House re-instate the former tariff concession on fly fishing reels. by Dr Theophanous (from 53 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully beseech that: Parliament allow insurance for the gap between the Medicare rebate and the scheduled fee. That the unfair discrimination against private patients in hospital be withdrawn. Your petitioners humbly request that all patients receive an equal Medicare rebate for services regardless of where they are provided, on the understanding that all patients pay the same compulsory Medicare insurance levy. And your petitions, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey (from 99 citizens). Petitions received. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(10.08) —Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training I present the report of the inquiry on entry or return to the work force for social security pensioners, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs SULLIVAN —This report concerns itself with Government policy of the last 12 to 18 months. That policy has reflected a community concern about the growing numbers of people in Australia who are dependent on welfare and about an attempt to move those people to independence through employment. The Committee strongly supports those policies. The inquiry concerned itself particularly with cost-effective means of achieving Government policy objectives. It concerned itself particularly with those long term out of the work force. That phrase `long term unemployed' is used to refer to those who have been two years out of the work force but not necessarily on unemployment benefits. In the course of the inquiry, the Committee discovered that there were many barriers to these people re-entering the work force in line with Government policies and that they needed help. Numbers of them in particular groups have particular needs and will need particular measures of help. Essentially, the inquiry uncovered the legacy of attitudes of past decades. That legacy has been reflected in previous governments' policies. There has been a conflict in that legacy with the imperatives of the last decade of the twentieth century. Those factors have affected particularly those who have been long term unemployed. When I refer to the legacy of the attitudes of past decades, the particular aspects with which the inquiry has concerned itself have been the low average education levels in this society, the lack of previous attention to problems of illiteracy, the issue of female dependence and a lack of understanding of cultural conflicts which present themselves in Australia today. There have been figures available for some time about the low average education levels in Australia. In particular, there have been figures available about the even lower average education levels of those people who are on social welfare, in whatever category. For several years those who have been concerned with illiteracy have been trying to inform the Australian community that this is a real and a wide problem. In the course of the Committee's inquiries we continually encountered evidence of the effect of neglect of attention to the subject of community literacy on people who are dependent on welfare. A notion of female dependence which prevailed in the past was based on certain assumptions and led to certain consequences. It has had the result that the average level of women's education in Australia is lower than the average level of education of men. The report contains detailed statistics comparing the position of women and men, particularly sole parents and those in two-parent families who are on welfare. It shows a very dramatic difference and a very strong need. Because of assumptions that women would be dependent on their husbands in their adult lives, previous generations did not give attention to the education and training of girls, nor did they pay much attention to the work force skills that they entered the work force with, on the assumption that women would be needed only short term and would never have the responsibility of supporting a family. Of course, those assumptions have been shown to be badly founded as a result of social change in the last 15 years. In the case of Aborigines and non-English speaking migrants, there has been a lack of understanding of the cultural conflicts between the prevailing Australian culture and theirs. Indeed, in the past there was a lack of tolerance of those conflicts. That lack of understanding has manifested itself in a much higher rate of social security dependence by those groups. These people now face the imperatives of the age of technology when highly developed skills are needed, redundancies in industry come quickly and adults have great difficulty in getting access to retraining. That has all been compounded by social change which means that people who were educated perhaps 20 years ago now find themselves in a position which they never expected and which, certainly, they were not prepared for by any of the structures of previous years. Nevertheless, in saying all that I pay tribute to the attempts that the Government has made to move towards solving those problems. The policies it has put in place certainly have been moves in the right direction. The Government has in place certain access and equity policies. It is unfortunate that those access and equity principles have not been observed in recent times. The periods with which the Committee was particularly concerned were those involving changes resulting from the 1986 Budget and the 1987 May economic statement. We received a great deal of information about what had happened to recipients of supporting parent's benefit and widows' pensions as a result of changes announced in those two important policy documents. It was not surprising that a great deal of the information received by the inquiry related to women because the overwhelming majority of recipients of supporting parent's benefit and, of course, all recipients of the widow's pension are female. Those two groups which were particularly affected by the changes of 1986-87 showed dramatically how good intentions can go wrong. I will quickly describe to the House the effect of those changes. Essentially, after being eligible for benefits, all recipients of supporting parent's benefit and widow's pension had to report regularly to social security for, we were told, an assessment of their continuing eligibility and for counselling on how they might prepare themselves for an ultimate return to the work force. Several months later, in the May economic statement, there was a change of eligibility for those two forms of welfare. Those recipients whose youngest dependent child had reached the age of 16 years were transferred unceremoniously from their existing benefit to unemployment benefit and found themselves in a catch-22 situation. I particularly recommend Appendix 6 in the report, which is a long, very lucid letter from a male supporting parent who had attempted to assist himself and who had embarked on a course of education which was designed to get him effectively back into the work force with reasonable support when his youngest child had finished high school. Terminating of the benefit when that child was at the age of 16 years completely wrecked what had been well laid and very intelligent plans. The changes revealed a conflict of government policies. The Government has stated that it is a major objective to raise the average education levels of Australians, and that is to be welcomed. However, removing the sole parent's benefit when the youngest child reaches the age of 16 years is in conflict with that policy. It has meant that many of those children have had to leave school before finishing their high schooling and go into dead-end jobs or perhaps onto social welfare when their parents could no longer financially cope because of the lower support given to unemployment beneficiaries. The 1986 Budget change to Austudy given to sole parents also had a dramatic effect. Many of these beneficiaries found their weekly income from Austudy reduced from $38 to $15 and they simply could not continue with tertiary education. The inquiry also revealed a lack of awareness of the profile of the group-an awareness which should have been there because statistics on these subjects have been available for a long time, particularly in relation to education levels and previous work force participation. It revealed a lack of coordination between departments-the Department of Social Security (DSS) and the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) in particular-and within departments it showed that the counselling referred to in the 1986 Budget simply was never implemented by the Department of Social Security. It revealed poor communication on some occasions with those affected, and it revealed that the approach of the Department of Finance to issues such as those is arbitrary and not well founded. The solutions that the Committee suggests cover a wide range of issues. The report strongly recommends a shift away from passive Government support of social security recipients towards active encouragement by Government agencies to help them get jobs. As a first step, there needs to be better communication between social security recipients and Government agencies. An upgrading of DSS and CES counselling services and of the CES role, improved co-ordination between Federal and State activities and recognition of the value of programs which utilise peer group support are basic requirements for a policy of work force re-entry to be effective. More short training courses, literacy programs and preparatory employment courses, and improved access to post-secondary and tertiary education generally, are necessary to improve welfare recipients' employability. The report also recommends expansion of the Australia traineeship system, and encouraging employers to be more active in training and retraining their employees. In summary, the report provides a cost-effective framework for reducing social security recipients' dependence on welfare and for increasing their work force participation, with consequent benefits to individuals and the nation. I recommend the contents of the report to the Government and to all those who are interested in the welfare of this country. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(10.17) —It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) in this debate today. She and I have worked very closely in writing the report which has now been tabled. We have also, in the course of the inquiry by the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, worked very hard to consider the evidence and discuss the report. As Chairman of the sub-committee she has worked particularly hard. In line with the inquiry's terms of reference, the report concentrates on methods of facilitating entry or return to the work force by social security recipients. Obviously not all social security recipients are likely to be seeking full-time employment, and the report has tended to concentrate on people in receipt of unemployment benefit, widow's pension, supporting parent's benefit, invalid pension, and sickness benefit as the main groups concerned. Importantly, the report acknowledges that long term dependence on social welfare carries considerable costs for both the people concerned and the society in which they live. Not surprisingly, it recognises that obtaining paid employment is the most effective means of attaining financial independence, contributing more to the community and increasing the self-esteem of individuals. The report therefore recommends measures which will encourage and support long-term unemployed people in their search for work or in pursuit of additional skills which will enhance their employability. Even before we commenced the inquiry it was obvious to some members of the Committee that there would be a large number of submissions from, or on behalf of, supporting parents who had been affected by last year's May statement decision, as has already been mentioned by the honourable member for Moncrieff. It also seemed apparent that there would be a deal of criticism concerning the lack of liaison between the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) and the Department of Social Security (DSS), as well as their respective communications with long term unemployed people seeking work. Suffice it to say that we were not disabused of these opinions during the inquiry, and much of the evidence pursued those particular themes to a greater or lesser extent. As a consequence, several recommendations addressed the problems confronted by supporting parents who had to transfer to unemployment benefit, and several others suggested ways in which the role of the DSS or CES could be improved. We also received evidence from a wide variety of other groups presenting a great diversity of views and opinions on ways and means of assisting social security recipients into education, training or employment. Although unemployment can be equated with a lack of jobs, the inquiry ascertained that other factors also presented barriers to access to the jobs available for many of the people who are currently in receipt of social security income support. These were seen as lack of training, lack of child care, poverty traps or economic disincentives, costs of employment and training and attitudinal barriers in the community at large. Many social security recipients suffer all these disadvantages and more. For instance, Aborigines, non-English speaking migrants and disabled people, as well as women, have particular attitudinal problems to deal with in the community. Particularly interesting in the light of common misconceptions in the wider community were some statistics relating to supporting parents, that is, that more than 14 per cent of Australian families have only one parent and more than 80 per cent of these receive Commonwealth Government income support. The average duration for receipt by men of the supporting parent benefit is 2.9 years, with 32.9 per cent receiving it for one year or less, 48.8 per cent for one to five years, and a further 18.3 per cent receiving it for five years or more. The average duration for receipt of the supporting parent benefit by men is 2.15 years, with 41.7 per cent receiving it for one year or less, 46.4 per cent for one to five years, and 11.9 per cent for five years or more. I thought it was important to make these comparisons because many people believe that women are on the supporting parent benefit for a very long time. From my point of view the recommendations of special interest to the Committee are those relating to the return to work allowance, which was recommended in recognition of the lack of financial resources of most long term unemployed people, including women, and their need to pay for appropriate clothing, transport and child-care costs as a preliminary to getting into the work force. The extension of eligibility for the supporting parent benefit while the youngest child is in secondary school was another important recommendation, as were preparatory courses such as new opportunities for women, for those people who are trying to get into the work force after having been out of it for a long time. I thank the Chairman once again and all members of the Committee. I thank the secretariat for its assistance. I commend the report to the Government and to the House. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.20) —I wish in the time remaining to make a few brief comments about the report of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. As Chairman of the Committee, it is my pleasure to endorse the report. I compliment the subcommittee and its staff on bringing together this report on what is a very complex issue in such a short time span. Over the last five years many jobs, full time and part time, have been generated in the Australian economy. But, despite the growth in jobs, there are still far too many people in our community who depend on the social security system for income and who have great difficulty in entering or re-entering the work force. The thrust of the Committee's report has been to identify ways of increasing work force participation amongst people who are in receipt of the unemployment benefit, widows pension, supporting parent's benefit, invalid pension or sickness benefit. The report highlights the benefits to the community in general and to individuals of having a paid job. Employment is very highly valued in our community. The level of income earned is a key determinant of an individual's social status and lifestyle choice. Most importantly, though, as we say in this report, a job is the most important factor in reducing poverty. The report identifies a number of barriers which face social security recipients wishing to enter training and/or paid employment. The major barriers include a lack of access to education, training and retraining programs: difficulty in obtaining adequate and affordable child-care; poverty traps which are caused by the interplay of the social security and taxation system; and a lack of knowledge or understanding of relevant social security and Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) programs. To reduce these barriers and to actively assist social security recipients to enter or re-enter the work force, the Committee has recommended what I think is a comprehensive range of measures designed to encourage that transition in a very positive way. There are numerous recommendations in this report but the major ones relate to the need to upgrade the counselling and information services of the Department of Social Security and the CES, to expand programs such as job clubs and now-new opportunities for women-courses, to increase the number and range of short term training courses and literacy programs, to improve access to technical and further education (TAFE) and tertiary education and to expand the Australian traineeship system. A particular focus of the report is the special needs of certain groups. I mention in particular the long term unemployed. In February of this year 90,000 or more Australians had been out of work for two years or more. It is my view and the Committee's view that this is an unacceptably high level. For those who have been out of work for this period the Committee recommends that additional measures are necessary to assist work force re-entry. We refer particularly to the need to remove financial disincentives to paid employment through the payment of a return to work allowance and the extension of fringe benefits. One of the key issues that came to our attention in preparing this report and a report on higher education tabled by this Committee last week was the vital role that education and training play in our community and the shortage of opportunities and lack of access for many people in our community to adequate training, TAFE and higher education programs. We mention it in this report. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Motion (by Mrs Sullivan) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Madam SPEAKER —In accordance with sessional order 102b, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.29) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I present the report of the Committee on witness protection. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr CLEELAND —Section 34 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 provides that the Authority may make arrangements for the protection of witnesses appearing at hearings before the Authority. The National Crime Authority has expressed the view that it does not have sufficient resources to set up its own witness protection scheme and that there are significant deficiencies in the facilities for the protection of witnesses available in Australia. The Committee decided in April 1987 to pursue an inquiry into witness protection in Australia. The Chairman at that time was the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths). It should be recognised that the Committee under his chairmanship was very much responsible for establishing the framework under which the Committee now works. It indicates that it would examine the nature of witness protection and its role in the fight against organised crime; the extent to which witness protection is an essential requirement of successful organised criminal investigation and prosecutions; the extent to which organised crime witnesses are presently protected and the nature, adequacy and cost of current arrangements; and the options available to the Government to improve witness protection. The Committee took evidence not only from government and academic sources, but also from witnesses who had been or were under protection themselves. Information from informers is responsible for the detection of the greater part of crime. This is particularly so in the case of the so-called `victimless' or `consensual' crimes in which organised criminal groups specialise such as drug trafficking, illegal gambling, the sale of pornography, organised prostitution and usury, where there is unlikely to be a complainant. While the history of intimidation of witnesses in this country is not as extensive or as colourful as that in the United States of America, there is ample evidence to suggest that minor figures suspected of cooperating with the police will be murdered or assaulted to prevent them testifying. Confidential witnesses before the Committee told of constant harassment, physical attacks on them and their families and `contracts' on their lives. Moreover, a single example well known within the criminal community, such as the murders of Douglas and Isabel Wilson, gives the `enforcers' a powerful psychological edge when they come to threaten other potential witnesses. The Committee considers that society has an obligation to protect all witnesses, not merely witnesses against organised criminal groups. However, the need for protection is greater in the case of witnesses in this latter class because organised criminal groups habitually resort to the violent intimidation of witnesses in order to avoid detection and punishment. Moreover, the arrangements for the protection of such witnesses will need to be more elaborate and may need to continue after the trial is over, in some cases for the rest of the witnesses' lives. Although it has been suggested that the provision of effective protection will induce more witnesses against organised criminal groups to come forward, the Committee has concluded that protection is less an inducement to give evidence than a consequence of giving evidence. Many of the witnesses to whom the Committee spoke might not be alive today were it not for the protection that has now been provided. In the context of the fight against organised crime it is clearly in the interests of the state to provide protection to witnesses. Without such protection the principals of organised criminal groups will not be brought to trial. It is in this sense that the provision of effective witness protection is of primary importance in the investigation and prosecution of organised criminal activity. The Committee has examined the arrangements for witness protection in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and West Germany, and it has drawn together a detailed account of the present arrangements for witness protection in Australia. Despite progress made since the National Crime Authority first raised its concerns, problems remain with the witness protection arrangements in this country. In particular there are still difficulties with relocating witnesses across State boundaries. There is a lack of coordination and cooperation between forces and a lack of awareness, even within forces, of the witness protection arrangements which are available. Although witnesses are presently living under new names in this country, only rudimentary attempts have been made to establish mechanisms whereby those new names can be entered into official and commercial records without compromising the witnesses' security. There are witnesses living under new names who cannot obtain social security benefits, who cannot file taxation returns and whose drivers licences would not withstand close scrutiny. The Committee has rejected the option of a national witness protection scheme run by a new, independent agency as a solution to these problems. The Committee believes that there is insufficient demand to justify the costs associated with the creation of such an agency. Instead, the Committee recommends that a National Witness Protection Liaison Committee be established under the auspices of the Australian Police Ministers Council to provide a forum for coordination and cooperation between the eight police forces in the provision of witness protection and that the Australian Federal Police should assume an expanded national witness protection role. The Committee stresses that the decision to provide protection to any witness should be preceded by an assessment of the credibility of the witness and an evaluation of the importance of the evidence which he or she purports to be able to give. The response provided by a witness protection scheme must be flexible, depending on the assessed level of threat. In less serious cases it may be possible simply to provide increased protection for the witness in his or her own home. In a small number of cases, however, police forces will not be able to guarantee the safety of the witnesses if they remain in their own homes and will recommend more drastic measures. In such cases the Committee considers that relocation under a new identity should be adopted as the preferred method of protection. The use of 24-hour guarding in a `safe house' is obviously unsuitable as a long term method of post-trial protection. In addition it imposes unacceptable pressures both on the witness and on his or her protectors, and it is resource intensive and prohibitively expensive. The Australian Federal Police Witness Protection Branch already has considerable experience in the protection of witnesses by relocation. It provides protection on a user pays basis to witnesses from one State police force and the National Crime Authority and this service could be extended to other agencies which have not as yet felt the need to develop their own services capable of providing long-term protection to witnesses. At the same time the proposed National Witness Protection Liaison Committee may provide a forum for the development of arrangements for the relocation of witnesses across State boundaries by the State police forces. It could also facilitate the interchange of information concerning contacts in State and Federal agencies and non-governmental bodies who can assist in the relocation process. Relocation should be viewed as a last resort. Other alternatives should be considered first. The agency providing protection should assess the need for protection and the suitability of the witness for relocation. This assessment should include a psychological evaluation. Before being accepted into the witness protection scheme the witness and any adult family members should be required to read over and sign a memorandum of understanding detailing the assistance which the agency undertakes to provide and the conditions under which assistance will be terminated. The agency arranging the relocation of a protected witness should provide accommodation at the new locality. The witness should be assisted in finding employment and an allowance should be paid to meet rent, living expenses, medical and dental bills and other incidental costs until such time as the witness obtains employment. Immediately upon the acceptance of the witness into the scheme the agency should initiate the necessary steps to accomplish a secure change of name and the Committee considers that complementary State and Federal legislation is necessary to provide a mechanism to achieve this. Such legislation should also indemnify persons acting in an official capacity who alter records or issue documents to reflect the new identity of a protected witness. It should also create a criminal offence where a person compromises the security of a protected witness by revealing details of his or her change of identity. Where presently unavailable, appropriate complaints mechanisms should be established so that there is an avenue of review for witnesses who believe that they have been unjustly denied protection or who are aggrieved by decisions made by the agency protecting them, including decisions to terminate any assistance being provided to them. Complementary State and Federal legislation should also give clear legislative authority for the protection of witnesses by relocation. It should set out mechanisms whereby protected witnesses may be prevented from evading their civil obligations and from avoiding obligations imposed on them by the Family Court. It should ensure that, if a protected witness commits a crime, the witness's criminal record under his or her old identity will be revealed to the responsible investigative agency. The Committee envisages that this could be achieved by the establishment of a central secure register, maintained by the National Witness Protection Liaison Committee, recording each case in Australia where a change of identity has been accomplished for the purpose of witness protection, together with details of the criminal record of the person concerned under his or her old identity. Finally, complementary State and Federal legislation should establish procedures whereby the hearing of cases in which protected witnesses are to testify-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I call the honourable member for Hughes. Mr MacKellar —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is a further participant in the debate on the report of the National Crime Authority. I think the honourable member for Hughes intends to speak on another issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If there is a further participant, that participant might have chosen to stand at the right time. The honourable member for Gippsland has finally chosen to stand. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.40) —My comments in relation to the tabling of this report will be necessarily brief. I congratulate the staff of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority (NCA) who worked such long and arduous hours to produce what I believe is a first-class report which provides a blueprint for the rationalisation, indeed in some aspects the establishment, of a witness protection scheme in Australia. As the report so adequately summarises, the need for witness protection cannot be doubted for one moment. It was the mechanics of such a scheme which occupied so much of the time and effort of the Committee. I am confident, as is the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland), that a number of the practical aspects and difficulties surrounding the witness protection scheme, such as relocation after evidence has been given, have been addressed. They have not necessarily been solved in all of their aspects because, quite frankly, it is not possible to set out an all-encompassing document to overcome every possible contingency, given that witness protection involves human contingencies and variations. One of the most telling points made during the hearings was that it is impossible to estimate properly and plan for all the variations in character and circumstances; there needs to be some inbuilt flexibility in any overall scheme. I am pleased, as I am sure my fellow Committee members are, that this report can now be tabled in the Parliament, because it is long overdue. Whilst we have made great advances in the fight against organised crime in recent years, with the establishment of the NCA and the conferring on it of coercive powers and with a range of legislative measures which have been introduced into this chamber by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) over the past 12 months-all those measures aid in the fight against organised crime-no-one has any misconception that we are winning that fight. The best we can say is that an impression upon it is being made. But it will be some time yet before there is tangible evidence of a turning of the tide of corruption in this country. As the Chairman pointed out, the Committee envisages that we can establish a central secure register, maintained by a National Witness Protection Liaison Committee, which can record in each case a change of identity. That is terribly important because the great fear that many of us have is that where a witness is given protection and an indemnity to testify against co-conspirators, after the completion of that evidence, with all the advantages that a new identity provides, the person will commit more crimes, even graver crimes. We do not ever want the witness protection scheme to become a haven for criminals and to provide them with a new means of identity by which to further their criminal careers. The Committee faced that problem full on. We believe that any person who commits a further crime under the guise of the witness protection scheme should not be protected from his previous record; therefore, that person's record of criminality should be brought to the attention of the sentencing judge. Given the absence of any Commonwealth prisons, obviously it is inappropriate to contemplate a national scheme for the protection of custodial witnesses, except-I stress `except'-through greater consultation on the issue between the various corrective services administrations. That is terribly important. The New South Wales Government may be prepared to permit its witness protection unit at Long Bay gaol to be used as a national facility for the protection of custodial witnesses whose evidence has national ramifications, but it would be necessary, in the first instance, to amend the complementary legislation relating to the interstate transfer of prisoners specifying the protection of a custodial witness as a ground for transfer. The Committee is generally satisfied with the adequacy of the protection provided to custodial witnesses. However, we recommend that the fact that such witnesses serve their sentences under harsher conditions than would otherwise be the case should be taken into account in making decisions concerning their release on licence or parole. Further, custodial witnesses need to be assured that their families are being protected and arrangements should be made to ensure that that occurs. It is of fundamental concern to witnesses who are prepared to testify in criminal trials that their families receive the same degree of protection that they themselves do. Time and again witnesses whom we interviewed and took evidence from made that point. Custodial witnesses should be given clear undertakings as to the arrangements proposed for their protection on release. I thank Mr Giles Short, the secretary to the parliamentary committee overseeing the National Crime Authority, and his very able assistant, John Carter. The tabling of this report provides me-I know that I speak for my colleagues-with a great deal of satisfaction. It will be of much assistance to law enforcement agencies in rationalising and setting down in print, for the first time, a national scheme so as to provide greater efficiency and better protection for those who come forward and thereby offer an inducement to, even inject new confidence in, those who are prepared to testify for the Crown in serious criminal cases. I commend the report to the House. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.46) —As a non-lawyer, probably one of the few, if not the only non-lawyer on the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, it was a fascinating experience for me to have the opportunity of learning more about the way the legal system operates in practice and of speaking to some of the people who are being protected at present. I underline the remarks of my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) about the concern that witnesses under protection have for their families. We tend to think that a protected witness is concerned solely with his or her own safety. However, as my colleague mentioned, time and again witnesses made it very clear to us that they were more concerned about what was happening or may happen to their families rather than to themselves. That is an area which must be considered closely in any future decisions taken by the appropriate authorities. In recent times we have had tragic evidence of the concern that potential witnesses feel in relation to major issues that may come to the attention of the public. The tragic suicide in Victoria recently of a potential witness before the National Crime Authority brought home to all of us in very stark form the pressure under which those people find themselves. Many citizens have the attitude that most protected witnesses are themselves under some conviction for a criminal offence and, therefore, in a sense they deserve everything they get. But the fact remains that if we are to combat effectively a lot of this organised crime, the services of such people need to be available and proper protection apparatus put in place. I found the Committee's inquiry most fascinating. I think that the Committee's recommendations are practical, which is an important aspect of all governmental recommendations. The people involved with the Committee's work need to be thanked for the time and persistent effort they put into assisting the Committee. On behalf of the Committee, I wish to pass on my thanks, in particular, to Mr Peter O'Keefe and Mr Giles Short and the present and former research officers, Mr John Carter and Ms Rosa Ferranda. I also acknowledge the indefatigable work of the Committee's steno-secretary, Chris Migus. Without the support of such officers, this Committee and other committees simply could not get the job done. It is an important area and I think that the recommendations deserve the very closest consideration. Motion (by Mr Cleeland) proposed: That the House take note of the report. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —In accordance with sessional order 102b, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Bill presented by Mr Tickner. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.50) —In one of the final days of sitting in the House of Representatives in the old Parliament House, I believe it is highly appropriate that this Bill be presented to the House as a private member's Bill. Members of parliament and the people of Australia would know that a private member's Bill is a relatively rare beast in parliamentary life. I hope such Bills will not be so rare in future years and, indeed, I hope this will not be the last Bill that I present. I compliment the Government on facilitating the extension of the democratic processes of this House to afford more opportunities for private members' business; and I also thank the Parliament for that. I also thank my Party for having procedures that allow a member of parliament who has strong convictions about a particular area to bring forward a private member's Bill. I gently chide the Opposition and remind members that within their parties they do not have the same flexibility as we in the Australian Labor Party have to put new ideas for legislation on the agenda of parliament. I thank my Party for that flexibility. Mr MacKellar —What rubbish! Have a look at the private member's Bill from this side of the House. Mr TICKNER —The reality is that the honourable member needs the permission of his Party; I do not. I do not wish to be partisan in what I have to say because I believe the Bill I am introducing today transcends party politics. The Bill sets out its purposes; I will not refer to them in detail. They include the prohibition of the promotion, by way of publication and advertisement, of tobacco products and accessories; the prohibition of certain competitions; the prohibition of free samples; and a prohibition on the sale of tobacco products to people under the age of 16 years. This Bill is not only for the people of the Australian Capital Territory and in particular the youth of today and the children who will soon be in their teenage years, although it is certainly and primarily directed to them and for their benefit; it is also for my late father, who died of a tobacco-induced cancer, and for my eight-year-old daughter, whom I do not want to grow up to be subjected to tobacco advertising. I have said that this is not a party Bill, and I will be looking for support right across the political spectrum. I acknowledge freely that there are many people on the Opposition benches who strongly share my convictions. Indeed, the proposal for a law of this kind was first made way back in 1977 in the unanimous report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, chaired by Senator Peter Baume, which called for legislation of the kind that I am proposing now. That, of course, was a unanimous recommendation made over 11 years ago. As I have said, I will be looking for bipartisan support. I want to make a number of matters clear. First and foremost, this is not in any way an attack on smokers or their rights. This is 100 per cent directed towards the advertising practices of multinational tobacco companies, which deliberately set out to attract young smokers and new smokers. Their advertising is directly targeted, as honourable members can see from the picture I am holding up from a major newspaper, towards young people. It uses all the phoney tricks of advertising to secure new markets and new addicts among young smokers. I believe history will judge us very harshly. It is absolutely absurd that we take a restrictive view of advertising of tobacco products on radio and television and yet allow the free marketing of tobacco products in the print media; and one of the purposes of the Bill is to correct that situation. I am delighted to have already received support for the concept of the Bill from the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Medical Association; and I am confident that other public health bodies, parents and community groups in the Australian Capital Territory will warmly support the Bill. I thank the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) for his seconding of the Bill. I thank the Parliamentary Library, and particularly Joanna Sutherland of the law and government group for her help, as well as the Department of the House of Representatives, which has also provided strong support. We who serve in the House of Representatives are privileged; but with that privilege and the right to serve the people we carry an obligation to stand up for our convictions and to leave this place better than when we arrived. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Bill read a first time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with sessional order 104a, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr SCHOLES(Corio) —by leave-Mr Deputy Speaker, I table a request from 300 residents of the Geelong district requesting in the strongest terms that positive action be taken by the Government to end the use of chlorofluorocarbons in order to protect the ozone layer. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(11.00) —I move: That this House determines that the present Speaker's chair should be relocated in the House of Representatives chamber in the new Parliament House before that House is occupied by members of parliament in the 1988 Budget sittings. I think it is very appropriate that on this late sitting day in the provisional Parliament House we should discuss the final location of the Speaker's chair. The chair in which you are sitting, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a replica of the original House of Commons Speaker's chair and was presented to the Parliament in 1926 by the United Kingdom branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association, now the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The foliated canopy, the intricate carvings and mouldings and the graceful pinnacles and pendants are truly fine examples of the carver's art. The Royal Arms which surmount the canopy are carved in old oak taken from the roof of Westminster Hall, built in 1399. The back of the chair contains many delicately worked linen-fold panels, each with the monogram `V.R.' and the wreath and intertwined cord. The hinged flaps are of oak from Nelson's flagship, HMS Victory. We all recall, of course, Trafalgar on 21 October 1805. There are Latin inscriptions carved on both sides of the chair and, as I have already said, it really is a magnificent example of the carver's art. I point out that the present Speaker's chair in the House of Commons in Westminster was a gift of the Australian Parliament presented to that House in 1950 after damage to the original chair was sustained during World War II. I remind the House that in March 1986 the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House decided that the Speaker's chair should be transferred to the chamber of the House of Representatives in the new Parliament House. That is important because it demonstrates very clearly that the design of the new Parliament House always incorporated the movement of this Speaker's chair to that chamber. It is not as though the design of the new Parliament House was not intended to accommodate the move to transfer the Speaker's chair to the new chamber. In fact, if one looks at illustrations of the new chamber, one finds that they include in them a depiction of this Speaker's chair. Mr Fife —It was always accepted. Mr MacKELLAR —It was always accepted that the chair should go up there. In this chamber on 6 October last year, Madam Speaker acknowledged that that decision was made on the basis of tradition and the symbolic link with the Westminster Parliament. But Madam Speaker also told us on 6 October 1987 that the Committee had subsequently reviewed that decision and reported on 25 September last year that the Speaker's chair should not be transferred because of the chair's present condition, the need for restoration after the move, practical considerations involved in its removal and the need for modifications to overcome previously recognised shortcomings. Madam Speaker then advised the House that the Committee had recognised the significance of preserving the integrity of the present chamber as part of a future parliamentary museum; had acknowledged that the new Parliament House would be a contemporary building incorporating a great deal of Australian skill, craftsmanship and materials; and had decided that a new chair should be designed and fabricated in Australia by Australian craftsmen, from Australian material. I understand that, when the subject of a Speaker's chair was being considered for this provisional building in 1922, the concept of a British designed and made chair was initially rejected because it was considered to be incompatible with the decor of this chamber. Here we have a fascinating example of history seeming to repeat itself. Mr Lee —You are catching up slowly. Mr MacKELLAR —The honourable member for Dobell has interjected. The fact of the matter is that one of the spurious reasons put forward for not taking the chair up to the new Parliament House is that it blends in so well with the decor here. There is ample evidence that Australians now place a high value on traditions and heritage. Why does this Hawke Labor Government want to reject the British built Speaker's chair while, of course, actively supporting the preservation and renovation of historical buildings, many of which were designed and built by the British? If we are to reject the Speaker's chair as no longer appropriate to the Australian Parliament, will the Hawke Government be disposing of the English made mace? I have heard no suggestion that we should not take the mace up to the new Parliament House. However, it is British made. I cannot see any consistency in the arguments being advanced by the Government. I understand also that a petition has been received by the Parliament, signed by all the surviving parliamentary Clerks, asking that the Speaker's chair be transferred to the new Parliament House. As far as I am aware, that is an unprecedented action and demonstrates the depth of feeling and the wish for continuity that this symbolic chair inspires in all those who have served in this Parliament. The fact remains that the then Leader of the House, Mr Young, spoke on 6 October 1987 against the transfer of the Speaker's chair. In so doing, he rejected the importance of traditions. One can understand that in regard to Mr Young. He cheapened the debate by trying to equate the Opposition's support for moving the chair with the events of 11 November 1975. That is a totally spurious and cheap way of dealing with this problem. The chair is a symbol of the entire Parliament, not one side of the Parliament. It is a symbol for all those who serve within the Parliament, no matter which party they represent. The reasons advanced by Madam Speaker and the Committee for rejecting the moving of the chair to the new Parliament House are plainly and clearly specious. The decision is wrong. The arguments used for the non-transfer simply do not accord with the facts. They cannot stand up to close analysis. The decision is wrong because it is a rejection of a revered and important symbol of Australia's parliamentary history. In my view, it reveals a total lack of understanding by this Government of the importance which Australians attach to our traditions. The fact of the matter is that when one observes the new House of Representatives chamber and looks at the chair which has been provided one realises, as somebody said to me on the day of the opening of the new Parliament House, that the chair is something which a minor local country shire might put up with but which nobody else would. In no way at all is it possible to equate the chair provided in the new chamber with this magnificent example of the carver's art, this symbol that is so rich in tradition and so closely allied with our parliamentary history and the parliamentary traditions stretching from the foundation of Westminster. The decision is wrong. I doubt whether the present Government will change it. It should. However, I have no doubt that, as soon as this side of politics is elected to government, the transfer will and must be made. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Is the motion seconded? Mr McArthur —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr LEE(Dobell)(11.06) —The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) mentioned that in 1926 there was a great debate as to whether this chamber should have this Speaker's chair. After listening to the honourable member for Warringah I can imagine that his speech could have been given in 1926 when that debate was proceeding because, really, to have the honourable member arguing in this day and age, in 1988, that our close ties with the United Kingdom will be damaged if we do not take the Speaker's chair from this Parliament House to the new Parliament House is ridiculous. Perhaps it is quite appropriate that one of the last debates in this chamber is on this question. In 1926 who gave the Parliament the Speaker's chair? The United Kingdom branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association gave that chair. I think that just demonstrates Australia's position in 1926. We were a dominion. We did not have total control over our foreign affairs and defence. In a sense, we were ultimately answerable to the United Kingdom Parliament. I am proud to say that one of the great achievements of the Curtin Labor Government, I think in 1942, was to pass an Act of Parliament which ratified the Statute of Westminster and gave Australia control over its foreign affairs and defence. One of the great decisions of the last Parliament was to pass the Australia Act, which ensures that we have complete control over our Constitution and our affairs. Mr Lindsay —And established our security links with the United States. Mr LEE —At the same time the Curtin Government initiated our close security links with the United States, which continue. I thank the honourable member for reminding me of that. It is important to remember that this issue has been debated in this House on two previous occasions. It was debated twice in October last year. Perhaps it simply demonstrates the priorities of the Opposition, because, when the community is debating the economy, the May economic statement and all the other issues that really matter, it brings forward a debate on the Speaker's chair. While I think that the Speaker's chair is a beautiful work of art, I regard it as part of the history of this chamber. I think that it belongs here in a parliamentary museum which will be open to the public and will allow the public to have a feel for what this chamber was like in the years from 1927 to 1988 when this was the House of Representatives. One can imagine the public coming into the parliamentary museum and this chamber and, perhaps, sitting on the front benches or in the Prime Minister's chair. I hope that one day audio tapes of some of the proceedings of this House can be played in this chamber as part of that museum concept. We can imagine people sitting in this chamber and listening over the loudspeakers, perhaps to a replay of the events in this chamber on 11 November 1975 or Question Time in the Fraser years. People could actually hear what happened. Perhaps they would hear the voice of Speaker Snedden and look towards the place where the Speaker's chair would be. However, honourable members opposite have promised that if they are elected to government they will take the Speaker's chair up to the hill. In that situation the public would be in here listening to the audio tapes; but, when they looked to the place where the Speaker's chair used to be, what would they see? Perhaps they would see a sign like the signs that have suddenly sprouted on the walls in this building in place of the paintings that have been removed and taken up to the hill. Perhaps they would see a sign saying, `The Speaker's chair usually displayed here has been transferred'. It is necessary to the history of this chamber that the Speaker's chair stay here. It is completely ridiculous for the Opposition to be suggesting that this great issue of the moment should be considered. I note with interest that the Opposition has not argued that the President's chair in the Senate needs to be transferred to the new building. The Opposition has been very quiet on that. Who donated the President's chair to this Parliament? Not the United Kingdom Empire Parliamentary Association, but the Canadian Government. Apparently our links with the United Kingdom are different from our links with Canada. We can insult the Canadians, but we cannot insult the 1,926 members of the Empire Parliamentary Association. I quote from one of the papers prepared for the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House, on which I serve. It states: In addition to the historical argument, it may be argued that there are sound aesthetic reasons for avoiding a conflict in styles between the ornate Gothic carved chair and the open simplicity of the proposed Chamber design. Proponents of this argument do not demean the Speakership or the authority of the Chair. Rather, they would seek to have the position of Speaker symbolised in the new building in a fashion more appropriate to, and consistent with, the statements of Australian nationhood. I am very proud of the fact that the new Speaker's chair has been made by Australian craftsmen from special Australian woods. That is in keeping with the aims of the architects of the new Parliament House to maximise the Australian content and the use of Australian labour. The mob opposite, always seeking to put down the efforts of Australians, should instead be congratulating the Government on the excellent standard of workmanship which is in that new building, and that extends to the new Speaker's chair. I should say in passing that it would be inappropriate for the Australian Parliament in the new Australian Parliament House opened in 1988 to have the Speaker's chair which has the coat of arms of the monarch of the United Kingdom, which is the coat of arms in the chair in this chamber. Australians in 1988 believe that they are part of an independent country; they do not have to hang on to the apron strings of the United Kingdom, and they are quite happy in the new Parliament House to have a new Speaker's chair. Of all the issues that are being debated in the community today, when the newspapers and television and radio programs are dealing with the May economic statement made last night by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), what issue does the Opposition bring forward? The Speaker's chair. I believe this motion is a nonsense. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(11.12) —I support my friend and colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) in deploring the decision that the Speaker's chair is not to be moved to our new parliamentary home. The honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) referred back to the paranoia of the Australian Labor Party and to the 1975 decision that refers to the chair having some symbolic significance to the political events of that year. Honourable members will recall that the design of the new Parliament House incorporated this chair. Only in the last year was that decision changed, so the argument that the honourable member for Dobell puts up that the new design should incorporate a new chair is completely out of order, because over the 11 years of construction the old chair was to be incorporated in the new Parliament House. In making such a decision, the Hawke Government is thumbing its nose at tradition, insulting the people of Australia, and flouting the Westminster system. I have a deep personal regret that this symbol of impartiality is not to find a place in the new chamber in the House of Representatives. The chair is more than just a piece of furniture. It is a symbol of the independence of the office of Speaker and a part of our history. Madam Speaker herself has flouted the Parliamentary tradition of Westminster by refusing to wear the Speaker's robes, thus maintaining a tradition of sorts for Labor Speakers in this place, all of whom have denied themselves the sartorial trappings of office. Honourable members on this side of the House have had good reason to doubt the independence of the Speaker in recent times, and the refusal of this Government to place this chair, which indeed symbolises the true Westminster tradition, in the new Parliament House, could indeed be interpreted as a further step in the decline of impartiality in the office of Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Corangamite could have been seen to be casting a slight on the Speaker in the remarks he made suggesting that the Speaker was not impartial. For the record, that comment ought to be withdrawn just in case there should be any suggestion that there was such a slur. The honourable member may wish to make it clear that he was not making a slur. Mr McARTHUR —I was making no slur on the Speaker's impartiality. The late Sir Billy Snedden advocated the adoption of convention as associated with the Speakership of the British House of Commons. There the Speaker withdraws from party politics and continues in office regardless of which party holds power. Sir Billy believed that such a move was essential to increase the authority of the Chair and acceptance of decisions, with an improvement in standards in the House as a consequence. Mr Deputy Speaker, the chair upon which you now sit, apparently comfortably, if I may say so, is one which is surrounded by history. It was presented to the Australian Parliament by the then Empire Parliamentary Association in 1926 for the opening of provisional Parliament House. The fact that it was seen as a temporary or provisional Parliament House then is very significant for the Empire Parliamentary Association clearly intended it should move to the permanent Parliament House when it was finally built. Thirteen of the 20 Speakers of the House of Representatives have used the chair since 1927. I am sure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have been proud to take the seat today representing the Speaker. I ask honourable members to examine the Speaker's chair. As this Labor Government has decreed it will stay put, we have only one more day, after today, to enjoy it and reflect on its significance. You see before you not just a piece of furniture but a piece of our democratic history. It is a replica of the Speaker's chair in the House of Commons in London. When the original was destroyed in bombing during World War II, artisans and craftsmen came from England to measure our chair to make sure their replacement was correct in every detail. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time allotted by the Selection Committee for debate on this matter has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(11.17) —I move: That this House acknowledges the contribution of former Members to the rich and colourful history of this Chamber. It is quite appropriate, having regard to the preceding debate, relating to the history of this chamber, that honourable members take some time today in a repeat of the nostalgic mood that preceded the closure of the last Parliament on 24 March 1927, not so much to sing Auld Lang Syne as they did on that occasion and as I hope we will do when we conclude the proceedings in this great chamber. In embracing that somewhat nostalgic mood I bring this motion to the attention of the House and seek its support, mainly as a result of having looked at a photograph that brought back many memories of the history of this chamber. That photograph is now stored in the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The photograph was taken from the entrance to this chamber looking into the Speaker's chair. It was a very memorable photograph for two reasons. One was-and I hope this will not be repeated-that at the time the photograph was taken the Clerk passed away, and his head is seen falling in a blur to the table just where our colleague sits in front of us now. At the same time as the photograph was taken there was a member for Barton-a fellow by the name of John Frederick Ley-- Mr Lee —Lemonade Ley. Mr GRIFFITHS —Lemonade Ley, who gained access to this august chamber by reaching the high water mark of electoral malpractice. He came from the conservative side of politics, and most people in this chamber today would be aware of the infamous Lemonade Ley, but very few people outside the chamber would be aware how he came to represent the constituency of Barton in this chamber. For those who are not aware I shall recount the story. Lemonade Ley, a former Minister for Justice in the New South Wales Parliament, allegedly sought to bribe the then Labor member for Barton, one Frederick McDonald, into not nominating for the election immediately preceding the opening of this Parliament. It came to pass that Frederick McDonald, as he properly ought to have done, took this matter to the Court of Disputed Returns. Unfortunately, consequent upon an attempt to have a meeting between John Frederick Ley and the unfortunate Frederick McDonald, the Labor Party former member of this chamber disappeared, never to be seen again. The new member for Barton brought with him a very unsavoury reputation, and it was alleged that other people who had associated with him had disappeared previously. He served in this chamber for some three years before losing his seat and emigrating to England where, following his apprehension for a further murder, he was eventually sentenced to be executed. That sentence was set aside and he was sent to Broadmoor lunatic asylum where he subsequently died-hopefully, not held in high regard by many people at all. In looking at the history of the Speaker's chair, I think it is interesting to reflect on some of the mortals who have served in this chamber rather than concentrating, as some of my colleagues have done, on the bits of timber that are important to the chamber. John Ley reached the high water mark of electoral malpractice, and the Australian Labor Party (ALP), even with its rich history in regard to matters electoral, cannot come anywhere near that particular exercise of tory ambition. It is a very important incident to recall, and I ask honourable members to view that particular photograph if they have an opportunity. Indeed, some of my colleagues, given that this particular former member for Barton sat almost immediately behind where I now stand, indicate that occasionally they can feel the cold breath of John Frederick Ley on the backs of their necks and it is a rather chilling feeling. It has also been said recently that there have been some sightings of ghosts around the chambers. While I have yet to be convinced of the truth of that assertion, it is interesting to reflect, if indeed there are ghosts around this chamber and around these halls, on what they might be thinking now. Were they to have a vote, would they ask for the Speaker's chair to be removed to the new Parliament House, or indeed might they suggest that the Speaker's chair remain in this chamber because they may have every intention of continuing to meet at times other than those scheduled for our normal sittings? If they were to meet, what a very rich, albeit crowded, meeting it would be. There would be not only John Frederick Ley, the villain, and his victim, the unfortunate former member for Barton, but a whole raft of colourful characters who have inhabited this chamber, sometimes for extraordinary long periods, such as `Billy the Rat', the former Prime Minister Hughes. There would also be those who should have served in this chamber longer; for example, a former member for Indi went along at 5 o'clock in the afternoon to nominate for election to this Parliament whereupon he was told that nominations had closed at 3 p.m. and that his Labor opponent had become the new member for Indi. Mr Scholes —It was a good move. Mr GRIFFITHS —Yes, it was a good move. In fact, the ALP, having had one of its members murdered, was in for some luck, and there might have been some balance in that outcome. Numerous colourful characters have inhabited this chamber. For example, `Red Ted' Theodore right through his career was always the victim of many slurs, some of them I believe quite well founded. He was up on bribery charges and was subsequently embroiled-- Mr Lee —He was found not guilty. Mr GRIFFITHS —Yes, on the bribery charges. He was then involved in the Mungana affair. Mr Lee —He was not guilty again. Mr GRIFFITHS —Not guilty, but certainly had his image knocked around. He eventually retired and went on to bigger and better things-if I recall correctly, as a newspaper proprietor. Mr Lee —The Women's Weekly. Mr GRIFFITHS —Yes, he set up the Women's Weekly. A colourful Labor character was the catalyst for that great conservative Australian institution, the Women's Weekly. There were others like Frank Anstey, who was allegedly under the influence of the infamous John Wren in Victoria. There were major events right throughout this period and some of those that come to mind would be found shocking today. Wharf labourers were shot dead while on strike in Melbourne over, in part at least, the dog collar legislation which went through this Parliament, purporting to demand that wharf labourers hold a licence before being allowed to work. There were other people like Stanley Melbourne Bruce, the first Australian Prime Minister-as my colleague the honourable member for Dunkley (My Chynoweth), whose former seat was Flinders, would no doubt recall-to lose his seat in a Federal election. He lost his seat over issues such as the status of the conciliation and arbitration legislation. My colleague the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) may be aware that Norman Makin, a former member for Hindmarsh and a Methodist minister, turned things upside down many years ago when, as Speaker, he dispensed not only with wearing the wig and gown but also with the use of the mace. That was only a temporary aberration, because in recent times they have been reintroduced. However, in those days it had enormous impact and was a matter of significant controversy. During the 1930s the unemployment level in this country was 28 per cent, something which is very hard to imagine. Prime Minister Scullin went overseas for an extended trip of some six months. It is now very hard to imagine a Prime Minister leaving the country at a time of acute social crisis, however well justified, for a period of half the year. There were enormous controversies in this chamber about the appointment of the first Australian Governor-General, Sir Isaac Isaacs. Of course, after he left that position it took many years before we reverted, I hope for all time, to the appointment of Australians to that august position. There were also the battles of the Langites, not only in this chamber but in the Caucus room. There was also `Stabber' Jack Beasley, who allegedly resided for quite some time in the toilets at the back of the chamber, listening in a most improper way to the conversations of those who went to relieve themselves. He took great note of the information so derived and it was alleged that he used it to telling effect in his various Caucus schemes. There was also Eddie Ward, the wild man of Sydney, who came into this chamber with no education but with two great talents in politics-an unsurpassed vindictiveness and great prowess as a boxer and athlete. Many years later it was said that he put the latter of those talents, his prowess as a boxer, to almost telling effect when he chased a young fellow by the name of Gough Whitlam into the Caucus room, took a mad swing at him but punched the wall and then decided that he would thereafter not embrace violence as he had clearly lost his ability to land a decent punch. There was also Mr Lyons who, like his forebear, Billy Hughes, swapped sides and ratted on the Labor Party. There were some great comments in this chamber about the activities of not only Lyons but also Hughes, who was still around at the time. There was a real social crisis in 1931 with the formation of the `White Army' in Melbourne and the `New Guard' in Sydney. Per capita in this country there were paramilitary organisations of far greater number than in the United Kingdom, a fact that is often unknown. That is a very sobering thought indeed because it placed democracy, as properly represented in this chamber, under enormous pressure. In those days the Press Gallery comprised only six people. Many years later, of course, one member of that gallery, almost in a comatose state, distinguished himself by falling from the Press gallery onto the canopy of the Speaker's chair. Of course, he was dead drunk. Not a lot has changed over the years, but I suspect that that particular Press Gallery reporter at least had the decency to pay for his own drinks. The famous journalist Joe Alexander could reputedly read upside down. When interviewing him in one's office one had to be very careful with any confidential documents lest they be splashed over his newspaper. The politics of those times are quite amazing to reflect upon. The conservative side of politics refused to pass the Statute of Westminster. Right across this chamber honourable members would find it very hard to imagine the type of thinking that prevailed in those days. Electioneering campaign slogans such as Lyons's election theme, `Let's tune in with Britain' now seem somewhat dated. Mr Chynoweth —Oh, I don't know. Mr GRIFFITHS —Some of my colleagues, such as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) perhaps, may not believe that it is all that dated. It is interesting that the honourable member for North Sydney is in the chamber. I recall his distinguished and late father being elected as an Independent for the seat of Warringah. My colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) is also in the chamber. The honourable member for North Sydney having such a conservative status, it is interesting that his late and great father gained election as an Independent to the seat of Warringah with the great assistance of Labor Party second preferences. That is a very interesting bit of history. It started the Spender dynasty in this chamber. We had the secession movement in Western Australia. My own seat of Maribyrnong has been around since 1906 and has been represented by some seven members, all with considerable political longevity. I hope the precedent is an important one for the existing member. In any event, the famous Maurice Blackburn played a part in Curtin's ascension to power. He despised Curtin, yet the then member for Maribyrnong, Mr Drakeford, was able to get the proxy vote of Maurice Blackburn and Curtin was elected by one vote. I think the scheming and the deals involved in election outcomes in those days belie any of our current experiences. Lieutenant-Colonel White, a former member of this chamber, was famous for his wartime and other exploits; for example, crash landing his aircraft somewhere near Baghdad, being captured by Arabs and executing his own escape in quite perilous circumstances. He was one of the very famous conservative members of this place. In 1935 people were still to get into the habit of using aircraft, something which existing members would find very difficult to understand until they found out that the gold pass did not apply to air travel. Members of parliament tended for economic reasons to continue to use train travel and that involved a great degree of time and effort to get to this place. In the period leading up to the War we had the exploits of pig-iron Bob, one of the greats of this chamber, notwithstanding his problems in that regard. It is interesting to reflect on what might have been. In 1940 the late Prime Minister Menzies nearly took a trip on a Lockheed Hudson passenger aircraft. As honourable members will be aware, that aircraft crashed, killing three Cabinet Ministers, Mr Street, Mr Gullett and Mr Fairbairn. It is interesting to reflect on what might have been had fate treated Menzies a little more harshly on that day. Menzies, some 55 years after the formation of the Australian Labor Party, formed the Liberal Party of Australia. It is interesting to consider the different time frames. Chifley organised the postwar reconstruction and also put troops into the coalmines. There are some wonderful quotations in many of the books on these great times. There is a great one that indicates the tempestuous nature of Gough Whitlam. The Hansard for 17 November 1960 records the following conversation: Mr ALLAN FRASER.—Stop sheltering behind the Sovereign all the time. Sir GARFIELD BARWICK.—That is a remarkable remark. I have heard it from the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. Let the public know it. He said, ``Stop talking about the Sovereign so much''. Mr WHITLAM.—He did not say that. You are cashing in on the monarchy . . . Sir GARFIELD BARWICK.—I heard it and so did my colleagues . . . Mr WHITLAM.—He is a liar. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.-I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order . . . Mr WHITLAM.—I will not withdraw. This truculent runt thinks he can get away with anything. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.-Order! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark. Mr WHITLAM.—I will not withdraw when the Attorney-General will not withdraw his untruth. And so it went. That is an indication of Mr Whitlam's recollection of events. He was right on that occasion to ask for the ruling. That exchange indicates not only his very sharp tongue but also his ability subsequently to throw water over those with whom he disagreed in this chamber. I suspect that the ghosts of this chamber every now and then look at the water spread all over the table in front of us. Many colourful and important characters have made a great contribution to this chamber from all areas of Australian politics. I hope we leave the Speaker's chair in this chamber. I think the ghosts of this chamber have the right to assemble out of our sessional hours to relive those very famous, very intriguing and very memorable times. I thank the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Chynoweth —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(11.37) —I am very much aware of the importance of the day. I thank the House for inviting me, on relatively short notice, to participate in this debate. My colleague the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) referred to the journalist tumbling out of the gallery onto the Speaker's chair. In the very first year of this Parliament there was a total prohibition on alcohol. That followed a move by the late King O'Malley who, himself a teetotaller, banned alcohol in the Parliament. It was only as a result of a referendum in the Australian Capital Territory which was passed with a bare majority of 2,218 to 2,161 that alcohol was allowed into this place. I am quite certain that, had that rule continued, many honourable members, particularly on the Government side, would never have aspired to come to this place. One can look back over the years and observe that people worked very hard at catching up for the year lost because of the late King O'Malley. I regard it as a personal privilege and as apt that I am speaking today because I come from a clan that has been represented in this Parliament more than any other group. Mr Cross —Too many. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member for Brisbane says there have been too many. I say to him that there has been nothing wrong with any of the 14 Camerons who have served in this Parliament. Mr Scott —Thirteen were all right. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member for Hindmarsh says that only 13 were all right. The Camerons have come from all parties-Liberal, National and Labor. It shows the diversity of views which still exists in our particular clan. There have been only two years since 1927 when there was not a Cameron in the Parliament. That is quite an accomplishment. Very few have been even remotely related, but there must have been something special about the Scottish blood in the clan. My friend the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) is sitting behind me and the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) is on my right. I concede that people from all backgrounds are driven to this place. Mrs Sullivan —That is my husband's name. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am sorry. Only somebody who associates with the Irish could wave aside the great opportunity that came with the connection with someone of Irish blood. I refer also to the fact that in 1927, when this Parliament was opened, there was a total of 112 politicians. There were 76 members of the House of Representatives and 36 senators. I am pleased to note that we have a number of National Party and Labor Party members in the House at present. I have always believed that one of the great tragedies was the vote taken in about 1983 to increase the number of members of parliament so dramatically. The increase in 1949 was justified. The original politicians came here with a salary of #1,000 per year. It was not until 1947 that they received an increase of #500. Those politicians set an example to the nation and accepted a 50 per cent cut in salary. I believe it was in 1932 that they reduced their salaries from #1,000 to #500. The salary moved back gradually and it was not until 1947 that they reached the figure of #1,500. In looking back at the politicians that have passed through this place, I note that the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) is present. He and his father have chalked up some 45 years service between them-quite an achievement. Over the years only 20 members of the House of Representatives have served at least 30 years and seven senators have achieved that period of service. The grandfather of service, of course, was the late William Morris Hughes, who served a period of 51 years and seven months. He was a Labor Prime Minister and, as the years rolled on, he woke up to the Australian Labor Party, left that Party and joined the conservative side of politics. If I were asked to choose one person about whom I would like to speak today, I would nominate Billy Hughes. I will not refer to personal aspects of his life, but I guess he symbolises, with 51 years and 7 months service, the aspirations of every person who arrives here for the first time. People come here thinking that they would love to stay for at least 50 years and match the Billy Hughes record. Of course, nobody has gone even near the record of Billy Hughes. I would like to believe that the Australian public has been well served since Federation by the men and women who have come into this place. Some 385 members have sat in this chamber since 1927 and 567 politicians in total have served in the House of Representatives since Federation. Moments ago I referred to Billy Hughes and to the men and women who have passed through here. I referred also to my belief that Australia has been well served by its democratic process. I realise that at times Australians are well and truly turned off by the rowdiness here and by the sometimes blatant lack of respect that is displayed for others. People cannot understand how members can say certain things to each other in this chamber and then go outside and speak civilly to each other. Mr Griffiths —You would get sued if you said it outside. Mr DONALD CAMERON —That is quite correct. This chamber, with its representatives of the Australian people, has contributed tremendously to the stability this nation has enjoyed for so many decades. The cut and thrust of this place is a release. At times a member of parliament will say something which is quite outrageous, but in the general community people can always relate to someone here or to something that happens in this place. Whilst politicians-I use that popular term; most honourable members who come through these doors see themselves as statesmen-will fail in the future, as they have in the past, to fulfil the promises and the undertakings that are made, I believe more often seriously than flippantly, there is still no better system to serve this country than our parliamentary system. This chamber, with the lower sections clad in Australian timbers, its old green leather benches-parts of which have been replaced-that have served us well, the huge table in the middle of the chamber, and indeed the Speaker's chair, has been the centre of stability. We have all felt our disappointments personally, particularly at times when we have cast a vote on a matter, in which we probably did not have our full hearts. I have always held the view that when it comes to displaying independence it is a matter of principle and not a matter of opinion. I regard it as very fortunate that I belong to a political party which allows a display of conscience in terms of how an individual votes, as long as it is not indulged in too often-contrary to the Labor Party, whose members would not know what it is like to cross the floor. I guess that the floor crossing that has made headlines over the years has always come from this side of the chamber. That is a very special privilege that we have had. In closing, I pay tribute to all those former members of the Parliament for their efforts, for their contributions, and for something that is not understood by the general public. Indeed, I may well have been fooled myself. When I was young I used to hear about what a great bludger's life it was being a member of parliament. I thought, `That will do me. I'll head for parliament'. People have always said that this is the biggest bludger's life in the country, and they are still saying it. I would like to assure people that, after a couple of decades here, I know that is not the truth. Perhaps people resort to those denunciations because politicians do not always meet people's expectations. I am aware that the next Liberal member to speak is a former senator, now the honourable member for Moncrieff. She served in the Senate and is now a member of the House of Representatives, an achievement not many people have accomplished. She has mentioned to me that it is her intention to refer to a function that was held in this place in 1976, when the 1966 members celebrated their tenth anniversary. I ran a kangaroo dinner recently. It was only the second function I have organised, and I have come to the conclusion that every time I am associated with anything like this there is simply too much publicity. I undertake never to hold another dinner in this place-a very easy undertaking to make. I just say to the honourable member for Moncrieff: go gently. My most hurtful memory about that woman who attended the function is the total disbelief of my elderly parents that I could have been associated with such a function. I will leave history to judge exactly what happened, but I can assure the House that I was not there on my own. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(11.50) —I am very pleased to participate in this debate today and I thank the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) for placing this item on the Notice Paper. This is the last private members' debate which will be brought on in this chamber, and it might be worthwhile thinking about the spirits and the ghosts up there in the ceiling and some of the things that they are thinking about in what might be the last debate of any significance that we have in this place. If one accepts the view that parliament is about private members, this should really be one of the last significant debates because this is the last time we will have a private members' day here. I guess there are old Speakers and old members of the Privileges Committee circulating around up there and they would all be thinking about what they should have or could have done. Clicking around behind them they will probably have the remnants of old Clerks. They say that old Clerks are like old soldiers. They do not die or go away, they just smell that way-or something like that. Those people might be looking at some of the things that happened in the past to backbenchers rather than Ministers. I recently led the first Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Ireland. Many of the people who have got themselves into strife in this Parliament in the past have been Irish born or of Irish descent. Mr Ian Robinson —Never admit it. Mr LEO McLEAY —My colleague on my right says, `Never admit it'. Two of the people who spring to mind are Hugh Mahon and Michael Patrick Considine. Both were Irish born and served for some time in this Parliament, and both fell foul of standing order 74 in one way or another. People who take an interest in parliamentary democracy and the Westminster system would know that it is very improper to criticise the current monarch. Of course, one would not be able to raise any objections to criticising some previous monarchs, for instance, Charles II who led the massive assault on the House of Commons. Having laid that groundwork no-one had better try to sprag me on standing order 74 as I continue. Considine was an interesting fellow. He probably has the record that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) would like to achieve. Considine actually got thrown out of the House of Representatives by the Speaker three times. The first time he was thrown out he was suspended for 24 hours for making the observation that there was no difference between a particular member and a German. I do not think that we would find that happening today. He got thrown out a second time, for seven days, because he said that the country was run by a gang of murdering thieves. The Speaker in the House at that time considered that that was pretty bad. He was put out for seven days for saying that. A few weeks later he was put out for a month for saying that the government of the day was supporting the champion murderer of the working classes in Russia generally, namely, the tsarist Koltchak. That was enough to get Considine a month's suspension. The interesting thing about Considine's month's suspension was that he had been roaming the country saying a few things as well and had only just got back into the House from serving two weeks in gaol. The reason he had spent two weeks in gaol was that they had managed to put him away for sedition because it seems that, in the company of some people at Melbourne's Green Room Club, he said, `Bugger the King, he's a bloody German'. He then went on and said some other things. It is interesting that Considine had only just got back into the House when it was decided to fit him for saying that the Government was supporting the tsarists in Russia. Considine managed to get three terms of suspension and two weeks in gaol along the way. Considine was followed by another infamous Irishman in Hugh Mahon. Hugh Mahon is the only member of the House of Representatives to be expelled from the House and have the government of the day, on the floor of the chamber, declare his seat vacant. He was expelled for the same type of statement at that time, in the late 1900s to the 1920s, when there were troubles in Ireland. Mahon, a man of 63 years, addressed a meeting in Melbourne of the Irish Ireland League. At that meeting, which Mahon chaired, he was critical of the ruling British powers in Ireland at the time. He made a number of very disparaging remarks. I am pleased to see Senator McKiernan in the gallery. I think I can say that he is very lucky to be in the Parliament today because had he been in the Parliament in those days he probably would have been suspended for 10 years. When the Parliament resumed after this meeting in Melbourne, the tories on the government bench at the time decided that Mahon had to be put in his place; so they served him up to the Privileges Committee. The Committee reported that he had indeed said these things and that it was pretty bad. Mahon was not in the chamber but he received a notice that he would be dealt with that day. He sent a letter to Billy Hughes, in which he said: My criticism, which was confined to the acts of British Ministers and their agents in Ireland, made no reference whatever to the Sovereign. I am not aware that the oath of an Australian parliamentarian binds him in allegiance to Mr Lloyd George and his associates . . . I regret that I am unable to accommodate you with a statement in person- that statement was to say that he accepted his oath as a member of the Australian Parliament- but really do you seriously think it would make any difference? If, as reported, your Caucus has already decreed my expulsion, then if one spoke with the tongue of an angel he would not alter in one iota their clandestine decree. Of course Hughes, speaking in support of the motion to get rid of Mahon, played down the Irish question but that did not stop Hughes from moving that the seat of Kalgoorlie be declared vacant. There was a by-election for the seat. Ironically, Mahon then went into the history books a second time because it was the only time that the Opposition lost a seat in a by-election when the current member was standing. Mahon lost his seat, so another Irishman was dealt with by the Establishment here. It is interesting to see the things that people were put out for in the past, the matters that the Privileges Committee considered in those days and the rather easy way with which it deals with those of us who are here now. Indeed, if former members of the Privileges Committee are rattling around up in the ceiling, they might say to the current Deputy Clerk, Lyn Barlin, `Well, you had better go downstairs and open up the safe and bring out the documents from the Browne-Fitzpatrick case and we will publish them'. It is an interesting fact that one of the few people left alive today who know of the evidence given to the Privileges Committee in that case is Lyn Barlin. Having mentioned Mr Barlin, the Deputy Clerk, I might just mention a poem that Sir Robert Menzies wrote some years ago. It seems to be in vogue now to mention Menzies, seeing that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) mentioned him at the opening of the new Parliament House. Referring to the Clerks, Menzies said in this poem: Two wise old owls sat at a table: Their wigs were grey, their gowns were sable: They looked so sad, so melancholy. As if depressed by human folly. Around them, carelessly displayed. Were all their dreadful tools of trade. The Standing Orders, Votes and Motions, The Statutes, May and such like notions. The glass, with sand so neatly piled The rulings (wrong) so neatly filed. The bells to call the members in To tread the paths of verbal sin. But wise old owls must sometimes think Of what? Of women? Food? or drink? Or are they, as they keep their places, As really vacant as their faces? I told Mr Browning, the Clerk, this morning that I would read that poem and he thought that was pretty disgraceful, but then I reminded him that the Clerk always gets his say on the last day of his tenure here. So maybe when Mr Browning addresses the House on his last day he will read out the rather disgraceful sequel written by one of the Clerks which really puts all of us in our places. I am very glad to have participated in the debate. I hope that all the ghosts in the ceiling here will move to the new chamber. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(12.02) —Unfortunately, the Standing Orders do not enable the Clerk to read out a reply when this House rises. Mr Browning, being the very scrupulous gentleman he is, would be the last to abrogate that. However, he had the forethought to give me a response which I will now read into the record. I ought to point out that it is not Mr Browning's response. It is actually the response of Mr Tregear who, if justice had its way, would be reading it. The response, entitled The responsive Lay of the Clerks-at-the-Table, reads: If we look glum and vacant stare, When wigged and seated `neath the Chair, Please do not think `tis Nature's way, It's rather service for our pay. For if some thoughts we dare repeat, We'd find ourselves out in the street. A Clerk-at-the-Table IS like a bird, And like a bird says not a word, But give him chance to have his say Of Members and their oratory, Then ``Curse the Press'' would lose its bark In louder cries of ``Curse the Clerk''. We often do have thoughts of FOOD Dispelled by Members being rude. A move to sip the tasty bouillon Is turned-We hear the voice of Kooyong. We shake our heads and don our guise; And vanish dreams of rich, cream pies. Think of DRINK?-Ay, there's the rub, Of hours at the corner pub, Of schooners, nips and golden beer Of toddies, yarns, and goodly cheer; While reaching for a draught so cooling, Some M.P. chirps ``I want a Ruling''. So time moves on; we leave the MUSE And lend our ears to Members' views, We hear their claims, their wants, their quips, We see their moves, and calls by Whips, But we don't TALK-So who can label The inner thoughts of the Clerks-at-the-Table. When I was elected to the Senate 14 years ago, I came to the Parliament as a young and, I hope, very unassuming senator. I was a little overwhelmed by the grandeur of the place and some of the people with whom I was rubbing shoulders. I had a quite extraordinary experience. I had been very actively involved in politics for the previous 14 years and I thought that I knew something about the personalities of those in politics-certainly those who had been involved in it in that time. To my great surprise, as I sat at the table in the members dining room for lunch or dinner and listened to some of the old-timers talking about those who had left not long before, after serving for 20 or 25 years, I had never heard of most of them. Undoubtedly, one would have thought that those who had served for 20 or more years, after all the things that they might have done, would have earned a niche somewhere but, in fact, they were very quickly forgotten. I came to the conclusion that those who serve in this place, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, are really only shadows that pass across a stage; they are part of a process. Individually, very few are remembered. Even very few Prime Ministers get their names into the history book. I conclude that it is not important what individuals do or might have done, but what they have been part of. Today we are acknowledging the contribution of former members of this House and what they were part of: they were part of establishing the history of this chamber. Notwithstanding what I have just said, there are some legendary figures. As I thought-my position was similar to that of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) in that we were given very short notice-of what names came to mind automatically: Menzies, Eddie Ward, Billy Hughes, Billy Wentworth and Gough Whitlam. There are others who served with distinction-people such as Joe Lyons and Chifley-but they are not remembered with the same prominence and in quite the same way because I do not think they displayed publicly great force of humanity, humour, or whatever it was that those other people did. I knew personally very few of those people. I served concurrently with Billy Wentworth, but he was in the House of Representatives and I was in the Senate. The same could be said of Gough Whitlam, but I will never forget the personal kindness that Gough Whitlam showed me when I arrived here. As I said a few minutes ago, I was very young, nervous and a little tentative. During the historic Joint Sitting which followed the 1974 election, I happened to be walking from the Opposition lobby of the Senate across King's Hall. Exiting from the Government lobby of the House of Representatives, which is on the opposite side of King's Hall, was Gough Whitlam. He crossed King's Hall, came up to me and said, `It's about time we met'. I was quite astonished, not to mention flattered, that the Prime Minister would think there was any imperative in that. I always found him, privately, an extremely charming, cultured and civilised man. From what I hear, I am not sure whether he was always like that in the party room, but I cannot speak with any authority on that. To that list we must add the present honourable member for Moreton. I was not going to mention the 1976 incident, but it is clear that he wants it to go in the record. I am not sure whether it is in the record, but he certainly wants it mentioned in this context. In fact, I think that he would be disappointed if I did not mention it. I cannot think of anyone more appropriate to make even passing reference to it, because the simple fact is that if I had been part of the class of `66 it would not have happened. There was a stag night. There have been the odd occasions such as that in the House about which I cannot speak with any authority. The honourable member's flair for publicity came to the fore again and it is now part of Australia's history. I do not intend to be too earnest this afternoon, but I want to say a couple of things. I am not the first member to have come from the Senate to the House of Representatives. There have been some distinguished predecessors, including a former Prime Minister, John Gorton. There are other former senators presently serving here; however, I happen to be the first woman. This House has a particularly macho reputation. I was not unfamiliar with its reputation or with the fact as I had been interested in the House of Representatives for some time. I had occupied the senators gallery and watched certain historic occasions and, sometimes, occasions which were not historic at all-I just watched them out of curiosity. This chamber has a reputation for vigorous personalities and accordingly, its proceedings tend to be fairly vigorous. However, never let it be thought that the Senate did not have its characters. A former character of this place-Jim Killen, who is a former member for Moreton-was credited with the statement, `The Senate is proof of life after death'. That is an unkind and untrue statement. I cannot help thinking today of characters in my time such as John Wheeldon, who used to delight in having the Opposition-when we were in opposition and he was a Minister in 1974-75-killing itself laughing at his comments at our expense. Reg Withers was a real character, as were Ivor Greenwood, who unfortunately died prematurely, and Lionel Murphy. The presence of Lionel Murphy in the Senate was something very particular: the air tasted different. When Lionel Murphy departed the Senate and went to the High Court of Australia, the Senate did move a little further towards Jim Killen's definition. I want to make a very particular reference to a couple of female characters. I note, not with any malice, that I am the only woman on the speakers list today, and I am sure there is no malice in that fact; but a couple of people ought to be mentioned. Dame Enid Lyons was the first woman to serve in this chamber, and served with distinction. The widow of a Prime Minister, she took his seat and became the first female Minister to serve in a Commonwealth government in Australia. She had been out of the House of Representatives and out of parliament for 20 years by the time I entered the Senate and for more than 30 years before I was elected to the House of Representatives. She had reared eight children and been the wife of a Prime Minister. Either of those occupations is strenuous and demanding. Nevertheless, she followed that with entry to the House of Representatives to serve with distinction. I met her about 10 years ago. It would probably have been at least 25 years after she had left this place. I found her charming, vigorous, intelligent and articulate and still very keenly interested in what was going on in this place. She, in her own way, proved something by being here, and would have been treated very differently by those around her. I hope I do not do my colleagues an injustice when I say that I have a hunch that perhaps the House was a little more gentlemanly then. Maybe it was not quite as competitive. It certainly has the reputation of having become a little more raucous in recent years. It would be remiss of me not to mention Joan Child. While she is currently a member, she has, I think, become one of the personalities of this Parliament, and she will probably be one of the personalities of the next Parliament. In occupying the chair in the way she does and under the extraordinary difficulties created for her-by members from both sides, on occasion-she has made her own contribution a very particular, unique and unrepeatable part of the history of this chamber. Mr SCHOLES(Corio)(12.12) —The fact that this Parliament is about to leave this site, a temporary site, I think indicates the types of difficulties that a parliament can get into. In 1923, in order to move the Parliament to Canberra, the Parliament was unable to accept the permanent Parliament House proposed at the time. Since 1927 several hundred people-probably over 1,000-have participated in this chamber as members of the House of Representatives. A few have participated in both chambers. I have been here for near enough to 21 years. It has to be said that the chamber has never been free of personalities; it has never been free of recurring incidents; and it certainly has been a place where a major part of the country's history has occurred. In 1927, Mr Bruce-later Lord Bruce-was Prime Minister and he lasted in this building for something approaching two years. He lost his seat-the only Prime Minister ever to do so-in an election that was created, as the honourable member for Maribyrnong indicated, because someone was stupid enough not to know where his electoral office was and did not get the nomination in, thus ceding the seat to the Australian Labor Party without contest; the only occasion, incidentally, when the Labor Party has ever held that particular seat. Lord Bruce tried to divest the Commonwealth of the powers under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which it had taken over way back in the first years of Federation. The Secretary of the Melbourne Trades Hall Council, Ted Holloway, in a number of speeches, upset the government of the day and was charged with sedition and convicted. He was fined #50-obviously the court did not think the matter too serious-which he refused to pay. While the charge was hanging over his head, he contested the seat of Flinders in the 1929 election and defeated the then Prime Minister. He stayed in this Parliament until 1951 and served in the Chifley Government as Deputy Prime Minister and as a senior Minister. Such was the fate of one Prime Minister. Since we came to Canberra, some 17 Prime Ministers have sat at the table in this chamber, some for very short periods. Frank Forde was Prime Minister for a whole seven days, and I doubt whether he actually got into the chamber as Prime Minister. Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister for 16 or 17 years but did not always sit at the table free of concern. Sir Robert Menzies was one of the Prime Ministers who were defeated as Prime Minister by their own party. Scullin suffered that fate; Menzies suffered that fate. Scullin's Government was brought down; he did not lose the leadership of his Party. Menzies was removed from the leadership of his Party by his own Cabinet which was personally selected and appointed by him. It was during wartime. This chamber saw the still unrevealed secret sessions in the 1940s; and there is a great story-which is almost certainly untrue, but nevertheless bears repeating-of one of those occasions; told to me by James McCrae Dunn, who was sometime member for Geelong in the State Parliament and was a secretary to a number of Ministers here, including John Dedman, one of my more distinguished predecessors. Jim McCrae Dunn reiterates that after the Coral Sea battle a private speech was made in this chamber by John Curtin. It was said to have been one of the most moving addresses ever made in an Australian parliament, and Curtin had a great reputation as an orator. When he sat down, no-one rose. Every member of this Parliament recognises that, while people might call it a talk shop, it is in awful trouble if no-one talks; there is just no remedy for that particular problem. A member, whose electorate will remain nameless because I cannot find him on the records of the Parliament, is reputed to have stood and commenced his remarks like this: `There we were, on the brink, a whole nation. Someone only had to pull the chain'. I rest the case. In the time I have been in this chamber, we have seen many traumatic and historic events. I will not detail the events of 1975, events in which I participated, but they were traumatic and they were dramatic. No person who was in or near this chamber will forget them. Those who were around about five years earlier when John Gorton came down will recall this Parliament on a Wednesday debating the New South Wales Flood Mitigation Bill when 2,000 people queued up to get in to listen to the House pull John Gorton down, which was happening in a room out the back. Bert James started the demise of John Gorton. He made a speech on the adjournment, while sitting in the Deputy Whip's chair, which was drafted along the lines of the Mark Antony speech of a somewhat earlier time. He was immediately followed by Edward St John, who tore strips off the Prime Minister, a debate from which the Prime Minister never recovered; and his term as Prime Minister ended with a dramatic announcement in King's Hall by Tony Eggleton that the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia had been changed and William McMahon was the leader. It is fair to say that William McMahon served in more ministries over a longer period than any other member in the Australian Parliament. I should mention one other member before moving on, that is, Michael Maher. More than any other member who served in this Parliament I think he epitomised the local member. I was told-again, I think it is an untrue story-by a Commonwealth driver in Sydney on one occasion that when Michael walked down the main street of his electorate the dogs would sit up and hold out their paws to shake his hand. Unfortunately, Michael lost his seat in this place, as so many do. I pay tribute to some of those members who have served here and to some of those who still serve here. I think the most courageous act and the greatest act of integrity that has taken place in this Parliament took place the day that Jim Cope lost the Speakership. He sat in this chamber; he complained to no-one, although he had been the victim of one of the worst acts ever perpetrated by his Party against any member of this Parliament in public. We will all miss this chamber. It has history and it has tradition. I have to say that I do not think that, at this stage, the new chamber has the capacity to be imbued with tradition. We will see. I think it is fitting that the people who have served here since 1927 should at least be remembered and that we should occasionally remember all of those who have been participants in the theatre, the drama and the importance of this chamber. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(12.21) —It is appropriate that at this time the House acknowledges, in the terms of the motion, `the contribution of former Members to the rich and colourful history of this chamber'. I wish to speak briefly about some of the illustrious people who served in the Country Party, later to become the National Party of Australia, in this Parliament. I refer particularly to the late Sir Earle Christmas Grafton Page. He was a member of this House for just over 41 years. I think his record is second, of course, only to William Morris Hughes's and embodies something that is perhaps inseparable from the timber, the structure and very history of this chamber. This is a chamber that I am sure will keep within its rather historic records many events and characters that we are not able adequately to refer to today. Page was first elected in 1919 and shared with Bruce the historic occasion of the opening of this temporary Parliament House in 1927. At that time, Bruce said: May those who enter this open door govern with justice, reason and equal favour to all. May they do so in humility and without self interest. May they think and act nationally. Of course, the emphasis on acting nationally at that time was as a result of the great traumas of drawing together the States and getting acceptance of it by the so many Australians who saw this place as remote as the centre of government and the place from which government would emanate to the benefit of all Australians. In regard to that, Earle Page had an incredible record. Earle Page was born of humble parents and educated in Grafton. He served first as a surgeon, gaining great distinction in that field, before serving in the Second World War. Immediately afterwards he was elected as the member for Cowper. As I said a moment ago, he had a very long record of service here. There are many people who have made remarkable initial contributions and then followed this with service of similar consistency. This is something that only history can properly record. Certainly, debate as short as this is unable to span that history. However, the book entitled Truant Surgeon, written by Earle Page, records much of the Page history and accordingly much of the history of this chamber. It refers to many of the events mentioned by those honourable members who have spoken in this debate today. That history will continue. I was recently privileged to be associated with the election to the New South Wales Parliament of a grandson of Sir Earle Page as the first member for the State seat of Ballina. I mention that because there are other family names which I want very briefly to mention. Artie Fadden, who served as a Prime Minister and Leader of the Country Party, wrote a book entitled They Called Me Artie. I commend that book to all those honourable members and others who have an interest in learning more of the history of this Parliament and of this chamber. Page and Fadden were characters beyond belief. The stories that one told about the other and their practical jokes would fill a large volume. However, on the serious side, the contribution that both of them made is revealed only by the statute books and the legislation that embodies what is today the practice of government in this country. We think of others who have served here such as John McEwen who, as Leader of the Country Party, made a similar contribution. Of course, much could be said about Sir Robert Menzies. I recall the period of my early service here when I was able closely to observe the Menzies approach. There has been no-one who has served in the Australian Parliament from its beginning until now who can be said ever to have emulated the capacity of Menzies as a member of parliament, as a Minister and as Prime Minister. I mention another family name, Anthony. Larry Anthony, the father of the former Deputy Prime Minister, Doug Anthony, became a member of this House in about 1938. I think he served for about 18 years. His son, Doug, who became Deputy Prime Minister within eight years of being elected to this chamber, served for 25 years. Again, we see established a record of service by father and son exceeding 30 years. Of course, there has been mention of others in the course of the debate. I will refer particularly to Charles Adermann, a Deputy Leader of the Country Party, and his son, Evan, who between them have served 45 years in this chamber. One can think of many other leaders and deputy leaders of the National Party. There was Charles Davidson and then those more recent leaders and deputy leaders who have departed. The names are too numerous to mention. It is the intention of our Party to ensure that in the new Parliament House, visible to all visitors to the party room, there is a record of members who have given service in this Parliament. I believe that the history not just of one single party but also of all the parties and of all those who have served could be more appropriately recorded than has been the case thus far. Perhaps the future use of this building may take that suitably into account. One can but marvel at the contributions that have been made by so many who came from distant parts of Australia and who travelled here under really incredible circumstances. Of course, early travel to Canberra was by train. There were no air services. Let us think also of the conditions under which they attempted to participate in the function of parliament. They did not have the facilities then that we have today. They shared rooms. There were few secretarial services and there was none of the electronic equipment that is so much a part of the exercise of one's responsibilities today when, for example, one is able to pull out a fax from somewhere around the country within seconds. The transmission and communication of information across the continent were difficult and onerous tasks. That had to be taken into account in the working of this House. Certainly, I would like to be able to make some appropriate personal reference to so many of these members, but time precludes that. Let me conclude by saying that it has been a privilege, as it must be regarded by anyone elected to this House, to have seen Prime Ministers from Menzies to the present occupant of that office, to have observed closely their capacity for leadership and to have been able to make comparisons. I note that there has been some frivolity in regard to what has been said in this chamber, but there is no doubt that democracy in Australia has been established to the extent that we now have a great record. It is a record that could well be the envy of virtually every other country in the world. That is dependent on the capacity of honourable members to recognise the Standing Orders; in particular, to recognise the human frailties and the personalities for who they are. People elect them and send them here, and we must respect them all. If we do nothing else today but acknowledge every person who has been sworn in as a member of this House, and say godspeed to all of them who have gone before, we must carry out our task to ensure that we uphold the dignity and the great responsibilities that fall upon the shoulders of anyone who enters this place. It was said by Harry Truman that `a politician is a man who understands government, and it takes a politician to run a government. A statesman is a politician who has been dead 10 or 15 years'. How apt those words are when we think about them in retrospect today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It being past 12.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Motion (by Mr Duffy)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the consideration of private members' business being continued until 12.40 p.m. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(12.32) —I thank the House for the courtesy it has paid me in allowing me to speak in this debate. I intend to speak about people I have known in my time here. I came here in 1961. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) and I are the last two survivors of the generation of 1961, and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) is the longest serving member in the House. The generation of 1961 was the largest contingent of Labor members elected until that time. Most of us came here as young people; we set aside the divisions which had characterised the Australian Labor Party since 1954 and directed our energies towards bringing about a situation where the Labor Party might enter government in due course. Sir Robert Menzies-he was then Mr Menzies-was the dominant personality of the House. Although he had a certain aloof and distant relationship with many on his own side of the Parliament-and I imagine that arose from his experiences in earlier days, particularly in 1941-he was greatly encouraging to young members of the Opposition. If the honourable member for Oxley were here today, I am sure he would agree that he was encouraging to him and to me. On the Labor Party side, one of the few people who could break Menzies' absolute control of the debate was Eddie Ward, the honourable member for East Sydney, who was a very tough gentleman. He was tenacious, rather like a bulldog, in pursuing the matters he believed in and the issues of the day. The Leader of the Labor Party in those days was Arthur Calwell, the honourable member for Melbourne-a marvellous man, a great human being, a person with a dogged adherence to the policies and principles of the Labor Party, and the father of our postwar immigration program. He was never to become Prime Minister, but he was certainly one of the great members of this House. I felt very sorry in 1969 and 1972 when many able members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party retired from parliament, some having spent 20 or 23 years in parliament, all of them in Opposition. Those of us who serve today are privileged indeed to have spent time-in some cases considerable time for Labor Party members-in government. Members of parliament today are better educated than they were in those days but the House lacks the colour of the blue collar workers of earlier times and the members of the then Country Party who had spent their earlier lives in rural occupations. I hesitate to say that I think there are many members of the National Party today who have not spent much time behind a plough. I would be remiss if I did not refer to Gough Whitlam. Gough Whitlam led the campaign for a contemporary, participatory, democratic Australian Labor Party and the development of policies which were practicable within the restraints of the Australian Constitution. He played a notable role in bringing Labor to power in 1972 in what were to become difficult times. It was marvellous to be in government with such people as Frank Crean, Kim Beazley, Fred Daly and many others, implementing the policies that they had developed and advocated over the years. I would like to make a particular mention of Fred Daly, who was the great achiever for back bench members and an outstanding Leader of the House. When Labor came into office in 1972, as I previously mentioned, many of us had had experience of long years in Opposition, and Fred Daly, who had himself spent a considerable time in Opposition-since 1949-realised that much greater assistance and support had to be given to members and senators in order that they might carry out their duties. We got a second member of staff; we started to get contemporary office equipment. If we are going to erect another statue in the new Parliament House by subscription of back bench members, we ought to think kindly of Freddy Daly! It is not just the people of great intellect and capacity who made their contribution here. I mention a couple of people on the other side of politics-Garfield Barwick, who was Attorney-General and a very competent Minister for External Affairs. He was brought in as a possible successor to Menzies, but never really made it in the hurly-burly of the House of Representatives. For all his ability-and I pay him a compliment for what he did as Minister for External Affairs in the days of confrontation with Indonesia-one always had the impression that he was never really comfortable in the House. Paul Hasluck should have become Prime Minister, but he was regarded by his Party as not having a good relationship with the Press. He went on to become a distinguished Governor-General. Jack McLeay was a great Speaker, a World War I soldier and a great manager of the House. If I may pay a compliment to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, he exercised authority in the same way as you do. He was a very effective manager of the House. I am reminded of Artie Fadden who said on more than one occasion that not all the good bowlers are on one side of the House. I think we all realise that on both sides of the House there are people who make their contribution to this nation. In a democratic parliament the issues of the day are debated with vigour, and the House respects the members who treat their opponents with courtesy and respect notwithstanding the heat of the parliamentary battle. The members referred to today by all of those who preceded me in this debate passed on to those of us who serve today the torch of parliamentary democracy, and we who now serve have the challenge to carry that torch from this House to the House on the hill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time allocated for debate has expired and the debate is interrupted. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier in the day, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.39) —I note in the spirit of the debate that has ensued in this chamber this morning that both the issues of private members' business have focused, not surprisingly, on the future of this chamber and on the sense of indebtedness we all feel to this place. Both the private member's motion moved by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), which focused on the Speaker's chair, and the private member's motion, which we have just debated, moved by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), which was focused appropriately on those who have gone before us in this House, have given us opportunity to reflect, to be grateful and to comment on the history of this chamber. Therefore, I would like to use this, the last grievance debate in which I will have the opportunity of participating in this House, to reflect on some of the indebtedness I feel for the place and to grieve, in the spirit of the grievance debate, about some of the practices we have moved into that I think we ought to change. `We are leaving this place and I feel certain regrets. I think, however, that we are going to our proper place. I trust that when we transfer our Parliament we shall continue the labours that have for that long period been carried on here with benefit to the people of Australia and credit to those who conduct the affairs of the Commonwealth. We feel regret at leaving a place that we have occupied for years, because we have felt the homeliness of the building even if the atmosphere of this chamber has not been so healthy as we should have liked'. Those are not my words but the words of a Mr Prowse, the then member for Forrest, uttered when the Parliament chose to leave its temporary home in the Victorian Parliament House on 24 March 1927 to come to this place. I could be forgiven for saying that it seems nothing changes because, just as Mr Prowse felt on leaving the temporary Federal Parliament facility provided by the Victorian State Government- Mr Hand —The Exhibition Building. Mr ANDREW —The Exhibition Building; I thank the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for his assistance. Just as Mr Prowse felt a certain reluctance on leaving the Exhibition Building and referred to its homeliness, all of us who occupy this building feel a sense of homeliness about it. We are here for two weeks of each month and it becomes a home away from home. Mr Prowse referred to the fact that the atmosphere had not always been healthy, and we would concede that there have been times when debate in this House has not been as honourable an experience as we would want, when the cut and thrust that is part of parliamentary debate has been replaced by scorn and derision from both sides, when we have been rude to friends opposite purely in the interests of partisan parliamentary point-scoring. We too, as did Mr Prowse, feel certain regrets at leaving this place which has become home. As we leave it for the permanent Parliament House on the hill we must acknowledge, as did Mr Prowse, that we have carried on here principally with benefit to the people of Australia. I must concede, in the spirit expressed by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) earlier today during private members' business, that a real effort has been put in by colleagues on both sides of the House to represent adequately what we feel is the cry of our electorates. This chamber has seen a great deal of history. While members debated in this chamber World War II occurred, and prior to that there was a depression, which is almost unknown to most of the people of my generation who now occupy this facility. We must recognise that in 1988, with all the problems faced by Australia, my generation and our children belong to an exceedingly fortunate group of Australians who, in spite of what has happened in this chamber, have been well served by the parliamentarians who have represented them on both sides of this chamber over the past 61 years. As one who occupies the conservative side of the House I recognise with pride that, in spite of what is sometimes said in debate, the conservative parties have been predominant over those 61 years. In spite of the faults on both sides of the chamber, in 1988 we have a nation that is a better place to be than was the case in 1927 when the chamber was first occupied. Here, in spite of us, democracy has been maintained. We would do well to remember that the majority of people in the rest of the world would give their right arm to have what we have here and to have what the people of Australia sometimes observe with a great deal of cynicism. This is the safety valve of democracy in our nation. Here, in spite of our partisan differences, we find common ground and the people of this nation, thanks to the system under which we are governed, thanks to the pre-eminence of the monarch, also have a common ground that bridges partisan differences. Inevitably, over the past 61 years some things have not changed, but some things do change. In the spirit of a grievance debate I want to refer to some of the changes that I think have occurred in this chamber and have not necessarily been as helpful as those of us on both sides would have wanted them to be. Let us consider the changes that have occurred in our nation since 1927 when we moved from the Exhibition Building to here. Transport is vastly different. It is possible for me as a South Australian member easily to return to my electorate at the end of the week. That was not always so. It is possible for any one of us, thanks to the facilities provided to us and thanks to the sort of transport that is available, to go overseas for short periods instead of committing ourselves for six months, as was once characteristic in this place of overseas journeys. Most of all, communication has changed and it is possible for what I am saying today to be heard around Australia and possible for what anyone says in this chamber to be reported and on the front page of the newspaper that lands in everyone's drive tomorrow morning. I grieve over the fact that I think what has happened in this chamber over the 61 years, looking back over Hansard, is that something of the quality of debate that was characteristic here has been lost. People have talked about ghosts in the ceilings; I think it is inappropriate. I sometimes sense a real presence in this place that almost oozes out of the walls and comes almost by osmosis out of the seats as we occupy places once occupied by predecessors either in Opposition or in Government. As I look back over Hansard the change that I would grieve about this morning is, according to my discovery, that in the past debate in this place was much more lively. At the committee stage, for example, there would be a dozen speakers appearing in Hansard in a matter of two or three pages. I grieve that this chamber, which should be the cradle of democracy, is no longer a place where lively debate occurs but where much more frequently we turn simply to the cheap options of scorn and derision. I think one of the reasons for that is that the decisions that influence our electors are no longer made in this chamber. The debate no longer matters because whatever I say, no matter how persuasive I may think I am being, or how strongly I stand as advocate, the decision was made before I came into the chamber and made in one of the two party rooms. Why is the Press Gallery empty when the liveliest of debates occur? Because the decision has already been made. I am pleased that I am part of a party that allows me to put my own personal loyalty first, then the loyalty of my constituents and, finally, loyalty to my Party. I am free to cross the chamber, free to be influenced by what is said by people on the other side. And my plea in this place, in this grievance debate, is that we ought to take into the new House the same sort of freedom that I have been able to take for granted, so that when I rise here, participating in a debate, I do it to influence those who sit opposite me and they are here to be influenced. It is a dreadful reflection on the Parliament that so many speeches are delivered to an empty chamber. What do the people in the gallery think when they look in here and hear such a speech being delivered? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERR(Denison)(12.50) —A year ago to this day was the first day of the election campaign after which I had the honour of being elected to represent the people of Denison in this House. It is therefore an historic opportunity now, given that this is probably the last time I will be speaking in this place, to reflect on a number of the matters that have come to my mind since that time. I suppose that the first thing I should say is that we have come far in those months that have passed in terms of continuing the ongoing effort of the Australian Government to reconcile some of the fundamental problems that were facing this nation. Amongst the most fundamental problems that faced us were those of the economy and those arising from the persistent conflict between the interests of those who were taking simplistic positions on the environment and employment. This Government has been able, in an historic way, to commence the task of showing that it can respect both the interests of those who wish to protect employment and those who know that the nation's future is not well served unless we can ensure that our natural environment and heritage are also protected. So, a year down the track from that election, we are moving in line with our commitments towards this historic reconciliation. We are approaching these issues with common sense, with rationality and with the proper sense of concern for both jobs and the environment which should characterise this debate. When I first spoke in this House, I also raised what struck me as being a fundamental test of any government in Australia-the question of distribution of resources and wealth within our society. In that first speech I pointed out that although we have gone far in terms of making certain that those least well served in our community are protected from the economic difficulties that have been inherent in Australia's difficult passage through its adverse terms of trade, whilst we have done much to protect those least able to look after themselves, it is unfortunately true that increasingly there is a division between those with great wealth in our society and those who do not control such wealth-those who are at the bottom of the social order. Reflecting on that, I think it is important that our Government has continued to put great emphasis on those most in need of assistance from government. Of course, that is a program that needs to be continued, it needs the support of both sides of the House. I refer to historic programs such as the family assistance scheme coming into existence, the maintenance and increasing of the real value of pensions, assistance that is going out to those who truly need the support of government, directed in the most efficient ways. These are historic steps towards a fairer, more just and more egalitarian society. But they are not sufficient steps, and our Government and our Opposition, those of all parties within our federal system, need to reflect consciously on the need for social justice, the need to move forward towards a society where those with the least in our community are given proper respect, protection and assistance in a way which our society is able to do if it is committed and has the will. In my electorate I have seen some fruits of my own efforts to make sure resources are directed to those who are most in need. In the Denison electorate, in Glenorchy, for example, I am pleased to have been able to announce the program of information technology centres-a program that is directed towards retraining those who have been unemployed for lengthy periods, persons who have been unable to find a place in the work force without that program. It takes young people who have been unemployed for six months or more and trains them in high technology skills in areas where later they will be snapped up into the work force. The history of these programs has been one of great success. I have been enormously pleased that the Australian Government has accepted a submission that was put to it through Anglicare in Tasmania, supported by the Glenorchy Council and the Tasmanian State Government ultimately. The Federal Government's very substantial financial contribution will mean that as of mid-year this year the first intake of young people into that program will commence. Disadvantaged job seekers in the northern suburbs of Tasmania will start getting assistance back into the work force. I am committed to working to make sure that people in those areas of our community which do not have full access to the best of services have a fair go within the possible parameters of what is politically available, to make sure that they get the best deal that is possible out of this Government. Of course, in that context the Government has made enormous steps forward in making sure that it responds to its commitments, that it does live up to its word. One point that I suppose I do grieve about in the terms of this grievance debate is the failure still of the Tasmanian Government to come up with bricks and mortar for the Claremont senior secondary college. Tasmania does have one of the poorest educational retention rates in Australia. I believe it is the poorest. We need desperately to have that northern community college operational so that the young men and women of Tasmania have the chance to learn the kinds of skills that are necessary to take their place in the employment market and not drop out, finding themselves unemployable. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, those are some important points. Let me say something about one group of Australians who are extremely vulnerable and that is Aboriginal Australians. I had the honour, before my election to this House, to have once worked for the Aboriginal Legal Service Ltd of New South Wales, where I was principal solicitor. At the moment, Aboriginal legal services throughout Australia, through their national organisation, the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service Secretariat, are providing legal representation to the many families that are before the Muirhead Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. There are now 106 inquiries being proceeded with before four separate commissioners. This is presenting a very great difficulty for those who wish to ensure that the families concerned do have adequate representation, to make sure that funds are adequate to enable lawyers to represent those families before those proceedings. I note that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) is at the table. He has, in all instances, approached this issue with the greatest of sympathy, with the greatest of concern for those people who have been affected. It is his initiative which caused the Government, as one of its first steps after its election, to establish the Royal Commission. It is this Government's commitment to Aboriginal rights, Aboriginal respect in Australia, that puts it at the forefront of civilised nations in the world in responding to the problems of indigenous peoples within their communities, but we still do have a very significant funding problem. I press upon the Minister the necessity to make sure that within that Royal Commission process adequate funds can be made available to assist the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service Secretariat to provide counsel for the multitude of hearings that are involved in the Royal Commission process. Finally on this question of Aboriginal affairs, I grieve at the failure of the Liberal and National parties to join with the Government in this historic opportunity to pass a resolution jointly at the opening of the new Parliament recognising prior Aboriginal habitation of Australia. Mr Hand —We are going to have a chance to vote on that. Mr KERR —I understand that the Minister will be putting forward that proposition. I can only hope that in the course of deliberations between now and the opening of the new Parliament House, those parties opposite see it within their hearts to join together in consensus to express their common support for what should be a very basic and simple proposition-the recognition and respect for those who inhabited our nation before the arrival of Europeans. I would join with the Minister and with all honourable members, I am sure, on this side of the House, in requesting that those opposite review their position before that Parliament sits and I grieve lest that not occur. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PROSSER(Forrest)(1.00) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is less than 24 hours since the Treasurer (Mr Keating) stood in this place and delivered Labor's mid-term campaign speech. Commentators have described it, among other things, as a grand plan and clever. I would have to agree that this is probably the best attempt to mislead the people of Australia and he has had plenty of practice at it. Apart from the three or four positive points, the Government has failed miserably to provide any worthwhile gains for the average family. On the few occasions he has been able to achieve this, it inevitably has been a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. In fact, taken as a package, the economic statement was a slick trick. The Treasurer has conjured up some tasty morsels to disguise the Government's failure to make any inroads into its own level of government expenditure. The Treasurer boasts about cutting $982m of government spending. However, there is a large question mark over some of his fancy accounting and footwork which I am sure my colleagues in this House will elaborate on in due course. Even taking the total spending cut of $982m at face value, nearly 90 per cent was achieved by slashing State government revenue, or revenue to the States. Not even the Treasurer's creative accounting will hide the fact that the Government has baulked at funding tax cuts by cutting expenditure. Even more disgraceful is his clumsy threat to withhold future personal tax cuts to prevent average families from seeking to improve their falling standard of living through reasonable wage increases. After all, the average family is already $42 a week worse off than in 1983. Now on top of the tax cut-wage restraint trade-offs, the Government has imposed extra costs on the Australian families such as an increase in the maximum cost of pharmaceutical prescriptions from $10 to $11 and, indirectly, increased State government charges, postal charges and Telecom telephone costs. On closer examination, even the supposed positive areas of the economic statement are flawed. Let us turn for a moment to these generous concessions. I will not take up a lot of the time of the House on this point because there are not many of them. Firstly, the reduction in the corporate tax rate from 49c in the dollar to 39c in the dollar is great, except that it really does not take effect for 18 months and it will not help those small businessmen who run their businesses on individual or partnership bases. In effect, it rules out the large proportion of business communities, certainly in my electorate. An income equalisation deposit scheme has been established. At last Labor has seen the folly of its decision to scrap the scheme in September 1983. Technically the scheme will benefit, for example, woolgrowers who are currently enjoying a buoyant period and taking advantage to deposit money in readiness for a downturn in the industry, so stabilising their income over the long term. Under this scheme, the deposit would be tax deductable in the year of deposit and assessed in the year of withdrawal. But the scheme will not apply until 1 July 1989, so that unless the wool industry's present boom continues until 1990, this scheme will not benefit woolgrowers at all. Finally, the crowning achievement of the Treasurer's economic statement is an increase in the maximum pensioner rebate from $250 to $430. I know that the pensioners in Forrest will say, `It is not before time'. This Government has acknowledged that even pensioners have certain rights in this society, but will it really make up for the previous deferral of index benefits? If the public comments of pensioner groups are anything to go by, it seems that the elderly in our society do not think so. Taken in the context of the whole economic package engineered by the Treasurer, these small steps forward fade into insignificance against the monumental setbacks for rural Australia. At the top of the list must be the decision to slash road funding by $50m in 1988-89. The Government has dismissed out-of-hand the massive opposition to the long term plan to destroy our road network, a vital communication link in rural communities. It is now inevitable that the national asset will become a national disgrace. The policy of this Government over the last four years has threatened the safety of road users and has increased the cost of road transport. Now after the mini-Budget, the standard of our roads could soon be beyond the point of no return. The total road funding in 1988-89 will be just $1,215m, a reduction in real terms of more than 50 per cent on the level of road funding four years ago. What we desperately need is a significant increase in order to catch up four years of neglect under this Government. The Treasurer and his merry men have rejected the opinions of experts and pleas of hundreds of local authorities around the country in regard to this matter. But the Government's motive is only too clear-to pass the buck for local road funding to local councils, but not to give them any money. Make them pay for the roads but do not give them any money to pay for them. Make them dig into their own coffers for finances they do not have. And in the end force them to go, yet again, to Mr and Mrs Average Australian and bleed them dry. That is the philosophy of this Government in a nutshell-wringing the last few cents out of a dry sponge. Its view is that people owe the Government everything but the Government does not owe them a damn thing. At the same time it takes away incentives from people to get off the canvas and start again. I refer to the agricultural sector, for example, a not inconsiderable industry in my electorate, the Forrest electorate. Livestock and horticultural inspection fees and service charges are to be increased by a massive 20 per cent. As horticultural inspection fees were put on only this year, that particular sector has taken quite a beating this year. From 1988-89 the prescribed minimum value used for valuing natural increases in livestock numbers has been raised as well: $4 for sheep, $20 for cattle, $12 for pigs, $20 for horses. The values can take into account the quality of livestock, an important consideration in drought-affected areas where real values of livestock are almost certain to be lower. Of course, fertiliser subsidies have been scrapped at a cost to the industry of $137m a year over the next three years. At a time when Australia desperately needs incentives for investment in plant and equipment, especially to develop a stronger manufacturing base, the existing arrangements enabling plant and equipment to be depreciated over three to five years will be scrapped. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has been rather tolerant with the honourable member. Whilst he is free to raise matters of general economic interest, he is not free to anticipate debate listed on the Notice Paper. So I would suggest to him that he not make specific reference to the matter which awaits the proper attention of the House in due course. Mr PROSSER —Mr Deputy Speaker, in this grievance debate I am raising the matters that will affect my electorate as a result of this mini-Budget. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is not free to address the mini-Budget, as he describes it. It is on the Notice Paper and he is free to address it, presupposing he gets the call, when it is before the House. Mr PROSSER —Very well, sir. Mr Deputy Speaker, generally the rural sector of Western Australia has been hit hard. You will be well aware that the rural sector of Australia has been hit hard by costs. In regard to this particular matter, groups in my electorate have been severely disadvantaged. You would be well aware that pensioner subsidies and those sorts of things are means tested. You would also be aware that the family allowance supplement to rural Australia is to be asset tested. When many, many rural properties do not have a high income, those people will further be disadvantaged. The road funding in my electorate is of crucial importance. In Western Australia roads and the transportation link are vital to all of the people in rural areas. To turn around and decrease funding in that particular area not only places a massive burden on the councils, shires and the State Government but also places a major burden on the people of rural Western Australia. It is their livelihood and their way of getting between particular points. We do not have flash and regular air services as do many other sectors of the country. In addition to that, all of my constituents, when they make a phone call to other areas of the country, of course do so on the basis of a subscriber trunk dialling charge. So again they are hit by ever-increasing costs. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a scandal that this Government does not recognise the needs of not only the average family, the business sector-the small business sector more particularly-but also those people in rural Australia and rural Western Australia. I would at least tell this Government that those people will not sit for ever and a day and take the sort of treatment that they have been given in regard to their livelihoods and those of their families and the pensioners of this community. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(1.10) —During this debate today I want to take the opportunity to make a few comments and observations about my experience in this House over the last five years, since I have been a member from March 1983. During that time, as I look back, I have seen in here some nine economic statements and Federal Budgets presented. I have been here when we have passed hundreds of Bills. I have sat through many hundreds of Question Times and no doubt, of course, there have also been hundreds of divisions and an even greater number of quorums called. But I want to make a few points about a number of areas, the perceptions that I have of my experience here. I guess I should start with some comments about the procedures and the practices of the House. I think it is easy to forget the degree of change which has occurred in five years in the practices and procedures of this House. We no longer have what I consider to be that silly business at the beginning of the day when we would come in here and members would jump to give notice of motions, knowing that in most cases those motions would never ever be debated in this place. I recall that Question Time has been shifted to a later hour of the day and it has now become established and accepted practice for Question Time to occur in here at 2 p.m. We no longer read petitions individually, these being summarised and read in total. In recent times the opportunities for private members' business I think have been expanded and I welcome that. I note too that our patterns of sittings have changed. When I first came here we sat regularly on three days a week, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and we would do that most commonly for three weeks of the month; but that pattern has changed and we now sit many more weeks of four days at a time. More recently, of course, we have seen the expansion of the committee system as we know it in this House. Following the election last year, the House committee system was dramatically expanded. The new system is not a perfect system and committees still do not, in my view, play as important a role as they should but I am sure that with the new facilities in the new House, the new meeting rooms and so on, the opportunities for further participation and a greater contribution from committees will continue to grow. I also welcome the recent decision providing for a smaller number of members to be present in this House to form a quorum. I think that decision would continue the momentum that we have established in here towards a more effective parliamentary process. Many would argue that over recent decades, with what I think has been an inexorable shift towards executive-style government, this chamber has become something of a moribund institution. To a degree I have to say that that is true but I have to say also that during the period in this place in which I have been a member, the Parliament has changed its practices and procedures and perhaps it has not done that to a great enough degree. It is certainly my view that in the period I have been here the chamber has become a more effective institution today than it was five years ago. I have a few comments also about the composition and, if you like, the style of the members who make up this place. I guess one thing that comes to mind is dress; the double-breaster has made something of a resurgence over the years in which I have been here. Looking back, who would have thought in 1983, as we looked forward to our bicentennial year in 1988 and the opening of the new Parliament House, that our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in these times would have appeared at that opening dressed in a double-breasted suit. So there have been changes in dress. The composition of the House has also changed, perhaps in subtle ways but also in significant ways. More women are representatives in this place. I am particularly pleased to note that in this House now we have a front bench Minister, Mrs Kelly, as Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. More government backbenchers are now representatives from Queensland and in the time I have been here, we have also seen a decline in the relative importance in this place of the role of the National Party of Australia. Also during this period we have enjoyed a remarkably stable period of leadership from the Government. I am not trying to be partisan or political about that, but over the last five years we have had a Prime Minister who has remained unchanged, and a Treasurer (Mr Keating) who has remained unchanged, as have the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden). All those Ministers have remained in their portfolios for close to 5 1/2 years. They have done their jobs very well and professionally, and I doubt whether anyone looking back through the history books would find any other time in our history when that stability in leadership has been enjoyed by any government. I guess the final point that comes to mind about the composition of this place is its size; that is, of course, that the Parliament has been expanded during the time in which I have been a member from 124 to 148 members. What about the media and the way the business of this House is reported? Again I think there have been numerous but subtle changes to the way the business of this House is reported. The electronic media, for instance, are now able to use recorded excerpts of statements in their reporting. I think this is something that has added life and authenticity to reporting, particularly in radio. There have also been massive changes during this time in the structure and ownership of the media. A number of newspapers, the Brisbane Telegraph, the Sydney Sun, the Times on Sunday and the Western Mail no longer exist. Like all other areas of the economy, the media too have been the subject of some structural adjustment forces. We now have regularly established in this place, Mr Deputy Speaker, the televising live of the Treasurer's Budget and May economic statement. I guess also, looking at the media, there has been a continued sophistication by journalists in the use of the mixed metaphor. Greg Hywood's achievement last year of the mixed metaphor award comes to mind. If I recall it correctly, his mixed metaphor was, `Is there life at the end of the tunnel? Alternatively, is there light at the end of the tightrope?'. They are expressions which he used eloquently, I think, to explain the Government's dilemma following the terms of trade collapse in 1985. The language of this place has also changed. The expression `putting in place' in relation to policies has become very common, and I think more policies have been put into place here than ever before. Our Treasurer has brought a new aesthetic and artistic dimension to the way in which we understand concepts. We talk now of the big picture, the main game, the broad canvas and the broad brush. Words which years ago were judged to be technical economic jargon now seem to be commonplace. All members talk knowingly now of the PSBR, the public sector borrowing requirement, and the TWI, the trade weighted index; of the balance on current account and the terms of trade. At the same time some of the older economic language, such as the money supply, M1 and M2, seems to have gone from our vocabulary for all time. The facilities and the resources available to members have also been improved in the period I have been a member here. When I was first elected in 1983, both my electorate office and my parliamentary office had more in common with a nineteenth century factory than they did with a twentieth century member's office. The technology was obsolete and staff resources were inadequate. Members' offices are now well equipped with decent typewriters, computer and facsimile technology and our staffing allocation has been increased to more reasonable levels. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, what of the big debates and the issues in this place which come to mind? Predominantly, I think they have been economic. There have been heated debates, for instance, about reforms to the tax system, the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and the assets test. There have been debates about policies which I might say that now, despite heated debate and the claims that the world would come to an end if these things were implemented, have become pretty well embedded as a part of our tax and social security system. Other heated non-economic debates come to mind, and I refer particularly to equal opportunity legislation and immigration. In immigration in particular, the debate we had here in 1984 was not one that I would like to see repeated, because it was not based on logic or objectivity, but to too great a degree on prejudice and short term opportunistic political gain. I am privileged to have served in this place over the past five years. I will have some nostalgia about leaving it, but I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am very much looking forward to taking my place in the new House on the hill. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(1.20) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to make a smorgasbord of the grievance debate today and mention a few matters. One is of a constituent who referred to me a patent he has developed for what is called the electronic polarity therapeutic stimulator. It came to my attention at the same time as we were debating in this House the Commonwealth Employees Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill which threw up the examples of the tremendous costs now being faced by the Commonwealth in connection with compensation claims, particularly in connection with repetition strain injury. In the debate the shadow Opposition spokesman of the time mentioned that in the Defence Department 30 per cent, or 4,737, of the 15,600 employees succeeded with claims and only 14 had failed. In the Department of Primary Industries and Energy 31 per cent, or 1,000, out of 3,516 employees had made claims and only 11 had failed. When we come to a situation of debating in this Parliament the costs of government, this is the material content of it. I just mention that as far as the Federal Government is concerned. One would have to multiply that by the number of similar cases in State Public Services and then there is again the tremendous cost in industry that is incurred through these claims for compensation. I am raising this matter today because a constituent of mine by the name of Mr Tom Lester, while not by any means saying he is a sports physician or is involved in sports medicine, has for a long time been the strapper for one of the Australian rules teams in Mackay. He developed this machine out of a sympathy for and a reaction to the types of injuries, muscular and otherwise, that sportsmen and sportswomen were getting. On that basis he wrote to the State department and got a very sympathetic hearing from the Minister of compensation in that State, saying that he thought it was a good idea but he would have to get not testimonials from people he had used it on but advice from a bank of medical practitioners who could then, as they say, provide a double blind trial of the stimulator and proceed from there. I would have to say that there appears to be a prejudice by medical practitioners against anything that does not really relate to the traditional forms of medicine, and obviously this is one of them. I am mentioning it today on the basis that perhaps it has relevance in view of that debate on the Commonwealth Employees Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill to our own Federal Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), probably the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) and particularly those in command of employee compensation. I would have to give credit to this man. He has persevered over many years. He is not a young man but he has devoted a lot of time to the public. He has learnt a lot from it and I hope that some recognition can be given in that regard. The other matter I want to alert the House to today is a comment arising out of the papers that came through last night on the mini-Budget relating to the proposed removal of the sugar embargo and its replacement by a tariff. I mention this because the sugar industry is absolutely alarmed and startled at this move. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may not have been in the chamber when the Chair had the requirement to acquaint a member speaking of the fact that he could not anticipate debate on a matter listed in the Notice Paper. If the honourable member wishes to address matters relating to the industry, he should not do so by way of direct reference to the ministerial statement made by the Treasurer. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, this matter is not going to be raised today because it is not in any of the primary industry Bills. It will be a Bill in the future, but not today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is a motion on the Notice Paper that the House take notice of the Treasurer's statement and that will be coming up for debate. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Without reference to that, then, I would say that the industry was contemplating a review by the industry review panel and this was promised. It was indicated that this was going to happen but at no stage was the industry alerted to the problem that might present itself in the form of the statement made yesterday. I go on record as saying that the sugar industry has been well served by the embargo. If there is any threat of its removal the industry would hope that there would be deep consideration given, and as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) mentioned this morning, discussions could be held on these matters as the industry would avail itself of that opportunity. The sugar industry is probably one of the most decentralising industries that we have in Australia. The embargo has served well; it has served both industry-the producer and the miller-and also the consumer well and any suggestion of its removal should be well considered. Even though there is a suggestion of replacement tariffs it should be well considered in view of that record and the longstanding arrangements that have existed. The other matter I wish to mention is that in December last year I was alerted to a situation of a potential contract or tender that had been let for the Cocos Island run. On 29 December I issued certain statements in regard to it, because, as far as I could ascertain from the Department of Administrative Services, there is a lot of toing and froing. As a result of that, a lot of publicity was given subsequently in the Western Australian, Northern Territory and shipping Press to what I was saying. On 7 January, the contract was eventually but very hastily awarded to a Western Australian State shipping line, Stateships, even though before that date comment had been made that this was likely to happen. On 8 January I lodged a freedom of information (FOI) request with the Department of Administrative Services for all the documents relating to the Stateships tender. In a Press release the same day, I said that the following questions must be answered: `Did the Federal Government give Stateships reason to believe they would be given the Cocos contract before it was awarded? Did the Western Australian Government approve Stateships leasing a vessel for the Cocos contract service before the contract was awarded. Did Stateships purchase or lease such a vessel before the contract was awarded? Was the sudden awarding of the contract to Stateships an attempt to paper over the above?' I also reiterated my concern about the ability of the Stateships vessel to be able to negotiate the Cocos Island channel. As a result of my freedom of information request, I am now aware that the massive publicity given to the circumstances surrounding the awarding of this contract resulted in the Department of Administrative Services conducting both a preliminary and detailed review of the procedures and paperwork involved. Even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) asked the Department for a briefing on this particular matter. The documents I have show that the preliminary review of the Department of Administrative Services basically whitewashed the whole matter. I do not have the result of any detailed review because this was completed after my FOI request had been fulfilled. However, the fact that Stateships still has this contract and in fact has gone on to get the Christmas Island service as well speaks for itself. Having received and analysed a pile of over six inches of documents on this matter, I am now in a position to answer these questions, as well as to raise other matters of serious concern to do with the putting to tender and letting of this contract. The questions I raised at the time were: `Did the Federal Government give Stateships reason to believe they would be given the Cocos contract before it was awarded?' The answer is obviously yes. `Did the Western Australian Government approve Stateships contracting a special vessel for the Cocos Islands service before the contract was awarded?' The answer again is yes. `Did Stateships contract such a vessel before the contract was awarded?' Again, yes. And, `Was the sudden awarding of the contract to Stateships an attempt to paper over the above?' In all probability this answer is also yes. However, I do not wish to dwell on these points as they pale into insignificance in comparison with other irregularities I have discovered in connection with this matter. I do not intend to raise these now, but will issue a detailed report on this whole matter in the next fortnight or so. Suffice to say, it will disclose major deficiencies and bungling by the Department of Administrative Services which could have been avoided if the two Ministers I have mentioned had followed the advice that I was giving at the time. In fact, in all respects the whole letting and awarding of this contract may not be any different from what we have pursued in this House in what became known as the Amann affair. I should also like to say something in connection with Christmas Island. As this House will be aware, I have been concerned for some time about the continuing project for Christmas Island, particularly as the phosphate mining was discontinued by the corporation in December last year. In February I was given an assurance that expressions of interest would be called for. These were received by the end of March, but I was alarmed just recently to learn that the liquidator in being appointed the assessor for those contracts or tenders had extended the time for expressions of interest. This has concerned me greatly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(1.30) —Firstly, let me say how pleased I am to have this opportunity to speak for probably the last time in this House during a grievance debate. The matter I wish to address this afternoon is one which I first mentioned to this House on 19 April this year. It is in relation to a money-raising effort by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) personnel from Darwin and Edinburgh. I am pleased that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) is at the table this afternoon because I would like to applaud the efforts of these RAAF personnel. They set out to contribute towards the raising of $1.5m for the provision of an aircraft for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, that aircraft to be based in Alice Springs which, as honourable members will know, is my home. The run was sponsored by K-Mart which assisted in the publicity for the run and the effort to raise these funds. The RAAF contingent-the two teams, one from Edinburgh and one from Darwin-had as its organiser and public relations person, Tony Rafferty. Tony Rafferty, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, is the current holder of the international 1,000-mile record-British and Australian-and was the first man to run from Sydney to Melbourne and across the Nullarbor Plain. He was also the first man to run across the Australian continent, from Fremantle to Surfers Paradise, a distance of some 5,931 kilometres. The objective of these runners from both Edinburgh and RAAF Base, Darwin, was to run from Darwin to Adelaide, a distance of some 3,051 kilometres, in nine days. There were 20 runners and 15 ground support staff. I am happy to say that they succeeded in their endeavours and I would like to pay special tribute to Squadron Leader Owen Hammond from Darwin who, as the Minister knows, is a very dedicated member of the RAAF personnel and is very highly thought of, not only in the RAAF community but also in the wider community within Darwin. The Darwin personnel who were in fact running in this effort were Flying Officer Gary Adrian, Flight Sergeant John Carr, Sergeant Bob Rhorig, Corporal Bone, Corporal Air, LAC Wright and Corporal Sullivan. The team from Edinburgh had a similar number of runners and each team included a woman runner. The woman runner from Darwin was Lisa Downes and there was another woman, Sharon Noyes. Unfortunately, Sharon sustained an injury in the course of the relay and was unable to complete it. The lady from Edinburgh was Corporal Wilson, who ran in this relay from Darwin to Adelaide. Mr Braithwaite —Why did you not run? Mr SNOWDON —The honourable member asked why I did not run. Mr Braithwaite —No. I was asking the Minister at the table. Mr SNOWDON —I ran in her stead. I was thinking of the Minister while I was jogging. The runners left the Casuarina shopping centre at 12 noon on 11 May and arrived in Adelaide at 12 noon on 20 May. For the benefit of the honourable member for Dawson, I inform him that they arrived in Alice Springs on Sunday 15 May and it is there that I joined one of the runners to run a few kilometres through Alice Springs, in an effort to publicise their endeavours. I am happy to say that the runners are now world champions. The two teams ran-10 each from Darwin and Edinburgh and, as I suggested earlier, there was a woman in each team-the total distance, as I have said, of over 3,000 kilometres. In fact, they had to add 150 or so kilometres because they were running ahead of time and they needed to arrive in Adelaide for publicity purposes at 12 noon. It necessitated their running, I believe, an extra 150 or so kilometres. The highlight perhaps of the effort is that they averaged around 3 minutes 53 seconds per kilometre for every kilometre which easily broke the previous world record of 4 minutes 12 seconds. The total amount raised for the Royal Flying Doctor Service in this relay is as yet unknown and the RAAF runners are travelling back to Darwin today and are collecting on the way. However, $70,000 has definitely been raised with the possibility of at least another $10,000 on top. Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, when one takes into account that for every dollar they raise there is a dollar contribution from the Commonwealth, this will mean a total of somewhere in the vicinity of $160,000 which has been raised directly as a result of the efforts of these RAAF runners. The runners are expected back at the RAAF base at Darwin this afternoon at 4.15 where there is expected to be a large welcome. I do not want to take much more of the House's time other than to say that this demonstrates, I believe, the commitment of armed service personnel to the community interests. I know from the words of Royal Flying Doctor Service officers in Alice Springs that the efforts of the RAAF Base, Darwin, and Edinburgh are highly regarded and I would anticipate that the profile of the RAAF community in Darwin has been raised quite significantly in terms of the contribution they are making, not only to the Darwin community but also to the Northern Territory community generally. I know, as the Minister at the table will testify, that the contribution they are prepared to make is enormous. Indeed, our discussions with RAAF members and Navy and Army service personnel in the Top End have shown that they are prepared to make a long term commitment to remote north Australia. They want to make it their home; they want to make a contribution; and this is a demonstration of the type of contribution they are prepared to make. It is an enormous sacrifice, a personal sacrifice. I spoke to Owen Hammond prior to the run when the Minister was in fact at RAAF Base, Darwin, and he said to me that he was having to run as part of his preparation about 130 or 140 kilometres a week and he was getting pretty tired of it. He was looking forward to the rest that he could enjoy at the end of the relay. I wish him well and I am sure that he will have his feet up for the next few weeks and perhaps will gain a few ounces as well. I know at first hand that the runners all enjoyed the assistance-the stimulus, if you like-of a touch of the amber fluid at the end of each evening during their run. I am sure that this afternoon when they are celebrating in Darwin they will recall the relaxation that they enjoyed then, but they will enjoy it much more now that the run is finished. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(1.38) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to grieve on behalf of the pay as you earn (PAYE) taxpayers and wage and salary earners throughout Australia because of the very high tax rates they are now sustaining under the Hawke-Keating Government. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has built up a so-called international reputation for fiscal responsibility and tax reform. The figures confirm the stark reality that under the present Labor Administration taxes have increased in every quarter and the major defect of the Hawke-Keating Government is its reputation for extracting tax from hard-working Australians. A close examination of the Budget Papers reveals that under the Keating regime government revenue is almost doubled. The 1982-83 Budget estimated that $44.3 billion would be received in revenue. Compare that with the 1987-88 Budget that estimates the Government will collect $78.1 billion. On a close examination, the impact on companies and individuals is even more apparent. Tax levied in 1982-83 was $22.9 billion. However, in 1987-88 the Treasurer is estimating that $41 billion will be drawn from this source. This is a doubling of the tax received from companies and individuals over the five-year period that the Hawke Government has been in power. Against this backdrop it is hard to substantiate the responsible approach to taxation when figures of this magnitude clearly demonstrate the tax grab of the Treasurer. In both the United States of America and Great Britain the issue of tax reduction has been addressed by President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher. They have the runs on the board in reducing the impact of direct tax on individual taxpayers. In Australia all we have managed to date is extra taxes and a tax summit. The only achievement of the tax summit was to increase the size and complexity of the tax Act and to introduce more taxes into the system. The impact of PAYE income tax on individual Australians is now the focal point for discontent and a lack of incentive for Australians to work hard. Not only are individuals suffering the effects of less take-home pay, but the impact of bracket creep is becoming apparent as taxpayers compare their position in March 1983 with November 1987. In March 1983 a single income family on average weekly earnings had an average tax rate of 17.5 per cent. By November 1987, however, this tax rate had increased by 5 per cent to 22.5 per cent. The other quite dramatic change as a result of bracket creep is the increase in the marginal tax rate from 30 per cent to 40 per cent over the same period. In sheer dollar terms the single income family on average weekly earnings paid $65 each week in 1983. By November 1987 the same family was paying $117 per week. The problem of bracket creep was vividly demonstrated in the papers tabled at the tax summit in 1985. Treasury estimated that in 1954-55 it took 18 times average weekly earnings for an individual taxpayer in full time employment to reach the top marginal tax rate, whereas in 1985 it took only 1 1/2 times average weekly earnings for an individual taxpayer to reach the marginal rate. This insidious increase brought about by inflation has moved individual taxpayers into higher tax brackets without any government legislation or regulation. Successive governments have managed to increase their revenue from PAYE taxpayers quietly and almost secretly without the taxpayers being aware of the impact of the progressive tax system. In 1988 taxpayers around the world, and especially in Australia, are revolting against this increased imposition. The bracket creep is clearly demonstrated by a table which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Mr McARTHUR —I thank the House. The table illustrates very clearly how taxpayers move into the top bracket. The table shows that in 1957-58 2.4 per cent of taxpayers were in the top bracket, yet by 1987-88 47.7 per cent of taxpayers had reached the top marginal rate. Margaret Thatcher has led the way by restoring incentive to the tax system. Beginning with a poor economic base, Prime Minister Thatcher has endeavoured to reduce the incidence of personal taxation. Upon gaining government in 1979 high income earners in England were subjected to a staggering 98 per cent in tax at the marginal rate in some instances. In 1988, nine years later, the Thatcher Government had reduced the marginal rate to 40 per cent, with middle income taxpayers paying 25 per cent. In the recent British Budget the Thatcher Government was strongly criticised for neglecting the poor and favouring those who were prepared to work and take risks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Nigel Lawson, was quite clear in his philosophic position when he said, `You do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor'. He made further reductions in the rates of capital taxes that individual taxpayers were required to pay. The British economy has recovered from the doldrums because individual taxpayers are now prepared to work hard in order to gain more take-home pay so that they can better themselves and their families and improve their standards of living. This is a move away from the welfare dependent syndrome which the Attlee Labour Government implemented progressively after the Second World War in 1945. One of the key factors of the vigorous British economy is the continuing tax reform which has changed the nation's attitude towards productivity, wealth creation and self-worth. The British disease, which was brought about by an appalling industrial relations system along with a punitive tax system, contributed towards Britain's postwar decline. In the United States similar pressures emerged to reform the tax system. In 1984-85 the United States Treasury put forward tax reform proposals which had as their objective a simplification of the income tax system and a reduction in the marginal rates. The reform legislation which was finally passed through Congress reduced the number of personal rates from 14 to two and lowered the top marginal rate from 50 per cent to 33 per cent. As honourable members would be aware, these reductions in America were achieved by removing many special exemptions and tax shelters. There was also a switch of the tax burden from personal taxation to the corporate sector. These are reforms by the Reagan Administration and the politicians improved incentives to work and save. The United States tax system has special characteristics such as interest being deductable for the principal and second residence along with other offsets which have been built into the system. The industrial and economic power of the United States was founded on the work ethic and legislators were keen to preserve this attitude within the tax system. Within their flexible industrial relations environment American workers have striven to improve their personal standard of living by earning more money on the job. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted, and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PRATT(Adelaide) —I rise to speak on the impending winter in Adelaide, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) and the 200,000 residents I wish to represent in this debate who concern me. The Torrens Road Drainage Authority (TRDA), representing four councils for 16 years, has had an easement on a parcel of land known as the Gillman ponding basin. This ponding basin controls winter, storm and flood waters. The State Government funded and recognised authority, the TRDA, has committed $8m of capital works to this project and is in danger of losing control over its deal over its drainage because the Federal Government has welshed on a deal. The TRDA represents not only 200,000 residents of Adelaide but also downstream the South Australian fishing industry's most important nursery benefits, as well as the eco-balance of marine life, the World Heritage mangroves and the sand-fast swamp and Magazine Creek wetlands. Significantly, this pondage basin prevented a major pollutant spill from wiping out these areas. Previous Labor Government Ministers had filed approaches on this matter in the too-hard basket and the current Minister can be added to this list. His weak reply to my question yesterday shows he does not care a damn about my constitutents' stormwater problems. Yesterday Minister West claimed he did not know which area I was referring to. However, he signed a letter on 20 November 1987, seven months ago, referring to this precise matter. I call on the Minister to stop the proceedings to sell by tender the 67-hectare parcel of land, section 4/40 and parts 450 and 100 of Port Adelaide. I call on the Minister to abide by the decision of the arbitrator suggested by his predecessor and to accept the State Valuer-General's figure of $120,000 rather than the opportunistic $2m asked for by the Commonwealth. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —When I was elected as the member for Lilley in October 1980 I was fired by a need to support lower income people and pensioners. I wanted them to have a better go and this is reflected in my maiden speech on 3 March 1981. I want to put on record that, while I have learnt the lesson that the world cannot be changed overnight, I have faith in this Hawke Labor Government and am pleased that it has done so much to better the conditions of pensioners. We recognise that there is more to be done but it is this Government which has raised the pension from just over 22 per cent of average weekly earnings in 1983 to the promised 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. We brought in the important carer's pension. We have done a lot, including a great increase in funding for people with disabilities, and, particularly as announced last night, in a time of great stringency, we are able to raise the pensioner tax rebate from $250 to $430 as a fine finale to the excellent moves which the Government has made while in this House. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie) —I rise to express my hope that the Government will take action and provide leadership in the defence and strengthening of this nation's moral and social values. The Parliament has before it the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, which confirmed both anecdotal and behavioural science evidence that a great deal of M- and R-rated film material and all X-rated material are harmful, especially to children. The Parliament has before it a resolution of its Senate passed on two occasions recently calling for a moratorium on X-rated videos. The Parliament is aware of the unanimous desire of the State governments to ban X-rated videos and to tighten censorship standards. Finally, the Parliament is served by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) who has expressed disappointment at the time this censorship review has been tied up by the deliberations of a parliamentary committee. The Attorney-General must move immediately to ban X-rated videos and to restrict access to violent R-rated videos. Too much time has already been lost. As a result, a massive amount of video material has already entered the community to the detriment, in particular, of children and women. I have here a drawing produced in an art class in a public school in my electorate. It depicts the video imagery which now burns and poisons the minds of our children. When asked to draw a picture of his dreams this student drew dismembered bodies, headed `My dream, shades of massacre three'. That is the legacy of this Parliament's apathy and confusion on censorship, a legacy of child abuse and degradation of women. That is an example of why the Government should not waste further time before acting on this problem. I seek leave to table this drawing. Leave not granted. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker) —In my last speech in the old Parliament House I would like to pay tribute to those Australians who were living when this building was opened in 1927, those who are now senior citizens. The Australians who were children or very young adults in 1927 have lived through a remarkable and eventful era in Australian history. They experienced the deprivation of the Great Depression and the trauma and loss of the Second World War. Then in the 1950s and 1960s they re-established their lives and raised their families in an era of relative stability and prosperity, when life was simpler, when material expectations were lower and when, in the words of the old song, east was east, west was west and women were women. Things have changed in the last 20 or so years. That stark black and white delineation between what is right and what is wrong, between who are our political enemies and who are our friends, between man's role and woman's role has been blurred or broken down entirely. Many of these changes have been positive. They have brought about a more tolerant, a more humane and richer society. But they have also led to the erosion of some of those old-fashioned values, self-respect, consideration, discretion and family solidarity. Elderly people I talk to in my electorate, while they support social advances which have been made, are confused and distressed at their social fall-out. Family breakdowns, drug addiction, theft and vandalism are things that they do not understand and certainly do not welcome. It will be our job in the new Parliament House to continue to set the legislative and policy framework to minimise the dark side of social change and to set through our own behaviour an example of responsibility and altruism to the young people of Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —Mr Deputy Speaker, today I want to talk about the art form of broken promises and in particular, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) and his art form of broken promises. I would like to read to the House very quickly a telex sent by this Minister on 16 June last year, just before the last Federal election, in which he said in part: Concerning the Government's contribution to wool promotion, the Australian Labor Party is committed to continuing the current arrangements which it put in place whereby the Government contribution to wool promotion has been placed- and note this- on a predictable long term basis by contributing 1.2 per cent of the gross value of wool production. That was put in place in June by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. By September we had the Budget and already the Minister had decided to break that promise, when he found that in fact the cost was going to be more than he thought it was. So he pegged wool promotion back to where it was prior to the increases in wool prices. But not only that, we have seen in the mini-Budget delivered last night that there has been a further cut of $10m in the Government's contribution to wool promotion. This is from one of the so-called senior Ministers of this Government, who was prepared to put a telex out just before the election to make this great promise about a predictable long term basis for Government support of wool promotion. Then within three months he broke it once, then in the May economic statement he broke it again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —What I want to do today in the short time allocated to me is to refer to the change from the old House to the new House. I think all of us are very pleased with the new House; there are no two ways about that. There is no doubt that the accommodation which we will move into is far superior to that which we have suffered in this House. But I think that some of us will be moving with a degree of regret. That regret is because in this smaller House we have grown to know each other, on both sides of the chamber, in a fairly close relationship. My good friend the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is nodding agreement, as I was sure he would. I think in the new House we are going to lose that degree of intimacy which we have in this chamber. At the same time, I do wish to agree with members on both sides of the House who have expressed some concern that the present Speaker's chair is not going to move over to the other side. As one of those fortunate people, I suppose, who occasionally sit in that chair, I feel that the substitute chair is far inferior in so many ways. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Why does the Government hate Tasmania? The report of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests is to be handed down and I hope that the Government brings down recommendations that will be advantageous to the people of Tasmania. Do not be influenced by the greenies. They are the ones who called for that inquiry and now they do not like it. But I tell the House that there are a lot of ordinary Tasmanian people who work within the timber industry and who need sound recommendations so that they can continue with their work. Do honourable members not agree? Whilst I am at it, I would like to say here and now that I know who the man is who came into this House dressed as a chicken. He is in the House now. You can laugh, Mr Deputy Speaker, but he is in this House now. I would only like to wish him good luck in the new Parliament House. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde) —There are probably many in our community who would suggest that entering politics is like playing bowls. I would like to have time today to make a comment on the contribution which bowls clubs make in our community. In fact, bowls clubs show great community strength; they offer companionship and for very many of our elderly people they offer the kind of club and the kind of support which they traditionally have not had. In relation to bowls clubs, I would like to make particular note today of a new club which has been established in my electorate-the Ridgewood Heights Club. Like us, its members are hoping to move to a new home in August. Currently they have been enjoying the facilities offered at the Wacol prison farm and I might say that I think it is more enlightening for the bowlers than for the prisoners to share the facilities there. Let me just say that I think in the spirit of companionship and in the spirit of joy they have benefited from that experience and hence, when they move to their new home in the suburb of Algester, Brisbane, they will be offering to the wider community the use of their own facilities. So they have shown that they are very much community-minded. As well as that, bowling clubs have changed their face. Very many of the people who are now being attracted to bowls clubs are those who are younger and who see the skill of the game and the benefits of belonging to such a club. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —Madam Speaker, how sad it is that on this final scheduled sitting week of this Parliament in this old building we have seen a travesty of debate. On Monday night we were to debate the Industrial Relations Bill which the Government trumpeted forth as the finest piece of legislation in this field in this century. We had a couple of hours of debate and those of us who had something constructive to say about it were therefore unable to contribute. Last night the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced his May statement which he says goes much further than any other May statement because it deals with a whole range of other items really of a Budget character. We find, when we look at the agenda, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) will reply tonight and then a series of Bills is to be rushed through with minimal time to debate what is arguably a matter as important to this country as the Budget itself in August. It makes a mockery; every other Bill we have had before us this week has been guillotined. It is such a shame that this Parliament should finish sitting in this building in that sad state. All of the matters on our agenda this week have been of great significance to the community and there has been minimal opportunity for us to debate. Instead of that, the Government has tried to take its message out over the electronic air waves in 30-second grabs and thus deprive the people of Australia of substance in order to examine the issues that face them and the policy responses of both the Government and the Opposition. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory) —Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a number of matters in relation to the gold tax which was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last evening in the May statement. Firstly, it is not a gold tax as such. It is an extension of normal company tax to gold. All Australian States except Western Australia and Victoria apply State tax on gold production. Gold mining companies are the only taxpayers who get a complete exemption from tax on their profits. No-one else receives such an exemption. No other industry, including other mining industries, gets an exemption. This is obviously inequitable. There is no economic justification for continuing the concession while all other industries, including other mining industries, are fully taxed. The existing exemption is a subsidy, the cost of which is substantial. Like all subsidies, this cost is borne by the rest of the Australian community, including all the other efficient mining and agricultural industries. Most bona fide small producers will not be affected by this tax. Removal of the exemption will not significantly affect the scale of the industry. Current prices are substantially in excess of the average production costs for all but the most marginal ventures. This is providing a return of some 110 per cent, making the industry a profitable one. Further evidence of this is the fact that Australian gold companies also invest in gold-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106A the time for members' statements has concluded. Madam SPEAKER —I informed the House earlier today that photographs would be taken at 2 p.m. I wish to advise honourable members that these photographs will now be taken immediately after Question Time. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a matter of courtesy, I inform the House that the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, will be absent from Question Time today on Government business. Questions normally addressed to Mr Bowen should be directed to the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy. I also advise the House that the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, Mr Staples, is attending a Housing Ministers Conference in Brisbane and will be absent from Question Time today. Questions for Mr Staples should be directed to the portfolio Minister, Dr Blewett. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer him to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of this morning by Ross Gittins, which said: By postponing our next tax cuts until the financial year after next, Mr Keating has saved himself-and cost us-a small fortune. By pushing income-earners into higher tax brackets, he has saved himself about $1.5 billion. I ask the Treasurer whether Mr Gittins's estimate of $1.5 billion is reasonable. Mr KEATING —I can only put the context of the tax cuts in this way: the revenue to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio of the Commonwealth will be falling. That is, there will be great reductions in the size of the Commonwealth government sector, with outlays falling from 29.9 per cent of GDP in 1983-84 to 25.5 per cent in prospect for next year and 24.5 per cent the year after. This fall in Budget outlays will surpass anything during the Fraser-Howard years and take Commonwealth outlays back to the pre-Whitlam years of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The fall has been occasioned by cuts to public spending. This Government made large discretionary tax cuts in 1985 and 1987. Those large discretionary tax cuts have been a de facto indexation of the system. We are saying that we will contemplate further substantial tax cuts in 1989-90, provided there is an appropriate wage-tax arrangement. In doing so, we will meet the point about the non-indexation of the tax scales. The question was a quite interesting one to come from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition after his Party promised indexation of the tax system in 1977 and then squibbed it. Mr O'KEEFE —Madam Speaker, in this my last opportunity to ask a question in the old Parliament House, I take the opportunity to congratulate you formally on the way you have conducted the responsibilities of the Chair in this House. My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. It concerns the pensioner tax rebate. Last night the Treasurer announced an increase in the level of the pensioner tax rebate. Can the Minister explain what this means for pensioners across Australia? Mr HOWE —I welcome the Treasurer's announcement last night because of the significant relief this will provide for pensioners. The Treasurer has moved to ensure that those dependent on social security pensions are not subject to income tax. Given this Government's commitment to the indexation of pensions every six months, we are acutely aware that in the financial year 1988-89 the level of pension will increase above the effective tax free threshold for pensioners. There are two different and separate issues involved, which must be made quite clear when talking about pensioner income levels and the level of the pensioner tax rebate. Let me take first the issue that was addressed by the Treasurer last night, the pensioner tax rebate level. The pensioner tax rebate addresses the level of annual income at which pensioners must start paying tax. What the Treasurer did last night was to increase the annual rebate by $180, from $250 to $430. This means that from 1988-89 pensioners will not have to pay any tax until their taxable income is more than $6,892. There has been some confusion, evidenced by calls on social security hotlines this morning. Let me say that the pensioner tax rebate is not connected with the pension free area; that is, the amount of income pensioners can earn every week before their pension is reduced. This income test free area allows pensioners to receive extra money each week in, say, interest or from some casual work and still receive the whole of their pension. The income test free area was not changed by the Treasurer's announcement last night but last year there was a significant easing of the income test to $40 a week for single pensioners and $70 a week combined for pensioner couples. That easing of social security tests, together with the measures announced by the Treasurer last night, is part of the Government's overall integrity policy to ensure that we have a reduction in the effective marginal tax rebates and that there are not disincentives for pensioners to attract some additional income. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation from the House of Representatives from the Parliament of Cyprus, led by the President of the House of Representatives, His Excellency Dr Vassos Lyssarides. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer him to the fact that the superannuation package announced last night will tax lump sum superannuation benefits in excess of $60,000. I also refer the Treasurer to the fact that a lump sum of considerably more than $60,000 is required to yield an income equivalent to the existing age pension. I ask: Is not the tax on lump sums of above $60,000 a disincentive for people to provide for their own retirement and, hence, will it not reduce the prospective savings on outlays for aged pensions? Mr KEATING —We on this side of the House have a different view from the Opposition about the role of superannuation. We do not regard it as being a proposition for people to forgo cash, particularly cash productivity increases, in return for superannuation merely to diminish their pension by the same amount. What kind of a proposition would it be if we said, `Please save so that we can withdraw your savings from the pension on a dollar for dollar basis'? We reject that proposition absolutely. We support the concept of superannuation. Mr Tuckey —You brought in the assets test. Mr KEATING —Yes; we have a sensible structure. We have an assets test and an income test, but pensioners' savings are not being withdrawn dollar for dollar. Of course, honourable members opposite would not know that because they do not know how the system works. What I find amazing about the question is the lack of any conceptual grasp of what the whole superannuation arrangement is. The Government is reducing the 15/30 tax-that is, the existing 30 per cent tax on lump sums over $55,000 and the 15 per cent tax on lump sums under $50,000-to zero and 15 per cent. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is proposing that the 15 per cent tax ought to be removed from lump sums over $60,000 because he believes that the concessionality of superannuation ought to be enhanced by diminishing that tax to zero. That is the implication of his question. That would simply see much higher levels of income streamed through the concessional provisions of superannuation, which would restore it to being a tax ramp and not a concession. So the Government fixed that. The honourable member's Government never had the courage to touch it for 30-odd years; we fixed that in 1983. What we are doing now is bringing forward that taxation, from the deferred basis that it is currently on to be paid when lump sums are taken over 15, 20 or 30 years hence, without any diminution in benefits. The most important point is: what we will have is a proper basis of superannuation taxation which will remain concessionary and which will encourage employee contributions because the system is now biased in favour of employee contributions. We have removed the lump sum tax on the earnings of employee contributions. That will lead, hopefully, to a higher level of aggregate savings in the community via superannuation in a proper, progressive structure. The highest benefits will not go to the highest income earners, which is what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would like. He would like to see the highest benefits go to very high income earners with massive tax concessions. That is the Liberal regression in tax policy that we have always seen over the years. What this is about is Labor progression in superannuation tax policy, which these new arrangements both ensure and guarantee. Mr GRACE —I refer the Minister for Industrial Relations to the Government's decision, as announced by the Treasurer last night, to remove the current requirement for employees who receive shares at a discount from their employer to pay income tax on that discount. Can the Minister inform the House why the Government has taken this step at this time? Mr WILLIS —The Government is introducing this measure at this time because the right environment exists in which to do it. The environment is right in two key aspects: firstly, as a result of the policies of cooperation rather than confrontation pursued by this Government, there has been not only a dramatic change in industrial relations outcomes but also much greater willingness by the industrial relations parties-the unions and employers-to contemplate employee participation than was previously the case. That has resulted recently in a very important agreement by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry in relation to participative practices in industry and to the principles by which those practices should be applied. That creates a uniquely favourable environment in which to promote employee participation, including employee financial participation, one aspect of which is employee share ownership. Under that agreement the parties are committed to promoting the concept of participation with their own affiliates and to doing all they can to try to expand participative practices in industry. To add to that fact, my Department has undertaken some substantial research in relation to employee financial participation schemes which are operated both in Australia and overseas. What comes out of that research is that quite clearly the benefits, in terms of industrial relations pay-offs and in terms of better work place industrial relations and so on, are to be found only where there is involvement of the employee financial participation scheme with wider participative practices. Where those schemes are introduced in isolation there is not much in the way of a correlation with improved industrial relations outcomes. What comes out of that in the current environment in relation to the willingness of the parties to pursue participation, including financial participation, is the ability to develop this factor in a wider context where it is likely to be most productive. In relation to the taxation regime, we also have now something existing which was not applicable earlier. The problem for employee financial participation in respect of the tax system has been that, where shares were issued to employees at a discount, they were obliged to pay a tax on that discount in the year in which they acquired the shares. That clearly was a disincentive to take up the shares because there was a tax obligation when there was no realised gain. However, to remove that obligation would have meant that there was no tax payable at all. With the introduction of the capital gains tax we were able to remove that disincentive so there was no tax obligation on employees in the year in which they take up the shares, but they will still have to pay tax on that gain through the capital gains tax at the time when they sell those shares and have a realised capital gain. In respect of both the environment in relation to participative practices and that in relation to the tax system, we now have a uniquely favourable time in which to introduce this employee share acquisition scheme concession which was announced by the Treasurer last night. It contrasts markedly with the situation which existed in 1982 when the Fraser Government announced a scheme of this kind. None of this environment existed then. There was no capital gains tax. The parties were at loggerheads about employee participative practices. They had great differences in relation to that, and the prospect of there being wider participation introduced at that time was minimal. We now have a much more favourable environment. It is very much the appropriate time in which to make this concession. Mr CONNOLLY —I address my question to the Treasurer. I hope he can lift his game in relation to answering questions on superannuation. Is it a fact that the new arrangements for superannuation taxation will impose a tax of 16.25 per cent on the capital contributions made by retired public servants, Defence Force personnel and employees of statutory authorities such as Telecom Australia if placed in approved deposit funds? As some personnel, especially members of the defence services, are forced to retire early and have no other way of protecting their funds, will the effects of the Government's new tax be to reduce the final benefits made available to them at age 55 or later? Mr KEATING —That just shows a very muddled understanding of the arrangements, which comes, of course, as no surprise to me. The existing tax treatment of lump sums, particularly for unfunded public sector schemes, remains the same. It does not change. For instance, all of us in the Parliament who retire are subject-- Mr Connolly —ADFs. You do not understand the question. Mr KEATING —I will get around to the bit of it which has any lingering semblance of rationality. I will get there. The unfunded public sector schemes will continue to attract the same tax treatment. Let me say this about approved deposit funds: before this Government reformed the tax treatment of superannuation in 1983 and established approved deposit funds, anyone who had superannuation entitlements had to take them at the point of departure from that fund and pay tax on them. And that was it. He could not leave them in any vehicle-there was no such thing as an approved deposit fund. If an employee chooses to retire at age 55 and places those funds in approved deposit funds, that will enjoy the same effective tax treatment. Mr BLANCHARD —Can the Minister for Social Security inform the House of progress in achieving the Government's commitment that no child need live in poverty by 1990? Opposition members interjecting- Mr HOWE —It is not unusual for the word `poverty' to cause some amusement on the other side of the House. There is no commitment more central to the Government's agenda than delivering our promise that no child need live in poverty by 1990. Last night's economic statement is a central component of meeting that strategy. It provides the solid base for continuing employment growth in Australia. The Government clearly recognises that the surest way out of poverty is a job. That is why our macro- and micro-economic policies so clearly focus on employment. Let the House compare the approach of this Government with that of the conservatives. Last night the honourable member for Kooyong, the shadow Treasurer, let slip some of the results of that cosy weekend in Coolangatta the Opposition enjoyed just a month ago. He renewed commitments that the Opposition would engage in wholesale cancellation of sole parent pensions and would cut out unemployment benefits for families-even for families whose members were unemployed and actively seeking work. They are the policies of the Opposition. They are the policies of the honourable member for Bradfield, the honourable member for Sturt and the honourable member for Cook. Indeed-- Mr Blunt —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question to the Minister asked him to account for how the Government had failed to meet the Prime Minister's rash promise that no child would live in poverty. It has nothing to do with anything that might have been said by any member on this side of the House. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is in order. He is answering the question. Mr HOWE —Madam Speaker, there is no member of the Opposition who is more insensitive to the unemployed than the honourable member for Richmond. These policies of the Opposition are spawned from their politics of blaming the poor-the politics of hatred that so mark the Opposition. The honourable member asked about our progress in meeting our central commitment that no child need live in poverty. To meet that commitment requires an integrated and consistent strategy. Indeed, it requires policy-something which has been totally lacking from the Opposition. It requires micro- and macro-economic policies to deliver a sustained pace of job creation; income security policies to deliver adequate income to all families in need; labour market programs to ensure all Australians have a fair chance of participation in the labour market; and social policies to ensure that no Australian family is denied access to quality and decent essential services such as health, housing and education. Last night's economic statement illustrated once again, in the most glaring terms, the great difference between the Government and the Opposition. What the Government is concerned about is economic and social security for all Australians-and last night we were building the foundations of economic security. Because we are doing that and because we have created more than a million jobs, we are able to tackle, through our social policies, a range of problems which were essentially the inheritance of seven years of Fraser and Howard-and an inheritance of 30 years inability on the part of members of the Opposition, then in government, to deal fundamentally with central aspects of either economic or social policy. The families package fits in with the concepts of economically responsible government, directing social security assistance not only to those most in need but to those who are moving in to the million jobs that the Government has created. The commitment that this Government has made-in terms of access and equity, rebuilding and reconstructing, and access to education and training programs-is further evidence of the integration between economic and social policy. In that regard, I draw attention to the statement made by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training last night. We are able to make a commitment around child poverty with some credibility because we, as a Government, have economic credibility and we have been able to make the hard decisions which enable us to have real social priorities. Those hard decisions enable this Government not simply to say that child poverty is a priority but also that on our agenda it is the goal that no child in Australia should live in poverty by 1990. Mr CONNOLLY —I direct my question to the Treasurer. I hope that this time he will show some knowledge of the detail of superannuation. Will the Treasurer confirm that under the old superannuation tax arrangements-please listen carefully-death benefits paid to widows from superannuation were tax free? Will he confirm that, under the new arrangements, such benefits, which would already be reduced by the 16.25 per cent tax on employer contributions, plus the 16.25 tax on funds investment income, will in fact result in widows receiving reduced benefits? Will he confirm that the same result will apply to employees who retire early due to disablement? Mr KEATING —All that has happened in the tax arrangements is that the 15-30 per cent tax, which is in fact 16.25-31.25 per cent with the Medicare levy, has been changed to zero and 16.25 per cent, with the 15 per cent front end loaded as employer contributions enter the fund. The other change is that the earnings on employee contributions will no longer attract the lump sum tax. That will change, as I said, the balance of superannuation funds towards employee contributions. Beyond that, the tax treatment has not changed. I said that earlier. Mr CLEELAND —I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity of asking my last question without notice in this House. Opposition members interjecting- Mr CLEELAND —They can try in vain, but they will not get rid of me. Has the attention of the Minister for Transport and Communications Support been drawn to Press reports and statements by Opposition members criticising the Government's record on local road funding? If so, what has the Government done to alleviate that concern? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question and commend him for his interest in this very important subject for people in country Australia. It seems that Opposition members tried to forecast the results of the Government's May statement in respect of roads, and they got it all wrong. I will come back to that in a moment. Let me just outline the main features of the Government's innovative road programs for the next five years. They are these-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr PETER MORRIS —Honourable members opposite have a problem because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in this place only a few days ago, was accusing the Treasurer and the Prime Minister of making Clayton's cuts. If honourable members opposite really want to talk about cuts they had better talk to their Leader and Deputy Leader. The Opposition cannot on the one hand clamour for more money and, on the other, complain that the cuts are not severe enough. Let us have no regard to the Opposition's credibility in respect of government expenditure and most of all in respect of roads. The program covers the next five years. This is the first occasion on which the total Federal roads program will be funded from an earmarked share of fuel excise. The amount of money-$1,215m-is $35m less than this year's expenditure. But, in the parlance of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that cut should have been greater; it is not enough; there should have been a greater reduction in road funding. The $1,215m to be provided by this Government in roads expenditure will be indexed in the second and third years of the program. It will cover funding for local roads to local government bodies; it will cover funding for the maintenance and construction of the national highway system, which is fully met by this Government; it will cover arterial roads, which have been subdivided into national arterials-those roads of economic importance that will contribute to improved competitiveness in our export trade. Lastly, it will cover funding for local roads with an increase of some $14m next year on this year's expenditure. I quote the words of the honourable member for Deakin. I happen to have a Press release from 1985. The honourable member for Deakin is one of the new breed of Liberals. He is 100 per cent in support of abolishing any Federal expenditure on roads. He wants it abolished. He is in the invidious position of having to carry a policy that says that there should be a continuation of roads funding by the Federal Government. He even had to put out a Press statement last night saying that we are really not giving them enough. But I know that he is an honourable man. I know that he believes what he said in 1985. I challenge anybody to say that he was not telling the truth in 1985 when he said that there should not be any Federal expenditure on roads. He has the invidious problem of having to explain how he has to get up here now and support more Federal expenditure on roads when his heart is not in it, when he does not believe it. But he is an honourable man. The Government will continue to provide specific purpose funding for local government roads. The funding next year will be this year's funding maintained in real terms; it will be maintained in real terms in 1988-89 and 1989-90. Last night I saw a Press release on this from the Leader of the National Party of Australia. We all know that he is really conversant with the problems of the people in country Australia. He travels our country roads regularly. Mr Peter Fisher —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there any significance in the fact that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie has left the Parliament? Madam SPEAKER —That is not a point of order, and I suggest that honourable members should not misuse points of order. Mr PETER MORRIS —As I was saying in support of the Leader of the National Party, he travels country roads regularly. If anybody is conversant with the national highway system in this country, it is the Leader of the National Party. He travels on it from Bendemeer to Tamworth quite regularly. He said in his Press release last night that the Government has cut road funding by $30m. The honourable member for Deakin says that it has been cut by $50m. In actual money terms the cut for next year is $35m. The Leader of the National Party went on to say in his statement: This will hurt rural roads, especially as the government is planning to change- listen to this- its priority away from rural roads to national highways . . . Around 75 per cent of the national highway system is in country Australia. So the Leader of the National Party does not really know where the national highway system is. He does not recognise that most of the national highway system is in the country and is serving country Australia. We on this side of the House have rejected the argument of the honourable member for Deakin that there should not be any Federal expenditure on roads and the proposition from his quarter that we should adopt the policy of absorbing local and State arterial roads money into State revenue grants, and we have put together the most innovative roads program that this country has seen. In its 5 1/2 years the Hawke Government has done more than any other government in any comparable period in history. We will maintain our commitment to local government and local roads, and we will maintain the progress that has been made in the last 5 1/2 years. Mr LLOYD —My question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer may not be aware that his economic statement, as well as causing anger in the rural community over the more than $100m net additional taxes and charges farmers will be forced to pay, is causing confusion because of contradictory statements issued by him and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Today I refer to only three matters, and ask: Will the termination of the immediate tax write-off for mains electricity in relation to farms apply only to connections or will it apply also to upgrading, and is the Treasurer aware that this is of particular concern to Victorian farmers who are being forced to relay their power underground? Secondly, will the reduction in the five-year depreciation rate for on-farm storage facilities for grain and fodder be a reduction to 10 years or 33 years? Thirdly, will machinery and plant which is purchased and used by primary producers in water or soil conservation continue to enjoy the 5/3 depreciation rate? Mr Cunningham —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it normal for a shadow Minister to ask three questions in one go? Madam SPEAKER —I think it was one question in three parts. Mr KEATING —Let me deal first with the mains electricity connection point. Expenditure incurred under contracts entered into after 25 May 1988 in connecting mains electricity to a property on which business is carried on will be eligible for write-off over 10 years. Such expenditure had previously been eligible for immediate write-off. The pre-25 May concession discriminated against energy sources other than electricity and in favour of those businesses which have grid connection potential. The new write-off will be concessional when compared with an effective life write-off. There were other components to the question; but they have escaped me. Mr Lloyd —The first point was whether it is only for connection or will apply to upgrading, and that is the matter on which you have given us an answer that is different from that of the other Minister. Mr KEATING —I would have to check that and let the honourable member know. Mr Lloyd —The second part of the question concerned depreciation for the on-farm storage of grain and fodder. Has that gone from five years to 10 years or from five years to 33 years? Mr KEATING —That will go to the depreciation rate in the schedule. In other words, we will move from the accelerated depreciation-- Mr Lloyd —What is that? Mr KEATING —I do not not know off hand, my friend; I do not carry those sorts of figures around in my head. Mr Tuckey —You don't carry much up there. Mr KEATING —I do not carry superfluous information. Let me refer to the changes I announced last night in respect of rural industry and rural Australia. This Government has done more for the rural industries of this country than any other since Federation. For a start, the National Party of Australia-formerly the Country Party-under Sir John McEwen, Mr Anthony and Mr Sinclair lifted industrial protection in this country and put it onto the backs of farmers. While they went around misrepresenting themselves and pitching their policies at the rural constituency, they were putting the monkey of tariff protection on the back of every farmer in this country. That happened between 1949 and 1983-for nearly 40 years. Then they went out and overvalued the exchange rate, because of other particular hang-ups and phobias that they had in their Party, which destroyed rural incomes for years. Rural people had to wait until we floated the dollar, which cut the real value of its exchange rate. All of the changed adjustment burden fell on this Government. Then we cut marginal tax rates for farmers from 60 to 49 per cent and from 48 and 46 per cent to 40 per cent. Now we have cut the rate for incorporated farmers so that, instead of paying 46c in the dollar on some and 60c on the balance, that is, 78 per cent of every dollar of company income, that has been cut by half to 39 per cent. That is what we have done. The tariff cut announced last night is worth at least $350m per annum to rural industry. The reason the Opposition parties did not do that was that basically for years they were up there bludging on country interests. They have been bludging on rural interests for years. They have been misrepresenting themselves. They have been taking country votes but have voted for more tariff protection. They liked to see Jack McEwen and Doug Anthony handing out the slabs of industrial protection in order to ingratiate themselves with industry. That is what they have been about in the play between the Country Party and the Liberal Party of Australia over the years. They never represented rural interests properly. They always went out and gave the electorate some sob story, relying on its basic conservative instinct to vote for a rump party which destroyed its economic viability. So, honourable members opposite should not tell this Government about the rural sector or the farm sector. We have done more for it, properly, sensibly and structurally. The impact of the Opposition parties' contribution is minuscule, particularly in comparison with what we have done for members of the rural community. We have given them a change to a fairer tax system. Honourable members opposite should not ask dishonest questions about the $100m costs when they know full well that there is a $350m per annum impact from the reduction in tariffs. We have had enough of the National Party with its squalid politics and dishonest economics and so have the National Farmers Federation and most Australian farmers. Mr Lloyd —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Apart from the Treasurer not answering the third part of my question, his point about dishonesty goes straight to him because over $100m-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member is abusing the forms of the House. Mr MILTON —Is the Minister for Community Services and Health aware of the substance of a letter by Dr Alan McPhate, a country general practitioner, which was published in the Medical Journal of Australia on 18 April in which a number of epidemiological studies were cited drawing attention to the increased incidence of breast cancer associated with as few as three standard drinks of alcohol per day? Is he also aware of the response by Dr Tony McMichael of the Department of Community Health, University of Adelaide, that we are now on notice that alcohol, with its widespread consumption within our community, may be an important source of breast cancer? In view of those authoritative reports, will the Minister give further consideration to the recommendation of the 1977 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare that the advertising of alcohol on radio and television be discontinued? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the research referred to relating to the links between moderate alcohol consumption and breast cancer in women. While these studies give cause for concern, it is important to understand that, although alcohol has been identified as one of a number of known risk factors for breast cancer, overall these factors appear to play only a minimal role in breast cancer incidence. The Government is concerned about problems in relation to breast cancer and has initiated a program with the States over three years to evaluate effective and cost-efficient ways of delivering mammography testing. The Government is concerned about the health effects of alcohol and, of course, we wish to minimise the health impact of the abuse of alcohol. We believe that the most appropriate way to do that is to ensure that the Australian population is quite clear about it and is provided with educative information about the risks of alcohol abuse and health. In the last five years we have taken a series of steps to bring before the public that kind of awareness. The National Health and Medical Research Council has published guidelines on responsible drinking behaviour and safe levels of alcohol consumption. The Government is currently running a media campaign which is designed particularly to warn young people about the abuse of alcohol and, in addition, to make plain to parents the role model they play for their young people. My colleagues the State health Ministers are developing a national policy on alcohol. It is not this Government's intention in any way to consider banning alcohol advertising on television or radio, but we do expect the alcohol companies to play a role in responsible advertising. They have a duty in their advertising to warn of the health impact of alcohol abuse. I very much welcome the actions taken by a number of leading alcohol companies in this country to play a role in their advertising and to place stress on non-drinking and driving. A number of wine companies have recently made use of their advertising to stress moderate and responsible drinking. Dr HEWSON —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to his claims last night about expenditure restraint in the May economic statement. Is it not a fact that new accounting methods retrospectively increase expenditure for the current financial year, more than for 1988-89, thereby making next year look better than it will be? Is it not also a fact that-if former accounting methods had been used-real expenditure in 1989-90 will fall by only 0.8 per cent instead of the 1.5 per cent claimed by the Treasurer? Is it not also true that the Commonwealth's own outlays will actually rise by 0.3 per cent in real terms? Mr KEATING —Total outlays, excluding assets sales and the Civil Aviation Authority, which has been moved off Budget, will produce a real change of minus 1.7 per cent in 1987-88 and minus 1.6 per cent in 1988-89. This will be the third consecutive year in which real outlays have been reduced. I might say that there is some prospect of a fourth consecutive fall occurring. I said earlier, and I will repeat it, that Budget outlays will be 25.5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP)-down from 29.9 per cent in 1983-84-and a prospective 24.5 per cent in 1989-90. No government in the postwar years has presided over a greater fall in the real level of Commonwealth spending than this Government. This is the only year in 35 in which we have had a Budget surplus, with the prospect of a substantial Budget surplus in 1988-89. In six years we will have cut the size of the Commonwealth budgetary sector by 15 per cent. I want the honourable member for Wentworth to listen to this because he was an adviser to the honourable member for Bennelong when he was Treasurer. In today's dollar terms that represents $13.5 billion, whereas in the last four years of his tenure, when the honourable member for Wentworth was advising him, it grew by 11 per cent. In the Opposition's last four years in office it grew by 11 per cent and in our period it has fallen by 15 per cent, or $13.5 billion. Yet we have these antics, this crazy parroting, by both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that this is a big spending government which has taken outlays back to late-1960s and early-1970s levels. Now we have a question from the honourable member for Wentworth about having moved some authority off Budget or reclassified some premiums and whether or not the decimal point will be here or there on these massive real reductions. I simply say that whatever changes we make to the base of outlays is adjusted to the base. For the benefit of all those wise fiscal heads lolling over there, let me repeat the figures: there has been a 15 per cent, $13.5 billion, reduction. Have those opposite got that? A 15 per cent, $13.5 billion, reduction. I want to get it through their thick heads. There has been a 15 per cent, $13.5 billion, reduction from the late 1960s-early 1970s outlays to GDP levels. Opposition members should not talk to this Government about cutting outlays. Last night the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ran around saying, `There could have been tax relief provided there were further cuts in government spending'. Beyond what? Beyond the early 1960s level-is that what he is arguing? The Leader of the Opposition wandered around saying that he would cut Commonwealth spending back to 23 per cent of outlays as a proportion of GDP. That would be the princely amount of precisely 1.5 per cent below where this Government will have it the year after next. That is about $1,200m-worth of outlays. I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he wants to reform the world and turn that into a vote buying grab, he will not get many votes for $1,200m, on the analysis of his last try, when he had $6 billion of unfunded tax cuts and went backwards electorally. Relying on a $1,200m reduction by taking outlays to 23 per cent of GDP will not help him very much. So we have seen the Liberal Party of Australia in action. We know what the Liberal Party is like in spending. We know the Liberal Party has blown us into massive Budget deficits and has left the Labor Government to drag us back to surplus; and everyone out there knows; and that is why the Liberal Party will stay in opposition for a long time. I do not mind members of the Liberal Party asking me these kinds of questions. I hope they will keep it up for a long, long time. Madam SPEAKER —I now propose that proceedings be delayed for a few minutes to allow photographs of the House to be taken. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Pursuant to section 17a of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission for 1987. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Madam Speaker, I present papers on the following subjects, being petitions which are not in accord with the Standing and Sessional Orders of the House: Casino in Canberra-from the member for Fraser, 1,298 petitioners; Food irradiation-from the member for La Trobe, 75 petitioners; from the member for Scullin, 51 petitioners; Fresh fruit juice tax-from the member for Lyne, 876 petitioners; Nuclear reactors-from the member for Hughes, 688 petitioners; Nursing homes-from the member for Casey, 109 petitioners; Pornographic advertising and literature-from the member for Moncrieff, 47 petitioners; Superannuation schemes-from the member for Berowra, 81 petitioners; Telecom privatisation and time charging-from the member for Scullin, 115 petitioners; X-rated video material-from the member for Forde, 1,093 petitioners. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to cut personal income tax rates. 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)(2.58) —Last night's economic statement, as I have been saying in about 37 interviews this morning alone, is a political and economic sham. The simple fact is that, for those who are in the greatest need of relief from an economic statement-namely, the great bulk of Australians-there will be no personal income tax cuts in 1988-89. We know that improvements in productivity and reductions in taxes offer the only effective way of improving the living standards for all Australians. But, once again, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will not and, indeed, cannot deliver. I might say that it would be wise not to be deceived by the Treasurer's rhetoric that he has to cut Commonwealth outlays significantly. The tortuous manner in which questions were sought to be answered today underlines that reality as well. Certain elements of fact in the document that was brought down last night cannot be denied. Total Commonwealth outlays were reduced by $982m for 1988-89, and $870m of that was accounted for by cuts in grants to the States. In other words, the States are bearing almost 90 per cent of the spending cuts in the forthcoming year, 1988-89. This is indeed testimony to the Treasurer's utter hypocrisy. Let us see what some of the Premiers had to say of the Treasurer's economic statement. I quote the words of the Victorian Labor Premier, John Cain: I think it's unfair. Tax cuts are due. They're overdue and I believe it would have been fairer to introduce those tax cuts at the same time (as concessions to business) . . . The Federal Government has really come in on the states' coat-tails. Nick Greiner, the Premier of New South Wales, said: The States are being asked to carry the can so that Mr Keating can live up to his macho image as an economic manager. John Bannon, the Labor Premier of South Australia, said: One big omission I think from the Treasurer's statement is an acknowledgment of the fact that the Federal outcome . . . has largely come through cuts to the States . . . He ought to acknowledge that and he ought to acknowledge it with some gratitude . . . Therefore, even the Treasurer's Labor colleagues can see that they have been duped. I will move away from what Labor politicians have said to what journalists have said. I will take Kenneth Davidson as an example. In this morning's Age he said that the corporate tax cuts of the May statement mean that before 1991-92 `there will be an income transfer from individuals to corporations of about $1.5 billion'. While the Opposition welcomes any cuts in corporate tax rates we are, of course, concerned that working people, farmers and small business people will have to wait at least another year before they get any personal tax relief. The Treasurer did not promise any specific tax cuts even then. By that time the Treasurer can rely on even more revenue derived, of course, from bracket creep to finance a tax cut. Bluntly put, that is blatant fraud. The fact is that many Australians are paying more tax now than they were two years ago before the Treasurer's phoney tax cuts of 1986 and 1987. I will just give a couple of examples to illustrate that reality. A taxpayer on average weekly earnings with a dependent spouse and two children, that is, somebody earning just over $470 a week, is paying more tax, as a share of income, than in 1985-before the Treasurer introduced his so-called tax cuts. Similarly, for someone who is on about $380 a week, that is, less than average weekly earnings, tax, as a percentage of income, has risen over the last two years. Again, for somebody on about $565 a week, just above average weekly earnings, tax, as a percentage of income, has increased. In all of these cases people on average incomes or thereabouts have been slugged and slugged mercilessly by the Treasurer as he has used bracket creep to rip more and more tax from their pay packets. These are the very people being asked to forgo tax relief. Between now and 1989-90, the earliest we will see any personal tax relief, the tax take will increase even further. It really comes down to letting the Treasurer grab a bit more tax revenue as inflation pushes us into higher tax brackets and then next year, maybe, we will get a tax cut if the Treasurer can do a deal with the leadership of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). Last night's statement made it clear that personal tax cuts for all Australians are being used as a bargaining chip with the trade union leadership. It all depends on how the wage negotiations go with the ACTU leadership-the Creans, the Keltys; the de facto Ministers, as it were, to whom this Labor Government panders.These people are leaders of the trade union movement, not elected members of parliament. They are not even representative or leaders of small businesses, farmers or other groups which have been asked to wait and see whether they will get tax cuts. In what can be described only as an incredible act of political cowardice, the Treasurer has abdicated personal responsibility for personal tax cuts. This argument against personal tax cuts-honourable members probably heard it last night-for alleged macro-economic reasons, is abundantly weak. It is a weak justification for his failure to develop the necessary expenditure cuts to finance cuts in personal tax rates. Cuts in government spending are made all the more imperative by the preliminary results of the private, new capital expenditure survey released today. Honourable members may not be aware that the figures that came out today show that in the March quarter 1988 investment in plant and equipment actually fell in real terms by 4 per cent compared with the December quarter and business expectations were for a real decline in plant and equipment investment in 1987-88. Therefore, it is clear that investment is faltering. The argument for cuts in government spending are abundantly clear. They permit reductions in the tax burden, thereby increasing the incentives to work and to invest. They release resources to the private sector for use in the export and import competing industries. There is no reason to believe the Treasurer's assertion that one cannot achieve both a Budget surplus and cut taxes in 1988-89. Last night he said that there is a need for the Budget surplus and that that surplus precludes tax cuts. That is just not true. Of course, there is a need for a surplus. Obviously there is a need for two reasons, if not for others. Firstly, there is a need to prevent inter-generational transfer-the dumping on our kids of the debt we now have. Secondly, there is a need, for the macro-economic reason of States expenditure. However, to say that one has to have a surplus and therefore one cannot have tax cuts is absolutely wrong. It is false because significant cuts in government spending can provide for tax cuts as well as a Budget surplus. The Treasurer would say, as he has said time and again, `If you cut taxes you will allow consumption to rise, demand will be extraordinary and you will suck in imports'. That overlooks the reality of what we put forward. The demand for tax cuts should be funded by cuts in government spending, which would mean that public demand would fall and resources would be transferred to the private sector. However, that element of a fall in public demand resulting from a reduction in government expenditure has been totally overlooked whenever the Treasurer has produced this argument. The Government's failure to cut expenditure significantly is yet another wasted opportunity. It has failed to take the necessary action to increase incentives, to work and to increase incentives to invest so that we can start trading our way out of our huge foreign debt. The bottom line is that the Treasurer is not prepared to deliver at this stage. We know about the actual political element. The political element which he would not wish to be addressed at this juncture is very real and is quite separate from the economic element. The Treasurer wants it neatly packaged so that, by the time the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke) is removed or removes himself as Prime Minister, the Treasurer, who believes he will move into the position of Prime Minister, can go to the polls at the end of next year, having provided an alleged tax cut en route. That might be neat planning at a political level. If one is a practitioner of the notion of corporatism, of big government, big business and big unions, and one puts these blocks together and they allegedly mesh together rather well, one might be fooled into thinking that it can be planned in that way. Out in the community there are millions and millions of people who are demanding relief now. They are entitled to that relief now. They know that if it is done on the basis on which the Opposition has argued-by reductions in expenditure-those reductions in income tax not only will be of relief to them but also will have a powerful macro-economic effect which will lead to further regeneration of investment and an ability to work more without handing over half of every extra dollar earned to the Commissioner of Taxation. This Treasurer, indicating that there can be no tax cuts because we need the surplus, overlooks the harsh reality that tax cuts, funded by government expenditure, will give a surplus as well as tax cuts. Of course, last year the Treasurer forecast that inflation would be 6 per cent through 1987-88. Regrettably, it is extremely unlikely that that will be achieved. The Treasurer, in his statement last night, was talking of an inflation rate of 4.5 per cent during 1988-89. To put it mildly, that appears overly optimistic. Let us look at the Government's record on micro-economic reform. I mentioned the fundamental element: the Opposition believes that there ought to be tax cuts and that we want such cuts both for macro-economic reasons as well as for the relief of individuals. Behind it all there has been the trumpeting throughout the last 12 months that the hallmark of the third term of the Hawke Government was to be substantial reform in the micro-economic area. What happened last night? We applaud the moves that the Treasurer has made in phasing in the changes to protection and the like to bring about the mobility of capital required within the economy. But when one turns to the other side and asks, `What about the necessary mobility of labour?', one sees not one mention of labour market deregulation in the economic statement presented last night, because the Government cannot deliver on it. So the craft structure of unions, the restrictive trade practices and the demarcation disputes go on. Where is the abundant need for micro-economic reform being met in this arena? And, as the Leader of the Opposition said a moment ago, what was said of privatisation? The word was not even mentioned. There was no blueprint; no schedule for reform. `This is not the main game', the Treasurer says. In a way I do not blame him for saying that, because he does not want to enter that arena in which the Australian Labor Party is so divided. I said that the Treasurer could not deliver; he did not deliver on the forecast figure of inflation last year; he will not deliver again this year. He has not delivered on the tax cuts as he ought to have; he has not delivered on the cuts in Government expenditure as he ought to have. And he has not delivered on what was to be the main game of the third term of the Hawke Government-micro-economic reform. Last night's statement could not even embark on that arena. In short, the statement that the Treasurer brought down last night reeks of hyperbole that we have come to expect from this Government: micro-economic reform not tackled; tax cuts not tackled; States bearing 90 per cent of the cuts in government expenditure; and the need for surplus allegedly being the reason for no tax cuts. I end on the note on which I began: the need for tax cuts is abundantly clear. There is a need for real relief for taxpayers in this community, but there is also-and this marks the significant difference between the Opposition and the Government-a need for them to be funded on the basis of expenditure cuts so that resources can be transferred from the public sector to the private sector, from the non-tradable goods sector to the tradable goods sector, to restore the incentive for both investment and work in this nation so that we can start trading our way out of our economic difficulties. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.12) —One of the last points made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), was that the need for tax cuts is abundantly clear. One may ask: Clear to whom, and why? What would be the likely outcome? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not seem to comprehend the simple point that personal tax cuts would overstress and overheat the economy by pumping up consumption. The Government would be extinguishing its surplus, that is, government saving, to finance a new splurge in imports. Thus, the results of such gross irresponsibility would be a current account blow-out with a consequential rise in interest rates and inflation. This is Liberal economic illiteracy, 1988-style. It is entirely in character with the reckless approach to public money of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The 1982-83 Budget was built around tax cuts which could not then be afforded. The outcome of this is well documented, including by me and by the shadow spokesman on finance, Senator Stone, and of course it speaks for itself. The Leader of the Opposition's cynical election bribe of last year-that flop-was again based on the cynical presumption that greed will beat the national interest any day. The Liberals were wrong then, and are wrong now. It is unbelievable that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is talking about the need for tax cuts. Members of the Opposition do not comprehend any kind of matrix and economic policy. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that we need public demand to fall by cuts in real government spending. But one asks: falling on whom? We have cut the size of Commonwealth Government outlays from 30 per cent to 25.5 per cent in the coming year. Mr Tuckey —But who got them up to 30 per cent? Mr KEATING —The Liberal Party of Australia did, by blowing the Budget out in 1982-83 and 1983-84. That was done by the irresponsible economic policies of the former Government, and the Labor Government had to reduce it to 25.5 per cent. But apparently the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks that now we have cut out anything which has any semblance of fact. We have been cutting real programs for years. Now he says we ought to hop in and start ripping another billion or so off pensions, sickness benefits, unemployment benefits, aged care, home and community care, and funding to schools-the only areas where this money is available. Do honourable members think it is fair and reasonable or justifiable that people who rely upon the transfer system of the Commonwealth to maintain their lives ought to have it cut around to increase the savings pool while other people will squander it by bidding up the price of real estate or other property? Do they really think it is fair and decent to go cutting public outlays more than this, with that burden falling on the weakest people in the community? This is what the Opposition is saying. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that we needed further falls in public demand. I would not mind that if he, as a Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition, as a Minister, had had any semblance of understanding about the need for better public policy, particularly better fiscal policy; but they never did. They never cut programs in the way in which this Government has cut them, and they never had the same care and attention to detail that this Government has shown. We hear this empty rhetoric about the need for tax cuts being abundantly clear and how we can provide them by further cuts in Government spending; in other words, we belt some single mother living in a rented flat with a couple of kids-- Opposition members-Ooh! Mr KEATING —Opposition members say, `Ooh!'; that is what it means. If the Government takes $1 billion, it comes out of pensions and sickness benefits and all these areas. And the Opposition thinks the Government should do that to give the yuppies a tax cut! Is that what they really think? Basically that is what the Opposition's proposition is, and it is wrong. The tax cuts should be given in the proper time in the economic cycle, not the wrong time, and it cannot be done by unfairly penalising the poor and the weak. This Government is not about unfairly penalising the poor and the weak. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about hyperbole and said that no micro-economic changes or tax cuts had been tackled. There has been a 20 per cent cut in tariffs, and massive changes to the corporate tax system. We have cut in half the tax burden on distributed income in this country. It was 46 per cent, and then 60c on the balance. It was 78 per cent on each dollar of distributed company income for people on the top marginal rate. We have cut that in half, to 39 per cent. The Opposition occupied the treasury benches from 1949 to 1983, bar three years, and had all these opportunities to change the micro-economy and the tax structure of the Commonwealth, including for companies, and it never did so. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in ignoring that massive change, that is, imputation and a cut in the company tax rate from 49 per cent to 39 per cent, says the Government has done nothing about the craft union structure. The Liberal and National parties formed the Government from 1949 to 1983, bar three years, and they are now saying to us, `You have not done anything about the craft structure'. They had the place for nearly 30 years. For nearly 30 years they governed this place with control of both Houses of parliament, and they left everything the way they found it. The place got old and tired and worn out, just like members of the Opposition. Now they are saying that they want to turn back 80 years of centralised wage fixation with the wave of a wand. That is their proposition. We have had nothing from the Liberal Party. All we had was Black Jack McEwen trowelling on the tariff protection while he was kidding farmers he was representing them, and Liberal Party Treasurers sitting up like slugs while being handed speeches by Treasury officials. They could not even read the stuff, much less comprehend it. That is how they ran the Commonwealth. They would have Sir Richard Randall or Sir Frederick Wheeler or whoever sitting over there with the permanent heads-the mandarins; they ran things. Liberal Party Ministers were given speeches; they did not bother with the details; that was for the public servants. They did not worry about the details because they never ran the policy-they never ran the place. Let me tell honourable members this: We run the place. We run the departments. We run the policy. We comprehend. We know. And that is the difference between this Government and that lot over there. That is why members opposite will remain in Opposition. Why do members opposite think the Public Service holds them in such contempt? It is because it knows what members opposite did to the place. There are decent, hardworking, earnest and committed Australians, working in the public sector on diminished salaries. They have been working for some decent altruistic outcomes, relying on bums in ministerial jobs for 40 years to try to change the place. We have changed it. Members opposite are now saying, `You have not touched the micro-economy and you have not touched the craft union structure'. One can imagine how switched on and concerned are members of the blue rinse set at meetings of the Liberal Party of Australia in Toorak about the craft union structure. They are worried about the craft union structure in the leafy glades of Toorak! They are worried about the single mum in a flat in some tenement in Melbourne or Sydney! They could not care less, and they never could care less. Basically, the Liberal Party is the party of reaction and conservatism-it is the `do nothing' party. We bring in these vast changes-floating the exchange rate, opening up the economy to external forces, letting interest rates be set in the market, cutting Budget deficits, changing the tax system, changing personal tax, changing company tax and dropping tariffs-yet members opposite say, `You have not made any changes'. Members opposite have no concept of nation and no concept of structure in government. They have no policy, no leadership, no heart, no guts, no courage and no ideas, and that is why they will remain in opposition. I am supposed to stand up in this place as Treasurer and say, `Oh yes, I have a responsibility to answer the matter raised by the shadow Treasurer about how the Government has not provided tax cuts this year'. Mr Tuckey —It is a pity you do not say something about how you are going to help people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member will cease interjecting. I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr KEATING —The shadow Treasurer knows that the tax cuts proposed by the Liberal Party last year would have destroyed the economy, and that is why the public voted against his Party. He knows that such a tax cut now would destroy the demand equation and blow the current account out the door. This stuff is trotted in in the name of economic decency but, in fact, it is simply political opportunism. Members opposite expect the rest of Australia to say, `Oh, yes, that is a good point. There are Mr Peacock and Mr Howard arguing for a tax cut for us'. The people of Australia are not silly; they understand what that policy would mean-that the economic system would rip it off them in higher inflation and higher unemployment. The people of Australia have been there and done that. They have been tricked before by the Liberal Party with tax cuts that the nation could not afford. They understand it very well. In this day and age, in 1988, after five years in opposition, one would think that the Liberal Party would start to say, `Let us get a high side of the street debate going. Let us forget any nonsense about tax cuts because we know that the nation cannot afford them. Let us have a debate about tariffs, about structural change, productivity, budgetary policy, a proper social structure, the social wage and the wage system'. We would welcome such a debate, but members opposite will have no such debate. Instead, we get nothing from the Opposition. There is no structure and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has no policies. Any semblance of policy which he had to destroy the honourable member for Kooyong when he was Leader, has been dropped and does not exist. It was just empty rhetoric. There is no structure at all. Is it any wonder that Elliott, McLachlan and other people outside are saying, `God, what can we do with this parliamentary party of ours? What can we do to try to put something back into it?'. Where are the people who gave the Liberal Party some form and structure? They are gone. We have members opposite wandering around in this place playing parliamentarians, picking up their salary and asking questions. They have no structure. They are not saying, `We are out of government. We can no longer think we were born to rule and we must earn our way back to government. So let us do some thinking about concept and structure'. No, they still believe that they are the born to rule squad and they say, `We have been out for five years and we will be returned some day. We can go on as usual because we are the chosen few who were born to rule the rest of you'. Where members opposite all come a gutser is in the fact that members on this side all think that we were born to rule you. It has been ingrained in me from childhood to think that my mission in life is to run you, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) thinks that his mission in life is to run you. In fact, the labour movement-that is, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the great industrial labour movement of Australia-thinks that its mission in life is to run you. That is what is producing the change, that is what is modernising the Australian state and that is what is putting us back up there so that we can hold our head up among developing industrial nations. That is what is giving us back our pride and sovereignty and getting the debt off our back. That is what is again giving us our proper place in the world-the creativity and intellectual freedom of the labour movement, the ALP and the great industrial trade unions of this country. That is what is changing Australia-not sick, tired, old hacks from old middle class blue-rinse Liberal Party branches. What is changing Australia is the dynamism in the statement I delivered last night, and it is that dynamism that will carry Australia into the twenty-first century and carry this Government over the line at the next election. Mr Tuckey —You want to bring the kids in again, Paul! They might believe it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for O'Connor interjects again, I will name him. I have already warned him and I draw his attention to the fact that he has interjected four times already in this debate. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(3.26) —Was that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of this nation talking about running this, running that and running something else? Does he still think he is in Sydney running the right wing of the Australian Labor Party (ALP)? I can tell the Treasurer that he has a shock coming because the workers of this nation have a few words to say about members of the Labor Party, those Bollinger socialists who think they are doing great things for this nation. In fact, they are breaking down the families of this country. I will say a few words about that because obviously the Treasurer believes his own rhetoric. He says things over and over again. I saw him come into this place last night all powdered up and ready for the television cameras. He is an aspiring Prime Minister but, if he continues on the way that he has been going, he will finish up holding the bag, and the bag will be empty. So enough of this nonsense of directing us and telling us what we are going to do and what we are not going to do. It is a time for reminiscing. In the eight years that I have been in parliament I have witnessed a number of Budgets and a great deal of legislation pass through this House. I am extremely disappointed to say that as time goes by I have become convinced that there is a conspiracy in this nation against what I will term the average family with one breadwinner, which is trying to feed, clothe and educate its children. I am galled to be a member of a parliament which governs a country that has the most anti-family or, more specifically, the most anti-child tax system in the Western world. It has been confirmed that in 1986 the value of tax related assistance-including family allowances-for two-child families in Australia amounted to only half the average in other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries when measured as a proportion of average weekly earnings in each country. The larger the family the greater the disparity. Now that family allowances have been means tested, Australia has become possibly the only Western country not to have a significant tax relief measure which recognises the costs associated with raising children. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you are like me but when I sit at the breakfast table with my family and see the price of things on labels on the cornflakes and other cereals, on the milk and on the bread, I tell my wife to put them away because it gives me indigestion. As a member of parliament I have a reasonable salary; I just wonder how the rest of Australia copes with these inflated prices and the cost of things when trying to raise a family. As a person who has raised a family of four, I know that the cost of living has increased dramatically. Families, particularly single income families, have received no help from the Government. In fact, in most small communities the St Vincent de Paul shop and the Smith Family shop would do far more business than all the other shops put together. I point out that I have nothing against St Vincent de Paul because I know myself that it has good clothing. But it is no joke that people are being forced to shop at these establishments because the Government is not looking after families in this country in the way that it should be. Following the announcement of the Hawke Government's most recent social justice policy, before the last election, Mr Hudson of the Victorian Council of Social Service was very enthusiastic at the Government's welfare assistance scheme for families. He said just recently that under the Hawke Labor Government the number of families living in poverty had doubled since 1983. Can one imagine the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or anyone else getting up in here and saying that poverty amongst children would be eliminated by 1990? The whole thing, if it were not so serious, would be a great joke. I am a great supporter of immigration. It gives growth and vitality to our nation and we need to keep our population in a younger age bracket. Honourable members can imagine how appalled I was to learn of homosexual partners being approved for immigration while average Australian families are being penalised by a tax system which is acting against Australia helping to increase its own population. One thing certain is that homosexuals do not reproduce. I know that a lack of income is not the only reason why people in Australia do not have a family, but I can assure the House that, from my experience, if the Government gave more support to the family unit through the taxation system we would have far more young Australians in this nation. Surely the Government knows that providing tax concessions to families is the best form of welfare spending. Last night's mini-Budget statement, I am sad to say, has continued the trend. Certainly we heard of a reduction in tax scales for companies and a few other changes, but once again the tax burden falls on the real workers of this nation. The Government would do well to remember that the real workers of this nation are still family oriented, despite the actions of trendies who try to socially engineer us all. Let us look at what happened last night. On the wider issue, the Government proclaimed that it has cut $1 billion from next year's Budget. At first we could be forgiven for thinking that that was wonderful, but $650m of this amount was cut from the States' allocations. Most of the other $350m came from cuts to roads, local government, housing and what could be loosely described as welfare. So the States will be shouldering most of the burden, which will be passed on in a number of ways to the average middle income earner. The Government will reap $200m from Telecom Australia, Australia Post, the Australian National Railways Commission and the Federal Airports Corporation. The imposition of a State payroll tax on Telecom and Australia Post will have to lead to an increase in postal and telephone charges and will almost certainly delay the upgrading of telephone services, particularly in rural areas. The cost of pharmaceutical prescriptions is to rise by $1 a script and new regulations will make it harder for people to fill the 25 prescriptions a year that are required in order to qualify for free drugs under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The first home owners scheme has had the maximum benefit for applicants with dependent children cut from $6,000 to $5,000. The Government should be looking after Australian families. Dr Klugman —Where should we cut? Mr HICKS —I will tell honourable members later where they should cut. I am coming to that. This is despite the fact that we are all very aware of the present disastrous situation in the housing market, largely brought on by the Government's capital gains tax regime and its removal of negative gearing provisions. Negative gearing has been reintroduced by the Government, but it is too late to help thousands of middle income earners who cannot afford to buy or even rent accommodation. I am told that in Sydney today hopeful couples seeking housing turn up at vacant properties for auctions, not to purchase the dwelling but merely to bid for a rental price. Not only will cutbacks to local government in direct grants and road funding mean an added rates burden to all home owners, which will be particularly onerous for single income families, but also some of the breadwinners will find themselves without a job. This is particularly so in rural areas where it is difficult to find other employment. The only answer for them-because of the capital investment in their homes and the high cost of housing if they move to coastal areas-is to stay home and live on the dole. Of course, cutbacks in road funding in the long term will mean a sustained level of death and injury on our road system, with the accompanying economic cost to the nation's health and welfare systems. Many workers will be pleased that at first glance their superannuation entitlements have not been drastically changed, but I am waiting to study carefully what I believe to be a thimble and pea trick. I cannot understand how, if the Government is to impose millions of dollars of tax on superannuation funds, the superannuants will be better off. Once again the personnel in our defence forces are being affected by the Government withdrawing its promise to pay defence personnel a $10,000 cash grant under a special home loan scheme. Certainly, loans are still available but an undertaking was given. Most of these people in the armed forces are family men who have depended on the grant, but no-one is free from the anti-family attitude of this Government. What really riles me in all of this is that while we continue to cut back on families we still manage to increase our overseas aid program based on ideological considerations. This includes the $100m to the front line African states over three years, with $9 1/2m for the Marxist state of Mozambique. These amounts have not been cut back. I am not surprised that the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Simon Crean, has described this mini-Budget as sensible and well balanced. After all, the Government would have to get his approval before the Parliament or the taxpayers of Australia saw what was in the mini-Budget. To propose that tax cuts should not come to the wage earners of Australia until July next year smacks of opportunism and cynicism. It is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian electorate. We all know that with fiscal drag the tax concessions will not be worth the proverbial zack. We all know that interest rates are about to skyrocket. We all know that Simon Crean and his mates will not be able to control wage rises, particularly after this mini-Budget. We all know that the average wage earner is now $42 a week worse off in real terms than he was when this Government came to power, and we all know that the Government's promises are worthless. Much of my electorate is based on the rural community, and because I have spoken mainly of the wider community I think it is sufficient to say that the new President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr John Allwright, said, amongst other things, `The Government is practising economic apartheid'. In concluding, I leave the Treasurer and the Government with some thoughts and expressions given to me at a recent gathering of workers in Broken Hill, and when I say `workers', I mean real workers. They said, `Noel, we are sick and tired of working our guts out, paying taxes for every weirdo bludging group that comes along. We work hard to feed, clothe and educate our families but we always seem to be getting further behind. The message has to be given to this Government, which prides itself on looking after the worker, that it has to stop looking after its wealthy paper-shuffling mates and the bludgers and start to give us-the workers-some incentive for our efforts and a fair go'. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(3.36) —I do not know what is happening in the Opposition but, when it has to get the National Party Whip in there to follow up on a matter of public importance, in our terms he is being given a hospital hand pass. Clearly, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) should have been making that speech, but he ducked out on it. The trouble with the Opposition is that it has a sorry history, with all the years of the rotten boroughs of the National Party mucking up this economy, messing up its structure, keeping the exchange rate too high and maintaining a high tariff regime. All of those things the National Party of Australia has to explain away. A decent man such as the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) has been dragooned in here to put the Party position because the Leader of the National Party cannot front. I notice that many members of the Opposition have cartons in their offices, they are packing up their things. There is probably a big shift on in terms of who is to lead the Opposition parties and where Opposition members are going. Some of them seem to think that they are packing up their cartons to go to the new Parliament House. I suggest that many of them should just keep going, straight past the new Parliament House and out into the electorate, where they can be increasingly irrelevant. Those opposite are the mob which, when in government, ran a $9.6 billion deficit. That is what they left us with. Fraser and Howard slid out of office leaving behind a $9.6 billion deficit. Who pulled the rabbit out of the hat? John Stone, now a senator for Queensland, pulled the rabbit out of the hat, saying, `I had better tell you all that you are facing a $9.6 billion deficit'. We have set about cutting that deficit, but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has come in here saying, `We think you should have gone further. You should have made some more cuts'. We say that we have made all the sensible cuts and we have looked after the pensioners. We have made changes where we think it is necessary. Last year we introduced a family assistance package providing up to $80 a week tax free for needy families. We have done all that. Where else should we cut? We hear silence. Then the National Party comes in here and says, `You should not be cutting road funding. You should not be cutting State assistance. You should not be imposing these extra levies because that is not the way we want the world'. Those opposite are engaging in a massive exercise in hypocrisy, and all my colleagues on this side of the House know that. On the one hand we hear those opposite talking about cuts. They say, `The Business Council is right, we ought to go for the big $3.5 billion cuts', but when it comes to the test they fail it, and they fail it because they cannot front the real issues. One of the real issues is where the cuts would be made. My colleagues the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) and the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) can suggest where they would be made. It would be where they were always made under Fraser and Howard: the poor, the less well off, would cop the pressure. That was always the case and it would still be the same because the Opposition still has the same ideological baggage that it carried when in government. It was that ideological baggage that meant that it never reformed this economy. It did not do a thing to reform the economy. The coalition Government nearly did all these things. It nearly floated the exchange rate, it nearly brought in financial deregulation, and it nearly cut spending. It nearly did so many things, but it did not face up to the real issues. What were the real issues? One was the need to modernise the Australian economy. Those opposite could not take that on because it would be too tough. Why? They said, `We still have that legacy of Black Jack McEwen. We have to have high tariffs, we have to provide protection, because we look after our mates'. That is their history. What else could they not do? They could not deregulate the financial system. Why? Because they seemed to think that somehow there was an important appeal to having these banks in a humidicrib in the economy. They did not do any of those things. They did not face up to the real issues. In fact, the Australian electorate knows that. They did not get the tax system working either. They let it slip into disrepair. They made sure that their mates were looked after. The bottom of the harbour scheme became the order of the day under honourable members opposite. They were not willing to face up to a fair and equitable tax system. People here say, `That's terrible. People are paying tax'. Of course people are paying tax. People who always should have been paying tax are now paying tax. The free lunches and the fringe benefits have gone. The fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax are now being paid. They were never paid under the Liberal and National parties. The Opposition wanted a situation in which the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and Malcolm Fraser could slide out of office making sure that they had not wounded anyone-certainly not their mates. The people they wounded, of course, were the less well off. We always knew that. That is one of the reasons they were tossed out of office. But they never faced the taxation system. They never modernised it. The top marginal rate was 60c when they left office. Yet the Opposition members talk in here about high taxes under this Government. We cut the top marginal rate to 49c and we foreshadow further cuts next year. That is in the May statement. The May statement faces the reality of the Australian economy. The important thing about the May statement is that it is a statement with vision. The problem with those opposite is that they have no vision, no future, no sense of history of Australia, no sense of where they are going because all they ever did in those long dreary years in government was look after those who had influence over them. They would not face the real issues. They got the easy pushover try. What they expect again is an easy pushover try. They somehow think they will fall back into government, but the world has changed. There are many people on this side of the House who will make sure they do not get back into government. There are also many people in the electorate who do not want them to get into government. When I talk to people in my electorate in Western Australia and to people across the country they say, `Let's hope to hell that those Liberals don't get back into power because they are not up to it. They are not up to the game. They cannot face the tough issues'. They can do one or two things. When they are speaking to little select audiences they talk about the cuts, the deals, the arrangements and the fixes they will do to keep certain people happy, but then the mirror is turned around and someone says, `Hang on, let us see how the ideas go in the wider Australian picture'. Will the Opposition face up to the taxation system? The Opposition tried us on in the last election but its numbers did not add up. It then said, `That's not very good. We'd better get up to Coolangatta and have another go at it'. Following that it said, `This is what our tax principles will be, but we won't give any numbers because we really don't want to be subjected to any testing'. If the Opposition did that in a school situation it would not just not pass; it would get a C minus because it is not up to the difficult task of making economic decisions. Then we find an extraordinary situation. This must make everyone in Australia wonder. In the five years we have been in government we have brought the $9.6 billion deficit back. We have made cuts with equity. We have done some redistribution to look after those who are less well off. We have done that through tax changes and welfare changes. We have cut the $9.6 billion and we now say that there will be a $3 billion surplus. But the Opposition says, `Perhaps you should have made more cuts' or, on the other hand, `You should have more expenditures. We're not really sure what you should have done. But we know that we will have to find some carping thing that we can go on with because we are paid to do it. We are not paid to have any vision, mind you. We are paid to be carping and negative'. It is all there. We have seen it before. We have sat here for five years. The Opposition has had various leaders. They should keep their things in cartons so they can move things around easily and more quickly when the time comes. The leaders of the Opposition have not come up with any principles, any policies or any statements of position. Members of the Party outside the Parliament such as John Elliott are saying, `When are you going to get your game together? When are you going to have some vision on tax?'. John Elliott is saying, `I think we should have a consumption tax, then we can pay for all the rorts we will put back into the system'. Party members then get together and say, `Hang on. That won't wash because the National Party won't cop that and Senator Stone won't cop that. We went through that agony last year in the election. We can't go down that path. We had better bury the consumption tax which is John Howard's preferred position. But now that we have buried the consumption tax where will we go on tax policy? We will go up to the north coast and look at it. We will come out and give some principles. Incidentally, we won't have the media there because they might ask some difficult questions. We want to keep them out of this exercise'. So media people were up trees trying to get photographs of Opposition members. After that exercise the Liberal Party of Australia put out a position paper. Just imagine President Reagan and Mr Gorbachev coming out of a meeting in Moscow saying, `Here is a position paper, but we don't know what we will do on disarmament'. The Opposition came out of its meeting and said, `Here's a position paper on tax but we won't put any numbers in because we might be subjected to the same questions about where the money will come from and whether everything adds up'. Things did not add up in July 1987 and do not add up now. The Opposition does not have the commitment to getting policies together. We have had five years of this from the Opposition. I think the Opposition is hoping for the next election to fall into its lap. It will not do the hard work. It has had five years to develop policies but it thinks that somehow it can sit around and score the pushover try, that all of a sudden it will be over the line and it will have won an election. It will not work because people are wise to the Opposition. They saw what it did to the Australian economy. It let it slip and slide. The exchange rate was too high, the financial system was over-regulated and business was buried under an avalanche of regulation. It had a wages system that fell into disrepute. Industrial disputes got right out of hand. People have seen all of that and they will not go back for more of it. If honourable members look at last night's statement and what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said they will realise that the Australian economy is on the move, that the economic agenda of change is there, that we are on top of that agenda, and that it will work. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —As required by the resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of members' interests and statements of registrable interests received by the Registrar of Members' Interests during the period 10 December 1987 to 25 May 1988. Mr JENKINS(Scullin) —I present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Publications sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 290th report of the Committee titled A better deal for our veterans. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr NEHL —by leave-This report presents the findings of the inquiry of the Public Accounts Committee into the management of repatriation general hospitals by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Committee began the inquiry in November 1987 as part of a general review of the Auditor-General's reports on audits undertaken between 1985 and 1987. In this review the Committee found that the Auditor-General had reported adversely on aspects of the Department of Veterans' Affairs management of its repatriation hospitals on a number of occasions over that period. The Committee was concerned to find fundamental deficiencies in the management information systems maintained by the Department to monitor and assess the performance of the various repatriation hospitals. In particular, the Department lacked measures capable of comparing the performance of the repatriation hospitals and State public hospitals and of monitoring the performance of visiting medical officers engaged by the Department. The Committee was also concerned by the lack of an effective management structure within the Department and by its apparently cavalier approach to responding to the findings of the Auditor-General. In the three-year period reviewed by the Committee the Department of Veterans' Affairs either failed or lacked the capacity to ensure that deficiencies in the management of repatriation hospitals reported by the Auditor-General were systematically rectified at a national level. The Committee experienced a number of delays in obtaining information from the Department and admonished the Department for failing to approach the Committee's initial investigations with a degree of seriousness appropriate to a Commonwealth parliamentary inquiry. The Committee affirms the Commonwealth Government's responsibility to provide comprehensive health care services for Australian veterans. Throughout the inquiry the Committee emphasised that it was incumbent on the Department of Veterans' Affairs to maintain information systems and management structures capable of ensuring that the Commonwealth's responsibility to care for the health of veterans and their dependants is administered as efficiently as possible. The Committee does not believe that the Department has achieved this objective or that it has the capacity to provide objective information on the relative efficiency of the repatriation hospital system even if it were being managed efficiently. The Committee's recommendations are aimed at promoting the development of an improved management structure in the Department, and at establishing more comprehensive management information systems in the repatriation hospitals. It is the Committee's belief that the implementation of the recommendations of this report will not only lead to improved administrative efficiency in the repatriation hospital system but will also promote the development of a health care system which is more responsive to the health care needs of veterans. The Committee will be monitoring the Department's implementation of its recommendations with considerable interest. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 291st report of the Committee-Revised procedures for reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr RUDDOCK —by leave-The 291st report of the Public Accounts Committee outlines, for the information of the Parliament, a number of changes to the Committee's procedures in dealing with reports of the Auditor-General and monitoring of action taken in response to recommendations contained in reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. These changes are the result of a review by the Committee aimed at ensuring that it carries out its work in a more efficient and targeted manner. The Committee has been concerned that it should deal more efficiently with reports of the Auditor-General. Consequently, it has made changes to the procedures it will follow in undertaking its statutory duties to review reports of the Auditor-General tabled in the Parliament. The Committee has decided to introduce the practice of seeking comment from the Auditor-General, subsequent to the tabling of a report, on matters believed to be of importance and which may warrant further investigation by the Committee. This advice will be sought as soon after the tabling of Auditor-General's reports as is possible. The Committee will, with this information in mind, conduct its own separate considerations and decide on its actions. This action may be either: a full, immediate inquiry; or where a complete inquiry is not warranted but there is significant need for parliamentary scrutiny of matters reported in the Auditor-General's reports, the Committee will write to the relevant departments and authorities highlighting its concerns and seeking an immediate response to matters raised in that report. The need for further action by the Committee will then be assessed on the basis of the reply provided to the Committee. The Committee's initiatives in this area will be the subject of a report to the Parliament. The Committee has adopted this new approach in its consideration of the Auditor- General's Report on Audits to 31 December 1987, tabled on 24 March 1988. The Committee has written to a number of departments, detailed in the report, relating to problems raised by the Auditor-General. The Committee requested that responses from these organisations be supplied by 20 May 1988. The Committee has received advice from all departments and authorities concerning the matters raised and is currently examining those responses. These responses will be the basis of further decisions regarding action by the Committee, including the potential for full inquiries into these matters. The Committee will report to the Parliament the result of its deliberations on these matters. The 291st report also outlines changes to the follow-up procedures for reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. In the past the Committee has tabled separate Finance minutes, outlining action taken in response to recommendations contained in its reports. The Committee will continue the practice of requesting a response to each of its reports from the Minister for Finance in the form of a Finance minute. However, in the future the Committee will table a separate Finance minute report only if it is urgent, lengthy or for some other reason requires immediate reporting to the Parliament. Otherwise, the Committee will table all Finance minutes as one report. This report will be presented annually to the Parliament. The Committee stresses that in reviewing its procedure it has not reduced in any way its oversight of the responses, nor has the importance with which the Committee views the Finance minute process been reduced. In addition, the review of action taken on recommendations contained in Committee reports will be strengthened by changes to the Guidelines for the Preparation of Departmental Annual Reports. In a statement to the Parliament on 4 June 1987 concerning guidelines for annual reports, the Chairman outlined that the Committee was strongly of the view that annual reports of departments and authorities should provide details of any reviews by the Auditor-General and parliamentary committees. The Committee has also stated that these details should include recommendations made in the reviews and any action taken to address the recommendations. Revised guidelines, tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 17 November 1987, announced that he had accepted the Committee's views together with other recommendations contained in report 262-Guidelines for Annual Reports. The Guidelines for the Preparation of Departmental Annual Reports now state that each report should: contain information regarding any reviews by the Auditor-General or Parliamentary committees which directly affect the department, showing recommendations arising from such reviews and the action taken to address them. The Committee will, as part of the follow-up procedure for its reports, review annual reports of departments for compliance with the relevant guidelines. The Committee considers that annual reports are an extremely important element in ensuring the accountability of public expenditure. The Committee will be writing to each department highlighting the relevant section of the annual report guidelines and stating that the Committee will be examining annual reports for compliance. The changes to the practices of the Committee outlined in this report aim to ensure that it conducts its work in the most efficient and effective manner. The changes in the procedures of the Committee have not diminished its workload; however, it has enabled the Committee to turn its attention to additional and significant areas of inquiry. The Committee has recently initiated the following major inquiries: reform of the Australian Audit Office; engagement of external consultants by Commonwealth government bodies; management of the Antarctic Division; and safety principles for explosives. The Committee also has in progress an extensive inquiry into therapeutic goods evaluation and testing. There are also, of course, other matters that arise generally out of Auditor-General's reports from 1985 to 1987 which have been more generally canvassed. Last year the staff resources available to the Committee were substantially reduced, from 15 to five. Since that date, and following discussions held with Madam Speaker, an additional two staff were allocated to the Committee. The Committee has expressed its appreciation for this allocation. The Committee, however, continues to be concerned to ensure it has adequate staff resources allocated to it and has resolved that, with the workload it should be undertaking to fulfil its obligations, a staffing level of 10 is required, including secondments and consultants, noting that in the past secondees were in addition to the permanent staff. These matters could be canvassed more fully, Mr Deputy Speaker, but, having in mind your role in this matter at this time, I simply commend this report to you and to honourable members. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered: (1) the House, at its rising, adjourn until Friday, 3 June 1988, at 10 a.m.; and (2) The routine of business on 3 June 1988 be as follows: 1. Notices and orders of the day. 2. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 3. Presentation of papers. 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Notices and orders of the day. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That- (1) standing order 103 (11 o'clock rule) be suspended for this sitting; and (2) in relation to the proceedings on the following bills, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the bills: Departure Tax Amendment Bill 1988; Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1988; Migration Amendment Bill 1988; National Health Amendment Bill 1988; Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988; Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill 1988; Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1988; Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988; Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill 1988; and Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Pay-roll Tax) Amendment Bill 1988. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(3.59) —The Opposition did not oppose the previous motion because it was a motion to enable or to require the House to meet on Friday of next week to deal with Bills coming back from the Senate. We do, however, strongly oppose this motion-as indeed we opposed one earlier in the week and a similar one last week. I remind the House and the public that last week, in a two-day period, the House was required to deal with 14 Bills-and four of them were referenda Bills. This week again in two days we have been required to deal with a further 14 Bills. Now the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) is going to declare urgent another 10 Bills. But there is one thing different on this occasion. These Bills were introduced last evening and some of them will be dealt with this afternoon and the remainder tonight, up to around 1.30 a.m. tomorrow. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the most disgraceful use of the guillotine that I can recall in my long parliamentary career. I have sat on the other side of the House and I have moved the guillotine, but I moved it in a responsible way. It has been used by the Liberal and National parties in government in a responsible way. Unfortunately the use of the guillotine over the past fortnight has been irresponsible. As I said a moment ago, it is a disgraceful use of the guillotine. Of course it means that the Parliament is being used merely to rubber stamp the decisions of the Government. I implore the Government not to use the guillotine in future sessions-although it will not be responsible for the conduct of the House of Representatives for many more sessions. In those remaining sessions in the life of the Hawke Government, I urge it not to use the guillotine in this way, not for the benefit of the Opposition but indeed in the interests of the parliamentary institution. We will not only oppose this motion but also vote against it. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.03) —I have heard in the last few days a number of speeches in which honourable members have commented upon the fact that their speech will be one of the last that they will be making in this chamber. They have reminisced somewhat about the chamber and have made some very generous comments about colleagues and the proceedings that are conducted here. I must say, however, as one who now is approaching 15 years service in the Parliament, that I could not agree any more fulsomely with the comments of the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife). I regard it as quite outrageous that we are being asked to agree to a timetable for 10 Bills to be considered and passed within a matter of some six or so hours. That is on top of a resolution that has previously required a large number of Bills to be passed pursuant to timetables which by any standards are an infringement of the way in which the Parliament has been used to this point in time. I think, if the Australian Labor Party wants the record to show that it has dealt with legislation in this way, this will do it little credit in the eyes of the public and little credit in the eyes of those who will consider this legislation and it will do it little credit in terms of the way in which people will become aware of the faults that will no doubt exist in some of these Bills. People will see that amendments might be required at a later date, and those matters will be drawn to the Government's attention. I believe the long term respect that people have for the parliamentary institution itself and the prospect of any Labor Party in government being met with this record ought to encourage it to change its mind, to consider ways and means in which the Parliament might well be asked to consider these matters next week. We have already been told that the Parliament is to be recalled next Friday. I do not know why it is beyond the wit of the Labor Party administrators to ensure that the Parliament is recalled a day or two early to give proper and detailed consideration to the matters that are before us. I am astonished, I must say, after my long years of service to see a guillotine of this sort being used particularly when we know the Parliament will be recalled next week in any event. Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Brown, John Kerin. J. C.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Cohen, B. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. C. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. R.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C.Katter, R. C. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Fatin, W. F. Hall, SteeleHawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(4.11) —I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills: Departure Tax Amendment Bill 1988; Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1988; Migration Amendment Bill 1988; National Health Amendment Bill 1988; Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988; Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill 1988; Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1988; Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988; Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriations) Bill 1988; and Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Pay-roll Tax) Amendment Bill 1988. I move: That the Bills be considered urgent Bills. Question resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows: (1) National Health Amendment Bill 1988; for the remaining stages, until 5 p.m. this day. (2) Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988; For the remaining stages, until 5.30 p.m. this day. (3) Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Pay-roll Tax) Amendment Bill 1988; For the remaining stages, until 6 p.m. this day. (4) Departure Tax Amendment Bill 1988; For the remaining stages, until 11.30 p.m. this day. (5) Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1988; For the remaining stages, until 11.40 p.m. this day. (6) Migration Amendment Bill 1988; For the remaining stages, until 11.50 p.m. this day. (7) Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988; For the remaining stages, until 12.20 a.m. on Friday 27 May. (8) Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill 1988; For the remaining stages, until 12.50 a.m. on Friday 27 May. (9) Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1988; For the remaining stages, until 1 a.m. on Friday 27 May. (10) Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill 1988; For the remaining stages, until 1.30 a.m. on Friday 27 May. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.13) —The National Health Amendment Bill seeks to amend the National Health Act and deals primarily with increasing the cost to the individual of purchasing a pharmaceutical benefits scheme prescription-in other words, purchasing the drugs prescribed by a doctor-from $10 to $11. As such, it is just another move to impose more costs on the community without any offsetting tax deductions. That is what is proposed in the economic statement. It is pleasing to note, as the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) advised in his second reading speech, that free prescriptions to pensioner health benefit card holders will be maintained and, for others who have means tested pensions or are on certain other benefits, the charge will be maintained at the concessional beneficiary rate of $2.50. Nevertheless, what we are being told by this legislation is that those in the community whose wages have been steadily eroded by an ever-increasing tax burden will have to make this further contribution. As I will point out later, some other aspects cause concern. The Minister also advised us that the safety net arrangements will be maintained. Of course, the safety net arrangements provide principally that people who are chronically ill and have to obtain more than 25 prescriptions in any one year need only pay for those 25 after which they will get any prescriptions free. So we are really talking about ordinary people in the community. My inquiries point out to me that there are 1,017,000 elderly persons in Australia who do not carry a pensioner health benefit card. Some of those would be subject to the $2.50 arrangement; many would not. Consequently, they must find the additional dollar. Between a married couple, it could work out at another $50 or $60 a year. That is quite a substantial amount. People with children and others throughout our community will have to carry the additional burden. We have to look at this in the cost perspective because at all times we see a substantial growth in government revenue. All the time people are being asked to pay more and more, and that is the point. When we look at the March figures put out by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) regarding these matters, we find that total revenue for March increased by 22.5 per cent over that for March 1987; that pay as you earn tax collections were 8 per cent higher than they were for March 1987; that receipts under the prescribed payments system had increased by 23.2 per cent; that company tax collections were 26.3 per cent higher; and that sales tax collections were up 17 per cent. I remind honourable members that sales tax is paid by pensioners. They might get free pharmaceutical benefits, but they contribute to government revenue through their taxes because they buy pet food and many other things that are included in the sales tax regime. There has been a massive growth-25 per cent-in government revenue. Certainly, there has been a 20 per cent increase, on average, in additional income to the Government. But that is not enough; the Government has to get another dollar out of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Legislation seeking to increase that charge to the community by just a dollar has been introduced to the Parliament as a result of last night's financial statement. Page 37 of the economic statement gives further evidence of what will happen under the pharmaceutical benefit arrangements. We find that the Government proposes to reduce the forward expenditure estimates by $69m in 1988-89; $100m in 1989-90; and $123m in 1990-91. Quite clearly, the receipt of an extra $1 per prescription will not generate those savings for the Government, so it has proposed other measures. Some of them have been brought before the Parliament on previous occasions and are known to the community. They are being extended or tightened in these arrangements. One is to extend the authority that is required for the prescription of certain pharmaceutical benefits. This has been described by the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Association in a manner which I think is worthy of quoting because I see this as the way the whole medical benefits area is developing: The Effects on Consumers of Extending Authority Requirements for the Prescribing of Expensive Drugs: A faceless bureaucrat will be placed between doctor and patient. Doctors will be forced to seek prior approval before prescribing more advanced and thus more expensive drugs. The patient will no longer necessarily have what is in the opinion of his doctor the best drug available. The Association goes on to say: Presumably products such as ace-inhibitors (new effective treatments for hypertension) and similar products, will be amongst those restricted by virtue of their cost. So a huge saving is to be achieved by denying Australians new developments in the drug industry because those drugs are not yet listed. Of course, that is convenient for the Government, facing some very substantial blowouts in its pharmaceutical expenses. The Minister for Community Services and Health refers to that in his second reading speech in which he says, as I recollect, that steps announced in the May statement will reduce this rate of growth. He says: . . . rate of increase . . . would have seen expenditure on pharmaceutical benefits almost double over the next three years. That is the Minister's concern. As I explained to the Parliament yesterday, the Minister has become so involved in defending his ailing institution of Medicare and the associated medical benefits that the individual-the ailing individual, in this case-is of secondary importance. And here he is going down the road of cutting back. Ever since I have been the shadow Minister for health in this place, I have not dealt with one piece of legislation in the health arena that has improved the lot of the Australian people. I have dealt with that 25 per cent increase in the tax that is imposed upon them. That was at least positive in dollar terms; it took more money from people. Everything else has been a proposition to remove something. Here we are, at it again: with one piece of paper, one sheet of the economic statement, we are imposing additional financial burdens-an extra $1 per prescription-and we get into this process of saying, `I am sorry, you can't have that'. Of course, the problem is not only the introduction of this bureaucrat who stands between people and medical services and applying that in the pharmaceutical area. If we are Medicare patients, we literally now need the stamp of approval from a bureaucrat, a person who need not have any qualification in medicine, to have access to a hospital. It is no longer so simple as to say, `I am feeling ill; I will go to hospital'. It is no longer so simple as to have a doctor in the western areas of New South Wales say to some young Aboriginal child or some other person, `You need to go to the Manly Far West Children's Home. That is where I think you should be treated, because of the difficulties you have in your family that I know about as your local doctor'. It is no longer sufficient for that doctor to make those decisions and send that child to the hospital, because that hospital is now taking some government money and a Department of Community Services and Health official makes the final decision as to whether the child will go to the hospital. Sometimes the official has no understanding whatsoever of the reasons why that child should go to that hospital. Under this arrangement, what do we find in the February and March statements issued by the Minister for Finance? He points out that, in the month of February, pharmaceutical benefits were up by 30.9 per cent over the corresponding period last year, when they were supposed to be 14.8 per cent. That has come back a little. Taking in the month of March, the Government is now looking at an increase of only 26.4 per cent compared to that 14.8 per cent. The Minister for Finance now believes he should give us a few explanations as to how he put his numbers together, after I made some comments about them last month and the Minister said to me, `You do not know how to read'. I cannot read blank pages. At least the information has been provided this time. The Minister says that the growth is due mainly to the increased prescription of expensive drugs and that Budget estimates for this program are likely to be exceeded. What is the concern of the Minister for Finance? That doctors are actually prescribing expensive drugs. One does not have to be Albert Einstein to know that there is a huge cost in developing new pharmaceutical products. Somebody makes those products, and we do not have much subsidised government enterprise in the pharmaceutical manufacturing area throughout the world. Huge costs go into establishing what is needed to find the new drugs that save lives. When a drug is eventually developed, of course it is expensive; but this Government is of the view that if it is expensive people had better not have it. We dealt with other legislation here relating to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, which lists these drugs. When we last dealt with that legislation in this place, it was interesting to note that the Minister in his second reading speech said that the Government was placing another constraint upon this Committee. It was giving them some more resources so that they could go into things a little better, but they would have to be more careful in what they listed because the Government was terribly worried about the expense. The Government can take all this money-26 per cent, 20 per cent and 17 per cent increases in taxes from people-but when it comes to giving them something that might save their kids' lives the Government has to think about that. It has to have more resources to decide whether it is necessary. More, we now instruct this Committee that decides what pharmaceutical products might be listed on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS) that it must look at the alternatives to prescribing that pharmaceutical product that might be necessary for the patient's good health. We want the Committee to consider surgery as an alternative. I have already been through that process-fortunately, before such instruction was available. I had surgeons arguing for a $200 operation on my knee and microbiologists arguing for $5,000 worth of drugs and an extensive period of hospitalisation. I am pleased that the microbiologists and I won because I still have my kneecap. But is it a fact that that instruction means in future that the decision must go the other way? It is not the public's fault that this Government chose to become the provider of all medical benefits in Australia. That was imposed upon them; and yet this Minister told us yesterday-if he were speaking today he would repeat it-what a wonderful system it is. He quoted the American official who told him it was great. All we know is that we have massive waiting lists, and here we are dealing with matters cutting back on what people can get in the way of pharmaceutical benefits. Every now and then we have in Australia a person who develops a rare complaint. It is extremely important to that person as an individual. That person is suffering pain and needs treatment, but he is one of 50 or 100 and, under a socialised system, we do not make arrangements for them; it is all too difficult. That drug is not listed and those patients have to pay 100 per cent of the cost. We have all of these other protective mechanisms in place. We take years to certify that certain drugs are good enough. It seems that the more expensive they are, the longer the investigators take to decide that Australians can have that drug. Of course, if it happens to be some cheap generic drug from South Africa, we let people start taking it first and then we have an inquiry when we find that it is not up to standard. Such an inquiry is still going on, and the Minister will not tell us what he has done about those 30 generic products that were brought in to save some money and which were proved to be unsatisfactory. We are not told much about that; that is embarrassing. The whole situation is that the people suffer. They have had their sales taxes increased by 16 per cent; they have had their pay as you earn taxation increased by 8 per cent; they have had many of their other taxes increased and, in total, all their taxes have been increased by 22 per cent. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) boasts about balancing the Budget. How much skill would any housewife need to balance her budget if the family wages were unlimited? She could just go out and say to her husband's employer, as the Treasurer is saying to us, `I am ruling things here. My instructions to you are that you will pay more'. Life would be very easy in the average household, if that were the situation. But, of course, that is not the way it goes. We are constantly being lectured on social justice. We are being told here day after day about social justice. The Minister at the table, the Minister for Community Services and Health, took so long trying to explain social justice the other day that on a couple of occasions Madam Speaker had to ask him to bring his answer to a close. We have the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) getting up day after day and telling this Parliament that the Australian people have never had it so good. We have had the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), the mini-Minister for nursing homes, putting in his contribution. How does that reflect in the community? All of the working class suburbs of cities in New South Wales had massive swings of 10 to 15 per cent against the Australian Labor Party at the last State election. Blue collar workers are not convinced by this rhetoric. The mass of Press releases with which the Minister for Community Services and Health bombards the Press Gallery-which I read, but which are never published-tell the people that they have never had it so good. The Press Gallery is bombarded with lengthy Press releases, one after another, telling Australians that their health services have never been better. Those Press releases are being ignored by the Press Gallery because they do not mention people. We had the Treasurer telling us a little while ago that this is a government about getting things done. However, the Minister for Community Services and Health never tells us how he is going to fix the problems of an ever-declining medical service, an ever-declining pharmaceutical benefits service and, of course, increasing costs, more taxes and more expenditure. People have to pay more for the service which the Government imposes. But they have to pay more taxes as well. There are no trade-offs in this for ordinary Australia-for ordinary people with kids. Of course, we know that average weekly earners have seen their tax as a percentage of what they earn go up by about 4 per cent. What about the people below that level, who, on the basis of the cost of living today, really and truly cannot afford to pay anything? Another factor introduced in the economic statement is worthy of some consideration, too. It is proposed that, in order to save money, doctors prescribe more items on one prescription. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia does not entirely believe that to be a good idea. It has pointed out that it will, of course, take longer to reach the safety net of 25 prescriptions and the prescription will involve double the cost. Furthermore, pharmacists are saying, `How are we going to manage?'. They have been screwed down by successive governments for the last 30 years, since they decided to participate in the PBS. It might be of interest to the Minister to know that when we took out some figures recently we found that in real terms pharmacists actually earn $1,000 a year less on average than they did in 1963-64-all those years ago. Of course, since then there have been some massive changes in pharmacy practice. In 1963-64 when one went into a pharmacy it was full of pharmaceutical products. Today one needs a map and a water bag to find the dispensary because one has to find one's way through the beach balls and all the other products which the pharmacists have been forced to carry to maintain their standard of living at a point at which they are $1,000 a year worse off anyway than in 1963-64. Pharmacists are not too happy about these arrangements; nor should they be, because in those areas in which the average of 2,000 prescriptions a month is not being reached pharmacies are closing down. Nobody knows that better than I because they are closing down in country areas and leaving the people-the people we should be concerned about; ordinary Australians; not necessarily the rich farmers, but all those people who are employed in country areas-to travel 50 or 60 miles to get a prescription filled. If the Minister considers that an improvement to the health system, I would be surprised. There are other problems. There is the increased likelihood of wastage when people take a lot of drugs home at one time. There is the increased likelihood of inappropriate consumption as a result of all these drugs lying around the place. As I said, there is a loss in the dispensing fee for the pharmacist. However, we are told in the statement that, of course, there will be more frequent visits to the doctor. I do not know where we will save money, because that will be an extra bulk billing charge. All in all, it is not really a very helpful situation. The Opposition does not intend to oppose this pharmaceutical increase. It is a Budget matter; and we have a fixed policy on that. Unfortunately, we cannot protect the Australian people when matters such as this are introduced in this fashion. I think that this is a highly inappropriate charge unless adequate tax reductions had been given in the mini-Budget. We know what the Government is about. We know when it wants to give the tax reductions. It is a purely cynical exercise to make people suffer so that they will feel better when the pain is relieved just prior to an election. It is a shame and a disgrace. Again, as I said, it is clear evidence of this Government's view that we must have socialised medicine; that we must, whatever we do, stick to telling people that they have never had it so good when, of course, the people themselves are rebelling. I will close on the simple reason for their rebelling. This Government does not understand the situation because it is not composed of people of the working class. The Minister drives his Volvo. I drive my Jaguar and admit to it. But I do not claim to be anything but a person who understands the working class. The Government has been hijacked by the academics. It does not understand working people. The Government does not understand that working class people have simple economic indicators. They are not interested in the Government's figures. They are not interested in the rantings of this arrogant Treasurer. Their simple economic indicators are their bank passbooks and, of course, their wallets. People know that they have not anything in them any more. That is why they are rejecting the Government. The Government is not helping the condition of those wallets by adding another $1 to the prescription fees people must pay. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(4.37) —I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment Bill and perhaps to offer to those people who have been listening to the debate some explanation of what is going on and what actually is proposed within the terms of this Bill. This Bill proposes that the maximum general patient contribution be increased from $10 to $11 per prescription. What we are talking about in real terms-in terms which people can understand-are those prescriptions which currently cost more than $10 and less than $11. We are talking about a maximum contribution or ceiling. Drugs that currently are more expensive than $11 will have the extra cost met by the taxpayer. Therefore, the proposal does not represent an additional $1 on every prescription. Rather, it will mean the addition of $1 on the ceiling or maximum cost of a prescription. For those prescriptions which currently cost more than $11 we, the taxpayers of Australia, will continue to support those people who need expensive drugs and who rightfully deserve to have that sort of medical treatment. Hence, we are committed to ensuring that they are able to have that treatment. It is a fact also that people on drugs which currently cost less than $11 will not have the cost of their drugs increased to $11; they will simply be paying what they are paying now. I think it is very clear. It should be very clear to every honourable member and to everybody listening that what we are currently talking about is a maximum cost or ceiling in relation to prescriptions coming under the prescribed drugs and pharmaceutical benefits scheme. That is the first point. The second thing about which I think we need very definitely to reassure people is that pensioners who still have a health card will still be able to receive their drugs at the current level. In fact, what is probably more important is that many pensioners will be able to receive double the quantity if that has been deemed safe by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. That will be a saving for them not only in money terms but also in terms of time and convenience. The Government is not interested in seeing how many pills we can have; how many journeys people need to take to doctors and pharmacists; how many times doctors can overservice people. We are simply looking at treatment levels, and those people who are deserving of treatment will still be serviced under the provisions of this Bill. The same applies to the safety net provisions, which are still in place. The Opposition spokesperson on health, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), has great difficulty in suggesting that it will take longer for some people to reach the safety net requirements. Indeed, this may be so, but we are not talking about the length of time in terms of reaching safety net provisions; we are talking about safety net provisions receiving treatment. If people are receiving double their quantity of drugs for less than half the current price their treatment is being ensured, and that is what we are about-ensuring that people receive treatment and are able to provide for themselves and their families the pharmaceutical materials necessary for their health. It is ironic that a person who comes from a party that is committed to cutting expenditure should now look at this Government which is proposing to make some cuts in expenditure and suggest that something is wrong. I find it extraordinary that it is suggested that the Government has no proposals. Obviously the Opposition is prepared to continue to allow the money which the Government would spend on pharmaceutical benefits to double to more than $2 billion in three years time-this from a party which has a platform of cutting expenditure. Where is the Opposition proposing to make the cuts? What is it proposing to do? We hear no mention of this. Indeed, we are derided because we mention the term `social justice'. We believe that those people who can afford to pay should pay, and that those who cannot should still be entitled to receive health and medical care under our system despite the fact that they may be in straitened circumstances; they may be poor and they may be unable to afford it. Is this so wrong? Is it so bad that we should allow pensioners to continue to receive their free health care cards? Should we not enable families and people with chronically ill children to be provided with the safety net provisions of this pharmaceutical benefits scheme and ask those who have been deemed to be able to pay to pay a maximum ceiling of a further $1 to ensure that we all receive better pharmaceutical benefits? I am sure the Australian community is quite prepared to accept that. After all, it accepts the notion that health care is the right of our citizens, irrespective of the amount of money they may earn. Allied with that are the pharmaceutical benefits people may need to ensure that their health and that of their families can be upgraded. The provisions of the Bill take a serious look at the ways in which overexpensive drugs have been prescribed. Many of those measures establishing tighter controls on the availability of expensive drugs are directed not at the patient but rather at the methods by which doctors prescribe drugs, and that should be of concern to us all. There are some examples where doctors have prescribed drugs which obviously have been unsuitable. There are cases where doctors prescribe drugs which are dearer simply so that they and their mates can receive more money. The Government is not about that sort of system. What we are about is ensuring that the least expensive drugs which can be dispensed should be dispensed for the benefit of us all, and what we are saying is that this Bill looks not only at the health of all Australians, but also at saving taxpayers money. I am sure the Opposition spokesperson on health can have no quibble with that. We have heard him say here today that taxpayers are paying too much, and yet when we propose a program which will enable taxpayers' money to be saved over a period-a whole $1 billion in the next three years-he finds some flaw in this. I simply ask: Where does the Opposition spokesperson stand? If he believes in taxpayers' money being saved-and we are doing this-why then is he arguing with us? If he believes that health care is the right of all Australians, irrespective of how rich they may be and how they have acquired that wealth, surely he would have to support the kind of program we offer. Therefore I must support the National Health Amendment Bill, which will ensure that the kinds of services which are delivered through the pharmaceutical benefits scheme will continue to be for the benefit of us all and will continue to benefit pensioners, to provide a safety net for families, and to ensure that controls remain upon drugs so that doctors' prescriptions can be monitored carefully. It will also ensure that nobody will need to pay more than $11 for a prescription. I emphasise that statement because it seems to be a point that has been missed by many people that what we are talking about is a maximum ceiling and that it affects only those prescriptions that currently fall between $10 and $11. I commend the Bill to the House, as I commend the Government's health care and pharmaceutical program to the House, because it ensures that all Australians, irrespective of their incomes, have a right to health care and are treated fairly and justly under the scheme. Dr WOODS(Lowe)(4.47) —The main point at issue is the price rise of prescriptions from $10 to $11. It has been represented as a 10 per cent increase, but in fact, if one looks back to November 1986, not so long ago, when the cost of a prescription was $5, one realises it is an increase of 120 per cent. That should be borne in mind when talking about a minute price rise. Let me also point out-and these are not my own figures or statements but the statements of Sophie Hill, who is a researcher in the Health Issues Centre in Melbourne-that any price rise, however small, affects the poor significantly more than the rich. These are the people who are going to be affected by this proposal of the Government. Dr Stephen Leeder was quoted recently in the Sydney Morning Herald as having quoted from a book called In Search of Excellence that if B does not work, try A. It is a well-known theory for improving performance. In the health system one could say that if B for bureaucracy does not work, try A for `adhocracy'. B could also stand for bandaids in this health system. I welcome one aspect of the proposal, and that is the proposal to inject more funds into the education and information aspects of health care. They have been underfunded in the past, and that, I strongly believe, is the way we should be going in the future. We should be educating not only doctors and nurses but also the public in what is the optimal health care in looking after themselves and in the prescribing of various drugs and what is appropriate and inappropriate in a given situation. Unfortunately, as well as injecting into the health system some sensible measures, the Government has injected a lot of rather stupid and ad hoc measures. It has injected some more red tape and price rises-the regular stand-bys of governments all over the world, but of this Government in particular. Let us look for a moment at what the Government is actually doing. It is going to cut costs-that is the main aim of the whole process. One of the ways of cutting costs is by making pharmacists do more work for the same pay. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia, incidentally, clearly opposes this aspect. In many cases it is doubling the actual size of the prescription in terms of the numbers of tablets or the volume of drug given out. It means the pharmacists on the whole will still get the same dispensing fee, and often less than they were getting in the not too distant past because of the new computerisation rules, but in many cases they are doubling the size of the drug given out. Those sizes were put there for a good reason. They were not put there just for the fun of it. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee did not say, `Eeny, meeny, miny, mo, we will give this drug in 10 aliquots and that drug in 20', the dosages were given for reason, and that was basically safety. They were given so that there was good medical supervision of the results of therapy, and so that a doctor would not give a patient so much of a drug that the patient would suffer all sorts of side effects and be caused irreparable damage, in some cases, before coming back and seeing the doctor again. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Forde (Ms Crawford), referred to this as over-servicing. In my book, this is looking after the health of patients in an appropriate way, a way decided by the Minister in previous times and by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, amongst others. It seems to me that this is an appropriate way of caring for patients rather than leaving them to their own devices and to the potential side effects of many drugs. Let us not beat around the bush-many drugs have side effects and need fairly close supervision. Apparently, in terms of safety, at least, and in terms of how many times one visits a doctor and discusses whether one is having problems with the therapy and whether it is working, we seem to be saying, `Don't you worry about that'. It is almost as if the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) came from Queensland. He seems to be endorsing less supervision of therapy and at the same time endorsing lower fees for pharmacists. I apologise to the Minister; that was the worst insult I could have offered him. The general hypothesis in this regard might be: never mind the quality, count the cost. Cost seems to be paramount in this regard. A few moments ago we talked about the safety net. It is clear to me that the numbers of patients who will avail themselves of free drugs under the safety net provisions will be markedly reduced. That is because the legislation as it stands means that a prescription does not count in terms of the safety net unless it is written for the maximum amount. We can understand why that was introduced, but what it means now is that, even if that maximum amount is inappropriate-and in many cases it is inappropriate to give large volumes of drugs, particularly to pensioners who may not be clear about the possible side effects-that prescription does not count towards the safety net counting provisions. So really we are encouraging doctors to prescribe the maximum amount, even when it is inappropriate, so that the pensioner, or whoever it may be, can actually count it under the safety net provisions and eventually reach the safety net level and obtain his free drugs. There is some very muddled thinking in that sort of approach. The shadow Minister for health, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), mentioned the question of authority drugs. I can speak with some authority on this matter, if honourable members will pardon the pun, in as much as for a long time I was involved in prescribing a number of drugs which required the authority of the Department of Community Services and Health before they were able to be prescribed. One particular drug that I was involved with in my medical practice was a drug with the trade name nolvadex and the generic name tamoxifen and made by ICI (Australia) Ltd. It is a superb drug which is very good at controlling and, in some cases, curing cancer, particularly breast cancer. At that particular time that drug was required to be approved by the Department of Health before it could be prescribed. I was faced with a ludicrous situation, therefore, whereby I would see a patient suffering with, and often at serious risk from, breast cancer, which would need urgent therapy-urgent being a matter of days rather than hours, but it was still urgent-and I would fill in a prescription which would go off to the Department of Health. If I was lucky, and I must say that that was not often the case, we would receive the drug in about six weeks. In the meantime, during those six weeks, in a number of cases, and in fact in the majority of cases, there could have been significant and perhaps irreversible deterioration which in some cases may even have led to death. What actually happened was that the pharmacist would say, `I cannot let this patient go without the drug for six weeks. I will assume that he will get the authority because it is such a sensible thing and any reasonable person can see that authority should be given in this situation. I will assume that he will get the authority, so I will prescribe the drug and cover the cost out of my own pocket'. Thank goodness pharmacists do have a heart in this regard because to wait for six weeks often would have been significantly deleterious to the patient. In regard to some of the drugs that it is proposed to include in this group, if the leaks are accurate, the same thing will apply. By including more drugs on the list of drugs which require authority, we are lowering dispensing costs by preventing patients from going onto those drugs. That is the whole aim of it. It is not a question of making sure that a particular drug is appropriate. It is a way of excluding those patients from receiving a given drug. If the leaks are accurate, number one on the hit list of drugs to come under the new authority drug provisions are the angiotomin converting enzyme-ACE-inhibitors. Briefly, they are drugs which are very useful and valuable in treating blood pressure. I believe that, in terms of cost to the pharmaceutical benefit scheme, they are pretty well at the top of the list. These drugs are not prescribed because of the whim of a doctor, and they are not prescribed because they are promoted with glossy advertisements. Contrary to what we have heard from the Government, they are not like other drugs which are prescribed because the advertising of a particular company manages to persuade doctors to prescribe them against their better clinical judgment. They are prescribed because they are excellent drugs and in particular because they have much lower side effects and allow a much better quality of life. In regard to blood pressure control, many of the drugs used cause major side effects; a couple of the more common are fatigue and impotence. Honourable members would understand that reducing those two side effects would be very beneficial. I guess we can hope that some Government members are not on any of the blood pressure drugs-and I talk in terms of the fatigue and not the impotence. Mr Gear —I hope you are not talking about me. Dr WOODS —I am sure that the honourable member for Canning need not worry about the impotence part. Certainly I hope that fatigue is not the cause of any problems. What will happen to these patients who will now have to obtain authority for the prescription of this drug? Sure, directly speaking, they will not be prohibited, but doctors will be put off prescribing them because they know that they will have to go through an enormous amount of red tape which could take several weeks; but, more importantly, while they wait for that red tape to be processed patients could suffer because they cannot have the appropriate drug for six weeks. So patients will suffer the risks associated with blood pressure for six weeks and, as honourable members would know, that could result in major strokes and cerebrovascular accidents. I found the imputation of the honourable member for Forde about doctors' prescribing habits despicable. Her proposal, which, if I understood her correctly, is that basically we should just prescribe the cheapest drugs available, I found to be unbelievable. In fact, I cannot believe that I heard her correctly. I sincerely trust that I did not. To say that we should prescribe the cheapest drugs, regardless of what is actually the best drug, is inappropriate. Quality must be paramount. Certainly, we can economise within that quality, but we must surely not sacrifice quality for the sake of convenience on economy. I said earlier that the poor are affected most, and the honourable member for Forde also raised this matter. She tried to imply that it was the Labor Government that was concerned about the care of the poor. I point out that the 40,000 people on the waiting list in New South Wales alone are, on the whole, in the lower income brackets. There seems to be little doubt, when one examines the breakdown of who is on waiting lists, that it is the poor who suffer most. In regard to discrimination against the poor, I was interested in the development of a two-tier health system that we are seeing and how it is clearly the poor who suffer in Australia. The World Health Organisation (WHO) published a report recently entitled Health for All. In Australia a report entitled Health for All in Australia was published under the auspices of the Government. Some interesting statistics come out of the report, clearly showing that it is the poor who suffer in this country. For example, there is a higher rate of cancer amongst the lower paid. One is 1.454 times more likely to get cancer if one is in a lower paid group. One is 4.88 times more likely to suffer from a severe mental disease, and in fact die from a mental problem, if one is a member of that group. Even the incidence of accidents is much higher among the poor. The report notes that cerebrovascular accidents and cardiovascular accidents have been reduced by about 25 per cent over an approximate 10-year period. It also notes, however, that almost all of that reduction has occurred amongst the better off. In other words, the poor have not benefited from the improvements in health care in our society. There are fewer pap smears amongst the poor. The immunisation of children amongst educated people is much higher than for those who have not undergone tertiary education. The WHO resolution and report were aimed at banana republics. What has happened, of course, is that this is an appropriate resolution for Australia. With our nationalised health system, which is clearly what we have, we have reached a situation where we are in the same category as a banana republic. I think it is quite clear that the death knell is sounding for nationalised medicine in Australia. Recently we saw from the United Kingdom a report which basically says that the national health system there is running down and cannot work any longer. What they are allowing people to do now, and encouraging them to do, is take out private insurance so that they can have adequate health care. The same is true of nationalised health systems all over the world. It is true of Holland and other European countries. The problems with the health systems everywhere are the same: there are waiting lists and there are quality problems. The quality of care that is offered is vastly inferior. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that this Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to correct two minor errors in the second reading speech delivered on this Bill yesterday. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister has the Chair's indulgence. Mr BARRY JONES —In my second reading speech on this Bill, as reported on page 3035 of Hansard, I said that tariff rates for sugar and tobacco imports would be phased down to 15 per cent in each case by 30 June 1992. That date should in fact have been 1 July 1992. I regret the error. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.02) —The Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill, which we have been given one half-hour to debate, is a matter of tremendous importance to people and industry in Australia. I very much regret that time limitation. We are debating reductions in tariff in general and, more specifically, in certain areas. I make the comment that, if the Government were going to give some encouragement to industry to stand on its own feet, this move should have been made 12 months ago when the exchange rates were at rock bottom. It is not as though the Government was not told about this matter because it was an additional form of protection in a declining market. I have obtained from the Parliamentary Library figures which indicate that in July 1986 the value of our dollar against the United States dollar was 59.8c. That would have been the lowest figure reached. Today it is valued at, I think, 79c. The trade weighted index at July 1986 was 49.3 and at this stage it is 58.4. At that time the Australian dollar was valued at 90c against the yen and it is now valued at 99c. Against the pound sterling it was valued at about 37p compared with 42p at the moment. So this move has come basically two years too late to allow the affected industries to respond. In that light, it has always been the policy of the Opposition parties to provide tariff protection in order to support industry and to take the drain off primary industries. We heard a question about that asked in Question Time today. The Bill provides for a gradual decline in tariffs and the abandonment of the 2 per cent revenue duty on imports, which falls most heavily on capital equipment and which has been a burden on industry inputs. The purpose of this is to offset some of the impact of other tariff cuts in affected industries. Most tariffs now above 15 per cent will be phased down to that level over four years. The cuts will be implemented in five equal annual steps beginning on 1 July each year. Tariffs between 10 and 15 per cent will fall to 10 per cent over the same four years. In all, the reductions represent a 20 per cent fall in protection. Tariffs that have already been phased down to 15 per cent or below will not be touched. Some industries, such as the passenger motor vehicle industry and the clothing, textile, and footwear industry, are exempted from this provision because of the package debated in this House just recently. That is understandable because these industries are already suffering a decrease in tariffs. This legislation has some interesting features. The tariff preference arrangements will remain unchanged provided this does not prevent the general rate reduction from coming about as detailed. Protection to a number of primary industries such as the sugar, tobacco, dried vine, citrus and wine industries, will be phased down and all tariffs will eventually be reduced to 15 per cent. The Opposition does not oppose these measures. In fact, we believe that they are long overdue, as I mentioned earlier. One area to which I would like to pay a bit of attention and which reflects a lot of the problems of primary industry is the sugar industry. We have been alerted within a very short time to the concerns of the sugar industry in both New South Wales and Queensland, particularly as to the Government's intention to rescind the embargo as at 30 June 1989 and the termination, because of the sunset clause, of the Commonwealth-State agreement on sugar. Unfortunately, this has all been done without any consultation whatsoever with the sugar industry. The messages we get from both Queensland and New South Wales are that they are appalled by the suddenness of the decision at a time when they are expecting another Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) review. They are prepared to suffer another IAC review. I say `suffer' because the previous reviews seem to have been to the detriment of the industry. So far there have been two reviews-one in 1979 and the other from 1983 onwards-at a time when the industry suffered the most adverse conditions it has ever known. That is significant because at that time the price of sugar was at a world low. The 1982, 1983 and 1984 prices were the lowest prices ever received on the international markets, dropping in some cases to about US3c a pound. That drop was associated with bad climatic conditions in certain sectors. In combination, this spelt disaster. I am advised by the Queensland Cane Growers Council that 10 per cent of the producers are still in grave difficulties. They will either have to get out or get better, but there is a situation beyond which some farmers cannot decrease their costs and improve their efficiency and performance. It has been a matter of great concern to this Government to interfere as much as it possibly could in the State arrangements. The sugar industry is really a State industry. One of the great catchcries of the IAC and the Labor Government is over deregulation and rationalisation. The industry has been forced to accept the plans imposed by the Commonwealth. To a large extent they have not been detrimental, except in the method of their implementation. When this was first mooted I suggested that the industry would not mind deregulating provided that there was a level playing field-we hear that phrase a lot now. I suggested that all of the other market forces could also be deregulated. Only last week we debated in this House the new Industrial Relations Bill, which provides for the most highly regulated, highly centralised and high cost labour that any industry in Australia has had to face. The sugar industry is no exception. So while the industry has moved tremendously in the areas of production, milling and marketing to meet the deregulated situation which this embargo implies will now continue, the labour market has not. It is just as rigid, inflexible and costly-and work practices and such matters have not been properly addressed-as it was three or four years ago when this situation was forced upon the industry. Over time the embargo has benefited Australian consumers. It has also benefited Australian producers by giving them stability and a direction in an industry that at the moment sells about 20 to 25 per cent of its products on the domestic market and the rest on the world market. About two or three years ago figures I took out indicated that the benefit to sugar consumers in Australia was about $400m. That is significant. Anybody who suggests that the embargo has been an added protection or benefit to Australian producers in a cost sense is not correct. We ask in that respect that there be more consultation before this eventually takes place on 30 June next year. There are some problems in connection with the legislation. As I understand it, once the embargo goes, as from 1 July 1989 there will be two rates of tariff on sugar. Raw sugar will attract a tariff of 35 per cent and refined sugar 25 per cent. The European Economic Community (EEC), which produces refined raw sugar, is most likely to want to dump its products. To what extent will the 25 or 35 per cent tariff be applied because, above all others, the EEC will be trying to get its sugar into Australia to take advantage of the situation? How effective will be the anti-dumping procedures that we debated this week in the House? For instance, how do we determine a world price for a commodity such as sugar, particularly if it is in a raw state? I refer again to the EEC example. The last matter I raise refers to the preference given to developing nations. Is this to apply to the tariff rate? In other words, will developing nations get a benefit? I will give the House a possible scenario. Cuba, which is a major producer of sugar and which has been frozen out of the European markets, might find an advantage, with that preference, in putting it on the Australian market. I would like the Minister to answer the two questions I have raised. In the absence of an embargo, how will the tariff be applied to the raw sugar from the EEC? To what extent will the preference to developing nations be applied as far as sugar coming into Australia is concerned? The Opposition does not oppose this legislation. Because time is short I give the floor to the Government. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(5.13) —I support the Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill. The Bill seeks to introduce alterations to rates of duty imposed by the Customs Tariff Act 1987. I do not intend to take up much of the House's time. Because the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), asked the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) to answer some concerns the Opposition has about this legislation, I will shorten my remarks and, with the cooperation of the next speaker, the Minister may have time to answer those concerns. The changes before the House do not affect tariff arrangements in some of the industries where we have plans in operation. In the motor vehicle industry we have recently announced substantially reduced protection. The textiles, clothing and footwear industries are also the subject of separate arrangements which the Government announced last night. The changes will not apply to the chemicals and plastics industry, where tariffs are already phasing to 15 per cent or less. There has been a fair amount of publicity relating to the changes, so I would like to cover the impacts that may occur and the directions the Government will be taking in relation to structural changes in general, of which the tariff arrangements are only part. With the changes that have been occurring in the economy over the last couple of years, it is not only tariff changes that are acting upon employment and labor market adjustments; there has also been technological change. In Australia there has been stagnation over many years. Many of our industrial areas developed in the late 1950s, after the Second World War. They have run their course for 30 years and much of the technology is out of date. We have also seen massive changes with company takeovers. New management has taken over many of the industries in Australia. This is all to the good because at this time we need to adjust quickly. It is a pity that perhaps we are trying to put 30 years of steady adjustment into place in two or three years. That is a much tougher task than to change as we go along. That is a problem that has developed because we have been working behind a tariff protected barrier for so many years. We have not looked to the world markets, but the day has arrived when industry must adjust and adjust quickly. We have developed a policy to quicken the pace of industry restructuring, which will produce an economy that can compete on the world scene and broaden our export base. We also have to take into consideration what will happen with these changes. For the vast majority of workers, the changes will provide opportunities to increase their skills, take part in more rewarding careers and enrich their job experience. However, in a small number of cases workers in some declining industries may have to change their jobs, not necessarily because of tariffs alone but because of what is occurring naturally in the economy after so many years of stagnation. The magnitude of that labour displacement is expected to be small in relation to the growth of new jobs and the positions vacated through normal labour turnover. About 500,000 jobs a year are filled by people moving from one broad industry sector to another and about 200,000 net new jobs have been generated each year on average since this Government came to office. Nevertheless, the Government recognises that some people will need to retrain and possibly move home to obtain a new job. Programs and services to assist this process of change and to cushion the effects of any disruption have been available through the Department of Employment, Education and Training for a number of years. However, the Government is now establishing an Office of Labour Market Adjustment within the Department of Employment, Education and Training to focus more effectively these assistance measures on those displaced by structural change. The office will be responsible for monitoring structural change processess and their local labour market implications and for the development and administration of policies for labour adjustment assistance. In this way, it will be able to anticipate the assistance needed within particular industries and regions and be ready to put in place assistance packages at the appropriate time. These packages will be drawn from the existing range of programs which have proved successful in the past. However, emphasis will be placed on tailoring the assistance to the particular needs of displaced workers, taking into account their work experience, educational skill levels as well as labour market conditions and prospects in their region and industry. These programs will be supplemented by other action if necessary. A flexible use of retraining and relocation and wage subsidy programs should ensure the quick and successful reintegration into employment of displaced workers. Similar measures have already worked in a number of regions and industries such as the New South Wales coal industry, where much work still needs to be done, heavy engineering, and the textile, clothing and footwear industries. The Office of Labour Market Adjustment will keep forms of adjustment assistance under review to ensure the continuing effectiveness of programs and methods of delivery. If required, additional forms of assistance will be provided. Assistance will be delivered through the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES), technical and further education (TAFE) colleges and other providers as appropriate. The office will have a significant liaison role with employer and employee bodies, individual firms and industries affected at the national, regional and local levels,with existing structural adjustment authorities and other relevant Commonwealth and State Government bodies. Also at the local level there will be a job for Federal members of parliament in relation to the structural changes taking place. I know of several programs that have now developed in different parts of Australia where we have local task forces in place. I have one in my area-the La Trobe Valley area of Victoria. I know of one in Gladstone, where our new member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice) has a very good program in operation. There is one in the Port Kembla area in which the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) and the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) are vitally involved. I am sure that other members are also starting to take an active interest in developing local programs whereby they tap into those resources that are available to the local community. I am working with the executive officers of some nine organisations in my area, which include the CES, the Department of Social Security, the TAFE college, the college of advanced education, the executive officers of local government, and trade union representatives. We are able to use the facilities at the local level, the data that is available; we have discussions with the companies involved, at both the national level and the subsidiary level, in our regions; and we can monitor the positive and negative aspects of structural change as it takes place. I think we will see a lot more of this develop, particularly now that we are putting in place this Office of Labour Market Adjustment. The Government will be providing the sort of support that is required to put into operation a program in which the total community will be involved at a very active level. Members of parliament, along with the executive officers of a lot of these organisations that we already have in place, can pull together the data at the local level and make good use of it on behalf of their people. The changes are taking place and will continue to take place, and we cannot ignore that. I am very happy to know that in my area the trade union movement is involved, that our local government is involved, that our colleges of training are involved, and that the companies themselves are now starting to say, `This is something that needs to be looked at. We do have to give perhaps a year's warning if it is possible but at least six months warning of structural change'. This is happening all over the world; it is not just an Australian phenomenon. It is something that I think both sides of the House should take a particular interest in, because we all represent people and we all represent workers. It is something in respect of which we have an obligation. The Government has given the lead. There is no doubt that, as a total package, the tariff and structural economic changes that we are making will provide a better Australia in the future, and I am sure we can all participate. I commend the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, who is at the table, for the work that he is doing in this area. I will close my remarks on that note and ask the next speaker also to be brief so that the Minister can reply to the questions that have been asked of him. Mr COBB(Parkes)(5.22) —In what will probably be my last speech to a Bill in this chamber, I am delighted to be speaking about lowering tariffs, because I largely attribute my win in my original preselection to the work I had done in this area. Even in my maiden speech, I called for a reduction in tariffs due to the devaluation that was starting to take place in this country. I am pleased that the Government is going in this direction. In fact, there are many elements in the Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill that very much parallel what the National Party of Australia proposed in its policy in this area in the last election campaign. I am delighted that that is the case. This is a Bill of major importance and it is a shame that we have only a ridiculously short time to debate it. In many aspects it is probably the best thing that came out of the mini-Budget. Many other areas of it were, quite frankly, a fraud, but this is a desirable move. One of the main elements of the Bill which I would like to discuss is the measure to remove the 2 per cent import duty on all goods, which I see the Government lists as a $240m cost to it. I think the paper work in this area-the administrative costs, the calculations, et cetera-probably led the Government in the end to decide that it was not worth a candle to it or to industry. I think this is a move in the right direction and I congratulate the Government on that particular aspect of the Bill. It has also laid down that goods with import duties over 15 per cent will have their duties reduced to the 15 per cent level in progressive stages between 1 July this year and 1 July 1992. Another element is the provision whereby duty rates of between 10 and 15 per cent will be reduced in progressive steps to a level of 10 per cent. The cost to revenue of all this will be $460m in the next financial year, rising to a cost of $900m in the financial year 1992-93. There are some disappointments in the Bill in that all the big ticket items seem to be exempted. I realise that many of these are covered by other programs and that their tariffs are being reduced. But protection for the textiles, clothing and footwear industry, for example, which is now about 205 per cent, in 1992 will be down to only the 55 to 60 per cent level. So the present plan in that area will largely be adhered to, and I think that plan is far too slow. The passenger motor vehicle protection levels are coming down, but they are still too high and they will be high at the end of the program. We are told that tariffs for the chemical and plastics industries are already coming down by about one per cent a year. That is a very small reduction. Chemical protection levels are, of course, very important to agriculture, which has been asked to bear a disproportionate amount of the cuts in last night's mini-Budget. Agricultural protection, is very much less than manufacturing protection, by a ratio of, at the most, 1 : 2; and in some years agricultural protection has been only one-tenth of the protection manufacturing receives. Agriculture is one of the real wealth producers in this country, particularly in earning export income. One of the tables I have before me indicates that protection for vegetable products is to come down from 40 per cent to 10 per cent over that time span. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard three short tables listing existing protection level rates, the rates that will apply in 1992 and the revenue implications for the Government. Leave granted. The tables read as follows-- Table 1 AVERAGE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE, 1986-87 AND 1992-93a Industry Description Share of Manufac- turing Product 1986-87 Share of Manufac- turing Employment 1986-87 Nominal Rates(e) 1986-87 Projected 1992-93 Effective Rates(f) 1986-87 Projected 1992-93 (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) Food, Beverages and Tobacco ... 22.9 15.5 9 6 6 5 Textiles...* 3.2 23 19 68 63 Clothing and Footwear...* 6.2 7.1 64 54(h) 176 155(h) Wood, Wood Products and Furniture ... (c) 8.1 13 8 18 10 Paper, Paper Products, Printing and Publishing ... 9.7 10.9 12 8 16 10 Chemicals, Petroleum and coal products ... 7.6 4.9 4 3 12 10 Non-metallic mineral products ... (c) 4.6 3 2 3 2 Basic Metal Products ... 9.7 6.7 6 5 6 7 Fabricated Metal Products ... 18.6 9.7 15 11 21 14 Transport Equipment ... 9.8 10.8 23 16 46 30 Other Machinery and Equipment ... (d) 12.7 16 11 23 15 Miscellaneous Manufacturing ... 15.4 5.9 18 12 26 19 Total Manufacturing ... 100.0 100.0 12 8 19 14 Dispersion in Assistance(g) ... (13) (9) (37) (26) a. Preliminary estimates. The projections in this table are based on methodology set out in IAC, Assistance to agricultural and manufacturing industries, AGPS, June 1987. c. Included in ASIC 34. d. Included in ASIC 31. e. The nominal rate of assistance is defined as the percentage by which gross returns per unit of output are increased by assistance relative to no assistance. It includes assistance provided by tariffs and certain non-tariff assistance measures to production but not State budgetary assistance. Average nominal rates of assistance on outputs for 4-digit ASIC industries have been weighted by the 1984-85 unassisted values of output for each industry and summed to obtain totals for industry sub-divisions. f. The effective rate of assistance is defined as the percentage increase in returns to value adding factors per unit of output (measured in unassisted prices) provided by the assistance structure. It includes the net effects of tariffs and certain other forms of Government intervention which alter the prices of material inputs, but not State budgetary assistance. g. Dispersion is measured by the standard deviations in percentage points. Treasury estimates. h. Clothing and footwear nominal and effective assistance rates at the end of the Plan are 42 per cent and 119 per cent respectively. Source: ABS Cat. No. 6203, unpublished ABS data, IAC estimates, Treasury estimates. Table 2 Existing Tariff Phasing Arrangements Industry Present Maximum Tariff Rates End Maximum Tariff Rates End Date per cent per cent Chemicals and Plastics ... 20 15 1/1/92 Communications ... 26 (a) 20 11/10/89 Glass and Glassware ... 30 15 1/1/91 Luggage ... 20 15 1/1/89 Medical and Scientific ... 25 15 1/1/90 PMV ... 45 35 1/1/92 Pulp, Paper and Printing ... 40 15 1/1/90 Textiles, Clothing and Footwear ... (b) 205 (c) 60 (c) 29/2/96 Vegetable Products ... 40 10 1/1/94 (a) These will now phase to 15 per cent by 1 July 1992. (b) Base rate plus premium, and out-of-quota rate. (c) This will now be reduced to 55 per cent and phasing of out-of-quota tariffs will be completed on 1 July 1995. Table 3 Revenue Decreases from Tariff Cuts ($m) 1988-89 1992-93 General tariff cut (incl all phasing except PMV) ... 110 500 PMV ... 110 160 2 per cent revenue duty ... 240 240 TOTAL ... 460 900 Mr COBB —I thank the House. Of course, the cuts, when they are made, will lower prices and will therefore have a beneficial effect in lowering inflation. Labour and capital will shift slowly and progressively from inefficient industries to more efficient industries. That will tend to lower the exchange rate, it will increase trade between Australia and other countries and it will increase the standard of living both here and overseas. I know jobs are a worry to some but, overall, jobs will be created. Some jobs will be lost in the short term, but I do not believe we should concentrate on that because jobs will be gained in better areas. In fact, jobs will tend to shift from one industry to another, from one occupation to another and from one region to another around Australia. I believe the proposals in this Bill are quite mild. Let us not forget that most industries have tariff rates of less than 20 per cent, so the cuts for most industries in Australia will be of the order of less than one per cent a year. No doubt there will be some resistance to these cuts from those who still do not understand the tariff debate. However, nowadays most people on both sides of the chamber acknowledge that cuts are necessary. In summary, I would say that the cuts do not go far enough, that there are too many exemptions and they have come too late. Had they been implemented back in 1983 we would have had the benefits of them now, especially with the devaluation that has taken place since that time. It is as if the train we should have caught has left the station and we are now to catch a later and slower train. In that regard, let us hope there is some truth in the old saying `Better late than never'. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(5.28) —in reply-The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) raised the question of the new sugar arrangements. First, the sugar arrangements were announced as part of the May statement. There was a reference to them in the second reading speech, by way of illustration, saying that, apart from the things dealt with specifically in the legislation, new arrangements were coming in for sugar and tobacco. That was the point I had to correct today. However these arrangements will be introduced only after 30 June 1989, and do not form part of this Bill. Subsequent legislation will be introduced and we will have a chance to talk the issues out. But, to reply specifically to the questions that were asked, we believe that the import embargo is not justified. It diminishes our credibility internationally and severely prejudices our chances of convincing overseas producers, particularly the European Economic Community and the United States of America, to dismantle their domestic support arrangements. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I think there has been a fair degree of consensus. I was interested in the comments, as I almost always am, of the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). But one would have to ask: Where on earth was the honourable member's Party, and what was it doing, when it was in office? The same, of course, is true of the Liberal Party of Australia. We inherited a horrific tariff regime which was almost programmed to weaken manufacturing industry-and it did. I am glad to see that there is a high degree of consensus about what we are doing and about what the objective is: to create this economy, to make it internationally competitive and to improve its performance. A whole number of factors have been dealt with simultaneously, but I have to say that more has been done in structural adjustment in the last 5 years and 2 months than was done in any 30-year period beforehand. Nobody in the House will disagree with that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(5.31) —The question certainly is that the Bill be now read a second time, but how curtailed is the second reading debate to be by the constraints on democratic discussion in this Parliament introduced by an autocratic government that has as its finance spokesman a man who walked into the House this afternoon and said he was born to rule? Extraordinary stuff. That complements the approach that the Government collectively takes to stifling discussion on issues that the House has before it today. The Bill we `debate' now is the Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Pay-Roll Tax) Amendment Bill. The coalition parties will not be opposing it. The purpose of the legislation is to give effect to a decision that from 1 July 1988 Commonwealth Government business enterprises currently exempted from State and Territory payroll taxes should be liable for such taxes. The Opposition supports the principle behind this move, namely, that such enterprises should be subject to taxation on the same basis as private business. But there is an additional motive that has pushed the Government into taking this step, and that is that the annual payroll tax liability of the authorities concerned is estimated at approximately $220m. In recognition of this increase in revenue to the States, the Commonwealth's payments to the States for the year will be reduced. The Government is simply trying to push over to the States, and therefore off its own Budget, millions of dollars which will still be paid by taxpayers through increased charges of these authorities. The Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) said in his second reading speech that this reduction will not be by the full amount but by approximately 90 per cent of the total amount of payroll tax involved, and this should amount to just under $200m. The Government sounds as if it is being generous to the States but, believe me, it is doing them no favours at all. This decision of course came out of the Premiers Conference earlier this month. It was part of a package of spending cuts to the States of $650m. That was a real reduction of 4.2 per cent, infinitely more than any real reductions in expenditure handed down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his statement last night. I can recall the Treasurer making pious noises at the Premiers Conference about the continued need for fiscal restraint. He said that the States had to pull their weight and take a share in the burden of restraint. I do not disagree with that. But last night's statement showed the hypocrisy of the Treasurer and his Government. Of the total estimated outlay reductions of $982m for the financial year 1988-89, nearly 90 per cent is accounted for by general purpose payments to the States. The Commonwealth is contributing only $112m in spending cuts. To be more accurate, some of that $112m in cuts appears to be made up of reductions in specific purpose payments to the States. So again the States are dragged in on what is allegedly a form of Commonwealth restraint. The Treasurer has simply wimped out. His prime ministerial ambitions are clearly worrying him. The Government is patently unwilling to bear its share of the burden of restraint. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer smoothly talk about tougher times and the need for the States and individual Australians to tighten their belts but they will not do the same themselves. It is the easiest thing in the world to talk about how tough it is and how we have to show restraint but that is said on the principle of do as I say but not as I do, for they will not do the same thing themselves. As Mr Cain, the Labor Premier in Victoria, said a couple of weeks ago, this Government has tax revenue sloshing around its armpits, and from that comes the Treasurer's Budget surplus. I debated with him on television last night how successful the Government has been with the surplus it has achieved. The surplus has been achieved by taking more and more revenue from Australians under the regime of the highest taxing, biggest spending government in Australia's history. The surplus arises from all the revenue that is flowing in and not by getting Australia's house in order and contracting the Commonwealth's expenditure items. It is false also to suggest that the need for a surplus precludes personal income tax cuts. Last night the Treasurer said we must have a surplus and to have a surplus we cannot give income tax cuts. That is patently false. He knows that the Government could have that surplus by cutting its expenditure, and it could have that surplus by cutting that expenditure and giving tax cuts. The Opposition certainly is not arguing about the need for a surplus. We need it to try to eradicate so much of the debt, and we need it in a macro sense so that we can run the economy properly in view of the state of economies in various States. To say that a surplus precludes income tax cuts ignores the reality that we fund those tax cuts by cutting government expenditure and still having a surplus. If the economy is actually overheating, as the Treasurer claims, tax cuts funded by spending cuts certainly cannot aggravate that situation. The Treasurer has delivered the possibility of future personal income tax cuts but he has delivered them into the hands of the trade union leaders. I am not even sure that we will get the income tax cuts. Why? Because this Government does not have a wages policy. The Treasurer says that if he can work out an arrangement where the wage-tax outcome is all right, we might get spending cuts. So it is Crean and others-the trade union leadership-who will determine whether the Australian people, now suffering under the greatest weight of tax ever imposed by a government, will have their tax cuts come through because the Government has not the capacity, the wit or the courage to formulate a wages policy which would be predicated on real wage increases related to increases in productivity. Last night the Treasurer said: The Government is prepared to give substantial tax cuts provided there is an acceptable wages outcome in 1988-89 and an appropriate wages/tax trade-off in 1989-90. The Government will stress this point in its discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions over the next 12 months. So much for the democratic analysis and formulation of policy. It is taken out of the Government's hands and put into the hands of Simon Crean and the boys. Yet again they are deciding government policy. The corporatist element of big government, big unions and big business has never shone so brightly as it does in the Treasurer's attitude to income tax cuts determined primarily by the deal he can do with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It accounts for the Government's inability to make any coherent decision in another important area, that is, the issue of privatisation. The Bill before the House seeks to make the Government's business authorities more aware of the commercial realities. Like private businesses, they will now have to pay payroll taxes. The big issue, when looking at the question of making public sector enterprises more commercially aware, is whether to privatise them. All the Government is doing at the present moment is freeing up some of these enterprises. I welcome the fact that under Labor's big government dogma the Government makes management and the like more flexible and able to run its own affairs. But it is still the taxpayers' money that is funding it. What special purpose is there? What special purpose is served? What social role is dispensed by a government owning two airlines, a bank and a merchant bank? While ownership in these cases continues to rest with the government, they will never be subject to the efficiency demands that full commercial realities require. Five enterprises are mentioned in the Bill. The coalition parties are already looking at the consumer and taxpayer benefits of selling part of the operations of Australian National Railways and the Federal Airports Corporation-of a whole schedule of entities that we have indicated to the Australian people we will privatise. Two of those mentioned in this Bill are also under review. We are reviewing, for example, whether or not to put the operation of airport terminals into private hands. The relevant micro-economic reforms that are needed in this country have to extend to an examination of some of the functions of two others that are mentioned in the Bill-Telecom Australia and Australia Post. Telecom's first-phone monopoly has to be broken down. The Government's decision to retain the key telecommunications function under Telecom's monopoly control will mean that ordinary Australians will continue to be forced to pay higher telephone charges than necessary. Telecom and Australia Post can no longer absorb the continuing costs imposed on them by government. However, rather than providing genuine reform, the Government appears to be treating the various government business enterprises as milking cows for higher tax collection. That is the nub of the Bill we are currently debating. I understand that Telecom and Australia Post have already announced that they expect to raise postal and telephone charges as an inevitable result of the decisions of the Premiers Conference. The Government's micro-economic reforms have a very long way to go. No mention was made last night by the Treasurer of the need to address the rampant inefficiencies in the area of coastal shipping. No mention was made of that one key area in vital need of reform; namely, that of the labour market. The Opposition has a coherent policy approach to labour market deregulation. Principally, we oppose the Government's corporatist approach to create big unions. We support the concept of enterprise-based unions, a system that allows workers to deal directly with their employers, to their mutual benefit. The number of unions should not be decided by the will of the Government. There should be as many as the labour market demands for its efficient operation. However, the Government cannot offer the necessary reform in this and so many areas because it is hamstrung by its union affiliations. The Australian Labor Party often claims that its members comprise the party that represents the poor and the needy. Last night's statement, with its lack of personal tax relief, confirms the historical fact that the Australian Labor Party does not represent the poor; it merely represents the trade union bosses-that organisation from which the Labor Party had is germination; the political arm of the labour movement. The Government, in regard to this Bill, and with that in mind, has simply wasted yet another opportunity. While I admit-and I noted the concluding remarks of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) on the Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill-that the Government has gone some way along the path to reform, the necessary reforms to address Australia's foreign debt problems, huge as they are and quadrupled as they have done under this Government, are nowhere near enough. The scope is there to offer much more to help Australians by giving them personal tax relief. In that way they will be encouraged to work and to invest more. As I have said, the coalition does not oppose the Bill. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(5.44) —I had no idea that this legislation was so comprehensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The Chair might intervene, by virtue of that remark, and say that the Chair was fully conscious of the fact that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in the course of his remarks, was overtaxing relevance. I call the honourable member for Charlton. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I was impressed by the extent to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), was able to apply the essentially fairly simple principles of this legislation to a whole variety of other concerns. I suppose there was a need for him to use up the time in some way, but I accept that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition canvassed a number of important issues. I wish to respond to a couple of matters raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He claimed that this Government was the highest taxing government in the Commonwealth's history. I suppose he was referring to the fact that, during the five years that this Government has been in power, total taxation revenue has increased. It has increased very substantially. I emphasise to the Australian people that they should be very grateful that it has. There are two important aspects of that increase. The first is associated with the enormous growth which has taken place in employment. We now have in excess of one million more people in employment-earning incomes and paying tax-than when we came into government. So why should the tax revenue not be higher? Those people-in excess of one million-are delighted that they are paying tax. They are paying tax because this Government has provided them with that fundamentally important personal dignity, the right to be able to be employed and to earn an income and the right and the opportunity to contribute to national revenue and all of those great national purposes that all Federal governments have a responsibility to pursue. The second aspect of that increase in taxation revenue is that, on successive occasions during that period, this Government has reduced, more substantially than any government in the history of this Commonwealth, the marginal rates of taxation. We know that for the high-fliers the top marginal tax rate when we came into government was 60 per cent. Out of every extra dollar that the people whom the Opposition purports to represent earned, the previous Government ripped 60c off them. We have reduced the top marginal tax rate to 49c. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, just last night the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that company taxation would be reduced from 49c to 39c. We know what that augurs for personal taxation. It must come down: otherwise, we will have a whole range of artificial private, personal incorporations so that people can take advantage of a company tax rate which is lower than the personal tax rate. That was indicated to the Australian people last night. What we will do now is follow up those very significant adjustments in previous marginal tax rates by additional adjustments that will reduce the tax burden on Australians very substantially. Why will it be possible for us to do that? Fundamentally we are able to do that because of the very significant improvement that we have been able to bring about in general economic performance. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Government's economic management has been nothing short of magnificent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! That may well be the case, but it would be enormously helpful to the Chair if the honourable member would mention the Bill now and again. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I appreciate your intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I was just about to link all my remarks to the Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Pay-roll Tax) Amendment Bill. It is important, because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition drew attention to the fact that the legislation was also linked to the general question of privatisation. I do not resile or retreat from or apologise for the very strong belief that I have in the important role that the public sector necessarily plays in the type of mixed economy in which we live. Different honourable members have mentioned that this is possibly the last occasion on which they will be able to contribute to debate in this provisional Parliament House. That is probably the case for me as well. I am not disappointed by that fact, as it gives me the opportunity to make some observations about public enterprises. We know that this legislation now provides the right for State governments to impose payroll taxes on some Commonwealth public enterprises. I do not know whether section 114 of the Constitution has significantly been tested or whether it has yet been resolved that that section relates as well to taxes being imposed on payrolls as it relates to Commonwealth and State properties. Of course, that particular section of the Constitution makes it clear that neither the Commonwealth nor the States can impose taxation on property which is held by the other. The extent of that section of the Constitution has been a matter of some controversy for some time, but the Commonwealth is indicating that, if we are going to have public enterprises-and I support their role and their concept-they have to stand on their own feet. They have to be commercially competitive; they have to be commercially efficient; they have got to be subject to exactly the same types of constraints, exactly the same types of requirements, and exactly the same types of obligations as private sector enterprises are. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity and being subjected to the same types of constraints and the same types of obligations as private sector enterprises, our great public enterprises will perform just as adequately. In fact, they have done so, and the Australian people can be very proud of the fact that they are joint shareholders in some of the greatest public enterprises anywhere in the world. I need only refer, for example, to Qantas Airways Ltd, an airline of international standing and reputation. Qantas belongs to every Australian, as do Australian Airlines, the Australian National Railways, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Federal Airports Corporation, Australia Post and Telecom Australia-those public enterprises to which this legislation specifically and clearly relates. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also drew attention to the fact that the annual payroll tax liability of the authorities concerned is estimated at about $220m-very substantial. As a result of that, we are now providing the opportunity for State governments to impose the payroll tax to collect the $220m. It is not unreasonable at all that we should then say to the States, `Since you are getting this additional $220m, it is appropriate that we should reduce any additional grants that are going to you'. It is not unreasonable, and that is precisely what we propose to do; but we are not saying to them that the Commonwealth is going to reduce their funding by $220m. It is significantly less than that. In fact, the States, as a result of this total exercise, will be better off because of the performance of some of these enterprises and where they are centred. Mr Duncan —Particularly New South Wales. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Particularly New South Wales, as the Minister indicates. Mr Duncan —Qantas. Mr ROBERT BROWN —And Qantas, of course. A very substantial proportion of the payroll tax from those authorities will be generated in New South Wales. We have been very generous to the new Premier in New South Wales. No-one can assume that this Government adopts a political attitude to any of the States. We are more than generous. I am pleased to see that there are members in the chamber who nod their heads in assent. I have said that it is necessary for public enterprises to show their worth. They are capable of doing it. If we ensure that they are subject to the same types of commercial pressures, the same managerial obligations and the same financial obligations, we will find that the efficiency and the effectiveness of public sector enterprises will match that of any enterprises anywhere. Some of the big private enterprises were moribund. They had been featherbedded because the management had been so cushioned by a significant structure of protection that had been placed around them by successive governments that they had become very tired and very inefficient and were not able to compete against imports. But now, as a result of a number of substantial and structural changes that have been introduced to the Australian economy by this Government, they are all starting to perform, whether they are within the private sector or the public sector. And the Australian people can feel a great deal of pride in the fact that the Australian industrial sector generally, whether it is private or public, is now starting to measure up. The restructuring process is under way. It will continue with this Government, and the great achievements that this Government has been able to make in the area of general economic management and in the area of fiscal responsibility will extend right through the economy, and not only will the benefits be available to men and women throughout Australia and Australian families today, but also they will be continuing benefits which will substantially increase, time and time again, well into the future, all of those benefits, all of the changes. They are substantial and deliberate and they will be successful. The final beneficiaries will be the more than 16 million Australians who look forward to the opportunities for themselves and their families that this country can provide. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(5.56) —In the four minutes that remain before debate on the Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Pay-roll Tax) Amendment Bill is gagged, I would like to say a few words about what I regard as a rather ominous trend that is developing in the way in which the government is approaching what it does with its Government business enterprises. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said, this legislation simply involves a transfer of taxes from the Federal arena to the States; a transfer, in this case, of around $200m. The taxes that are levied by the States as payroll taxes will have to be recovered by those statutory authorities and they will, of course, be recovered by additional charges on the very Australians that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) has been talking about. The people whom he said at the end of his speech he wants to protect will have to pay more. I mentioned the trend because I think that is important. I want to refer to the Government's guidelines on government business enterprise reform, and particularly, so far as Telecom Australia is concerned, to page 7 of the confidential attachment to the letter that the Minister for Transport and Communincations (Senator Gareth Evans) presumably has written to the Chairman of Telecom, which says that Telecom will be made liable to pay State payroll tax from 1 July 1988-the matter that we have been discussing tonight. In addition to that, local government taxes, rates and charges will be applicable from 1 July 1989. That will mean more increases to the people to whom the honourable member for Charlton referred. Telecom's exemption from Commonwealth income tax will be removed from 1 July 1990. So we have here a sort of off-Budget fiddle as the Government causes charges to be increased to those people to whom the honourable member for Charlton referred. Another matter is that the Government is requiring that these Government business enterprises revalue their assets. I refer specifically to page 3 of the confidential guidelines for the Australian National Railways which state that the Board will ensure that revaluation of the railways assets in accordance with prevailing commercial practice takes place. What has happened with the Civil Aviation Authority and the Federal Airports Corporation-and it is what will happen here with all of the other enterprises that are named in the Bill-is that the Government is causing a revaluation of assets. Against the revalued assets, the Government will discuss with the Authority what it wants to do about dividends. That means that the Government will cause these authorities to increase the value of their assets. Once they have done that, the Government will talk about dividends which will require a commercial rate of return-and the honourable member for Charlton talked about commercial rates of return-and that will mean that these enterprises will be forced to pay out more funds; and that means that charges will be increased even further. We are seeing with this Bill and with everything else that has been foreshadowed in these confidential attachments to letters that have been written to the Government business enterprises the very beginning of a dubious and doubtful plan to increase the amount that those businesses will charge to the ordinary, average Australians who will be hurt so badly by what the Government is doing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that this Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1988 Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1988 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Sitting suspended from 6.02 to 7.30 p.m. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Keating: That the House take note of the following papers: Economic statement, May 1988-Statement. Related papers on reform of the taxation system- Reform of the taxation of superannuation. Taxation of foreign source income: a consultative document. The 1988 business tax reform. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(7.30) —Madam Speaker, last night's economic statement is not the radical reforming document so boastfully claimed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). It does not contain the clear economic goals to take this nation into the 1990s. Rather, it is the product of an arrogant Treasurer and an out of touch Prime Minister, both of whom are blissfully unaware of the real financial burdens being carried by the overwhelming majority of Australian families. Two words were missing from last night's speech-`productivity' and `family'-and their omission symbolises the warped priorities of this Government. Our response to this statement will be based upon our clear national economic goals, and those goals are to provide the incentive for greater productivity, which is the only path to rising living standards. Without greater productivity there can be no return to higher living standards, there can be no stabilisation, and there can be no reduction in the massive overseas debt of this nation. Last night's statement did contain a number of decisions which the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia support. In the main they have been proposals we have recommended over the years, which the Government has derided and has finally seen the wisdom of embracing. The Treasurer's failure to refer to productivity is hardly surprising because over the last five years it has become a skeleton in Labor's cupboard. It has fallen sharply-so much so that we are faring badly on the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development productivity table. We must ask ourselves in every facet of economic activity whether we can as a people use our physical, human and financial resources more efficiently, because that is what higher productivity is all about. The answer to that is yes, we can, provided we give people the incentive to use those resources more efficiently. That is why we support lower taxes paid for by lower spending. That is why we support reform to our labour market. That is why we support reduced business regulation and charges. That is why we support privatisation, which gives to the Australian people direct ownership of the great national enterprises of this country and gives to Australian consumers greater choice. That is why we support freeing up the transport infrastructure of this country. That is why we support a dramatic shift in the migration program of this country towards a larger intake based on a greater skills component. They are the criteria against which the Opposition will judge the economic statement delivered by the Treasurer last night. Before doing that, let us not forget a few facts of economic and social life in Australia. Let us not forget that in the last five years Australia had become a less fair, more unequal society. Let us not forget the policy U-turns of this Labor Government. From 1983 to 1985 credit was claimed for everything good that happened, and then all of a sudden, as the tide turned, it all became the fault of the foreigners and former governments. Until May 1986 we had never had it so good. `Set your sails for growth' was the clarion call of the Treasurer. Then we had the banana republic statement, and almost overnight $9 billion, he said, had been cut from our national income. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) likened it to wartime, and we went into the economic trenches. The reality is that in that five-year period our foreign debt has soared to $110 billion. In March 1983, when the Labor Government came to power, 26.5c of every export dollar was needed to service our overseas debt. That figure has now climbed to a staggering 64c in the dollar. The great majority of ordinary middle income earners have gone backwards under this Government. A family on average weekly earnings with a dependent spouse and two children needs more than $40 a week to restore its real disposable income to March 1983 levels. Those families now face a tax rate of 40 per cent on every additional $1 of income compared with 30 per cent five years ago. If earnings grow by 6 per cent to 7 per cent this financial year, a person on average income in the next 13 months will pay $13 a week more in personal tax. Family health insurance premiums have doubled under the Hawke Government. Home loan repayments now average $606 a month, and they take a record 27.4 per cent of median family income. The figure in March 1983 was 19.2 per cent. Family allowances have fallen by 41 per cent, and over 2.6 million people, of whom 20 per cent are children, now live below the poverty line. That is 600,000 more than in March 1983. It is against the background of our national economic goals and Labor's failure that I comment on some of the details of this statement. Reductions in government spending, lower corporate tax, lower personal tax rates, reductions in industry assistance, greater commercial freedom for government business enterprises and the changes to the monopoly powers of Telecom Australia have long been advocated. It is clear, however, that the measures announced by the Government do not go nearly far enough. Moreover, in spite of all the self-congratulation and all the hype, the expenditure cuts in this statement are wimpish, and the lion's share has been carried by the States. In net terms this May statement cuts $982m off the Forward Estimates. Of that, the States have contributed no less than $870m. The forecasts for growth and inflation are extremely optimistic, in particular, it is questionable whether the inflation figure will be down to the 4.5 per cent forecast by the Treasurer in the June quarter 1989. The Treasurer proudly boasts of a surplus of over $3 billion in 1988-89 and says that Australia will be repaying some of the debts. That is welcome, but most of that debt has been incurred under the stewardship of the current Treasurer. We all know where the surplus is coming from. It is coming from the average taxpayer. The Treasurer can rely on booming revenues to produce that surplus. It is a taxing surplus, not an axing surplus. The Treasurer uses personal tax cuts as the carrot for a new wages deal with the unions. If Simon Crean says so, average Australians may get a tax cut in 1989-90. The company tax cut is most welcome. We put forward a similar proposal last year and were criticised as economic vandals. Today the tax cut is presented as a stroke of economic genius. The superannuation changes are a mixed bag. We welcome the higher rates of deductions for the self-employed and the small business people. More broadly, the Treasurer has sought to trade off higher taxes on superannuation now against lower taxes on future payouts. This has allowed him access to a large pool of household savings which he is in effect passing on to the business sector. He says that the final benefits will be reduced. The Opposition, the superannuation industry and many others are still studying the fine details of the Treasurer's changes in that area and, judging by the answers given in Question Time today, even the Treasurer is still studying the fine detail in that area. We reject entirely the Treasurer's specious claim that now is not an appropriate time for tax cuts because the economy is overheating. The real motive behind the Treasurer's argument is to make sure that any tax cuts are as close as possible to the next election. By the time Labor's personal tax cuts come along, the Government will have taken up to $3 billion from ordinary Australians through bracket creep. It will just be handing back to Australians what it has ripped off them over the preceding couple of years. The Treasurer's argument about overheating is a red herring. The Liberal and National parties remain committed to a substantial reduction in the overall taxation burden. We will provide a flatter tax system with two steps in order to provide incentive to people to work harder and to exercise greater enterprise and initiative, and we will give priority to assisting families with children. Our proposals will particularly help lower and middle income families whose ability to support children has been savaged by this Government. We will not be introducing a broad-based consumption tax, but reform and rationalisation of the existing ramshackle indirect tax system is long overdue. For example, what is the logic in taxing fruit juice and chocolate milk but not $1,000 ball gowns or pornographic videos? We want in government the flexibility to address such anomalies and inequities. We will abolish Labor's capital gains tax, which discourages longer term savings and investment. However, shorter term gains will be taxable on a sliding scale over five years. After five years there will be no tax of any kind on gains. The current exemptions will apply, including exclusion of the family home, and we will tax only real capital gains. Our tax on shorter term gains will encourage investors who buy significant assets to produce a cash flow rather than those who shuffle paper for short term speculative gains. We will abolish Labor's fringe benefits tax, but we will not countenance fringe benefits involving tax avoidance and, where a non-tax benefit is clearly and deliberately provided as a substitute for cash remuneration, that benefit will be taxed as income in the hands of the recipient. We will not tax non-cash benefits which are provided to enable employees to discharge their duties. These principles form the basis of a genuine process of taxation reform. Yesterday's statement indicates the lack of stomach in the present Government for long term micro-economic reform. Remember the Government's hostile response to the Industries Assistance Commission report on coastal shipping? That report clearly and objectively documented the massive inefficiencies in our coastal shipping industry-inefficiencies which greatly inflate transport costs and product diversification. Today it costs $30 a tonne to ship phosphate rock from Christmas Island to Australia, while phosphate rock shipped here from Florida costs only $16 a tonne and the same phosphate rock can be carried to New Zealand in third country ships for about $10 a tonne. That is a sham that the Treasurer and other Ministers in this Government will do nothing about. We will implement essential services legislation in this area and other aspects of our industrial relations policy in order to reduce union abuses and to encourage greater productivity on the waterfront. We will encourage greater competition in liner shipping, privatise the Australian National Line and encourage the States to adopt more efficient forms of port ownership and management. We welcome the tariff reductions announced by the Treasurer last night. They go in the right direction. However, they are not as large as they might be and they should have been brought in earlier. They will do little in themselves to improve industry efficiency. Labor has adopted our policy, and we welcome that, in its decision to convert Telecom to a public corporation. This will give Telecom a more commercial orientation and free it of bureaucratic controls which impede decision making and flexibility. It is also Liberal National Party policy, but not Labor's, to reduce Telecom's monopoly powers by allowing competition in the provision of the first home telephone, small business systems, data transmission and information systems, value added services and maintenance functions. Labor's failure to deal now with Telecom's outrageous first telephone monopoly is a cowardly concession to the power of the Telecom unions. That first telephone monopoly imposes significant costs on Australian consumers. That monopoly costs consumers about $250m a year in extra and completely avoidable costs. In no area is fundamental economic reform more essential and more needed than in the area of our industrial relations system. That system needs fundamental restructuring. We need less trade union power, we need greater emphasis on enterprise based agreements and we need greater emphasis on productivity based wage increases. Almost everybody now accepts the need for labour market reform. Two years ago I and many others were excoriated as captives of the New Right for even raising that issue, but today most people realise that Labor's centralised trade union dominated system has failed. It has failed to deliver internationally competitive wage outcomes. It has failed to deliver sustained productivity growth and investment. It has failed to deliver genuine cooperation between employees and employers. It has failed to deliver greater flexibility in work practices. It has entrenched and extended trade union power over our economic and social life, and it has undeniably entrenched an inflation rate which is double that of our major trading partners. We support increases in real wages. However, those increases must be earned. Inflation linked wage rises quickly lead to higher prices and not higher real incomes. Only increased productivity will lead to increased real incomes. We will give greater freedom to employers and employees to reach mutually acceptable industrial arrangements. In particular, this will improve working opportunities for women, especially in the area of part time work. Under our industrial relations policy we will introduce the following voluntary work agreements at the enterprise level: provision for small firms to opt out of the existing arbitration system; the principle and practice of voluntary unionism; a more comprehensive employee share ownership and profit sharing scheme; and, finally, infinitely more flexible awards. Our commitment to voluntary unionism is unequivocally based on our commitment to freedom of choice. Under our industrial relations policy we intend to bring trade unions fully within the laws of Australia. We will significantly strengthen the secret ballot provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, including the use of such ballots in the case of strike action. Finally, we are committed to an industrial relations system which encourages employee share ownership. We welcome the Government's decision, however belated it may be, to move to a slight extent in this area, as announced by the Treasurer last night. I remind the House that six years ago, in the 1982 Budget, such a measure was proposed. It was rejected by the incoming Labor Government and has remained on the back burner for the past six years. Privatisation, particularly in so far as it affects the internal politics of the Government, has been very much in the news in recent weeks. Privatisation is not an arid accounting exercise, despite the claims to that effect by many people on the front bench of the Government. It is an exciting opportunity for Australians to directly own some of our great national enterprises. It is a way of exposing government business operations to the winds of efficiency, competition and change. It will benefit the consumer; it represents no threat to the worker; and those who have most to gain from it are those employed in government enterprises, who will be encouraged under our policies to take up shares in the enterprise that employs them. The consequences of Labor's paralysis on privatisation are evident. Without privatisation, either the various enterprises urgently requiring capital injections-Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines and the Commonwealth Bank, which require $1 billion over the next few years-will bleed slowly to death because the Commonwealth cannot fund them, or other budgetary programs will have to be substantially scaled back. The Liberal and National parties, unlike the Government, which is in total disarray on this issue, have a clear and comprehensive policy on privatisation. We believe that government business enterprises that tie up taxpayers' money in activities that the private sector can perform better should be privatised. Our decisions on privatisation will always be determined according to three basic principles. First, people must benefit from any privatisation. There must be consumer benefit, there must be improved competition, and it must be in the public interest. Secondly, the position and job security of existing employees will be given special consideration. We are committed to encouraging the sale of shares to employees on a preferential basis wherever possible in order to promote employee participation and hence productivity and industrial harmony. Thirdly, the quality and availability of services to remote areas will not be allowed to deteriorate. It has always been the view of the Liberal and National parties that Australians, wherever they might live, are entitled to certain basic services at a reasonable cost. These include telephones, mail services and certain transport facilities. Our parties have already decided that Australian Airlines, Qantas, domestic and international airport terminals, the Australian Industry Development Corporation, 49 per cent of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, Aussat Pty Ltd, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, Medibank Private, the Pipeline Authority and the Commonwealth Bank should be privatised. That represents a bold commitment to a program of involving the ordinary citizens of Australia in the direct ownership of our great national assets. It is fascinating how much objection to that concept is coming from the benches of the Australian Labor Party. There is no real alternative, given the voracious capital demands of these enterprises in the years ahead, to a sensible program of privatisation. The Liberal and National parties are committed to it; the Labor Party remains in total disarray on that issue. Last night's statement, despite the self-congratulation, despite the hype, despite the smugness and despite the arrogance, did not pass the basic test of providing real economic leadership by the Government. It failed to state clear national economic goals. In contrast, the Liberal and National parties have an integrated, consistent set of economic policies to address Australia's economic problems and, through the incentives to greater productivity, over time to lay the basis of raising living standards. We used in this country to have an Australia in which anyone who worked hard was a hero. Under this Government, if one works hard one is penalised by higher taxes. The message in last night's statement from the Government-if there is a message-is that perhaps we ought to go easy on the business community but we can go on picking the pocket of the average taxpayer for another 13 months. The message out of that statement is that that process of paying higher taxes if one works harder will go on for the next 13 months. We used to have an Australia in which members of a family were bonded together and looked after each other. The family used to be the most important part of our social fabric. In recent years it has been put under enormous financial and social strain. Under this Government, families are under pressure, sectional interests are being pandered to and welfare has become a long term right rather than a short term assistance measure. We used to have a government with integrity and whose decisions were fair and seen to be fair. Under this Labor Government, big mates are looked after, and, unlike everyone else, the Treasurer does not have to get his tax return in on time. Under this Labor Government, the health system is in a mess, trade union bosses are making policy decisions, bureaucrats are being given more and more personal information on individuals, Canberra is growing bigger and its power is getting greater. Only the Liberal and National parties offer Australians a vision and a program to create a fairer and more productive Australia into the 1990s and beyond. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that Mr President, the Minister for Administrative Services and I have agreed that the commencement by proclamation of the major provisions of the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988, particularly the provision which gives the Presiding Officers control of the new Parliament House, will occur on 1 August 1988. The Minister previously gave an undertaking to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, as reported to the Senate, that the relevant provisions would come into operation no later than the first week of July 1988. It has been agreed, however, that 1 August would be a more convenient time, having regard to the activities of the Parliament House Construction Authority. The change of the day for the proclamation will not affect the operations of the two Houses in the new building. Debate resumed. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(7.58) —It is a big night for John Elliott and a big night for the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). They have been given the greatest opportunity that they will ever have to seize the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia. I say to my colleagues who have been here since the last election that what we had tonight was simply a re-run of what we had at this time last year. It is always the same. At that time the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) sat the test and failed. Again tonight he has failed that test. Mr Martin —Even the honourable member for O'Connor could do a better job. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) would certainly have an opinion and he may well do a better job. There are many expectations out there in the Australian community that policies will be thought through by the Opposition. Once again it has had the opportunity, and once again it has failed. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) and I have sat here for five years, waiting for the Opposition to produce this miracle formula, and it has not come. Tonight we had more pepper and salt policies. They are all over the place. There is no structure, there is no direction and there is no philosophy. Worst of all for the Robert Menzies party there is no vision. That is the real test. There are people out there-earnest members of the Liberal Party; people who have voted for the Liberal Party for years-who must really wonder where this great Party of theirs has gone to. I can tell them where it has gone; it has gone down the path of opportunism, the quick fix and the search for the pushover try where one can win an election by accident. I have news for the Liberal Party: the game has changed. People want policies, people want performance, and we are not getting it from the Opposition. The prospect is that we will never get it from the Opposition. As my colleagues well understand, we will never see the hard work, the background work, the unspectacular efforts that are required. To make an analogy with sport, there is no pushover try for the Opposition. It has to work the ball in the back line and do the hard stuff. It is not doing it. The thing that really staggers us is that it has had five years in which to put forward policies. It has had the opportunity. Tonight we heard the same dull, dry prescription that we heard before the July election last year, and we know the results. My colleagues here reflect very accurately that the reaction of honourable members on the back bench of the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia was a clear indication of the way it was received tonight. Pepper and salt policies do not stir up the rank and file. They certainly did not stir them up here. If I were a Liberal tonight I would feel even more dismayed. It is like the day after one's team has lost the grand final. The Opposition has been beaten again. It knows it has been beaten again, and it has a long, long winter ahead. I have news for the Opposition: it does have a long winter ahead of it and it is a long time until the next election. It will have a long time in opposition. Let us look constructively at the sort of test it has to pass. We asked: Where is the exchange rate policy from the Opposition? It did not have one when it was in government. The fact that it did not have one meant that we had a massively overvalued exchange rate the consequence of which was that the Australian export industry never took off but collapsed when the commodity price collapsed. That was one of the legacies. We have heard a little about an industrial relations policy. We have heard all about `opting out', but where is the Opposition's wages policy? We know what its ideological kneejerk reaction is. It is simple: kick workers, kick unions, suppress those who are worse off, and then it has an industrial relations policy. I have more news for the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts: the Australian people will not wear that because they had a lot of that. Look at what happened in 1981 and 1982. Australia became the scene of industrial disputes. There were more strikes, more trouble than one could possibly imagine. That was because of failed policies. It became synonymous with industrial disputation. We have reduced industrial disputation dramatically and people are back to work. The Opposition makes great play about families but when we talk to the ordinary people in this country we find that they have jobs. They have some certainty of getting work because there are few industrial disputes. Let us take this point even further. People have houses. When the Opposition was in government housing starts were 105,000, a 20-year low. We have got housing starts up to 155,000 now with a constructive housing policy that has put roofs over the heads of ordinary men and women and their children in Australia. I will take that theme further. We have provided child care arrangements that were certainly never provided by the previous Government. Child care was something it was not interested in. We have also provided this country with some hope and vision. The trouble is the Opposition took the easy path. It would not crack down on tax avoiders. We all know that. That became the order of the day. The big growth industry was tax evasion. This May statement specifies 60 tax havens. The Opposition never followed up on those. It was not interested because that was where its mates went. That was where all the money was socked away-in tax havens. It was not prepared to make the tax system work and the ordinary Australians knew that. In 1983 they delivered a very harsh judgment on the previous Government. It let the tax system slip and slide into disrepair. Evasion became the order of the day. We have restored some respectability in the tax system. What really interests many of us here tonight is that the same old story is being dredged up. The Opposition says, `Let's go back to the free lunches. Let's go back to the fringe benefits. We will make some changes but we will blur the tax laws a little so you cannot enforce them'. The Commissioner of Taxation in 1981-82 told the then Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition, `I want to enforce the tax law. Give me the resources and the political support so I can make the tax law work'-but no. Tonight, we have the same old prescription, `Let's blur the edges of tax law. Let it slip and slide into disrepute because we do not want those people who ought to be paying tax paying tax'. I have news for the Opposition. We put equity back into the system. As a consequence of that we can face in the next couple of years a further round of personal tax cuts. That is the vision. There is a train running in this country. People get on that train and get jobs, get houses, get moving and they certainly get wage increases and tax cuts. The Opposition train stalled at the station. It happened in 1983 and it has done nothing to kick start it since. It has the same tired old formula. What worries us is that there is no sign of improvement. As I said, Mr Elliott must feel pleased tonight. Certainly the honourable member for Kooyong must feel pleased. The opening is there. He has the rails run, in sporting parlance. The Leader of the Opposition has drifted off the track further to the right. He has the same old material. Opposition members all went up to Coolangatta. They did not want to take the media because they might have wanted to ask questions. So the media people were in trees trying to get photographs of them running on the beach. The Opposition says, `Let's not talk about policies; oh, no, don't worry about policies'. To use the phrase of a famous politician, they said, `Don't you worry about that. Don't you worry about those policies. We don't want you subjecting us to any tests or asking questions about our tax policy, or our wages policy. We don't want to have to answer those questions'. The trouble is that the sun got to Opposition members in Queensland. They did not come out of it with anything substantial and they have not done so tonight. We have the same tired old prescription. Let me follow that up. When we look back, whether it be at the media policy which the Opposition has been skirting around here, at the tax policy-we are still not sure where it is headed-or at a wages policy which is only basically described as an opting out arrangement for people so they can destroy the industrial relations system, we see an opposition in the throes of trying to come to terms with the 1980s. The problem is all the props it relies on are back in the 1960s. The late great leader of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies, would wonder what sort of legacy he left. The Opposition has really made a mess of it. People ask, `What have we got? What are the options? Let's have some vision'. There is no vision. On the other hand, let us look at our statement. There is vision. It is about taxes. There is clearly a vision on the corporate side with the reduction in company tax from 49c to 39c. A reduction in personal income tax is to come in next year. There certainly is a vision in how the Australian economy is going. We will cut costs in this economy because we are cutting tariffs. This is the sensible way of doing things. Let us talk to management. Let us talk to the trade unions, because we believe they are part of the Australian community. They are not lepers as the Opposition treats them. We believe that ordinary men and women in Australia should be talked to and not lectured, which seemed to be the characteristic of the Fraser years. We believe they have a stake in this country and we want to see that stake fulfilled. We follow that course. The sad part about the Opposition's position is that it wants to exclude people. People will not be excluded any more. They have had enough of those tired old prescriptions. I want to take that point even further. The Opposition has made much noise about families. It has said that the Government is anti-family. It has thrown one or two cheap shots in. But as my colleagues will know, with the family assistance package last year ordinary families with four children could get up to $88 a week tax free under the family assistance package. I ask Opposition members to try talking to those people as I did last Christmas when all of a sudden they got money in the hand that they desperately needed. What a change that meant to them. Let us also talk about the families who have jobs, but who never had jobs before. When the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer 1,000 jobs a week were lost. That was the prospect people had. They had no vision, no hope and no future. Mrs Darling —They would not face up to it. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The Opposition would not face up to it, as my colleague says. Now people have vision because we are providing them with that vision. The big change in this country in the last five years has been the establishment of a partnership. People are not excluded from the decision making process. People are not treated as second class citizens. We treat Australian managers and workers as though they have a stake in this country. The subject material of what was said in last night's statement tells management and employees that this country is on the move. It will be a more efficient economy. There are lower costs. There are lower pressures on people in the economy. We are providing incentives in terms of taxes and this economy is going places. We see ourselves as having a future. It is a very sad indictment of the Liberal Party that the work has not been done. The vision is not there. The policies are not there. If honourable members talk to people over the weekend, as all of my colleagues in the Labor Government will do, they will certainly be told, `We know what the Government's position is, we have some questions about it, but what does the Opposition offer?'. The answer is that we do not know. It has pepper and salt policies. They are all over the place. They have no structure, no direction and no future. There is no clear structural direction in the Opposition's policies. The Opposition is characterised as being the Opposition that nearly did things when it was in government. It nearly deregulated the financial system; it nearly floated the Australian dollar; it nearly restructured Australian industry; it nearly got the economy moving; it nearly got industrial relations working; and it nearly reformed the tax system, but it never won in any of those tests. Again tonight, as my colleagues will attest, it has not passed that test-and that is really a very sad indictment of it. We know what happened last year. We know that the National Party distorted the attempts at good policy making by the Liberal Party. That is all on the record. Mr Lamb —It is. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As my colleague says, it is on the record. The casualties are to be seen in Queensland, in the divisions there. The thing that has to be said here is that honourable members opposite still have not come to terms with how they will work matters. We see this every week when a big issue comes up. Let us go back a couple of weeks to the media policy issue. There was a different media policy every half day. We still do not know what the Opposition's exchange rate policy is. We still do not know how the Opposition will face up to the industrial relations question. It is very clear in this May statement that we have set out a vision. Look back at the reductions in outlays by this Government; look at the prospect of a $3 billion surplus; look at the prospects for personal income tax cuts coming through next year; look at the fact that we will be able, because we have a wages policy, to negotiate with the trade union movement to have wage rises and tax cuts phased in. All of those things are possible. These are the issues honourable members opposite would choose to reject. But I have news for the Opposition: the community will not reject them, because the community knows that we can provide this country with a vision, a direction and some energy. I have to say that we have one of the most energetic, enterprising, enthusiastic countries in the world. We have some of the best people in the world. Our people have all this energy and enthusiasm. When honourable members opposite were in government they treated women as if they had no part to play; they treated workers as if they were their enemies; they treated the Aborigines as if they were beyond the pale, because that was the way they ruled. What happened in 1983 was that the judgment was delivered on them. Honourable members opposite still have not learned, and that is the sad part about it. We live in a very dynamic part of the world. The Asian region where we live is the fastest growing industrial area in the world. What we in this Government are saying is, `We have an industrial engine in this country. We know how to get it moving', and it is moving. We are giving it further incentive to move. We have a wonderful people in this country and we are prepared to work with them to achieve more for Australians as a whole. The sad part about tonight-I am sure my colleagues share this view-is that there is no vision from the Opposition. There is no future; there is no hope; there are no policies. In fact, the Opposition has displayed a sad reworking of its past failures. We would have hoped that, before the move up to the new Parliament House, in this last sad try from the Opposition it might at least have put some score on the board. As honourable members opposite pack their cartons to move to the new Parliament House, the observation about many of them is that they are packing their cartons to move out of political life. If tonight's performance is anything to go by, that would be better for the Australian community. What I can say is that the test was there, the Opposition Leader has failed it, but there are further tests to be gone through over the next weeks as we look through the sets of policies which, in the view of my colleagues and myself, provide a vision for the Australian community. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.13) —The sad part about the contribution that has just been made was its demonstrable lack of vision, understanding and recognition that the Australian Labor Party has yet again failed the Australian electorate. In my brief time in the debate on the economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) I want to look at the circumstances as they affect one of the more aggrieved sectors of the Australian community. There is little doubt that the Australian taxpayer-the Australian wage earner, the small businessman, those who will not receive their tax cuts until some time after 1 July 1989-is paying dearly for the reduction in taxes to be provided to the corporate sector. The Treasurer, because he has some grand political plan, some concept of his taking over from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), unfortunately, has been prepared to put all on the backs of the taxpayer by deferring those personal tax cuts. To me, that is the first and major condemnation of the economic statement. The Treasurer himself admits that his budgetary situation is much better than it had been expected to be. He admits that the Budget surplus next year could be as much as $3,500m. This year he has identified something better than $1,000m. Yet none of that is to be passed back to the personal taxpayer. The reality is that the Treasurer sees it as necessary to be prepared to let ordinary Australians suffer in order that he can advance his own personal master plan. I think it is a total indictment of him that there are no personal tax cuts. Unfortunately, it is the components of the Treasurer's method of paying for that domestic surplus that worry me and my colleagues in the National Party of Australia most of all. Most people need to understand that, with Australia's debt increasing, as it is, with Australia's chronic balance of payments problem, it is becoming more and more serious for Australia to redress the overall debt position and that continuing chronic balance of payments. That we have been able to do a little better and the Australian dollar has appreciated is not any consequence of the economic policies of the Labor Party. It is purely and simply because the rural and mineral sectors have been fortunate in enjoying better commodity prices than expected and because of excellent marketing, largely by those bodies which are so roundly condemned by the Government, they have been able to contribute a near record amount to Australia's export earnings. But neither the rural exports nor the mineral energy exports will be seen in that light next year. As commodity prices vary, as the Australian dollar appreciates, as imports continue to grow, the sad situation is that elements within that rural sector in particular continue to suffer. Honourable members might recall that in the Australian of 12 April last Julian Cribb wrote: Of the 37 poorest electorates in Australia (that is, the bottom 25 per cent), 33 are rural seats . . . The median family income in those seats ranged from $16,500 to $20,100 a year in 1986-on average about 53 per cent of those in the wealthiest. He continued: Ninety per cent of the poorest electorates in Australia are rural. Their family incomes average barely one-half of those in the more affluent metropolitan areas. The highest proportion of families on incomes below $12,000 are also in rural areas. I think it is essential that people not get bemused, because our exports are high, into thinking that the average situation of the family farmer and of those who are the contributors towards Australia's export wealth is as good as it should be. Indeed, we know that the general circumstances of family farmers will now be significantly worse because of the Treasurer's mini-budget last night. Of course, at Question Time today we heard from the Treasurer that we really did not have to worry; that these people would benefit because of the tariff cuts. The tariff cuts I applaud; but those tariff cuts, particularly in the areas that affect the family farmer, largely will not fall into place until about 1992. We need to understand that each of those areas-particularly chemicals and plastics and passenger motor vehicles-which affect farmers the most is in the phase-down period and that the most benefit will come at the end of the five years, certainly not now. The reality is that there are now to be no personal tax cuts, at least until after 1 July 1989; and then it will depend on what Simon Crean says and perhaps what the Treasurer sees as best suiting his political ambitions, not on what the electorate needs. Not only will there be this unfortunate delay in personal tax cuts; there is also an additional immediate impost on the rural sector, and it is that that concerns me most. I am concerned about the way in which the disproportionate allocation of the so-called cuts is to fall. We have already heard tonight that $872m of the tax cuts will come from the States. In addition, another $20m will come from local government. Some $50m is coming from the roads. So State revenues are being cut, and we know from the statements by the Premiers that they feel they will have to increase their State taxes and charges. Those impositions will fall on ordinary Australians, including rural Australians and, in particular, family farmers. Let us all understand that very few of those family farmers will be in any position at all to enjoy the benefit of the reductions in the corporate tax rate to 39c in the dollar. Of course we applaud that reduction, but we in the National Party are concerned that those whom we represent will probably be at least $100m worse off in terms of direct additional expenses next year, and they will share in the additional tax burden as a result of the cuts to the States. They will certainly also suffer because inadequate funds are being provided for road construction and maintenance, and because local government will suffer yet a further reduction in its personal income tax sharing percentage. When one looks at the detail of the changes and at the expectations of the National Farmers Federation, one has to understand that the Treasurer has taken from those areas which in normal circumstances might be reduced but he is not repaying to the family farmers affected any of that amount in the next financial year. He is going to hit each one of those family farmers, those people who are contributing towards the improvement in Australia's export performance; but he is not going to give them anything back. It is important that we understand that not only is he not going to give them anything back but the one real benefit to come out of the changes in the future lies in the tax benefits that will flow through the reintroduction of a tax related income equalisation deposits (IED) scheme. But that income equalisation deposits scheme will not commence until 1 July 1989. So, at a time when there is expected to be some increase in rural incomes, when wool prices, cattle prices and lamb prices are good and when there is some improvement in our general agricultural products, the Government, by failing to pass on personal tax cuts, is going to take a far larger than normal percentage of the income of rural people. IEDs were introduced to try to offset the cost to the Government of the inevitable downturn in seasons and the downturn in commodity prices. Mr Hunt —We introduced them. Mr SINCLAIR —Of course we introduced them, as my colleague says. We need to understand that the IED scheme will not be in place this year. Therefore, the tax burden on family farms-most of which operate on some sort of partnership arrangement between the farmer and his wife and family-will be significantly increased. But we also need to recognise that some of the components of the Government's proposals will bear even more heavily on the rural sector because of the way in which the changes are directed. It is not satisfactory to have a situation where one group in the community is so discriminated against, and discriminated against because of the inevitable prejudice of the Treasurer who says that everybody in the bush must be making money because the gross figures in the statistics show improved returns for rural commodities. But that belies the fact, as I repeat, that the biggest percentage of poverty struck families live in the rural electorates. It is absolutely essential that those people not be passed over. Of course there is to be some assistance through the rural adjustment scheme, but the application of its criteria is still far too tight for those who could be viable farmers. The new funds provided for in the Treasurer's statement are essentially to get people off the land, not to keep the family farmer on the land. Mr Peter Fisher —Social welfare. Mr SINCLAIR —My colleague the honourable member for Mallee interjects. There have been droughts in his area for the last few years. Wheat farmers have suffered an incredible reduction in their income. There has been a bit of an upturn this year, but they find that they will have to pay more tax. We know that fertiliser subsidies are to be terminated immediately and we know that IEDs will not be in place, so those who may well be non-viable will not be assisted. I did not go into the rest of the article to which I have referred, but it says that something like 2,000 family farmers a year are leaving the land and all the rural adjustment scheme changes will do is help them get off the land more quickly. This country needs to keep those family farmers on the land. Of course there has to be a turnover in the generations. We need to have IEDs tax related, and we need them now. We need to provide a macro-economic climate in which our farmers can compete internationally and domestically. It is for that reason that we welcome the tariff reductions, but they will not provide the benefits now. I have mentioned the problem of road funding. General road funding is becoming more and more critical. People have seen the schedules. Under Labor, roads have progressively become more and more discriminated against. Under this Labor Government, real funding for roads is now something like $400m less than it was in March 1983. The results of this reduction indicate that inevitably there will be a further deterioration in the roads used by producers in the bush, in the byways they use, rather than the main arterial highways. As they are squeezed there will be more pressure on local government, and that is in addition to its $20m personal income tax sharing reduction. So, the people in the farming community are suffering a particular cut in those areas I have specified, and they will also be affected by general reductions in local government and road funding. I want to speak briefly of one particular industry-the sugar industry. The sugar industry is a major contributor to Australia's exports. It contributes about $1 billion a year. There are about 7,000 growers in Queensland, and they produce about 90 per cent of Australia's sugar. Nobody believes that the circumstances of canegrowers in Australia in the last 12 months have been good. We have seen a collapse in the price of sugar. Of course it has picked up to a degree, and the benefit of the devaluation of the Australian dollar has flowed through to many of those producers. But it has been assessed that as a result of the changes arbitrarily being introduced by the Federal Government in this mini-Budget, canegrowers will suffer something like a one-third cut in their income. The sugar industry does represent the core from which most of the development of all that great stretch of country in north Queensland began. We know how many new Australians came and developed the industry there. It is not so long ago that about half of the population of Australia north of the Tropic of Capricorn depended on the sugar industry for its sustenance. We on this side of the House do not say that the regime affecting an industry can never be changed, or that the regime affecting the sugar industry can never be changed. But to change it at a time when the sugar industry is on its knees, to change it at a time when the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has been telling us that he has new arrangements, that new deals are to be provided for the various sugar mills in Queensland and that there is some sort of bright hope for the future, is absolute rubbish. The consequence of the mini-Budget last night is to ensure that the income of canegrowers in north Queensland will be reduced by about a third. To introduce that sort of Budget reduction arbitrarily, without consultation, without consideration of the consequences, is to emphasise starkly the real concern that this Treasurer and this Government have for ordinary Australians. They are denying tax cuts to the wage earners and they are denying the real benefits that should flow to those who are contributing to our export earnings. They have selectively discriminated against those in the poorest element of Australia, and any talk of social justice has gone completely out the window. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay) Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(8.29) —I suppose it was predictable that in their response to the May economic statement the coalition parties would come out with the same tired old line. Earlier today, in discussing a matter of public importance, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and present shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), argued that tax cuts and a surplus are achievable by significant cuts in government spending. This reminds me of the debate earlier in the year on the Supply Bills. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite)-I acknowledge his presence in the chamber-had this to say in reply to comments I made: I believe that tax reform in any sense must involve an element of looking at expenditure to see what is real and necessary. The honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins), in his address, challenged the Opposition to say where these expenditure cuts would come from. I repeat that challenge because in none of the Opposition contributions we have heard tonight has there been any indication of where these quality cuts would be made. It is the same tired old line. As always, there is no indication of where the Opposition would make the cuts. In reality, government programs have been cut to the bone. Government expenditure has fallen from 30 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 25.5 per cent. This is the third consecutive annual cut in real Budget outlays and in the following financial year we have in prospect the fourth consecutive annual cut. These are the expenditure cuts that the honourable member for Bennelong, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), calls wimpish. It must be remembered that when the Government came to power it faced a $9.6 billion deficit in prospect. That has been transformed to a $3 billion surplus in prospect, all in the space of five years. The coalition, which describes itself as the opposition, as always, is in disarray. Far from joining the calls of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for more cuts during today's discussion on a matter of public importance, the second Opposition speaker, the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), pulled out a dusty old speech filled with rhetoric about the plight of families and complained at length about cutbacks in last night's statement. Speaking before me, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) repeated those cries. For instance, he highlighted perceived cuts in road funding. I assume the proposed tax rearrangements put forward by the Leader of the Opposition tonight will have some cost. Are we to hear those cries for cuts along with cries for increased expenditure in other areas? When will the Opposition get its act together? I suppose it is quite easy to talk of the Opposition's role as being one of opposing Government policy, but I think that the people of Australia expect a little better from the coalition. Has the Opposition not learnt that when it parades itself around Australia it really needs to parade itself as an alternative government? It will never parade itself as an alternative government when it is totally devoid of concrete policies. The lesson of the last election just has not come home. Tonight the Leader of the Opposition talked about changes to tax arrangements. He advocated abolishing the capital gains tax. Yet he has the cheek to go on to talk about fairness. In that one policy he indicated that he would return to the policy of benefiting the greedy at the expense of the needy. He talked about abolishing Labor's fringe benefits tax and putting in some other form of fringe benefits arrangement. I think that the Australian public, after hearing him describe that fringe benefits arrangement, will realise that it is very similar to the law as it was when he presided over taxation law as Treasurer. He proposes to treat fringe benefits as cash which would be taxed in the hand of the recipient. Those arrangements and conditions applied when the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer of Australia. But what did he do? Did he use the law? No, he allowed fringe benefits to explode. Yet he now decries this Government's efforts. I now turn to the May economic statement's proposals in the area of corporate tax. Let us get it clear from the outset. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) stated last night, the cut in the company tax rate from 49c to 39c will put Australian companies at the leading edge of world business. This reduction has been achieved by broadening the company tax base to create a fairer system. Let us not get the idea that this decrease in the company tax rate has been funded out of some magic pile, that it has been funded directly from workers. It has been funded by a general broadening of the company tax base. The taxation of company income in Australia was already more than competitive by international standards. Australia's corporate tax burden of 2.8 per cent of GDP is below the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development average of 3 per cent. This reform package should finally put paid to the myths peddled by the leader of the IXL Liberals, John Elliott-he who would Fosterise the Parliament-that Australia is a high taxing country. The crackdown on corporate tax rip-offs and international tax havens is welcomed. About 60 countries, including the Bahamas, Bermuda, the Channel and Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein and Monaco will be designated. Those are countries with nominal tax rates below 25 per cent or with domestic laws that shroud a foreign entity's real ownership and financial affairs in secrecy. Companies which seek to take advantage of those havens will now be taxed. Although it is fair, this reform will probably draw a negative response from Mr Elliott. It has been reported in the Australian Financial Review that the AFP Investment Corporation is moving its domicile to Monaco. Under the old system, that would have allowed it to avoid virtually all Australian tax. Guess which company is one of AFP's biggest shareholders: Yes, it is Elders-IXL Ltd with 19 per cent. So, again, one of the loopholes has been plugged. One of those devices that lead to tax avoidance has been changed. I now turn to the superannuation reforms in last night's statement. I am not sure whether the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) will continue the vein of his questions in Question Time, but I noted the Leader of the Opposition's comments that the coalition was studying the fine detail. I wish it luck in studying the fine detail, because I do not think that it will come to any conclusions different from those that are in the statements which accompanied the Treasurer's statement last night. The reforms to superannuation are a recognition of the cost in revenue forgone that has resulted from the treatment of superannuation for the purposes of taxation. In appendix A at page 18 of the paper Reform of the Taxation of Superannuation, which was tabled with the statement last night, we note the major sources of superannuation tax expenditure: under-taxation of pre-1983 lump sums, $1 billion; non-taxation of employer contributions, $1.8 billion; and no direct taxation of fund earnings, $2 billion. Those concessions are costed in gross terms in the Treasury's tax expenditure statement dated December 1987. I invite honourable members who have some interest in the tax arrangements for superannuation to study that paper, because in two models the Treasury has set out the different ways in which superannuation receives a tax concession. Therefore, I was amused to see an article in the Taxpayer, the journal of the Australian Taxpayers Association, which said boldly that there are no tax concessions for superannuation. Unfortunately, that is very much a nonsense and has to be recognised as such. The reforms to superannuation announced last night are generally welcome. The package honours the Government's commitment not to make any changes which would retrospectively reduce already accumulated end benefits. Shifting the 15 per cent tax burden from end benefits to deductable contributions will bring forward revenue but leave after tax benefits undiminished. Superannuation remains an integral part of the Government's retirement incomes policy. There is a great potential for the revenue brought forward under this change to be used to boost retirement income support and other areas of need. The inclusion of superannuation funds in the imputation system will greatly reduce the scope for tax avoidance. The fact that superannuation funds have not been eligible for imputation credits has produced distortions in investment behaviour. Allowing superannuation funds to utilise imputation credits to offset tax assessed on their income will limit their present distorting influences. The proposed taxation regime is intended to shift the funds' portfolio choice towards greater holdings of domestic equity yielding franked dividends, and that is a positive aspects of the proposals. As I said at the commencement of my speech, it is unfortunate that the Opposition's response to last night's statement has been predictable. Even more unfortunate was the predictability of the statement of policies by the Leader of the Opposition, which indicated that we would go back to the bad old days of the Fraser-Howard Government. Look at his comments on industrial relations-the evoking of some form of essential services legislation, which can lead only to confrontation. Again it would be an industrial relations policy based on confrontation. It disappoints me that, in the five years, the coalition has not moved away from those types of policies. It disappoints me that yet again tonight the Opposition has shown that, under any government that it was fortunate enough to form-for the Australian people it would be a misfortune-there would be a direct return to the policies of looking after the greedy at the expense of the needy. We only have to look at the way the Opposition would treat taxation. We only have to look at its stance on the referendums. All those proposals which would empower those disadvantaged in the community are being opposed by the coalition-opposed at the expense of those disadvantaged and to the advantage of those with the power. I think that that is a sad indictment of the way Australian politics is at the moment. This Government has taken the long, hard haul, as the Treasurer would describe it; and for the Leader of the Opposition to describe some of the things that have been undertaken as wimpish defies explanation. When he got up here tonight and indicated that he would take Australia down the road of Thatcherism, people would have reflected on what Margaret Thatcher has meant to the working-class people in the United Kingdom. I think that, in looking at that and in drawing their conclusion, they will know that we are lucky. We are lucky that, under the Hawke Government, we have seen definite progress. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.43) —Last night, the Commonwealth Treasurer (Mr Keating) made a most important economic statement to the House and to the nation. He commenced his address with the somewhat grandiose words: I will announce to the people of Australia far-reaching economic reforms that will take our nation into the twenty-first century. Perhaps he has more ambition than luck, but I think it most unlikely that he will be still with us, and certainly will be neither Prime Minister nor Treasurer, at the turn of the century. However, whatever the objectives of his address may have been, in substance it was, regrettably, what is best known as light on. I want to spend the time available to me tonight to address the issues of superannuation, which in the debates in this House today have really been demonstrated to be beyond both the capacity of the Treasurer to understand and the capacity of other people to be prepared even to ask questions of any depth about. My major concern is that, in the future-that twenty-first century of which the Treasurer speaks-Australian historians will look back on these days and at the Hawke-Keating Government's record, and I believe they will conclude that the last five years have introduced into the area of superannuation more utter chaos than has been seen at any other time this century. Having made that observation, may I pause and add that the Opposition does not oppose sensible reforms to superannuation; but the difficulty we are facing in the superannuation industry today is that it has constipation with reforms. In May 1983 we saw the first set of major tax changes. Prior to that, people were taxed on 5 per cent of their total amount at marginal tax rates. The changes introduced in that month meant that tax of 15 per cent was introduced on the first $55,000 and 30 per cent on everything over that. No sooner had we recovered from that change than we had a set of regulations introduced on the basis of Press releases. Finally, late last year we saw introduced into this House a piece of legislation on superannuation which I described on that occasion as a skeleton Bill. Little was I or anybody else to know that subsequently, when the regulations were introduced early this year, we would see the substance which, in many respects, has been but a stinking carcass of what is left of the superannuation situation in Australia today. We have heard much said by the Treasurer and other speakers from the Government and elsewhere about how the basic objective of the Government's retirement incomes policy is to ensure that all members of the population have an adequate and secure level of income in retirement; and of course the Opposition supports that perfectly clear and simple objective. What I find impossible to accept-and, frankly, I find difficult to understand-is how the Treasurer today in this House, in response to a question from me, made the observation that he saw no need to connect superannuation payments on the one hand with access to pensions on the other. It was a peculiar statement because elsewhere in the economic statement we were told by the Treasurer: Savings for retirement through superannuation (or other means) are not simply alternatives to age pensions. The Government considers that superannuation should be seen as providing benefits additional to the age pension. Later in the same document he stated: The Government wishes to encourage superannuation because it is a form of saving which is specifically designed to meet retirement income needs. The inevitable conclusion of those conflicting statements is that what we really need in Australia is a fully coordinated income maintenance policy which has two arms directed to the same objective: one to encourage people to save for their retirement, and the other to give those who, for one reason or another, are unable to achieve that level of saving an adequate income in retirement, funded by the state. But the fundamental problem which we have faced for many years in this country is what is best known as double dipping; that is, the capacity of people to save their superannuation throughout their 30 or 40 years in the work force, get their lump sum, dissipate it by one means or another and then, at age 65, come along and say, `I have no further financial resources, thank you very much. I can qualify under both the assets test and the means test. Please, will you give me a pension?'. Is it any wonder that this Government has made the point in documentation tabled in this House from the Department of Finance that the cost of now giving superannuation support is in excess of $2 billion to $3 billion a year? Indeed, the industry may question that; various people have done other studies. However, one thing is certain: the cost of superannuation support through taxation advantages is massive. What is equally certain is that the saving in terms of pensions is simply not there. In other words, the costs which all people in the community, whether they have superannuation or not, are providing to those who do have superannuation have not been adequately covered in relation to the ability of those who have cover to make a more substantial contribution to maintaining themselves in retirement. And why? So that more funds are then available to help those most in need in our community. For a government which claims to be full of compassion and concern, it is to me extraordinary that even now, after five years of consistent change to the basis of superannuation administration in this country, it has still not been able to introduce a viable set of regulations which cover all circumstances in relation to vesting, preservation and portability. One may well ask why. I do not know why, because nobody from the Treasurer down, on the Government's side, has ever bothered to tell this nation why. But we do know that when the Government introduced the regulations it made some worthwhile changes in those three key areas of superannuation planning. However, what the Government did not do was cover the two million-odd Australians who currently had superannuation but who were not affected by those regulations. One of the weaknesses in the current structure was that people could take their contributions plus, in some cases, their employer contributions as a form of deferred pay every time they changed jobs. Consequently, when they finally got to age 60 or 65 years or, under this particular Administration, 55 years of age, they could say, `We have no viable superannuation left'. I found it extraordinary to note in last night's economic statement a number of things. Firstly, the Treasurer claims that there are to be no losers under this arrangement; in other words, the benefits which accrue to existing superannuants will remain intact. He says this despite the fundamental changes to the way in which tax will be applied to superannuation funds. Let me look at this now in more detail. We are told, for example, that the existing lump sum tax will be removed and that it will be replaced by a tax on the income earning of funds. The Opposition has no objection in principle to a change in the structure of tax on superannuation. However, we have very real doubts about the level of tax which should be applied. Why? We object for two reasons. Firstly, we object because since May 1983 the objective of this Government, covered as it has been by a very efficient smokescreen, has really been directed at increasing revenue. We were told by the Treasurer last night that the Government would be able to increase revenue by over $1 billion by having an income tax on superannuation. The problem with the old lump sum tax, as far as this Government was concerned, was that the level of tax it garnered from beneficiaries was too small. It is true that it was going up by about 30 per cent a year, but it was a miserable $120m-odd. Since 1983 the Government had been looking down the road and seeing that pot of gold which represents-every penny of it-the contributions of employers and employees and, except for public servants, not the contributions of government except, of course, in terms of the tax support I referred to earlier. The Government said to itself, `Why should we remain with this miserable little return when it is possible for us to get access to this $1 billion golden handshake at the end?'. Naturally, of course, that was the direction in which it went. Now we have a situation in which, the Government claims, there are no losers. But the evidence is building up that that is not so. The Treasurer said that the object of the exercise was to protect people who had lump sum benefits of around $60,000. Those people with benefits above that would still continue to pay a lump sum tax of 15 per cent. I must emphasise that that was in fact not a 15 per cent tax but a 16.25 per cent tax because it also involved the addition of a Medicare levy. That tax will be applied as a hidden fringe benefits tax on the contributions put into funds by management-by the employer. Those contributions will be taxed. Secondly, the dividend generated from the investment of those funds also will be taxed at 16.25 per cent. If one is unlucky enough to have done the right thing and tried to take the maximum level of superannuation coverage that one could afford and, therefore, have a lump sum benefits in excess of $60,000, one will have a third level of 16.25 per cent tax imposed. This is in spite of those key words of the Treasurer in the documentation to the effect that there would be `no double taxation'. Perhaps I cannot count, as probably I will be told by members of the Government, but the fact is that if we have three levels of tax it can hardly be denied that that is triple taxation. That is just one example. The more we look in detail at this situation, as demonstrated by the way in which the Treasurer was not able to answer my questions in the House today, the more we realise that this is evidence that he does not even, for example, understand the very real difference between a pensioner on a benefit, especially for a widow or for somebody who has been forced out of the work force for physical or mental reasons, and a person who is a genuine retiree. The genuine retiree does quite well under this arrangement provided, as I said, the lump sum is below $60,000. However, if one is a widow of a would-be retiree one will be taxed at that additional 16.25 per cent. If one has to leave one's job for physical, mental or other reasons one will also be taxed that 16.25 per cent. However, one need not worry because we have a government that is totally wedded to compassion and concern! Concern for whom? The reality of the program is simply this: in the administration of superannuation we are now facing the fact that over the next five years or so we will see a very real reduction in the 200,000 individual superannuation schemes in this nation. What will come out of that is a growth of vast superannuation funds. The existing life offices will be the basis of that. That is inevitable because the cost structure now associated with trying to manage a small superannuation scheme is simply beyond the capacity of small business, in fact, probably of most business. It will certainly be beyond the capacity of individuals. The result will be that while on one hand the Government has introduced full tax imputation which, incidentally, it sees as a virtue, on the other hand, on the obverse of the coin, it has introduced non-taxing superannuation. This represents the most extraordinary use of language I have seen. If one says to the industry, `Do you want full imputation or do you want to have tax free status?', I can tell honourable members that one will get a 100 per cent vote for the latter and a zero vote for the former. Nevertheless, the Government has given the industry imputation with the objective of having more funds coming into the market. However, there is again the very real risk that the flowing in of those funds will cause another boom in the stock market. The Government has to determine the economic implications of that for investment planning. There are just not enough Australian companies on the stock market which have a full capacity for imputation at this stage. The major difficulty is that we are talking about funds of over $80 billion, of which about $20 billion currently is offshore-much of which will now have to come back to Australia. The reforms which the Government has introduced are absolutely fundamental. Whether they will achieve the objectives which the Government has set remains to be seen. We support the advantages which will result from this legislation, especially for the self-employed who will get an increased cover. They will now get $3,000, although that is still not indexed as it should be. There are other reforms in the package which are well worth while. However, my basic plea is: do not keep changing the basis of superannuation in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEE(Dobell)(8.59) —For my sins, it appears to be my role in this House to follow the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) on many occasions. While I quite enjoy responding to the comments which the honourable member makes, it is often difficult to tie the honourable member down when he makes a bit of a blunder. I suppose the most famous is the occasion when he mixed up the Sydney suburbs of Mount Druitt and Campbelltown. After pointing that out to the House he then went away and altered the Hansard of his speech so that the Hansard did not confirm the fact that he had mixed up the suburbs of Mount Druitt and Campbelltown. That is perhaps understandable because the honourable member represents an electorate on the North Shore of Sydney. Tonight we have had another example of the honourable member for Bradfield making a bit of a mistake. When he sought to explain what action this Government took in 1983 to change the tax on lump sum superannuation, he made a bit of a mistake. He claimed that in 1983 the Government introduced a tax of 15 per cent on lump sums under $60,000 and a further tax of 30 per cent on lump sums over $60,000. He completely forget to mention-or perhaps he did not understand-that the component of the lump sum which has accumulated before July 1983 is still taxed at the old rate. It is only the proportion of the lump sum which has accumulated after July 1983 which is subject to the 15-30 per cent rate. The honourable member for Bradfield completely ignored that, but I would not be surprised if later on tonight the Hansard proof is altered and even that problem gets fixed up. The honourable member went on to say that he was upset that someone who retired with a lump sum of more than $60,000 would still pay 16.25 per cent tax. I was a little surprised at the arithmetic of the honourable member, because he forgot to mention that, given that the Government will be taking 15 per cent of the employer's contribution and the fund earnings, those people will be paying exactly the same amount of tax as they are paying today. Today they pay 31.25 per cent, and if one adds 15 per cent to 16.25 per cent, one gets the same figure-31.25 per cent. Quite simply, the honourable member for Bradfield does not understand the changes that have been made to superannuation. Given that earlier this year he was seeking to whip up controversy and create fear in the community over the question of lump sum superannuation taxation, it is perhaps understandable that he is seeking to make the Government's changes appear as bad as possible. Perhaps he is to blame for the fact that the former Minister for Roads in Queensland, Mr Russ Hinze, retired a couple of days early. We now know that if Mr Hinze had not followed the advice of the honourable member for Bradfield, who thought that the Government would increase taxes on lump sums, and if he had retired after yesterday rather than before, he would have been better off. Perhaps that is a question that Mr Hinze and the honourable member for Bradfield can discuss later. The changes the Government has made to lump sum superannuation are fair and equitable. The Government is reducing the tax concessions which are currently going to those very high salary earners, perhaps general managers or senior executives of large companies, who arranged as part of their salary packages to receive very generous superannuation. Because the Government does not tax the employer's contribution or the earnings of superannuation funds, people on salary packages of over $100,000 a year could receive extremely large tax concessions from the Government. So the Government has said that it will cut back the tax concessions that the wealthy salary earners are getting. I fully support that proposal. It will ensure that the Government has more funds to provide tax cuts to ordinary wage and salary earners next year. In addition, I totally endorse the announcement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that he will introduce a secure tax file numbering system to ensure that people who earn interest on bank accounts and receive share dividends pay their fair share of tax. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would know, the Government sought to introduce the Australia Card proposal last year and it was blocked by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars in tax are currently being avoided by people who receive share dividends and earn very large amounts of interest. Mr Sharp —Shame! Mr LEE —The honourable member for Gilmore says that it was a shame to seek to introduce the Australia Card. He forgets that at various stages he advocated the introduction of the Australia Card on his own local radio and television stations when he did not think anyone was listening. I shall be very interested to see how he votes on the modified tax file number proposal, because he knows how fair the system is. The honourable member knows it is wrong for people to be receiving income from interest on share dividends and not to be paying their fair share of tax. I will bet that all the pensioners in the electorate he represents are forced by the Commissioner of Taxation to pay their fair share of interest, and I want to make sure that those on the very high incomes who are receiving share dividends and interest payments also pay their fair share of tax. In my view, the biggest winners from the May economic statement were the pensioners, and, given the fact that my electorate contains the largest number of pensioners of any electorate in New South Wales, one can understand that that is a major factor in my analysis of the statement. The Treasurer increased the pensioner tax rebate from $250 to $430 from 1 July this year. That means that a pensioner can earn up to $10 a week in non-pension income before starting to pay income tax. At the moment pensioners start to pay income tax after receiving a little more than $3 a week of non-pension income, and that is too low. I am pleased that the amount has been increased to $10 a week. In addition, any pensioner, whether a social security or repatriation pensioner, receiving less than $10,332 a year will receive some benefit from this increase in the pensioner tax rebate. Better than that, the Treasurer has announced that he will be increasing the provisional tax threshold for pensioners by implementing a decision that any age pensioner, service pension or social security pensioner earning less than $10,332 a year will be exempt from provisional tax. I totally endorse that proposal. It means that more than 225,000 pensioners will be removed from the provisional tax net. I have raised this issue in parliament on a number of occasions at the request of several combined pensioners associations in my electorate such as the Mannering Park, Gorokan and Toukley combined pensioners branches, so I am very happy to endorse the Treasurer's decision. It will certainly alleviate a lot of anxiety and pain amongst pensioners who have received assessments for provisional tax. Many of them do not know what to do with the forms; they do not understand why they have suddenly received a provisional tax assessment, and the Treasurer's decision to exempt pensioners earning less than $10,332 from provisional tax is something that I hope will have the endorsement of members on both sides of the House. The Treasurer announced last night that from 1 July company tax will be reduced from 49 per cent to 39 per cent. This is being funded by a reduction in the tax concessions which the business community currently receives. The Government will abolish the 5/3 depreciation ratio concession and will introduce a tax on earnings from foreign tax havens such as the Bermudas and other places like the Caribbean. In addition, from 1991 the Government will be introducing a tax on the profits from goldmining-a tax which I believe is fair. Given the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave an assurance that no gold tax would be introduced during the life of this Parliament, the Government has made a very responsible decision in this area. The Treasurer also announced that the reduction in company tax is to be paid for by an increase in the prescribed payments system deduction rate from 15 per cent to 20 per cent. I understand there is some evidence that a number of taxpayers involved in the building game and other industries are prepared to allow the Commissioner of Taxation to take the 15 per cent prescribed payments system deductions, remain hidden and never put in any tax returns, so the fact that the Government will now be getting 20 per cent rather than 15 per cent of these earnings is certainly a step forward. In the film industry the Government has taken the long overdue decision to abolish the 10ba concession. Given that many hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue have been lost because of that concession, I applaud the Government's decision to abolish it along with the decision to establish a fund this year of $70m to assist the Australian film industry. I emphasise, to those who say that the Government is providing company tax cuts this year and no income tax cuts until next year, that the company tax reductions will not be paid out of the Budget until 1 July 1989, so the companies will not be receiving that benefit until about the same time as the personal income taxpayers. The bravest decision contained in the May statement was the decision to reduce tariff protection-an area which has been very controversial in Australia for at least the last 15 years. There has been a lot of debate about the extent of industry protection in Australia. The statement contains a provision to reduce protection to a maximum of 15 per cent for any industry, and for those industries currently receiving between 10 per cent and 15 per cent protection, the rate of protection will be reduced to 10 per cent. I suppose one has to understand protection for Australian industry in its historical context. The National Party of Australia, whose members claim to represent free enterprise, was the party that sought to increase protection any time an industry ever got into trouble. An industry would come cap in hand to Sir John McEwen or any of the other National Party or Liberal Party Ministers of the day, and the Government's response to its problems was to provide higher tariff levels or to increase the value of the dollar, even though it was already overvalued. The result was that Australian industry was strangled; it got fat and lazy and inefficient. It has taken a government of the Hawke-Keating mould to take the tough decisions to wind back protection, to float the dollar and provide incentive for Australian industry, especially manufacturing industry, to improve its game, become more efficient and to look for export-led growth. I happily endorse the May economic statement and I look forward to some positive contributions from the Opposition, given the excellent proposals currently before the House. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(9.10) —Last night the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced an expanded tax file number system, ostensibly to enhance the Australian Taxation Office's income matching system. Under this system interest reports, such as are made on interest and dividends, are supplied to the Tax Office and are then matched against the details supplied by the recipient to identify any omissions or understatements of income. Previously, income matching was carried out by attempting to match name and address details, a cumbersome and not always successful method. The new arrangements mean that the expanded tax file number will be used in the principal areas in which income reports are currently obtained by the Taxation Office. For example, these new arrangements will apply to bank and building society accounts, cash management and property trusts and the purchase of shares in public companies. There is, however, another matter, not mentioned by the Treasurer, that could be intimately connected with this expanded tax file number. The Government currently has before it, awaiting signature, a document known as the OECD Convention on Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters. On 23 March 1988 during the adjournment debate I spoke at great length about this document, particularly highlighting the horrendous implications for the privacy of Australians should the Government decide to sign. This Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention involves the international exchange of confidential tax information on Australian companies and individuals. The Convention encompasses not only major corporate and personal taxes, but also motor registration fees, minor local government charges and a catch-all clause for any other taxes. As a result of the provisions of this tax treaty an Australian tourist could be relentlessly pursued over some unpaid minor government charge, unknowingly incurred while travelling overseas. Australia as a signatory to this convention would be compelled to surrender to a foreign government tax files, computer tapes or any other information foreseeably relevant to the company or individual concerned. The Government's expanded tax file number system will greatly facilitate this should we become a signatory to the Convention. In the case of this Convention's powers being used against an Australian company, it is not inconceivable that, in a foreign country where there is a close relationship between government and certain business interests, on a favour owed basis a foreign government could request the taxation files of an Australian company with whom the business in the foreign country is in competition. The advantages a competing foreign company will thus gain through this are self-evident. Documents I have obtained from the Australian Taxation Office under the Freedom of Information Act show that numerous countries have already indicated that they have reservations concerning this Convention. They include the United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark and West Germany, whilst Luxembourg, Portugal, Austria and Switzerland have gone as far as stating their total opposition to signing it. Others of the freedom of information documents I have received show that Australia has legal and other difficulties with the OECD Convention and that the facility for the spontaneous exchange of information already exists. The documents further show that, where there are problems with the existing arrangements, the Australian Taxation Office is working them out with the countries concerned. The existing methods of exchanging information were covered briefly in my speech of 23 March last. On that occasion I said: Australians need to ask this Labor Government why they are seriously considering signing this tax treaty when Australia is already a signatory to a treaty of mutual assistance in criminal matters. This clearly covers taxation offences to the extent that they prima facie constitute a criminal offence. In addition, existing bilateral agreements between OECD member nations satisfactorily cover the matter of double taxation. A file note dated 29 September 1987 under the FOI material obtained from the Taxation Office says: Australia had indicated earlier it had a number of objections which have been partly overcome. Reading this it is not unreasonable to presume that the legal and other difficulties I earlier referred to are being smoothed over with a view to allowing the Government to sign the Convention. A further FOI document, a file note from the Tax Office dated 1 March 1988, refers to a telephone conversation between a taxation officer and an officer of the Attorney-General's Department. The file note records that the officer from the Attorney-General's Department advised the Tax Office that the OECD Convention would need to be ratified by parliament to have the force of law. This requirement will, thankfully, ensure that before the Government can foist this Convention upon us it will have to bring it out into the open. It will not be able to keep it secreted away from the scrutiny of the Parliament and the electorate, something it has gone to extraordinary lengths to do thus far. The Taxation Office's treatment of my FOI request has been quite extraordinary. It decided to refuse me access to about 90 per cent of the available documents for the reason that it considered they were documents affecting national security, defence or international relations under section 33 of the Freedom of Information Act. The documents exempted under section 33 were exempted because `disclosure would be contrary to the public interest for the reason that the disclosure would, or could, reasonably be expected to cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth'. That is an incredible process of reasoning. It really is Sir Humphrey at his best. All I asked for were documents relating to a tax treaty that will affect every Australian individual and company. From the Tax Office's reaction one would have thought I had asked for the latest astrology chart on President Reagan. It is not good in a healthy democracy to keep secret from the people documents such as this OECD Convention. If we become a signatory to it, it will affect each and every one of us. We all have a right to know just what it involves. On advice from experts familiar with dealing with OECD documents I have now taken the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in an effort to gain access to more of these documents that the Government seems so intent on keeping secret from the Australian people. The Opposition does not see a problem of itself with the expanded tax file number system. However, we will be examining the detailed proposals very carefully, particularly given the implications it would have if this Government were to sign the OECD Convention. Listening to the Treasurer's speech and reading the accompanying documentation, the expanded tax file number system appears to have some value in preventing the tax avoiders from further ripping off the honest taxpayers. In concluding, I seek leave to table documents from the Australian Taxation Office obtained under the Freedom of Information Act in relation to the OECD Convention on Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters. Leave granted. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(9.18) —The May economic statement is fundamentally different from a number of earlier such statements in the sense that it is a comprehensive economic statement as distinct from a fiscal policy statement of the sort that we have seen earlier. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and others have pointed out, there is a comprehensive array of structural changes embodied in the statement and, considered together, they amount to one of the most significant sets of economic policy changes that have occurred since the Government was elected. As such the statement deserves very serious consideration by all honourable members. In assessing these changes I believe that it is necessary to look at them from two broad perspectives. The first is to ask in what way they contribute to the economic restructuring task the Government faces. All sides of the political spectrum acknowledge that the Australian economy needs to be fundamentally restructured if we are to achieve an external payments balance and the potential for rising living standards in the long term. We need to reduce our dependence on primary commodity exports and increase our production of high value-added manufactured and sophisticated services. That much is common ground amongst virtually all participants in the Australian economic policy debate. Of course, there is a great deal of difference among those participants about how best to achieve that structural change. Obviously, this economic statement aims to make a contribution towards facilitating that process. Another aspect that needs careful consideration is the contribution that the measures contained in this statement make to the achievement of greater social equity. In other words, to what extent do they contribute to or detract from the goals embodied in the Government's social justice strategy? I intend to deal with those two areas separately. I will talk first about the contribution that the measures make to the task of economic restructuring. There are two aspects of this. One is the broad macro-economic strategy that is involved in the statements. We see a continuation of the attempt to constrain government expenditures, to reduce the Government's call on financial markets. That is consistent with what has been done in all the earlier Budgets and economic statements. There is some controversy there in the sense that there is a view that the Government's Budget deficit on the one hand and the current account deficit on the other are closely linked. That viewpoint is described as the twin deficits hypothesis. It underpins a lot of current thinking about fiscal policy. I have some doubts about the validity of the so-called twin deficits hypothesis. I think the link between Budgets and current account deficits is nothing like as strong as some protagonists of that viewpoint would have us believe. That is one aspect of the strategy embodied in this document. We see, to that end, a continuation of expenditure restraint. The degree of expenditure cuts involved here is relatively modest by comparison with some of the earlier statements; nonetheless the broad strategy continues. The other aspect of the strategy involves the wide range of measures addressed to the so-called micro-economic reform in an attempt to achieve better performance at the individual firm and industry level. A range of things embodying both the private and public sector is involved here. Changes are made to the business tax system, to tariff protection, to the regulatory framework within which government enterprises operate and to a whole range of things which I will not attempt to describe at length. The Government is aiming with a combination of these measures to bring about a leaner and more efficient economy. I turn to the changes in business taxation. An attempt is being made to achieve a so-called level playing field. We have seen a substantial one-off cut from 49 per cent to 39 per cent in the rate of company tax, which is to be funded in the long run by the elimination or reduction of a range of existing tax concessions, the major ones being the accelerated depreciation provision and such things as the research development concession. I will not attempt to list them all but the 5/3 depreciation provision is the major one so far as the revenue effects are concerned. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the elimination of those concessions will produce savings over a number of years. We will not see the full value of those savings for several years, so for the next couple of years the Government will experience a net loss of revenue as a result of the changes to the business tax system. It is important when evaluating those changes to look at the economic task facing the Government. As I said at the outset, all sides of the political spectrum acknowledge that the Australian economy needs to be substantially restructured. The main thrust of Government policy is to try to effect a shift of resources into the internationally traded goods sector in an attempt to produce an increased level of investment in that sector. There are a couple of aspects of this matter that cause me a bit of disquiet. According to a study presented by the Bureau of Industry Economics to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, if one eliminates the accelerated depreciation provision, or substantially reduces it, as has now been done-we have economic life plus a 20 per cent loading-the effect on the cost of capital is reasonably significant. According to the Bureau's estimation, as the average gearing ratio for Australian companies is 25 to 30 per cent we would need to reduce the company tax rate from 49 per cent to 24 per cent to offset completely the effects of eliminating the accelerated depreciation on the cost of capital. That is a bit of a worry. In addition, restructuring business tax by funding a cut in the general level of company tax through the elimination of or a substantial reduction in the accelerated depreciation provision tends to disadvantage industries where plant and equipment have a relatively long economic life. To a considerable extent, that involves the manufacturing and mining sectors, which are precisely the internationally traded goods sectors that we need to transfer resources into if we are to bring about structural adjustment. I have some difficulties with that proposition. I make those few observations because the economic effect of this sort of combination of change is controversial. If one believes that market forces ought to be supreme and sovereign it is not a problem. To the extent that it brings about such a shift in emphasis, there are those who would say that that is not a bad thing, that it would produce a more efficient and ultimately productive allocation of resources. I am not so certain about that and I wonder how those various effects will net out. However, there is a whole range of extremely positive measures in respect of the business tax system. I am very pleased to see that we are finally tackling a number of hard core avoidance mechanisms which people have complained about for some time. One is the abuse of overseas tax havens. We will finally see that tackled in a serious way. The inter-corporate dividend rebate provided for under section 46 of the Income Tax Assessment Act has been subject to considerable abuse over the years. Quite a bit of hard core avoidance has revolved around the abuse of that particular form of rebate. I am very pleased that the Government has sought to tackle that problem. I have a suspicion that the revenues stipulated in the statement will be substantially exceeded in some of these measures, as was the case with the income tax base broadening measures undertaken in 1985. There is a whole range of aspects to this. One is the tariff changes which, by and large, leave the existing industry plans more or less intact. There are some changes but they are not major. I am very pleased that the Government has recognised the importance of providing a climate of stability and predictability in which the process of industry restructuring and investment can take place. The hard core market forces advocates would favour slashing protection and disregard industry plans, but those voices have been overcome. I think that the approach that the Government has taken in that area will not meet with too much difficulty from either the employer or the employee side of the industries concerned. However, I believe that it is important to monitor the effects of the changes and to make sure that appropriate adjustment measures are in place to complement the changes in tariff protection. The statement also addresses a range of social equity measures that make a positive contribution. The superannuation changes tackle a very delicate problem in a way which is both consistent with equity and reasonably politically astute. The Opposition has tried to portray these changes as a pea and thimble trick when in fact they alter the time scale in which revenue collections have to be made in that area. I believe that what has been done there has been very intelligently constructed. I congratulate all those involved in the Government in putting that together. The Government also has altered the taxation of pensioners, with a substantial increase in the pensioner tax rebate. That is very equitable and is something we can all applaud, together with the easing of the provisional tax arrangements. Finally I refer to the announcement by the Government that it is reviewing, as well as substantially reforming, the regulatory framework within which government business enterprises operate. It is also looking at possibly exempting the airlines and the Australian National Line from the Loan Council global borrowing restrictions. I regard that as a very positive step. One of the artificial factors behind the drive for privatisation in recent times has been the cosmetic reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement that can be achieved by transferring these things from the public sector to the private sector. That is utterly spurious and I am very glad that the Government has recognised that borrowing by government business enterprises has essentially the same economic impact as borrowing by private enterprises engaged in essentially the same type of commercial activity. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(9.31) —I note the very perceptive comments that have been made by the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), particularly when he related his comments to the effect of the company taxation change and the accelerated depreciation changes in relation to it. As this is my final speech in this provisional Parliament House and after almost 16 years of having the privilege to represent the electorate of Mallee, I am sure you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, one sentence of tolerance to acknowledge the loyalty and talents of my staff in my electoral office and the support, of course, of my wife, Judy, who is in the House tonight, and my two children, Tony and Nicole. I am sure that you will also allow me some tolerance to acknowledge the fact that Australia's primary industries, both mining and agriculture, have contributed some 80 per cent of our export income over many decades. This is evenly divided between agricultural income, of some 40 per cent, and mining income, of 40 per cent. It is a fact that it will now take every dollar produced by these primary industries from exports over the next 15 years to pay for debts that have been incurred on overseas borrowings. Despite the significance of this continued production to the future of our nation, I have to say that government policies have aggravated our economic circumstances through excessive taxation on production imports. This mini-Budget has continued that trend. Declining cereal prices have been the direct result of international market factors. However, the continued increase in farm costs is a direct result of domestic factors. These industries acknowledge that it is difficult to influence the price received for commodities. They firmly believe that a number of domestic matters can be influenced to reduce the magnitude of the increases in farm cost and hence improve farm incomes. At the same time as commodity price drops have been occurring, Australia's inflation rate is much higher than that of our competitors. It is interesting to look at some comparisons. In 1987 Australia's inflation rate was 9.3 per cent; in the United States it was 3.7 per cent; and in the United Kingdom it was 4 per cent. The major effect of high inflation has been to place upward pressure on producers' costs of production, which in turn has seriously eroded growers' incomes. A recent Victorian rural economic study by Professor Alan Lloyd commented: The task for macro-economic policy is to exploit the gain in competitiveness already achieved which requires that inflation be contained. This involves further wage and fiscal restraint to provide reasonable outcomes on the balance of payment, also lower interest rates to stimulate investment. It is therefore quite obvious that, so long as our domestic rate of inflation remains at a high level, cost pressures will continue and the full effects of devaluation of the exchange rate will not be realised. Of course, the most significant impact on rural industry has been interest rates and there is no doubt that Australian levels of prime bank interest rates seriously disadvantage producers with our competitors. The dependence of the Government on monetary policy has contributed significantly to the record real rates of interest. The Government has argued that this policy was necessary to defend the dollar against further devaluations and to slow domestic demands and growth in order to prevent the re-emergence of inflationary pressures. It is generally recognised that interest rates, when they were at record high levels, were five percentage points higher than they might otherwise have been in the absence of a high interest rate policy. This represented a cost of $6,000 per farm. It is clear that Australia's international competitiveness is still being eroded by the comparatively high interest rates and inflation. Importantly for the primary industry sector which sells its produce on the international markets, the domestic cost structure reflects the high rate of inflation, whereas the income levels have not inflated. Therefore, the Government should have a responsibility to maintain Australia's comparative advantage in agriculture and other export and import competing industries. The level of interest rates nearly doubled from around 13.5 per cent to 20 per cent and sometimes higher in the years 1984 to 1987. This has had a significant impact on growers, particularly growers in my electorate of Mallee. Some farmers who were debt free in 1981 or 1982 and bought land became unviable because of the accumulated effect of the corrupted international markets, the increase in farm costs and the effect of interest rates. The extent to which interest rates have added to farm costs is highlighted by the fact that, as a proportion of total costs, the interest component of costs increased from 11 per cent in 1983-84 to about 18 per cent in 1985-86. Mr McGauran —It is this Government's responsibility. Mr PETER FISHER —Yes, it is. Some farmers who borrowed heavily in the late 1970s and early 1980s subsequently were unable to fund repayments and now have a vast accumulated debt. Naturally, the rate at which the debt has been accumulating has been significantly increased by this record level of interest rates. The Federal Government, through rural adjustment schemes, subsidised interest rates for some farmers. Some, however, have moved so swiftly from a position of being debt free and viable to being debt burdened and non-viable that they were not eligible for the rural adjustment scheme support. It is therefore likely, as interest rates ease, that some people, particularly governments, will assume that the problem of high interest rates has gone away and is of no concern. This is not the case for those producers who are left with the legacy of the high interest rate period. Some wheatgrowers in my electorate have had to borrow money this year to plant their crops. Some growers in my electorate have been denied the capacity to borrow money to plant their crops. They, unlike producers in other industries, cannot defer investment decisions until the price of money falls to a reasonable level. Furthermore, they cannot expect to pass on the high cost of interest rates. Farmers, therefore, must borrow money in accordance with the seasonal and biological nature of their operation. If the crop is not profitable they must carry that loss onto the following year. If the level of that loss is worsened by the level of interest rates, that too will be carried forward into future years. It is important that government, when making decisions that affect agricultural policy, recognise two factors: firstly, some producers have had virtually no choice but to borrow money at interest rates at record levels just to plant their crops; secondly, many are still carrying forward a debt that is in part due to those record interest rates. The viability of these farmers has been destroyed and many in the industry carry the legacy of the former high interest rate regime. The following trends in the distribution of grain growers' income emphasise what has happened. In 1984-85, 25 per cent of wheat producers had a negative income of more than $13,653. In 1986-87, the same number of producers had a negative income of almost double, $27,000. In 1984-85, 50 per cent of producers had an income of less than $10,584, and in 1986-87 the same number of producers had an income of less than $2,700. Mr McGauran —Absolute poverty. Mr PETER FISHER —It is poverty. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the tragedy is that the rural sector still contributes some 40 per cent of our export earnings. I want to link my opening remarks about the state of agricultural industries in this country to what has happened in this mini-Budget. One would have expected this Government to have acknowledged the contribution that agricultural industries have made. In this time of rural crisis-which still exists in almost all agricultural industries, probably with the exception of wool-one would have expected that there would have been some recognition of this factor. The agricultural sector and the rural sectors which depend upon it have borne the burden of adjustment more than any other sector. In this mini-Budget some $100m has been taken from the agricultural sector. Mr Lloyd —How much? Mr PETER FISHER —It is $100m. This year $10.4m has been taken from wool promotion. The termination of the fertiliser subsidy amounts to $37m. Of course, it is proposed that domestic pricing arrangements be changed in the sugar, dried vine fruit, tobacco, citrus and dairying industries. We will see price underwriting tightened up in several areas for the wheat, dairying, apple and pear and dried vine fruit industries. We will see $11m taken from livestock producers with additional costs for export inspection services. Of course, we acknowledge the fact that the whole rural community will suffer from the $50m being taken from our road network. I acknowledge, of course, that there have been some gains for the rural sector, particularly in relation to soil conservation, the proposals to reduce the level of salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin and the addition to the rural adjustment scheme. But I simply say that the additions to the rural adjustment scheme have basically been in the areas of welfare and rehabilitation. There has been no money-- Mr Lavarch —What about IEDs? Mr PETER FISHER —I will mention IEDs in a minute. No money at all has been put into the rural adjustment scheme to enable people to stay on their properties. The only money that has been put into rural adjustment has been to ensure that people who have to move out of the farming areas can do so with some dignity. I conclude by mentioning the income equalisation deposits scheme. We introduced this scheme when in government. It was highly successful. But the Government of honourable members opposite emasculated it as soon as they got into office. By bringing this measure back into rural policy the Government is simply acknowledging its mistake-and I am pleased that it has done so. But I say to honourable members opposite, as a representative of a broadacre farming area in Victoria: if the income equalisation deposits scheme had still been in place in 1982-83, many of the tragedies may not have occurred with the impact on about 1,500 primary producing properties. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(9.44) —I am pleased to rise in support of this package of economic measures that make up the May statement. I congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on what almost every expert commentator around the country has said is a responsible package of economic reforms which will put this country in the forefront of Western world economies. It would probably not be apt if I did not make some comment with respect to the 26 minutes of drivel that we heard tonight from none other than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He was all decked out and he had all of the media watching him. But, in real terms, it was a negative statement-more like that of a little boy who had just had his marbles taken away from him. He said that we took the Opposition's idea from it. Maybe we did take some of the Opposition's ideas, because they just happened to coincide with some of ours. The fact is that when honourable members opposite were in government they did not have the guts to implement them. The Leader of the Opposition blames this Government for the international debt. But, in real terms, what he does not say is that the international debt is not the fault entirely or even largely of this Government; it is attributable to State government borrowings, State government statutory authorities and the private sector. So it is incorrect and an absolute untruth to say that the international debt is all the fault of this Government. I have said previously on a number of occasions in this House that the Leader of the Opposition has become nothing short of a clone of Senator John Stone-and he proved that here again tonight. In fact, looking at the way he attacked the industrial unions and talked about privatisation and everything else, it was obvious that the speech had been written by Senator John Stone. This attack on the union movement, as I said, and on our system of industrial relations and arbitration in this country, was clear evidence of this fact. His whole demeanour was that of a frustrated and bewildered man. He could not fault the Treasurer's statement, so he had to resort to nitpicking, because that is all he could do. His parting cheap shot at the Treasurer was indicative of the quality of what he had to say. This Government in fact has had the courage to do what the Opposition, with all its rhetoric over the many years its members were in office, did not have the guts to do. It has been this Government that has been prepared to make the hard decisions. It was this Government that floated the Australian dollar; that tackled the deregulation of the financial markets. The people of the financial markets throughout the world decide the value of our dollar on world markets, rather than the old rate fixing system with the managed rate that we had in the past which, of course, in part at least, contributed to the balance of trade problems we have had over the last five years and which this Government has done a lot to redress. Mr Lavarch —A courageous decision. Mr SCIACCA —It was a courageous decision, as the honourable member for Fisher says. The Government has introduced far-ranging measures of taxation which have now become a permanent part of the economy, such as the fringe benefits tax, the assets test and, of course, the capital gains tax. These are measures which the Opposition has howled about for many years. But, in fact, not only did we win the last election but we will win the next one as well. They are measures which the Opposition, if it ever got into power, would most certainly retain. The Opposition has been desperately trying to discredit these economic measures since they were introduced last night. But, in my submission to this House, it has failed miserably to do so. In fact, at Question Time today, when one would have expected an array of questions on the economy and on the May economic statement, what did we get? We got two questions from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) about superannuation. That really was it. There might have been a few other furphies, but they were the only two substantive questions asked. I want to talk a little bit about the change in superannuation arrangements. I am sure that I am not Robinson Crusoe when I say that, as a member of this House, I have had to listen to numerous inquiries from constituents. Over the last four months they have asked me, `What will happen to our superannuation? Will we lose half of it? How will these changes affect us?'. Of course, I have tried to tell these people what in effect the Treasury has told me; and I told them as well the answer that was given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this House to a question from the Opposition. That answer made it very clear that the Government would not consider any changes which would impact adversely on already accrued superannuation benefits. Further, the Prime Minister, in answer to the question, said that superannuation will continue to be treated on a concessional basis. The saddest aspect of all these questions, all these media reports and all these mischievous attacks by this Opposition is that for the sake of scoring cheap political points honourable members opposite undertook a scaremongering campaign to the point where the public started to believe some of their lies and propaganda. Aided and abetted by some sections of the media, people started to get worried and concerned. Some of them actually telephoned me and asked, `What is your advice? What are you going to do?'. Of course I usually do give good advice, as the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) knows. The position is that I said them, `Look, I can't tell you any more than what the Prime Minister said in answer to the question'. I have already told the House what that was. Mr Lavarch —Russ Hinze did not wait to retire. Mr SCIACCA —As the honourable member for Fisher indicates, as it turned out had the member for the South Coast in the Queensland Parliament waited one more day he might have been a bit richer. He believed the propaganda of his Opposition mates down here who sold him down the drain, as well as many of their supporters who retired on lump sums as a result of the scaremongering that the Opposition went on with. A number of people contacted me with regard to these fear tactics. They included a magistrate, a couple of school principals and airline pilots. In fact, I was contacted by everyone who worked at the Ampol refinery in my electorate-ordinary working people who had put away a little bit of money for their retirement and who were scared by what these people over here were saying, aided and abetted by some sections of the media. Some sections of the media went along with the Opposition. Some of the publications that came out, and I have had a look at a couple of them, indicate just how bad that misrepresentation was. The Australian Taxpayers Association's newsletter dated 27 February 1988 carried the headline, `52.6 per cent slug planned on retirement lump sums?'. The article stated: Income tax of a flat 30 per cent can be taken on all but a return of employee contributions. Calculations on following pages show a 15 per cent tax on superfund income charged year by year, with 30 per cent tax on the lump sum when received, is equal to an overall 52.6 per cent if charged on retirement. Of course that is absolute hogwash, as it turned out. This group even published a table which said how much people would lose. It was absolutely disgraceful. It was disgraceful because this association was being fed and leaked all sorts of stupid information from members of the Opposition, and probably from the honourable member from Maranoa himself. Mr Ian Cameron —Tell us about your new taxes on super. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will refrain from interjecting. Mr SCIACCA —Thank you for your help, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not really all that concerned; the honourable member for Maranoa makes some fairly inane interjections from time to time. He reminds me of an article in the Sunday Mail in Queensland of 20 March 1988. It ran a full page article, with the headlines, `How you'll lose half of your nest egg'; `Review could cramp payout plans'; `Only top earners can afford contributions'; and `What it would mean to women'. All these Press releases and the information that appeared in the newspapers led people to retire before they really wanted to do so. People were taking their superannuation benefits because they were scared. I say to those people: there is only one mob to blame, and that is the Opposition. Members of the Opposition are the ones who, for cheap political point scoring, turned around and tried to scare everybody in this country who had saved and scrimped out of their superannuation benefits and thought they were going to lose them. The fact is that the Treasurer has simply introduced a 15 per cent tax on employer contributions and the earnings of employer and employee contributions, but not one cent will be charged against employee contributions or on the lump sum. So everything that the Prime Minister said here that day and everything I have said to my constituents who have asked me has been true. If only people had believed that, there would not have been all these people who took their money and ran, so to speak. We would not have lost all these airline pilots from Qantas Airways Ltd who took jobs with overseas companies. We would not have lost all those highly trained people who became so concerned by the scaremongering that they went ahead and took their money and ran. As I say, I blame none other than those opposite. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Once again they have been proven wrong. It is not the first time, and it certainly will not be the last. I congratulate the Treasurer on what he has done. This is an enormous package. It has been accepted by the community. The only ones who are sorry about it are members of the Opposition because they cannot find anything wrong with it. They are really sorry about that, and they will be whingeing for the next two months. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(9.55) —The Liberal Party of Australia and the coalition have always been in favour of lifting the burden of taxation from Australians by reducing the role of government. For that reason alone, none of the criticisms I will make tonight of the economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) should be taken as criticising genuine attempts to reduce taxation and government expenditure. However, the simple facts presented in the Treasurer's statement indicate that no such genuine attempt has been made. By 1989-90, measures introduced in this mini-Budget will raise at least $1.5 billion per annum in revenue from new sources. That will be to offset the company tax rate reduction. Spending cuts are minimal, with no changes to any major spending program. The intrusions of government regulation will continue. The mirage of a declining role for a new, lean Federal Government is entirely dependent upon optimistic growth figures which would see the gross domestic product expand more rapidly than Federal outlays. The measures announced by the Treasurer will attempt to cement in the excesses of the early years of the Labor Government. The disastrous costly failures of Medicare, on the one hand, and the relatively small but unprincipled waste of the Constitutional Commission on the other have never been repudiated by the Hawke Government. Instead we have had to suffer a plethora of new and higher taxes to pay for those excesses and the huge Budget deficits that went along with them. Medicare levies, the fringe benefits proposal and capital gains taxes are only some of the more obvious imposts suffered by Australians under this Hawke-Keating regime. We have also had to suffer the ruinous effects of high inflation and interest rates, continued unemployment and declining investment. The deliberately high rate of inflation maintained under this deservedly maligned Treasurer has been the single most important cause of burgeoning tax revenue for the Government. Bracket creep has seen the average taxpayer move into the highest marginal rates, to the extent that the average wage and salary earner is now on a marginal tax rate higher than the proposed new company tax rate. What the Government did last night was to announce with unjustifiable fanfare a shuffling of the pack. It has made moderate and minor structural adjustment decisions which avoid the tough problems particularly in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. It has abandoned the hope of major reforms through privatisation. The Government's half-hearted structural changes are an anti-climax because the Government is more than ever in the thrall of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and bound to a lesser but nevertheless important extent by the Australian Labor Party National Conference. Over the five years of this Government, it has become clear that the Treasurer is not the master of economics so much as an amateur conjurer who can shuffle the pack and perform some clever tricks which excite the less watchful, and who always dreams of the opportunity for one big performance which fools everyone. The economic statement is not a masterpiece of real magic. As many people have observed, what it gives with one hand it takes with the other. While the tariff and regulatory changes in this package are desirable, they are cautious, minor and usually belated. In the limited time available to me, I will concentrate on the budgetary considerations of the expenditure and revenue changes presented last night. The expenditure restraint in the May statement is simply a farce. It produces a deficit in line with predictions if no policy changes had occurred. Around 87 per cent of expenditure cuts will impact on the States. Commonwealth outlays have hardly been cut at all. In fact, the Medicare mess is becoming an increasing drain on the Federal Budget as quick fix schemes are proposed to prop up an unworkable system. The honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) pointed out in a Press statement a number of areas where savings are the result of an exercise in creative accounting. Last year's Budget cuts, despite their dependence on the sale of assets, were more substantial than last night's proposals. These most recent proposals lack substance and show the warped priorities of this Government which is so out of touch with Australians. No-one represents that lack of touch with Australians more than the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The burden of Federal restraint again relies at least to some extent on a further major cut in the growth of defence expenditure. The proposals of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities and the Defence White Paper must be seen for what they are-a real shambles. Both those reports have assumed modest real spending growth which has now been cut. Stability and long term planning in defence have been severely undermined by the unspecified cuts in the economic statement. With all the waste of other departments and the cynical spending on favourite social engineering projects, the last area which should have been cut is defence. Defence is the only legitimate Commonwealth function subject to cuts in this statement. What that indicates is that the Treasurer can no longer carry the day in Caucus with badly needed spending cuts and that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has little or no influence whatsoever. The Treasurer's inability to deliver on major reductions in Federal spending has denied Australians personal income tax cuts, which are long overdue. They have been deferred for yet another year. That should remind Australian voters of the arrogance of the Treasurer, who thinks that the Government can spend people's money better than they can spend it themselves. The most significant feature of the five long years of Labor Party Government has been the growth in government revenue. The Government will not reverse that trend. At best, the growth in tax receipts, especially for pay as you earn taxpayers, will stabilise in 1989-90. But there are no guarantees of that. The greatest concern to most Australians is their tax bill. Every time someone does a little bit of overtime and finds 40 per cent of the extra money earned going to the Government, he sees a very sad demonstration of the effects of high marginal tax rates and bracket creep. The Treasurer wants to have his cake and eat it too. He promises income tax cuts, but he cannot say how much or how soon. The Government's policy, it seems, is to be determined by another deal with the ACTU when it was those deals which led, more than any other single circumstance, to our current economic malaise. In my limited time I cannot refute the shonky economics of the Treasurer about the danger of income tax cuts. I point out only that, if what he said were true and he gave a cursory glance to the make-up of the fluctuations in the national accounts figures for imports, he would not reduce the company tax rate either. Another standard trick of those with a thirst for greater tax revenue is to increase the frequency of tax payments to better approximate the pay as you earn tax system. Examples of this trend include provisional tax, fringe benefits tax and the prescribed payments system. Last night the Treasurer increased the prescribed payments advance by one-third. Under the present tax regime all of those taxes have significant effects on the operations of small businesses. The early payment of due tax has detrimental effects on the planning and cash flow of Australian firms. The funds available for short term investment are limited and they are to be further limited. Instead, the Government will have the use of money until the end of the financial year. That is a relatively recent development. It involves some $10 billion of tax each year. Bringing forward tax income is a sleight of hand, something which the May statement reinforces and makes further use of, in respect of, firstly, the increase in prescribed payments and, secondly, the taxation of superannuation. Despite the rhetoric about levelling the taxation treatment of all sections of business, the primary purpose of the changes to taxation of superannuation is to bring forward $925m of future tax income to the years when the Treasurer will need it for his short-sighted political gain. Other major tax changes include those dealing with income from foreign companies and the extension of company tax to the gold industry. For five years the Government has talked about the need to crush the tax evasion industry. That shallow rhetoric continues in the 1988 May economic statement. The effect of that rhetoric has been to inflict on ordinary Australian taxpayers a draconian regime of hostile tax collection subject to no rules other than the squeezing of maximum revenue out of the existing laws. Of course, the economic statement is completely inadequate in the vague promise about income tax. There is little prospect for change in this imbalance in the Budget. The May economic statement takes some steps to right the wrongs of five years of Labor Government; but those five years have left us in such a precarious economic state that the Treasurer feels he has to continue with the rising taxation which was the product of his earlier inflationary economic policies. Above all, the Treasurer arrogantly told all Australians of his desire to rule them. That statement, with echoes of a less democratic past, is a very sad symptom of the problems of Australia under Labor. Australians do not want politicians as their rulers. If they want us at all, it is to represent their desire for a government which does its limited job without intruding on their private affairs or being a burden on their productive efforts. I can only wonder whether the economic statement was motivated by the interests of Australians or by the desire of honourable members opposite to rule. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.06) —It is the task of the Opposition to criticise, but it is also the task of the Opposition to come forward with some sort of constructive debate in this assembly and to present some alternatives. A number of honourable members, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who have spoken tonight have said nothing except that Labor has taken some of their policies. That seems to be their excuse. Let us make some comparisons with the past. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who has just resumed his seat, talked about trying to rectify the problems of the last five years of Labor Government. The problems occurred between 1976 and 1983. That is not just my judgment as a Labor member; it is the judgment of organisations such as the Metal Trades Industry Association Inc. It put in a report saying that the real problems in this country began when industry moved offshore. That occurred under the Fraser Government. The Liberal-National Party Government refused to address the problems of this country. Mr Rocher —Mr Keating said you evicted 100,000 from jobs in the metal trades. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Capricornia will resume his seat. The honourable member for Curtin, as a Deputy Chairman of Committees, knows full well that every member of this House has the right to be heard without interruption and interjection. I ask him to remain silent. Mr WRIGHT —Mr Deputy Speaker, I never mind him interjecting because he makes better interjections than he makes speeches. Mr Rocher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I want you to know that I did not intend to interrupt the honourable member for Capricornia nor did I succeed in doing so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Rocher —But when he talks about the Metal Trades Industry Association, he knows that Mr Keating admits that it cost 100,000 jobs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member compounds his error. He will resume his seat. Mr WRIGHT —That is his third attempt at making a speech and he still has not hit the mark. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Capricornia will not provoke unnecessarily. Mr WRIGHT —I take your point, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me return to what took place between 1976 and 1983. We had an era of tax rorts and tariff protection that caused great harm to this country, but nothing was done about it. We had major problems with a huge tax burden on the people of Australia. The highest tax limit was 60 per cent. We had double taxing on business. Business would make a profit on which it would pay tax, then, having distributed the dividends, it would pay tax on those. But the previous Government did nothing about that. As I have said, it is the Opposition's task to criticise; it is also its task to bring forward alternatives. The people of Australia want to hear the Opposition say what it would do. What it has said tonight is that the tax cuts-- Mr Rocher —You weren't here for his speech. Mr WRIGHT —I listened intently to the honourable member's speech. Mr Rocher —You weren't here for the Leader's speech. Mr WRIGHT —You do not call that a speech, do you? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Capricornia will address the House through the Chair. Mr WRIGHT —Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker: what the Opposition has said tonight is that there have not been enough cuts. Yet it dared to criticise the Government for the cuts that have been made. This is the first Government in this country's history that has been able to end up with such a surplus-$3 billion. The Government has taken upon itself a strategy and a commitment to reform the economic thrust of this nation, to ensure that the effects are spread across the nation and that everyone carries some of the burden as we turn the economic corner. That is what is taking place. This Government has seen the need to restructure tax on business, but I do not hear any praise from the Opposition. This Government changed the double tax on business profits and dividends. This Government brought down personal tax from 60c to 49c and this Government has now brought company tax from 49c to 39c. But, of course, we hear no commendation; we just hear this bleating about how bad it is. Let us see how bad it is. We ought to listen to independent opinion, not just to the Opposition. I read today the commentary in the Brisbane Courier-Mail, which is not exactly a pro-Labor paper. It sums up its editorial by saying: This May economic statement is an impressive document, both for the Government and for Mr Keating. It reveals that hard decisions can be made by confident governments, that lessons can be learned and that economic rationality will triumph over politics, given half a chance. That is a pretty good summation of what took place last night when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) delivered the May economic statement. It is a pretty good judgment of what is taking place here. It is a conservative newspaper that has made that judgment. We might understand why, if we consider what has taken place. We have heard Opposition members talking about cuts in road funding, but they have not bothered to see the point that, since the Hawke Government has been in power, including last night's announcement, this Government has spent or will spend $7.38 billion on roads. All the talk about local roads and how they have suffered is nonsense. Throughout my own State at the moment, National Party State members are rushing around saying how road funding is being cut in the local areas. It is simply untrue. The facts are that, for this coming financial year, local road funds have increased by $13.8m. That will bring the total expenditure in this period to $269m, which is an increase in real terms. What this Government has done is ensure that it has a commitment. No-one is happy that there has been a slight reduction-a reduction of some $35m; but we all appreciate that the national road construction program is near completion so there is room for cutting back. There is room for just chipping away at some of that expenditure and putting it into other areas. And what is the Government doing? It is not just putting it back in the coffers. Instead, it is setting up a five-year plan for roads and, as well as that, it is designating a new category-national economic importance roads. I am sure those of us who represent country and rural areas, such as the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), will be most pleased with this proposition because it means that roads in rural areas, such as the grain roads of central Queensland, the tourism roads of north Queensland and those very important economic roads, can now be dealt with. In the past, the plea came from local authorities, but the Government had to say that it was up to the States. It had to say that a deal was done over a three-year period; and the money was given to the States and they had to spend it within those particular categories-local roads, arterial roads and State and rural arterial roads. They could not just take the money out of one area and put it into these new arterial-type roads, but now they can. So the Government has addressed a fundamental problem in the road systems of Australia. It has ensured that we have an ongoing commitment on roads, a commitment that will go over five years. Yet again, no credit is given where credit is due. Pensioners represent a very important area. I have stood up in this House on a number of occasions and raised the plight of many pensioners who faced provisional tax. I give credit to the Fraser Government, which in 1978 saw fit to lift the provisional tax threshold from $400 to $1,000 because, at that time, anyone who earned more than $400 from interest or dividends paid provisional tax. It did not matter who the person was. It could be the richest bank manager or corporate leader or a pensioner; and so the Fraser Government saw fit in that Budget to lift the tax free limit, and there has been a drag for a period during which it has not been shifted. But now this Government has taken action to ensure that the 255,000 people who face provisional tax in the next financial year will be protected. The Government has done more than that. It has also ensured that the rebate will be increased. Because of an increase in pensions all the time to make up for what was not done by the previous Liberal-National Party Government, we have seen a deterioration in the rebate value. It is now being shifted from $240 a year to $430. Dr Harry Edwards —So it should. Mr WRIGHT —Of course it should, but the coalition did not do those things when it was in government. It froze pensions. It held them back. Mr Downer —So did you. Mr WRIGHT —No. If the honourable member looks at the figures today, he will see that under the Liberal-National Party Government pensions were as low as 19 per cent of average weekly earnings. Today they are 25 per cent of average weekly earnings because the Labor Government has a commitment to the aged; we have a commitment to those on fixed incomes and those on low incomes. And so it is true right across the board. Primary industry will benefit from a massive $47m to be spent in the soil conservation programs over a three-year period-something the Liberal-National Party Government never did, something I hear the honourable member for Maranoa applauding because it will help the man on the land. Again, the man on the land will benefit from the income equalisation deposits. The Government realised there was a need for change in the system and, having been restructured, this scheme has been brought back and every rural producer will welcome it. I move quickly to superannuation. Unfortunately fears were generated by many of the insurance companies and employers asking what would happen to the poor workers and saying that the Government was going to highly tax superannuation outcomes, especially lump sums. That has not happened. What has happened is a total reversal. Where before people paid 15 per cent tax on the first $55,000 and 30 per cent above that, there is now no tax on the first $60,000 and only 15 per cent tax above $60,000. This will be welcomed by employers, insurance companies and employees alike because now there is an incentive for the employee to get involved in superannuation schemes. There is an incentive for people to start planning for the future. We face a dilemma, as we all appreciate: we have at the moment one elderly person for every five in the work force. Within 30 years it will be one elderly person for every two in the work force, and who will pay the taxes to provide those age benefits? There simply will not be enough people working in the marketplace. People should plan for their retirement and the superannuation scheme that the Government is now putting forward will help. It will not solve every problem. No-one expects a magic wand approach when we have economic difficulties, but it is a start. It is a philosophy that I believe will be adhered to and will be taken up. In another area of important social consequence, it is the Liberals and the Nationals who have said that they want to do away with the first home owners scheme. This Government introduced it and has retained it. We now ensure that people with an income of up to $32,000 can still get some assistance to buy their first home. The assistance will be as much as $5,000. So in every area the Government has addressed problems that exist in our community, whether it be for companies, for farmers, for those on low incomes such as pensioners or for the family or the worker. Whilst I expect criticism from the Opposition I believe it is time credit was given. This Government has addressed the problems over a long period of time-over five years of innovative change-because this is the Government that has a strategy and a commitment. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(10.18) —In preparing for this week's mini-Budget, I happened to be reading the autobiography of Sir Arthur Fadden, who was in fact a previous Treasurer in this country, They Called Me Artie. He used a wonderful anecdote about Billy Hughes that I would like to share with the House. When preparing his horror Budget in 1951-52, Fadden used to lock himself in his room at the Hotel Canberra and have meals brought down so that, in his words: I can avoid hosts of guests intent on showering me with good advice on how to save the nation. Apparently, however, Billy Hughes and his wife, Dame Mary, did not take this injunction seriously and used to drop by every evening for dinner. On one particular occasion, Billy apparently put his hand on Fadden's shoulder in a gesture that Fadden said in the book he would never forget and he said: Brother, you worry too much. Damn the Budget. Angels can't do more than their best. After all you can dress a harlot to look like an innocent bride. It is funny how that anecdote came to mind in relation to this so-called Budget. I would not be prepared, of course, to suggest that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is the harlot in that anecdote-that would be unparliamentary-but he is, of course, the `dresser' and he made a very diligent attempt and undertook in a very professional way the marketing of this fairly poor document to dress up his harlot as a bride. The truth is that this is no horror Budget. The challenge for us all is to strip back the clothes and see the extent to which the bride has been tampered with. In the few minutes that I have tonight I thought I would make just a couple of points in relation to this mini-Budget in an attempt to do just that. The first relates to the very limited assessment by the Treasurer of the state of the economy in this mini-Budget. In fact, there are very few words at all on the economy, the nature of our current economic difficulties; there is no real sense of urgency that I believe the Treasurer should have in our current circumstances. The best way I can demonstrate the fact that this Treasurer is quite out of touch with the current state of our economy is to quote from one of his recent speeches. The same sentiment is echoed in this mini-Budget. The speech in question was made at the recent Premiers Conference. The Treasurer said at the Premiers Conference: The easy thing for all of us today would be to take in the revenue benefit of the recovery in commodity prices and stronger economic activity and spend it. That is exactly the sort of short-sighted thing Australian Governments-State and Federal-have done in the past. But it is exactly what we must not do this time. We cannot afford to blow this terms of trade improvement on a splurge of imports. We must not slide back into the attitude of mind which assumes that our commodity export base will protect us from the need to change. We must press on with economic restructuring. I ask honourable members not to let the rhetoric fool them. This is precisely what we have been doing for 12 or 14 months in this country. There is no point, in a statement such as the one made last night, in attempting to shut the stable door, because the horse has already bolted. Commodity prices have trended up consistently since about mid-1986, in Australian dollar terms. Indeed, commodity prices have increased by about 51 per cent over that period. Our terms of trade have jumped by over 8 per cent in the last year, which, by historical standards, is a very rapid increase, in fact an extremely rapid improvement in the terms of trade. However, if we look at the Treasurer's statements in this House and in recent speeches we see that he has mentioned the `terms of trade' in this sense about 65 times in the last 18 months. On nearly all those occasions-indeed, all but three or four-he has referred to the significant deterioration in our terms of trade in 1984-85. He is still living in the past. He has not yet recognised the extent to which our terms of trade have improved in the last 12 to 15 months. Indeed, if we go to last night's mini-Budget we find the Treasurer saying: . . . for the immediate future the full force of the Nation's fiscal resources must be devoted to keeping domestic demand in check and dealing with our external debt problem. This task has been made all the more urgent by the recent evidence that demand has been running too strongly. That is yet another indication that the Treasurer is out of touch. If we think about it, we should realise that about 12 months ago the Treasurer indeed had a choice. The choice was an implicit one, not an explicit one, and clearly he did not recognise it. When our terms of trade picked up in response to those rises in commodity prices, the Treasurer had a clear choice to take that improvement in the terms of trade solely in our balance of payments, so as to see as big and as significant an improvement in our balance of payments as possible, or to spend it-in terms of his statement to the Premiers Conference. He chose, indeed, to spend it. In fact, rather than choosing to lag monetary policy, the easing of monetary policy, behind that improvement in our terms of trade, he accelerated the easing of monetary policy over the last 15 months. So he pushed down interest rates and stimulated aggregate demand. Of course, the direct result has been an acceleration in aggregate demand such that the economy is now considerably overheated. As a result, we have had a markedly smaller improvement in our balance of payments than would otherwise have been possible. The Treasurer likes to talk a lot about `economic miracles'. I suggest to the House that that fact, apart from anything else, will be the main reason why he will never reap an `economic miracle' during his political lifetime. The second area on which I wish to comment, having suggested that the Treasurer has very little appreciation of the current state of our economic difficulties and, indeed, very little real sense of urgency about what needs to be done, is what he says in the Budget about expenditure restraint. For several Budgets in a row we have heard him talk about expenditure restraint. Indeed, he talks about being one of the most successful `restrainers' since Artie Fadden; but he has not, in this economic statement, as in earlier ones, achieved anywhere near the extent of expenditure restraint that he would have us believe. Of course, if we look at some of the expenditure parameters in the economic statement we are inclined, at first blush, to say that he is on the right track. He talks about a $3 billion surplus in 1988-89. He talks about real outlays falling by 1 1/2 per cent. He talks about the percentage of Commonwealth outlays to gross domestic product falling to about 26 per cent or less. He talks about $1,350m worth of cuts. He promises further cuts in 1988-89. If we do not look too closely, if we do not take the clothes off the bride too quickly, we may be swayed by what he is saying. However, if we have a good look at what has gone on there we will see that there has indeed been very little expenditure restraint. For example, the $1,350m worth of cuts to which he referred are gross cuts. He has also increased his own expenditure by about $380m. Therefore, we are really looking at net cuts of only $982m; and of that, $870m is cuts imposed on the States. Indeed, the Treasurer's restraint of his own expenditure is minimal. However, it is worse than that because if we really do peel back the clothes and have a good look at the nature of the harlot we find that, in fact, he has cooked the books. I gather that one of the Treasurer's favourite parlour games is the thimble and pea trick. He certainly has three thimbles, but he has no pea. Mr Martin —You said that last year. Dr HEWSON —That is right. I was right then and I am right again. The Treasurer definitely has cooked the books by changing the basis on which he has recorded certain transactions in this statement. In fact, he is reasonably open about the extent to which he has cooked the books. Basically, he has done three things which I draw to the attention of the House. Firstly, there are certain primary industry charges and levies and light dues and Navigation Act receipts which were previously classified as offsets to outlays. Of course, now they are being classified as revenue. Secondly, discounts and premiums on treasury bonds, which have always been classified as financing transactions, have now been shifted to outlays. The effect of those two changes alone is to raise significantly the 1987-88 base expenditure estimate compared with those for 1988-89. Therefore, the Treasurer creates for himself, if you like, a nice neat cut in expenditure by that one particular change. Of course, over and above that, he perpetuates the illusion by moving at least one other major item `off Budget'. The Civil Aviation Authority has been shifted `off Budget' from 1 July this year. That will reduce outlays in 1988-89 by another $270m. The interesting thing is that, if we adjust for some of those changes, if we take those accounting changes and reverse them and put it back on the old basis, we get a feeling of how-- Dr Harry Edwards —Rubbery. Dr HEWSON —The honourable member has reminded me-a feeling of how rubbery those figures, indeed, are. Of course, the Treasurer's real expenditure decline of 1 1/2 per cent, as claimed in the document, becomes only half that amount, only a 0.7 or 0.8 per cent real expenditure decline. But if we also exclude from that the cuts imposed on the States-something which we should really do if, in fact, we want to get a realistic figure of Commonwealth expenditure restraint-we see that the Commonwealth's own expenditure actually goes up in real terms. This should not come as any surprise to honourable members because the Treasurer has over and over again, on the Goebbels principle, simply by repeating it, tried to create the illusion of expenditure restraint. That is the basis on which he claims to have brought about a balanced Budget and now, more recently, a Budget surplus. However, the facts are very clear: he has done it all entirely by revenue. On his figures he will have picked up about $7.5 billion in additional revenue over expenditure. That is roughly equal to the amount to which the Budget deficit has moved, from the $4.5 billion when he came to office to his prospective surplus next year of $3 billion. Indeed, he has done it all by increasing taxation, mostly taxation by stealth, mostly through bracket creep. Unfortunately, the Treasurer has not yet been prepared to come clean with the Australian people and declare, legitimately, the little extent to which he has been able to restrain expenditure. Just to summarise: what does all this say? The simple fact is that the Treasurer currently has a very difficult set of circumstances in Australia. The economy is over-heating. The world is moving to a period of much more difficult trading circumstances in which activity will flatten out and commodity prices will fall. We are in very real danger of what I call `the old Aussie crunch', sustaining our import demand against falling world activity and falling commodity prices. In my view, there is a real risk of a major balance of payments crisis in the course of the next 12 months. On that basis this Treasurer's chickens will come home to roost. At that point he will have locked himself into a `soft' wages policy and a `soft' fiscal policy. So he will have to go back to relying on monetary policy. I suggest to the House that, in the course of the next 12 months, there will be sizeable hikes in interest rates as the Treasurer, as a last resort, resorts to a further tightening of monetary policy. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.29) —It is a great pleasure to follow in the debate tonight an honourable member so learned in economics as the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson). However, I find a great deal of difficulty in following the logic of his argument in regard to a number of specific areas to which I would like to refer before he leaves. I shall come back to that shortly. What was presented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last night was one of the most far-reaching and sweeping economic statements-a blueprint for the future of this economy-that we have seen for many years. I implore people in the community not just to take at face value some of the information that is being peddled to them, particularly by honourable members opposite, but to look at the underlying criteria behind the economic statement. Clearly it is a blueprint for future economic growth and for the development of the Australian economy to take us into the twenty-first century. It is designed to rid us of the shackles that have been imposed on Australia's economic development and growth over the last 20 or 30 years, many of which unfortunately were put in place by those sad remnants of the Country Party in this place and which were tolerated by the Liberals because of weak leadership in the past-weak leadership that was unwilling, unbending and not sustaining any changes that were necessary, particularly in tariff reductions. Mr Pratt —You have had five years! Mr MARTIN —The honourable member for Adelaide sings out about five years. What did members opposite do when they had at least seven years under the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, when the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was in charge of the Treasury finances? It is quite easy to come into this place and say, `You have had five years'. Those opposite had seven years; what did they do about tariffs? Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know, because you were here during that time, that absolutely nothing was done for tariffs. This Government has taken the hard decisions in that respect, but it has done so in equity, with a sense of fairness, and is phasing in what has been proposed. What about some of these other parts of the broad economic strategy? The honourable member for Wentworth talked about the Government having cooked the books. It is the same sort of line that gets fed up here. It used to be the line of the former shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), when he was in the job. I recall the honourable member for Wentworth and some other honourable members on that side of the House last year when the Budget was delivered giving exactly the same speech, saying the books had been cooked. If anybody cooked the books, what did the Leader of the Opposition do in 1982 when he was the Treasurer of this country? He went to an election telling everybody, `No problems, folks. The deficit? No worries!' We came into government and immediately found a $10 billion deficit. Over five years we not only eliminated that, but a $3 billion surplus is in prospect through the economic statement delivered last night. And the Opposition is trying to tell us we have cooked the books! I find it difficult to appreciate the logic of the argument that is often advanced by the so-called economic geniuses on the other side of the House. It just does not wash; it does not stand up in the light of day and is not sustained in thorough examination by those people who understand exactly what this country needs. What this country certainly needs is the economic policies that have been put forward by the Government at this point of time. I am also concerned about the constant calls and echoes from that side of the House about cutting deeper. Members of the Opposition say that what we have to do to save this nation is to cut government expenditure. Honourable members on the other side of the House today heard the Treasurer's response to a question about further cuts, and the Treasurer said, `You tell us where there should be further cuts'. We said that last year-`tell us where there should be further cuts'. What are we supposed to do-get rid of the Department of Veterans' Affairs? That seems to be on the Opposition's policy agenda. What about the rest of those massive cuts which were talked about by the Business Council of Australia and which the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), the shadow Treasurer, said were not enough? He says, `Let's get into it and cut a bit more away'. When are we going to see some policies which clearly spell out where those opposite would cut and from what direction they believe they could still fund the tax cuts they talk about? That leads us into a consideration of other areas; firstly, the tax cuts. We heard today the Leader of the Opposition respond to the Treasurer. I found it hard to believe, but he said, `Last year we said we would abolish the capital gains tax'-during the election campaign he said it would be thrown out the door-`but now we are not going to do that; we have reconsidered; we will keep it'. He has said that the Liberal Party of Australia would get rid of Labor's fringe benefits tax. Tonight he said, `We will get rid of Labor's fringe benefits tax but we will put in a Liberal fringe benefits tax instead'. What happened to lock, stock and barrel? I know it sounds like a firm of solicitors but last year the Leader of the Opposition said that the Liberal Party would get rid of Labor's taxes lock, stock and barrel. All members of the Opposition used to call out in unison, `Lock, stock and barrel'. What happened tonight? Where were the cheers from the Opposition? All I saw was a lot of glum faces when that was mentioned tonight. Has the Opposition come around to believing that in that regard the Government was correct? I believe it must have. A couple of very important parts of the statement handed down last night pertained to, firstly, the boost to the tourism industry and, secondly, the upgrading of the tax file numbers. I shall concentrate on those two points for the moment and then return to one or two other comments on the general views held by members of the Opposition. With regard to the boost to the tourism industry, clearly the Government has made the right decision by cutting the departure tax and at the same time eliminating the processing fee relating to immigration. I do not think anybody in this House who saw that in operation would agree that that was a fair and reasonable way to encourage tourism into this country. But a hallmark of this Government is that it is not afraid to face up to its responsibilities, and when a decision is taken that subsequently is shown to be incorrect and needs modification, the Government does something about it. I have said that before when I have spoken on taxation Bills. The Opposition says, `Why modify it? Why don't you think through the legislation?'. This Government does not mind doing that if it will lead to a fairer outcome. That is exactly what happened. I applaud the decision. I hope the boosts to the tourism industry in this country are extended and I look forward to seeing an immediate improvement in that area. The other issue was the proposal to upgrade the tax file number system. It is interesting that only last week a committee of the Parliament, the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration-- Mr Charles —Who chairs that Committee? Mr MARTIN —I happen to chair that Committee-handed down a report of the inquiry into a series of efficiency audits into the Australian Taxation Office. The Committee made a unanimous recommendation-I underline the word `unanimous' because that means both Liberal and National Party members on the Committee agreed to it-that there should be an upgraded tax file numbering system applied in the Australian Taxation Office. I was particularly pleased that that recommendation was included as part of last night's economic statement. I do not think one honourable member-there should not be in any case-believes people should not contribute their fair share, no more and certainly no less, to the Australian tax system because it pays for the services the Federal Governments must pay for. In the inquiry the Committee conducted into a variety of taxation areas, evidence collected suggested that an upgraded tax file numbering system would be effective in combating tax evasion and avoidance. The Committee suggested that it be taken a step further but unfortunately the Government has not seen fit to do so at this stage. However, I will be monitoring the situation very closely; it was a great decision. I congratulate the honourable member for Wentworth because he also was a member of that Committee. I was sorry that he did not mention that in his contribution a little earlier. In summary, I have to say that tonight's response by the Leader of the Opposition to the Treasurer's statement was one of the most limp-wristed, ineffectual approaches to policy I have heard. Not since his response to the Treasurer's Budget Speech last year can I recall such a poor response by the Leader of the Opposition. We are still waiting to hear the Liberal Party's announcement of its policies in a variety of areas. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have said they are willing to debate at length any of those policy areas, particularly taxation. We have yet to hear the policies. Last night this Government was prepared to make some magnificent decisions in terms of taxation policy. Mr Pratt —Where are the tax cuts? Mr MARTIN —It foreshadowed personal tax cuts in the future-and they will be introduced-but it is interesting to note that members of the Opposition equate economic development with personal tax cuts. They should get their priorities right. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Before calling the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), on this special occasion this evening I offer all my colleagues on both sides of the House best wishes for their much awaited move to the new House. I take this opportunity to thank the Clerks of the House for their support in the work that my colleagues and I do in the chair. I am sure that many people understand that the smooth workings of this chamber can be very much attributed to the work of the Clerks. In particular, I acknowledge Madam Speaker, Mrs Child, the Deputy Speaker, Mr Leo McLeay, and the very good advice and support from people such as the honourable member for Wide Bay, Mr Millar, the honourable member for Lyne, Mr Cowan, my colleague the honourable member for Banks, Mr Mountford, and other chairmen of committees. I am sure that all honourable members would share my view that they contribute to the smooth operation of the chamber. I also acknowledge the work of the Hansard staff, the attendants in the chamber and the Sergeant-at-Arms in supporting the work of this chamber, along with the Clerks, whose work I mentioned previously. I am sure that honourable members will join me in acknowledging the support of the attendants, who are always most cooperative no matter how late the hour, the Hansard staff, who are very accurate and diligent in their work, the Serjeant-at-Arms and the Clerks. Mr Hunt —And the ABC. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —And the ABC, which covers the proceedings very effectively and efficiently. We look forward to joining them as well in the new Parliament House. Mr Cadman —And the members of the public. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —We are all impressed at the diligence and concentration of the members of the public, even at twenty minutes to 11. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.42) —I certainly endorse your remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker, and indicate that it is with some sorrow that I make my last speech in this building, having first come here as a tiny baby in my father's arms when he was a member of this Parliament after having been elected in 1949. Having listened to the rhetoric of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), I must say that it reminds me very much of Disraeli's famous statement of his political opponents that they were `inebriated by the exuberance of their own verbosity'. The honourable member for Macarthur, who was most certainly that, did not succeed in refuting any of the propositions put forward by this side of the House. Honourable members on this side are really saying that the challenge of this mini-Budget and the yardstick by which it must be measured is twofold. First, it must do something to reverse the tragic decline in living standards that we have had in this country over the past five years. We are such a potentially rich country and such a potentially successful country with all our natural resources. How can it be, while so many parts of the world have been booming in this period, that our people have suffered a decline in their living standards? The second thing that the mini-Budget must do is contribute to the urgently needed restructuring of the Australian economy. It is by those two yardsticks that we must judge the document presented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last night. Let us look at the issue of living standards. What has the Government done to improve the living standards of ordinary men and women, and indeed children, in Australia? It has done, as many others before me have said, absolutely nothing. In fact, it could be described in a rather pejorative way as nothing more than a boardroom budget, because all the benefits of the Budget will go to the boardrooms of big companies, particularly through lower company tax. I do not oppose that, but none of the benefits go to the pockets of the ordinary men, women and children of this country. In that regard I would have thought that it was a gross inequity, an inequity that would cause the predecessors of members of the Australian Labor Party to turn in their graves. It is an inequity which is completely unacceptable to the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. Since 1983 we have seen in this country a decline in the living standards of the single income family with two children, which is a fairly usual sort of circumstance, of $42 a week. That is a shameful thing in a country which is so rich and so potentially successful. That is why so often members of this Party and the National Party have spoken of the `forgotten people'. It is why Menzies spoke of them in 1949, because the Chifley Government also forgot them. The Labor Government of today has forgotten the ordinary men and women of Australia even as it turns to the boardrooms and the executive rooms of the trade union movement. We are told that the tax cuts will come one day. I have noticed how members of the Labor Party taunt us to tell them and the Australian public details of our tax cut proposals when they will not do the same thing. They say that there will be tax cuts one day, maybe, if the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) is prepared to agree with what the Government would like. But if the ACTU does not go in the right direction, that is it. By postponing the tax cuts which ordinary Australians deserve, the Government is saving $1,500m. While the Government saves and pockets all this money, the community, the ordinary people of Australia, end up paying. During the next 12-month period their tax burden will increase by around 12 per cent above what it would have been if taxes had been fairly and reasonably indexed by this mini-Budget. That means, in terms of average earnings, about $13.60 a week is taken out of the pocket of the Australian wage earner. I am sure that the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) would blush to hear that there is plenty for the boardrooms and plenty, no doubt, for the ACTU. But what about the average family in Australia-the people about whom honourable members opposite have never been genuinely concerned? The tax burden on the income of the average Australian will increase over the next year from 24.2 per cent of income to 25.2 per cent. The Treasurer argues that we cannot have tax cuts now because that will create a balance of payments crisis. His logic is patently false. If we were to follow his argument through to its logical conclusion he would really be saying that our balance of payment crisis can be solved by increasing taxes. As a matter of fact, that seems to be what the Government has been doing. Since 1983 it has been progressively increasing the burden of taxation in Australia. It thinks that that will solve the balance of payments crisis, but the evidence is there for everybody to see: the balance of payments situation has got progressively worse, not better, throughout that period. The second aspect of the Government's argument that we have to increase tax to solve our balance of payments crisis is that it has actually reduced company tax. Does that mean that it will exacerbate the balance of payments crisis or that, somehow or other, reducing company tax is immune from the whole argument? Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you will agree with me that that does not make a great deal of sense. Thirdly, it is wrong to say that, by reducing taxation, we will create a balance of payments crisis. If we reduce taxation and at the same time reduce government expenditure, that will not lead to an increase in overall domestic demand in the economy; it will redistribute wealth-that is a phrase that the honourable member for Calwell doubtless uses from time to time in his electorate-away from the bureaucracy, politicians and government and back into the pockets of ordinary people. They are the people whom I suspect that the Labor Party never really cared about, but they have certainly been forgotten if it ever did. Let us consider whether this mini-Budget addresses the issue of structural change. First of all, does it reduce the size of government? Ninety per cent of the so-called reduction in spending in this mini-Budget has been borne by the States. The Commonwealth has made a paltry contribution yet again. So there is a certain falsity about the claims of the Treasurer and others on the other side of the House that they have done a magnificent job in reducing spending. They have not; they have just chopped off funding to the States. Secondly, as the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) pointed out, there is some shonky figuring. The honourable member for Macarthur never refuted this. He used a bit of rhetoric but he never refuted it. The fact is that in this mini-Budget the Government has increased the outlays for 1987-88-if one looks at page 26 of the document one will see how-by $974m. The Treasurer admits that. He says the Government will increase the outlays this year. What does that mean? That means that when we compare the overall outlays this year with next year's outlays a rabbit comes out of the hat and somehow we find a decline in outlays. But remember that the Government has increased the outlays for this year by nearly $1 billion in the first place to achieve that result. The simple proposition is that in presenting the Government's Budget last September the Treasurer claimed that outlays would decline by 2.4 per cent this financial year. Obviously, they will not do that if the Government adds another one billion dollars to outlays through the accounting practices of this mini-Budget. Another aspect of the structural change in this mini-Budget is the tariff reform. I know that the honourable member for Calwell does not agree with this because I have listened to his speeches now for three years. He does not agree with what the Government has done, but I do. I think the Government has done the right thing. I am glad that it has reduced business taxes; I only wish that it had done more for ordinary people. The third aspect of structural change is labour market reform. Labour market reform is fundamental to achieving proper structural adjustment in our economy. To achieve it there has to be a more flexible system of wage fixing. That is only commonsense. There have to be secret ballots so that ordinary workers decide whether there should be industrial disputation, not union bosses and leaders. Voluntary unionism has to be introduced. We on this side of the House are serious in our commitment to civil liberties, even if honourable members opposite are not. The fourth aspect of structural change is privatisation. Why has the Labor Government strangled Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation? They cannot raise any more money without borrowing enormously. If they borrow enormously and become highly geared and there is a downturn in their industries, those companies will be in dire difficulty. Privatisation, as the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) know, is the only future for these companies, and they have ducked the decision for ideological reasons. This mini-Budget is characterised by four features. Firstly, it has a few positives, which I have mentioned. Secondly, it is full of shonky accounting in order to achieve what the business community might perceive to be good outcomes. But if one sits down and reads the fine details one will see how the accounting is done. Thirdly, the Government has ducked nearly all the major structural change issues, and that needs to be debated much more fully in the community. The Labor Party, which always claims to represent the workers, the ordinary people, has, as usual, as it did with the Chifley Government and the Whitlam Government-we can go right back to John Christian Watson; it was doing it in those days as well-is never really interested in ordinary people. It turns its back on them, as it has done this time. A board room budget is fine, but what about ordinary Australians? There are no tax cuts for them. They have $13 a week more to pay next year. But there are plenty of tax cuts for the rich mates of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer-not a pretty story. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.53) —In the few minutes left to me I would like to make one comment about the contribution of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). He is a young man and he has a hell of a lot to learn. He will be an old man before that group on the other side sits on the Government benches, if the performance of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and his statements on the economy are anything to go by. Let me say one thing about the performance of the Leader of the Opposition. In a throwaway line he said, `These policies are not really the policies of the New Right'. Honourable members may have picked that up when he was making his speech. If these are not the policies of the New Right then he cannot even read, because his whole speech was nothing more than a document of the extreme New Right in this country. While the Opposition persists in putting this New Right nonsense before the Australian people, the Australian Labor Party will continue to govern. The Australian people are not interested in extremist nonsense of the kind which was peddled here tonight by the Leader of the Opposition. Dr Harry Edwards —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order under standing order 82 which prohibits tedious repetition in this place. I listened to the honourable member make this sort of tirade against the New Right only the other night in an equally irrelevant way. He is continuing to do so tonight. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I know that the honourable member for Berowra has an excellent memory, but in terms of tonight's debate the honourable member for Calwell is in order. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Mr Deputy Speaker, those kinds of irrelevant points of order are intended only to take up my time. Honourable members opposite do not want to hear what I have to say, so they try to interrupt what I am saying to the Australian people. Anyone who listened earlier to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition would have heard an extraordinary statement. There is a long list of assets to be sold off. There will not be anything left. Every government enterprise will be sold off. He had the nerve to say, `We're going to protect country people's telephone calls. We're going to sell Telecom, but we'll protect their telephone calls'. What rubbish! Mr Downer —Mr Hawke wants to sell things; Mr Keating wants to sell them. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Obviously the honourable member has not followed the debate in the Labor Party. If he had done so he would know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made a specific statement excluding Telecom Australia and all those other those enterprises from any kind of privatisation. Let us make it perfectly clear: wholesale privatisation is out. It is not the policy of the Labor Party and it is certainly not the policy which the Australian people will support. The honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) insists that the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition have nothing to do with the New Right. Of course they do. But the big difference between his proposals and those of the New Right's upfront spokesman is that the New Right is more honest. This week Andrew Hay said, `We want to cut welfare; we want to cut social security; we want to cut unemployment benefits; we want to cut education; we want to cut health'. What does the Leader of the Opposition say? After all of the cuts of the last few years, he says, `There haven't been enough cuts to programs'. He wants more cuts. The honourable member for Mayo and all of his other supporters have the impertinence to say that, after all of those cuts have been affected, people's standards of living will go up. What rubbish! What do they think provides people's standard of living? It is basic programs. If those programs are cut, obviously people's standards of living will be affected. It is hypocritical nonsense for the Leader of the Opposition to say that he wants more and more cuts and that he will then try to offer tax cuts. It is not an honest approach of saying, `We won't have a surplus of $3 billion'. That would have been an honest approach. Instead, he says that he would have a surplus of $3 billion, offer tax cuts by making more cuts to Government spending and at the same time improve everyone's standards of living. If he is not Mandrake the magician, who is he? It is economic nonsense, and he knows that it is. The honourable member for Berowra knows that when one cuts programs, one cuts people's standards of living. The honourable member for Mayo knows this as well. If they are really honest in their claims that they want to help the average family, they should stop talking about all of these cuts that they will make and start formulating a decent policy. If they are not honest in their claims, they should not pretend to be the champions of the average person. If average Australians believe that the Liberal Party of Australia supports the average family, they must believe that the devil is an angel. There is no question about the Liberal Party's stance. It stands for the policies of the New Right, for entrenched wealth. The honourable member for Mayo mentioned redistribution. It stands for redistribution in favour of the wealthy. The interruptions are not making an impact because the fact is that the honourable members opposite do not represent the ordinary people. The Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Mayo and others should not come in here with their hypocritical comments. This mini-Budget has been an important historical event in terms of the positive measures that have been put into place to restructure the Australian economy, to create employment and to put into place a vast array of measures that will assist the building of Australia in the future. Opposition members do not like the fact that there has been no such comprehensive approach for many years in this country to tackle the economic problems which they refused to tackle. In August next year we will be putting into place further programs that will assist the Australian people. We will then be going to the polls ready to take the Opposition on and expose it for what it is. Debate (on motion by Mr Miles) adjourned. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I understand that it has been agreed that there will be a cognate debate on the Departure Tax Amendment Bill 1988, the Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1988 and the Migration Amendment Bill 1988. There being no objection, I shall allow that course to be followed. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(11.02) —In 1984 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised in the election campaign to `destroy for all time the myth that the ALP is the party of high taxation'. Following that announcement the Prime Minister and his Treasurer (Mr Keating) have successively increased the taxes paid by Australians. Senator Cook may have been more honest when he said in 1985: The Labor Party is a high taxing party. It needs to be to carry out its reform. The question is how you levy that and who pays it. Those statements were made by two key figures in the Australian Labor Party. Tonight we are debating the removal of what must be the most obnoxious tax this country has ever seen. The Australian Government decided to charge people a fee when they become Australian citizens and then levied a tax on those citizens when they wished to return to their own country. The arrival tax that the Departure Tax Amendment Bill dispenses with has in the short few months it has been in operation proved obnoxious and created great resistance and resentment not only amongst Australian citizens but also amongst visitors to this country. There are three pieces of legislation before the House that we are debating cognately. The first, as I mentioned, removes the arrival tax of $10. The second, the Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill, reduces the departure tax from $25 to $10. The reduction is not to take effect from the night of the mini-Budget but from 1 July this year. The Government will continue to make its charges to prove its point about how incapable it is of managing simple affairs such as people coming to and going from Australia. The Migration Amendment Bill changes the powers of officers under the Immigration Act. I pay tribute tonight to the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) for the crusade and campaign he has run against the arrival tax. He has worked hard and long on behalf of the tourist industry and on behalf of Australian citizens. He has consistently put to the Government the inequities of its proposals that were introduced in the last Budget and implemented on 1 January. By the end of January the airlines had found that 38 per cent of the travelling public had refused to pay the arrival tax. A total of 96,000 people had refused in one month to pay this terrible tax. There is a Budget loss in the process and it is interesting to go through the Hansard the Senate Estimates Committees and find that an officer of the Department, Mr McMahon, told the senators that the latest estimate that he could give on 14 April suggests that, compared to a Budget estimate of $8m, the likely outcome for the arrival tax was only going to be $7.4m. That is the scale of the loss of refusal, resentment and resistance by the travelling public. Then we find that instead of being a cost recovery process, as this matter was proclaimed to be when it was introduced, all funds raised from the arrival tax go directly to Consolidated Revenue. I will quote Mr McMahon from page D12 of Senate Estimates Committee D on 14 April. Senator Peter Baume asked: Does the immigration fee, once collected, remain as part of the Department's budget? Mr McMahon stated: The immigration clearance fee goes straight into Consolidated Revenue. So much for the cost recovery process that this was supposed to provide when it was introduced to cover the cost of issuing visas. It went straight off to the Treasury. I do not know whether there was going to be any reconciliation in the Budget. We will see whether the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs gets back the money it collected by an increase of that amount in its allocation. I would be very surprised if that were the case. There will be a notional allocation, but the Budget will not change beyond what was proposed and what is being considered at this point in Forward Estimates. There has been a Budget loss by this process of approximately $34.4m in the departure tax and a loss also to revenue from the arrival tax. I believe that this Government will get that money in another way. I believe that the airlines will finish up by paying it. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) nods in agreement. There will be an increase in cost to the travelling public because the airlines are going to have to pay these fees either by landing charges or by route costs. Some way or another the Government will recoup this money from the airlines. So the Australian travelling public will pay, but it will not be the obnoxious tax of Aussies paying to get back into their own country. That will be some relief anyway. I think that that was a completely dishonest approach by the Government. It is unfair and unheard of to have citizens charged for arriving back in their own country. I was surprised when the Government introduced it. The furore that this tax caused is best illustrated by statements from the Australian Tourism Industry Association Ltd. On 24 March, it stated: Australia is experiencing millions of dollars in bad publicity due to the $5 Immigration Processing Fee being levied at international airports. Australia is a favoured port for travellers. Mr Frank O'Dwyer, the committee chairman of the airlines group that had negotiated with the Government, has had great difficulty in getting the complicated wheels of government bureaucracy-not necessarily the Minister, but the bureaucracy-to understand the dreadful damage that this apparently simple thing was causing to the operation of the airlines. The airlines said, `We will do anything to cooperate with the Department in collecting this fee, but you have got to change the processes that you have taken'. In the few minutes I have remaining I want to deal briefly with the other changes to the Migration Act concerning the powers of officers. To the Opposition they seem to be reasonable. There is no objection on our part. However, I do express some concern on the level of illegal immigration. I trust that the removal of these powers will not damage the detection and apprehension of illegal immigrants and that the powers of search, arrest and capacity to interview that officers of the Department have are not taken away from significant officers who, for human rights' sake, may have their capacity to apprehend reduced. There is real concern out there in the community about the level of illegal immigrants in Australia. The Department now says that there are perhaps 75,000 in Australia-perhaps increasing at the rate of 14,000 a year. It is a very high level for a country such as Australia. The inability of departmental officers to apprehend more than 2,300 in a year-2,379 to be exact-is a matter of concern. Only a small percentage of those who stay on illegally are apprehended. That is a matter of real concern, and until this situation is dealt with and illegal immigration is prevented the support for a significant immigration flow will be weakened. I understand the computer systems that will assist in the apprehension of illegal immigrants are not completely operative. As I understand it, that system would allow applications for visas to be entered on line to computers in Australia that will check people as they arrive and as they leave. According to departmental statements made before committees, as best as I can read between the lines, those systems are not fully operative. There has been talk about them for three or more years, but they are not working as they should be. This is urgent action that we believe the Government should take to allay the fears of the Australian community. We will not oppose any of these measures. We endorse the decision to remove that dreadful arrival tax; we endorse the decision to reduce the obnoxious departure tax to a reasonable level; and we do not oppose the other measures in the Bill. Again, I commend the honourable member for Gilmore for his work in this area. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(11.12) —The airport arrival tax of $5, or the immigration clearance fee, as it is sometimes described, was introduced in 1987. Section 34a of the Migration Act of 1958 rendered passengers, except children under 12, liable to pay the $5 fee-and obliges the airlines to collect it. Furthermore, airlines are required to pay the fee to the Federal Government in respect of liable passengers, whether or not the airline operator has collected that amount for the passenger. The Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) said in his second reading speech that the fee: was modelled on the clearance fee operating in the United States of America, and required adult passengers on international flights seeking to enter Australia after 1 January 1988 to pay a fee for the services relating to their immigration clearance. The scheme provides for the fee to be collected, and paid to the Commonwealth, by the international airline operator who brought the passengers to Australia, whether or not the airline collected the fee. Revenue collected from fees is estimated to be $8 1/2m for the period 1 January 1988 to 30 June 1988. This money will be used to offset the costs of immigration inspection at airports; costs relating to passengers refused entry; costs of facilities to detect fraudulent immigration documents; salaries and other costs of airport staff; costs of visa issue; maintenance of movement records and alert lists of undesirable entrants; and general administrative overheads. Prior to the introduction of the fee, Australian taxpayers met the full cost of such clearances, and the costs for such services have been escalating dramatically with the ever-increasing numbers of people arriving in Australia. For example, 2.9 million passengers arrived in Australia in 1985-86; 3.3 million more passengers arrived in 1986-87. But the collection of the fee met with much resistance from the international airlines operating in the Australian market. Rather than cooperate with the Government in administering the fee charged, they endeavoured as much as possible to ensure that the collection of such charges was made unworkable. These international airlines were prepared to let the Australian taxpayer shell out more than $18m per annum to provide a service used exclusively by passenger arrivals from whom the international airlines profited handsomely. From a balanced point of view, the international airlines completely ignored the great majority of Australians who either have no wish for or cannot afford overseas trips. The opposition of the international airlines was even more extraordinary in that this kind of service fee is not unique to Australia. For example, a similar charge is payable and collected by airlines flying passengers to the United States of America. The airlines heatedly suggested that the clearance fee had an adverse affect on tourism into Australia. The answer to that nonsense from the airlines is that passenger arrivals have continued to increase and, secondly, a foreign tourist paying hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of dollars for a flight ticket and carrying similar amounts in travellers cheques will not be deterred from visiting Australia because of the $5 airport arrival fee. The International Air Transport Association demanded that the Australian Government remove its $5 airport arrival tax. It objected to the Australian Government charging international airlines 60 per cent of quarantine service costs which are designed to prevent foreign diseases, insects or plants being brought illegally into Australia. The President of the Australian Board of Airline Representatives, Mr Frank O'Dwyer, was incessant in his complaints concerning the $5 airport arrival tax. Quarantine, health, immigration and Customs concerns were not his. There was a campaign mounted through the Australian media protesting against the tax. Members of the Liberal and National parties scurried to the media complaining bitterly that the $5 airport arrival tax would spell the death of Australia's burgeoning tourist industry. Editorial after editorial, news release after news release, condemned the tax. The West Australian of 18 April 1988 urged as follows: The Federal Government should admit that its $5 airport arrival fee was a mistake and scrap it. Although it was born out of the essentially sound user-pays philosophy, the $5 entrance fee was hastily introduced without proper regard for the inconvenience and disruption it would cause. The problem is not so much with the amount-most airline passengers would have little difficulty finding the extra money-but that it exists at all. The idea of paying a fee to re-enter one's own country is bad enough, but consider the impression it gives tourists-particularly in view of the poor state of most Australian Airports. Even the Mercury, in its editorial of 19 April 1988, had this to say: The Federal Minister for Tourism, Senator Graham Richardson, who appears to be as adept at measuring public feeling as he is at counting numbers in Caucus, yesterday said that the tax was bringing derision on this country from overseas visitors. The Senator said the tax had not affected the numbers of visitors, only their perception of Australia. And in tourism perception can be worth millions. If visitors perceive Australia to be pettily greedy then they will go home and tell their friends and neighbours. Word-of-mouth advertising of that nature can cost millions of dollars to counter. The goodwill generated through Australian movies and international sporting events such as grand prix racing and the America's Cup can be dissipated in days. For what? The chance to gouge an extra $5 from an international visitor who has come to this country to spend hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars. Not 50 days had passed in 1988 when Senator Richardson announced in the Senate that the new $5 arrival tax `had had an effect on the tourist industry' and that he had `received complaints from airlines'. In late February this year the Federal Government agreed to review its $5 airport arrival tax. The imposition of the charge also generated a public furore in the airline and tourist industries. Not only did the furore come from genuine objectors to the charge but others seeking political advantage joined in the chorus of protest. One such individual, the Chairman of the Australian Tourism Industry Association, is reported to have said: Putting charges on the arrival and departure of tourists is like singling out the performing export industries and then taxing them in a discriminatory manner so that their competitive edge is eroded. Obviously the Government did not take these protests seriously. The Government saw through them for what they were-a political stunt. Honourable members will recall that it was on 24 October 1978 that the Liberal-National Party Government introduced a $10 departure tax. Later the Liberal-National Party Government doubled the departure tax to $20, yet there was not a squeak of protest from the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation or the Australian Tourism Industry Association. I am sure honourable members share my view that much of the protest against the arrival tax was politically motivated, as was industry silence when the Liberal-National Party Government introduced the departure tax. Now, as a result of the amendments contained in this Bill the $5 airport arrival tax or immigration clearance fee is to be repealed with effect from 1 July 1988. The estimated loss of revenue to the Government or more accurately to the Australian taxpayer over the next three financial years brought about by these changes will be almost $50m. This revenue shortfall must be made up from other sources-and made up it must be. The Australian taxpayer demands no less. It is hard to fathom why the charge or fee was introduced in the first place. It should have been obvious that the charge would have been an irritant to the international visitors Australia is trying to welcome and that there had to be better ways of raising revenue. International airlines operating in the Australian market protested about the charge. They even mounted a High Court of Australia challenge as to the validity of the charge and their obligation to administer the collection of the charge. But the Federal Government has finally relented and the charge is to be abolished. The abolition of the $5 arrival tax and the reduction in the rate of the departure tax from $20 to $10 has been welcomed by virtually every section of the tourist industry. Australia now has an annual turnover of $25 billion from the tourist industry, one-third of which eventually ends up in the pockets of Federal, State or local government. The abolition of the $5 arrival tax will not mean any difference to the perception I believe overseas visitors have of this country, but certainly the squeaky voices in the tourism industry, and particularly those motivated by political stunts, will have achieved their objective of burdening the Australian community with an additional $50m over the next three years. Finally, the Bill contains provisions which enable the Minister to exclude certain officers and classes of officers from exercising specific powers-for example, the power to validly issue an entry permit to a person seeking entry to Australia. The Minister, in his second reading speech, referred to additional powers which can presently be exercised by even the most junior officers of the Department irrespective of their duties or responsibilities. Clearly this situation cannot be allowed to continue. It is essential that only officers authorised by the Minister should have the power, for example, validly to issue an entry permit to a person seeking entry to Australia or to arrest a person suspected of being a prohibited non-citizen or search aircraft or ships for stowaways or persons suspected of seeking to enter Australia illegally. Mr Deputy Speaker, this may well be my last speech in this chamber. I would like to thank the staff of the Department of the House of Representatives for the courtesy extended to me at all times to enable me to discharge my duties on behalf of the people of the electorate of Herbert. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(11.24) —I thank the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) for their restraint tonight in keeping their speeches down to 10 minutes each. Like other members, this will be the last occasion that I will speak in this old provisional Parliament House. But I can think of no more appropriate a note to go out on than to go out on speaking about the demise of the arrival tax. This is a victory for the Opposition which we have fought very hard on. It is one which, as a result of our efforts and the efforts of people throughout the industry, has seen the scrapping of one of the most ridiculous taxes that any government, not only in Australia but throughout the world, could have possibly conceived. We have championed the cause against the arrival tax. We have been assisted by people such as Mr Frank O'Dwyer from the Australian Board of Airline Representatives and Mr Peter O'Clery from the Australian Tourist Industry Association and from the broader tourist industry and airline industry, and indeed we have been most ably assisted by those passengers departing from our international airports throughout Australia this year. We have been assisted by those people purely and simply because this tax has been well recognised as being one of the most ill-conceived, poorly thought out and poorly designed taxes ever brought before the people of Australia. I will tell the House what a few Australian people thought of this arrival tax. I quote from an article in the Melbourne Herald of 22 February this year: Australians among the passengers were especially blunt. `I think it stinks', said Mrs Helen Drews. A leading figure in the tourist industry said in an article in the publication Inside Tourism of 25 January this year: Industry critics of the tax include Thomas Cook Managing Director, John Massey, who said taxes on travel in Australia were now among the world's highest. Visitors to Australia should go home without feeling ripped off by a savage tax unequalled anywhere in the world. The Australian Tourism Industry Association said in March this year: Our members advise that: The fee is such an irritant that visitors returning overseas are beginning to bad-mouth Australia. That is what people felt about this tax. It is a very fair analysis of what people were saying about it generally and it is a very fair assessment of what it was doing to our tourist industry. It was doing immeasurable damage to an industry which has spent many years and a great deal of effort and money trying to build up a very good reputation around the world. As a result of that tax and the illogical nature of it, more than 200,000 people refused to pay it in its first few months of operation. A total of 200,000 people were prepared to break the law and suffer the consequences, purely and simply because they reckoned the tax was wrong. And wrong it was. If this Government was going about introducing charges in a proper way and was looking at this type of charge, the most logical thing to do would be to add the arrival tax to the departure tax and have one tax collected on one occasion so that it minimised the amount of bureaucracy and cost in collecting it. But, no. The logical things are impossible for this Government to do. This Government has to have two forms of taxes, collected in two ways, with two costs of collection and twice or even three times the problems associated with it. As a result, the airline industries of Australia, which are lumped with the responsibility of collecting the tax, will probably have to fork out in excess of $4m from their own pockets in order to pay for the arrival taxes that were not paid by passengers arriving in this country. Indeed, that $4m may well be extended because many Australians and international visitors now know that this tax is to be axed as of the end of next month. As a result, the rate of refusal to pay it will increase quite substantially. If this Government had tried to look at the best interests of our airline industry, it would have said last night, `As of midnight last night the arrival tax ceased to operate'. But, no, it said, `At the end of the next month the arrival tax will cease to operate', thus sending a clear signal to everybody that they should not bother to pay it. As a result, the airline industry will be further out of pocket. That is one of the biggest mistakes that this Government has made in scrapping the legislation. The legislation was doomed right from the outset. The whole philosophy behind it was wrong. Fancy placing a tax on Australians in order for them to return home! That philosophy is wrong. We are Australians and this is our country. We have a right to return to it and we do not have to pay a tax to get into it. What would happen if we refused to pay it? Would we be told, `Sorry, you can't come home till you pay.'? That is ridiculous, and all Australians saw it as such. The other ridiculous nature of the tax was that the Government refused to police it. Customs officers at our barriers were told to ignore completely whether a ticket had or had not an arrival tax stamp on it. They were told, if it did have an arrival tax stamp on it, not to negate that stamp and, consequently, people were able to use the stamp time and again if they were frequent travellers. It was an administrative nightmare. How on earth does one collect such a tax? The Government did not assist the airline industry at all in the manner in which the tax should be collected. It refused to assist in any way at all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 May, on notice by Mr Peter Morris: 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. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(11.32) —In talking to the third reading of the Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill, I want to say a few words about the sleight of hand in which the Government has been involved with this transaction. The Government has not decreased Government revenues but has increased them. To start with, I take the House to page 113 of the May 1988 economic statement and what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) says about the departure tax and immigration clearance fee: . . . The Government has decided that the departure tax will no longer be used to offset aviation infrastructure costs and will be retained as a general revenue measure at a reduced level of $10. It says that the Department of Transport and Communications will assume responsibility for the collection of the tax. It goes on to talk about revenue implications and to say that, as a result of the reduction of $10, the departure tax will reduce revenue by $35m in 1988-89. However, because the remaining revenue of $35m is going into general revenue, this will have the effect of increasing general revenue by $35m a year. Mr Scholes —Startling, stunning! Mr BEALE —If the honourable member for Corio listens he will find out how the Government has hoodwinked the Australian people and dills like him on the back bench. At page 155, in dealing with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the Treasurer says: The Government has reviewed the funding arrangements for the new authority and has decided that the CAA-- Mr Saunderson —Well done. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! Honourable members will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Deakin will continue in a broad comment on the general scope of the Bill. He will not go into specific details in a third reading debate. Mr BEALE —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The quote continues: . . . will introduce domestic en route charges for its services in place of budget revenues from excise and customs duties on . . . (avtur) and departure tax. Mr Holding —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: the honourable member is introducing new items into the third reading debate. Basically, that is contrary to the whole concept of a third reading. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Certainly, the commentary has come to the specific. I would ask the honourable member to confine his comments to the general scope of the Bill and not to introduce new material. Mr BEALE —We are speaking to the Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Certainly, but we do not go into specifics. Mr BEALE —I am not being specific. I am just pointing out that now we will have an increased revenue component of $70m in the Civil Aviation Authority. The Government started out with $70m revenue. It has now got an additional $35m. Mr Holding —On a point of order: these comments may be permissible in the second reading stage, but they involve the introduction of new factors into the debate, which is a comparatively narrow debate, and I suggest that the honourable member is out of order. Mr Cadman —On the point of order-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! First of all, if I may respond to this point of order, then I will call the honourable member for Mitchell. I will read from House of Representatives Practice: The motion for the third reading may be debated, but the scope of debate is more restricted than at the second reading stage, being limited to the contents of the bill, that is, the matters contained in the clauses and schedules of the bill. In order to avoid opening up or repeating debate on matters discussed on the motion for the second reading or during the committee stage, the debate on the motion for the third reading is limited to the bill as reported from committee. That would rule out any new comment. It continues: Clauses may not be referred to in detail in the third reading debate, nor may matters already decided in committee be alluded to. I ask the honourable member for Deakin to heed that. I will hear the honourable member for Mitchell on a point of order. Mr Cadman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer you to the explanatory memorandum on this legislation. Without referring to the matters to which the Minister alluded in his second reading speech, one has only to cast an eye over those matters-the economic impact, the financial cost, the way in which this matter is to be dealt with-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell has made his point. The honourable member for Deakin will take note: no going over debate already conducted and no alluding to new matters. Mr BEALE —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now that we have established that the Government is obtaining extra revenue, as has already been referred to in the second reading speech, the question is: who is paying this revenue? The answer to that is that the aviation traveller is paying. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin is out of order in these comments. As he has already pointed out, these matters have been alluded to in the debate on the second reading. If the honourable member has any general comments to make, I will call him. Mr BEALE —I certainly do. The general comment that I would make-I have attempted to make it several times tonight-is that the Government is trying to hoodwink the Australian people into believing that it is raising less revenue from the Bill and, in particular from the Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill; whereas the Government is raising more revenue by taking $35m into general revenue, and it is raising more revenue by causing the Australian travelling public to pay more-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin is out of order for continually harping on the matter of revenue, which we have decided between us has been brought up in the second reading stage. Should he allude to new revenue, that would be opening up new matters not within the content of the Bill, as reported. I suggest that, if the honourable member has any other general comment outside of that on revenue, anything which has not been debated, he may turn to that; otherwise he may like to be seated. Mr BEALE —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the whole question of revenue has come up in previous speeches-- Mr Holding —It came up in the second reading speech. Mr BEALE —I agree that the Minister in his second reading speech did, which is precisely the point that I was making. Mr Holding —I read it. Mr BEALE —Yes, I know. You read the third one. You did not do this one. The Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) did this one. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask honourable members to direct any comments to the chamber through the Chair, not across the table. Mr BEALE —Madam Deputy Speaker, I was pointing out to the Minister at the table when he interjected that he did not introduce the Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill that is under discussion here. He was responsible for the third Bill on the business sheet, the Migration Amendment Bill. Anyway, the upshot of the whole thing is that the Government has just hoodwinked the Australian people on this whole matter. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(11.41) —As I was saying earlier, the arrival tax was one of the most ill-conceived and poorly thought-out taxes ever imposed on the people of Australia. It was one of the most difficult to administer. Indeed, it was described by the industry as an administrative nightmare. No-one in the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs had really thought out how this tax was supposed to work. I believe that the Department had not given it proper consideration. Indeed, the Government obviously had not known what it was going to do with the nearly $17m it had estimated would be raised through the imposition of the arrival tax. It became very clear from questioning the various immigration Ministers overtime that there was no clear plan as to what they were going to do with the funds raised. For example, when Mr Young, the former Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, who has now fled this House for more lucrative pastures, first announced the introduction of the arrival tax he said that it would be used to pay for immigration services provided at airports. Later on, his successor, the present Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding), when asked in Question Time one day what the money would be used for, said it would be used for the purpose of upgrading airport facilities. Later on, in another Question Time in this House, as a result of a question asked by me, the same Minister said that the money would be used for the purchase of new technology to speed up passenger flow at our airports. It was quite obvious from the three separate statements on the proper purposes for the use of these funds raised by the new tax that nobody had a clear idea what was to be done with them. There were three quite separate and quite contradictory explanations of uses by the respective Ministers. Obviously, it had not been very well thought out. The Government continually refused to offer advice to help the airline industry with the collection of the tax. As a result of that the airline industry has been left with a bill of more than $2m from the collection of the tax so far. It was so poorly thought out that no-one thought to charge sea passengers arriving in Australia who use the same immigration services as airline passengers. Thousands of sea passengers were coming in each month, but nobody involved in the drafting of the legislation or the planning of the Bill had decided that they should be charged for the same services that airline passengers were being charged for. Also no-one realised that about 90 per cent of all services that are provided at the barriers at our international airports are provided not by Immigration but rather by the Australian Customs Service. Customs officers stand at our barriers and check passports and immigration details as passengers come through. However, Immigration was the department collecting and receiving the benefits of the arrival tax, whilst Customs was being left out in the cold. It is quite obvious that the excuse of using this tax as a means of paying for immigration services at our airports was not a just one at all. It was purely and simply a means of raising revenue for the general revenue purposes of this Government. Right from the outset there was no intention that the tax should be to cover the costs of immigration services at our airports. Another thing that the Government had not considered was that there are approximately 160,000 one-way passengers coming into our airports each year. Those 160,000 one-way passengers are called migrants. They come in and they do not go out. As the arrival tax was actually charged at the point of departure-rather an Irish way of doing things but the way that this Government chose to do it-all those 160,000 migrants did not get to pay the arrival tax. Obviously the airlines would have to make up the difference out of their own pockets, so the arrival tax was doing Australia's tourist reputation tremendous damage. That was well drawn out by people in the industry who were hearing views expressed by passengers travelling into and out of Australia. The honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) in his comments tonight indicated some of the views he had picked up around the industry; people leaving the country were upset at having to pay this extra tax. One does not have to argue about the amount-that is not important; it is the principle that is important, and that is what was causing Australia's tourist industry to suffer so much damage. It was not just the tourist industry that suffered damage. In the first few days of January the tax captured its first big fish in the form of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), who departed this land for an overseas trip somewhere, and in the process of departing forgot to pay his arrival tax. He, a Minister of the Cabinet, who would have been present at the time the Cabinet decided to impose this tax, would have been more aware of its presence than most other Australians, but he forgot to pay it. Although no doubt that was accidental on the part of the Minister, it highlighted the stupidity behind this tax and the fact that it was not going to work well. Ministers, people in the airline industry, travellers from around the world all had difficulty with it. The industry was told by the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) when he announced the introduction of this tax that he had been in consultation with the industry and that the industry was quite excited about the thought of an arrival tax. When the tax was announced, it was news to the industry. Nobody in the industry had heard about it, and people were not excited about this new tax. The way the Government has treated the airlines, the tourist industry and international tourists coming into this country can only be described as cavalier. Australia's reputation as a tourist destination has been treated very poorly and it will suffer for a long time as international tourists return home giving the advice to other people, `Don't go to Australia; all they are interested in doing is ripping taxes from the travelling public'. It reflects the attitude of this Government towards tourism. The Government's attitude is, `Let's tax everything we can out of it; let's use those funds to put into the big pot for general revenue purposes'. It wants the money for other purposes. It highlights the fact that the Government is constantly out of touch with the will of the people. The arrival tax was a disaster. It was designed by somebody who had no idea what he was doing and supported by somebody who had even less idea of what was going on in the tourist industry. I am pleased and proud that the Opposition was in the forefront of the attack against it and that as a result of our efforts and those of the industry, the airline operators and the tourists travelling into and out of this country we have been able to put the lid on one of the most ridiculous taxes this country has ever seen. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(11.48) —On this the last day of sitting in this House in the sixteenth year I have been here-- Mr McGauran —A good 16, too. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Thank you. I could hardly pass up this opportunity of saying a word in the context of debate on a Bill providing for the demise of a tax. Could anyone have imagined that this Government would ever provide for the demise of a tax? We are dealing with this measure in the context of the mini-Budget, which contained very little for the ordinary man in the street, ordinary Australians, and the one thing that it contained was an increase in taxes. It was not just that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) failed to cut taxes; he compounded that by increasing taxes for the great majority of ordinary Australians. What the battler gets out of the mini-Budget is an increase in taxes. I take a bit of light relief at this late hour of the night in saying a word or two on the Departure Tax Amendment Bill. There seems to be some confusion about whether it will have the effect of reducing the revenue garnered by this Government. The Government seems to have a golden hand when it comes to raking in revenue. Mr McGauran —An insatiable appetite. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —As my colleague says, an insatiable appetite for revenue. It is the biggest taxing government in the history of this country. In this mini-Budget the ordinary Australian is given a positive increase in tax. His taxes were not just increased proportionately to his increased income but also, as he moves into or further along a higher bracket, his taxes will increase. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Migration Amendment Bill has expired. The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.51) —The Bill is a mini-Budget Bill designed to have local governments believe this Government is doing them a favour when that could not be further from the truth. The Federal Government is trying to dupe local government with referendum questions to constitutionally recognise local government. It is letting them think that the Labor Government has their best interests at heart. It is trying to do it all over again. In recent weeks the Labor Government has made three decisions regarding local government, all of which have not taken any major step in helping or benefiting local government. The first was the referendum question; a referendum that will cost Australian taxpayers $40m and will provide local government with no guarantees on the matters they require; that is, financial security, guarantees against dismissal and guarantees against amalgamation. The second was made last night with a $30m cut to road funding as brought down in the May economic statement. Mr Lloyd —Right down it was. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Right down; local government can just manage to fill the pot holes. The third, which is contained in this Bill, is the bottom line in that it means a further loss in real terms for 1988-89 of $16,985m. Although the amendment is basically technical, if one were to believe the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding), one would believe the Government was giving local government some great extra bonus. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986 to allow the Commonwealth Government financial assistance to local government to stay in line with previous years because the formula was changed at the Premiers Conference. The Federal Government accepted the report of the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance in 1985 which said that local government should be treated on the same basis as State governments with regard to general purpose funds but it did not implement this system right away. In 1986 the Government made the guarantee that, in real terms, funding would be maintained. This is the first year that local government will be treated as equal with the States in general purpose funds. The Commonwealth defined general purpose funds in section 6 (5) (a) of the 1986 Act as including financial assistance grants, general purpose grants and identified health grants. This same formula was to be used to determine funding for the States as well as local government. However, the Premiers Conference changed the whole pattern for the States by lumping identified health grants with other minor health grants such as Medicare compensation grants and re-naming them hospital grants. In other words, the identified health grants disappeared in name only. This would have changed local government funding under the formula. As the paper shows, the funds allocated to the States and the Territories for identified health funds for 1988-89 in the Estimates are to be nil. That document which was prepared in connection with the last Budget showed that up to 1987-88 the identified health grants were $1,782m whereas they have been eliminated in 1988-89. The Act was changed to recognise that no funds were being received under the identified health grants, as I just mentioned. The amendment is just compensating local government for the loss of this third category. It is not doing local government any particular favour, it is just amending the situation that it created; it is just like the referendum in that it is not really giving local government anything. Furthermore, the Minister's second reading speech is misleading. It implies that the Government is actually increasing the amount of funding for local government. Instead, as I mentioned before, it is making an adjustment. However, if one looks at the funding figures in real terms, one will note that in actual fact there has been a loss of funding of about $17m for 1988-89, which is a drop of about 3 per cent. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table prepared by the Parliamentary Library. It shows the general purpose grants in real terms for the years 1976-77 up to and including the estimate for 1988-89, and it shows that real decrease of $17m. Leave granted. The table read as follows- REAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT GENERAL REVENUE GRANTS ($'000) Year Six States Six States N.T. 1976-77 ... 322,817 . . 1977-78 ... 352,170 . . 1978-79 ... 358,262 . . 1979-80 ... 402,900 404,829 1980-81 ... 494,148 496,514 1981-82 ... 516,212 518,684 1982-83 ... 562,576 565,270 1983-84 ... 565,455 568,163 1984-85 ... 563,078 565,774 1985-86 ... 578,983 581,755 1986-87 ... * 580,183 * 585,613 1987-88 (Est.) ... 588,065 593,660 1988-89 (Est.) ... 571,152 576,675 * In 1986-87 prices using Gross Non-Farm Product Deflator. Inflation in 1987-88 and 1988-89 is estimated to be 7.25% and 5.5% respectively. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I thank the House. In this regard the Minister prefers to overlook the influence of inflation; so the States and local government have both had their funding cut back. I also mention the difference made by a simple thing such as the payroll tax legislation introduced earlier whereby $200m was taken from the States. As compensation, they will receive $220m for payroll tax collections. Of course, in this transfer local government is the loser because it receives nothing to compensate for that $200m loss which it shares proportionately. I have another table which is rather relevant. The argument has been put over a period of years that, while the base has been changed, local government is getting a good deal under this Government. As honourable members would realise, under the Fraser Government's cooperative federalism the amount to local government was raised to 2 per cent of personal income tax. This table, which again was drawn up by the Parliamentary Library, indicates that the percentage of personal income tax, on the change-over, has been reduced to the 1988-89 estimate of 1.65 per cent. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- LOCAL GOVERNMENT GENERAL REVENUE GRANTS ($'000) Year Six States Six States and N.T.* Six States total as share of previous years P.I. Tax % 1976-77 ... 140,000 . . 1.52 1977-78 ... 165,328 . . 1.52 1978-79 ... 179,427 . . 1.52 1979-80 ... 221,739 222,801 1.75 1980-81 ... 300,786 302,226 2.00 1981-82 ... 350,865 352,545 2.00 1982-83 ... 424,486 426,519 2.00 1983-84 ... 459,335 461,535 2.00 1984-85 ... 486,534 488,864 2.00 1985-86 ... 535,966 538,532 1.91 1986-87 ... 580,183 585,613 1.85 1987-88 (Est.) 630,700 636,700 1.73 1988-89 (Est.) 646,252 652,500 1.65 * N.T. began receiving local government financial assistance in 1979-80 Mr BRAITHWAITE —As I have mentioned, the table shows that in real terms local authorities around Australia are receiving a smaller percentage of personal income tax. This is in spite of a promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), going into the 1983 election, that his Government would guarantee real increases in terms of inflation rates. Of course, in 1983-84 and again in 1984-85, in spite of the efforts of the Minister of the day, there was a loss of $27m to local government because that promise with regard to inflation was not kept. This is also an opportunity to draw attention to what I said earlier: the complaints that I have been receiving from local councils in my area over the past six months have been consistent. There have been complaints about a drop in the road funding which flows through from the Federal Government to local government. In fact, in my State of Queensland there have been massive conferences by all authorities, including councils, road construction authorities, the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland and any other interested parties. They have all been very alert to the fact that in the past five years under Labor there has been a loss of $300m in real terms in Federal Government road funding. Of course, this has flowed down. I have also received complaints about the reduction in the general purpose grants and particularly the way that they have been redistributed on a per capita basis eventually away from where they are needed. In fact, the Government is tying conditions, which did not previously apply, to the grants. They are the types of complaints that I have been getting. In all of that time, I have not received one complaint about the fact that local government is not being constitutionally recognised; and I have asked my colleagues what their experience has been in this regard. So what we see in this referendum proposal is a smokescreen. This was properly described-- Mr Hunt —It is a sop. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is a sop. It was properly described by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) in Caucus, where he said that the Federal Hawke Labor Government is in bad odour with local government because of its attitude towards road funding. What happened to the honourable member? He got rolled and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) took him to task for what he did. He now has to show himself in this House-although he is not showing himself at present and I do not blame him for not doing so. Of course, his seat of Herbert also houses the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds), and she has to take blame for this too. I just want to place on record what the conservatives did for local government when they were in office. It was that Government that first gave to local government a fixed funding arrangement through personal income tax sharing. That Government also provided for representation of local government to the States Grants Commission and the Australian Council of Local Government Associations. My good colleague the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) was responsible for the bicentennial levy of 2c per litre, which has now been indexed-- Mr Hunt —That is the only injection of good blood. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is right. That indexed amount is no longer going to roads. The Liberal and National parties also provided an extensive submission to the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance, and, as I mentioned earlier, we set up the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. I would like to contrast this with the Labor record. This Government disbanded the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations in 1986. As I mentioned earlier, it pegged back the 2 per cent of personal income tax to a figure of 1.65 per cent in 1988-89 terms. While the Labor Government indexed the bicentennial road levy introduced by the honourable member for Gwydir, it has reduced road funding by $300m, or 25 per cent, over the last three years. It set up the Constitutional Commission at a cost of $6m and ran a referendum costing $40m at a time when it still did not have funds to put into local roads and the road plan. What hypocrisy! Mr Hunt —What an outrage! Mr BRAITHWAITE —What an outrage. We can hardly bear to think about it. The local government provisions in the referendum do not include the Australian Territories. The Federal Government is also currently proposing to form Aboriginal compacts and councils and, under the terms of that referendum, a scheme for local government could well be included. The Labor Government also introduced quarterly payments of grants, again reducing the funding to local government. So it is hypocrisy for this Government to provide this sop and this smokescreen when it is in real trouble. Honourable members opposite should not think that, over the recess, we will not be telling every local council, every authority and every person who is interested in this matter exactly the way in which this Government is treating them and, in particular, the way this Government treated them last night. The Opposition is not opposing the legislation. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(12.04 a.m.) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Hunt —A genuine Labor man. Mr MILTON —The honourable member is quite right; I am a genuine Labor man. We on this side of the House are all genuine Labor men and women. Has anybody in this House heard such a diatribe of nonsense as we have just heard from the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite)? I am absolutely amazed at the honourable member for Dawson, for whom I normally have a fair degree of regard. He has an office just along the corridor from my office and we exchange cordial greetings most of the time. Yet here we have the honourable member for Dawson making these statements about the Hawke Labor Government-- Mr Baldwin —A load of sheer unadulterated bilge. Mr MILTON —I have to agree with the honourable member for Sydney, who is not actually sitting in his place but is here to give me moral support. The point is that local road funding has been increased by $13.8m to $269m in 1988-89 and that is actually maintaining the level of spending in real terms. How can honourable members opposite say that the Hawke Labor Government is not supporting local government when we have provided these additional funds for local roads? As my honourable friend has said, it is well recognised that on this side of the House-the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) also agree with my comments-- Mr Hunt —Another genuine Labor man. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr MILTON —Another genuine Labor man, as the honourable member for Gwydir has just acknowledged. On this side of the House we are all genuine Labor men and women. On this side of the House one cannot get stronger support for local government. It is ridiculous that honourable members opposite, having talked about the Hawke Labor Government not supporting local government, are opposing the amendment to the Constitution which would mean that there would be references to local government in the Constitution and that the Federal government would be able to make direct grants to local government. Sadly, conservative governments like the Queensland Government-we all know the complexion of the Queensland Government-are not prepared to give the proper recognition to local government which it deserves. I am very glad to have had the opportunity to speak on this Bill tonight. In my electorate I have four local government municipalities. Over the years they have all been asking me to support a change to the Constitution to give them recognition in the Constitution, something that should have been done by the founding fathers many years ago. Mr Scott —There are five in Hindmarsh, too. Mr MILTON —The honourable member for Hindmarsh has five municipal councils in his electorate. They are all supporting constitutional change which would allow them to have recognition. Mr Braithwaite —The honourable member for Kennedy has 33. Mr MILTON —I imagine that the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) will be in serious trouble if he has 33 municipal councils in his electorate. I hope that the honourable member for Kennedy is not opposing this amendment to the Constitution. If he is, he will be in serious trouble in his electorate. We will have to exert a little bit of pressure on the honourable member for Kennedy to make sure that he crosses the floor if the changes come back from the Senate, although I have high hopes that the Senate will approve the constitutional amendments. The matter will then go to the people. We will then see how honourable members opposite behave. Honourable members opposite say that the rural councils are not in favour of constitutional recognition of local government. That is not true. Mr Braithwaite —They are in favour of getting more money. Mr MILTON —Yes, of course. They are in favour of getting more money. Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Whilst I realise that there is a lot of goodwill about the Parliament on this last night, I point out that the House is debating the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill, and not the referendum Bills. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I am sure that the honourable member for La Trobe will have regard to relevance as he addresses the House. Mr MILTON —I heard the point of order raised by the honourable member, and I can understand why he is objecting. We are talking about finance to be provided for local government. I am talking about the vehicle which could be used to provide more finance for local government. That could be done by necessary constitutional changes. The honourable member is concerned because I am pointing out that, on this side of the House, we have always had strong recognition of the important role that local government plays in the Constitution. Mr Braithwaite —You are flogging money off them, and you know it. Mr MILTON —Not at all. I know full well that the local government municipalities in my area will be very pleased by these increases in local road funding. We have very serious problems in my electorate. The outer eastern region of Melbourne is a very rapidly growing electorate. It has many local roads and local government there needs support. This Government has recognised the need for that support. The Australian bicentennial roads development (ABRD) program, which will replace existing road programs, provides for the continuation of the specific funding for local roads. In fact, the ABRD program will run for five years from 1 January 1989 to 31 December 1993. Of course, the Hawke Labor Government will be in office at that time, so we will be able to ensure that there is a continuation of this finance for local road funding. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) will give details about the funding which will be provided. It is very important for this House to recognise that members on this side of the House strongly support local government. We should recognise that over the years the responsibilities which local government have taken on have increased. Rates are not sufficient to provide those funds for local government. This has been the reason, of course, why they have lobbied members of parliament to get this change in the Constitution. Mr Hicks —How is that going to help? Mr MILTON —It will enable the Federal Government to give direct recognition to local government and to provide more funds in the way that is being done for local road funding. Mr Hunt —It is a constitutional fuddle. Mr MILTON —I am absolutely amazed that the honourable member for Gwydir does not understand the way in which constitutional amendments are being framed. It is disappointing that the honourable member should see it in that way because quite obviously there will be a lot of unhappiness in his electorate because of his attitude towards the recognition of local government. I would like to say a little more about the key features of this program which the Government has set in motion by way of this Bill. I point out that the Federal Government will continue its commitment to upgrade and maintain the national highway system. That will be its first priority. I pointed out the increases in funding that will occur for local roads, but there will be a new category-national arterials. The national arterials category funding will be directed towards roads which will reduce transport costs to export and import competing industries which have a high economic return. Construction projects on these roads will be fully funded by the Federal Government. The funds will not just be used for maintenance. They will provide work for Australian construction workers. Therefore, I give very strong support to this Bill and I congratulate the Hawke Government on the work that it has done on this mini-Budget. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.13 a.m.) —I am grateful to have the opportunity, in the closing stages of debate both in this chamber and on the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988, to make a comment or two on the present funding arrangements that local government faces. Mr Holding —Two comments. Mr ANDREW —I also acknowledge, in what I hope will be the bipartisan spirit that pervades this chamber in this almost loungeroom conversation we are having this evening, my gratitude to the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) for curtailing his remarks to enable me, as the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) indicated, to make a remark or two. In last night's statement, when so much was said by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about the need for more equitable income redistribution, when so much was said about the need for redistribution from powerful income groups to less powerful income groups, it is with some real regret that I look at this local government Bill and see what has been a veiled attack on the most vulnerable form of administration in the nation. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) has outlined the fact that the Bill before the House compensates local government for changes that have occurred in funding categories. Under the Self report-the report of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance-as we are all aware, States and local government were to be treated equally. The same formula was to apply for the funding of both. Under the changes that occured at the Premiers Conference a third category of funding, the health funding category, has been lost to the States. This Bill compensates local government for that loss to ensure that local government's funding formula remains the same as that for the States. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES As the honourable member for Dawson stressed, and as the statistics he has before him and I have in front of me indicate, local government has been the loser under the present Administration. After the Fraser Government agreed in 1980-81 to move to 2 per cent personal income tax (PIT) as a funding base, local government knew that it had a fixed figure on which it could build its budget. That was the case during at least three Fraser administrations and, I must add, through two Hawke administrations. But then the Hawke Government decided that, along with the rest of Australia, local government's funding could be pruned. The percentage of PIT that was made available to local government fell from 2 per cent, to 1.9 per cent, 1.8 per cent, 1.7 per cent and 1.6 per cent. One could reasonably observe that, if it went on like that for another fifteen years, local government would get nothing at all. In real terms in 1988-89, thanks to last night's statement, local government is losing almost $17m-a drop in real terms of 3 per cent. This is an attack on what is effectively the most vulnerable, most representative and most accountable form of administration currently in Australia. Those of us who have had some experience with local administration, with serving in local government, know that local councillors cannot escape the constituency. One of the privileges of being members of Federal Parliament is that at least when we come to Canberra we have left the constituency almost an arm's length away. But if one is in local government, whether one is at the silo, at the bar, in the sports arena or at the school council, the constituency is there, wanting an opinion on the last decision the council made. This most vulnerable and accountable form of administration is having its funds cut by the Hawke Government. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr Holding —You do not want to recognise it because it is not there. Mr ANDREW —The Minister is choosing as usual to misinterpret my remarks entirely. As if it is not enough to prune the PIT allowance that local governments have come to depend on, we also have an attack on road expenditure. Mr Milton —That is nonsense. Mr ANDREW —I notice that the honourable member for La Trobe in his remarks was anxious to point out to the House that $13.8m is being made available for local roads. Exactly the same comment was made by the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) this morning when he shared a radio interview with me about last night's mini-Budget. The honourable member for Grey and the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) conveniently forgot that, as the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) has admitted, $50m is being pruned from the national roads program and only $13.8m is to be made available for local roads. In real terms that means a drop of $37m in funding for the building of roads. As I said on radio 5CK this morning-it acutely embarrassed the honourable member for Grey-if the $50m allocation was no longer needed for national roads it should have found its way into the local roads program. I speak with some passion about this matter because in South Australia a real campaign has been mounted, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) would know, to have money spent on country roads. One of the key areas of road expenditure has been the electorate of Wakefield. It is not unique. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) would have the same problem. Roads are unsealed and, as if being unsealed was not enough, they are being torn up by constant use. The national road infrastructure will cease to exist and we will pass on to future generations an enormous debt that will never be able to be met. Nowhere is this more acute than in rural areas. In rural areas the very produce that those opposite are depending on to address the balance of payments problems has to get to the ports and silos over roads that are being torn up by the trucks carrying that grain and wool. Who has to maintain them? It is no longer the Government. It is no longer a Federal responsibility but is now a local responsibility. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! I regret to have to advise the honourable member that the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that the Bill be read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill concurrently with the Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr LLOYD(Murray)(12.21 a.m.) —At this absurd hour and subject to this restrictive guillotine, we have the Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill and the Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill to debate. When this Parliament's agenda was set we were to be sitting next week. The sensible situation would have been for this Parliament to sit next week so that there could be adequate debate not only for these Bills but for all the other Bills which are imposing increasing hardship on the country people of Australia, and to get the message through and to have questions answered here on the confusion, the contradictions and the imposts that are being put on those people. The Fertiliser Subsidy Amendment Bill terminates the phosphatic and nitrogenous fertiliser bounties from 1 July with a saving to the Government of $50m. It ends quite a long period of parliamentary association and legislation, particularly with phosphatic bounties, which commenced in 1931. The nitrogen bounty commenced in 1966 and for most of that time there has been some form of bounty assistance. It was temporarily abolished by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1975. In that period Mr Whitlam went to Gippsland and said to the farmers of Gippsland and Australia, `You have never had it so good'. Mr McGauran —And we have never forgiven him. Mr LLOYD —He was never forgiven. The termination of the fertiliser bounty was a symbolic feature in the country revolt against the Labor Government in the 1975 election. It was symbolic of the fact that the Labor Government had turned its back on the country people of Australia. Mr McGauran —Gippsland survived despite him. Mr LLOYD —Gippsland is surviving well with its present member. If honourable members look at the symbolic situation concerning Labor turning its back once again on the country people of Australia, they will see the shameful situation of income equalisation deposits, which are so necessary for self-insurance by rural people, being delayed unnecessarily for 12 months until 1989 instead of commencing from 1 July 1988. Mr Hawker —It is deliberate. Mr LLOYD —It is a deliberate delay. That is symbolic-as with the fertiliser bounty in 1975-of the way country people feel about this Government. Since January 1986 the bounty has been paid only on locally produced fertiliser. Special compensation payments have been made to importers to offset dumping duties on imported fertiliser. The situation at that time raised the question of actually who is helped by the bounty. Is it the farmers of Australia or is it the local fertiliser manufacturers? 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The Opposition parties will not oppose this legislation. It is Budget legislation. Country people recognise that all sectors of our society must share in reduced government expenditure. There have been distortions in the purpose and coverage of the bounty since the new arrangements in 1986. It is of declining value. It is $13 out of a cost per tonne of $130 to $140-10 per cent or less. I can remember in my younger days as a farmer when the percentage was several times higher than it is now. The continuation of the bounty nowadays creates a negative image for rural people with other sectors of our society because it is seen by those people, incorrectly and unfortunately, as somehow or other part of a massive subsidy arrangement for the farmers of this country when in reality the degree of assistance for agriculture is about half that of the manufacturing sector. So it was in this situation earlier this year that the National Farmers Federation (NFF), through its President, Mr Ian McLachlan, proposed a trade-off with this Government. Ian McLachlan, in his final speech to the National Farmers Federation conference here in Canberra on 18 May-only a week or so ago-stated that part of this trade-off was as follows: . . . we said that all that aside, on an all or nothing basis, as a special arrangement across the board, we were prepared to give up the superphosphate bounty as long as we could buy fertiliser at world prices, and as long as the tariffs were removed from parts for agricultural machinery not produced in Australia. That is what Mr McLachlan said, only a week ago, reiterating what the NFF genuinely considered was a trade-off in return for the termination of that bounty. I now quote from the speech of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) in this House last night after the presentation of the May statement. He said: . . . the Government is disposed to grant duty free entry on agricultural and mining equipment and parts not made in Australia. I make this point: the Government is `disposed'; it has not made a decision; it is not at this stage keeping its part of that deal. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr Hunt —I hope the farmers are disposed to give him a good kick. Mr LLOYD —Yes, to dispose of him, as a part of it. So the Government is on trial with the farming community of Australia. Its credibility is very much at stake at present. The point in particular is that the farmers of Australia are watching in relation to this situation. The Government will make its decision following an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry, but the farmers are taking the Minister at his word, believing there will be and requiring duty free by-law admission of any agricultural machinery parts not made in Australia. I am not saying `not capable of being made in Australia' or `not where someone else intends to make those parts in Australia', but `not made in Australia'. I want to make that important distinction. I can give honourable members an example of this: too often in the past by-law admission has been refused because somebody has indicated that he has an ability or an intention to manufacture something. Mr Hunt —Sometimes never. Mr LLOYD —Yes, sometimes never-and the tariff remains. I give a specific example-agricultural lasers, which for years we fought to get by-law admission for so we could get on with the job of improving the salinity situation in the Murray Valley. Because of one person who kept on claiming he was going to make an agricultural laser there was an unnecessary cost to people for years. I want to make it clear that the farming community will not tolerate that sort of situation with agricultural machinery parts in relation to the deal that it believes it has made with this Government. So let the Government be warned. Not only does the by-law admission come in but it comes in completely for machinery parts not made in Australia-no ifs or buts-and capable of being or intended to be made in Australia. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The second part of the deal was to allow the Australian farmer to buy fertiliser at world prices. The National Farmers Federation is concerned, as are the coalition parties, that because Australian farmers have to compete at world prices in exporting and keeping this country viable they are entitled to purchase their fertiliser at world prices. This means that timing will be critical for the Government with the section 96 grants it has been making, compensation measures, and the removal of anti-dumping duties Unless this happens there will not be genuine access at world prices to fertiliser for use by Australian farmers. We know that world prices for fertilisers have risen. They were tipped to rise in Australia, and they have now firmed. Conversely the amount of phosphate rock that we get from that tied situation existing with Christmas Island is declining, and the very high cost of the shipping service is declining as a part of the final cost of fertiliser in Australia. The shipping arrangements are better now than they were several years ago. But the only way to make sure that Australian farmers are able to compete and have access is to allow fertiliser to be freely imported, or grant the ability to import, so that there is this access to fertiliser at world prices. After all it was only last night that the Government showed how brutal it can be in requiring world efficiency in the citrus industry, the sugar industry, the dried vine fruits industry and the dairy industry. The viability of all regional and coastal Queensland, with its sugar industry, has been threatened. The very least the Government can do is to allow some access to fertilisers. The second Bill, the Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Expenses) Bill 1988, enables the Commonwealth to recover from agricultural industries the cost of collecting and disbursing funds raised through industry levies and charges. The Government will raise $1.93m out of a total of $95.7m collected, or 2.2 per cent of the collection. This is petty and it is pathetic. The Government will do anything and everything to recover everything possible from the farm sector. It will extract anything at all that it can get its hands on. Mr Hunt —Why don't they leave it to compete with subsidised farmers overseas? 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr LLOYD —The honourable member is right. It is part of the $100m in extra charges and taxes that this Government imposed last night on the rural sector of Australia. What did it do to the other sectors of Australia? Nothing like it, even although agriculture already has less assistance and has to compete more in the world. I would be interested to hear of an equivalent government cost recovery collection arrangement in another sector of our society, such as the Public Service. I would be very interested to hear whether the same degree of cost recovery, of chasing every last dollar, goes on in other sectors. I believe this action is particularly petty because the rural sector of this country makes a greater commitment to research than any other sector of our society. That is one of the reasons why it is more efficient. Even when farmers' average income was one-third of average weekly earnings of this country they still made a contribution to research and promotion. There is nothing like this in the manufacturing industry. Some years ago I was shadow Minister for health. The Labor Government cut medical research grants. That was poor of it. I talked to the doctors of this country and suggested to them, `Why don't you do the same as the farmers of this country and put up some of your own money?'. That was a little bit too much for the doctors, whose incomes are far higher than those of farmers, to accept. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES I go further and mention the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Look at what this Government is doing with rural research funds through CSIRO. It is diverting the money from rural research and requiring a higher percentage of farmer provided finances as a part of total research. This is a good example of this Government hitting that sector, a sector that has done more to help itself through its commitment to research than any other sector. Once again, because this is a Budget Bill, the Opposition coalition will not be opposing it, but I think it is petty and I think it is pathetic. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.36 a.m.) —These Bills, the Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill and the Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill, are made easier by the emergence over the past few years of a different type of farm leadership in Australia, and Ian McLachlan is someone I have had differences with on a number of occasions over the past few years, particularly at Cooma last year when I criticised his call for cuts in road funding by $100m. I am pleased to say that in the recent Budget the Government did not accept that sort of advice and in fact funding to local roads has not been reduced at all in real terms. Even the drop in national arterial road funding, which was referred to earlier, is partly as a result of the fact that there is less construction on national highways and the emphasis is more on maintenance. We certainly did not accept that recommendation. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES What Mr McLachlan did do was take the farming industries out of the realm of politics, particularly the long association they had had with the National Party of Australia. Gone are the days of the McEwen influence, and that was referred to earlier today. Assistance to agriculture by the Federal Government was approximately 16 per cent for 1986-87, compared with 19 per cent to manufacturing. I appreciate that there is quite a good deal of assistance to dairying. The extraordinary ability of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) to cooperate with the dairy industry has meant that a lot of difficulties in a number of States, particularly New South Wales and Victoria, have so far been overcome to the extent that the industry is adapting, and I believe will adapt so that it does not receive the same level of protection, just as will the citrus and vine industries. Primary industry will soon be able to say to other industries: `Do as we do'. It is getting to that stage now. I believe that by 1992-93 the assistance to primary industry will have dropped to approximately 11 per cent from the present 16 per cent. One of the features of the Bills we are discussing removes the fertiliser subsidy. That was so difficult to do in the days of the Whitlam Government, but there has been a change of attitude by farming industries, and the fertiliser subsidy has been removed with much less complaint than at that time. This is partly due to the negotiating skills of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, and partly due to the fact that the National Farmers Federation is sincere in its desire to see Australian markets freed from protection. It is important to note that the Government has also reduced domestic price supports for farm products. It has reformed the price underwriting systems, replacing the embargo on sugar imports with tariffs, and extended the period for plant and equipment depreciation. These are the other important factors in the Government's whole economic picture, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) called it. I do not always accept what the Industries Assistance Commission says, particularly about problems with coastal shipping, but I do always accept its economic and statistical figures. It has said that the measures outlined by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy will reduce the effective rate of assistance in agriculture to that 11 per cent by 1992-93. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The Government has also begun to grapple with the structural inefficiencies in the transport sectors; first, by implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport-honourable members on both sides would agree that that was overdue and that it was good to see it happening-and, secondly, by foreshadowing reforms in the areas of coastal shipping and rail freight. There is much to be done about reducing inefficiencies. The maritime industry and the seamen of Australia can compete with overseas shipping, but not against tax havens. That does not mean that there is no room for improvement. All sides agree with that. I pay tribute to the Seamen's Union of Australia, whose representatives today came to see me and two of the government policy committees-that of industry and that of transport and communications-to make the point very strongly that they were prepared to adapt, train and learn. One of the great benefits of the legislation is that there will be a phase-down in industry protection in manufacturing. This means that an estimated $350m in agricultural returns will go to farmers. The Government has also introduced an income equalisation deposit scheme to help primary producers with income stabilising investments. That was called for at the meeting to which I referred earlier in Cooma prior to the 1987 elections. Twenty Labor members of parliament from country electorates heard the views expressed and took the message back to the Government. Deposits will be tax deductable in the year of deposit and assessable in the year of withdrawal. Interest will be paid at the appropriate government bond rate adjusted to remove unwarranted tax benefits. There will also be duty free entry of agricultural and mining machinery parts not manufactured in Australia and a wide range of education, training, research and marketing initiatives taken by the Government. This legislation is part of that larger economic picture and it is good to see primary industry organisations having a role in that development. I am pleased to support the legislation. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(12.43 a.m.) —In speaking to the Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill and the Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill, I will begin by endorsing some of the comments made by my colleague the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). But first I want to take exception to some of the points brought up by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow). He said that there had been no real cuts in road funding. Let me point out to him that, over the last four years, Federal funding for roads has been frozen at about $1,245m. By any measure, the effects of inflation amount, in real terms, to a cut. So to say that there have been no cuts is quite misleading. He also talked about the level of assistance to primary industry. According to some figures I have from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, the effective rate of assistance to agriculture is more like 12 per cent now and, as the honourable member said, it will obviously fall. The honourable member said that the Government had reintroduced the income equalisation deposit scheme. I welcome that, but I point out to him that it was his Government that took the damned thing away in the first place. I do not think that he wants to be too proud of himself because he has just woken up, after about four years, to a mistake made in 1984. I found it fascinating to read the second reading speech of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) to the Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill and some of the justification that was pulled up for the abolition of the subsidy. He made some fascinating remarks as to why the bounty was not quite right and referred to a 1984 Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) inquiry. The Government had an opportunity in 1984 to take the fertiliser bounty off if it felt that it was no longer justified on the basis of the IAC report. So I do not know why the Minister suddenly, four years later, seems to think that that is relevant. Then he questions whether it is an assistance to make the rural industries more productive. I would have thought that that is never a question. He then goes on to refer to the support as a compensation for the support that is given to secondary industries. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES In the limited time available, I would like very briefly to talk about the effective rate of assistance to secondary industry as compared with primary industry. I have a table which is taken out of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report of February this year, Primary Industry Assistance in an Economy-wide Context. I seek leave of the House to have the table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 6: COMPARISON OF ASSISTANCE TO AGRICULTURE AND TO MANUFACTURING Item Unit 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Net subsidy equivalent Agriculture ... $m 911 758 641 699 Manufacturing ... $m 5706 6094 6687 6477 Budgetary assistance Agriculture ... $m 592 473 439 430 Manufacturing ... $m 358 281 302 320 Budgetary assistance as a percentage of net subsidy equivalent Agriculture ... % 65 62 68 61 Manufacturing ... % 6 5 5 5 Effective rate of assistance(a)(b) Agriculture ... % 17 (34) 12 (33) 10 (41) 12 (42) Manufacturing ... % 21 (40) 21 (43) 22 (48) 20 (40) Nominal rate of assistance(c) Agriculture ... % 7 6 5 6 Manufacturing ... % 13 13 13 12 (a) Standard deviations, which provide an indication of the variability of assistance rates across industries within the sector, are given in parentheses. (b) The percentage change in gross returns per unit of output relative to the hypothetical situation of no assistance. (c) The percentage change in returns to value adding factors per unit of output. Source: IAC (1987 a, b) Mr HAWKER —I thank the House. The table is dated February 1988, but the latest figures that could be found were for 1985-86. The table shows that between 1983-84 and 1985-86, the net subsidy equivalent to agriculture fell by 7.8 per cent. The net subsidy equivalent to manufacturing rose by 6.3 per cent. If one looks at the effective rate of assistance, one finds that agriculture is getting only 12 per cent while manufacturing is still getting 20 per cent, as at the date of these figures. When one talks about compensation, there is still a long way to go. To use the justification that the changes in last night's mini-Budget were, in fact, justification for removing this bounty does not stand up to too much close scrutiny. In the limited time available, I would also point out that the superphosphate bounty is now only roughly 8 per cent of the cost of the super by the time it is spread on the paddock. So to make reference to price elasticity is really getting a bit misleading. I would also like to talk briefly on the other Bill, the Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill. I would like to make a couple of points on this. I think it is a rather niggardly effort by the Government. It is supposedly going to charge the various primary industry collection funds $1.2m for the favour of collecting that money to allocate it for the purposes of research and for the purposes of the various industry support funds, particularly that of the Australian Wool Corporation and the self-supporting fund out of that. I find it extraordinary that the Government is prepared to go chasing after cost recovery on the fact that it collects these levies on behalf of the various organisations, particularly for use in research and also in other related areas. If we are going to be consistent about this-and I think this is a fundamental point and one that the Government ought to think about long and hard before it starts bringing in niggardly little efforts like this-if we are going to talk about cost recovery and if we are going to say to industry, `Look, the Government is going to charge you for the privilege of collecting those levies and then distribute them for research', or whatever it is, why do we not look at some of the efforts of industries and employers in collecting funds for the Government? 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The most obvious one that comes to mind straightaway is all the employers who must collect pay as you earn tax by the month. They get no recompense for that. If the Government is going to charge industry for collecting levies, I think it ought to seriously consider the consistency of that statement and think about whether it is going to pay employers and industry for the collection they make on behalf of government. When it comes to income tax, the fringe benefits tax, the cost of quarterly provisional payments and the cost of collection of prescribed payments tax, I think one will find that the Government should think long and hard before it goes too much further down this path. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) ought to have a bit of a think about whether he is going to proceed with this. On the grounds of consistency, I think he has a great problem. There are tremendous costs to business, particularly small business, in complying with all the Government regulations it has to. I think of an example recently, this week, when one employer found himself in trouble because he would not fill in a statistics form. In fact, he was taken to court. That costs time and money, and yet the Government makes no effort to pay for that. So to turn around and ask the industry to pay when the Government collects money on its behalf is setting a precedent that the Government should seriously think about before it applies it any further. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question now is that the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.52 a.m.) —I rise to make a comment or two on the Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1988 because of the particular impact it has on my electorate, which is in fact a large grain producing electorate. Those electors in Wakefield in the grain industry have become very dependent on and accustomed to the fertiliser subsidy. Picking up the statements made earlier by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), I would have to agree, as indeed the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) alluded to, that in fact the National Farmers Federation and the farmers of the electorate of Wakefield have been quite prepared to trade the fertiliser subsidy for a number of other concessions. Among those concessions has been the statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last night that we would see a further cut in the secondary industry tariffs currently borne by primary industries. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES I point out to the House that the Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill currently being debated means that primary producers around Australia will forfeit something like $55m; and part of the trade-off for this has been the breakdown in tariff support that secondary industry has enjoyed. I note in the Treasurer's statement last night that, as part of the trade-off for forgoing the fertiliser subsidy currently being debated by the House, the Treasurer indicated that he was prepared to introduce income equalisation deposits (IEDs). I would only want to say to the House in the opportunity that I now have that farmers in electorates such as Wakefield welcome the reintroduction of IEDs, as has been proposed by the conservative parties over the past 12 months or so-perhaps longer-and backed by the National Farmers Federation. I also point out that this trade-off between the fertiliser subsidy and the IEDs as part of that deal is not all advantageous to grain farmers, particularly in an electorate such as mine and the electorate of the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher). In recent times these farmers have faced a considerable downturn in farm income. It is unlikely that IEDs will either be immediately appealing to them or will solve any of the immediate tax problems they are likely to face. The immediate problem with grain farmers who have been heavy users of fertilisers and who have agreed effectively to trade the fertiliser bounty that they were receiving in return for other considerations is that they have gone substantially into debt with the fall that has occurred in real returns on grain and the difficult trading environment in which Australia has found itself. Being substantially in debt, it is highly unlikely that these farmers will find the IEDs particularly attractive to them. The immediate pressure they have is more likely to be from bank managers to meet that debt than it is likely to be from bank managers asking them why they do not invest their returns in IEDs. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES I want to make only a concluding remark or two and stress the point that the money farmers must generate to meet that debt is money that is being used to pay off principal. It is money that has to be found after tax. Therefore, for all these farmers it takes $2 of income, taxed, to pay off $1 of principal. The opportunity to buy IEDs is not likely to be particularly appealing to grain farmers who have not had the sort of income that would make the IED scheme attractive to them in the short term. This is not a criticism of IEDs. I back the action of the Treasurer in following the policy of the Liberal and National parties and the National Farmers Federation in reintroducing them. I merely point out that IEDs are not likely immediately to appeal particularly to grain farmers. It is those same grain farmers who have, in fact, been prepared to trade the considerable advantage they have enjoyed-the superphosphate bounty subsidy which we are debating tonight-estimated at something like $55m, in order to obtain from the Government IEDs and some other concessions. I note, with a shade of indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the economic statement last night by the Treasurer was not all a one-way street. There are other areas such as wool promotion funding and export inspection fees in which farmers are now saddled with additional costs. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(12.58 a.m.) —In the debate on this the last Bill, the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill 1988, which comes before the House at nearly 1 a.m. under the guillotine, I point out that this Bill is not part of the mini-Budget package. It is not a Bill that results from the economic statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) yesterday. It is not a Bill that has to be passed through the House in a great hurry. It has been tacked on to the end of the mini-Budget Bills. It is a Bill that arises because the Government has been quite sloppy in the way in which it has brought together the Civil Aviation Bill and the way in which it has created the Civil Aviation Authority. We have seen the amendment to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill in the Senate. As I understand it, that Bill will be reintroduced here next Friday-a week today, I point out, as it is now well into Friday. That will foreshadow the first series of amendments to be made to the Bill creating the Civil Aviation Authority. This is another Bill that deals with amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill and, as I understand it, even more Bills will be needed to deal with the sloppy drafting that has been carried out by this out of touch Government. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr Peter Morris —You are not on that again, are you? You are an honourable man. Mr BEALE —It is a pleasure to see the Minister at last slouching in so that he can cop his medicine as a result of the sloppy drafting that has been done on the Civil Aviation Bill. It is an absolute disgrace that this Bill should be brought before the House at one minute past one on Friday morning, that we should have to debate at this late hour a Bill that picks up the errors that the Government has made with the Civil Aviation Bill. Accordingly, I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for: (1) the funding shortcomings of the proposed Civil Aviation Authority; and (2) its failure to include these revenue provisions in the Civil Aviation Bill 1988'. The first thing that should be said about this Bill and the funding shortcomings that necessitate it is that the Government has indulged in an extraordinary lack of consultation on this and the Civil Aviation Bill. In fact, the establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority is one of the worst examples of any government's consultation with industry on the crucial issue of the establishment of an industry body which, after a revaluation, might very well have assets that are worth $1 billion. If the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) would like to come out of the dogbox and down to the table to listen to what I have to say, not only would he learn something, but maybe we could stop this rubbish happening again. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Despite rumours of an internal working report on these matters, no information has been released about the way in which this Bill has come about, no information has been released about the proposed internal workings of the Civil Aviation Authority, and there has been no examination of and no information on the funding shortcomings that are revealed as a result of the introduction of this Bill. Despite a briefing from officers of the Department, who were most cooperative on this matter, very little light has been shed on this measure or on the Civil Aviation Bill. Perhaps the Government does not know what it is doing on this whole thing. Perhaps the Government is so out of touch and so unable to perceive what it wants to do with aviation that it has created this extraordinary Authority with no rules, no regulations, no understanding-- Mrs Kelly —You recommended it. Mr BEALE —We voted against the Bill, you dill. Mrs Kelly —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the honourable member called me a dill. He should withdraw that remark. Only the honourable member for O'Connor can do that. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will watch his language. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr Price —Take your foot off the chair. Mr BEALE —The honourable member should not give me any trouble because the more trouble he gives me the less time he will have to speak. The results of an internal inquiry into the proposed creation of the Civil Aviation Authority, the Willoughby inquiry, have never been made public. Why is it that the Willoughby inquiry had some conclusions that were never made public? What is the Government trying to hide on this question? At 1.05 a.m., after having dealt with a package of Bills that arise from the May economic statement by the Treasurer, why is the Government trying to push this piece of legislation through the House? The sitting is not being broadcast. The advisers box is full but that is about all that is full around here. Why is the Government breaking its neck to pass this legislation without any consultation, without any time for discussion, and virtually without any debate? The debate will conclude in 24 minutes, just as my time runs out. What has the Government got to hide? While on the subject of what the industry sees as essential for the success of modernisation of the regulations surrounding Australian aviation, I point out that Minister Morris-that is the Minister who is the Minister but the Minister who was not the Minister-foreshadowed the creation of the Civil Aviation Authority in his October 1986 statement. At that time he said consultation with the industry would take place. There has been no consultation with the industry. All the major players in Australia's aviation industry, along with the rest of the industry, have yet to have a real input into the discussions that lead to the creation of the Civil Aviation Authority. No wonder the Opposition is very suspicious about this Bill, about the need for the Bill at this time, and about the financing arrangements that surround the Authority. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES For months the Minister and the Department have said, `Of course there will be consultation. We wouldn't think of introducing legislation without at least telling you what was in it'. However, there was no significant consultation. The Bill just appeared. The first time most of the people involved in aviation saw the Bill was when the Opposition posted it to them. The Opposition collected 20 copies of the Bill and its explanatory memorandum and copies of the second reading speech after the Minister introduced it and posted them to people in the industry. The next morning people kept ringing up and asking, `What happened late last night? Where has the Bill come from? Why has this Bill arrived? Where has the consultation been?'. If that is the Minister's idea of genuine consultation with the industry, it is little wonder that the Government has such a poor reputation with people in the industry and that the industry is very wary of what the Government does. Mr Peter Morris —You're on the wrong Bill. Mr BEALE —The Minister did not read the amendment. Mr Peter Morris —The amendment shows that you are on the wrong Bill. Mr BEALE —The amendment shows that the Minister messed up the Bill. The Minister is on the wrong Bill. He messed up the first Bill so badly that he had to introduce legislation to correct it at 1.10 a.m. on Friday following debate on the referendum Bills. This Bill, the Civil Aviation Bill and the Civil Aviation Authority do not address the difficulties that face the aviation industry and are not responsive to the needs of the industry, which, as we all know, is overstaffed and top heavy. I shall take the opportunity of reading one or two quotes, for the benefit of the Minister, from what has been said about his Department. Let me quote a commercial pilot and writer: 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The Department of Aviation are champions at procrastination, buck passing and consistently playing one interest group off against the other through their ongoing policy of keeping the industry fragmented so there is never any unity in lobbying for improvements. That is what happens. That is what goes on with this Government and the Department of the Minister for Transport and Communications Support. They have a deliberate policy of splitting the industry up into small pieces to keep it fragmented so that a proper industry view cannot be put to the Department and nothing can be done about the difficulties that the industry has with the Minister's out of touch Department. There has been no attack on the central problem of the Department. Mr Peter Morris —You are an honourable man, but you are on the wrong Bill. Mr BEALE —I am talking to the amendment in relation to the Bill, about the funding difficulties in relation to the Bill and about why the Government at this late hour has brought in this Bill. I draw the Minister's attention to the amendment that I have moved, in relation to the Bill. If the Minister would sit down and listen, instead of giggling, like a little girl in the corner, with his mates, we might get somewhere. If the Minister listened properly, he might be able to do a little bit better in relation to the administration of his Department and take the message back to his Department that this out of touch Government is now on notice to do something. There has been no real focus on the central problem of the Department, namely, the outdated regulations, orders and directions which have just been tying up Australia's aviation industry in red tape. A review has been announced several times by various Ministers, including once by this Minister. They have altered its form, they have changed its time for submission, but as yet they have not produced a single improvement for the aviation industry. When and if-and I doubt `when' and I do not think `if'-it is possible for this Minister to produce something worth while, the industry will be very happy with him and very proud of him. I will say a couple of other things about what has been going on in the Department and how that relates to the Bill and its funding shortcomings-indeed, the whole Civil Aviation Authority. I refer to the Aviation Committee of Review proposal. Madam Speaker, I am sure that you are as interested in this Bill as every other member of the House. What I am about to say will enable you to focus a little on how out of touch this Government is with what is going on in the aviation industry, how a review is desperately needed and how important it is for the Minister to focus on what is going on in his Department so that he can do some work and fix the problems that are plaguing the industry. I draw attention to some of the criticisms that have been levelled at this out of touch Government and the Minister's Department. The review states that there are too many air navigation regulations, too many air navigation orders and the regulations are out of date. It is time that dispensations were used to avoid updating regulations. Perhaps the Minister will listen to that. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES It is time that the Minister's Department exercised some sensible commercial judgment so that dispensations can be used to avoid updating unnecessary regulations. Honourable members opposite stand up and talk about micro-economic reform. If they are looking at micro-economic reform one of the best places that they can go to is this Department. If the Minister really wants micro-economic reform in Australia he should get on with administering his Department. I make some other observations. The industry is harmed economically by regulations that are quite out of touch with its needs. We also have the problems that many regulations are enforced against all rules of commonsense. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a list so long it would strain even your indulgence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I am willing to give any indulgence necessary to the honourable member for Deakin. Mr BEALE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I point out to you that I have a list of 20 to 30 specific criticisms of this Minister and his administration of the Department. There will be no reduction in the issue of regulations because this Government has failed to implement its proposed regulation review before the creation of the Civil Aviation Authority. I repeat, for the benefit of the Minister, that he undertook to review all regulations before he created the Civil Aviation Authority. He has failed to do that. He is so out of touch that he cannot even remember what he undertook to do, but he has not created this review of regulations. He is the despair of the aviation industry. The former Department of Aviation, for which he was the Minister and which had responsibility for managing the airways system and the flight standards division, is anathema to the aviation industry. This situation continues with the new Department of Transport and Communications. The Minister and his Department are unresponsive, inefficient, unaccountable, bureaucratic and unsympathetic and, by any standards, they run a very high cost operation. I will come in a moment to the fact that there are 7,000 employees in the Civil Aviation Authority. Guess how many aircraft we have in Australia. We have 7,000. The Minister has one employee in the Civil Aviation Authority for every aircraft. There is a need for the very real problems which confront the Department to be addressed in a logical manner rather than this gut reaction to this Government's failure by attempting to sweep the old Department of Aviation under the mat. The Minister, in his announcement of the proposed establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority on 22 October 1986, assured the industry that there would be a thorough review of those regulations. Where is that review? When did it take place? Where are its results? Some 18 months later, despite the Minister's assurance, we are still waiting for that review to commence even though the Civil Aviation Authority has been announced and the positions resulting from that announcement and from its creation have been filled. After 18 months the Minister has not yet achieved one single change. That is why the Bill before us tonight, the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill, demonstrates the shortcomings of this Government, in terms of its administration, its sloppy drafting and its funding shortfall. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The top positions in the Civil Aviation Authority will continue to be occupied by the same people who have overseen the Department. I am delighted to see that so many Government members have flocked to the benches to hear this valid criticism of the Minister and the Department that he administers. I commend the Government members for coming to the benches tonight. You will be a better judge of this than I, Mr Deputy Speaker. This Minister was the Minister, was not the Minister and now is the Minister. We have to ask ourselves what the Government is up to on this matter. In any event, the creation of a new government authority must give cause for some concern. If the Government is creating another authority we must ask what it is all about. Good management should be able to achieve stated aviation objectives without the Government having to create a new Civil Aviation Authority. In essence, we have a separation of political accountability from operational management. The Minister is not game to be accountable to the Parliament for what happens in aviation. He is not prepared to stand up here and say what is going on with his industry. Instead, he is hiding behind the creation of a new Civil Aviation Authority. Not only is he hiding behind it, but also he cannot even get it right. He rushed the thing through to such an extent that he has the Australian Democrats in the Senate pointing out the deficiencies with the first piece of legislation, which will come back here-- Mr Price —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to the relevance of the contribution from the honourable member for Deakin, particularly as he has had his foot on the chair continually. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Deakin is quite relevant to whatever is before us at present. Mr BEALE —I point out to the honourable member that that will cost him another 60 seconds. I am glad that everybody in the House shares my view that this is important legislation and that this out of touch Government has bungled it again. It cannot even get this legislation right. The Australian Democrats are telling it what to do. We have amending Bills pushed through the House at 25 past one on Friday morning. They could have been dealt with next Friday when we have a bit of time. It is no wonder that we ask ourselves what the Government is up to. The creation of any government authority must give cause for concern. If the Minister were any kind of a Minister and ran any kind of a department, he would get out there and run his Department properly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. Mr BEALE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the noise in the chamber. It gives me an opportunity, for the last time, on this important amending piece of legislation, to say that this is symptomatic of this Government's failure to govern-this out of touch Government's failure to govern. It introduces a piece of legislation, and it is wrong. The legislation is sent to the Senate, and the Australian Democrats tell the Government where it is wrong. Not only have the Democrats told the Government where it is wrong so that it will have to be returned to this House next Friday, but the bureaucrats have also told the Government where it is wrong. The out of touch Government and the Minister stand condemned. Mr O'Keefe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for the Leader of the House to move that the question be put? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr BEALE —I say for the last time that this Bill is indicative of how this out of touch Government has lost touch with the people of Australia. It should get its act together, and when it has its act together, it should come back and give us a decent piece of legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(1.26 a.m.) —At this normally tranquil but presently somewhat tumultuous hour, I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment moved capably by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). I commend the amendment to the House. It relates to the bureaucracy created by this Government in regard to the Department responsible for aviation. I add just one other point: this same Department is about to spend $1.8m in my electorate on a fire station at Albury Airport which cannot be justified when the statistics are analysed. I am trying to block the expenditure of $1.8m in my electorate because the Department has not done its homework on the passenger movements involved. I have much pleasure in commending to the House the amendment so ably moved by the honourable member for Deakin. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr PRICE(Chifley)(1.27 a.m.) —I always appreciate hearing a shadow Minister, particularly from the Liberal Party of Australia-the silvertail millionaires-gargling on his silver spoon and jabbering on for nearly 30 minutes on a Bill which he was really confused about. In fact, the Bill that the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) was really concerned about passed this House six weeks ago. The reason why the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill 1988 is being brought forward, as he says, at this late hour is that the Government wants the benefits of the excise on 1 July to go to the Civil Aviation Authority. Mr Beale —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise of point of order. I draw your attention to the wording of the amendment that I moved. It includes the phrase: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There is no-- Mr Beale —If you will hear me out, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You had better be quick. Mr Beale —My amendment continues: the funding shortcomings of the proposed Civil Aviation Authority; and (2) its failure to include these revenue provisions in the Civil Aviation Bill 1988. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is belabouring his point of order. There is no point of order on relevance. Mr Beale —There is a point of order because it is that honourable member who is not speaking on the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I must say that it is interesting to see the extent to which people will go tonight to have the last word. Mr Beale —I think that you will end up with the last word. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I shall. I thank Madam Speaker for the privilege. 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 26 and 27 May 1988 26 and 27 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr PRICE —I am very pleased that the honourable member for Deakin took his point of order without his foot being on the chair. We support the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill. I am interested that the shadow Minister for transport and aviation is concerned about the lack of consultation. I ask him: What consultation did he have when he proposed that all Federal road funding be cut or that the first home owners scheme-- Mr Beale —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: that has nothing to do with this Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. House adjourned at 1.33 a.m. (Friday) until Friday, 3 June 1988, at 10 a.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following notices were given: Mr Hawke to move- That the next sitting of the House of Representatives take place in the new Parliament House. Mr Hawke to move- That this House extends its thanks to all those former and present Members and staff who have contributed to the work of the House of Representatives in this place since 9 May 1927 and places on record its appreciation of their contribution to parliamentary democracy in Australia. Mr Beazley to move- That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the business during the sitting on 22 August 1988 being restricted to the following: (1) Prayers; (2) Motions relating to the new Parliament House and the next meeting of the House; and (3) Motion for adjournment of House (to be determined without debate). Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of an office building, corner of Exhibition and Lonsdale Streets, Melbourne Mr Beazley to move- That, in relation to the proceedings on any Sales Tax Bills, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent- (a) the presentation and the first readings of the Bills together; (b) one motion being moved and one question being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee's report stage, and the third readings, of all the Bills together, and (c) the consideration of all the Bills as a whole together in a committee of the whole. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 26 May 1988. Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act-Regulation- Statutory Rules 1988, No. 98. Defence Act-Determinations-1988- No. 17-Flight Duties Allowance and other allowances. Nos 18 and 19-Pilot Retention Bonus. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 239) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 October 1987: What action will be taken to ensure the long term safety and viability of the Commonwealth-owned East Hills pedestrian footbridge crossing the Georges River and linking the Division of Hughes with the Division of Banks. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The bridge was originally constructed in 1950 by the Commonwealth to provide access across the river for the local Naval establishment and the East Hills Migrant Hostel. In 1976 the Hostel closed and at that time responsibility for repair of the bridge was picked up by the Department of Defence. Although the bridge was constructed by the Commonwealth I understand the question of ownership is a matter of conjecture, given that it is constructed on State land. In view of Defence's historical involvement with the bridge and the fact that it does not require consideration under the Lands Acquisition Act, I wrote to the Minister for Defence as the appropriate action Minister to pursue the future of the footbridge. Defence has agreed to fund repairs to the bridge and through my Department to negotiate with State and Local Government Authorities on ongoing management and future responsibility for repairs and maintenance. (Question No. 435) Mr Howard asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) How many visits have been made by Cabinet Ministers to the USSR and countries of Eastern Europe between March 1983 and October 1987. (2) Which countries were visited by each Minister and what sum did each visit cost. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2): Details of visits including travel to the USSR and Eastern European countries by all Ministers, whether members of Cabinet or not, are listed below. As visits to the USSR and Eastern European countries were, in most cases, combined with travel to other regions it is not possible to provide an accurate breakdown of costs for each sector of travel undertaken. A total costing figure for the entire visit is therefore provided. Minister Visit Undertaken Total cost $A Dr Blewett (visit undertaken as Minister for Health) 4-25 May 1984 Europe (including Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia) 32,908(a) *Mr Bowen (Attorney-General) 13-30 September 1984 South America, Europe (including Romania and Czechoslovakia) 48,595(b) Mr Brown (visit undertaken as Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) 15 June-16 July 1985 Japan, USSR and Europe (including Czechoslovakia) 23,301(b) *Mr Dawkins (visit undertaken as Minister for Trade) 15-27 October 1985 USSR, Europe and the Middle East 29,279(c) *Mr Hayden (visits undertaken as Minister for Foreign Affairs) 11 May-5 June 1984 Thailand, USSR, Europe (including Hungary), India 60,093a 30 July-18 August 1984 Asia, Europe (including Yugoslavia) 47,851(b) (visit undertaken as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) 3-26 May 1987 Asia, Europe (including Czechoslovakia) Accounts still being compiled *Mr Keating (Treasurer) 10-21 February 1984 Europe, USSR 44,511(a) *Mr Kerin (visit undertaken as Minister for Primary Industry) 29 May-22 June 1985 Japan, Europe, USSR 36,145(b) *Mr Willis (visit undertaken as Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) 2-27 June 1985 S. E. Asia, Europe (including East Germany) 24,317(b) *Senator Button (Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) 12-18 March 1985 USSR 182,035(b)&e) *Mr Hawke (Prime Minister) 9-26 October 1987 USA, Canada, Europe (including Yugoslavia) Accounts still being compiled Senator Gietzelt (visit undertaken as Minister for Veterans' Affairs) 21 April-29 May 1985 Hong Kong, Turkey, Europe (including Yugoslavia) 41,162(b) Mr Cohen (visit undertaken as Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) 10 May-4 June 1986 Singapore, Bangkok, UK Ireland, Europe (including Yugoslavia and Hungary), Israel 47,228(d) * Cabinet Minister (a) costs based on accounts received as at 31.1.1985 (b) costs based on accounts received as at 30.6.1985 (c) costs based on accounts received as at 30.6.1986 (d) costs based on accounts received as at 31.12.1986 (e) costs include the use of a Special Purpose Aircraft that Senator Button had to use to travel to the USSR to attend the funeral of President Chernenko (Question No. 450) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) How many visitors have been brought to Australia under the Special Overseas Visits Fund since March 1983 and in each case (a) who were they; (b) from which countries did they come; and (c) what were the individual costs involved. (2) How many visitors have been brought to Australia under the Special Visitors Program for Prominent Opponents of Apartheid since its establishment and in each case (1) who were they; (c) what were the individual costs involved. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) From March 1983 to 30 June 1987, 224 individuals were assisted to visit Australia under the provisions of the Special Visits Program. The following lists identify the visitors, the countries from which they came and the cost of each individual visit. (2) There is no Special Visitors Program for Prominent Opponents of Apartheid. South African opponents of apartheid were invited under the Special Visits Program. They were: Cost $ 1984 Bishop Desmond Tutu ... 12,890 Dr Allan Boesak, South African Council of Churches ... 20,000 1985 Mr and Mrs Breyten Breytenbach, authors ... 28,295 1986 Mr John Kane-Berman, South African Institute of Race Relation ... 16,870 1987 Mr Oliver Tambo, President, African National Congress and three members of the ANC Executive ... 56,758 SPECIAL VISITS PROGRAM (S.V.P.) 1986-87 Summary FUNDS ALLOCATED $674,000 FUNDS EXPENDED $651,202 No. Visitor's name Country Title Date Cost $ 1 Fischer, Prof. Roger I.A.E.A. Deputy Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna Sep. 86 21,444 2 Souza, Mr E. Silva Brazil Cancelled 3 Dhanapala, Amb. Jayantha Sri Lanka Sri Lankan Permanent Representative to U.N. in Geneva Sep. 86 21,341 4 Elworthy, Mr Peter New Zealand President, Federated Farmers of N.Z. Aug. 86 18,365 5 Aust. Press Council (3) Various Foreign Participants in 10th Anniversary Celebrations: Fares Oct. 86 18,000 6 Yamin, Mrs Nani Indonesia Director, Institute of Legal Aid for Woman and Families Nov. 86 15,569 7 Devakul, Sen. Tridhosyuth Thailand National Parliament of Thailand Nov. 86 17,758 8 Moka, Ms Weni P.N.G. Current Affairs Commentator, P.N.G. Broadcasting Corporation Nov. 86 9,163 9 Yeiwene, Mr Yeiwene New Caledonia Cancelled 10 Dadzie, Mr Kenneth U.N.C.T.A.D. Secretary-General of U.N.C.T.A.D. Nov. 86 12,045 10 Kousafi, Mr Kamran U.N.C.T.A.D. Assistant to Secretary-General Nov. 86 11,823 11 Dobunaba, Ms Felicia P.N.G. Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Youth Feb. 87 12,064 12 Kim Ki-Hwan Korea Visit deferred 13 Nusantara, Mr Andi Hakim Indonesia Director, Legal Aid Institute Mar. 87 13,676 14 Teaotais, Mr Ata, O.B.E. Kiribati Secretary to Cabinet and Head of Civil Service Mar. 87 11,243 15 Aopi, Mr Gerea P.N.G. Secretary, Finance Department Mar. 87 11,758 16 Tambo, Mr Oliver (and party) (4) South Africa President, African National Congress (and party of three) Apr. 87 56,758 17 Al-Khateeb, Prof. Hassam Syria See 1987-88 18 Hernandez, Sen. Humberto Haddad Mexico Senator, Mexican Parliament Apr. 87 23,933 19 Tahi, Mrs Merilyn Vanuatu Director, Vanuatu Centre for International Relations May 87 12,325 20 Helu, Prof. Futa Tonga Atenisi University, Nuku'alofa, Professor of Education May 87 10,586 21 Lacson, Governor Daniel Philippines Governor, Negros Occidental, Philippines May 87 12,565 22 Johnson, Prof. Chalmers U.S.A. Professor of Asian Studies, University of California June 87 17,908 23 Mae, Mr Patterson Solomon Is General Manager, S.I. Broadcasting Corporation May 87 10,931 24 Nganga, Mr Meto Vanuatu General Manager, Commodities Marketing Board May 87 13,361 25 U.N. Information Centre U.N. Contribution to Feasibility Study: U.N. Participation in Expo 88 30,000 26 Sueba, Mr Bas Indonesia See 1987-88 27 Marae, Mr Clarence Vanuatu Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and External Trade June 87 12,767 28 Kalsakau, Mr Ephraim Vanuatu Secretary General of Vanuatu Trade Union Congress June 87 15,656 29 Dang, Mr Xoi Xuan Vietnam Minister for Health May 87 12,590 29 Nguyen, Mr Van Dong Vietnam Director, Department of Health May 87 9,590 30 Dimaranan, Sister Mariana Philippines Chairman, Task Force, Detainees of the Philippines June 87 15,297 31 Japanese Parliamentary Delegation (6) Japan Delegation of Six Japanese M.P.s June 87 47,361 32 Day, Mr Richard U.S.A. Chief Counsel, Senate Subcommittee on Immigration June 87 22,320 33 Moos, Mr Eugene and Mrs Susan (2) U.S.A. Senior Trade and Grains Adviser June 87 31,300 34 South Pacific Commission Pacific Region Delegates to Townsville Pacific Arts Festival 50,000 35 Tanjuatco, Mr Emigdio Philippines Congressman for Rizal Province July 87 13,557 36 Li Hao China Mayor, Shenzhen Special Economic Zone June 87 7,716 36 Zhang Mei China Director, Tianjin Economic Zone June 87 7,716 36 Zhao Xianglin China Ministry of Foreign Affairs June 87 7,716 37 Bhagwati, Mr Justice India To Australian Law Council for Visit by Justice of the High Court June 87 7,500 37 Radhie, Mr K. Indonesia To Australian Law Council for Visit by Director, National Law Development Association June 87 7,500 TOTAL 651,202 SPECIAL VISITORS PROGRAM (S.O.V.F.) 1985/86 Summary FUNDS ALLOCATED $682,000 FUNDS EXPENDED $639,112 No. Visitor's name Country Title Date Cost $ 1 Wang, Mr Zhongfang China Senior Government Legal Official Aug 85 1630 1 Shan, Mr Shihu China Government Legal Official Aug 85 1630 2 Arifin, Prof Bustanil Indonesia Deputy Chief Justice, Supreme Court Aug 85 1445 3 Forman, Mr Frances Nigel M.P. U.K. Conservative Member for Carshalton Aug 85 1632 4 Besharati, Mr A. M. &Delegation Iran Deputy Foreign Minister (Delegation of Five Officials) Aug 85 1268 5 Nicholas, Mr Louis Mauritius Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs Aug 85 1064 6 Holland, Mr Stuart Kingsley M.P. U.K. Labour Member for Vauxhall Sep 85 1645 7 Parliamentary Delegation Japan 11 Members of Diet-Annual Exchange Sep 85 8293 8 Khairuddin, Mr Ibrahim Malaysia Director Anti-Narcotics Task Force Sep 85 1551 9 Not used 10 West Irian Delegation Indonesia Governor I. Hindom &Three Delegates Sep 85 2410 11 Fernan, Mr Marcello B. Philippines Lawasia Chairman Oct 85 1540 12 Gnus, Mr Goran Yugoslavia President, Socialist Youth Nov 85 1697 13 Maathai, Dr Wangari Kenya Cancelled 14 Norman, Mr Dennis Zimbabwe Senior Public Servant Oct 85 1510 15 Contrelis, Mr Hector Chile Freelance Journalist Nov 85 1439 16 Mascarenhas, Mr John Seyschelles Central Executive Committee, Seyschelles Peoples Progressive Front Feb 86 1540 17 Wood Mrs Sue New Zealand President, National Party Feb 86 1418 18 Najib, Datuk Malaysia Chief Minister of Patong Feb 86 1476 19 Isomondo, Mr Ernst William Zimbabwe Secretary, Minister of Home Affairs Mar 1986 1683 20 Devakul, Senator Tridhosyuth Thailand Cancelled. See 1986/87 21 Liao, Mr Hui &Party (Lu &Hu) China Minister of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office Mar 1986 2120 21 Hu Mr Jintao China Secretary, Guizhou Provincial Party Committee Mar 86 1064 22 Sinai, Prof Mihaly Hungary Deputy Director, Institute for World Economics Mar 86 1666 23 Lee Jong-Chan Korea Democratic Justice Party, National Assembly Feb 86 1610 24 Jayawardene Dr Hector, H. Q.C. Sir Lanka Senior Lawyer in Superior Courts Apr 86 1598 25 Indonesian/Australian Seminar Indonesia Eleven Australian Delegates to Jakarta Apr 86 2630 26 Ishibashi Mr Masashi Japan Chairman of Japanese Socialist Party Apr 86 1536 27 Maojid Dr Nurcholis Indonesia Social Sciences Department of L.I.P.I. Apr 86 1489 28 Momis, Father John P.N.G. Leader of the Opposition May 86 1340 29 Kane-Berman Mr John South Africa Director, South African Institute of Race Relations May 86 1687 30 Campbell, Mr Rob New Zealand Secretary, Distribution Workers Federation May 86 1511 31 Jha Mr L.K., M.B.E. India Chairman, International Management Institute May 86 1631 32 Akbar, Mr M. J. India Editor, ``The Telegraph'' Bombay May 86 1645 33 Vincze, Mr Matyas Hungary Editor, World Economy Weekly May 86 1683 34 Gineno, Hon. John R., M.P. P.N.G. Former Minister for Foreign Affairs May 86 1312 35 Oljnoer, Dr Britta Sweden Gothenberg University Jun 86 1688 36 Indo-China Seminar, Griffith University K. Singh (India), Prof. Sato (Japan), Dr Ong Adil, Sdesish &Luhulima Jun 86 2840 Total 63911 SPECIAL VISITORS PROGRAM (S.O.V.F.) 1984/85 Summary FUNDS ALLOCATED $620,000 FUNDS EXPENDED $605,000 No. Visitor's name Country Title Date Cost $ 1 Shinohara, Dr Miyohei Japan Prof. of Economics, Seikoi University Aug. 84 11,110 2 Yassin, Mr H. Muhyiddin Malaysia Deputy Minister of Trade Aug. 84 12,600 3 Parliamentary Delegation Japan 12 members of Diet-Annual Exchange Sep. 84 115,500 4 Eide, Mr Asbjorn Norway International Peace Research Institute, Oslo Sep. 84 19,430 5 Tjibaou, Mr Jean-Marie Noumea Vice President of Council of Govt., New Caledonia Oct. 84 12,306 6 Dinglasen, Mr Andres Philippines Vice President of the Trade Union Congress Oct. 84 12,990 7 Chihambakwe, Mr S.J.R. Zimbabwe President of the Law Society Nov. 84 15,850 8 Boesak, Dr Allan South Africa National Executive, South African Council of Churches Nov. 84 20,000 9 Moses, Mr Henry P.N.G. President, P.N.G. Trade Union Congress Apr. 85 10,500 10 Hafsan, Puan Hajjah Binte Harun Sarawak Minister for Culture, Youth and Special Functions Sep. 81 9,520 11 Matas-Kelekele, Mr Kalkor Vanuatu Assistant State Counsel Mar. 85 9,850 12 Wee Keng Poh, Dr &Mrs Singapore Orthopaedic Surgeon Nov. 84 1,238 13 Qasim, Dr Sayeed Zahoor India Sec., Dept. of Ocean Development Feb. 85 9,350 14 Zhang, Mr Hengpu China Ministry of Foreign Affairs Feb. 85 12,200 15 Goco, Mr Raul Philippines President, Lawasia Feb. 85 12,600 16 Hilson, Ms Margaret A. New Zealand President, N.Z. Labour Party Feb. 85 13,050 17 Aldandjar, Mr Ismael Indonesia Chief Editor, Antara Newsagency Feb. 85 13,900 18 Hasibuan, Mr Albert Indonesia Member of Parliament Mar. 85 22,200 19 Tongyai, Mr Tongnoi Thailand Private Secretary to the King of Thailand Feb. 85 16,500 20 Pochet, Mr Enrique German Costa Rica Vice Minister of Justice Feb. 85 23,700 21 Kyaw Min, U. Burma Broadcasting Department Mar. 85 9,300 21 Tin Aye, U. Burma Broadcasting Department Mar. 85 9,500 22 Witoelar, Mr Rachmat M.P. Indonesia Chairman for Golkar Mar. 85 12,989 23 Goldblatt, Mr Josef Sweden Stockholm Institute of Peace Research Apr. 85 21,066 24 Papandreou, Dr V. Greece Cancelled 25 Hata, Mr Tsutomu Japan M.H.R. Apr. 85 11,450 25 Tamazawa, Mr Tokuichiro Japan M.H.R. Apr. 85 12,356 26 Breytenbach, Mr &Mrs Breyten France Authors Jun. 85 28,295 27 Ahimsa, Mr Djali Indonesia Director, Indonesia Atomic Energy Agency May 85 12,494 28 Iekawe, Mr Jacques New Caledonia Cancelled 29 Chik, Mr Datak Sabbaruddin Malaysia Deputy Minister of Finance May 85 13,503 30 Literary Delegation China Author Ding Ling and three other delegates May 85 16,809 31 Thongpao, Mr Thongbai Thailand Human Rights Activist Jun. 85 18,215 32 Park, Mr Jun Byung Korea Democratic Party Jun. 85 16,870 32 Koo, Mr Moon-Hae Korea Democratic Party Jun. 85 2,022 33 Macherdhilj, Mr Krish South Africa Cancelled 34 Wang, Mr Zhongfang China Cancelled-see 1985/86 35 Zakariah, Mr Brunei Department of Information Jun. 85 10,797 36 Kumon, Prof. Shumpei Japan International Relations Jul. 85 17,415 37 Trenggara, Mr Indonesia Journalist, ``Kompas'' Jun. 85 10,416 38 Pham Binh, Mr Vietnam Director, Institute of International Relations, M.F.A. Vietnam Jun. 85 17,089 TOTAL 605,000 SPECIAL VISITORS PROGRAM (S.O.V.F.) 1983/84 Summary FUNDS ALLOCATED $580,000 FUNDS EXPENDED $552,267 No. Visitor's name Country Title Date Cost $ 1 Chandrachua Chief Justice, India Chief Justice of India Jul 83 10806 2 Greeneveld Dr. J. J., Denmark Dir. Ministry of Agriculture &Fisheries Jul 83 21163 3 De Montbrial M. Theirry, France Dir. of French Institute for International Relations Aug 83 21589 4 Nsekela Mr. Amon. J., Tanzania Managing Dir. of National Bank of Commerce Aug 83 16732 5 Sivatibau Mr. Savenaca, Fiji General Manager, Central Monetary Authority Aug 83 7985 6 Moore Mr. Michael K. M.P., New Zealand Member for Papanui Aug 83 12767 7 Robles Mr. Garcia, Mexico Permanent Representative to the U.N. Sep 83 8983 8 Parliamentary Delegation, Japan 14 Members of Diet-Annual Exchange Sep 83 98661 9 Yeutter Dr. Clayton, U.S.A. President, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Sep 83 15775 10 Boersner Dr. Demetrio, Venezuela Central University of Venezuela Sep 83 19122 11 Rafsanjani Mr. Mon. Hashemi, Iran Gen. Manager Voice and Vision Oct 83 4241 12 Lubis Mr. T. Mulya, Indonesia Chairman, Legal Aid Institute Feb 84 8707 13 Kibria Mr. S.A.M.S., E.S.C.A.P. Executive Secretary, E.S.C.A.P. Mar 84 14356 14 Martenson Mr. Jan, U.N. U.N. Under Sec. Gen. for Disarmament Mar 84 4339 15 Liat Kok Mr. Phillip Yeo, Singapore Sec. Ministry of Defence Feb 84 9747 16 Masdit Ms. Supatra M.P., Indonesia Democrat House of Representatives Mar 84 17547 17 Freij Mr. Elias, Israel Mayor of Bethlehem Mar 84 32583 18 Angara Attorney Edgaro. J., Philippines President, University of the Philippines Mar 84 8378 19 Saidi Dr. H. Ridhan, Indonesia Unity Development Party Apr 84 8714 20 Moramoro Mr. Moseley, P.N.G. Vice-Chancellor, University of Technology, Lae Apr 84 14313 21 Raman Mr. James, Fiji Fiji Trade Union Congress-Visit Cancelled 22 Asiyo Mrs. Phoebe M.P., Kenya Member of Parliament May 84 13405 Latsani Mr. Khamphout, Laos Vice Minister of Agriculture Apr 84 16322 23 Sumphorm Mr. Manodham, Laos State Planning Committee Apr 84 17066 24 Tutu Bishop Desmond, South Africa General Sec. South African Council of Churches May 84 12890 25 Kelly Ms. Petra, F.R.G. Member of Bundestag May 84 21483 Bastian Gen. Gert, F.R.G. Member of Bundestag May 84 9716 26 De Silva Mr. Neville, Sri Lanka Foreign Editor, ``Sunday Observer'' Colombo May 84 15103 27 Buchori Dr. Mochtar, Indonesia Institute of Sciences May 84 15291 28 Hartoyo Mr. Kajat, Indonesia Editor, ``Suara Karya'' Jun 84 12893 29 Yamashita Mr. Ganri, Japan Member of House of Representatives Jun 84 12774 30 Aust. Indon. Seminar, Indonesia Symposium held in Brisbane Jun 84 47616 TOTAL 552267 SPECIAL VISITORS PROGRAM (S.O.V.F.) 1982/83 Summary FUNDS ALLOCATED $570.000 FUNDS EXPENDED $521,590 No. Visitor's name Country Title Date Cost $ 1 Tucker, Mr Howard USA Head Government Research Corporation, Washington D.C. Aug 82 18616 2 Cebrian,, Mr Juan Luis Spain Editor, ``El Pais'', Madrid Fed 83 18420 3 Mateus, Dr Rui Portugal Socialist Party Deputy for Lisbon Aug 82 16685 4 Whittaker, Mr Herbert Canada Art Critic, ``The Globe &Mail'', Toronto Sep 82 17720 5 Subrahmanyam, Mr Krishnashami India Director, Institute for Defence Studies Sep 82 12866 6 Jackson, Mr Gordon Australia ASEAN Lecturer Oct 82 18658 7 Solon, Dr Florentino Philippines Mayor of Cebu City Oct 82 12500 8 Stojanovic, Prof. Radoslav Yugoslavia Professor, English Department, Belgrade University Oct 82 15446 9 Aniruth-Deva, Major-General Fuangchaloei Thailand Thai Armed Services Oct 82 13994 10 Galang, Mr Jose Philippines News Editor, ``Business Day'', Manila Nov 82 11430 11 Abdullah, Dr Mohamed Ahmed Egypt Member of Peoples Assembly Dec 82 15478 12 Indonesia Symposium Indonesia Symposium held in Canberra Dec 82 16361 13 Kangai, Mr Tirnaf John Zimbabwe Director-General, Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation Jun 83 13138 14 Brown, Honourable W. L. (Jnr) USA Cancelled 15 ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation ASEAN 10 ASEAN Members of Parliament Nov 82 28612 16 Haq, Lieutenant-General Fazle Pakistan Governor, North West Frontier Province, Pakistan Feb 83 10685 17 Cheong, Madam Mei Sui Malaysia Assistant Editor of New Sunday Times Mar 83 13713 18 Tovue, Mr Ronald O.B.E. PNG Premier of East New Britain Mar 83 10101 19 Hilly, Mr Francis Billy P.M. Solomon Islands Member of Parliament Mar 83 6095 20 Japanese Parliament Delegation Japan 12 members of Diet-Annual Exchange Mar 83 102368 21 Murti, Miss Retno Indonesia Feature Writer, ``Femina'' Magazine, Jakarta Apr 83 11316 22 Thamrongnawasawat, Dr Thaleoug Thailand Under Secretary-Minister of Agriculture Mar 83 15075 23 Yeutter, Fr Clayton USA Cancelled, see 1983/84 24 McKinnon, Mr Donald M.P. New Zealand Senior Government Whip Mar 83 12560 25 Oetama, Me Jakob Indonesia Editor in Chief, ``Kompas'', Jakarta May 83 12989 26 Estanislao. Dr Jesus Philippines Journalist, ``Philippines Herald'' Apr 83 13516 27 Sciberras, Mr J. P., M.P. Malta Parliamentarian Apr 83 11873 28 Boersner, Dr Demetrio Venezuela Cancelled see 1983/84 29 Kusmaatmadja, Mr Sarwono Indonesia Secretary of Golkar Party Apr 83 12197 30 Fischer-Moeller, Mrs Inge Denmark Vice-President Danish Social Democratic Party May 83 17379 31 Tateyama, Mr Toshifumi Japan President, Independent Trade Unions of Japan Jun 83 14755 31 Fujino, Mr Masaru Japan Ex. Cmtee Japan Fed. of Electric Machine Workers Union Jun 83 12482 32 Tandjung, Mr Akbar Indonesia Deputy-Secretary of Golkar Party Jun 83 12044 33 Tuivaga, Sir Timou Fiji Parliamentarian Jun 83 2518 TOTAL 521590 (Question No. 451) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: Is he able to say how many persons are employed in the Foreign Ministries of Fiji, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Tonga, Nauru and Western Samoa, and how many of these are diplomatic officers? Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The number of persons employed in the Foreign Ministries of Fiji, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Tonga, Nauru and Western Samoa is a matter for the governments of those countries. The Australian Government is not responsible for the administrative structures and staffing levels of foreign governments. (Question No. 509) Mr Cobb asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 25 November 1987: (1) What items of merchandise are advertised on the ABC and sold through various outlets. (2) How many employees are involved in producing and selling the items. (3) What is the (a) gross and (b) net income from the sale of these items. (4) Which items return a profit and approximately what is the profit expressed as a percentage. (5) What costs are involved in selling through non-ABC owned outlets. (6) What is the average weekly (a) number and (b) length of time, of merchandising commercials (i) telecast on ABC television and (ii) broadcast on ABC radio. (7) What would be the approximate cost of this advertising if commercial advertising rates were charged. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, based, in part, on information provided by the ABC: (1) Section 29 of the ABC Act 1983 provides that the Corporation may, in such manner as the Board thinks fit, make, promote, circulate and distribute any article or thing bearing a mark that is associated with any programs, concert or entertainment of the Corporation. Consequently, the Marketing Division is given access to broadcasting time on ABC Radio and Television to promote books, records, tapes, compact discs, videos, spoken-word cassettes, toys, clothing and posters. This merchandise comes from two sources: it is either produced by ABC Marketing on behalf of the ABC or purchased from other suppliers who have the Australian ancillary rights to program-related products broadcast on the ABC. The retailing of ABC products is through the ten ABC Shops in Australia (one in each capital city, one in Newcastle and one in Parramatta). In addition, the ABC, through its distributors, has products available for sale in all major book, music and video retail outlets. (2) ABC Marketing employs 88 people-25 employees are directly involved in producing and selling merchandise while the ten retail outlets employ 18 full-time shop staff plus casual staff when key selling periods so dictate. (3) (a) The gross income from the sale of ABC merchandise outlined in (1) above for the year ending 30 June 1987 was $8.97m; (b) The net income for these items for the year ending 30 June 1987 was $3.72m. (4) All products marketed by the ABC Marketing Division are designed to be profitable, at one level or another. All items sold return a profit at the gross level. ABC Marketing is charged by the Board of the Corporation with improving margins, reducing costs of sales and the provision of an overall profit. The level of net profitability achieved by the Division ranges between 45 and 48%. (5) Products are sold through non-ABC owned outlets in two ways: ABC books, records, cassettes and video products are distributed by external distributors. ABC books are sold to the distributor at a competitive market trade discount and no further costs are involved. ABC records and video products are manufactured externally and products are purchased by the ABC Shops from the manufacturer in the same manner as any other retailer. ABC products are sold by Mail Order. This is carried out by an outside fulfilment house. The main costs involved with this activity are an appropriate fee to the fulfilment house; plus the costs of the catalogues and the telephones to service this activity. (6) The average weekly number of ABC Marketing promotions on ABC Television is 30 in an off-peak period and 4 in a prime-time slot. As far as ABC Radio is concerned, promotional messages for ABC Marketing products amount to 25 per week on Radio National and 50 per week on the Radio Metropolitan capital city network. The average length of promotion on ABC Radio and ABC Television is 30 seconds. (7) Based on 1987 commercial prices (employing the capital city network) it is estimated that ABC Marketing receives the equivalent of $30,000 worth of Television time per week. The equivalent of $10,000 worth of Radio time per week is received from ABC networks. It must be understood, however, that ABC Marketing does not only utilise the promotional facilities of its broadcast networks. A considerable amount of money is spent in a traditional commercial promotional arena. As an example: the entire ABC Mail Order program embraces direct marketing and telephone marketing costs which are bought at traditional commercial rates. (Question No. 583) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) Further to his statement to the House concerning Cambodia (Hansard, 7 December 1983, page 3404), what progress has been made since then towards a resolution of tensions posed by the Cambodian conflict; (2) What specific initiatives has Australia made towards this process of resolution, and what results have followed from those initiatives; (3) What are the present goals and priorities now in Australian policy towards the conflict and what further role can Australia play. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) During the past four or five years several proposals and counter-proposals have been put forward concerning ways to achieve a peaceful resolution of the Kampuchean issue. Unfortunately, there has been little real progress towards settlement negotiations. Australia has been encouraged by Prince Sihanouk's recent efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement, notably his separate talks with the Prime Minister in the PRK regime, Mr Hun Sen, in December 1987 and January 1988, and with Khmer Rouge leader Mr Khieu Samphan in February. Prince Sihanouk has made it clear, however, that a peaceful settlement will only be achieved if, in addition to Vietnam, the other major international parties with an interest in the dispute-China, the Soviet Union and Thailand-feel that their national interests are protected. Australia has also welcomed the efforts of the previous Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, to promote dialogue on the issue. On 29 July 1987 Dr Mochtar, who was the designated ASEAN interlocutor with Vietnam on Kampuchea, signed a joint press release with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, Mr Nguyen Co Thach, proposing talks between the four Khmer factions, followed by a wider meeting bringing in other concerned countries. Prince Sihanouk recently affirmed his support for this proposal. The new Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr Ali Alatas, seems keen to continue this initiative. (2) Australia has tried to assist where possible in facilitating a peaceful settlement in Kampuchea. Australia has not sought a central role, but has sought to stimulate and support the efforts of those more directly involved to establish dialogue. Australia has been able to contribute in this way because of our long-standing friendship with the ASEAN countries, our good relations with China, our ability to talk frankly and productively to the Soviet Union and our relationship with Vietnam. After the tripartite resistance body, the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK), issued an 8-point plan aimed at producing settlement negotiations in March 1986, I wrote to the Indonesian Foreign Minister Dr Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, Vietnamese Foreign Minister Mr Nguyen Co Thatch and Prince Sihanouk suggesting that there were positive elements within the 8-point plan that could be built upon. In particular, I said that the question of the status of the Heng Samrin group (PRK) and the Khmer Rouge might be a suitable issue to address, thereby conveying Australia's interest in encouraging dialogue on matters of substance. As mentioned above, I have also corresponded with others about conditions for a peaceful settlement of the Kampuchea question. I have also put forward several specific initiatives. At the ASEAN Post Ministerial Meeting in Jakarta in July 1984 I suggested a meeting between the ASEAN countries on one side and Vietnam and Laos on the other without preconditions. I offer Canberra as a venue. Although the proposal was not taken further at the time, it has remained on the table with a number of other proposals for meetings of the principal parties. In the view of a number of countries, including Australia, a major obstacle to progress has been the continued presence of the Khmer Rouge within the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. While Australia accepts that any settlement will have to take into account the Khmer Rouge rank and file, we are firmly of the view that such a settlement must also include arrangements to prevent the return to power of the murderous Pol Pot group. With this in mind, I raised the question of establishing a tribunal to determine the culpability of the Pol Pot leadership at the 1986 and 1987 ASEAN Post Ministerial meetings. While some interest has been shown in the proposal, it has not, to date, attached the necessary degree of international support to allow it to go ahead. The process involved in exploring this issue has, however, proved most useful in clarifying the thinking of a number of the principal parties towards the Khmer Rouge. In particular it has enabled the Vietnamese (and the PRK) to identify for the first time Khmer Rouge leaders who in their view would be acceptable in future negotiations. In addition, my Department is funding a series of academic seminars on conflict resolution in Kampuchea hosted by Griffith University. The first seminar was held in June/July 1986 and the second is scheduled for May 1988. (3) Australian policy on Kampuchea remains as set out in my statement to the House on 7 December 1983. Australia shares the principles of the ASEAN countries on the Kampuchea issue and has each year voted in favour of the ASEAN resolution on Kampuchea at the United Nations General Assembly. Like the ASEAN countries, Australia continues to deplore and protest against the invasion of Kampuchea by Vietnamese troops. Australia hopes that an eventual resolution of the problem will see self-determination for the Kampuchean people; the safe return of displaced Kampucheans to their homeland; and the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from Kampuchea, matched by arrangements to prevent the return to power of the Pol Pot group. Any solution to the Kampuchean issue will also need to satisfy the legitimate security concerns of Vietnam, Thailand and other regional countries. Australia recognises that substantive negotiations and major initiatives are a matter for the principal parties. What we have done and will continue to do is to encourage movement among those parties as opportunities arise. (Question No. 585) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) In view of the weight given to Professor H. Hughes' article about the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and subsequent funding decisions, will he present to the House the advice from the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau concerning Australia's support of IFAD post 1992 and its special program for sub-Saharan Africa; if not, will he present the assessment on which Professor Helen Hughes based her advice. (2) What advice had he received, other than the views of Professor Hughes', from his Department or from any other source in support of, or in opposition to, his decision to terminate IFAD funding. (3) Will he present the reasons for Australia not supporting IFAD's special program for sub-Saharan Africa. (4) Will he initiate a review of the funding decisions announced, so that Australia's attitudes may be based on current information about IFAD's effectiveness, including the recent statement by the US President that IFAD offers a brighter future around the Globe and new evidence of US support for IFAD's programs. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) Professor Hughes was referred to as a convenient and authoritative public source. If the Honourable Member wishes to discuss Professor Hughes' views further I would suggest he make contact direct with her. (2) An IFI Review was prepared internally by AIDAB as a Cabinet-in-Confidence document. It is not therefore available for public distribution. I also received representations in support of IFAD from individuals and groups with a particular interest in the Fund. I understand that a group called ``Results'' has been particularly active in lobbying on IFAD's behalf. (3) The Government considers the International Development Association (IDA) as the major multilateral channel through which Australia gives assistance to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Australia will be contributing $A335 million to IDA's $US12.4 billion eighth replenishment. Donor countries have agreed that between 45 and 50 per cent of IDA-8 resources will be directed towards countries in sub-Saharan Africa. This means that, in effect, Australia will be supporting IDA commitments to Africa of approximately $A50 million per annum over the next three years. Furthermore, Australia is providing a new package of assistance totalling $100 million over three years for the nine member countries of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC)-Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe; $15 million is programmed for disbursement this financial year. This program represents the largest percentage increase in funds for any region in the Australian aid program. The broad focus of the program is the promotion of food security in the region and a reduction of the SADCC states' dependence on South Africa. (4) The decision to make no further contribution to IFAD was not taken lightly and the Government is not at this stage planning to review the decision. (Question No. 626) Mr Macphee asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 18 February 1988: (1) How many overseas trips have been taken by Mr D. Hill since his appointment to the ABC as (a) Chairman and (b) Managing Director. (2) Which countries were visited by Mr Hill on each of these journeys and for what purpose were they made. (3) When did each trip take place and what was the cost to the Australian citizen. (4) Is the Minister able to say when Mr Hill became an Australian citizen. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Chairman 24.7.86 to 30.11.86 No overseas trips as Chairman of the ABC, (b) Managing Director 1.12.86-current Three overseas trips as Managing Director to date. (2) Trip 1. Countries: USA (New York), United Kingdom (London), Singapore and Indonesia (Jakarta). Purpose: Discussions with BBC (biggest supplier of TV material to ABC) and Visnews (the major overseas television agency supplying ABC-the ABC was a principal shareholder of Visnews which faced major financing difficulties). Discussions with authorities in Jakarta on the re-opening of an ABC office in Jakarta. Also investigated the administration of overseas offices. This resulting in abolition of overseas managerial positions with significant savings to ABC Budget. Trip 2. Countries: Singapore and Indonesia (Jakarta). Purpose: Discussions with General Murdani, Indonesian Armed Forces Commander, on the re-opening of an ABC office in Jakarta. Trip 3. Countries: USA (New York), United Kingdom (London), France (Nice) and Singapore. Purpose: Discussions with Television program distributors in the USA Visnews Board Meeting in London. Attended MIPCOM, the world's major television market at Nice. (3) Trip 1 28/2/87-13/3/87-14 days; Trip 2 12/6/87-16/6/87-5 days; Trip 3 14/9/87-21/10/87-19 days (Holidays taken from 27/9/87-15/10/87 all costs during this period paid personally by Mr Hill). Cost to the ABC: Trip 1. $9,568, Trip 2. $4,355, Trip 3. $11,414. (4) Mr Hill became an Australian citizen on 27 May, 1983 in Sydney. (Question No. 633) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) What sum was expended on travelling allowance by Telecom in 1986-87 and what sum is estimated to be spent in 1987-88. (2) What percentage of this sum is spent on (a) technicians, (b) office staff, (c) supply officers and (d) linesmen. (3) How many Telecom technicians were trained in 1986-87 and how many are expected to be trained in 1987-88. (4) Does Telecom utilise travelling technicians for regional centres rather than train additional technicians. (5) How many technicians are currently employed on a temporary travelling basis by Telecom to conduct work in regional centres. (6) Have any of these technicians been employed in this capacity for longer than 6 months; if so, how many have been employed for longer than 6 months and what is the longest period any technician has been employed on a travelling basis. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from Telecom Australia: (1) Telecom Australia spent $116.5 million on travelling allowance in 1986/87 and estimates that for the 1987/88 financial year $124.8 million will be spent. (2) Telecom's accounting systems do not allow for expenditure to be dissected on this basis. However, Telecom has estimated that 80-85% of all travelling allowances would be spent on technical and lines employees. (3) A total of 627 persons commenced training as Apprentice Technicians and Technicians (Telecom)-in-Training, in 1986/87. Telecom expects a total of 278 persons to commence such training during 1987/88. (4) Telecom uses technicians on a ``temporary travelling'' basis in regional or other locations where this is considered to be cost-effective. (5) Any technician may be required to travel on a temporary basis to engage in work in a regional centre or other location. It is not possible to indicate the number engaged in such work at any one time without diverting significant resources to a special investigation. (6) See (5) above. (Question No. 636) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) Which aims and objectives of the Organisation of African Unity does the Government support. (2) Is he able to say which countries are members of this organisation. (3) Is he able to say which of these countries are ruled by one-party systems and which countries are not. (4) Is he able to say which of these countries presently have democratic elections. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The aims of the Organisation of African Unity are set out in its charter which was adopted when the Organisation was set up in 1963. Article 2 of the charter contains the following purposes: (a) To promote the unity and solidarity of the African states (b) To coordinate and intensify their cooperation and efforts to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa (c) To defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity and independence (d) To eradicate all forms of colonialism from Africa, and (e) To promote international cooperation, having due regard to the charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human rights In order to achieve its purposes the OAU charter provides that ``the member states shall coordinate and harmonise their general policies, especially in the following fields: (a) Political and diplomatic cooperation (b) Economic cooperation, including transport and communications (c) Educational and cultural cooperation (d) Health, sanitation and nutritional cooperation (e) Scientific and technical cooperation, and (f) Cooperation for defence and security'' These aims and means are shared by all the members of the Organisation and Australia supports their achievement. (2) The following countries are members of the OAU: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Note: The Western Sahara was admitted to the OAU in February 1982 but its membership is disputed by Morocco and some other states. Australia does not recognise the independent state of the Western Sahara (the so-called Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic). Morocco withdrew from OAU membership as a consequence of the admission of the ``SADR''. (3) The majority of African countries feature a one-party system of government. Some others maintain a multi-party system of government while a number of African states have military governments. The Honourable Member can find details in several reference books in the Parliamentary Library. Good starting points for this research are ``Africa-South of the Sahara'' and ``The Middle East and North Africa'', both of which are published on a yearly basis. (4) See my answer to 3. The question of whether or not elections are democratic requires value judgments. For example, a number of countries with one-party systems feature regular elections in which numbers of sitting members lose their seats. Others offer less freedom of choice. There is, therefore, a range of variation and it is not possible to be categoric on which countries have democratic elections. (Question No. 741) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) What are the arrangements for itinerant workers and other Australians who change residence regularly to enrol to vote and when were these arrangements implemented. (2) How many persons sought this type of enrolment for the 1987 general election. (3) What arrangements are undertaken to ensure that there is no dual enrolment and that this enrolment is not manipulated for political purposes. (4) Did the Australian Electoral Commission undertake a reconciliation of itinerant enrolment with the record of actual votes cast; if so, what was the result of this reconciliation. (5) How is the electoral division of enrolment determined and how is this substantiated. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1), (3) and (5) The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was amended by the Commonwealth Legislation Amendment Act 1983 to provide, under section 96, for the enrolment of itinerant electors, that is, persons who are in Australia but do not reside in any subdivision and are by reason of that fact alone not entitled to have their names on the Roll for any subdivision. Such persons can apply to have their names enrolled for the subdivision in that State (a) where their next of kin is enrolled; (b) where they last had an entitlement to be enrolled; (c) the subdivision in which they were born; or (d) the subdivision with which they have the closest connection. Where an application is received by a Divisional Office, the staff check whether there is already a person on an electoral roll in the State with the same name and date of birth as the applicant. The application form (with a recommendation) is forwarded to the Australian Electoral Officer for his decision. A computer check is made of the electoral roll to ensure that the enrolment is not being duplicated. (2) and (4) In the period from 1 December 1984 (the date of the previous general election) to 12 June 1987 (the close of rolls for the 1987 election) 1,300 persons sought itinerant enrolment. A total of 1,261 applications were granted. On a State-by-State basis, the figures were as follows: Last Election Announce poll Close of Rolls State/Territory 1.12.84 to 26.5.87 Granted Applications Refused 27.5.87 to 12.6.87 Granted Applications Refused New South Wales ... 212 3 41 2 Victoria ... 350 28 37 2 Queensland ... 167 0 21 0 Western Australia ... 193 2 24 0 South Australia ... 116 2 22 0 Tasmania ... 65 0 4 0 Australia Capital Territory ... 0 0 3 0 Northern Territory ... 6 0 0 0 Total ... 1,109 35 152 4 After a general election the DRO checks the Non-Voters List against the Register of Itinerant Electors. Those itinerant electors who fail to vote lose their entitlement to be treated as itinerant electors. A total of 962 itinerant electors (out of 1,261) voted for the 1987 election. (Question No. 760) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 25 February 1988: (1) Will he initiate an inquiry by our security services to determine whether any money raised from the public by Australian overseas aid agencies for welfare purposes has been diverted to assist the activities of the Communist New Peoples' Army in view of the address given by the Catholic Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Sin, on 4 February 1988 to the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines, in which the Archbishop said that money given to the Catholic Church's welfare agency could not be controlled by the bishops and was believed often to be diverted to aid and develop the Communist New Peoples' Army, rather than to help Filipino families living in poverty. (2) Will he undertake to make public the findings of such an inquiry. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Government is aware of claims, including those of Cardinal Sin, that funds provided by West European and Australian overseas aid organisations have in some cases been diverted to the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its military wing, the New People's Army (NPA). The Government is naturally concerned by these claims as the violent activity pursued by the CPP/NPA against the democratically elected government of the Philippines is opposed by the Australian Government and it is contrary to Australian values. The Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB) has mechanisms in place to assess carefully all NGO projects funded by the Government. These mechanisms are considered to be appropriate and effective. The issue of any illicit diversion of funds by Philippine organisations to the CPP/NPA is a matter for the Philippine authorities. The Philippines Government is reported to have asked some foreign governments for assistance in investigating similar allegations made late last year. No request has been made of Australia nor has any evidence been provided which would substantiate the claims that have been made. The question of a possible inquiry by Australian security services therefore does not arise. (Question No. 780) Mr Macphee asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: (1) How many senior officers of the ABC work in the Corporate Division referred to in the 1986-87 ABC Annual Report. (2) Has this figure increased since 1978: if so, by how much. (3) What sum did the ABC spend on salaries and contract expenses for ``star'' performers, including Mike Walsh, since 1983. (4) How many persons has the ABC employed on short-term contracts since 1983. (5) What is the cost to the ABC in salaries and other expenses of those employed on short-term contracts. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, based, in part, on information provided by the ABC: (1) The ABC's Senior Executive Service is defined differently from that of the Australian Public Service. The ABC includes all those officers whose classification corresponds to APS class 10 and above, whereas the Public Service classes Level 1 and above as members of the Senior Executive Service. There are 58 senior officers in the Corporate Division of the ABC. This Division includes Corporate Management which has responsibility for the entire ABC, as well as Human Resources, Finance, Corporate Relations, Corporate Policy and Planning, Legal and Administrative Services, Management Information Systems, Internal Audit, Overseas Offices and Territory Management. In addition to their Corporation-wide responsibilities, these officers are responsible for approximately 750 staff and expenditure of approximately $65 million. (2) Yes. By 19, particularly in Finance, where the ABC has been improving its financial systems; Management Information Systems, where there has been a major expansion in computer services since 1978; and in Legal, where the additional professional expertise is justified by less reliance upon outside counsel. (3) ``Star'' performers is not a definable employment category within the ABC. Whether engaged as artists or as staff, the ABC has never needed to distinguish in its overall expenditure between ``star performers'' and ``others''. An aggregate costing for top performers alone is not available. Typically salaries for top performers range from that for a lead actor $966.15 per week, reporter commentator $80,000 per annum, comedy actors in major series $4,500 per episode. The Mike Walsh Show shown on ABC-TV in 1987 was a co-production between ABC TV and Hayden Productions Pty Ltd. The contract required Hayden Productions to provide the services of Mike Walsh and six production staff. The remuneration of Mike Walsh and staff was not the ABC's responsibility and this information is not available. (4) While it is not possible to provide an historical analysis of short term contract employment since 1983 because such records have not been maintained, it is possible to provide a current breakdown. At present, the ABC has 514 contract employees. In addition, there are 530 fixed-term temporary employees and, approximately 218 casual employees. The first group is employed by a contract drawn up by the ABC's Legal Department, the second group is employed by a staff engagement approved by the appropriate delegate, and the third group are employed strictly on an as-needed basis. (5) The ABC has never needed a system to distinguish between the salaries and expenses payable to full-time staff employed on a contract basis and those payable to permanent officers. The fact that the composition of staff employed on short-term contracts changes continually makes any manual calculation impracticable. Costing and justification for short-term engagements is done on an individual departmental basis within an overall policy of keeping this form of employment to a minimum. Totals are kept for expenditure on artists and casual staff: for the 86/87 financial year the amounts were $15.235 million and $5.614 million respectively. (Question No. 791) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Trade Negotiations, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: (1) What are the goals of the Cairns Group of countries. (2) Which countries are members of the Cairns Group. (3) What progress has been made so far by the Group. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The broad goals of the Cairns Group, as expressed at its inaugural meeting, are the reform and liberalisation of world agricultural trade. The Group agreed to pursue its goals through the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and through other appropriate international fora. The Group's goals are elaborated in a joint proposal that was announced by Prime Minister Hawke and tabled in the Negotiating Group on Agriculture of the Uruguay Round in October 1987. The proposal seeks a long-term framework wherein all access barriers and subsidies affecting trade are eliminated, apart from defined exceptions, and which is underpinned by strengthened GATT rules and disciplines. This would be achieved by means of a reform program involving the systematic reduction of agricultural support levels and access barriers. The proposal also seeks agreement to early relief measures to ease the severe distortions affecting agricultural trade. (2) The members of the Cairns Group are: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Fiji, Hungary, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, New Zealand, Thailand and Uruguay. (With the exception of Fiji, all are GATT members). (3) The Cairns Group has become a recognised effective coalition on agricultural issues in international negotiations including especially the GATT Uruguay Round. It worked successfully to ensure that an acceptable negotiating program for agriculture focusing on both access and subsidy issues was adopted. It has also been instrumental in influencing attitudes to the agricultural reform process reflected in the outcomes of last year's OECD Ministerial Meeting and the Venice Economic Summit. The Group's subsequent negotiating proposal in the Uruguay Round for reforming agricultural trade has been widely recognised as a comprehensive contribution which is central to that negotiating process. By maintaining cohesion and unity of purpose, the Cairns Group has come to be regarded as an important and effective influence-a third force-in the negotiations alongside the United States and the European Economic Community. No individual Group member could have achieved such prominence and impact. The diverse nature of the Group has served to strengthen its impact. The Group is seeking to maintain the momentum of the Uruguay Round negotiations. An important opportunity to consolidate and accelerate the negotiating process will be presented by the proposed Mid-Term Ministerial Review of the Uruguay Round, to be held in Montreal in December. At the recent Cairns Group Ministerial meeting at Bariloche, Argentina, which I chaired, the Group agreed on a negotiating strategy designed to extract firm commitments to the elements of a long-term framework for agricultural reform and for immediate implementation of measures-a downpayment-to set that process firmly on track. There are formidable obstacles to be overcome but the Cairns Group will be making every possible effort in Geneva and elsewhere to achieve an international trade environment for agriculture free of subsidy distortions and access restrictions. (Question No. 792) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Trade Negotiations, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: (1) What is the Trade Negotiations Committee of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. (2) What is the status of the Committee in relation to GATT. (3) What is the significance of the agreement to hold an end of year meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee in Montreal in December. (4) What do Committee members expect to achieve at the meeting. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Trade Negotiations Committee was established by Trade Ministers at Punta del Este, Uruguay, in September 1986, to oversee the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. The Committee, which can meet at Ministerial or official level, is the co-ordinating body for the negotiations and has authority over all subsidiary negotiating bodies. (2) The Committee has no status within the existing legal framework of the GATT. However, the Committee is the supreme co-ordinating body for the Uruguay Round which is being conducted under the auspices of the GATT. At official level, it is chaired by the Director-General of the GATT. It was established by Ministers meeting on the occasion of a Special Session of Contracting Parties of the GATT and is comprised of the 96 members of the GATT and some 10 countries which are not GATT contracting parties. As the supreme co-ordinating body for the negotiations, it oversees negotiations on trade in goods, which take place within the current legal framework of the GATT, and trade in services, which because they are not presently covered by the GATT legal framework, take place separately but in parallel with the negotiations on trade in goods. (3) The decision to hold a Ministerial level meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee in Montreal in December is significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, it reflects the degree of urgency which the Uruguay Round participants attach to finding solutions to the problems in the world trading environment. Second, it emphasises the need for and importance of maintaining the momentum of the negotiations. Third, it affords Ministers the opportunity to review progress at the mid-point of the Uruguay Round and to restore its political impetus. (4) The expectation of most Uruguay Round participants is that the meeting in Montreal will maintain momentum and renew the political commitment to negotiations on all elements in the Punta del Este Declaration. Where appropriate, the meeting would also provide an opportunity to endorse any interim agreements which might have emerged from the negotiations. The extent to which such a package will include substantive reforms is dependent on progress in negotiations this year. For its part, Australia will be looking to the meeting to translate the positive trade reform rhetoric of the past eighteen months into practical reform measures, for example, in the areas of agriculture, services, market access barriers and the GATT institutions. While an interim reform package for agriculture remains a priority, progress in a number of other areas of the negotiations suggests that agreement on a broad range of reforms is possible provided that participants continue for the remainder of 1988 to engage fully in the negotiating process. (Question No. 793) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Trade Negotiations, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: (1) What progress has been made to date in the Uruguay round of the Gatt multilateral trade negotiations. (2) What progress has been made in areas of benefit to (a) Australia and (b)Third World countries. (3) What attention has been given in the negotiation groups to the issue of special and differential treatment for Third World countries which was mandated by the Punta del Este Declaration. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Good progress was achieved in the first year of the Uruguay Round, compared to the Tokyo Round. There have been few delays over preliminaries despite the much greater complexity of negotiations on issues such as intellectual property rights, the functioning of the GATT, agriculture and services trade. Concrete proposals are ``on the table'' in a majority of negotiating groups. In major areas of interest to Australia, such as agriculture and services, proposals indicate a preparedness by participating countries to contemplate change. However, some negotiating groups have yet to address the substance of the more fundamental issues confronting them. Despite efforts by many countries to identify areas where interim agreements may be reached in the December 1988 Mid-Term Review, a very difficult period of negotiations lies ahead. This is particularly so in regard to world agricultural reform. At the recent informal meeting of Trade Ministers at Lake Constance (20-22 March 1988), the latest in a series of Round-related informal consultations, public statements made by the major players gave little, if any, confidence of any resolution of the problems of protection in world agricultural trade by the time of the Mid-Term Review. (2) (a) Australia's interests in such key issues as agriculture, market access, subsidies, services, intellectual property rights, dispute settlement, safeguards and the functioning of the GATT system have already been well established in the Uruguay Round negotiations. The breadth and scope of our interests in the negotiations, which extend well beyond Australia's traditional orientation towards agriculture, was a point clearly conveyed to GATT members by the Prime Minister in Geneva in October 1987. That being said, progress in reducing agriculture protection is, of course, a priority goal for Australia. Generally, while the discussion on achieving fairer international trading conditions has moved in the right direction over the last twelve months, this has yet to be translated into concrete results in the Round. The meeting at Lake Constance, for example, evidenced a reluctance on the part of some of the major players in the Round to take early decisions on issues such as agriculture, non-tariff measures, trade in services and natural resource-based products. (2) (b) The Cairns Group of Fair Traders in Agriculture is perhaps the most visible proof of the common aims shared by Australia with Third World countries in relation to the Uruguay Round negotiations. Currently ``on the table'' in the negotiations, for example, is a Cairns Group proposal whose fundamental aim is to provide the means to achieve fully liberalised trade in agriculture, to eliminate distortive agricultural policies and to bind the necessary undertakings under strengthened GATT rules and disciplines. In addition, issues of interest to Australia, such as natural resource-based products and market access for tropical products, are also big issues for a significant number of developing countries. So far in the negotiations, little progress has been made in the area of natural resource-based products. Tropical products, however, have been given priority in the Uruguay Declaration which launched the Round. Consequently, there is a generally favourable disposition by key participants in the Round to move quickly to substantive decisions in this area. (3) Some but not all developing countries are preoccupied with ensuring that the issue of special and differential treatment is addressed in a number of negotiating groups, such as safeguards, agriculture, dispute settlement, etc. Other developing countries have realised that until firm and defensible rules are set in place, it is premature to consider to what extent developing countries need to have special and differential treatment. As negotiations are still under way and largely in the early stages, there has been no conclusive discussion on the issue. However, the principle of differential and more favourable treatment for developing countries applies to all elements of the Cairns Group proposal to the Uruguay Round Negotiating Group on Agriculture, including early relief measures. These elements include certain support measures in relation to domestic economic programmes to promote economic and social development, which are not explicitly linked to export purposes. Also, recognising the importance of tropical products for developing countries, the Punta del Este Declaration provided that negotiations in this sector be given special attention, including the achievement of early agreements. The Australian negotiating proposal, to be tabled in full at the next meeting of the Negotiating Group in April, is intended to highlight market access problems which need to be resolved. It does not specifically address special and differential treatment for developing countries, since our approach is that negotiations should be between importers and exporters of tropical products, irrespective of whether a country is industrial or developing. It is our view that such an approach would offer the best prospect of achieving secure and improved market access. It should be noted that Australia is the only developed country to accord, automatically and without exception, a margin of preference to all developing countries across its whole tariff. (Question No. 796) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 March 1988: (1) Is he able to say whether the Prime Minister signed letters to be sent out to families regarding the Family Allowance Supplement (FAS); if so, (a) how many letters were sent, (b) to whom were they sent, (c) what amount did the (i) printing and (ii) postage of these letters cost and (d) were there any other associated costs. (2) If there were other costs, what (a) was their nature and (b) sum was incurred on each item. (3) Was it originally intended that (a) regional managers or (b) other persons would sign the letters; if so, which other persons. (4) Were these letters (a) signed and prepared for despatch and (b) recalled; if so, what happened to them. (5) If the letters were recalled, (a) who made the decision, (b) (i) when and (ii) why was the decision made and (c) is the decision regretted. (6) Was the FAS reduced to pay for the money wasted by recalling the letters; if so, how many families are still below the poverty line because of this action. (7) Will anyone (a) resign or (b) be dismissed over the decision to recall the original letters; if not, why not; if so, who. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) Letters over the Prime Minister's signature about the Family Allowance Supplement (FAS) were sent to all families on the Family Allowance register in December 1987 and March 1988. The first batch went to 322,000 families with three or more children, not in receipt of a pension, benefit or FAS. The second batch went to about 1.35 million families with one or two children, not receiving a pension, benefit or FAS. Costs associated with the first mailout were $92,897 made up as follows: $ Laser printing paper...4,000 Envelopes...6,430 Mail House Charges...4,365 Postage...78,102 ...92,897 Costs associated with the second mailout were $310,604 made up as follows: $ Laser printing paper...11,978 Envelopes...21,760 Mail House Charges...28,609 Postage...248,257 ...310,604 The letters were printed on the Department's laser printers. For the first mailout letters were initially printed with ``Regional Manager'' as the sender. I decided to review the proposed approach to the mailout against the background of the overall FAS publicity and information strategy. Given the Government's commitment to obtaining the highest possible take up of FAS, it was decided that the letters would have greater impact if they were sent over the laser printed image of the Prime Minister's signature, rather than as ordinary Departmental correspondence. This approach proved to be very successful and was followed up by the second similar mailout in March 1988. Again there was a very successful response. The cost of letters printed before the change in strategy was $9,843 made up as follows: $ Printed forms...7,343 Freight...900 Envelopes...1,600 9,843 The change of approach certainly is not regretted. It has proved to be very successful and cost effective reducing the need for expensive broad media advertising. (6) This question shows a lack of understanding of the appropriations process. FAS is paid from appropriations separate from those of the Department's administrative expenditures. In any event the cost of $9,843 compares with current expenditure of approximately $14 million per FAS payday. (7) These issues do not arise. The project was extremely successful and cost effective. (Question No. 814) Mr Cobb asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 17 March 1988: (1) How many staff are employed by the ABC. (2) What is the total wages bill in respect of these staff. (3) What percentage of the ABC budget is spent on wages. (4) What is remuneration of ABC employees in top executive positions. (5) What (a) percentage of the ABC budget is spent and (b) how many staff are employed, in rural areas. (6) How many ABC staff are employed on a temporary basis and qualify for travelling allowance and what is the rationale of employing staff in this manner. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, based, in part, on information provided by the ABC: (1) At the end of March 1988 the ABC's staff strength was 6478. (2) $230.7 million for 1987/88 (based on revised estimate of total expenditure). (3) 48.16% in 1987/88 (based on percentage of total expenditure). (4) The ABC defines its senior executive as APS Class 10 and above whereas the Public Service only classifies Level 1 and above as members of the Senior Executive Service (SES). The ABC currently has a total of 222 senior executives (Class 10 and above). On a comparative basis with the Public Service's SES (Level 1 and above), the ABC has 81 senior executives. The salaries for senior executives range from $40,121 pa (Class 10) to $101,904 pa (MD). (5) (a) 2.3% ($9.85 million) of the ABC's budget is spent on, and (b) 257 (4.1% of total strength) staff are employed in, rural program areas. (6) Staff qualify for travel allowance when they are on duty and absent overnight from their normal headquarters. This applies irrespective of whether they are permanent or temporary employees. The ABC currently has 2082 temporary employees. These staff are temporary either because the ABC requires their services only for a specific period or because there are no permanent vacancies available. (Question No. 825) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 17 March 1988: (1) What was the total budget for ABC radio station 4SO in 1986-87. (2) What is the transmission area of 4SO. (3) How many outside broadcasts were conducted by 4SO in 1986-87. (4) What was the (a) total cost, (b) purpose, (c) date and (d) duration of each transmission. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, based, in part, on information provided by the ABC: (1) $105,351. (2) From Southport in the North to Tweed Heads in the South and approximately 15 kilometres West to the start of the Beachmont Ranges. (3) One. (4) (a) $696.29 (b) Coverage of the Sand Surf and Life Contest-featuring international and national surfing champions at Duranbah on the Gold Coast. (c) 20, 21 and 22 March 1987 (d) 20 March 1245-1700, 21 March 0880-1600, 22 March 0800-1600. (Question No. 889) Mr Prosser asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 April 1988: What was the value of sales tax exemption on motor cycles and four wheel drive vehicles allowed under Division 1 of the First Schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act in 1986-87. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There is limited data available regarding four wheel drive vehicles and motor cycles exempted from sales tax under Division 1 of the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. However, from exemption certificates granted for four wheel drive vehicles it has been estimated that the revenue forgone in 1986-87 from exempting four wheel drive vehicles and motor cycles from sales tax is of the order of $30m. (Question No. 904) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1988: (1) Under what circumstances can an elector have his or her address recorded on the electoral roll as a postal address, in particular a postal office box, rather than his or her residential address. (2) When habitation reviews are undertaken, what arrangements are made to check the residential qualifications of those persons who record a postal address, in particular a post office box number, on the electoral roll. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) There are no circumstances under which an elector can have his or her address recorded on the electoral roll as a postal address unless that address is also his or her residential address. For the purposes of contacting an elector by post, provision is made to separately record a postal address. (2) When habitation reviews are undertaken, the review officer is supplied with a list of all electors in all habitations in the area under review. Those electors who have supplied postal addresses which are different to their residential addresses are included on this list for their residential addresses and a physical check is made at their residences. A postal address of an elector is for postal purposes only. (Question No. 937) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 21 April 1988: (1) Have the Queen Elizabeth II Rehabilitation Centre and Mount Wilga Rehabilitation Centre, the 2 main rehabilitation centres for the partially or totally disabled in N.S.W., been sold or otherwise disposed of by the Government; if so, (a) to whom were they sold or otherwise disposed and (b) what was the sale price for each centre. (2) What is or was the last date upon which facilities are or were available for the rehabilitation of patients at each centre. (3) Further to comments made by the then Minister for Community Services on the ABC 7.30 Report on 2 April 1987, what are the names and locations of the 26 separate centres in N.S.W. through which rehabilitation services are provided. (4) How many of these centres are presently open for use. (5) Do any or all have residential accommodation, (a) attached or (b) adjacent. (6) Which centres are still under construction and unable to provide services and when will services be available. (7) How many centres are in the course of conversion for use as rehabilitation centres. (8) In the case of centres which have not yet been designated to a region, or construction has not yet commenced, what is the timetable for construction or conversion. (9) What alternative services have been made available to patients who previously used the Mount Wilga or Queen Elizabeth II centres. (10) What are the terms of any agreement reached with the N.S.W. Housing Commission to provide residential accommodation at or near rehabilitation centres established to replace the Mount Wilga or Queen Elizabeth II centres. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. Queen Elizabeth II (QEII) was sold to the New South Wales Department of Health to be used as a medical rehabilitation centre. Mount Wilga was sold to a private company which intends to operate a hospital/nursing home for people with head injuries. (b) Sale price of QEII was $15m. Sale price of Mount Wilga was $3.9m. (2) Mount Wilga ceased operating as a Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS) facility on 17 December 1987 and QEII on 29 May 1987. (3) The CRS now has 27 facilities in New South Wales. These are located in the following areas, and serve a designated catchment area surrounding the unit's location or, in the case of specialist units, they provide services to clients from the overall population in co-operation with other regional units and community resources: Albury Ashfield Bankstown Bathurst Baulkham Hills (co-located with Parramatta) Bega Blacktown (2 facilities) Campbelltown Coffs Harbour Darlinghurst Dubbo Epping Gosford Hurstville Lismore Liverpool Maitland Marrickville Newcastle (2 facilities) Orange Parramatta Penrith St Leonards Tamworth Wollongong These facilities consist of ordinary regional rehabilitation units, specialist units, vocational units, facilities shared with the State Government, outposts and sub-units. Together these facilities provide a regional network of rehabilitation services. (4) All 27 CRS facilities are currently operating in New South Wales. (5) (a) No. (b) The following facilities have client accommodation in the adjacent area: Parramatta Ashfield Newcastle. Most units do not have client accommodation attached or adjacent because the CRS provides financial and practical assistance to ensure that clients are able to make use of accommodation which is already available in the community. (6) There are no units under construction. The CRS leases most of its premises. (7) None. All of the CRS centres in New South Wales have been sold. There are no units in the course of conversion. (8) There is no timetable. (9) The established regional network of the CRS means that clients are now able to use CRS facilities close to their home rather than travelling to major metropolitan centres. Many of the new regional units which replaced the centres were particularly well placed, geographically, to take on the former clients of the major centres when they closed. In relation to clients of QEII these were Ashfield, Hurstville, Darlinghurst, Parramatta, Liverpool, Penrith and Blacktown. In relation to clients of Mount Wilga they were Epping, Gosford and St Leonards. (10) There is no formal agreement of this type. Discussions were held in mid-1987 but no formal arrangement was arrived at.