Wednesday, 19 October 1988 Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I have received the following message from the Senate: The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following Resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day in relation to the following Bills- Australian Securities Commission Bill 1988 Corporations Bill 1988 Corporations (Fees) Bill 1988 Securities Exchanges (Application for Membership) Fidelity Funds Contribution Bill 1988 Securities Exchanges (Membership) Fidelity Funds Contribution Bill 1988 Securities Exchanges Fidelity Funds Levy Bill 1988 National Guarantee Fund (Reportable Transactions) Levy Bill 1988 National Guarantee Fund (Participating Exchanges) Levy Bill 1988 National Guarantee Fund (Members of Participating Exchanges) Levy Bill 1988 Futures Organisations (Application for Membership) Fidelity Funds Contribution Bill 1988 Futures Organisations (Membership) Fidelity Funds Contribution Bill 1988 Futures Organisations Fidelity Funds Levy Bill 1988 Close Corporations Bill 1988 Close Corporations (Fees) Bill 1988 Close Corporations (Liquidators' Recovery Trust Fund Contribution) Bill 1988 Close Corporations (Additional Liquidators' Recovery Trust Fund Contribution) Bill 1988: (1) That, acknowledging that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has unanimously recommended that the Commonwealth should introduce comprehensive legislation to assume responsibility for all areas covered by the co-operative scheme and that a package of Bills for this purpose is now before the Senate, the Bills be referred to a select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Corporations Legislation, and the Committee inquire into and report on the Bills for the regulation of companies and the securities and futures industries with reference only to the adequacy of the proposed legislative provisions to: (a) improve the regulation of companies; (b) facilitate the performance of the securities and futures markets; and (c) ensure adequate protection for investors in companies and the securities and futures markets; and, in particular, report on the adequacy of the fund-raising provisions. (2) That the Committee consist of 10 members, as follows: (a) 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (b) 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; Corporations Legislation Corporations Legislation Corporations Legislation Corporations Legislation Corporations Legislation Corporations Legislation Corporations Legislation (c) 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats; (d) 3 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by or on behalf of the Prime Minister; and (e) 2 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. (3) That the Committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (4) That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by or on behalf of the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. (5) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (6) That, in the event of the votes on any question before the Committee being equally divided, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (7) That the quorum of the Committee be 5 members. (8) That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, and the Committee have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations it may deem fit. (9) That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub-committee be all the members appointed to the sub-committee. (10) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee with the approval of the President. (11) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (12) That the Committee report to each House of the Parliament by the first day of sitting of that House in 1989. (13) That the Committee have access to any relevant evidence and records of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. (14) That the Committee cease upon the dissolution or expiration of the House of Representatives. (15) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in this Resolution. Ordered that the message be taken into consideration forthwith. Motion (by Mr Staples) proposed: That this House concurs in the resolution transmitted in message No. 218 of the Senate relating to the appointment of a joint select committee on corporations legislation. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.03) —This motion continues the farce going on in relation to the Commonwealth package on company law. Mr Peacock —This follows the 280 amendments. Mr MOORE —The 280 amendments were the last effort in relation to this. Now we have before the House a recommendation for a select committee, on very narrow terms as proposed by the Australian Democrats, on which the Government seems to have an open position. Senator Tate, who is responsible for this legislation in the Senate, said the Government was going to take a wider view of things than the motion put forward by the Democrats. Where is the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is responsible for this legislation? I understand he is cruising around the Pacific or to South America or somewhere, while we are bringing before the House the most controversial attempt at constitutional reform in Australia without a referendum, the most sweeping changes in company law that affect the whole area of Australian commerce. We still cannot resolve it here, except that in debate, when the Attorney-General was sitting across the table, he indicated that there was a prospect for some changes in the plan. Where is he today when this recommendation for a committee comes back, suggesting a totally different position? I am amazed at what goes on. On top of that, while we must set up a joint committee today, on 1 November the Federal Attorney-General is going to meet with the State Attorneys-General to discuss what they think about it all. That will be another round of discussions on company law, which is completely irrelevant. So we have the Federal Attorney-General meeting the State Attorneys-General on 1 November. In the House we are establishing a joint committee to discuss the Bills. In the Senate the Minister who introduced the matter completely contradicted what the Attorney-General had said in this House in relation to these matters. Where is the Australian Labor Party in relation to company law? Last time the Government had the legislation in the House it bombed down 280 amendments the night before the debate and wondered why it took so long to get through the House. This is another example of inadequate consultation with the public of Australia. I will quote briefly from an address by one of the 36 members of the consultative group who advised the Government on this matter. Honourable members took so much interest in the company law debate on the last occasion that they will not need to have it repeated. Mr Beerworth, who was one of the 12 who advised the Government, said in relation to consultation: I worked in Canberra for 3 years, and I practised law for over 20. I must tell you that my heart sinks whenever a government promises consultation because that word does not have its dictionary meaning in government circles. Consultation there means the appearance of consultation or the establishment of a procedure designed to suggest consultation. I have no doubt that the individual Ministers who talk sincerely about consultation mean what they say at the time they say it. The problem is that they are not personally involved and the consultative process is delegated away. In this case- referring to company law- the Attorney asked prominent identities to form a small steering committee and also asked other individuals, some representative of relevant organisations, to form a wider consultative committee. I was invited to join that consultative committee and it may be instructive if I relay my experience to you. The whole committee met together once only in December last year for about 3 hours. We were given some simple proposals for reform and told that we would be broken down into sub-committees. Little happened for 3 months and I volunteered to serve on two sub-committees, legal and securities. The securities sub-committee has met twice. On the first occasion, we had no idea that the draft legislation would be shortly forthcoming and we had no idea of its form or likely content (other than that some of the issues in a discussion paper would be dealt with). We amiably decided to form a series of sub-committees to handle the real work. I was unable to attend the first meeting of the legal committee but have attended all others. It has met more consistently, but at an early stage we were told that we would not consider any detail or individual sections of the legislation because the amount involved was simply too vast. I thought that was an extraordinary approach for a bunch of prominent lawyers. Hear, hear! That is not bad. It came from Bill Beerworth, one of the 12 advisers on the steering committee that advised the Attorney-General on this package. That is what he had to say about the consultation process that took place. Now that Government proposes to establish a committee at the end of October to report to the House on the first occasion it meets in February. What sort of consultation will take place on this in Australia in December and January? Mr Charles —None. Mr MOORE —The answer is none. The honourable member for Isaacs admits that; he has owned up. He can see how much work will be done between December and January. The committee will come back here in February and say, `We just did not have time'. What a joke! This is amazing handling of significant legislation before the House. The Government proposes to put up long technical Bills at the last minute before the Christmas break. The Government proposes, in 16 Acts of Parliament, to take over company law when it is very doubtful that it has the constitutional powers to do so. One Government member said that he did not think that members of the proposed committee would do much work over Christmas. I quote again from Mr Beerworth regarding the constitutionality of the legislation. Mr Beerworth is a prominent lawyer and a former senior partner in one of the senior law firms in Sydney. He is now the Executive Director of Wardley Australia Ltd, whose name is well known to all Western Australians. He said: My own concerns are strongest in this constitutional area. I frankly regard it as close to irresponsible for the Commonwealth to attempt to take over such an important part of corporate and commercial life when its power to do so is unclear. That is not a bad statement from one of the Government's 12 advisers on the steering committee. He continued: The difficulties will not be simply brushed away by the one contrived case which the supporters of the legislation assert will be quickly brought on. For those of you who are lawyers, and particularly constitutional lawyers, you will know that it may take 5 or 6 or even 10 cases before the proper ambit of the Commonwealth's jurisdiction in this area has been settled by the High Court. This process may take a number of years. The problem is that in the meantime, business must carry on and may find out retrospectively that it has followed a Commonwealth (or a State) law which is declared void years later. What an imposition on business which has opposed sweeping changes not only to the administration of company law in Australia but also detailed changes to company law itself, as these Bills provide, when the constitutional powers under which the Government proposes to act are very questionable. I am quoting here from the remarks of one of the Government's advisers. One really wonders what takes place in relation to these matters. Mr Beerworth continued: That is an absurd situation and not one which should obtain in a country with our traditions. The uncertainty and cost to business should not be underestimated, and we are not only merely talking about the act of incorporation: We are talking about all matters affecting the organisation, administration and operation of a company in Australia. The third problem area is that of administration. Whilst an asserted need for more certainty and uniformity in administration was the genesis of the Commonwealth's move, those are the last attributes which will be achieved by this legislation. There has been talk of reaching an accommodation with the States- I referred before to the meeting on 1 November- about the use of their existing administration, and I am assured that a mysterious `corporate plan' will somehow magically bring about a better level of administration than under the present cooperative scheme. Hear, hear! Here we have one of the 12 advisers saying that this new Commonwealth administration will involve some mysterious corporate plan that `will somehow magically bring about a better level of administration'. When the Government's own supporters are saying such things, surely the Government must think about it. Mr Beerworth continued: But the administration of this scheme has not been clearly thought out and no accommodation has been reached with the States. Nor is it likely to be given the adversarial approach the Commonwealth has consistently taken during the last year or so. That is quite a bucket from one of the Government's own advisers. That is from a person who has pretty high standing within the corporate world in Australia. Mr Beerworth is well known in all States. He is a person who has been around for a while. With all these uncertainties before us there is a constitutional doubt. There is a mixture of a number of Government versions. There is the version of the Attorney-General; there is Senator Tate's version; and now there is the version of this Committee. The Government has appointed a committee to look at highly controversial company law in November, December and January. Honourable members can imagine how much work goes on over that period of the year. On top of all this, while all this has been going on, on 1 November the Commonwealth Attorney-General will meet the State Attorneys-General to see whether some other plan of cooperation can be reached. It is no wonder that 280 amendments were needed to clean up the Bills the first time. The Government will need 500 amendments next time to clean up the legislation after the 1 November meeting if an accommodation is to be reached with the States in relation to this very technical area. I must say that the proposal brought forward in the House has limited appeal. We do not support a close look at the narrow areas of company reform contained in this Bill; we want to look at the legislation as it affects wider Australia. We want to ensure that this Committee travels to all capital cities; that it has the views of people who live in Perth, Adelaide, Hobart and Brisbane-not just the people in Pitt Street and Collins Street, but the wider commercial levels in Australia. This legislation affects everyone in this nation-not just a few people who have a vested interest in centralising power, which is basically what the legislation is all about. We want to ensure that the matters which have been brought forward concern only the administration of company law-as we were told in their initial presentation. However, when we look at the 16 Bills concerned we see that there are wide areas involving law reform. These are areas about which prominent people outside this place have raised very grave questions. Professor Austin, of Sydney University, has gone on record about the technical review of prospectuses as it relates to these Bills. He claims that there are very grave doubts about the proposals. But in the Attorney-General's presentation there was no mention of change to company law. That is rubbish. That is blatantly untrue. This committee is to be set up at the behest of the Democrats so that they can look at the technical aspects of the legislation. As the honourable member has so rightly said: what is going to happen in December and January? The Opposition will not be supporting the establishment of this Committee. Our proposal is for a committee to take a wider view of the legislation and, as a consequence, we will not support the proposal before the House. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Housing and Aged Care)(10.15) —in reply-I was disappointed by the cheap shots of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) when he spoke earlier about the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) cruising around. I think he said he was on a cruise. The honourable member knows that is not a fact. If he does not, he should. The fact is that the Attorney-General is travelling to various countries working on extradition treaties, which I thought might have been important to honourable members opposite. But no, they have to rely upon a few cheap shots-the same old stuff. Right at the beginning of this debate they showed that they are very short on substance, as they are in all of their policy areas, even on this issue, an issue with which one would think they would be far more familiar and comfortable, but that is not the case. On 25 May of this year the Attorney-General introduced a package of Bills comprising national companies legislation, which will replace the existing complementary State-Commonwealth legislation that is based on a cooperative scheme. On 28 September of this year the Attorney-General introduced Government amendments to the Bills. When the Attorney-General introduced the Bills he said they would lie on the table over the winter recess for public examination and comment, and the amendments reflect those comments. On 29 September the package was passed in the House of Representatives and on 14 October it was introduced into the Senate. Before the second reading debate Senator Macklin moved a motion that the Bills be referred to a joint select committee that would examine them. That motion is now before this House because the committee is to be a joint committee. The Government supported the motion for the following reasons: The committee will facilitate parliamentary consideration of the Bills; there are some significant reforms in the Bills and the committee will enable informed review and analysis; the membership of that committee will enable fair and equitable representation by the Government, the Opposition and the Senate; and the reporting date of the first sitting day of next year will ensure that there is minimum time for uncertainty for the business investors which a long, drawn out inquiry, as is proposed by the Opposition, would bring about, but that is again symptomatic of the way in which it handled the economy as well as most other matters when it was in government. The terms of reference directed that the fundamental objectives of the legislation will not permit a wide ranging inquiry. On this point the terms of reference acknowledged the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs report of April 1987, which concluded that the Commonwealth should move to introduce comprehensive legislation in the field of companies and securities. The Opposition supports the idea of a reference to a committee, but opposes the terms of reference. Senator Hill, an Opposition senator, moved an amendment to substitute much broader terms of reference, in particular a term of reference that would permit the re-examination of the issue of whether the Commonwealth should introduce legislation in this area and whether it has any constitutional authority. On the point of whether the Commonwealth should legislate, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, in its report on the role of Parliament and the national companies scheme-Senator Hill was on that Committee and he has since said that the Committee may have been wrong-unanimously concluded that the Commonwealth should introduce comprehensive legislation. The business community, of which the honourable member for Ryan sees himself being a prominent member, gave evidence to that Committee and was in favour of the Commonwealth legislating. The Business Council of Australia, the Company Directors Association of Australia, the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia, the Australian Merchant Bankers Association and the Life Insurance Federation of Australia have all supported it. Business has remained strongly in support of the Commonwealth legislative initiatives. The problem with the present scheme is the lack of parliamentary accountability and ministerial responsibility. Under the cooperative scheme no parliament has any control over the legislation but the Commonwealth legislation will rectify this. The Opposition wants to canvass whether the States should have legislative responsibility. In December last year the Attorney-General put a split scheme to the States. They unanimously rejected that proposal. At that time the honourable member for Ryan also strongly opposed the proposal. He now says he favours a split scheme approach. Last year Senator Hill from the Opposition in the Senate supported the concept of Commonwealth legislation as part of a Senate committee. This year he thinks he made a mistake. What will the Opposition's position be next week? The Attorney-General is concerned that the legislation be properly examined, but he also believes that it is time to replace the current scheme which the Senate committee concluded had `outlived its usefulness'. The sooner the Opposition realises what is really going on in corporate Australia, the better it will be for it. The reality is that this provides a single national code of regulation for Australian companies. It is a major, long overdue step in streamlining and modernising Australia's legal and corporate system. We will have one national framework in one national market. That is the difference between the dark old days of the Fraser years and the times before that, and what Australia has to deal with today. We, in this Government, have been building a springboard for Australian companies to intervene and operate in global markets. We can see that it has been of tremendous benefit to Australia. We, as a country, as an economy, as a society, are now in a position to take full advantage of the dynamic economy that this Government has fostered. For years Australia's leading companies have been crying out for this reform to get rid of the unnecessary duplication, the cost barriers to trade, and outmoded, anachronistic controls that have been in place under the decades of Liberal and National Party government. Only this Government has had the political will to match the political vision, to achieve and to bring forward legislation such as this, unlike the discredited honourable members opposite who failed to do anything about this during the decades that they were in government-- Mr Moore —Who brought in the cooperative scheme? Mr STAPLES —They left the economy to run itself while they just swanned around pretending to govern the country. Mr Moore —Who brought in the co-operative scheme? Mr STAPLES —They were unable to make decisions. They were incapable of vision or reform. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Ryan. Mr STAPLES —Their timidity, their fear, their conservative, incoherent, divided ideology left them, this country, and Australian business right up the creek. In government and in opposition they have proved what we now know. The people of Australia have now shown on three occasions at general elections who they trust to govern this country. The business community, if not on the first occasion in 1983, certainly in 1987, backed this Government right down the line. The Opposition is so timid, so beholden to vested and cosy interests, that it cannot and will not act in the interests of the corporate sector it claims is its base. Is it any wonder that Australia's serious business interests are deserting those opposite in droves. There would hardly be a strong voice in any sector of the business community that would support the Opposition. The Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the car industry, the financial institutions and the steel industry, in terms of economic management or corporate legislation, will not touch the Opposition. It does not have the answers, it does not have the vision and the policies, and it certainly does not have a future in this House. This Government has a constructive and viable wages policy. We are improving economic efficiency; we are freeing up the economy that those opposite smothered in cotton wool to protect their old school mates; and we are tackling the real challenges that confront Australia today, in the 1980s, and will confront us in the 1990s and well into the twenty-first century. The Opposition keeps changing its mind on this legislation-for whatever reason I do not know; I am sure that the Attorney-General and the business community do not know-- Mr Tuckey —Changing its mind? Mr STAPLES —The Opposition keeps changing its mind. With all the backwards and forwards that is going on in the Senate and the House of Representatives we have a situation in which no-one opposite really knows what he or she is doing. The reality is that those opposite promise everything and do not back it up; they talk a lot and do not follow it up with action. The Australian people, Australian industry and Australian business know that. They are waiting for members of the Opposition to come up with something constructive and useful, but they cannot because they do not know where to start. It is too hard and it will always be too hard. That is why it is up to this Labor Government to reform and renovate the corporate sector. The Attorney-General-it appears that the honourable member for Ryan misses him very much-has achieved this with his usual quiet, patient work with the States. He has achieved a lot in this area with the legal profession and the corporate sector. This legislation will stand as historic reform in this country. The Government welcomes the role of this committee, as will the rest of the business community. This legislation will stand as historic reform on a par with our other financial, social and economic reforms. I commend this motion to the House. Question put: That the motion (Mr Staples's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Kerr, D. J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGorman, R. N. J. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W.Johns, G. T. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKeller, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Moore, J. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Nehl, G. B.Brown, N. A. Peacock, A. S.Cadman, A. G. Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen 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. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldBowen, Lionel McArthur, F. S.Blewett, N. Millar, P. C.Klugman, R. E. Burr, M. A.Bilney, G. N. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Peacock had moved by way of amendment: 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: (1) notes that this is the highest taxing Government in the post-war history of Australia; (2) notes that this Government's so-called tax reforms invariably involve simply offsetting tax reductions in one area by tax increases in others, as witnessed in this Bill by the termination of the 5/3 depreciation arrangement to offset a reduction in the corporate tax rate; (3) notes that the Government continues its propensity for taxation by stealth by again unaccountably raising the provisional tax uplift factor; (4) notes that the Treasurer has failed to meet his responsibilities in respect of the administration of the taxation system and has hidden behind the rhetoric of the Commissioner for Taxation and encouraged the undermining of the rule of law in taxation matters; and (5) condemns the Government for its practice of `government by press release' which can cause otherwise legitimate legislation to be called into question because of the unacceptable retrospectivity thus introduced'. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and orders of the day Nos 2 and 3. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.36) —The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1988 is an omnibus Bill in that it incorporates numerous changes to our income tax laws covering a range of matters, including unfranked dividends or dividend imputations, the termination of section 26aaa of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which relates to the capital gains tax area, and pensioner rebates, and numerous other matters. Today I will concentrate on the three items that I have just mentioned. Mr Lee —Especially the pensioner rebates. Mr CHARLES —Especially pensioner rebates, as the honourable member for Dobell reminds me, and I will tackle that area first. Numerous members on this side of the House, including the honourable member for Dobell and I, perceived that the taxation question with regard to pensions could have been a problem if it had been allowed to continue in the form it was in some months ago. The Government reacted to the many representations from members on this side of the House and promptly made numerous changes to pensioner rebates which were set out in the May statement. In fact, this legislation will increase from $250 to $430 this rebate which is available to taxpayers who are in receipt of Australian social security or repatriation pensions. The income level at which the rebate begins to shade out will also be increased from $6,142 to $6,892. The maximum rebate will shade out at a rate of 12 1/2c for each dollar of taxable income in excess of $6,892. Thus, no rebate will be available on taxable incomes in excess of $10,331, or just under $200 a week. This will also mean that approximately a quarter of a million pensioners will benefit by not having to pay taxation in advance. Mr Lee —Provisional tax. Mr CHARLES —Provisional tax-I should have remembered that because I used to pay it myself. As I have said, several hundred thousand pensioners will benefit from the lifting of the tax rebate from $250 to $430. This significant increase will mean that more pensioners will pay no tax this year. This Government and many individual members who made representations to the Cabinet are concerned about pensioners and this concern is reflected in part of the legislation now before the House. Pensioners are always one of the top priorities of members on this side of the House in particular and they have received many benefits since this Government has come into office, not the least being the continuation of indexation of pensions, which are now just on 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, with the married couple rate being in excess of $200 a week. The rebate situation which this proposed legislation introduces will mean that quite a few hundred thousand pensioners will not pay tax this year. It is a situation the Government will have to keep its eye on. I believe, and have believed for some time, that we may have to find some other solution in the long term because I can see that, if nothing is done again for another few years, we will be back basically introducing similar legislation and upping the ante again and again. While one may always do that, and it may be the only solution in the long run, there are people on this side of the House trying to find more appropriate solutions, if that is possible, so that pensioners, particularly the middle and lower income pensioners on full pensions, or pensioners who receive only a small amount of income, are accommodated and do not have to start paying taxation. While I generally believe that all people should, of course, pay their appropriate taxation, it does gall some pensioners when they say, `Look, here we are; we have worked all our lives, and we have not much income', if they are receiving not much more than the pension and they are being forced to pay tax. We have solved that situation for the time being, and I can assure the House and all pensioners throughout Australia that the Government will keep an eye on and is working towards solving that situation in the long term. Indeed, it reminds me that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the honourable member for Stirling, were one of the people who were at the forefront of bringing this to the notice of the Government over the past six or 12 months. A couple of other items include the unfranked departed dividends received by private companies. This raises the general issue, if I may comment, of the dividend imputation scheme which is one of the purest dividend imputation schemes in the world. It has been a resounding success, and that can be seen by looking again at the stock market and some of the major companies that give full franked dividends. Their stocks have risen in many cases. For example, one is BTR-Nylex Packaging Division, whose stock prices have risen to levels above those prior to the 19 October crash of last year. The banks are another group, if I can use the banks collectively, and that development has mainly been propelled because of the dividend imputation scheme introduced by this Government and the fully franked dividends that those organisations that I have mentioned have delivered to their shareholders. Indeed, the stopping of double taxation is a very important policy that this Government has introduced. It corrects a situation which incredibly was left as it was for many decades. Incredibly, again, for the previous three decades that taxation policy operated virtually unhindered under the administration of conservative governments that are supposed to look after business. They did not do anything about it. It was left to a Labor Government to introduce legislation that was more equitable in that regard. The termination of section 26aaa again raises questions of capital gains. Indeed, it also knocks over an anomaly. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have had representations, as I have, from time to time from constituents, who have come to you and who have said, `Look, I have had to sell my house because I have been shifted interstate, or whatever, and we have been in the house only six or nine months and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) wants to slug me capital gains tax under the old section 26aaa part of the legislation'. Those people had to wage war with the ATO in order to get an exemption on that. I had several constituents in that situation. Now the repeal of this section does away with that anomaly in the sense that now everything involved in buying and selling property will come under the general capital gains tax Act that we introduced a couple of years ago now, which has also been so successful. Of course, in line with that there are exemptions, the main one being the principal residence of a family or individual. That is exempt, and that is how the anomaly will disappear. It is interesting that we have seen the introduction of dividend imputation, which has been so successful; the capital gains tax, about which we have had so much hoo-ha; and also the fringe benefits tax, about which we heard a hue and cry from the other side of the House and many sections of the community. It is amazing how all that hue and cry has died away completely. People see the equity, the fairness in the legislation the Government introduced. The Government will probably receive about four times the amount of money it had anticipated this year from the fringe benefits tax. That is an amazing amount of money. It just shows how much was locked away in fringe benefits and other `avoidance' areas with people trying not to pay their full amount of tax. The Government paid great attention to that and our taxation system is now much fairer and has greater equity. I wish to touch on the wider taxation area. As I said at the start of my speech, this omnibus Bill touches on many aspects of the Taxation Act. We are looking at tax cuts next year. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said yesterday, I am not here to determine how much those tax cuts are going to be. Circumstances will vary from now to then and we will determine at that time how much the tax cuts will be and, more importantly, progressive rates of taxation. It is important to note that we are in a position where the Government is considering bringing down substantial tax cuts next year. When we came to office in 1983 we were facing a proposed Budget deficit of $9.6 billion. This year we had a surplus of $5.5 billion and we are in a situation where the economy is now growing more strongly than ever before. In fact, it may be growing too strongly; domestic demand is probably too strong at the moment. We are now able to deliver tax cuts to the average Australian. Honourable members opposite can hoo-ha about taxation, but the facts are that after 30 years of their administration we still had very high tax rates, the top rates being 60c in the dollar. That is now 49c, and I anticipate that rate coming down even further. The company rate is down to 39c in the dollar. No matter what the Opposition says, it did not do anything constructive for the taxation system. Talking informally to a number of American congressmen recently, it was interesting that they said to me-Republicans and Democrats alike were in the room and they nodded-that once and for all, after the presidential election in a couple of weeks, they would blow away the myth that a country can keep increasing services and lowering taxation. I thought, `I have heard all that before'. They are following on behind us. We have had this myth perpetrated by the other side of the House that we can keep lowering taxes but at the same time continue to increase services; we will not do away with this and we will have money for that. In the debate on defence yesterday the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) said he wanted another billion dollars or so for defence; the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) said he wanted more money for local hospitals, transport and local government; but at the same time they would continue to lower taxation. Mr Staples —That is why no-one trusts them. Mr CHARLES —Yes, that is exactly right. It is a mathematical equation. We cannot keep lowering taxes and increasing services. It is an impossibility. It was interesting that the American congressmen to whom I was speaking a few weeks ago said that after the presidential election that myth-that was the word they used-would be blown away. They have had all that nonsense from President Reagan and it will be blown away. Both the Democrats and Republicans agreed with that statement. This is very important legislation which covers many aspects of the Taxation Act. I have touched on three areas that are very important-the unfranked dividends, the capital gains tax area, and the pensioner rebate which will enable over a quarter of a million pensioners to benefit directly from this legislation. Dr WOODS(Lowe)(10.50) —I rise to speak-if I can survive the attacks from these kamikaze bogong moths-on the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1988. This is another attempt to prop up the second rate health care system we have now, the Clayton's system-the health care system we have when we do not have any caring. It is the system which has introduced two-tier health care into the Australian way of life, one for the rich and one for the poor. This is quite contrary to what the Government claims to have done in terms of universality. It has created divisions which have never been there before and which, hopefully, will soon disappear. It has created waiting lists as high as 40,000 in some States. In every single State there are problems with waiting lists directly as a result of Medicare and the lack of access to private hospitals. At the same time, 9,000 private beds are sitting there waiting to be filled. We have no access to those beds for the vast majority of people on this so-called Medicare system. We also find that people are unable to insure completely against costs when they are sick and they have to pay extra bills at that time. There is a deliberate policy by the Government to deter people from covering their own potential disabilities by refusing to allow them to insure for the gap. They face enormous bills in many cases when they are sick and need operations. We have a system which encourages overservicing. Last night we heard the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) trying to defend the system. He was saying that all was wonderful and everything was nice and rosy. When we look at what the honourable member for Canning said, the truth is that he was not trying to defend the Medicare system; he was going about his usual business of attacking the doctors. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) suggested during the debate, by way of interjection, that the honourable member ought to be careful not to get sick. In his own ignorance and misunderstanding of the situation the honourable member for Canning assumed that if he got sick the doctors would not treat him. We all know that that is not true. What the honourable member for Warringah was saying was that the honourable member ought not to get sick for exactly the opposite reason; if he did get sick and went to doctors they might treat him for his paranoia about doctors in particular. This fellow has shown some aberrations over a number of months. He was not embarrassed about causing his own Minister problems by the breach of confidentiality in terms of taking documents. He still persists with this tunnel vision about attacking doctors. He asked about providing health care. He asked why doctors should provide health care. I do not know who on earth he thought was going to provide health care if it was not the doctors. We get back to the question of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) proposed new fee structure, which the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) said in the first place was a wonderful idea. He said it was an excellent proposition. A couple of days later he thought about it again and said no, it was not, because it might increase costs. The proposed fee structure from the AMA basically suggests that instead of having a stopwatch beside the consultation couch, meaning the length of the consultation, the content of consultations should be assessed. There are many situations in which this is a very reasonable approach. For example, if one goes for an immunisation for measles it takes a few minutes. On the other hand, one may have a major diagnosis made which may also take the same amount of time, or a procedure which will involve a lot of skill, such as a long biopsy or something of that order. Those things will take enormous skill, knowledge and understanding. Yet there is no reward for doctors to undertake these sorts of things. What the Government is basically encouraging doctors to do is to have a very rapid and shallow turnover of patients. It is not encouraging excellence and quality of care. It is quite the opposite; it is discouraging that and encouraging rapid turnover. The actual financial structure of fees at present encourages many short consultations. It encourages doctors to say, `Look, we will give you a quick five minutes now and send you away and get you back again', rather than getting into the depths of a diagnostic problem or whatever the situation might require. In that regard I support the AMA's fees. There have been no detailed published estimates as to whether there will be an increase in fees, but the actual change of structure to reward content must surely be something that we would all support. There are other aspects of Medicare which concern everybody. I see the Minister responsible for pharmaceutical benefits-the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples)-is in the chamber. He is hiding his head in shame, no doubt, about the 53 drugs which he added to the authority only list. That is a classical example of hiding behind bureaucratic decisions. The Minister is unable to take responsibility for what his Department has decided. Regarding the 53 drugs that he put on the authority only list, basically he gave some instructions to the relevant committee which were, to our understanding, `work out which are the most expensive drugs, put them on the authority only list and we will make sure that fewer people have access to them. It is not a question of whether people need access or whether there is a viable alternative'. I understand that the committee was given some 48 hours-I think that I am being generous here-to consider these matters. I have in front of me a letter from Dr Raghavan, who is the Chairman of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia-the cancer specialist group; those who are involved in looking after patients with cancer. He is an outside opinion; honourable members do not have to take my word for it. Dr Raghavan referred to the 20 cancer drugs, I think it is, which have been put on the authority only list. Firstly, he said that he had great concern because the action was based upon the false premise that cheaper alternative medications were available for treating cancer. He said: It is facile to suggest that the few cheaper alternatives that have been omitted from the proposed list- there are not that many- can be used for all cancers, as the management of cancer is a highly specific and sophisticated mechanism, with certain drugs being active against only a few cancers. Anybody with a modicum of understanding of the area would have known that. Quite clearly, the Minister was misadvised. I accept that he is not supposed to be an expert in everything, but clearly his advice was flawed. After all the representations that he has received on this I would have thought that he would have had the guts to change his approach, particularly towards cancer drugs but also in regard to several others on the authority only list. Dr Raghavan went on to say that the proposed action was taken without any consultation with the professional organisations that represent the physicians who treat patients with cancer; that is, those who know what they are doing. He gave a list of the organisations which had not been consulted. In his third point he said: Rather than achieving a greater level of control, or even any measure of cost-saving, this step will introduce unnecessary delays in achieving cancer control for individual patients, will be time-wasting for a broad range of cancer physicians, and will inconvenience a group of the population that are already burdened with a dreadful spectrum of disease. I cannot argue with one word that he has used there: he was absolutely spot on. The fourth point he made was: If the intent is to ensure the more appropriate usage of these drugs, this could be achieved by a system of accreditation or licensing for the use of cytotoxic drugs . . . That is a mechanism which many cancer specialists have proposed and would support. In summary he said that the proposal is ill-conceived and poorly planned. He said that it is based on inadequate consultation which will substantially increase inconvenience and treatment delays for patients with cancer and result in a major increase in the administrative burden. That letter was written on 10 July. The Minister did not get around to replying. As a result of a further letter on 30 September eventually the Minister replied. His reply of 4 October basically said, `Wait and see because we will know what is going on later on'. I have a letter from 10 other cancer specialists saying effectively the same thing as Dr Raghavan. There is no doubt about the unanimity of the authors of those letters. The drugs about which we are talking are revolting drugs. They make people lose their hair, throw up and feel like death warmed up. Some are crucial drugs. One of the drugs on the list, Vincristine, is basically a curative drug for childhood leukaemia. Patients with childhood leukaemia have a much lower cure rate if there are delays in starting therapy. At present the cure rate is about 75 per cent, if it is treated straight away. I estimate that if treatment is delayed for three or four weeks the cure rate goes down to around 25 per cent. The Government has set up a bureaucratic procedure aimed at delaying access to those drugs by those kids and, therefore, putting a number of them at risk. The Minister has said, `I have fixed it all. We will institute telephone consultations, we will allow access and we will make sure that the bureaucracy works very well'. How well is it working? It so happens that last week a patient of Dr Raghavan's required one of the anti-cancer drugs on the list. The patient happened to be the wife of an ex-senator, but that is almost irrelevant here. The authority went off and a letter came back saying, `No, Dr Raghavan, you cannot prescribe this because you work in a public hospital'. I see that the Minister looks surprised. I would be ashamed if I were in his position. I will be charitable and say that it must have been a bureaucratic mistake. I cannot believe that the Minsiter would have approved that sort of procedure. I am happy to give the Minister documents in this regard. This problem is typical of what is happening with Medicare at present. Mr Staples —I raise a point of order. The Opposition seems to be concerned about relevance but only in Question Time. I do not understand how what the honourable member for Lowe is talking about is in any way relevant to the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill and the taxation legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I understand that the honourable member for Lowe is explaining the relationship between the conduct of Medicare and the conduct of medical practice. The Chair is happy to let him proceed. Dr WOODS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To try to suggest that the Medicare system can be separated from access to drugs that are required for health care is rather stretching things. I am happy to give the Minister the relevant documentation because I am sure that he will want to sort out the matter in terms of allowing access to the drugs which he has said publicly will be freely available to every Medicare and other patient in Australia. Clearly, that is not the case. I refer to a few other things which have occurred recently. The Minister for Community Services and Health wrote to the Sydney Morning Herald and suddenly it became clear what is happening in terms of the socialising of medicine in Australia. The letter, dated 13 September, was in reply to a previous letter from Dr Bruce Shepherd, which, as he said, sought to persuade readers of the Sydney Morning Herald that their freedom was threatened by the Minister's secret plans to introduce a `participating doctors' scheme. The Minister said: Your readers should, however, take heart from the fact that so alive and well is democracy in Australia that an esteemed newspaper such as the Herald- in which the letter was written- will afford generous space . . . to make nonsensically false claims. I have stated repeatedly that this Government never has had any plans to introduce a participating doctors' scheme. He went on to say: . . . the real threat to democracy is posed by the fact that my plans are so secret that even I, the minister, am not aware of them. I am sure your readers will not be fooled by this transparent political stunt. Yet again, the Minister does not know what he has said on previous occasions. On 26 August 1986 the Minister advocated health maintenance organisations (HMOs): that is, participating doctors schemes-the very thing that in his letter of 13 September he said he did not support. I quote what he said on 26 August: HMOs could provide advantages to the Australian health care system at several levels. I believe it is appropriate to examine a greater diversity of health care delivery systems. Genuinely enhanced competitiveness and diversity through a system such as the health maintenance organisation offers a real possibility for socially productive change. If that is not supporting HMOs, I do not know what is. He made a mockery of his recent statements by saying that the information paper on HMOs had been considered by Cabinet, which had approved its release to stimulate both debate and some definite proposals of developing HMOs in Australia. I wish the Minister knew what he intends to do. Again, I am happy to provide copies of his press statement in this regard. Let me point out what HMOs do. HMOs and other similar participating doctors' schemes involve paying a fixed annual fee to a group of doctors who, in return, agree to provide health care regardless of whether people get sick or not. It is a capitation fee. Naturally this gives doctors an incentive to minimise expensive investigations and to avoid procedures because effectively they are paying for those items out of their own pockets. They are encouraged to make short cuts, to cut corners, rather than to provide quality health care. It is another example, like Medicare, of cost saving at the expense of quality. HMOs effectively mean a bargain basement, second-rate health system which provides incentives to enrol the younger, and the fitter, leaving the elderly and the sick to fend for themselves without any good health cover. I am amazed at the Minister's confusion. I am also amazed at the hidden agenda which is quite clearly tucked away in the releases of the Minister for Community Services and Health. A couple of days later, in an interview, the Minister said that he was in favour of capitation fees, which basically mean the same sort of thing. Doctors are paid a fixed annual sum per head of population under their care regardless of whether the patients are sick or not. It is similar to the dreaded national health system that exists in the United Kingdom-the one that is falling apart. It means effectively that general practitioners are paid a salary according to the size of their practice, not according to how well they work, how hard they work or how much caring they show for their patients. This may benefit the Government's Budget, but pretty well everyone else in the community loses. Perhaps the Minister had in mind a single, flat fee per visit, regardless of what services a doctor performs. For example, for signing a prescription the doctor would get paid exactly the same as he would for performing an hour long, complex diagnostic procedure or a therapeutic procedure. The Minister should realise that the way to save money is for general practitioners to make an appropriate diagnosis at the patient's first visit, rather than have patients make repeated visits. The proposed AMA system, so long as the fee structures themselves are worked out appropriately, allows the content of the work to be rewarded. That is exactly what quality health care needs in this country. In terms of developing and encouraging research, quality care and access to new therapy the present Medicare pricing system in Australia is very difficult to understand. We are supposed to be encouraging support for doctors, from the pharmaceutical companies and for encouraging exports and research into those drugs. The Government put forward some guidelines which said basically that when a drug was out of patent, so long as the drug company had more than 90 per cent of the market it would be allowed to continue to market that drug at a fair and reasonable price. If the company had less than 90 per cent of the market the price of the generic drug would be the chosen price. In almost all cases that would be lower. Within a few months of the guidelines being proposed, they were counteracted by the Government, particularly in regard to the Wellcome Foundation and its drug called Zyloprim-Allopurinol-which is very widely used for gout. That company actually has 98 per cent of the market and has recently invested $12m on a new plant to produce the drug in Australia and to allow for exports. The Minister himself actually visited the company, saw the plant and encouraged the company in its procedures. However, recently the Government has turned around and said: `We know that you have 98 per cent of the market for this drug but nonetheless you are going to have to reduce your costs down to those of the generic which has only 2 per cent of the market'. I make no comment at all on the quality of the generic drug involved here. However, what confidence can we have in a government which breaks its own guidelines in this regard? There is a worse example, which affects the very quality of care given to patients receiving drugs. The drug, produced by Ciba-Geigy, is called Tegretol-Carbam-Azepine. It is an anti-convulsant which means that it stops people having fits. It has been available for several years and is very effective. The same situation applies to this drug in terms of pricing policy except that in this case the company has 99.9 per cent of the market. The price of the drug is already a third of that in Canada and the United States and half of that even in Indonesia. There is only a 7 per cent price difference between that drug and the generic drug-which, again, as far as I am aware, is a quality drug. However, the more significant problem is bio-availability. In other words, the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, which is our leader in this regard, allows drugs to be considered equal in effectiveness if their bio-availability is within 20 per cent of each other. The problem with Tegretol is that it has a very narrow therapeutic range. If patients get above the appropriate dose, they start experiencing side effects; if they get below the dose, then they start having fits. If patients are changed over to another drug, the chances are that with a 20 per cent variation one may well find that young kids who are on this drug are having fits or experiencing toxicity. There is a major risk. Quite clearly, with only a 7 per cent price variation, it is inappropriate to put a number of children through what, clearly, are enormous risks. Our medicare system is crying out for three things. It is crying out for quality, access to that quality medicine, and affordability. However, the system we have at present is exactly the opposite of that. Instead of quality we have a second rate system. Instead of access we have next to no access-there are numbers of people on large, prolonged waiting lists. Instead of affordability we have considerable expense, as a deliberate policy under which people cannot cover for the risks and the costs involved in becoming sick under this Government's policy. The sooner we change to a system which allows quality of care, access to that quality care and affordability, the better off will be the whole of Australia. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(11.10) —I want to make a number of comments about the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) and cognate Bills before us this morning. I would like also to address some of the points raised by the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods), who, I believe, is certainly a committed doctor in his own right. The technical level of his speech in the debate today on the relationship between generic drugs and brand name drugs and so on I think has certainly been evidence of this. I have no doubt of his sincerity in bringing those sorts of issues to the attention of the Parliament and, indeed, to the attention of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples). However, I think one or two points made about Medicare perhaps need answering. I will come to those a little later. The Bills before the House this morning represent the opportunity for the people of Australia, once again, to see that the Government is able to deliver on the promises it makes regarding changes to taxation laws and, in fact, improve the tax base and the provision of services in this country. What we are in fact seeing in relation to the three Bills being debated today is the implementation of decisions taken in the May economic statement and the Budget measures that were announced. The Bills relate to a number of issues such as the income tax deductions for depreciation of special write-offs of income producing plant, the treatment of certain dividends, the abolition of section 26aaa of the Income Tax Assessment Act-the valuation of livestock-and the increase in pensioner rebates. In the Bills we are looking also at increasing rebates for the recipients of social security, unemployment, sickness and special benefits and certain training and Commonwealth educational allowances. All of these sorts of things introduced in the Bills today go to the heart of what this Government is about. They go to the heart of social justice but, at the same time, to economic responsibility. I think that there is, therefore, a stark contrast between what this Government can deliver and what the Opposition proposes at different times. As has been said time and time again, it is very difficult just to draw comparisons between ourselves in government and the Opposition because of the Opposition's lack of comprehensive policy in the taxation area particularly. We have been waiting for the policy. I am sure that honourable members look forward to seeing that policy. When that policy is brought forward obviously it will be subject to a great deal of scrutiny by those of us on this side of the House who have an interest in these matters. If the exercise that was indulged in prior to the last election is anything to go by, that Opposition policy again will be found wanting. I remind honourable members that back in the 1987 election campaign the Opposition went to the people with the traditional method of bribery, the fistful of dollars campaign, saying that tax cuts would lead to this, that and the other. Of course, when that was costed out it was suddenly found that the figures were more than rubbery; they were totally dissipated because they were found to have no basis in fact whatsoever. Of course, as a result of that the former shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), was demoted. Since that time he has been demoted even further to the back bench. So much for consistency in the approach to tax matters. I would like to say something also about the approach adopted by this Government in regard to the taxation Bills and how we are viewed by people in other countries. I had the opportunity recently to discuss Australia's economic performance with a number of people in the United States. My friend and colleague the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) made some comment about this in his presentation this morning. During my recent visit to the United States I spoke with people in the Treasury, one of the three members of the Council of Economic Advisers-to advise the President of the United States-to a number of economists in New York and people in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). I was frankly surprised at the degree of understanding and appreciation of what this Labor Government had done in taxation reform in this country and, indeed, an appreciation of just how far we have gone in improving the system. I refer particularly to the capital gains tax and to the fringe benefit tax. Of course, both of those taxes have been decried by those on the Opposition benches as being a tax grab and not appropriate in Australia. Interestingly enough, however, in talking to United States officials in Treasury, IRS and the Council of Economic Advisers, one hears them saying, `You have done a great job. I wish we and our politicians had the same intestinal fortitude to go in the same direction'. There is a capital gains tax in the United States but it is not discounted for the inflation rate. Time and again we hear people say that the tax rates in Australia are far greater than those in countries with which we trade. But if we look at the United States we see that there is not a great deal of difference between the total tax take there, based on state and federal taxes and charges, and what we have in Australia. I am sure honourable members on the other side will have to admit that this Government has, since 1983, progressively reduced marginal tax rates, and we are continuing to do so. We are reducing business tax imposts-39c in the dollar in the coming tax year. That is real progress. That is a fact and we cannot get away from it. We have heard spurious arguments and have been told, `Yes, but look at the amount of money that is there. The total tax take is up'. Yes, it is and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has admitted this. But why is it up? Simply because more people are paying their fair share. This Government has cracked down on tax avoidance, and will continue to do so-at the moment there seems to be some toing and froing in the Opposition on the upgraded tax file number system-and because of that crackdown and those changes a far greater number of people in the community, who in the past have perhaps evaded or avoided paying tax, or who blatantly did not want to pay tax, will pay it. It is a fact and we cannot get away from it. As I have mentioned, included in the Bills before us this morning is some consideration of the capital gains tax and the removal of section 26aaa, and so on. It is interesting to look at the snippets of information that have come from time to time from the Opposition, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in respect of his policies. The Opposition at this stage has not got a comprehensive set of policies on economics, tax or half a dozen other things. But during the last election campaign we heard this wonderful phrase used by the Leader of the Opposition, that when the Opposition got into government all of these dreadful taxes that the Labor Party had introduced in government would be eliminated `lock, stock and barrel'. People thought that was a firm of solicitors, but in fact it was not; it was the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that, lock, stock and barrel, everything would be wiped out because it would not be fair on the Opposition's mates in the business community. It is interesting to see now that the Leader of the Opposition has backed away from that. In press releases over recent months he has said that, `The fringe benefits tax (FBT) is not so bad and it will have to stay, but we might modify it in some way'. I think in the week before last there was a press release suggesting that the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia, if in government, would retain the pensioner assets test, which they had decried and over which they had fought a campaign of fear amongst the pensioner communities. Suddenly it has been blessed and it is okay. The Capital gains tax has gone the same way. Obviously we need to get the facts straight from the Opposition. Where does it stand on these issues? Is it simply going to play politics over the upgraded tax file number system or is it going to support the Government in its fair and reasonable endeavours to ensure that the tax cheats continue to be caught? Is it going to help to ensure that a fair share of tax is paid by those who in the past have not done so, so that it can come to the Government to provide services? I have stood in this place previously and argued the case as to why governments impose taxes. They do so simply to provide services which any government, whether it be made up of the ladies and gentlemen on the other side of this place, or us, has to under the Constitution. We have a role to play and we must provide those services. We can do that only if we have the financial base with which to do so. I did indicate that I wanted to make some comments about the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill that we are debating today. To set the scene I think it is important to note that the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1988 will amend the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to impose the basic rate of Medicare levy for 1988-89 and 1989-90. It will remain at 1.25 per cent of taxable income, the rate which has applied since 1 December 1986. Accordingly, for 1988-89 and 1989-90, individuals with taxable incomes of up to $9,560, and married couples and sole parents with family incomes of up to $16,110, will not be required to pay the levy. I think that needs to be said at the outset. What does concern me is that in this debate, which has ranged reasonably far and wide on the question of Medicare and the philosophical basis of it, it cannot be denied that Medicare is a universal health system. The poorest two million people in our community are now covered. Yet speaker after speaker for the Opposition stand up here and say that Medicare is a second rate health care system. The honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods) said that. He said it has created divisions. But the divisions that have been created have, in the main, been caused by an unscrupulous group of doctors, but not all doctors. I suggest that the majority of family general practitioners and some of the specialists that we know in our electorates, play the game fairly and are concerned about the welfare of their patients. Mr Rocher —Who are you accusing then? Mr MARTIN —But there is a small group in the community which perhaps is not. The honourable member for Curtin interjects and asks who I am accusing. I will get to that in a moment because I think it is relevant to this debate. Concern was also expressed by the honourable member for Lowe, who, I remind honourable members, is a doctor, about this so-called second rate health care system created by Medicare. He talked about it creating waiting lists. That is absolute rubbish. The creation of the waiting lists in New South Wales was caused by a certain group of doctors, particularly orthopaedic surgeons, who refused point blank to come into the public health system to conduct operations. Let me again recount to the members of this House a story about one of my pensioner constituents. As is the wont of all members of this place, we invariably travel to our constituents and talk to pensioner groups to get a feeling for their problems. During a visit to a pensioner association in Corrimal, in my electorate, one lady shuffled up to me-I use the term `shuffled up' because she had a problem with one of her knees-and I said to her, `What seems to be the problem?' She said, `I have got a knee problem and I need an operation. I have been to an orthopaedic specialist and he said to me, ``Excuse me, dear, are you in a private health fund?''.' She said, `No, I am not. I am on Medicare. I am a pensioner and I am not going to pay out some of my money to go into a private health fund.' He said, `I am sorry, luv, I cannot fix you up until you get into a private health fund'. So she said that on principle she refused to do so. She would be prepared to put up with the agony of having to drag herself around rather than submit to this demand by this `caring' person in society. I think this typifies some of the attitudes displayed by some in the medical profession. We talk about whether these caring people are recompensed in line with their worth. I refer honourable members to an article that appeared yesterday in the Canberra Times-I spoke about this during the adjournment debate last night-headed `Doctors plan fund to change Medicare'. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who has just left the chamber, wanted to know to whom I was referring earlier when I was directing some criticism at certain members of the profession. This article mentioned the convener of a group, a Dr Michael Aroney, a blast from the past, a former Liberal candidate in a Federal election, who was organising a `freedom-fighting fund to campaign for changes to Medicare'. That group is trying to raise $10m for a fighting fund to change Medicare. Dr Aroney, who is the President of the Australian Association of Surgeons, said-now get this-that the fund would be politically motivated but would not necessarily aim to end the Hawke Government or Medicare. It would be politically motivated. He was quoted-I ask honourable members on the other side, particularly the honourable member for Lowe, to listen because I want to know whether he supports Dr Aroney, a gentleman leading a certain group of doctors in the fight against Medicare-as saying: This fund is to promulgate and bring about changes in Medicare which would make it more acceptable to all of us in the medical profession . . . What about the patients? What about care for the old, care for the frail? No, this was not mentioned. These doctors are going to develop a fighting fund to kick Medicare, and this Government which supports it, in the teeth, because they want to make it more acceptable to themselves. We have seen the charging schedule of the Australian Medical Association. We have seen its recommendations. We have seen what this has led to in New South Wales. It has even held the New South Wales Liberal Government to ransom by continuing to refuse-the orthopaedic surgeons in particular-to go back into the public health system unless fees were massively increased. Of course, the Minister for Health in New South Wales, Mr Collins, and the Premier, Mr Greiner, caved in. We now have these people not only developing a fighting fund to overturn Medicare and trying to get conditions acceptable to them-I can only translate that to mean further increases in fees for people-but also trampling further the public health system because they want to direct people to private hospitals where people have to pay an up-front amount of money which is not redeemable to go in-- Mr Hand —Which half the doctors own. Mr MARTIN —As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs reminds me, half the doctors own these private hospitals. I find this absolutely appalling. Dr Aroney went on to say: It has to be changed to allow people the option of opting out of Medicare and taking out private medical insurance. We are not hoping to break Medicare-it might be a good thing for people who can't afford anything else. Medicare might be a good thing for people who cannot afford anything else! What an outrageous statement from somebody who is supposed to be caring and has been trained, through the public purse in the health system of this country, to turn around and say, `Well, Medicare is all right for a second class group of citizens like the frail, the aged, the poor. We will not worry about them. The others who can afford it-the people that we look after, you know, the North Shore Sydney group-we'll take care of them, we'll stick them into private hospitals and we'll look after them.' I find it outrageous. I ask the honourable member for Lowe, a doctor by profession, whether he supports that nonsense. Is that the sort of second rate health care system that he was talking about being created by Medicare, where people such as Aroney, with their $10m fighting fund, will try to turn the whole health care system upside down? I find it absolutely amazing that he can stand in this place when he has admitted that certain doctors embrace shoddy practices of seeing patients for five minutes and then saying, `Come back again next week, darl. We'll look after you then. We'll have to have another consultation to see what you're like'. Mr Hand —Who said that? Mr MARTIN —The honourable member for Lowe said that. He admitted that some doctors engage in that practice. He was suggesting that doctors need to have a fee schedule based on qualitative assessment. There is probably nothing wrong with that but he had admitted that some doctors in the community have this shoddy practice of giving a five minute consultation and then saying, `Come back in a week's time. We'll have another look at you and see what's wrong'. They are pushing patients through. Why are they doing it? Because Medicare keeps giving them rebates. We have seen the average doctor's earnings these days. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) has put out a paper that suggests that $165,000 per year would not be unreasonable for not all, but many, in the medical profession. Quite frankly, I find the comments that have been made, particularly by Dr Aroney and others on this issue, appalling. I would seek clarification from honourable members in this House whether they support that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.30) —I address my comments to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4). The legislation before the House is yet another Labor tax Bill. Despite the massive tax hike already imposed on the Australian community, this Bill imposes still more increases in tax. The impact of these new taxes will be felt most keenly by the rural and manufacturing sector. As with nearly all the tax increases imposed by this Government, they are short-sighted, inequitable and will cost jobs. This Government's taxing record is one of insatiable greed. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is the biggest taxing Treasurer this country has ever seen. Governments used to increase taxes once a year, every 12 months, but that was too long for this Treasurer. Without more regular tax hits he was starting to get tax withdrawal symptoms but he soon found the remedy. He introduced the May mini-Budget as a feature of this Government's fiscal policy. Each year, the Treasurer now has two goes at increasing tax to feed his Government's voracious demand for funds. We know how devious, cunning and dishonest drug addicts become when in search of a hit. Their craving knows no bounds. So it is with this Government. It was not long before it was not satisfied with two tax attacks a year. So the Undertaker found another way to feed his taxing habit. He discovered that one could avoid the harrowing business of bringing down a Budget by indexing taxes and charges, so that without even lifting a finger the tax payable automatically increases. Tax on beer and cigarettes goes up automatically every six months. Fees on passports have also been indexed by this Treasurer. Almost every tax has gone up. If any further proof of this Treasurer's unbelievable tax habit is required, just recall the number of totally new taxes he has discovered and introduced: The capital gains tax; fringe benefits tax; entertainment tax; the Medicare levy; new sales taxes on a range of items including citrus-that is, orange juice-wine, flavoured milk, and so on; a new tax to be implemented on superannuation; and the indexing of excise tax. Since coming to office, this government has introduced 295 taxation measures, and those designed to increase the tax take outnumber those designed to reduce it by at least two to one. Most experienced addicts try hard to disguise their addiction and the Treasurer is no exception. He has formulated all sorts of excuses and deceptions for his tax habit. There are buzz words such as tax restructuring, tax rationalisation, consistent with the principle of fiscal equalisation-that is a ripper-correction of anomalies, or levelling the playing field. They are the words used by the Treasurer as a means of explaining the tax increases. They all mean exactly the same thing-more tax. Whenever one hears words such as levelling the playing fields, tax restructuring and tax rationalisation, one knows that the Treasurer has found a new way to impose another tax. The only levelling being done is of the Australian community, which is being prostrated by the weight of the Keating tax burden. New taxes, more Budgets to impose them and automatic tax increases are all part of the same debilitating attack which the Hawke-Keating Labor Government has made on Australian taxpayers. The increases in taxation under Labor have been massive. Tax revenue has doubled since Labor took office. The Treasurer, and indeed the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) who spoke before me, tried to explain away the enormous increase by claiming the cause is the increase in the number of people in jobs and less tax evasion. However, while there has been some increase in those in work, it certainly has not been sufficient to justify the doubling of the tax take. Taxes on individuals have risen from $23 billion five years ago to $47.5 billion this year-an increase of 107.2 per cent. That is not a bad record for the Treasurer. He has doubled the personal income tax take. Company tax has skyrocketed by 133 per cent. So much for the reductions in corporate tax rates which we heard about from the honourable member for Macarthur. Company tax has gone up 133 per cent, yet the honourable member for Macarthur said that no new taxes have been introduced. Let us look at the taxes on consumer goods. A whole new range of sales taxes has been introduced. Sales tax revenue has increased by 147.3 per cent. That is not a bad record for a Treasurer, is it? These taxes have resulted in an increase in tax take which is two to three time faster than inflation, giving the Treasurer a massive real increase in revenue. The rate of increase in tax collections has also risen more than twice as fast as average weekly earnings. No wonder the wage and salary earners of Australia are complaining. They are paying more tax now than they have ever paid and the rate of increase in tax collections has been twice as fast as wage increases. In other words, the average Australian is hurting, and hurting badly. The size of the burden shouldered by Australian taxpayers after five years of Labor is graphically illustrated by the fact that today's average wage earners would need a tax reduction of $56 a week by next July to restore them to the level of real income they earned before this Government came to office. The Treasurer has used a myriad of devices to increase tax. First, he started cutting concessions previously available to taxpayers as deductions. We see a little more of that in this legislation. He took away the health insurance rebate. That was a tax deduction which people got for paying health insurance premiums. He replaced that with a new tax-the Medicare levy. He has taken away a deduction and put on a new tax. That is a great philosophy and it is typical of the Labor socialist Government. Secondly, he established a large number of new taxes, such as the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and the others I have already detailed. Thirdly, he imposed a whole range of new fees and charges. A number of Commonwealth Government services previously paid for out of tax revenue are now available to taxpayers only if they pay a fee. So they pay twice. There are charges for the registration of therapeutic goods, fees for the clearance of agricultural and veterinary chemicals and immigration fees for people coming into the country. These are all new fees and charges-a new tax mechanism discovered by this Government. Fourthly, he has discovered that statutory authorities are a relatively untapped taxation mechanism, a great new stalking horse. This year the Treasurer will raise some $400m by taxing statutory authorities. Australia Post and Telecom Australia have to raise their charges to pay the extra tax. The advantage of this indirect route by which the Treasurer slugs the hard-pressed Australian taxpayer yet again is that the odium for the tax hike is shifted from the Treasurer to Telecom or Australia Post. The success of the Undertaker's strategy was seen recently when Telecom had to increase charges to cover newly-imposed government taxes. In that instance the Telecom monopoly bore the brunt of the public reaction, not the Treasurer who imposed the taxes leading to the increase in charges. He got away scot-free. In fact, he was away; he was overseas yet again. This subterfuge has gone even further because the Government is demanding that Telecom and Australia Post now pay local government rates. While consumers will inevitably have to pay more for the services provided by these government authorities, the benefits will not go to the local communities in the form of increased rate revenue. Oh no, the Undertaker has made sure of that. He is going to take back 90 per cent of the revenue collected by local government from the statutory authorities. The statutory authorities now have to pay rates to local government. Will local government get the benefit? Oh no, the Treasurer will whip it back. What do we have now? We have local government as yet another tax collecting agency for the Federal Government. I turn to the impact of these massive increases in taxation on particular industries. The industries that will be hit by this legislation are the rural sector and the manufacturing sector. Farmers in Australia have suffered a double attack. Not only do they have to bear the general increase in tax; they have also been hit by a selective attack which has increased effective tax rates for farmers. The Treasurer has done this by cutting depreciation and other allowances which were provided to assist the rural sector in meeting adverse and fluctuating seasonal conditions. The extent of the attack on the rural sector was clearly evident in the May mini-Budget, where farmers were really targeted for special attention, not just by the elimination of concessions and allowances of particular importance to the farmer but also by cuts to local government, road funding, wool promotion and the fertiliser subsidy. On top of all that, the Government increased rural inspection charges. The Government claims that these tax increases and cost impositions on the bush will be offset by lower input costs, but the promised tariff reductions are to be phased in and the benefits are years down the track. Farmers are being forced by Labor to pay now in return for a benefit which is years away. Mr Rocher —It sounds like the tax cuts all over again. Mr PORTER —Exactly. This legislation eliminates the five-year depreciation allowance for storage facilities for hay, grain and fodder for primary production and puts in its place a significantly lower depreciation regime. This is just another short-sighted, stupid attempt by the Government to increase revenue regardless of the consequences. Fodder conservation is one way to protect our livestock against the ravages of our harsh climatic conditions, especially drought. The existing arrangements encourage farmers to conserve fodder so that they can hold livestock in tough times, enhancing our ability as a nation to continue to earn valuable export income without wild fluctuations. Increasing the cost of on-farm storage will result in Australia being more susceptible to our fickle seasonal conditions. It is worth noting that other farm conservation measures have been subject to attack by this Labor Government. For example, the depreciation allowances for water storage, irrigation improvement and water conservation are now at their lowest level for years. Management of our water resources is doubtless one of the most crucial conservation issues in Australia. Upgrading of farm irrigation projects will provide substantial improvements in water quality by reducing saline flows. The coalition saw the benefit of improving our environment and encouraged farmers to act. Until September 1985, costs for investment in plant for water conservation or conveyance were allowed to be deducted in the year of expenditure. However, since September 1985 under this short-sighted Government, expenditure on water conservation must be depreciated over three years. This environmental vandalism by the Hawke Government has already resulted in a slowdown in improvement of irrigation practices which further exacerbates the problem of low water quality in rivers such as the Murray-the lifeblood of South Australia. The change also substantially reduces the incentive for farmers to conserve water and is likely to result in increased claims on the Government in drought years, and lower export sales. There is no doubt that the change in rules for deductibility of depreciation costs for investment in plant for water conservation, like the changes we are considering in this Bill have been designed for one purpose-not to level the playing field, but to increase the tax take of this tax greedy administration. Turning to the manufacturing industry, the Bill withdraws certain allowances for the write-off of the capital cost of plant and equipment used for producing assessable income, and terminates the accelerated depreciation concession allowing the write-off of most plant over three or five years. In an age when the international competitiveness of Australian industries, especially our export industries, demands the use of the most modern high-tech equipment to ensure increased productivity, the termination of accelerated depreciation for plant and equipment is a regressive step which makes it even more difficult for our capital intensive industries to compete with their overseas rivals. The corporate tax structure should be providing incentives for our capital intensive manufacturing industries to take advantage of the latest technological advances as one of the ways of improving productivity. Instead, this Bill provides the incentives for industry to maintain existing plant and equipment, not to undertake new investment. A reduction in the corporate tax rate would be welcomed but the offset increased taxation will impact most severely on the large employers, that is the manufacturers, whom the Government has been encouraging to improve their productivity. While manufacturing industry is the loser under this Bill, the service industries, which were already doing well, are the winners. They do not require the same extent of capital investment as manufacturing industry and therefore will not suffer as much from cuts in depreciation allowances. The package is therefore inequitable and provides tax relief to those who need it the least while penalising manufacturers who need it the most. So much for levelling the playing field. One might also ask why the Treasurer chose to give tax cuts to companies before tax cuts to individuals. Surely the long-suffering pay as you earn taxpayer deserves a break and reducing personal tax would increase incentive and provide further stimulus to the innovators and job creators in our community. But no, the Undertaker wanted to rack up a few points with his rich mates, perhaps hoping they would throw some weight behind his campaign to topple the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). In any event the wage and salary earners have again been forgotten. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(11.50) —To get a perspective on this debate, 10 years ago a speech was delivered in my home city of Perth to the Institute of Chartered Accountants on behalf of the then Treasurer, the now honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). The speech was delivered by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), who was then part of the Fraser Ministry. It referred to, appropriately, the need for the accounting profession to eliminate artificial contrivances and arrangements designed to minimise tax. I thought it was a far-reaching speech at the time because it went to the substance of the tax system and, in a sense, called upon the taxation professionals, the chartered accountants present and many public accountants who were there to lift their game. It said, `Do not go down the path of tax evasion and avoidance practices. We want substantial compliance with the system. If you do not do that, we will have to introduce regulation to make you comply'. That was in 1978, 10 years ago. It is interesting for people listening to this debate today because that Government was one of successive Fraser governments and was not voted out until March 1983. It is important to understand when one begins to talk about tax and to listen to contributions from members like the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) that tax evasion and avoidance were the order of the day. The problem became so serious that the Commissioner of Taxation went to the then Treasurer, the now honourable member for Bennelong, and said, `We have a serious problem here and we want to do something about the haemorrhage in the tax system. We want your cooperation and assistance'. There are two interesting observations to make in this debate; firstly, that speech was delivered in a very appropriate place because my home city of Perth was a key centre of tax evasion in Australia. The schemes were dreamt up. It is no coincidence, incidentally, that the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office in Perth had in its bottom drawer some actions concerning tax which were never taken, and it was only when the McCabe-Lafranchi report came out and blew the whistle and then the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union bit the originators of it that the whole tax mess in Australia came to the surface. People in this place who have a memory will understand that in the 1983 election that was a big issue. There is no doubt about that. Given the then Government's failure in this area, it was one of the factors that brought the Labor Party into government. It is important to get that straight. Let us not let the Australian people forget because from time to time there is a collective amnesia in the ranks of the Opposition. Opposition members forget they were part of that process. They may want to do a Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of it but we will not let them do it. The people who now adorn the Opposition benches were part of that process. The ordinary Australian person was angry about it. Honourable members should get two other things clear. When the Opposition parties left office the top marginal rate was 60c in the dollar. The now Leader of the Opposition, when Treasurer, left office with 60c in the dollar being the top marginal rate. The other thing that they left office with was the enormous hole in the tax system. Not only was there deliberate evasion in relation to tax-which in that sense is criminal evasion, and many such cases have been subsequently fought-but also there was a failure to collect tax that could easily have been collected. People using avoidance measures-and these were not criminal activities-that is, arranging to pay income in other forms, were in fact minimising their income. Therefore, a lot of income tax that ought to have been paid in Australia was not paid. The consequences were clear. Those who were in the tax system carried a higher burden, and many people who are here listening to the debate were in that tax system and were paying a higher rate than they needed to pay because of that failure, a failure to catch up with not only the criminal evasion of tax, because the then Government did not have the political will, but also the avoidance measures. Another consequence was that the important services that can be provided from revenue were often deficient in their delivery. One could talk about health and hospitals and housing. The number of housing commencements dropped down to 105,000, the lowest for 20 years. But the crucial thing is that when there is the failure of political will that was evident when the coalition parties were in government we have a major problem. It is important to set the scene of this because if one does not do so, we might be tempted by people like the honourable member for Barker to think that this is a current problem. It is not. Honourable members may remember that newspapers such as the Australian put out car stickers which said, `Join the tax revolt'. Interestingly, the then Government did not fight that. It went along with what was happening; it was complicit in its behaviour. There was a great deal of concern and anger. People in jobs were saying, `Well, I have to pay tax'. But people at the Federal level were ignoring tax evasion and avoidance. There really was a great concern and anger. The anger was sufficient to produce some very large swings in the results of the 1983 election. It is all right for the Opposition to talk about the current circumstances. But we have to keep locked in our minds the sorts of things that happened when those opposite were in government. I think it is interesting that a lot of people in the community still remember. But it is important to remember the circumstance just in case the collective amnesia of the Opposition might overwhelm people in the wider community. How do we go about redressing the position? We can do a number of things. The first thing is to give the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in each State sufficient resources to go about restoring some enforcement in respect of the tax system. That has happened. Secondly, we can look at introducing, legally, measures to collect tax that ought to be paid. We have done that. The fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax are simple measures. At the time these taxes were introduced the Opposition was saying, `We think that is terrible. We will get rid of the fringe benefits tax. We want to go back to the days of the free lunch and all the other subsidies in respect of schools, universities and housing'. One does not have to go too far to find out where members of the Opposition come from. They come from the collective group of the well-to-do who were benefiting more than they ought to. They opposed the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax not for good economic reasons but for reasons that caused the tax system to fall into disrepute-because of self-interest. This, again, ought to be placed on the record. There are other areas that I and many people in the community thought ought to be dealt with. It is fair to say that people in the rural sector were, for some time, able to average their incomes. I think that is a fair system because of the very marked fluctuations that occur in rural incomes. The honourable member for Barker might not recognise that but people on this side do. We also felt that people in other occupations-artists, authors and sports people-also have fluctuations in income. We ought to observe-and the Opposition forgets this-that very often they are people on relatively modest incomes. We addressed this problem by introducing tax averaging for artists, authors and professional sports people. Let me paint one or two pictures. Many people in Australia, such as jockeys, are from modest backgrounds and do well for a short period. Mr Hand —The ones that I back do not seem to be doing too well. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Not the ones that ride horses backed by the Minister at the table or perhaps one or two other members in this place. Some jockeys make good incomes. But, due to increasing weight, injury or some fall-out with a trainer, their income may collapse. All of a sudden they may have a great inequity in income. We have said, `Let us be fair about that; let them average out their income'. That is a sensible proposition. This approach goes to any other area of sporting endeavour. Take, for instance, football, which happens to be an interest of mine. We often see young men-Aboriginal boys in particular-who come from very modest backgrounds getting a break for the first time in their lives. We have said, `When you get that break in your life you are not going to have to pay the top marginal rate of tax. We will allow you to average out your income'. That is socially a very just thing to do. We have said that we think it is sensible to allow young male footballers or jockeys or young girls who happen to succeed in some area of professional activity to average their income. That is something that the Opposition did not grapple with. We have made that substantial reform. I think we have to put that on the record and remind people what we have done. It is all very well for people to come in here and cite a few statistics. But let us talk about the human processes behind what has been done. Let me talk about another recent reform that we have introduced which I think is very important. It was quite clear to a number of us-this has been mentioned by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) and the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl)-that pensioners who were receiving pensioner rebates were paying provisional tax. We suggested to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that that was wrong because not only was there a degree of distress involved but also, the way it worked out, they generally got all of that tax back. The set of tax arrangements before the House changes that. Pensioners who qualify for the pensioner rebate will no longer be required to pay provisional tax. I think that is a very important reform. Colleagues of mine such as the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), who works very hard in his electorate and who has very extensive contacts with people in the community-- Mr Hand —He is sitting in the gallery. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The honourable member, who is in the gallery, works very well with aged persons, and he is a strong supporter of this important reform. The Treasurer has introduced this much needed change and I acknowledge the support of people like the honourable member for Moore. Let me continue the narrative, because I think we can easily be deluded into thinking that it is all bad news. On the corporate side, some honourable members in this place have looked at the performance of corporations. For a long time the position has been that a corporation paid tax and then the shareholder paid tax on the dividends that he received. So, tax was paid twice, at an effective rate of 78c. This arrangement had two effects. Not only was there a tax penalty, but also corporations in Australia were encouraged to fund their requirements through loans from overseas. This meant that there were difficulties in respect of the balance of payments position. Not only that, there was a direct discouragement by the then Government, which is now in opposition, for people to own shares. We have introduced full dividend imputation. In other words, if a corporation chooses to frank its dividends, it pays the tax and the individual shareholder does not. In effect, one gets a fully franked dividend and one attracts a tax credit. It is possible for some older people,who are perhaps on pensions, to end up with tax credits if they are shareholders. This means that they would pay no tax at all if they earned any extra income. We hear honourable members opposite whingeing and wailing about how difficult things are. But let us talk about this sort of substantial reform. We recognised the problem and so did the community. Incidentally, so too did the stock market, because there is now a two-tier arrangement for share prices in Australia. Fully franked dividends attract a premium share price. In other words, the share price is higher than that of shares of other corporations that are not paying fully franked dividends. Honourable members might say, `Oh well, the honourable member for Stirling is part of the Government so we should not take any notice of what he says'. But let me quote what the Business Review Weekly of 19 August says. That publication quotes Rothschild Australia, which is hardly the sort of institution which sits with the Australian Labor Party in terms of the general debate. An article in that publication states: `The advantages of tax minimisation- this is the bad news for the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) and others- to companies are much reduced,' Rothschild says, adding that `tax losses will have virtually no value and tax avoidance schemes will become inconsequential'. Is not that amazing? The old rule, the old scam that was the order of the day when honourable members opposite slouched around the national capital, has changed. There is now a positive benefit. The article goes on: According to the guide, this is because companies will be able to pay fully franked dividends only by paying full tax. However- there is a caution- Rothschild says `Tax avoidance is so much part of the business psyche that it will be a long time before these truths are generally acknowledged. In other words, it will take a long time for people to understand. I will just quote this article again because what is said is music to the ears of people in the Labor Party who have been saying this for a long time. The honourable member for Moore was involved in a couple of campaigns before he came into this place. So he went through, and saw from the outside, this tax scam. The article stated: `The advantages of tax minimisation to companies are much reduced, ' . . . ` tax losses will have virtually no value and tax avoidance schemes will become inconsequential'. Why? Because we have reformed the tax system. The article also stated: `Tax avoidance is so much part of the business psyche . . . ' When did that psyche develop? This happened when those opposite were in government, when they slouched around the treasury bench and did nothing about tax rorts in this country. Honourable members opposite should not come in here and talk in a whingeing fashion about some technical changes. Let us talk about the substantial debate about tax in this country. Here we have the Business Review Weekly quoting the advice that Rothschild Australia gave to corporations that the arrangement of fully franked dividends now is the way to go. So the message is clear to a lot of people in Australia. That message is, `If you are a corporation be part of the tax system and we will treat you fairly'. The honourable member for Barker talked about individuals having to pay tax. If one had been one of the 250,000 people who lost their jobs in the last year that the lot opposite were in office, one would have loved to have paid tax but one could not do so because one did not have a job. Mr Hand —And he talks about manufacturing industry. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The manufacturing industry was crippled. So I say to honourable members opposite, `Do not try this on. Do not come in here and say that it is terrible that people are paying tax'. A lot of people in the community are very happy to have a job. Over a million more people now have jobs since we have been in office. In fact, 1,100,000 people have got jobs since we have been in office. Now they are paying tax, and we are using their tax revenue for good purposes. They can see the benefit in the community. But, what is more, we are not unmindful of how we need to continue the reform process. That is absolutely necessary. In this country, you either reform or get run over. The trouble with the Opposition is that it opposes all sorts of reform. It has a knee-jerk reaction to anything that might improve the lot of the ordinary person. We are happy to go about that reform process and we do, and we are on top of that reform process. We have set that process in train again. Just in case people opposite might think that all the reform has been done and there is nothing else on the agenda, I point out that there is more to do. If one looks back 10 years, as the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) would know, when that famous speech was delivered to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia by the honourable member for Goldstein on behalf of the then Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), when that famous speech about rants and rorts and tax avoidance was on-and the Opposition did nothing when in government as all that was happening-and when one looks at 1988 and we look at a tax system that now works, and works effectively, and people opposite are complaining about the level of tax collection, the fact is that we have a bigger work force and we are collecting money from that work force. The other fact is that we also have a tax system in terms of the corporate area that is delivering. One cannot get up to the scams in the way one used to because we have given staff to the Commissioner of Taxation. We should remember how the previous tax commissioner must wish he was in office again because he was the one who said, `Give me the staff; give me the political will; and I can enforce the law'. He was treated with silence by the then government, by the honourable member for Bennelong and by the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. He was treated with silence because the then Government did not have the political will. It is not mythical. Those files that were in the bottom drawer of the Crown Solicitor's Office in Perth actually existed. They were not acted upon. I knew about them. I knew about all those arrangements and, interestingly, I knew about the Curran and Slutzkin schemes. I went to an institute of public accountants seminar the same year and they were selling Curran and Slutzkin schemes. As a matter of interest to the Minister at the table, I was giving a lecture on ethics in the accounting profession and, there they were, selling Curran and Slutzkin schemes around the Cottesloe Civic Centre. I said to myself, `What sort of arrangement is this? Where is the will in this country to be part of the social contract that says, `I belong to the best country in the world and I want to pay my membership fee but not under this Government?' What one did was to say, `I want to be part of it but I hope to duck all my responsibilities'. We have changed that. We have said that this is the best country on earth; it is governed well. But we also want to make sure that the tax system works and that it works fairly and equitably; and we will introduce the necessary reforms. I have listed those reforms. It is important for people to understand that 10-year change from the time when the then Treasurer made that statement. I acknowledge that he was honest enough to say that there were problems. I have always acknowledged that. The then Treasurer, to be fair to people in this debate, in 1978 said: There is a problem in terms of tax administration in this country and you, as professional accountants, have to play a part in that. But they did not. Unfortunately, he did not have the political support in the then government to do something about it. But, to be absolutely fair to him, I note that he acknowledged it and was prepared to go on the public record about it. So, please do not come in here as members of the Opposition and talk about these matters because honourable members opposite have a very besmirched record. As I say, collective amnesia takes over. I have heard the Minister at the table give some great speeches, on matters of public importance, about their collective amnesia. They forget that they were in government when tax avoidance and evasion were the order of the day, but things have changed. Things have now changed because of the reforms. I talked about capital gains, about fringe benefits and about tax averaging. In closing, what I say is that we should look down to where we are going. What we have said is that, because we have a prices and incomes policy, we want to talk to wage and salary earners in Australia and their representatives. We want to talk about how we can restrain wage increases in relation to tax cuts, and we are prepared to do that. The only question we now have to resolve in terms of those debates is the size of the tax cut. We are not like the people opposite. We are not ideological clones of Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher brought about a tax cut-and what happened? The balance of payments went into a crisis because people spent the cuts on imports. That is why we did not cut taxes this year. We did not cut them this year because we wanted to make sure that we had import substitution restructure arrangements in place in Australia so that, when taxes are cut, people will spend money on Australian manufactured goods. I am always happy to get involved in the tax debate because our record stands in great contrast to that of the Opposition. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(12.10) —I thought the speech from the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) was one of those-- Mr Robert Brown —Sterling! Mr DOWNER —I did say `Stirling'. Mr Robert Brown —His speech was sterling. Mr DOWNER —How often should I say `Stirling'. I thought the speech from the honourable member for Stirling, which apparently has to be repeated several times to please the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown), was another example of the sort of repetition of party political badinage that brings this Parliament into some disrepute. I am sure that people listening to this debate would be disappointed by the casual way that history was treated and indeed rewritten in that speech. There is this story about how apparently the Fraser Government allowed tax rorts to evolve and did not do anything about them. First, it legislated a great deal to deal with tax rorts. Some of that legislation was unpopular in the business community. Some of it led to people crossing the floor from the then government side of the House. Furthermore, some of those tax rorts did not start in the period of the Fraser Government. As a matter of fact, the bottom-of-the-harbour scheme started during the period of the Whitlam Government. So, if people want to make party political points about this, we are quite happy to take them on in that debate for I know that at the end of the day we will win the debate. The Government's view of a fair and equitable taxation system is apparently a tax system that not only taxes incomes very severely but also taxes almost everything else that exists in the community. The way the Government is going, it will soon be taxing the air we breathe. The Government is obsessed with tax, and that is apparently its definition of fair and equitable. The points that I want to make relate to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4), not the rewriting of history. I particularly refer to the substantial changes to the business tax regime that this proposed legislation makes. These changes to the business tax regime have a very real effect on the cost of capital to businesses that want to go out, invest and build up not only the strength of their businesses but also the overall strength of our economy. It is particularly significant to small business for which I am shadow Minister, and it is in that context that I make these remarks. Obviously any Australian who is concerned about the future of this country should be worried about the level of business investment that we are currently enduring. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) survey shows that there was a 2 per cent decline in the June quarter of 1988 in business investment. I think that is very worrying. Business investment is in real terms declining, not growing, at a time when living standards are also declining. Our only hope is to encourage investment so that living standards can rise; yet, in real terms, that business investment is declining. The ABS predictions, on which I do not place a great deal of emphasis because one never knows really how accurate those predictions are going to be, are also now very encouraging, particularly for manufacturing and mining industries. Those predictions show that there could be a decline in investment of 2 per cent in the manufacturing industry and a decline in investment of 11 per cent in the mining industry. Now that may not happen. But it is a matter of concern to me that we do not have a buoyant investment climate in this country to help make a path for future prosperity for ordinary Australians. The changes that the Government is bringing forward in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) have to be measured against that climate. They have to be measured in the context whether these changes will help business investment or hinder business investment. The most significant change is to terminate the 3/5 depreciation concession introduced by the Fraser Government and to change depreciation provisions for primary industry and for some sections of the mining industry. The depreciation rate from now on will be determined, apparently, by the Commissioner of Taxation. That creates, no doubt, for many businesses a great deal of uncertainty, particularly as not all of them have been having a very happy relationship with the Commissioner of Taxation. This change to the depreciation provisions comes on top of a decision the Government made a year or, I think, two years ago, to abolish the investment allowance. So, naturally, these changes to the depreciation provisions and the investment allowance impose an additional cost on business of capital. The Government's argument-let me put it before we get an interjection from the Minister-is that these increases in the cost of capital will be more than offset by changes to the company tax rate being reduced from 49 per cent to 39 per cent. Let me demonstrate to the House why this is simply not true. Let us take the Treasury's own estimates of the revenue effects of these changes. The Treasury estimates that there will be an increase in revenue from the business community brought about by the reduction in the level of company tax concurrent with the change to the depreciation provisions. The Government gets more money out of these changes, according to the Treasury, not less. That makes me just a little suspicious. When we look at the situation for small business we see that the change in the depreciation provisions actually discriminates against them. This is the quick way the Treasurer (Mr Keating) puts more money into the pockets of the Government. Whilst small business loses the advantages of the 5:3 accelerated depreciation provisions, guess what? Unincorporated small businesses-about half of all the small businesses in this country-do not get the reduction in the company tax rate from 49 to 39 per cent because they are not incorporated. They have to be incorporated to pay company tax. They lose the advantages of the accelerated depreciation provisions and they maintain the same high rate of taxation. That is one way the Government manages to rake in a little additional revenue, this time from the small business sector. It strikes me as very odd that a government would want to discriminate particularly against small unincorporated businesses in favour of big business. Why would a government want to do that? Small businesses have the greatest of difficulty surviving in unfortunate economic circumstances such as we have today. They do not have the capacity that big business has to pass on increased costs in the form of increased prices. They simply have to absorb the increased costs. As far as the business sector is concerned, the Government's tax policy discriminates against unincorporated small businesses. It beats me why it would want to do that. Let us look at the bigger end of town. Let us look at those companies which are incorporated and analyse the Government's argument that by reducing the company tax rate and taking away the depreciation concessions that businesses used to have, somehow business will be better off. I have already mentioned the Treasury figures. I refer now to the only analysis that I have been able to discover of the effects of these changes to business taxes. That analysis has been done by the Business Council of Australia, which has produced a couple of indices that are very revealing. It has a capital cost index known as the Kopits measure, which is the only consistent measure we have of capital costs produced by the business sector in Australia. It shows that since the May mini-Budget, when these changes were announced and implemented, the level of company taxation in the form of the capital cost has actually increased slightly. The index is consistent with the Treasury's estimate that these changes are going to bring in more revenue. The change to the 5:3 depreciation provisions has increased the cost of capital for equipment to a much greater extent than the decrease in the company tax rate has offset it. That is not what I think. That is not what the Liberal Party or the National Party thinks. That is what the Business Council of Australia thinks. Let me add to that by quoting the Business Council. It has said: The new system will effectively be more discouraging for investment in longer-life equipment. That means that tax, in particular on machinery, will increase markedly. Why would the Government want to change the taxation system so that it discriminates against longer life equipment? Is there some peculiar reason why we should be encouraging every business in Australia to invest in short life equipment? It really strikes me as quite bizarre that it has made that sort of change, which increases the cost of capital to our businesses. The Kopits index is not the only measure that the Business Council uses. It also uses the King and Fullerton methodology, which shows an even starker picture. Using this methodology, and depending on the assumptions that one makes about the cost of capital, the effective tax rate for businesses has risen by between 3 per cent and 7 per cent. That is a very substantial increase in the cost of capital, always bearing in mind that we have this very unfortunate investment climate today in Australia. When we talk of an unfortunate investment climate, increases in the cost of capital and effective tax rates for businesses, we cannot walk away from international comparisons. In an increasingly inter-dependent world, as a nation we always have to compete for capital with other parts of the world. Multinational companies, who constitute something like 50 per cent of all world trade, will make investment decisions on the basis of where they can get the best return. Obviously, if we want employment and economic growth we want those companies to make that decision here in Australia. We want their investment in Australia; we do not want them going offshore and investing in some other country. Using the Kopits index that I referred to earlier, the Business Council of Australia compares Australia with 16 other countries. It shows that, of those 16 major economies, Australia has the second highest business tax rate. Only Labor New Zealand has a higher level of business taxation. No wonder the New Zealand Government is now so unpopular with its people. Countries that have lower business taxation-in other words, countries that have a lower cost of capital and provide a greater incentive to invest within their boundaries-include neighbouring nations such as Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Thailand. It also includes other major Western economies such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The honourable member for Stirling referred earlier to how terrible he thought the Thatcher Government was-a government that has overseen one of the greatest economic revolutions certainly in Britain's history and perhaps the greatest in the Western world. Not surprisingly, that country has a much lower cost of capital than is imposed here in Australia. One could use not just the Kopits methodology but also the King and Fullerton methodology. It shows exactly the same picture. King and Fullerton, depending on what assumptions one uses, estimate that the overall effective marginal tax rate for business in Australia is 48 per cent. In the United States it is 42 per cent: in the United Kingdom-Mrs Thatcher's country-it is 37.5 per cent: in West Germany it is 39.4 per cent; in Japan 48.8 per cent; in Sweden-that great model for the Labor Party-it is 37.3 per cent. Perhaps since Sweden is such a great model the Government might start getting taxation off the backs of businesses in this country and follow at least that one aspect of the way the Swedish economy works, if not a number of other aspects. It is not surprising that we have enormous difficulty attracting investment in the business sector in Australia. We must do what we can to encourage investment in the business sector. Yet the comparative level of effective tax for businesses in Australia is higher than in most of our competing countries. New Zealand is the only exception that I have so far been able to discover but there may be one or two others. The fact is that we are right at the top of the league when it comes to high effective rates of tax on business and therefore the high cost of capital to our business community. No wonder we have something of an investment drought in Australia. We have a long way to go. We must do something to provide more stimulation for business investment in this country. In conclusion, I wish to refer to one other aspect of this legislation, that is, the introduction of a tax on non-cash fringe benefits. This will have a very real effect on the small business sector-that sector against which the other section of the legislation, as I have demonstrated, clearly discriminates. The first point I would make, in concert with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), is that this tax on non-cash fringe benefits is retrospective and that the 3 1/2-year delay between the press release being put out and the legislation actually appearing in this House is nothing short of absolutely disgraceful. I remind the House that this part of the legislation relates principally to individuals such as Tupperware salesmen and Avon ladies, as they are described-people who go out and make a bit of extra money by selling for big companies. How does the Government expect those individuals to have been making provision over the last 3 1/2 years-it will be four years by the time they have to pay up-for non-cash fringe benefits they received when they did not have any idea what the details of the legislation would be? All they will get is a bill from the Australian Commissioner of Taxation saying, `By the way, over the last four years you have received all of these non-cash fringe benefits and this is how much you will have to pay'. People will say to themselves, `Oh, we did not know what the legislation would contain until just the other day when it was introduced in the House of Representatives. Back in 1985 or 1986 we had no idea'. We are not talking in this context about sophisticated big businesses; we are talking about many people working from home to supplement their incomes-people who have been given incentives and rewards for successful selling efforts. They may have received free jars of jam or something like that on which they have to pay tax. They may have received bigger things, such as a trip to the Gold Coast, a television set or, in extreme cases when they have had enormous success, even a car. Suddenly plopped through the letterbox will come another unexpected and gigantic bill from the Treasurer. It is a pernicious form of taxation. It is pernicious to delay this legislation for effectively nearly four years. There is something intellectually inconsistent about this legislation. One could argue that non-cash fringe benefits are similar to other sorts of fringe benefits affected by the fringe benefits tax. We all remember that it is the company-the employer-that pays the fringe benefits tax; not the employee. I submit that this is a very curious concept of tax law, but there it is: that is what the Government has chosen to do. In this case, why is it that the company that provides the non-cash fringe benefit does not pay the tax? In this case it is the individual-the poor old housewife who is trying to supplement her family income at a time when interest rates are rising and real incomes are falling-who pays it. Why is it that she ends up paying the Treasurer the money rather than her employer, the company for whom she is doing a bit of additional selling? That is completely irrational and intellectually incoherent. One wonders what is the real motive behind it all. It is an intellectual fiasco. Mr Cleeland —How can you say `intellectual'? You don't even understand the word. Mr DOWNER —Talking of intellectual fiascos, I notice one sitting over there. How does the Government actually work out the taxable value of something that someone may not particularly want? Let us say that somebody manages to sell a certain number of handbags on behalf of a company and gets two jars of jam as a reward, apart from ordinary payment. How will the Australian Taxation Office calculate the value of something like that? Are people going to send the prize or the incentive back to the company? That creates a monstrous question. Heaven knows how the Government and the Tax Office will answer that. Much of this legislation simply underlies the Government's utter obsession with taxing everything that moves. How ever will we get this economy moving again and how ever will we inspire Australians to invest with such a tax regime? Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(12.30) —I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) because I am concerned, as is the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), about this country's present tax regime. We all know that this Government is the highest taxing government Australia has ever had. Honourable members may recall that last week I spoke at length on the plight facing every Australian family, particularly low to middle income earners, who are finding it well beyond their means to pay tax. There is some argument in the Government between the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other Cabinet Ministers about whether to reduce taxation, reduce wages, reduce taxation and wages or whether to do anything at all. With the figures coming in on our overseas debt, it is likely that we will not have a tax cut and a wage increase. Therefore, those low to middle income earners will be much worse off. The income of the average family in Australia is about $56 a week less, in real terms, than it was when this Government came to power. This Government always puts itself forward as the champion of the workers; the champion of the `working class'. We all know that that is quite different from the propaganda message that is put across. Today I wish to speak about people in rural areas. Recently the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) told the House that over the 5 1/2 years that this Government has been in power people in rural areas have lost about $1,000m in rural assistance. We all know that farmers and the mining industry provide well over 60 per cent of our overseas export earnings. I cannot understand how a government, understanding and appreciating that-I am sure that it does appreciate it-can sink the boots into that sector. Mr Braithwaite —They haven't got any sympathy for them. Mr HICKS —The Government does not have any sympathy. The honourable member for Gwydir listed some of the things that have been done to the rural sector this year alone. First of all, there has been a $90m loss due to increased inspection charges to primary producers; a $37m loss due to the abolition of the superphosphate subsidy; and a $31m cut in wool promotion over the next three years. We all know that the price of wool is high and thank God that it is. If it were not up at the moment our overseas earnings would be reduced drastically. Once again Australia is riding on the sheep's back. This House and the Government must remember that people producing wool for the nation, particularly those in my electorate, live in fairly isolated circumstances and under harsh conditions and they feel the impact of the Government's tax regime. There has been a $35m loss due to the increase in livestock natural increase valuations, which is part of the tax package, and a $50m cut in road funding. Mr Braithwaite —It is scandalous. Mr HICKS —It is scandalous. As I travel from Griffith to Canberra, which is about a 4-hour drive, I pass through numerous shires on the way and I find that, from week to week, the roads deteriorate rapidly. The road system is becoming quite dangerous. That is not the fault of the shires: they just do not have any money to do anything. As a result of inflation they cannot do the things that they might have done 12 months earlier. The situation is serious. There is a loss of $190m due to the sweeping changes to the depreciation allowance-I will say more about that in a moment-and $124m due to the increase in levies and charges, the sales tax increase on flavoured milk and so on. That adds up to a loss of $1,000m. I am quite surprised when I hear some people say what a wonderful job this Government is doing for the rural sector. That seems hard to believe when one sees the figures. Mr Tim Fischer —Especially those without electricity and all-weather access roads. Mr HICKS —That is right, as the honourable member for Farrer points out. Electricity is one subject I will speak about now. I have already mentioned roads which are becoming not only unserviceable but also quite dangerous in some areas. As I understand it, the rural sector earns well over 60 per cent of our overseas earnings. One of the things that people in rural areas find most difficult to do without is electricity-a permanent grid supply of power to properties. However, in the Budget we find that the year of expenditure write-off allowance is now extended to 10 years. That has a significant effect on the earning capacity of people in rural Australia. Mr Cobb —It discriminates against country people, as usual. Mr HICKS —It discriminates against them by about $1,000m. That is quite a substantial amount. Let us look at the situation of people in outback areas who do not have grid power supplied to them. Most of these people use diesel generators which take a great deal of maintenance. Over the years these generators have done a good job, but they cannot be positively relied on. One has to be on hand all the time to make sure that these diesel generators are working. The Government has reduced the excise concession applying in that area as well. Of course, some people in outback areas have kerosene fridges, which can be a menace as far as fire is concerned. Therefore, when people learn that they are going to be able to be connected to the power grid they get very excited. It is a little like-for those who can remember-the situation for those people in city areas in the days of the pan service for sewage. When those people got the sewerage system connected they thought it was the greatest thing on earth. Connection to the power grid is even more important than that because it will mean that people in outback areas will have all the wonderful benefits that people in provincial areas and cities take for granted. In many parts of the Riverina-Darling electorate there are may people who still do not have connections to the power grid. They have to put up with antiquated power systems. Therefore, when county councils, such as Murrumbidgee or Macquarie, say that they are going to put the power on, these people, of course, become very excited about it because they know that they will be able to move into the twentieth century. Let us look at a typical power connection. Certainly in the Ivanhoe area, in the Murrumbidgee County Council area-I must say that the Murrumbidgee County Council is one of the most efficient councils, certainly in New South Wales. When the council goes to put the power on it can mean up to a $50,000 capital contribution from those people having the power connected. I know that people in capital city areas would wince on hearing that figure. As if that $50,000 contribution is not bad enough, we now find that the write-off provisions are taken over 10 years instead of in the year of expenditure. That represents a significant impost on those people putting on the power. In the Central Darling Shire the Macquarie County Council is about to put the power on. People in that area having the power put on will probably have to pay $40,000. Mr Tim Fischer —Also Murray near Mungo. Mr HICKS —That is right. I am referring to all those areas, particularly the isolated areas, in outback New South Wales. In the past the New South Wales State Government has given a subsidy of about $10,000. I think presently that subsidy is about $15,000. However, there was an election promise of a $20,000 subsidy. I hope that with the cutbacks in Federal funding to the States this will not be changed. We must remember that the Federal Government, in reducing its outlays, really has reduced outlays to the States and local governments, and has not cut its own spending. The Federal Government has kept on spending but has expected everyone else to reduce their spending. In regard to the power subsidy I just hope that the $15,000 promised will still be available. I am sure that the Greiner-Murray regime will try its hardest to look after people in rural areas, as it has always done. Just recently I spoke to a person in the Ivanhoe district. The bill for putting on rural power for that person was $55,000. The deduction of the $10,000 State subsidy would make the cost about $45,000. Before any work could commence, in October 1987, the people concerned had to put up $27,500 for a start. Then in January-February 1988, $8,750 was needed to clear land for an electricity line. In October 1988 the power was connected and the final payment of $8,000 is now due. Of course, the cost does not stop at $55,000. Houses have to be rewired because probably the old wiring would be unsafe. In this particular instance I am referring to, it cost $8,500 to have the house and woolshed wired-the woolshed is one of the main areas which needs to be wired and this can cost anything from $3,000 to $10,000. Of course, people then have to buy an electric refrigerator and other appliances. A conservative estimate for the cost of a fairly reasonable refrigerator, freezer and stove would be about $2,500-although, I think it could be a lot more than that. Therefore, we see that the cost is exorbitant. Mr Cobb —The Federal Treasurer should go to these remote areas and look at them. Mr HICKS —I am going to issue an invitation to the Treasurer to come out and look at one of these properties-first of all to look at a property which has not got the reticulated power, and then to look at a property which has reticulated power, just to see the difference in the situation and what these people have to put up with. Of course, it is argued that because the company rate of taxation has been cut from 49c in the dollar to 39c, this should help rural producers no end. I say to the Treasurer that not every landowner in isolated New South Wales-or anywhere in isolated Australia-is part of a company. We must remember that there are not many companies which have to pay $55,000 to have power connected. I have spoken about roads previously so one of the areas I would now like to touch on relates to Telecom Australia and its increasing rates and charges. This is despite the fact that Telecom would like to keep those charges on a steady plane. People in isolated areas depend very much on the installation of digital radio concentrator systems. These are very expensive to install. If the Government keeps on taxing Telecom, we will find that this program has been put back further and further. The installation of these systems was to be completed in 1990; now it is 1992. We have a bet with some of the administrators in Telecom-who believe it will be done by 1992-that this will not be finished in 1992. There are many people who are sceptical that the scheme will be completed by 1992. We wish Telecom well, because people in isolated areas need the telephone as much as they need the rural power. Mr Cobb —They are only asking for basic commodities when it is all said and done. Mr HICKS —As the honourable member for Parkes said, we are asking only for the basic commodities of life-commodities that everyone expects as their right. We are merely asking for justice. After all, people in rural outback Australia produce most of the wealth of the country. We just want a fair go. We are really upset about the $1,000m impost over the last 5 1/2 years. Really, the reason I am standing here today is to say to the Government, `How about giving people in outback New South Wales and outback Australia a fair go as far as the power connection is concerned'. I am sure that over the years, with this power connected, they will be more efficient producers of the wool and the wealth that this country needs to exist. I am interested to see the balance of trade figures which are to be announced today to see what part wool and the rest of our rural commodities are playing in the balance of trade. I think that it is very important that we give rural producers a fair go, particularly in regard to the connection of power. I will finish my remarks at this point in the hope that the Treasurer and the rest of the Government will perhaps get the message and that those people who live in harsh conditions and who really deserve help, get it. I suppose that conditions are bad enough for the men but women with children out in those areas find it very difficult. Although they get used to the lifestyle I believe that we should be giving them a fair go. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! As it is approaching 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 12.43 to 2 p.m. Mr FIFE —Through you, Mr Acting Speaker, could I inquire of the Prime Minister as to whether the Treasurer is coming in for Question Time? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Treasurer is here. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I ask him whether he still stands by his reported statement in Berlin three weeks ago, that next year's tax cuts would go ahead, even if Australia's trade performance suffers as a result of slower world economic growth. Mr KEATING —The answer is in the affirmative. Dr Woods —Do you mean yes? Mr KEATING —Affirmative generally means yes to most literate people. Dr Woods —Well, why don't you say yes? Mr N.A. Brown —Does this mean yes? That is why we asked you. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Menzies will cease interjecting. Mr N.A. Brown —Well, just say so. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Menzies. Mr KEATING —He is more to be pitied than despised. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Treasurer will answer the question. Mr KEATING —The size and quality of them will, of course, be subject to conditions at the time-which we enunciated in the Budget language in terms of wages growth over the course of the financial year-and demand conditions in the economy. Mr GEAR —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Can the Minister inform the House as to the progress of the Government's reforms in education and training? What major contributions have been made by interest groups and political parties to the debate on education and training issues? In particular, what effect will the proposed industrial action by university and college academics on Wednesday and Thursday of this week have on the Government's education reform program? Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 144; that questions should not ask Ministers for an expression of opinion. Clearly the second part of the honourable member's question was asking the Minister an opinion about what effect certain ramifications would have, and it should be ruled out of order. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member was asking a question about the administration of the Minister's Department. Mr DAWKINS —It is true that we are currently engaged in a widespread and very effective reform of Australia's education system. It is important to remember that some 4.5 million students are engaged in the education system and that hundreds of thousands of people are employed in it. But, of course, education is not just about people and their future; it is about the kind of country we are and the kind of country we will become. The Government has been engaged in not only an expansion of the higher education system, in developing a new partnership with the States in relation to schooling and providing for more effective training, but it has also encouraged a wide ranging debate about all these issues, and we welcome a lively debate. It is not surprising that there should be alternative views about the way in which the education policy should develop. But I think it is very surprising, in the context of this change and the debate, that the Opposition has been so completely uncreative, unthoughtful and unhelpful. Since the last election we have had four shadow Ministers in the area of education and training, yet not one has produced anything of any value in this whole area. We were promised policies by August and we still await them. One gained the impression when the honourable member for Mackellar was shadow Minister that he was at least thinking about these issues. He is a thoughtful chap. Indeed, we thought he was almost pregnant with ideas. We were just waiting for something to be produced. But, of course, he was all too soon shuffled off to the back bench. The honourable member for Canning mentioned the proposed industrial action which some academics have been planning for today and tomorrow. This is something on which the new shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin, has had something to say. The academic unions are meeting primarily over the issue of possible retrenchments. Mr Beale —They are striking. Mr DAWKINS —I will come to Old Yellow Fever in a minute. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will answer the question. Mr DAWKINS —Retrenchment is a very live issue with the academics. Provisions for retrenchments are very widespread in other awards, and trying to extend the appropriate arrangements for retrenchments into academic awards is something that has been sought by the employers and is something to be determined by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. But what does the honourable member for Deakin have to say about these sensible reforms, such as the other things we were able to achieve in the context of the second tier negotiations? First of all we were able to get agreement on voluntary early retirement. We have been able to get an arrangement whereby more academics are appointed on the basis of a fixed term rather than life tenure. We have also improved the appointment arrangements for academics by agreement in that context. It has become a much more flexible and much more modern arrangement within our universities. We would have thought this was just what the Opposition wanted. It is always berating us about quickening the pace of structural adjustment. It seems to want the pace of change rather slowed down when it comes to the labour market as it affects the academics. I think the honourable member for Mackellar would have supported these proposals. But what does the honourable member for Deakin have to say? He puts out a press statement-- Mr Beale —Read my press release. Mr DAWKINS —I have. This ridiculous sliver of paper first misdescribes the unions involved, then it misdescribes the unified national system and then, most appallingly, misdescribes the concerns of the academic unions themselves. These meetings are not about the arbitrary abolition of courses. They are not about the destruction of university councils and they are not about some social engineering, which the honourable member seems to be hallucinating about in terms of my intentions. They are about important reforms to academic conditions. Only yesterday the Opposition was fulminating about stoppages on the waterfront. We occasionally see the Opposition supporting the strike action of some well paid doctors. Now it is supporting what it describes as a strike amongst the academic unions. The honourable member for Deakin is in fact inciting the academics to strike, and he is calling on the Government to back off these important reforms which are going to improve the running of universities and the conditions of most academics. The Opposition has no ideas of its own. It is intent only on encouraging mayhem on the campuses, just as it is interested in encouraging mayhem in this place. It wants to see disruption not only here but permeated throughout the Australian community. The real story is that the honourable member for Deakin wants the process of change to stop so that he can catch up. He is bereft of any ideas and any information about these areas. I can assure him that the show goes on and he will be left trailing in our wake. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Does he stand by his statement, as reported in the media on Wednesday, 12 October this year, that tax cuts are `inevitable from 1 July next year'? Or does he stand by his statement in the House on Monday, 17 October of this year that tax cuts are `dependent upon wages outcome and dependent upon the other matters referred to in the Budget'? Mr PETER MORRIS —I think those in the chamber would most like to see what level of tax cuts the Opposition has determined. We are yet to see the taxation policy from those who sit opposite. We will wait patiently, but with all of the fulminating from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition on possible tax cuts and a tax policy, we just want to hear one thing from them: what level of tax cuts do they see as desirable-- Mr Peacock —Take a pick, pass them a note. Mr PETER MORRIS —Andrew, give us your angry look, not your happy look. Mr Peacock —You have not given us an answer. Mr PETER MORRIS —I will give the honourable member an answer. We just want to see what level of tax cuts they see as appropriate and when. As to the honourable member's two questions, the answers are yes and yes. Mr GRIFFITHS —I address my question to the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support. Did the former Aviation Department let a contract to Southern Cross Advertising Pty Ltd? If so, when was the contract let and was there anything unusual with the contract? Mr PUNCH —I thank the honourable member for-- Mr Howard —You have an answer now? Mr PUNCH —John, you could not carry two buckets, let alone my seat or the country, so stop bunging it on. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Minister will answer the question. Mr Blunt —Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to rule in accordance with Standing Orders whether the Minister can provide an answer to that question when he has still not answered the question asked by me yesterday in this place on the same matter. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The question is in order. Mr PUNCH —I am advised that after the Department searched its archives yesterday it was found that such a contract was let after a tendering process. I know that this is uppermost in the mind of the honourable member for Richmond, but the House should know that this contract commenced on 1 March 1984-not 1988, not 1987, not 1986, not 1985, but 1984. It was a five-year contract let in 1984. I can see that this is clearly a pressing, relevant, contemporary issue with the honourable member caught in a time warp. He will not get up and ask questions about any issues that are relevant at the moment but asks a question about a relatively minor contract from 1984. It is not much of a way for a North Shore boy to outrun the kid from Goulburn in the leadership stakes. He will have to do a bit better than that. The House should be aware that last week the honourable member for Richmond asked me about the Air-India incident. At the time I did not know about that, the reason being that it was an issue from 1987. At least that was last year, about 18 months ago. This one relates to something which happened in 1984. Honourable members opposite have no questions about current policies such as Telecom Australia reform or domestic aviation but just a few little old incidents and old contracts. The House should be aware that he is digging all these incidents up out of the old press clippings and files which the honourable member for Deakin supplied to him. What a way to run some policy. The honourable member for Richmond is not the shadow Minister for aviation. He is the shadow Minister for old press clippings. He is not doing well at all. Mr Carlton —Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you advise the Minister of the proper use of the microphone. It is very disconcerting. It is more like a Punch and Judy show. Mr PUNCH —Perhaps the honourable member is having trouble hearing as he is so far back. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I remind honourable members on my left about raising frivolous points of order. Mr Carlton —Mr Acting Speaker, it is not a frivolous matter. The Minister draws away from the microphone, cannot be heard, and then comes very close to the microphone and there is static. Surely there must be something to overcome that, either with the Minister or the system. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The latter part of the honourable member's point of order was a frivolous point. Mr Blunt —He can sit down. Mr PUNCH —But I am not going to. I am further advised that the contract was surrendered by Southern Cross Advertising late in 1986 and a new contract was let. Mr Blunt —Was that by tender? Mr PUNCH —If the honourable member would like to listen I will tell him. I know it is hard to absorb but I am saying it slowly so that he can catch it. A new contract was let to Australian Posters Pty Ltd. I am further told that advice was provided to the Department from the Australian Government Solicitor's Office which confirmed that the reletting of the contract in this way would be in accordance with the provisions of the Airports (Business Concessions) Act. That was done before the contract was relet. There was a substantial increase in revenue to the Commonwealth out of it and there the matter rested. While this is a very old issue, I say again that the Government business enterprises-I know the honourable member has trouble absorbing this-are now at arm's length on such issues. That is appropriate for efficiency and appropriate for commercial practice. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. It cannot object to that when its policy is all about selling enterprises. Just for the information of honourable members opposite: if they expect me to be familiar with every little contract going on at present, let alone in the last half decade, they should know that in the year this was re-let, 1986-87, there was $29m worth of purchases for goods and services, there were 277 new leases or licences issued by the Department pursuant to that Act and, in addition, some 130 leases were renewed. I cannot, I will not, and I should not be expected to be across these day to day contracts. If honourable members opposite want to waste the time of that side of the House by asking questions that they know will not get an answer and that are not in the direct day to day province of the Minister, they can waste their time. But they will get a letter from me-they might even get a phone call-about this incident today. I advise them very strongly to put the question on the Notice Paper. If honourable members notice, the honourable member for Gilmore is having a good old smile because there is not much substance to questions from the honourable member for Richmond. He thinks he is a bit in front of the boy from Frenchs Forest. It is a pathetic indictment of him as a potential leader when the old boy at last turns his toes up. We now have old Sinkers, a man living in the past, and the honourable member for Gilmore in the home straight. If they keep asking nonchalant questions, they will keep getting it straight back. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Minister will refer to honourable members by their titles. Mr BLUNT —This question relates to this year and is directed to the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support. Did the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) issue a determination of aeronautical charges purporting to operate from 1 January 1988 which was subsequently found to be ineffective? Has the FAC issued a second determination of aeronautical charges? When was this second determination issued? Have all charges levied by the FAC between 1 January 1988 and 30 June 1988 been imposed in accordance with statutory obligations and were all charges properly collected? Finally, was there any retrospective impact from the issue of the second determination. Mr PUNCH —The House should know that correspondence has been directed to Mr Willis on the validity of the FAC charges. The matter is one which the Department is now looking at. It will be providing us with advice in due course after consultation with the Federal Airports Corporation. Mr Spender —You don't know. Mr PUNCH —I am very happy to let the honourable member know. He should be aware that there have been some fairly major changes to charges relating to airports around this country. Whilst I will not spend all day on it, I am so impressed that the honourable member for Richmond has asked a contemporary question that I will give him an answer. He should know that from 1 July 1986 the air navigation charges were changed. A whole range of changes go through these things. It relates to fuel excises, landing charges and, of course, the FAC-- Mr Howard —He would not be a bad campaign director. Mr PUNCH —I don't think the honourable member should worry about a campaign director on this side. He needs more than one. He is not going too well at all. His problem is that there is a bit of good news around today. The FAC has now proposed the introduction of a general aviation infrastructure tariff. It is circulating a paper about it and when it makes a decision about that we will all be advised. Mr CLEELAND —Is the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy aware of proposals to make substantial changes to the primary industries and resources sector? What would be the advantages of making changes now in this important area of the Australian economy? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am concerned to ensure that we have the best possible policies and the most coherent policies. That was evident in the policy documents that I presented on behalf of the Government in April 1986, last May with a statement, and recently to the Economic Planning Advisory Council. The Government's policies make up a comprehensive strategy for the primary industries and resources sector and for country Australians in general. What we are about-this should be made clear-is improving efficiency and productivity in the sector overall, creating jobs, improving the social infrastructure, and conserving the resource base. In contrast, one place where we cannot look for policies is with the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said last May that the Opposition would have all its major policies out by August or September. Mr Tuckey —What does Graeme Campbell say about your policies? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr Tuckey —He is going to cross the floor. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr KERIN —We should blood test him; I think he is on steroids again. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will answer the question. Mr KERIN —Unlike the Opposition's tax policy, its resources and farm policies have seen the light of day-by being leaked. But they hardly say anything. `A traditional pile of sententious waffle' is the accurate way the farm policy was described by the Australian. There are three aspects of that policy. First, it endorses virtually everything we are doing. The words `continue' or `maintain' appear no less than 17 times. Secondly, it promises endless reviews-no fewer than 19 different policies are to be reviewed, and that is in addition to those that are to be `assessed', `addressed' or `developed'. This is the Opposition's policy. It does include one actual promise, which is to abolish the capital gains tax, even though farmers will hardly ever pay any. But even this one specific pledge-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat for a moment. There is far too much noise in the chamber. The two members in the aisle might cease interjecting across the chamber and members on my left, including the Leader of the National Party, might pay more attention to Question Time and have fewer meetings around the chamber. Opposition members interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Honourable members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr Howard —He was not interjecting. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair —I was not interjecting. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr KERIN —Before I was interrupted I was saying that there was one specific pledge; that is, that the Opposition will abolish the capital gains tax. But that is pretty confused because the resources policy promises `to exempt genuine farm-out agreements from the capital gains tax'. Surely, if the Opposition is going to exempt anything, it really means that the Opposition is going to have a tax. Which is it? Will there be a capital gain tax or not? The resources and energy policy is more specific. No doubt it is the reason for the honourable member for Bass being relegated to the back bench. He must resent being replaced by the honourable member for Gippsland-I can sympathise with that-because he is still using his old title. But the thing that is specific about the resources and energy policy is the commitment to reduce the payments oil producers properly make for access to public resources. The Opposition just wants to give Australian resources away. When members of the Opposition come in here and try to associate themselves with tax cuts, they are not talking about wage and salary earners or families; they are talking about their old mates, the multinational oil companies. That is who they want to give money to-for nothing in return. Let us just hear them justify that to Australia as they go on with their mumblings and prattlings like monkeys. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for O'Connor will not hold private meetings in the chamber. If members on my left are interested in Question Time, they should pay attention to those who are answering or asking questions. Mr HAWKER —I draw the attention of the Minister for Social Security to the details of the financial differences of two families in similar circumstances that I had incorporated in last Tuesday's Hansard. In both cases a husband and wife and three children are living in rented accommodation. In one family the husband earns $200 a week more than the other and is on $525 a week, which is probably about the same as most backbenchers' staff. When the family allowance supplement, rental assistance, health care card and rebate on the Medicare levy are taken into account, the family whose gross income is $200 a week higher has a net disposable income of less than $10 a week more than the other family. My question to the Minister is: Where is the incentive for the lower income family to reduce its dependence on fellow taxpayers? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. In terms of assistance to families, this Government has in the current economic circumstances, which I think all members of this House recognise have been extraordinarily difficult circumstances-- Mr Sinclair —No. Paul says they are great. He has been telling the world how great everything is. Mr HOWE —I do not think anyone would ever remember that the right honourable member was Minister for Social Security, or anything about him. Opposition members interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair —Well, tell him to be honest. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the National Party. Mr Tuckey —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am objecting to your warning. You warned the honourable member for Menzies almost before Question Time had commenced. I draw your attention to another statistic: since 1967-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will get to his point of order. Mr Tuckey —It is in support of my point of order. Twenty-five people have been ejected from the House under Liberal governments, of whom three were from my side of politics. Mr Beazley —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I call the Minister. Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —I am objecting to-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. I call the Minister. Mr Beazley —I think the honourable member for O'Connor has finished. I was trying to work out whether he was taking a point of order or simply making a contribution. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Honourable members on my left are quite often moved to take points of order. Honourable members on my left might also be aware that interjections have always been considered by the House to be disorderly. Speakers of both political persuasions in the past have said to the House that they should show some dignity in the House by according those who are asking and answering questions the right to be heard in silence. People who just wish to interject would probably spend their time better by not coming to Question Time. Has the Minister completed his answer? Mr HOWE —No. The honourable member has asked a very good question and I think it deserves an answer. It is unfortunate that even when a serious question is asked by a backbencher in this Parliament the question is destroyed, and any possible answer, by the prattling of the Opposition members on the front bench. One has to ask whether the people on the front bench are interested in policy, whether they are interested in serious issues-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. Throughout Question Time today you have been drawing the attention of honourable members on this side of the House to what you regard as unnecessary interjections. In the course of these Standing Orders the general responsibility on Ministers is for their answers to be relevant to the question put to them, to avoid the sort of interplay that generates the responses we necessarily are given. Mr Acting Speaker, if you are going to try to maintain order in this House, I suggest that you apply not just the letter of the Standing Orders but the quality of them. That requires members of the Government, and Ministers in particular, not to abuse Question Time. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. Mr Sinclair —I suggest to you that you direct the Minister who is responding to act in accordance with the Standing Orders. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. I ask the Minister to answer the question. Mr HOWE —The question was a serious one and I do not think the remark I just made was at all intimidatory. The issue is one of effective marginal tax rates and whether there are disincentives. Unlike the Opposition, the Government has had priorities. We inherited a situation in which hundreds of thousands of families, at least 400,000 families and 800,000 children, were living in poverty. The level of family assistance provided by the previous Government was appalling. Sole parent families and other disadvantaged families were not $5 or $10 but $30 and $40 a week below the poverty line. We had to put together an economic policy to deal with those circumstances, and a blow-out of more than 250,000 unemployed in the last year of the previous Government, a situation in which hundreds of thousands of Australian families were diminished by its appalling economic policies. This Government has addressed those problems in terms of serious policy. The first thing that we suggested needed to be done to assist Australian families was to ensure that hundreds of thousands of Australians were put back to work, and the Government has succeeded in that. Secondly, we wanted to address the question of family living standards, initially for those thrown into poverty by the policies of the previous Government. As a result of the policies that we have put into place, hundreds of thousands of Australian families have effectively been lifted out of poverty and put back into a situation where at least there is an earned income to support them. Inevitably, if we have to make decisions and establish priorities, that implies targeting and that there has to be a cut-off point. Our concern was effectively with poverty traps. It was to ensure that the incomes provided to the very low income families continued to be provided at roughly comparable levels after they returned to employment. The difference between the income that people with dependent children received, prior to the families package, under the pensioner benefit system and that which they received if they went into a relatively low paid job was insignificant. It has now become very significant. It cannot possibly be argued under the current circumstances that people with dependent children are in any sense locked into the social security system because of the family assistance provided. It is quite the reverse. Whereas when we came into government the gap between the income being provided in the social security system and that which might be provided in a low paid job was very insignificant, now it is extraordinarily significant and provides a massive incentive to work. The honourable member for Wannon is suggesting that somehow the situation of middle income families has suffered as a result of those policies. It is not in the interests of middle income families to live in a community with the levels of unemployment that existed prior to the Labor Party coming to government. It is not in the interests of middle income families in Australia to have a scale of child poverty in which one in every five children is living in a poor family. The Government's social policy has had, firstly, the priority to ensure that the safety net is repaired and to tackle the issue of child poverty; secondly, the important social priority to ensure that unemployment is slashed-and we have slashed it by one-third-and, thirdly, the priority to ensure that there is a secure foundation for raising Australian living standards. This Government has been prepared to take on hard issues, which the prattle and the nonsense which comes from the other side never allows it to tackle. Members of the Opposition seek to address this Parliament on the basis of attitudes and prejudices rather than on the basis of policy. The Government has put policies into place and the record shows that hundreds of thousands of Australian families are not only better off but also are substantially better off as a result of their success. Mr O'NEIL —I address a question to the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support. As part of its advertising campaign, the Australian Automobile Association is claiming that the Hawke Government has reduced spending on roads. How accurately does this claim reflect the true state of the Government's road funding program? Mr ROBERT BROWN —In the first place, I am delighted to have this opportunity from the honourable member for Grey for two reasons: firstly, it gives me the opportunity to set the record straight so that all honourable members are perfectly aware of the circumstances; and, secondly, probably more than anyone else, the honourable member for Grey has a very real and personal interest in this matter. The honourable member for Grey has been responsible for the expenditure in his electorate, since this Government came into office, of nothing less than $170m on roads. Honourable members interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. Mr ROBERT BROWN —If those honourable members are not careful, Mr Acting Speaker, I might indicate the amount that has been spent in some of their electorates. In the case of the honourable member for Grey, not only has the Commonwealth spent $170m in his electorate in general road allocations since the Hawke Government came to office but also, under the national highway program, particularly on the Sturt Highway, as the honourable member for Grey would well understand, it has spent $140m. Therefore, if one is looking for success in terms of the effectiveness with which members in this Parliament can represent their electorates, one needs to look no further than the honourable member for Grey. A number of claims have been made in connection with the present campaign. The first claim that has been made, as the honourable member for Grey indicates, is that the Hawke Government has reduced funding for roads. I made the claim that during the six years of the Hawke Government the level of funding on roads from the Commonwealth Government has increased in real terms by 21.5 per cent over the level in the last six years of the Fraser Government. I wish to call on no less a witness than the General Manager of the National Roads and Motorists Association (NRMA). I call him as a witness in my defence. The NRMA in New South Wales is a party to this campaign which is being conducted by the Australian Automobile Association. In an interview on radio station 2UE, the following question was put to Richard Cox by Mark Day: What about over six years- that is, the six years of the Hawke Government- compared to the last year of the Fraser Government? Is he- that is, Bob Brown- right in saying it's up 21.5%? Mr Cox said: Yes, he is . . . I claim that the Hawke Government increased the amount of funding in real terms by 21.5 per cent. Mr Lloyd —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. The increase in the first year of the Hawke Government was funded solely through the second part of the bicentennial from the previous Government. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The second point that I made was that in the second and third year of this new funding program the Hawke Government would ensure that the allocation under the program was maintained in real terms. I call on the same person-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr Lloyd —Why don't you compare the first three years of the Hawke Government with the last three years? Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member is a lunatic. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr ROBERT BROWN —That fellow down there is mad. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw that remark. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Can I say that he is certifiable? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw both of those words. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Unbalanced? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Minister will withdraw the remarks. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I will withdraw that and just say that he has a couple of kangaroos loose in the top paddock. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw unqualifiedly. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I will withdraw and say that if they persist in that way they should be chained up. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw unqualifiedly. Opposition members-Name him! Name him! Mr Lloyd —Mr Acting Speaker-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member on my left will resume his seat. The Minister will withdraw the remark unqualifiedly. Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. You are being completely insulted by this Minister. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr Tuckey —I am sorry; I have not finished. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member have a point of order? Mr Tuckey —If you were to name him and if these people were to support you, it would be the first time in the history of this place. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —The Minister had better be careful about what he says about me or we will have him. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr ROBERT BROWN —Do not intimidate me! Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw the remarks and get on with his answer or resume his seat. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I withdraw. Mr Howard —Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order that this matter simply cannot be dismissed. After five pieces of deliberate insult and deliberate defiance of the Chair, ultimately this Minister finally, and reluctantly, in the most defiant manner possible, says that he withdraws. In the face of that and your pusillanimous failure to enforce your authority, if you expect this side of the House to listen to your admonitions, you are failing to meet the expectations required of an Acting Speaker. You are a failure as an Acting Speaker. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has withdrawn the allegation. Mr Howard —My point of order was the manner in which he, over a period of almost a minute, deliberately defied you. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Howard —He went on using unparliamentary language and, in the face of that, because you are a creature of the Government, you were not exerting authority. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. While there were members on my left attempting to argue with the Minister and while the Minister was arguing with them, there was so much noise in the chamber that it was difficult for everybody. Are there any further questions? I think the Minister has finished his answer. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I will complete the answer, Mr Acting Speaker. I have already withdrawn. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Minister has the right to complete his answer. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It is obvious to members on this side and to people in the gallery that during Question Time there has been a deliberate and orchestrated campaign to disturb the operations of the Parliament- Mr ACTING SPEAKER-Order! The Minister will complete the answer or resume his seat. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Mr Acting Speaker, in concluding the answer-- Opposition members-Sit down. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will answer the question. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Mr Acting Speaker, I am in the process of concluding the answer. Mr Reith —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. My point of order is that you just directed the Minister to sit down and he has defied you and you ought to warn him. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I asked the Minister to complete his answer or resume his seat. The Minister is telling the House that he is completing his answer. He will get to the answer and cease responding to interjections. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The amount that the AAA's campaign has been suggesting as being an appropriate-- Mr Beale —You had better have another reshuffle, Bob. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member on my left will cease interjecting. I call the Minister. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It has been suggested that the level of road funding should be increased by another 2c per litre. Quite clearly, that amount was just drawn out of the air. What it amounts to in terms of the total allocation that that would represent would be about $420m. Mr Ian Cameron —It will happen anyway. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will answer the question. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It has also been suggested that-- Mr Ian Cameron —It will happen anyway. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maranoa will cease interjecting. Mr Ian Cameron —That is true. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It has also been suggested that the amount could be between, say, 2c and 3c extra per litre. That would be somewhere between $420m and $630m. Mr Ian Cameron —Taxation is going to do that to you. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will cease interjecting and the Minister will complete his answer. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As I indicated on a previous occasion, if there was going to be an increase in the allocation of funding of that kind, it would be necessary for us either to reduce expenditure programs elsewhere, or increase taxation rates, or reduce the extent to which the Commonwealth is repaying debt. They are options which the Government is not in the process of considering. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Would the Minister table the radio transcript from which he read? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Is the Minister quoting from a confidential document? Mr ROBERT BROWN —No. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The Minister will table the document. Mr Uren —Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order on a comment made by the Leader of the Opposition in which he accused you, as the Acting Speaker, of being a creature of the Government. I am saying that this is a reflection on the Chair and a reflection on the House and that the Leader of the Opposition should be made to withdraw that remark. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition make that remark. I call the honourable member for Fairfax-does the Leader of the Opposition wish to raise a point of order? Mr Howard —Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. I do not run away from comments that I made in this House. I did make that comment. Can I say to you-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —If the-- Mr Howard —Can I say to you, Mr Acting Speaker, that if you invite me, if you ask me-- Mr Dawkins —Just withdraw. Mr Howard —Would the Minister just keep quiet. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Does the Leader of the Opposition have a point of order? Mr Howard —I will go on with what I am saying when there is silence on the Government side, but not before. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —Mr Acting Speaker, I did make that remark. Let me say to you that if you insist that I withdraw it, I will do so out of deference to the office that you occupy; but can I say that if you insist on my withdrawing it, you are gravely imperilling the consensual support that any Opposition that would give to a Speaker. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! If the Leader of the Opposition did make that remark, he should withdraw it. Mr Howard —Mr Acting Speaker, in deference to the position that you occupy, I will do so, but I repeat-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn the comment. If the-- Mr Howard —Mr Acting Speaker, are you denying the indulgence that you normally extend to party leaders in this House after the way in which you allowed the Minister who has just resumed his seat to defy your authority? For you to insist on my withdrawing the remark, which I do out of deference, is to lose respect for your position. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn his remark. I call the honourable member for Fairfax. Mr ADERMANN —I direct my question to the Treasurer. The honourable gentleman will be aware of the extremely valuable work of the life education units and their caravans in educating primary school children in particular about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. He will also be aware that the units are established almost entirely by local authority assistance and donations. Will the Treasurer reconsider the decision which refuses tax deductability status to those donations, a decision which deters corporations and others from providing funds to this body which is doing so much to prevent our young people being enmeshed and destroyed by drugs? Mr KEATING —There are an endless number of virtuous activities going on in the community, not all of which qualify for tax deductability. These issues are considered seriatim, case by case, as they arise. Some are agreed to, some are not. Obviously the cost to the revenue of the gift provisions is something which each government from time to time has considered on the individual merits of the particular function. I merely observe that this Government has kept funding to local government-which is principally responsible, as the honourable member indicates, for this activity-up over a period. Local government has not suffered the general reductions in government outlays that have indeed been inflicted upon-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —The interjections are founded in ignorance. The fact is that they have not been reduced in the way in which Commonwealth general expenditure has been reduced or in the way in which payments to the States have been reduced. If local government wishes to accord priority to this particular function, it has to look at its own expenditure base. But, in deference to the honourable member for Fairfax, to refresh myself of the issues, I will have a look at the various elements which were the subject of the decision to which he refers. Mr KERR —Has the Minister for Employment and Education Services seen recent comments by the Premier of Tasmania concerning employment rates in Tasmania? Can the Minister inform the House whether the measures taken by the Hawke Government to improve employment prospects have been successful? Mr Goodluck —You have starved us of the money. Mr DUNCAN —I will deal with the honourable member for Franklin in just a moment. I thank the honourable member for Denison for his question. I acknowledge the keen interest that he shows in Tasmania and the way that he has sought to ensure that Tasmania is well represented in this Parliament is to his great credit. I did see the statement by Premier Gray. I must say that, when I first saw it, I thought, `Well, it is good to see Tasmania getting a positive headline for a change'. I thought that was worth looking into. I asked my Department to have a look at the boast by Premier Gray that Tasmania has seen the creation of 26,000 jobs under the regime that Premier Gray heads on behalf of the Liberal Party. We had a look at the situation. The first point I want to make about it is that surprise, surprise, statistics show that since the Gray Government came to power there has not been a creation of 26,000 jobs. The correct figure is only 24,000-odd, not 26,000. Opposition members-Oh! Mr DUNCAN —Opposition members can complain if they like about that. Let me just make the point further. This Government has seen the creation of 1.1 million jobs since it came to power and, on the basis of that, on a per capita basis, Tasmania should have seen the creation of something towards 40,000 jobs, not 25,000-odd of which the Gray Government boasts. That is not a very good record for the Gray Government. In fact, Premier Gray holds the gold medal for the worst employment and unemployment record of any Premier in his State. The Tasmanian economic effort under Premier Gray has been a drag on the nation. The statistics nationally would have been considerably better if it had not been for the economic record of the Gray Government in that State. The honourable member for Franklin may say what he likes. Nobody can accuse me of being a `Tasmania basher'. I am one of the strongest supporters of Tasmania in this Parliament, as the honourable member for Franklin knows only too well. He knows very well that my track record in this Parliament has been as a great supporter of Tasmania. It is, indeed, sad for all Tasmanians that the track record of the Gray Government in the employment area has not been much better because Tasmanians have suffered greatly under the Gray Government. When the Gray Government came to power Tasmania had the worst unemployment record in Australia, and Tasmania still has the worst unemployment record in Australia. This is unlike, for example, Victoria, where, when the Cain Government came to power, the Victorian record was not nearly as good as it has been since because that State Government introduced policies designed to ensure that the Victorian economic record would be the best in Australia. Tragically, that has not happened in Tasmania. Let us just look at the unemployment statistics, for example, for teenagers. Mr Goodluck —Oh! Mr DUNCAN —The honourable member for Franklin does not like hearing this, but the Australian people are entitled to hear the facts on the matter. The unemployment rate for teenagers looking for full time work in Tasmania was at 24.7 per cent in September 1988 compared with the national average of 16 per cent. That is clearly substantially above the national average in relation to teenage unemployment. Tasmania is the only State where unemployment rates did not fall in the year to September 1988. Now all these figures add up to a tragedy for the people of Tasmania, and it is a tragedy that the honourable member for Franklin ought to be concerned about. He, more than anybody, who portrays himself in this place as a great supporter of Tasmania, ought to be concerned about the sorts of matters that I am raising. Premier Gray, of course, has described this tragic situation as the result of policies that were on the right track. I simply say to the House that the honourable member for Denison, in his efforts, is the one who has been promoting in this House the sorts of policies designed to restore prosperity to Tasmania, which is his intention, and the way that we will do that is to see the removal of the Gray Government at the earliest possible opportunity. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Can I address a question to you, Mr Acting Speaker, regarding the conduct of Question Time? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Yes. Will the honourable member proceed? Mr HOWARD —I preface the question by saying to you that I believe-and I think I speak for members on this side of the House-that during the Question Time just completed you were not, and I repeat `not', evenhanded in your treatment of the two sides of the Parliament. Let me say to you, Mr Acting Speaker, that by any measure the conduct of the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) was disorderly; that if one of my front bench colleagues had behaved as the Minister did, you would have named him after the second insult. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member wants to take a point of order, that is fine. If the honourable member wants to make reflections upon the Chair, that is out of order. There are procedures of the House that the Leader of the Opposition can use to do that. If you have a specific question, you can get to it. Mr HOWARD —I raised this issue under the time-honoured procedure of this House which allows the party leaders a certain indulgence outside the normal structure of Standing Orders. If, in fact, you are saying to me that I cannot raise that, you are also putting aside yet another practice of this Parliament. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I am saying to the honourable member that he can ask a question, but not couch his questions in terms that might reflect upon the Chair. Mr HOWARD —I have prefaced my question by drawing your attention to the fact that the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support, on a number of occasions, insulted members on this side of the House. He clearly defied your rulings and requests. Yet, despite that, you were not prepared to name him. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Will the honourable member get to his question or resume his seat? Mr HOWARD —I am seeking from you- Mr Beazley —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. It is quite clear that, whilst indulgence is granted to the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, indulgence has never extended in this place to criticising the conduct of the House by the Chairman or Speaker of the House. If there is criticism of that, there are specific provisions under Standing Orders that permit the moving of a substantive motion. The Leader of the Opposition is obviously in a situation where he can ask a question. He is not in a situation where he can address this on a point of indulgence. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The point that the Minister makes is the point that I made to the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of his question. If he has a direct question, I will either answer it or take it on notice. If he does not-- Mr HOWARD —Having provided you with the background and preamble, Mr Acting Speaker, I ask: Can you please explain to me and to those on this side of the House the basis of your allegedly even-handed conduct of this Parliament whereby-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Remarks such as that are clearly out of order. Mr Keating —Mr Acting Speaker, points of order about procedures in any particular debate must be taken at the time and not be the subject of cross-examination afterwards. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! If the Leader of the Opposition has a question, he should ask it directly. Mr HOWARD —Before I was interrupted by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) I was asking you, Mr Acting Speaker, the basis on which in controlling Question Time you were able to warn the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) within 30 seconds of Question Time starting without virtually a murmur from him; yet you were prepared to allow the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) to go on insulting our side of the House and defying your ruling without so much as a warning. You tell us the basis of that lack of even-handedness. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have no intention of getting into any debate with him on this matter. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Department of Social Security-Annual Report 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922 and section 187 of the Social Security Act 1947. Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 46 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Act 1985 and section 63h of the Audit Act 1901. Mr Sinclair-I move: That the Acting Speaker no longer enjoys the confidence of the House. I move this motion with some regret-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party needs to get leave to move the motion or do it by way of notice. The right honourable member took some time earlier today to advise me about what I should be doing under Standing Orders. He has been here a lot longer than I have and he should be aware that to move a motion such as this he needs to do it either on notice or by leave. Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the National Party from moving forthwith: That the Acting Speaker no longer enjoys the confidence of the House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.04) —I move: That the Acting Speaker no longer enjoys the confidence of the House. As I said a moment ago, I move this motion with some regret because we know that Madam Speaker is absent from this chamber for reasons that are beyond her control. Mr Acting Speaker, you have assumed the mantle of responsibility which is properly hers and which is critical to the conduct of this parliamentary system. Over the days that she has been absent, which began on the last sitting day of last week, there has been a great deal of concern on this side of the House about what we see as a constant preference demonstrated by you in your rulings, particularly during Question Time and in the proceedings immediately thereafter. That concern culminated today in what we see as a failure to respond adequately to the behaviour in the House a little while ago of the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown). We regarded his behaviour as absolutely reprehensible. The nature and manner of name calling across this chamber, as my colleague the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) identified the other day, is something that Madam Speaker would not accept. Yet you, Mr Acting Speaker, have been prepared to condone on six occasions the name calling that the Minister pursued at Question Time today. On each sitting day there have been instances where members on this side of the House have felt that Ministers have not been responding to questions as the general purport of Standing Orders requires. Certainly nobody has changed the actual format of our Standing Orders to precisely define the nature of questions, the length of questions and the relevance of questions. But you know, Mr Acting Speaker, that there have been a succession of rulings by Speakers-I have a whole horde of them here-which have required Question Time to be conducted so that the public at large, the electors who puts us in this place, can properly feel that Ministers are under scrutiny. What we have seen-even accelerated this week-is a deliberate ploy by the Government, each day with a different barb. It wants to pick up a theme this way or a theme that way. Every day we have been three-quarters of the way through Question Time before we on this side of the House have had four questions at best processed through the system. When there was an Acting Treasurer last week the Government decided that the only way it could get away with it was to provide very brief answers to questions. Suddenly we found we were getting 14, 15 or 16 questions a day-similar to the numbers that were regularly the case when the coalition was in government. Your responsibility, Mr Acting Speaker, is to ensure that Question Time is conducted in a fair and proper way. There is a capacity for you as Speaker, irrespective of the actual words within the Standing Orders, to determine whether Ministers are abusing the process of Question Time. Mr Acting Speaker, the first complaint we have about you is your failure to address the Minister as soon as you should have to require a withdrawal of derogatory remarks about members on this side of the House. The second and more fundamental complaint we have is your failure to require Ministers to pursue properly the matter of Question Time. I find it quite interesting that all the Ministers who are responsible have now left the chamber. That is one of the problems in this place. No wonder the electors are moving away in droves. No wonder the voters of Oxley voted with their pens against a Government that so demonstrably has lost touch with ordinary Australians. We have seen the arrogance of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). Each one has pontificated about how difficult life is for ordinary Australians. They would not have a clue and they are not worried about finding out. They are not interested in the life education program. They are not interested in the absolutely deplorable disparity in the conditions of living of the two couples the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) identified. What they are trying to do is to say, `Never mind, out there Australia, we are looking after you'. Mr Acting Speaker, you have a responsibility in this place to ensure that if answers are to be given to questions they are given as answers and that Ministers do not make policy statements, as they do consistently and persistently. The whole process of Question Time has degenerated. There is never a question from the Government side that is not a dorothy dixer. There is never a Question Time when Ministers do not act as though it is an opportunity to make a policy statement. I put to you, Mr Acting Speaker, that you have powers under the Standing Orders. It is not a matter of looking to see whether there is a particular standing order that you can apply. The substance of our want of confidence motion in you is that you are not exercising the discretion which is yours by virtue of the office in which you now sit. The way in which you administer this place determines ultimately whether Ministers answer questions as they should, whether Ministers and members of the Government can misbehave and get away with it, and whether the Parliament treats you and therefore whether the community treats us as parliamentarians with respect. The sad product of today is that the processes of this place have degenerated beyond that which I can recall in my few years in this place. As my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said, you were prepared to accept remarks by the Minister, who repeatedly slandered my colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), across the table, as though his remarks did not matter. He is a Minister and therefore he was not going to be sanctioned the way the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) was five minutes after proceedings began. At the commencement of proceedings you obviously had decided that you were going to condemn us on this side of the House. We accept that there are times when the behaviour of members on both sides might stretch exactly what some would require of members of this place; but you have to understand, Mr Acting Speaker, that if we are pushed by Ministers abusing Question Time, if we are going to be slandered by Ministers standing at the despatch box, being told by them-as the Treasurer so frequently does-that we are sleazebags or a whole litany of offending names, and you, as Acting Speaker, do not sit them down, you cannot expect us to treat them seriously. What happened today-it has unfortunately happened now on successive sitting days-is that we have had Ministers giving inordinately long answers and abusing Question Time. There is no other responsible way by which we on this side of the House can show those Ministers that we are concerned that they are abusing the process of the Parliament. What this comes back to, Mr Acting Speaker, is that you have an ability within the interpretation of Standing Orders to sit anybody in this place down at any time. You have an ability to require anybody-a Minister, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and honourable members on both sides of the House-to sit in his place. The Standing Orders give you the ability, when you rise, to require anybody else to sit down. It is that power that we call on you to exercise and to do so impartially. In the last few days there have been visits by members of other Parliaments. I have spoken to them. They said that they are concerned that the process of our democracy seems to be prejudiced because there is not the obvious impartiality in the chair that there is in their Houses; for example, in the House of Westminster. The other day we saw a number of visiting parliamentarians from the United Kingdom. Several expressed their amazement that the Speaker, and you as Acting Speaker, were not totally without party affiliation. They expressed concern that the Speaker still seems to have automatic affiliation with politics. We have come to accept that in this Parliament. But, Mr Acting Speaker, when you are in the chair you have to be above that. You cannot be a creature of the Government; you cannot be a member of the Australian Labor Party. You are the leader, the Speaker, of this House of Parliament. You are the person who sets the standard. If you do not call on a Minister to sit down and require him to act as you require us to act, it is not just you that suffers; it is the parliamentary system that suffers. Mr Acting Speaker, I put to you quite sincerely that today, above all days, you have failed in that task. I think that today, in the way in which you have called on and repeatedly named members of the Opposition benches, the way in which you condoned repeated abuses of what are the accepted practices of questions without notice, and the way you were prepared to allow the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support to abuse my colleague the Deputy Leader, without even requiring him to sit in his place, is not acceptable. You must understand that unless you are prepared to act impartially and are prepared to perform- Mr N.A. Brown —We are sorry to interrupt you! Mr SINCLAIR —When a man in that chair is being condemned, I suggest that it is not proper for an honourable member to interrupt him. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will get on with speaking to the motion. Honourable members on my left will cease interjecting. I find it fascinating that the Leader of the National Party says that I do not uphold the Standing Orders. A member on my right-honourable members on both sides of the House do so frequently-came to the Chair and asked for guidance on a matter. Then a member on my left decided to interject. If we end up taking the injunction of the Leader of the National Party, all honourable members shall remain silent while we hear the Leader of the National Party-- Mr Beale —You were having a private conversation. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Including the honourable member for Deakin. Mr N.A. Brown —Why don't you set an example? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for Menzies will cease interjecting. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Acting Speaker, my concern is that as you are sitting in the chair you must set the standard for this place. I do not believe it appropriate that, in the course of our having this debate about whether or not you enjoyed our confidence, you should be interrupted. I stopped speaking for that reason. I suggest that the matters I put to you are of critical importance. In conclusion, I will go over two matters. Firstly, we all need to understand the substance of the requests by Madam Speaker, the lady in whose place you currently sit, with respect to personal allusions by the other side of the House. My colleague the honourable member for O'Connor read an extract from Hansard the other day. I do not intend to read it again. However, I put to you, Mr Acting Speaker, that unless you are prepared to adhere to that ruling and to observe the admonition that she made, which all of us on this side of the House are called upon to accept, you cannot expect us on this side to be compliant. You cannot expect that, if you condone the sorts of allusions, inferences and innuendos that come persistently from the mouths of so many speakers, particularly Government ones. The second issue, which is the fundamental one, concerns the degree to which you, have an ability, within our Standing Orders, to require Ministers and others to sit down. It might be worth while referring to a few of your predecessors' decisions. On 19 February 1975 Mr Speaker Cope was prepared to act according to his conscience. For his bravery, being a member of the Labor Party-I suppose one could call it timidity considering the consequences of his action-and for being prepared to accept that his role was more important than being a member of the Labor Party, he was dismissed from the chair. Ultimately, he resigned from the Parliament. Mr Howard —Assassinated. Mr SINCLAIR —As my colleague says, he was assassinated. Prior to that instance, Mr Speaker Cope even required Prime Minister Whitlam to be seated. It is worth remembering this because this is material to my admonition to you that in Question Time you call on Ministers at least to observe the normal requirements of questions without notice. Honourable members will see at page 428 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 19 February 1975 that Mr Speaker Cope said: The Chair has no jurisdiction over the length of an answer but I ask the Prime Minister, as I have asked Ministers previously, to be as brief as he possibly can. Subsequently he required the Prime Minister to resume his seat. Page 530 of Hansard of 20 February 1975 shows Mr Speaker Cope saying: I ask the Minister to be as brief as he possibly can with his answer. Subsequently, he proceeded to require the Minister to sit down. On 27 February 1975 he said: The House will come to order. I ask the Minister to be as brief as he possibly can with his answer. There are other people waiting. The Minister will answer the question. I ask him to be brief. On 13 May 1981-this appears at page 2292 of Hansard-Mr Speaker Snedden, answering a point of order from the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), who is still a member of this House, said: I call upon the Minister to bring his answer to a conclusion. On 17 September 1981 Mr Speaker Snedden said: I ask the Minister to remain relevant. On 15 September 1981 he said: I ask the Minister not to make a point about the point of order and, in proceeding with his answer, to draw his answer to a conclusion. There is a succession of those. I have a whole volume of them. The point I make to you, Mr Acting Speaker, is that unless you are prepared to require Ministers to treat questions without notice as they are intended to be treated within the purport of our Standing Orders, this place comes into disrepute. You failed to do so today. You failed to require the Minister to withdraw. You failed to take action when he did not withdraw. You allowed him to repeat various innuendos, slanders and inferences on six successive occasions before you finally got a withdrawal from him. On a number of occasions you have allowed Ministers to abuse totally the general intent of Question Time. Instead of requiring them to answer questions, you have allowed them to make policy statements. You have not required Ministers even to direct their responses to the letter of whether it is a policy issue. There is a requirement in our Standing Orders, and well you know it. Standing order 144 outlines the ways in which Ministers are required to be relevant. That component of our Standing Orders states that questions may be put to Ministers relating to public affairs. They are able to be put in a certain defined way. There are certain requirements in standing order 144 which talks about general rules applying to questions. It is important that you understand that, although they apply to the questioner, there is a responsibility on the Minister in his response. Standing order 145 states: An answer shall be relevant to the question. I put it to you, Mr Acting Speaker, that this Government no longer treats the statements that we all made as Ministers in this place in the way it should. When Ministers make a policy comment it should not be in answer to a dorothy dixer. This Government abuses the process constantly. It never gets a question from its own side that is not a dorothy dixer. We cannot accept a practice, whether in the conduct of Question Time or in your action towards a Minister or all the collective members of the Opposition, when we find that consistently we on this side of the House are either required to withdraw our remarks or are told that we are to desist from whatever we are doing. However, the Ministers persist in what we regard as totally non-responsible behaviour in the conduct of their responsibilities in answering questions. Mr Acting Speaker, we do not accept that you have been impartial today. We regard your actions today as being far more conducive to accepting your membership of the Australian Labor Party than accepting your responsibility as a dispassionate and independent chairman of this place. I mentioned to you, either yesterday or the day before, my concern at what I regarded as a tendency to slant your requirements of the Government in a more sympathetic way than your requirements of the Opposition. It is absolutely essential that if you are to sit in that chair, be it temporarily or not, that you act in a way which is above any suggestion of partiality. On this side of the House we feel very strongly that the quality, manner and tone of the Parliament depends ultimately on the way in which you chair these proceedings. We believe that you have failed in that task. We regard it as important that once again you exercise your responsibilities in a way which requires the Ministers and members of the Government to behave in a manner identical to that which you require of us on this side of the House. Unless you do so, it is not possible for us to regard you and the office you hold with the respect that our democratic system requires. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.22) —Mr Acting Speaker, I second the motion. I support this censure motion because we are now talking about the future of the parliamentary process. I am the first to admit that I have been one of those members who, over time, have participated in what has happened in this place. We are constantly reminded by members of the Government that if one has got the numbers, one should use them. The opportunity for the Opposition to make its point is totally reliant on fair play from the Chair. If the Chair is not to be even-handed, there is no opportunity for the Opposition. As I have explained to you before in this place, Mr Acting Speaker, there is a third component to this place which we frequently forget about. We are all very concerned for the future of our political parties, whether they be Government or Opposition. But in this place it has tended to be forgotten that there is a third component-the Australian people. The Australian people have some rights in this place. They have the same rights as the Canadian people, who, through their members of parliament, as has been stated in this place, have 45 questions answered in 45 minutes. They have the same rights as the people of the British Isles, who, through their representatives in the British Parliament, quite frequently get 20 or 30 questions answered during a Question Time. Mr Chynoweth —How many put the questions in a week beforehand? Mr TUCKEY —I have studied some other Standing Orders and I find that they are in no way all that different from our Standing Orders. The real difference relates to the Chair. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) has brought to our attention some words of a recent visitor to this place who said: `Your Speakers are not impartial'. Mr Acting Speaker, I put it to you that that is the gist of our complaint. Mr Acting Speaker, I bring to your attention some statements I have extracted from the Hansard. I refer to the words of a man who will have a great influence on this Parliament, the Governor-General designate, Mr Hayden, who said, as reported in Hansard of 30 April 1981: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Question Time and much of the parliamentary procedure becomes low farce if questions are not answered by Ministers. The real point behind all this is that Speakers cannot function without the support of the majority party. Of course, Mr Acting Speaker, you would be aware that the Labor Party has demonstrated very clearly to its Speakers in the past that if they do not toe the line, they are out. Of course, there is a noted case. As the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) said in this place recently, it is not possible to rewrite history in this place because it is all on the record. Of course, the record tells us some interesting things. It tells us, for example, about the average number of questions answered in this place. Back in 1976 there was an average of 19.3 questions per Question Time. In 1986 it was 11.8 questions. This year to date, the average is 12.5. Mr Chynoweth —How many interjections? Mr TUCKEY —Let me say in all seriousness in answer to that interjection that last Monday week, as has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Government came in here, and, for whatever reason, started answering questions. Previous to that the Opposition would ask questions seeking information. Recognising what had happened in the past, we started to ask questions seeking information. If honourable members check the record they will see that the questions were generally very brief. We thought the Government was responding. Who were the biggest winners? The biggest winners were the backbenchers of both sides of Parliament. For the first time in the history of this Government some of its own back bench members were actually getting the opportunity to ask questions on behalf of their own electors. However, it did not work, because all of a sudden the press started to write that Ministers were not doing very well trying to answer questions factually; that they were much better at rhetoric. In fact, the interesting thing was that the media seemed to prefer that. The honourable member who has precipitated this matter today, the new Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown), got all the brownie points that day because he stuck with the time-honoured, old Labor operation of rhetoric instead of substance. Today he found that if one wants to play that game there are plenty of means by which it can be confronted. However, that is not what we want in this place. To tell the truth, for all the fun I have had in some of these blues-I have always made the point that I will play the game by any bloke's rules-I would much rather have the information, thank you very much. That is what I would rather have. I would like to see whether the Minister at the table, the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley), and other Ministers can come up with the facts, and do it briefly. We have seen a couple of Ministers who cannot. Most importantly, Mr Acting Speaker, it is up to you to see that it happens. If you do not see that it happens, this place cannot function. As I said, as a result of the Cope case on 22 February 1975, members of the Labor Party, including the now incumbent Speaker, Mrs Child, voted against their Speaker. For the first time in the history of the Labor Party in this place, a Speaker, Mr Cope, had the temerity to name a member of the Labor Party. The facts are that in the history of this place there has never been a member of the Labor Party kicked out by a Labor Party Speaker. But the Liberal Party has kicked out three of its number in that time. That is the way it should be. The first responsibility once one has elected a Speaker is to give that Speaker support. To that extent, in regard to this censure motion, Mr Acting Speaker, you have my sympathy. As Mr Snedden, the then Leader of the Opposition, said: As a result of that Cope affair, no Speaker in the future can have the confidence that he has the right to take action against the Government side. That is the first job. For the information of the Leader of the House, that is what the Government has to do. The Government has to demonstrate that its Speaker can discipline its side. Mr Beazley —And keep your side orderly, including yourself. Mr TUCKEY —I will take the Leader of the House back to that Monday when Government Ministers answered 18 or 19 questions. There were no interjections from our side until the Minister for Transport and Communications tried the rhetoric trick and one other Minister decided to make a statement. The other statistics I wish to cite are that in 1976 the Government put down 67 statements; in 1986 it was 32. The Standing Orders say that it is wrong to ask a Minister to announce the Government's policy. We tend to say here that if the word `policy' is used, the question is out of order. The people who wrote our Standing Orders-wise men no doubt-came to a different conclusion. They could see the opportunity for Question Time to be destroyed by the Government using dorothy dixers to announce its policy, to put down statements. Those people could see that that was inappropriate and said that there should be no opportunity for members to ask such questions. The simple fact is that no matter how the question is couched, you, Mr Acting Speaker, or Madam Speaker, should rule that question out of order because the Government has the forms of the House available to enable it to put down a statement. That creates a little problem, of course, because the Government then has to accept that by convention the Opposition can respond. Of course, that creates two problems. It means that Ministers have to answer more questions and that the Government might have to take some criticism. It means also that the Government may have the problem of having its policy stripped apart. But you, sir, are the only person who can do this for the Parliament and for the people of Australia. This should not be a gladiatorial pit, although it has become one, egged on, I might add, at times by the media who sit up there, in the appropriate position, just lacking the togas and the laurel and olive wreaths. Fifty-eight suspensions have been proceeded with since 1967. Under Liberal-National party Speakers there were 25 suspensions, 22 of whom were from the ALP and three of whom were from the Liberal and National parties. Under ALP Speakers there were 23 suspensions, 22 of whom were Liberal-National party members and one was from the ALP, which was negatived, knocked down. That negation resulted in the resignation of Mr Speaker, a tragedy for this place that we have never outlived, and, of course, Mr Snedden had it right. In response to other complaints that I have made in a proper fashion in this place, during Question time and at other times, Madam Speaker has said-the Leader of the House may get up in a minute and say this also-`You had better change the Standing Orders'. Well, we know who has the power to change Standing Orders. But that is not necessary. The Standing Orders of other countries, where all the questions are answered, are very similar to ours. It is the power of the Speaker and the support that the Parliament, particularly the Government, gives to the Speaker, that is the difference. There is a change of attitude, because I think they take the job seriously, impartially. The Speaker is not just a party tool. Speaker Snedden said to the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), `No, I will not permit the honourable gentleman to proceed on that matter'. To the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), he said, `Order! The Minister will resume his seat'. To Mr Nixon, he said, `The Minister will resume his seat'. He again ordered him to resume his seat. He also ordered the previous speaker, the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), to resume his seat. In other words, the Speaker had the courage and conviction, and the knowledge of support from the members on his side, that if he did that, they would stand behind him. Members even voted for various Speakers when they named someone from their own side, as you Mr Acting Speaker, clearly should have done today. I sympathise with you because I know what this Leader of the House would have instructed his members to do. Firstly, he would not have moved the motion-and I challenge him to say differently-just as Mr Daly failed to move it. The Leader of the National Party had to move the motion. The result was 59 votes to 55. Four Australian Labor Party members, to their credit, who were so disgusted on that occasion, did not vote. That is what we are up against. There are probably other reasons why this has happened, why the standard of the Speaker has been dragged down? On 27 August 1981, at page 856 of Hansard, we see the attitude of the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Speaker, which is carried through to today, when he said: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What sort of double standards are you allowing in your ruling? On the next page, still addressing the Speaker, he said: You are allowing him to get away with murder. This is not a censure. These are the standards that have been set and which are in the mind of the Prime Minister. He continued: I rise to a point of order . . . that is the third time . . . That is the third occasion on which the Minister has defied your ruling and has gone on and contradicted the ruling that you have given . . . the Minister has done it three times. There is a double standard in this House. I say that there is a double standard in this place now. But, of course, the honourable member for Wills, now the Prime Minister, was never required to move a censure motion; nor was he thrown out of the place for it, and nor was he thrown out for calling the then Prime Minister a liar. I can tell you, Mr Acting Speaker, that Liberal Party members at that time were terribly concerned that Speaker Snedden had not named the present Prime Minister in those circumstances, but they stood behind him. That is why he had the authority of this place, that is why he was considerably different to you, and that is why we have moved this censure motion against you today. It is a tragedy that this place has sunk so low; that I and others have had to sink so low. Only you can change that and only you can change. If you come in here tomorrow, we will give you short questions seeking information. I challenge you to answer them. I challenge you to say to all the Ministers in this place, `For just one day we will throw the rule book of the Australian Labor Party conference. We will give the Australian people a fair go. We will see whether we can explain our Government'. The other day, in response to one of these actions it was you who said that we were only creating disruption because we had nothing to ask. I put out a press release and asked the press to study our questions quite openly, to see whether they were irrelevant, smart alec or too long. They were none of those things. The problem was that the Government could not answer them. In the end as we saw this week, it went back to replacing rhetoric for substance. It is very good at doing that. If it wants an academy award every year we will get the Speaker to award it. It is a bit like the Brownlow or Sandover medals. The Speaker, as the umpire, could give one of us an academy award for acting. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) would be a front runner at the moment. I would like him to tell a few people how he is going to fix their problems and their low standard of living. We know it has sunk tremendously. That is the real problem. But, Mr Acting Speaker, if you are not going to give the Australian people a fair go, we will have to censure you. Mr Acting Speaker, you have been wrong today and you have been wrong for a long time because you have allowed this situation to develop. We have no defence because we lack the numbers. We can only make a fuss. It is up to you to stop this with the assistance of this Government and this Leader of the House. I hope he says, during his speech, that he would vote with the Speaker if he or she named someone. If he does not say it, we will know that the situation has not changed. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before I call on the Leader of the House, for the information of new members-I am not meaning to be gratuitous here but a number of members are not aware of this-in censure motions of the Speaker, the Speaker is not allowed to participate in the debate. I would not like that to be construed by new members as a lack of courage from the Chair. I am conforming with the rules of the House. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(3.36) —To clear the decks completely regarding the question raised by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) in that parting remark of his about whether we would exercise discipline on this side of the House, I inform him that we would. The point is that the issue does not arise. His sanctimonious behaviour in this debate and the sanctimonious behaviour of the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) obscure nothing of the role they have played in this Parliament since it has been convened. The honourable member for O'Connor comes in here and he is quiet in his presentation for the simple reason that he had to fill in 15 minutes. Fifteen minutes of specious argument cannot be delivered at a massive rate of decibels; it has to be delivered with a degree of calm, which caused a degree of surprise around the House because it is totally inconsistent with the rest of his behaviour here. I am grateful about one thing in this debate and the Question Time that preceded it, and that is that it has not taken place on a broadcast day, because we witnessed a persistent defiance of the Chair by honourable members opposite. Virtually every point of order that was raised in this place today, and has been raised since this Parliament was convened, was based in part on a legitimate question under Standing Orders but always it was unfailingly accompanied by an effort to defy the Chair. Nobody in the Press Gallery-they were described as having togas and laurel wreaths by the honourable member for O'Connor-has been fooled because his party room leaks like a sieve. It is well known around this chamber and in the Gallery that the Opposition's tactics organisations have included a determination to defy the Chair and the Standing Orders of this House. Its behaviour is consistent with that fact. You, Mr Acting Speaker, are unfortunate in that you were not actually meant to be the victim of this campaign. In fact, Madam Speaker was meant to be the victim, but this motion has been coming for a long time and her unfortunate accident and illness have, fortunately in her case, deprived her of having to be subjected to this. Honourable members opposite have never sat easily with a female Speaker. They have operated in this place over the last year or so in a state of constant defiance. If one wants a particular example of that, one can see it in the bogus points of order that have been taken over the last week or so by the honourable member for O'Connor. I admit that the technique is interesting and intriguing. He has come in here and abused the points of order system by not raising points of order in this House but by in fact quoting past points of order which have been raised. He did it here again today. I ask honourable members to read back through Hansard and see it both in what he has said today and what he has raised in his points of order over the last week. I only cite these irrelevancies as evidence of the fact that he and his colleagues have decided on a strategy of defying the Chair in this place. Mr Tuckey —Mr Acting Speaker-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor had better have a proper point of order. Mr Tuckey —I have, sir. I really and truly was trying to defend your position. He is suggesting that-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Come to your point of order. Mr Tuckey —That is it. I tried to defend you. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Resume your seat. Mr BEAZLEY —This is exactly the point. That is precisely the type of bogus point of order that the honourable member for O'Connor and others on the front bench have been persistently raising in Question Time. A slightly different technique for a point of order was used here today. The honourable member for O'Connor knows, as does every honourable member in this House, that the substance of what is presented by a person raising a point of order has absolutely no validity at all and is irrelevant-be it Hayden, be it the Treasurer (Mr Keating), be it any of the honourable members opposite, or be it honourable members who were here in a private member's capacity and who subsequently became Speakers but who took points of order when they happened to be backbenchers or frontbenchers. Points of order occur in the argy-bargy of parliamentary debate all the time and-as I will get onto-excessively as far as the honourable members opposite are concerned. The honourable member for O'Connor came in here today citing a point of order by Hayden as an authority on points of order. What more abuse of the forms of the House could there be than to try persistently, both in Question Time and now, to raise those questions as valid. I am not insulting my former colleagues in this regard. The simple fact is that the only statements on points of order that count are statements that emanate from the Speaker when those points of order are raised. The mere fact that somebody in this chamber raises a point of order is neither here nor there as far as precedents in this House is concerned. But the abuse of Question Time and the harassing of the Speaker are directly attributable to the honourable member for O'Connor, as he seeks to carve out a role for himself following his demotion. Honourable members in this House ought to reflect that when the honourable member for O'Connor gets up and raises a point of order which is based on a point of order raised by somebody else and when he quotes their views, he is, in fact, highly likely to be disorderly. An extraordinary tolerance has been exercised by the Chair towards honourable members opposite in this regard. Some statements were raised by the Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for O'Connor about alleged points of practice. They got a few quotes through Hansard saying, `The Minister will resume his seat'. I do not know how many times I have sat in this chamber and heard instructions to Ministers on this side of the House to resume their seats. They would certainly provide a heck of a lot thicker set of papers than was presented by the honourable member for O'Connor or the Leader of the National Party. But he tries to come in here and say that somehow or other these sorts of instructions given to Ministers were given only by Speaker Snedden and Liberal Speakers in the past and that, by implication, you, Mr Acting Speaker, and Speaker Child ought to be censured because you have failed to deliver those admonitions when deserved. In fact you do. You have frequently had recourse to it. Your problem in this place is that you are subject to constant barrage and harassment. The honourable member for O'Connor says that we need to look at what has happened recently as an explanation for the behaviour of honourable members on that side of the House. I will produce a few statistics for him. He has been cheerful about trotting out statistics for us, such as the 1976 statistics on questions asked. I think that if he took the Opposition's average in government it was around 14 1/2. Our average in government has been around 12 1/2-admittedly less than those of honourable members opposite. I accept that. But it ain't the difference between 19 and 11.8. I will go to the matter of points of order in Question Time, because it exposes the strategy that the Opposition has pursued in this place. I will start with points of order in Question Time in 1982. Some honourable members on this side of the House will recollect the circumstances of 1982-most of them have joined us since then because they have been victorious on the basis of the way in which we conducted Question Time in 1982. We subjected the Government's handling of taxation administration to the most rigorous analysis. I can remember those Question Times. We used to stand this Parliament on its head. We used to have censure motion after censure motion. We got right at the guts of the administration of taxation policy of the then Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). We got right to the heart of it. In that period we took 61 points of order. Last year-not the last few weeks-144 points of order were taken in Question Time. I have not yet taken out the statistics for this year but I will do that at the end of the session. It is interesting that that was when Speaker Child first began her operations as Speaker of this House. When Speaker Jenkins was in the chair, who gave-as far as anyone on this side of the House can recollect-no different rulings on points of order or other matters than those given by Speaker Child, 92 points of order were taken. There have been more than 61 points of order during this time-there have been 92. Since Speaker Child has taken the position of Chair there has been a systematic attack on the Chair. This systematic attack is in fact represented in the statistics. These are far more significant statistics than the difference between 14 1/2 questions and 12 1/2 questions. This is 61 points of order versus 144 points of order-a far more significant difference between the two. If honourable members look at that effective trebling of those points of order, they will see why the time permits only 12 1/2 questions to be asked as opposed to 14 1/2 questions. That is all. No longer will they be able to come into this place and present their bogus statistics and ridiculous points of order based on totally insubstantial presentations and get away with it or try to clothe themselves in a cloth of Standing Orders which is something they have persistently done in their behaviour in this House. The honourable member for O'Connor and, to a lesser extent, the Leader of the National Party, have been, by any interpretation, totally disorderly. It is the enormous tolerance of the Chair that has permitted them, under standing order 303, to survive in this place for so long when it is a requirement that persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House is disorderly, and persistently and wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair is disorderly. Mr Sinclair interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the National Party. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member for O'Connor said that policy announcements were made by him. This is another example of getting closer to a relevant point of order being made by the Opposition from time to time but still not getting there. That part of Standing Orders which is persistently quoted is: . . . Questions should not ask Ministers: . . . (b) to announce the Government's policy, That is fine. It goes on: but may seek an explanation regarding the policy of the Government and its application . . . It goes on. Policy matters in this chamber are permitted airing under that process. But honourable members opposite choose to ignore that section of the Standing Orders. Why? Because they want to establish a position whereby they can make a disorderly point in this place. Mr Wilson —Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few minutes ago you warned the Leader of the National Party. I rise to inquire whether the ruling that you have given is setting a precedent in that when a Speaker or Acting Speaker is subject to a censure motion he does not warn any member-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member for Sturt is a decent man and a decent person in this place. This is the only defence that gets mounted here of the Speaker and the honourable member seeks to make sure that that defence is not made. He has been in this place longer than I have and he knows that that is a totally bogus point of order that he has taken. Opposition members interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr Wilson —It is not a bogus point of order. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Sturt as well. Mr BEAZLEY —That totally bogus point of order is a continuation of the Opposition's harassment of the Speaker and its deliberate defiance of the Chair. We are not going to take any more of this nonsense. We are not going to subject you, Mr Acting Speaker, to any more of this hypocritical unction. I move: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Courtice, B. W. McHugh, J.Crawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. C. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, JohnGriffiths, A. G. Scott, LesHand, G. L. Simmons, D. W.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Hawke, R. J. L. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Willis, R.Johns, G. T. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McGauran P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Moore, J. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Nehl, G. B.Brown, N. A. Peacock, A. S.Cadman, A. G. Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldBowen, Lionel McArthur, F. S.Blewett, N. Millar, P. C.Klugman, R. E. Burr, M. A.Bilney, G. N. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Moore, J. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Nehl, G. B.Brown, N. A. Peacock, A. S.Cadman, A. G. Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Courtice, B. W. McHugh, J.Crawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. C. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, JohnGriffiths, A. G. Scott, LesHand, G. L. Simmons, D. W.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Hawke, R. J. L. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Willis, R.Johns, G. T. Wright, K. W. Cameron, Donald Darling E. E.McArthur, F. S. Bowen LionelMillar, P. C. Blewett, N.Burr, M. A. Klugman, R. E.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Bilney, G. H. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat of higher interest rates and their adverse effect on living standards as a consequence of the economic mismanagement of the Hawke Government. Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, Peter.Dubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGorman, R. N. J. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W.Johns, G. T. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Moore, J. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Nehl, G. B.Brown, N. A. Peacock, A. S.Cadman, A. G. Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson. I. B. CHunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldBowen, Lionel McArthur, F. S.Blewett, N. Millar, P. C.Klugman, R. E. Burr, M. A.Bilney, G. H. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —I present the amended report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 20 October 1988. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Motion by (Mr MacKellar)-by leave-agreed to: That the report be adopted in lieu of the report presented on 13 October 1988. The report read as follows- Amended report relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 20 October 1988 The Selection Committee has amended the list of items of private Members' business which it has approved to be accorded priority on Thursday, 20 October 1988. The amended order of precedence and allotment of time determined by the Committee for each item of business is shown in the list. The Committee recommends that the amended report be adopted. Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted *1 MR PORTER: To move-That- (1) the Government's failed social and economic policies have caused widespread poverty among Australian families which will not be overcome by the Government's new family assistance package; and (2) the Government must reverse the record interest rates, high unemployment, high marginal tax rates, housing shortages, high rents and falling value of family allowances if it is to offer real assistance to Australian families. (Notice given 12 October 1988.) 1 hour 25 minutes *2 MR TICKNER: To move-That this House recognises- (1) that the question of human rights is a legitimate international concern, transcending national boundaries and rejects attempts to describe a concern for abuses of human rights as interference in the internal affairs of other states; and (2) the contribution made by Amnesty International in defending human rights around the world. (Notice given 19 October 1988.) 35 minutes *3 MR MILTON: To move-That this House- (1) recognises the vital and creative role which public enterprise has provided in the development of Australia's economy and, in particular, the significant contributions made by the Commonwealth Bank, Telecom, Qantas and Australian Airlines; and (2) places on record its view that public ownership is an important and essential ingredient of economic policy. (Notice given 25 August 1988.) any remaining private Members' business time * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day LEO McLEAY 19 October 1988...Chairman Dr HEWSON(Wentworth) —Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr HEWSON —I do. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Dr HEWSON —It has come to my attention that today I was attacked in the Senate by Senator Walsh on two grounds. The first was obliquely in relation to what I have been saying about interest rates. The second was an attempt on his part, I believe, to link that with my past association with Macquarie Bank Ltd as a director of that institution and as a consulting economist. I make two comments about this matter. First, I resigned my directorship and all links with Macquarie Bank Ltd effective on 6 October last year, and I notified the Registrar of Members' Interests under the normal parliamentary procedure in relation to that resignation. Secondly, I stand, of course, by what I have been saying on interest rates; and that had nothing to with my association with any institution. It had to do with my analysis of the situation. There is no doubt in my mind that interest rates have been held down in the past and that they are on the way up. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.22) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983 to implement the Government's reform package for the Australian National Railways Commission (AN). The major elements in the package of amendments proposed in the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill are to widen AN's powers to expand the scope of its business activities, to extend the planning and accountability mechanisms which apply to AN and to remove most of the remaining day-to-day controls over AN's activities. Reform of its business enterprises is an important element of the Government's third term agenda. The Government recognises that its transport and communications business enterprises must operate as efficiently and effectively as possible if Australia is to succeed in reshaping key sectors of the economy and in improving our international competitiveness. The Federal Government's railway, AN, provides an important element of both the east-west transport service linking our major manufacturing and export centres of Sydney and Melbourne to Adelaide and Perth, and of the north-south corridor through Alice Springs to Darwin. On the mainland, AN operates non-metropolitan freight and passenger services in South Australia, extending from South Australia to Kalgoorlie in the west, to Alice Springs in the north and to Broken Hill in the east. In Tasmania, AN operates freight services. AN's mainland business competes for freight traffic with the road operations of the major freight forwarders, independent `truckies' and with coastal shipping. It also competes with coach and bus passenger services. Interstate transport accounts for more than 75 per cent of AN's commercial freight business. Changes to AN's legislation in 1983 designed to promote AN's role as a business undertaking have already done much to put AN on a more commercial footing. Over the past five years, AN has greatly improved its performance-its call on the taxpayer has been reduced in real terms by 66 per cent, and it is expected to break even on its mainland freight operations this financial year. In relation to AN's Tasmanian operations the Government announced in May 1988 that it would continue to support Tasrail for the next five years. AN expects to break even on Tasrail operations by 1993-94. The reform package is designed to consolidate the achievements to date and provide AN with an environment in which it can achieve the highest possible level of operational and financial efficiency while continuing its move to profitability. It will continue the process of commercialisation initiated in 1983 allowing AN greater freedom to manage and greater flexibility to compete in the market-place. The Government considers that AN should have a further opportunity to consolidate its position and improve its performance before more changes are made. Greater freedom to manage means that AN should be freed from most of the remaining day-to-day controls over its activities. Thus the Bill amongst other things removes the requirement for AN to obtain ministerial approval to enter into contracts; removes the requirement to obtain the Treasurer's approval for the terms and conditions of individual borrowings, investments or banking arrangements; and empowers AN to recommend an auditor of its choice. AN will remain subject to Loan Council processes for its borrowings. Removal of day-to-day controls will not, however, mean any lessening of accountability. AN will continue to be required to provide regularly to the Minister strategic corporate plans for consideration and response; and to work towards an overall financial target agreed in advance by the Minister. In addition, this Bill will require AN to advise the Minister of any matter which significantly affects the outlook as established in the corporate plan as soon as possible after such matters become known. Any additional costs arising from government ownership for items such as superannuation and auditing requirements will be taken into account in determining AN's financial target. AN will continue to report on its financial performance through an annual report. AN must be able to consider offering the same broad range of services as its competitors and have the ability to respond rapidly to changes in the market and to consider business opportunities as they arise. Accordingly, this Bill widens the scope of associated or supplementary business activities into which AN might consider expanding. Commissioners will now be subject to dismissal for ongoing underperformance-in addition to current grounds such as misbehaviour, mental illness et cetera-in line with the emphasis on accountability for results. The Managing Director will be appointed by the Minister after receiving a recommendation from the Commission. Terms and conditions of employment for the Managing Director will be a matter for the Commission. The Commission will consult with the Remuneration Tribunal about the remuneration package for the Managing Director in line with the amendment of the Remuneration Tribunals Act introduced in the Government Business Enterprise (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill (Part V). The transition to the new arrangements is expected to be completed by July next year. Finally, the legislation we are proposing will make no calls on the revenues of the Commonwealth. Improvements in the performance of AN that result from the implementation of the reform package, of which this Bill is a part, will benefit taxpayers by further reducing AN's call on the Budget. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Dr Hewson) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Transport and Communication)(4.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986. The establishment of the Federal Airports Corporation has been one of the major aviation initiatives of the Hawke Government. The decision to establish the Corporation recognised a long overdue requirement to put the management of Australia's major airports on a proper commercial footing. Accordingly, the Federal Airports Corporation Act has provided for the Corporation to have a clear commercial charter and the ability to respond to the infrastructure needs of the aviation industry. On 1 January 1988 the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) assumed responsibility for the operation of 17 major airports throughout Australia. These included the primary and secondary airports in each of the State capital cities as well as Coolangatta and Launceston airports. The Government announced in the Budget that it had decided that the FAC should assume responsibility for a further group of airports. The FAC is to take over the operation of the Alice Springs, Mount Isa and Mackay airports. It will also assume responsibility for the civil aviation facilities at Darwin, Canberra and Townsville airports. The Darwin, Canberra and Townsville airports are joint user airports which serve both defence and civil aviation purposes. The Federal Airports Corporation Act currently provides for the Corporation to operate airports which are declared as Federal airports for purposes of the legislation. The Act does not specifically provide for the Corporation to enter into arrangements for the shared operation of joint user airports. Moreover, the Act requires that Federal airports be on land which is owned by the Corporation. The Bill before the House provides for the amendment of the Federal Airports Corporation Act in order to provide a framework within which the Government can determine arrangements for the operation, by the Corporation and the Department of Defence, of the Darwin, Canberra and Townsville airports. The Bill also provides a basis on which any future transfers to the Corporation of civil facilities on joint user aerodromes may be undertaken. The Corporation will be able to enter into arrangements with the Commonwealth under which the Corporation will participate in the operation of jointly used areas and will be able to levy charges where it has financial involvement in these areas. This provision would have application in circumstances where the primary responsibility for areas such as runways and taxiways is not vested in the Corporation. The Bill provides for the Minister to determine that ownership of the land on which a Federal airport is located need not be transferred to the Corporation. The Corporation could instead lease the area from the Commonwealth or enter into other arrangements for it to control that area. The Government considers that the arrangements for the operation of joint user aerodromes for which this Bill provides will enable both the commercial operation of designated areas by the Corporation as well as providing the necessary safeguards to ensure that the integrity of defence operations is maintained. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Dr Hewson) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Howe, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(4.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wheat Marketing Act 1984 to reflect the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport. The Royal Commission was established in October 1986 by the Commonwealth and mainland States. Its charter was to identify the most efficient and cost effective integrated system for the provision of grain storage, handling, transport and port terminal services and to make recommendations on changes necessary to put such a system into effect. In its final report the Commission concluded that there were significant areas where the present system was not providing the best service to grain growers. It also found that significant savings of around $10 per tonne could be achieved from a more flexible and competitive distribution system. This translates to total resource cost savings across Australia annually of around $100m. To achieve these savings the Commission recommended that grain marketers and growers be given greater choice in selecting their least cost grain distribution paths and that greater competition be permitted in the provision of grain distribution services, including all elements of the grain distribution system-marketing boards, storage and handling, land transport, and ports and shipping. The Royal Commission proposed that marketing boards take more responsibility for the efficiency of the grain distribution system, particularly the minimisation of storage, handling and transport costs, and the passing of actual costs of port services and sea transport back to growers to encourage competition between ports. It also recommended that marketing boards be given the capacity to exercise choice over licensed receivers. Similarly in the storage and handling area, the thrust of the Commission's report is toward greater competition and grower choice, with the main recommendations involving the removal of sole receival rights, commercialisation of bulk handling authorities, and bringing them under the Trade Practices Act. In the land transport area, the recommendations are aimed to encourage greater competition between road and rail and allow growers wider choice. They include removing restrictions on the use of road for grain transport, the removal of the $2.50 surcharge charged by Australian National Railways in South Australia, greater commercialisation of rail services, and bringing railway services under the Trade Practices Act. In addition, the Commission recommended specific targeted funding for local roads in the short term and, in the longer term, the establishment of an efficient road user charge and funding allocation system. For ports and shipping there was support for the continuation of moves to commercialise port authorities and support for more competition in the provision of port services. The Government strongly endorses the Commission's recommendations and is moving to implement them as quickly as possible. It is continuing to build on reforms to improve the efficiency of the road transport industry. Agreement has been reached with State and Territory governments on a single set of rules for the country's trucking industry. The Government has also introduced a new five-year road funding program which provides for specific assistance to national arterial roads. The Commission's recommendations in regard to rail services are also well in hand as they apply to Australian National Railways. The amendments currently before the Parliament flow from the Commission's recommendations for the operation of marketing boards. In amending the Wheat Marketing Act in advance of the broader reforms being proposed for wheat marketing generally, the Government is clearly signalling its concern that the grains industry benefit as early as possible from the advantages of a system which offers greater flexibility and choice. Both the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) and the Grains Council of Australia endorse this approach. Improved efficiency and effectiveness in the grain distribution sector will of course have important flow-on effects for the competitive marketing of grain generally, both in Australia and overseas. The proposed amendments therefore represent an important step in achieving a framework within which the Australian wheat industry can effectively meet the challenges of the future. Specifically the Bill provides for the AWB to enter into contract for services relating to grain distribution and broadens the scope of the term `authorised receiver' to encompass all bodies corporate with whom the Australian Wheat Board has a contract for wheat receival. This means that no longer will the Wheat Board be constrained from dealing with bodies other than the sole receiver authorised in each State as at present. Rather, the Board will be able to contract with whomever will provide the best returns for growers. On the subject of returns to growers, the Bill provides a clear statement that the principal object of the Board shall be to maximise net returns to growers from the marketing of wheat and that this should be the overriding principle in the performance of its other functions. The Board will also be required to provide disaggregated charges for these services in its accounts to growers to the extent that this is possible and does not incur significant net additional costs. Growers will therefore be more aware of the costs associated with the individual services employed to receive, handle and transport their grain and will be in a better position to make choices as to their least cost grain path. This being said, I do not anticipate, and neither did the Royal Commission, that there will be dramatic changes in the short term. The current bulk handling authorities will remain the dominant providers of storage and handling services and road and rail transport will largely retain their existing tonnages. However, they will be exposed to competition and face pressure to contain their costs. What is envisaged is a progressive redirection of grain flows through the most efficient storage and handling facilities, and a reallocation of the grain transportation task between road and rail so that each undertakes that part of the task for which it is best suited. These and other changes announced by the Government are significant in opening the door to competitive pressures. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the bulk of the Commission's recommendations fall within the ambit of the States. I am therefore hopeful that the States will follow suit, as I have urged them to do. In this respect I am encouraged by recent announcements that the New South Wales Government has adopted the Royal Commission's recommendations and will also be introducing changes to its system. The passage of the Bill will involve no costs to the Commonwealth. On the contrary, it will facilitate the development of a more cost effective grain distribution system, with increased industry efficiencies and benefits to the community generally. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Dr Hewson) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. When I introduced the Bill for the Child Support Act in the Parliament late last year I indicated that maintenance would be able to be collected for all children of a marriage or for those ex-nuptial children where a State had referred its powers. Four States-New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania-agreed to refer their powers relating to ex-nuptial children to the Commonwealth. I also indicated that special provision was being made to provide for the collection of maintenance of ex-nuptial children of Queensland and Western Australia should either State, in the future, refer its powers to the Commonwealth, pass corresponding legislation or adopt the Child Support Act. In the event, both Queensland and Western Australia have now indicated that they intend to adopt the Child Support Act as a means of including ex-nuptial children in their States in the Government's new child support scheme. So as to enable the adoption of the Child Support Act by Queensland and Western Australia to be effective, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has advised that some minor technical amendments are required to be made so that the Child Support Act will also apply where maintenance orders or agreements in respect of ex-nuptial children are made under the law of a State. This Bill simply makes those technical amendments. I would like to take this opportunity briefly to mention the present position in relation to the possible use of the Child Support Agency for collection of maintenance for State wards. Discussions are proceeding with each of the States through the income security subcommittee of social welfare administrators. While the Government is pleased with the progress of those discussions I would not expect any State to seek to use the Child Support Agency for collecting maintenance for state wards until those discussions are concluded. I now present the explanatory memorandum and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Hewson) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(4.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains amendments to the Social Security Act 1947 and minor consequential amendments to other Acts. The amendments are to implement decisions announced in the 1988 May Statement and the 1988-89 Budget Speech, and to introduce certain other minor amendments. The amendments to the Social Security Act include further, major steps in the implementation of policy changes flowing from the Social Security Review established in 1985. These steps, relating to payments for children, sole parent programs and the long term unemployed are further tangible evidence of the Government's commitment to a fairer distribution of income in Australia. It was the Hawke Labor Government which placed the abolition of child poverty on the political agenda of this country-no other political grouping was pressing it as a priority. This Government deliberately chose not simply to make the attack on child poverty a priority; we invited the Australian people to judge us on our performance in delivering on that priority. This Bill contains a range of further measures in the progressive implementation of the centrepiece of our attack on child poverty-the families package. That package draws on the work of the Social Security Review in its first issues paper Assistance to Families with Children. Rates of family allowance supplement (FAS) and child payments to pensioners and beneficiaries will rise in December 1988. For each child younger than 13, families will receive $24 a week, an increase of $2. For each child aged 13 to 15, a payment of $31 a week will be made, up by $3. Six hundred thousand families with 1,200,000 children will be better off as a result. The Bill will implement the first steps to achieving an integrated child payment. Family allowance, child disability allowance, double orphan's pension and family allowance supplement, including rent assistance, are to be integrated to achieve the one fortnightly payment for children. Next year we will take the further step of integrating the additional benefit paid for children with this fortnightly payment. The integration of family allowance, child disability allowance, double orphan's pension and family allowance supplement will avoid the possibility of FAS becoming a marginal welfare payment-as occurred with the old family income supplement. There will be the one payment, payable in respect of 80 per cent of Australian children, the rate of which will vary depending on factors such as: the number of children in the family; the income of the parents; the special difficulties faced by families caring for children with disabilities, or those whose natural parents are not able to care for them; and the costs faced by families who have young children from a multiple birth. The basis for income testing of FAS will be changed. Currently the income test, which operates on income received in the previous four weeks, encourages perceptions of the payment as a welfare measure. It is difficult to administer and creates anomalies for many low paid workers whose income fluctuates. The Bill will implement an income test based on the taxable income of the claimant and her or his spouse. This change will substantially simplify understanding of the payment and enable simpler administration. The change highlights the importance of FAS in our tax transfer system-making FAS, in every sense, as good as a tax cut for low income families. The move to taxable income as the basis of income testing from 29 December 1988 effectively indexes the income test threshold for FAS. Payments in 1989 will generally be based on taxable income for the year ended 30 June 1988. As from 1 January 1990, the threshold for this income test is to be indexed in line with the consumer price index (CPI) increase in the previous financial year. This will ensure that income increases that match price increases will not erode child payments or contribute to work disincentives and poverty traps. One hundred and seventy-nine thousand families, including 430,000 children, will benefit from this constructive measure. The Bill contains three measures to ensure that child payments are directed to those families in most need by improving targeting and reducing the scope for abuse of the system. First, an assets test is to be introduced in establishing entitlement to the family allowance supplement. Like the income test, the assets test will take CPI increases into account. From the last payday in 1988 FAS will not be payable to a person when the value of the assets of the person and her or his spouse exceeds $300,000. Property excluded from the pensions assets test, such as the family home, will also be excluded from the FAS assets test. Second, family allowance supplement will not be payable in respect of any child who has unearned taxable income in excess of the tax free threshold which is currently $416 per annum. This will prevent parents from qualifying for FAS by divesting themselves of income in favour of their children and ensure proper targeting of the payment. Third, payment of additional benefit and mother's-guardian's allowance to an unemployment or sickness beneficiary who is contributing to the maintenance of a child who is not in his or her care will cease. It is both more efficient and more equitable that such payments be made directly to the custodian through the pensions, benefits or child allowance systems. In its third issues paper, Bringing Up Children Alone, the Social Security Review highlighted the difficulties faced by sole parent families-difficulties of unfair and inaccurate stigmatisation, of inadequate income and labour market barriers. The Government has addressed these problems in a systematic way. We have introduced the child support scheme and will proceed, next year, with Stage 2 of that scheme. The families package has delivered major increases in payments for sole parents. In the Budget the Government announced the introduction of the JET scheme-jobs, education and training-for sole parents. JET will provide comprehensive advice, assistance, labour market training, education and child care. The JET scheme is designed on the basis that sole parents usually receive pensions for relatively short periods-until they find work or repartner. It will be targeted to those sole parents most at risk of long term dependence on pension or benefit: teenagers, those whose youngest child has just commenced school and those whose youngest child is 14 or over. This Bill contains changes to complement the introduction of JET. The supporting parent's benefit and widow's pension class A will be replaced by a uniform sole parent's pension. This change rids the social security system of categories of benefit based on moral judgments of the worth of individuals and provides a pension which acknowledges the present need for support of sole parents, regardless of the cause of the sole parenthood. The sole parent's pension will be available to all those to whom widow's pension class A or supporting parent's benefit would have been available. The new pension will also extend support to a small number of people who had previously been ineligible for benefit because of the requirement for them to have legal custody, such as some grandmothers. However, this extension will be limited to those who have cared for a particular child for 12 months or more-in order to ensure that the availability of sole parent's pension does not distort established patterns of foster care or otherwise unduly encourage single people to take on the care of children for whom they have no formal responsibility. In Issues Paper No 4, Income Support for the Unemployed in Australia-Towards a More Active System, the Social Security Review dealt with the unemployed. Flowing from that paper, in the Budget the Government announced the implementation of New-Start, a comprehensive program to assist unemployment beneficiaries who have been receiving benefit for 12 months or more. New-Start will consist of a number of policy and legislative elements which together recognise the need to overcome the self-perpetuating situation of joblessness, poverty and dependence often encountered by people who remain out of work for long periods. Their job skills become eroded or irrelevant, employers are increasingly reluctant to take them on, their self-confidence and motivation evaporate and they become enmeshed in a cycle of financial hardship and dependence on social security payments. New-Start introduces through this Bill an employment entry payment of $100 which will be payable to people in this category when they return to full time employment. It is to help them meet the short term costs of moving into and retaining full time work, such as clothing and transport costs and union membership, and is payable only once within a 12 month period. This group of people will also benefit from a waiver of the waiting period which currently applies should they need to claim unemployment benefit again within three months of the cancellation of their last benefit. This reduces the disincentive of moving from benefit to short term full time work or work of uncertain duration. Unemployment beneficiaries will also be able to undertake a wider range of activities which promote employability while still retaining eligibility for benefit. By allowing them to participate up to certain limits and with CES approval in full time training courses or voluntary work, the barrier to people attempting to improve and maintain their job skills will be reduced. New-Start is an imaginative strategy for improving the prospects for the long term unemployed to reintegrate into the work force. It will deliver real opportunities to a group of people who have been excluded from the benefits of the massive job growth we have seen in Australia over the last five years. Job search allowance is paid to unemployed young people aged 16 and 17 years subject to an income test on both their own and their parents' income. This Bill increases the threshold for that parental income test by $950 to $16,950 a year and introduces indexation of the threshold in line with increases in average weekly earnings. This action prevents the undermining of the entitlement through routine income increases while still maintaining the intention of the income test. Children in authorised foster care will be exempted altogether from the application of the parental income test on job search allowance entitlement. The young homeless allowance which is payable to young unemployed job search allowance recipients is to be increased in this Bill to $27.85 a week so that the two allowances combined will be the same rate as that paid under Austudy to 16- and 17-year-old students who are independent and living away from home. Certain student children who attract the payment of defined allowances will be deemed to be covered by the family allowance provisions in 1988 so as to retain family allowance supplement entitlement. This Bill introduces a measure to provide special support to newly released prisoners on their reintegration into society. To meet the special adjustment problems of newly released prisoners, especially urgent housing, food, clothing and transport costs and the like, a double payment of benefit will be made in respect of their first week after claiming. Compassionate considerations aside, it is simply not in society's interests to have released prisoners reoffending because of lack of immediate support. In conjunction with this measure the Government is consulting the States to achieve effective coordination between prisons and my Department to ensure released prisoners obtain the income support they need when they need it. An important segment of the Bill in terms of the Government's high priority for protecting the rights of the individual in the social security process is the one dealing with the gathering and disclosure of information. This segment introduces a clearer statement of how the Department of Social Security's information gathering and disclosing powers are to operate. The measure is in response to a perception by some in the community that the current powers can trespass upon the privacy of individuals, especially those who are no longer clients of the Department. The powers to compulsorily obtain information will be limited by provisions of the Bill. These limitations will be additional to those already contained in the legislation. Further, the powers conferred by the Social Security Act in this respect will be exercised in accordance with the principles of the Privacy Bill. Compliance by the Department with the limitations inserted by this Bill and with information privacy principles will be subject to audit by the Privacy Commissioner. The circumstances in which the Secretary to the Department of Social Security may authorise the disclosure of information held by the Department to third parties on public interest grounds are to be clarified in guidelines to be issued by the Minister and tabled in both Houses. The Bill will end the sexist distinction currently embodied in the Class C category of widow's pension. That pension will be replaced in March 1989 with a widowed person's allowance. This will remove anomalies in the coverage of income support to people without dependent children who have been recently widowed, including inconsistencies in the treatment of widowed males and females. The remainder of the Bill deals with administrative reforms and minor amendments which will improve the quality and consistency of service provided to social security clients. Directions to be issued by the Minister and tabled in Parliament will make clearer and more consistent the exercise of the power to waive or write off debts owed to the Commonwealth under the Social Security Act. Debts owed to the Commonwealth under the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs' assurances of support scheme are to be brought into line in their handling with debts arising under the Social Security Act. This will be done by providing a mechanism to recover from an assuror who has, for whatever reason, failed to adequately support a migrant under the assurances of support provisions any special benefit paid to the migrant under the Social Security Act. Overpayments of formal training allowance will be made recoverable from continuing social security payments. Refinements are to be made to the provisions governing the portability of Australian social security payments overseas. From May 1989, payment of family allowance will cease where the recipient has been overseas for three years or longer. From February 1989, pre-departure certificates will be required for all pensioners who leave Australia to enable continuation of payment of pension overseas after six months' absence. And recipients of the existing supporting parent's benefit or Class A widow's pension, or the new sole parent's pension-other than de jure widows-will have their overseas payments limited to 12 months from their departure from Australia if this was on or after 1 July 1988, or ceased on 1 July 1989 if they were already overseas as at 1 July 1988. The Bill removes anomalies in the provisions covering the payment of entitlements to people who are treated as unmarried and paid at the single rate because they are separated while still living under one roof, or where child disability allowance is paid to only one of the people in respect of a child formerly dependent upon them both. The reciprocal social security agreement with Canada will come into effect and be incorporated as a schedule in the Social Security Act. Certain New Zealand and United Kingdom payments, which are similar in nature to Australian payments that are exempt from the definition of `income', will also be treated as exempt income. Fortnightly reporting requirements for benefit will be relaxed for people living in remote communities, and married people separated owing to ill health will be entitled to twice the unmarried rate of remote area allowance where one spouse is dependent on the other. Members of the Defence Force Reserve will be exempted from the application of the work test on unemployment benefit while attending annual camp. A beneficiary who has not yet completed the 26 week waiting period for rent assistance and who has a short break in entitlement due to short term employment will not have to serve another full waiting period for rent assistance. In presenting this Bill I record the Government's appreciation to Professor Cass and those who have worked with her on the Social Security Review. The process of reform in social security is by no means complete. The Social Security Review has recently released a paper on disability issues which will form the basis of policy development for assistance to people with disabilities. Consultations on disability issues are indicating a fundamental shift in attitude about the range of activities that should be available for people with disabilities so they too can have a greater choice in their lives, including greater access to employment and training opportunities. Soon to be released is a paper titled Towards a National Retirement Incomes Policy which will assess the overall adequacy, equity and incentive effects of the current system of retirement incomes. This paper will propose longer-term directions for reform and is due for release within a few weeks. As a result of the work of the review, we can look forward to developing more flexible approaches to retirement, including opportunities for part time work in addition to retirement income and long-term care and social support systems for the elderly which encourage them to remain within the community. The culmination of the immensely valuable work of the Social Security Review will be the final report due for release early next year. Professor Cass' final report will address future directions in social security policy including how to simplify the system as well as options for a payment structure which is more tailored to the specific needs of disadvantaged people according to their stage in the life cycle and their capacity to participate in economic activity. Further reform in the social security area will be dominated by the need to achieve a more active labour market orientation of income support programs, not just for those who we may expect to be in employment but also for sole parents, for some older people and people with disabilities. Taken together, these measures will provide a significant impetus ensuring that all Australians have an opportunity to participate in this country's economic and social life. The major achievement of this Government in the social security area has been to align social policy objectives more closely with economic policy objectives, to support the broader process of structural change, and to ensure that Australians have adequate opportunities to participate in economic and social activities by equipping them with the necessary skills and training and by providing opportunities to all Australians to participate in economic recovery. This Bill is a significant step in that process. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Dr Hewson) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to obtain parliamentary approval for Australia to take up part of its allocated subscription to the third general capital increase of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). Honourable members will be aware that the main activity of the bank, which was established in 1947, is lending to developing countries. Up to the end of June 1988, the bank had lent about $US128 billion to its member countries. This money was largely borrowed from international financial markets. The cost to taxpayers in member countries in terms of paid-in capital subscriptions was only $US7.7 billion. Projects financed covered all the major sectors of economic development with an emphasis on infrastructure facilities in the transport and communication, industry and energy sectors, as well as projects for agriculture, education and water supply. An increasing proportion of bank loans-27 per cent of funds committed in 1987-88-finance imports in support of structural adjustment programs. In April 1988 IBRD governors approved a resolution authorising a $US74.8 billion general capital increase. Capital increases allow the bank to expand its borrowing on world capital markets and it is these borrowings which largely finance the bank's activities. The general capital increase will underpin the bank's operations well into the 1990's and allow the bank to carry through its programs aimed particularly at the most heavily indebted countries. In 1987-88 the bank made lending commitments of $US14.8 billion. The general capital increase will allow it to increase its lending to more than $US20 billion per annum by 1992-93. Under the general capital increase, Australia is entitled to subscribe to an additional 10,734 shares. The bank does not require full subscription from members immediately and members have until 1993 to subscribe, if they so desire, to the total number of shares allocated to them. The Government has decided that Australia will subscribe to 7,880 shares at an estimated cost over the five years 1988-89 to 1992-93 of $A35.65m. This is a very small proportion of expected Australian aid expenditure over this period. The Government has not decided whether Australia will subscribe to its remaining entitlement of 2,854 general capital increase shares or relinquish them for allocation to other members of the bank. The bank's projected higher lending levels are to be achieved progressively over a period of time, a gradual process which should be consistent with maintaining the quality of bank lending. Australia is a strong, but not uncritical, supporter of the IBRD. We are concerned that the bank maintains the high quality of its lending and continues to be cost effective. Australia has criticised the bank when appropriate with the aim of improving its overall efficiency. In particular, Australia has expressed concerns about the very fast rate of growth of large scale fast disbursing structural adjustment loans, the growing incidence of arrears on bank loans, and the need to further enhance the bank's work on environmental matters. The bank does have an important role to play in lending to support the adjustment process in developing countries. However, the bank should not be lending to any country for long term structural adjustment purposes in the absence of a suitable framework of macro-economic policies for that country. We must avoid a situation in which a country is able to obtain balance of payments financing from the bank when it has not been able to agree on an economic policy program with the International Monetary Fund. Clearly this would subvert the adjustment process. Furthermore the Bank must encourage effective adjustment and not replace private debt with public debt. The commercial banks must play their full part in the adjustment process. It is essential for the Bank to maintain its preferred creditor status. Without this the confidence of financial markets in the bank may be jeopardised with consequent adverse effects on the volume and terms of bank lending. The bank needs to pursue poverty alleviation and environmental aspects of its work, but it cannot compensate for all the shortcomings which might exist in national policies affecting the environment, poverty or anything else for that matter. Key issues such as population growth, natural resources, land ownership and government expenditure are sensitive matters of national policy. The bank can assist in these areas but cannot dictate solutions. Australia gains substantial benefits from its contributions to the IBRD. Benefits from our aid, including political benefits, depend on developmental effectiveness. The World Bank group, including the IBRD and its soft loan arm, the International Development Association (IDA), have a comprehensive and systematic project evaluation system which shows that most IBRD and IDA projects-72 per cent of those evaluated in 1987, for instance-achieve all or most of their objectives. The estimated average return on projects evaluated in calendar years 1986 and 1987, measured by the flow of net economic benefits over time, was 14.5 per cent. These are good results bearing in mind the difficult environment in which the World Bank operates. Developing countries are particularly vulnerable to external shocks, their social and political environment is subject to rapid shifts and they are often short of expertise and skills. Contributions to the IBRD allow us to participate in large development projects and widen the focus of our aid at a relatively low administrative cost. The World Bank group has an important catalytic role in tackling major international economic problems such as protection and debt. The bank provides a significant forum in which Australian initiatives can be pursued. Australia's membership of the IBRD also brings substantial commercial benefits. On a cumulative basis, Australia has received almost four times more from procurement by the IBRD than it has given in contributions to the IBRD. Australian co-financing of IBRD projects can result in significant procurement benefits. The benefits of IBRD membership have been recognised by Australian governments over the years since the bank's establishment. The report of the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program-the Jackson Committee-in 1984 recommended that support for development banks in general and for the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank in particular should be increased in relation to other multilateral funding. I believe it to be in Australia's interest to continue its policy of support of the IBRD by taking up the 7,880 shares of the IBRD's general capital increase. I commend the Bill to honourable members and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Sharp) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(5.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. For 58 years self-government for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has been an issue which has inspired considerable debate. The Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill 1988 now before the House will establish the ACT as a body politic, with the legislative and executive powers and responsibilities of the States and the Northern Territory. This Bill represents the most significant transfer of power, on a population basis, since Papua New Guinea became independent. It will allow 270,000 people the same democratic rights and social responsibilities as their fellow Australians. The ACT and the city of Canberra have well and truly come of age. Canberra is the nation's capital. It is the home of many of the symbols of our nationhood such as the National Gallery, the High Court of Australia, the National Library and of course this magnificent building, the home of the nation's Parliament. But, and this is often overlooked, it is also home for 270,000 people who live in the Australian Capital Territory. They go about the day to day business of their lives, working at their jobs, paying their taxes, making decisions about which schools their children will go to, which doctor or hospital will care for them when they are ill, just like every other Australian. However, unlike every other person in this country, where a fair go is the creed by which we live, they cannot elect a member of their own community to their own government. They have no say in the decisions which affect their everday lives. What an extraordinary admission in a country so committed to democratic ideals, and why? Are these people somehow different from other Australians? Are they second-class citizens in some way? Do they not understand, or have options on, the issues that confront them daily? Can they not be trusted with their own destiny? The answer to all these question is very simple. The only difference between these people and the rest of Australia is that they live in the Australian Capital Territory. Is it not something of an irony, that because this is the national capital, the symbol of Australian democracy, it has proven too hard for us to grant its citizens that most fundamental of democratic rights, the right to look after their own affairs? Canberra has long been regarded as a company town, with its economy inextricably tied to the public sector. Times have changed and the Territory has grown. It is now a mature City-State which can no longer look to the Commonwealth alone for the economic security of its citizens. The development of Canberra as the national capital is now virtually complete. The development of a diversified economy, incorporating a vibrant private sector is this community's right and need. The basis is there. Canberra already has a burgeoning tourism industry with the potential for bigger and better things. There is in place a tertiary education sector ready to make Canberra a centre of intellectual excellence and to support the development of modern, high technology industries. The ideas and the drive for Canberra's future should come from the people of this Territory. They need their own elected government to make the laws, establish the framework, and provide the creative spark that will change the focus of Canberra's development to make sure that the future needs of the community are best met. This Bill is the logical and inevitable political conclusion to the process of economic and administrative evolution which has taken place. The administration of the Territory has been radically altered since the first serious attempts to achieve self-government a few years ago. There are no longer 12 Commonwealth departments involved in territorial matters. Functions have been consolidated in a single administration complete with a stand-alone ACT Budget. These changes were introduced to ensure the smooth and orderly transition to self-government. The management of the Territory has now been arranged into a system that can and should be handed over to local political representatives. The Territory is unique. Virtually all its residents live in the one city-Canberra. It needs a form of government that acknowledges its unique nature and this is what is being proposed: one level of government appropriate to the City-State of the ACT. It needs a form of government that also recognises its situation as the nation's capital. This proposal has been designed to ensure that the Commonwealth will look after the national aspects and the ACT, the territorial and local aspects, in a manner that protects the interests of both. In establishing an ACT government, the Australian Capital Territory will be a body politic under the Crown. It will consist of a legislative arm and an executive arm to exercise powers as set out in the Bill. The dual nature of the Territory-home to both its residents and the nation's capital-will be reflected in the financial arrangements put in place by this Bill. The ACT will have the same legislative and executive powers and responsibility over finances as the States and the Northern Territory. The ACT will be treated by the Commonwealth on the same financial basis as the States and the Northern Territory. Fairness and equity will be assured. The ACT will be given protections consistent with those given the States and the Northern Territory, whilst the impact of the location of the nation's capital within its boundaries will be recognised. The Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 will be amended to recognise the ACT's financial autonomy and national capital aspects, as well as to allow for direct access by the ACT to the Grants Commission, at the ACT's request. Commonwealth funding to the ACT will fully recognise the effects of Canberra's role as the national capital and seat of Commonwealth government on such things as the standards and costs of works and services. This Bill explicitly provides that these circumstances be taken into account. The Commonwealth will retain responsibility for financing its functions within the Territory. The Bill provides that the ACT will not be liable for the cost of administering any function retained by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will provide additional assistance to the ACT for any further functions transferred from the Commonwealth in future years. The Government is concerned to see that the transfer of financial powers from the Commonwealth to the ACT, and the transition to Commonwealth, State and local government financial arrangements, is smooth, non-disruptive and fair. Commonwealth funding to the ACT will be guaranteed in real terms for the first two years of self-government. This guarantee also applied to the 1988-89 ACT Budget to protect the ACT from the funding reductions felt by the States and the Northern Territory and to maintain the base level of funding in the lead up to self-government. Funding has also been provided in this year's Budget to cover the additional recurrent costs to run the ACT Government, as well as the first Assembly election. As was done in the Northern Territory, the Government will also consider a grant to cover necessary establishment costs, such as those needed for a parliamentary library, a Treasury computer system and a building to house the Assembly and Executive. After the guarantee period, funding will be the subject of negotiations with the Executive to smooth the transition to processes consistent with Commonwealth, State and local government financial arrangements. These arrangements will complete the ongoing process of bringing ACT finances into line with the rest of Australia-a process which began in 1985-86. Throughout, the Government has taken into account the reports of the Commonwealth Grants Commission into ACT finances. In terms of the financial impact on the Commonwealth, the Bill will not involve additional Commonwealth expenditures other than the one-off establishment assistance. Savings will accrue to the Commonwealth through separation of responsibilities of ACT administration from the Commonwealth system. In the longer term, the arrangements will allow Commonwealth funding to the ACT on a basis more directly comparable to that to the States. I will now address individual parts of the Bill. Part I provides for the usual preliminary matters of commencement and interpretation. Jervis Bay Territory is a separate Commonwealth Territory and is not affected by this Bill. Part II establishes the Legislative Assembly and covers the range of procedural matters necessary for the conduct of the Assembly's business. The Assembly will consist of 17 members elected at large for a fixed term of four years. The number of members may be varied by regulation at the request of the Assembly. At its first meeting, the Assembly will elect a Presiding Officer and a Chief Minister. The Chief Minister will appoint three other Ministers and these four people will form the Australian Capital Territory Executive. The function of the Executive will be to govern the Territory with respect to the matters outlined in schedule 4 of the Bill. Schedule 4 gives the Executive power over virtually all matters affecting the Territory. The Commonwealth will, until 1 July 1990, retain within the Attorney-General's portfolio the establishment of courts, the provision of police services and the control of legal practitioners, companies and securities. This arrangement will allow the ACT a settling-in period before assuming responsibilities which are currently outside the province of the ACT Administration. The Government is disposed to have the Executive enter into an agency arrangement with the Australian Federal Police to provide police services to the Territory. The Government will decide by 1 July 1990 whether courts will transfer to the ACT. The national function of classifying materials for censorship purposes will be retained by the Commonwealth. As I have said before, the Territory is home to the nation's capital-this fact cannot be ignored. The Commonwealth will continue to have the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the Territory's good government. Consequently, this part includes a provision for the Governor-General to dissolve the Assembly and appoint a Commissioner if the Assembly is incapable of performing its functions, or is conducting its affairs in a grossly improper manner. In this eventuality, a general election must be held within 90 days. Part III details the powers of the Assembly. The Assembly will have the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory. Most ordinance law in place in the Territory will become Assembly law on the commencing day. The Governor-General will, as occurs in the Northern Territory, have the power to disallow any Assembly law within six months of the law being made. Commonwealth law will prevail over Assembly law. Protections such as these are essential in the national capital. They are, of course, instruments of last resort and it is the Government's intention to resolve any potential conflict with the ACT by consultation and negotiation. In addition to the powers and functions I described previously, the Assembly will have the power to entrench the manner and form of making particular laws by submitting an entrenching law to a referendum. Its purpose is to extend to the people of the Territory, who are not party to the Australia Act, the general provisions of that Act, which allow the States to entrench laws relating to the Constitution, powers and procedures of their parliaments. Part IV details the role and functions of the Executive. As I indicated earlier, the Chief Minister will appoint three Ministers. As with the number of members, the number of Ministers may be varied by regulation at the request of the Assembly. Part IV also provides for a general election if a resolution of no confidence in the Chief Minister is passed and a new Chief Minister is not elected within 30 days. Part V will permit the ACT to implement its own administration, management and staffing arrangements. The Chief Minister will appoint a Head of Administration, who will be the principal adviser to the Executive and generally have prime responsibility, under the Chief Minister, for the administrative functions of the body politic. The Chief Minister may also appoint Associate Heads of Administration as necessary to support the other Ministers in the exercise of their responsibilities. The Assembly will have the power to enact its own staffing laws and the Head of Administration may employ staff in accordance with such legislation. Financial provisions are covered in part VI. The ACT will have an autonomous Treasury. As I explained earlier, the ACT will be treated on the same basis as the States and the Northern Territory in terms of its financial relationship with the Commonwealth. However, the special circumstances arising from the existence within the Territory of the national capital and the seat of government of the Commonwealth will be taken into account. The Commonwealth may lend money to the ACT or to a Territory authority. The ACT may, with the approval of the Commonwealth Treasurer, borrow money from agencies other than the Commonwealth. Any such borrowings may be guaranteed by the Commonwealth and the ACT may use its assets as security. Part VII allows for members of the Assembly to be elected under the provisions of the Australian Capital Territory (Electoral) Bill 1988. Part VII also sets out the necessary qualifications of candidates and the processes for filling casual vacancies. Part VIII attends to miscellaneous provisions and constitutional guarantees. The ACT will be brought into line with the States and the Northern Territory by applying provisions similar to section 92 of the Constitution, guaranteeing free trade. This will not bind the Commonwealth. Transitional provisions will be included in consequential legislation to ensure the smooth transfer of powers and functions to the incoming government. Until the ACT enacts its own staffing law, the consequential legislation will provide for staff of the ACT Administration to be employed under the Public Service Act 1922 and other relevant Commonwealth legislation and awards. It will also provide for consultation to take place between the Executive, the Commonwealth and peak union councils before the terms and conditions of employment of staff who are to be employed under the ACT's own staffing law are determined. In addition to the consultative processes to be provided for in the consequential legislation, part VIII of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill provides for consultations to occur on an ongoing basis between the Commonwealth and the ACT on public sector industrial and staffing matters. These provisions are designed to protect the rights and entitlements of Administration staff and also to ensure that the ACT will take account of the effect of its decisions on the Commonwealth's interests as the major employer in the Territory. Part VIII also allows for the Remuneration Tribunal to determine the salaries and allowances of Assembly members, Ministers, the Presiding Officer, the Head of Administration and any Associate Heads of Administration. The consequential legislation which will address the technical aspects necessary to give effect to ACT self-government, is not yet ready for introduction to the House. It will therefore be introduced to the Senate co-incidentally with the transmission of these three Bills to the Senate. It will be clear that this legislation is both comprehensive and well-conceived. It provides for fully responsible government for the people of the Territory, in its most democratic, practical and economic form. It safeguards the Commonwealth's interests in the national capital. It provides for an efficient and effective administration. It puts the ACT on a proper financial basis. It ensures that the residents of the Territory will be properly and effectively represented in the management of their affairs. It is a milestone in the democratic processes of this country. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sharp) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for a system to elect the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory. This is the Government's third attempt at introducing an electoral system for the Territory. In 1986 this Government first moved to introduce self-government for the Territory. The proposal then, as now, allowed for a government comprising a single House of legislature-a people's House. The electoral system proposed-single member electorates-was the same as that used to elect members to every people's House in all English speaking democracies-including, of course, Australia. To propose that this Territory also elect its representatives from single electorates in the same way as other mainland Australians was therefore not novel or controversial, yet this proposition was not supported. The Government, committed then as now to self-government for the Territory, compromised. It proposed an amalgam of Australian electoral systems-around half of the members to be elected from single member electorates using House of Representative rules, with the balance elected at large using Senate rules. This, of course, represented a significant shift from the principle that the people of the Territory should be treated just like other Australians when it comes to electing their representatives. However, this proposal too was not acceptable. The Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill 1988 is already before the House. In proposing self-government for the Territory, the Government has once again demonstrated its commitment to democracy for all. Facing the rejection of existing Australian electoral systems, the Government has turned to an electoral system used commonly throughout the non-English speaking Western democracies to elect people's Houses. This system, known as the d'Hondt system, provides for direct proportional representation. The hallmark of this system is a concern for both democracy and stable government. It is once again a compromise, but it is a compromise we are prepared to make in an effort to give the people of the Territory the same democratic rights as their fellow Australians. It will be unique to Australia, but this Territory-a city-State-is also unique to Australia. The objective of any electoral system for a people's House is twofold-to accurately reflect the electoral wishes of the people in the composition of their government and, of great importance, to provide for stable government. Some with vested interests have advocated that the Hare-Clark system of proportional representation be used to elect the Assembly. This Government makes no apology for rejecting a system that is specifically designed for a House of review. Under its rules, seats may be literally decided by chance on the preferences of voters who may well have had no idea-or wish-that their vote would elect particular candidates. For example, to decide some seats in the last ACT House of Assembly elections using these rules, votes had to be distributed more than 20 times. In the last Senate election, a candidate with less than 1.5 per cent of the primary vote was elected. Yet others with more than double this primary vote were not. This may be acceptable in a House of review, but it could create instability in a people's House where such members may hold the balance of power. The d'Hondt system is a people's House system. It is very familiar to and respected by the democracies of Europe. It has been used for many years in countries such as Austria, Belgium, Finland, West Germany and the Netherlands, all of which enjoy the reputation of being democratic, stable and prosperous states. Under this system, all contestants are elected as accurately as possible in accordance with the proportion of votes received. The system is completely neutral between contestants and satisfied the stability side of the equation by ensuring that the party or parties with a majority of votes will command a majority of the seats. There is nothing mystical or complex about this system. A very simple mathematical calculation ensures the direct and accurate reflection of the voters' intention in the composition of the House. It does no more or less than make sure that, as closely as mathematically possible, each and every member in the House is supported by the same number of voters. It is immune from gerrymander. Every vote has equal value and, in fact, it is the most direct system of proportional representation that one can get. In terms of the financial impact on the Commonwealth, the Bill will not involve additional Commonwealth expenditure other than that already provided for the first Assembly election, the estimated cost of which is $620,000. I will now turn my attention to a brief description of the main features of the Bill. The cornerstone of the Bill is the application of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, suitably modified, to Assembly elections. The Bill divides the Commonwealth Electoral Act into three categories. The first category consists of those provisions which are modified by schedule 1 to the Bill and provide the detailed nuts and bolts for the conduct of Assembly elections; the second category consists of those provisions which provide the overall framework for Assembly elections and are applied generally; and the third category consists of disapplied provisions which have no relevance to Assembly elections. Most of the modifications to the Commonwealth Electoral Act rise because of the introduction of the d'Hondt electoral system. The d'Hondt system enables electors to vote for an independent candidate, to vote for a pre-determined list of party candidates or indicate the order in which they wish candidates of the party of their choice to be elected. Once seats have been distributed among parties and independents using the d'Hondt mathematical calculation, seats won by a party are allocated to its candidates by distributing votes in the same way as in Senate elections. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which illustrates how the d'Hondt distribution works. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Is leave granted? Leave is granted subject to the usual ruling of the Speaker as to its suitability for inclusion in Hansard. The Clerk suggests that it is suitable and, there being no objection, leave is granted. The table read as follows: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (ELECTORAL) BILL 1988 DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS UNDER D'HONDT Number of seats to be distributed: 17 No. of votes cast for each Party Party X 12000 Party Y 8000 Party Z 3000 No. of votes- div by 1 ... 12000 1st 8000 2nd 3000 6th div by 2 ... 6000 3rd 4000 4nd 1500 14th div by 3 ... 4000 5th 2666 8th 1000 div by 4 ... 3000 7th 2000 10th 750 div by 5 ... 2400 9th 1600 13th 600 div by 6 ... 2000 11th 1333 16th 500 div by 7 ... 1714 12th 1142 428 div by 8 ... 1500 15th 1000 375 div by 9 ... 1333 17th 888 333 =9 seats =6 seats =2 seats Mr HOLDING —Other important features of the Bill include: the provision that there will be no minimum membership requirement for a party in order for it to be registered on the Australian Capital Territory register of political parties; a clear prescription of acceptable ways voters can mark the ballot paper under the d'Hondt system to minimise informal voting; the election of the Assembly for a four-year fixed term; and the conduct of elections for the Assembly without election writs. This is a Government committed to the principle of fair and democratic elections. Indeed, this Parliament has a constitutional responsibility to ensure the good and stable government of this, the nation's capital. This Bill achieves this. It will extend to the people of the Territory the same rights as their fellow Australians to look after their own affairs in an orderly, democratic way. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sharp) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(5.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management Bill) 1988 heralds a new era in the planning and development of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). This Bill reflects the findings of Mr Block's report on the ongoing role of the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC) in the context of moves to self-government. It, together with the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill 1988, establishes a framework for funding and administering national capital concerns separately from municipal and territorial concerns. Canberra is a magnificent place. We all acknowledge the expertise and creativity that has gone into making Canberra what it is today-a national capital unequalled in the world for its natural and man-made beauty. Since 1957, the architect of this city has been the National Capital Development Commission. The Commission was created at a time when it appeared that Walter Burley Griffin's vision for Canberra may not be fulfilled. The Commission took up the challenge and today Canberra is a vibrant reflection of our nation-a city-State in which the whole nation can take pride. The Commission can be proud of the fact that it has taken Canberra from the bush capital of the 1950s to the national capital of the 1980s. Its efforts mean that the development of Canberra as the nation's capital is virtually complete. There are a few national projects yet to be built, such as the Museum of Australia. However, the important and exciting task ahead is for Canberra to develop and grow as a community. The task is to see that it provides in a balanced way for all the diversified economic and social needs of its citizens. With maturity comes responsibility. Under new financial arrangements that are already in place, ACT citizens will pay for territorial planning and development activities like the rest of us. Fairness and equity requires that there now be an accompanying and unambiguous division between national and local responsibilities. This Bill achieves this. The Commonwealth will accept administrative and financial responsibility to maintain and enhance the character of the Territory as the national capital. The Australian Capital Territory will accept the normal State-type administrative and financial responsibility to plan and develop the Territory. The Government will abolish the NCDC and set up a new national planning body, the National Capital Planning Authority, directly responsible to the Commonwealth Minister. This new Authority will prepare a National Capital Plan which will define the policies, aesthetic principles and any development requirements required to maintain and enhance the character of the national capital. The ACT will be responsible for the normal range of State-type planning and development matters. A territorial planning authority will be set up. It will be responsible for developing and managing a Territory plan not inconsistent with the National Capital Plan. It will also be able to set out the detailed planning, design and development conditions for all land in the Territory except designated national capital areas. The Bill requires of both governments parliamentary scrutiny, public consultation and review processes to ensure openness. There will be no scope for corruption. Ownership of the land will remain with the Commonwealth. The ACT will be responsible for the orderly development of land to meet the needs of the community. Therefore, land other than that reserved by the Commonwealth for its purposes will be managed by the ACT on behalf of the Commonwealth. These new arrangements will take time to put in place. Any hiatus in ACT planning and development must be avoided. This Bill therefore introduces appropriate interim measures to allow for the smooth and orderly introduction of the new arrangements. The financial impact of these changes on the Commonwealth will be positive. The integration of NCDC functions into the ACT Administration and the Department of Administrative Services, together with the creation of the National Capital Planning Authority, will result in savings. These savings are estimated at some 120 staff yielding $6.6m per year. Initial integration of NCDC functions has provided a saving of about 80 positions this year. A further saving of about 40 positions is expected to be brought to account in 1989. In undertaking these changes, the Government has been and will continue to be concerned to fully protect the interests of NCDC staff. I will now address the various parts of the Bill. Part I provides for the usual preliminary matters of commencement and interpretation. Part II establishes the National Capital Planning Authority, prescribes its powers and functions and makes it subject to general ministerial direction. Part III prescribes the object of the National Capital Plan and outlines what matters the Authority may include when preparing a draft plan. The purpose of the plan is to ensure that the Commonwealth's national capital interests in the Territory are fully protected, without otherwise involving the Commonwealth in matters that should be the prerogative of the Canberra community. The legislation requires public notification, consideration of representations, and consultations between the Commonwealth and ACT governments before the plan is brought into effect. The Minister's approval to the plan is subject to parliamentary disallowance provisions. A process of ministerial certification will be used to protect the draft plan where this is required before normal approval processes have been completed. Part IV requires the Assembly to establish a Territory planning authority to prepare and administer a Territory plan. This plan will provide the people of the Territory with an attractive, safe and efficient environment in which to live, work and have their recreation. The Bill outlines the parameters of the plan and ensures that it cannot operate inconsistently with the National Capital Plan. Importantly, this part requires the Assembly to make laws for the procedure to make the plan, as well as requirements for public notification, consideration of representations, and consultations between the Commonwealth and ACT governments before the plan is brought into effect. The Assembly is also required to ensure by law that there are just and timely processes in place to review appropriate planning, design and development decisions. These reviews will be conducted without unnecessary formality. Part V provides for the management of land in the ACT. It confers on the Commonwealth the right to specify at any time which areas of land it requires for its use or intended use. This land will be called national land. All other land will be called Territory land and will be managed by the ACT Executive on the Commonwealth's behalf. The existing leasehold system will be retained and only the Commonwealth will be able to vary it. The ACT will be liable for any acts or omissions in its management of Territory land, as will the Commonwealth in respect of national land. Provisions are included to define the relationship which will exist between the two governments in respect of financial aspects of land management. These are required to allow Commonwealth-State financial arrangements to be introduced. Part VI sets out the constitution of the National Planning Authority. It confers the responsibility to determine remuneration for Authority members on the Remuneration Tribunal and covers appointments to the Authority and obligations imposed on Authority members. It also sets out requirements for meetings of the Authority and permits the appointment of advisory committees. Part VII sets out that a chief executive will manage the affairs of the Authority under its general directions and that its staff will be employed under the Public Service Act. The Authority may engage consultants and is required to present to the Minister a report annually on its operations, which will be tabled in both Houses of this Parliament. Part VIII provides that the ACT will be indemnified by the Commonwealth for any claims made against it in respect of any matter arising from the Commonwealth's management, actions or inactions before self-government or concerning national land. Part IX repeals existing National Capital Development Commission legislation. Part X sets out transitional provisions that are necessary for the first 12 months after self-government. They will cover the period before the ACT Executive and the ACT planning authority have been established, as well as allow the first National Capital Plan to be brought into effect. During this period relevant National Capital Development Commission policies will continue in effect. The provisions of this Act regarding the respective roles of the Commonwealth and the ACT to manage and vary planning policies will generally apply. This Bill is further evidence of the Government's commitment to give the people of the Territory the same rights and responsibilities as their fellow Australians. The new arrangements will create an unambiguous separation of responsibility for National Capital planning from Territory planning and development. They ensure that the interests of the Commonwealth in, and the character of, the Territory as the nation's capital are protected. They guarantee that the Commonwealth will not be required to take financial responsibility for other than its national capital interests. They allow the people of the Territory to control the day to day planning and development of their home. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sharp) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories and Minister Assisting the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(5.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to permit faster migration clearance of overseas passengers at airports. It flows from the Government's master plan for passenger processing at Australia's airports. It is the Government's objective to provide visitors to Australia and Australian travellers fast and efficient service at our international airports. The amendments contained in this Bill will provide that visas issued overseas will become an entry permit on entering Australia at an international airport; pre-cleared flights to operate to Australia; and safeguards of records and data bases which impact on immigration processing of passengers. In addition, the opportunity was taken to make some consequential amendments to the Migration Act, flowing from the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Act 1987. This amendment relates essentially to the redefinition of `entry permit' to clarify the status of statutory visitors. The Government has been concerned for some time to ensure that legislative and administrative requirements for entry to and departure from Australia keep pace with the demands of our burgeoning tourism industry. At the same time, we are concerned to maintain the necessary safeguards as to who enters Australia. The Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has embarked on a comprehensive program of computerising many of the manual processes associated with visa issue and entry permit issue. The Department has also put in place systems whereby data obtained at visa issue is brought to Australia and used to facilitate entry processes. The progressive computerisation of visa issue at major overseas posts in the past 18 months has enabled dramatic improvements to be made in the levels of service provided. Typically at our major tourist source posts we now offer an across the counter service where that is sought and a 24 hour service in all other cases. Computerisation has produced significant productivity gains and reduced demands for extra staff to meet the dramatic growth we have seen in tourism to Australia. Officials in the Department have recently demonstrated the Australian visa system at the International Civil Aviation Organisation Facilitation meeting in Montreal where the Australian visa format was adopted as the world standard. More recently, the Government has addressed the issue of movements of people through our international airports. That review, jointly chaired by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and the Australian Customs Service and involving all agencies associated with movements through our airports as well as representatives of the airlines and the tourism industry, culminated in endorsement by government of a master plan for passenger processing at Australian airports. My colleagues, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business and the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs jointly gave some details of the Government's decisions on 8 September. The master plan will result in a wide range of adjustments to processes and procedures applied by the range of agencies impacting on movements through airports. As far as the immigration portfolio is concerned, we have sought to reduce the range of formalities associated with the entry/departure processes. We have sought to simplify decision processes without jeopardising the controls necessary in Australia's wider national interests. The most significant step is to put in place a system whereby a visa obtained for travel to Australia will, on entering Australia, unless cancelled, operate as an entry permit. Under current arrangements persons wishing to enter Australia must first obtain a visa. Upon arrival in Australia the holder of that visa may or may not be granted an entry permit pursuant to the provisions of the Migration Act. If granted an entry permit the person then enters Australia. The new arrangements flowing from this Bill will provide for a system whereby a person will hold only one document which will serve a double purpose, that is, it will be a visa for the purpose of travel to Australia and an entry permit after entry to Australia at a proclaimed airport. The present Act provides for entry permits to be in a form and specifying conditions as determined by the Minister. No similar discretions exist in terms of the visa. The Bill seeks to inject the necessary discretion to enable the determination of visa conditions. There will be a need to fix the date and place of entry into Australia. Such a provision is necessary from the viewpoint of both the holder of the visa and the department; for example, as proof of entitlement to remain in Australia within the currency of the visa/entry permit or as proof of entry at a proclaimed airport. The Bill proposes the use of the current port and date stamp and departmental computer records as a prima facie evidence of arrival. The present stand alone entry permit provisions will need to continue for several reasons. First, the new arrangements are only to operate in respect of entries at proclaimed airports which handle the bulk of travellers. Secondly, to take account of persons who apply for change of status, that is permanent entry status after arrival as a temporary entrant. The third reason is that there will have to be transitional provisions to take account of the fact that not all persons travelling to, and entering, Australia will be holders of a visa in the new form. Additionally, present arrangements regarding fee collection for permit renewal and for issue of resident return visas will remain. The concept of pre-clearance or the performance of immigration entry procedures offshore has been under consideration for some time. The concept involves the disembarkation of flights at other than international airports subject to satisfaction of health, quarantine and customs considerations. The concept provided for in the Bill is for individual designated flights flying non-stop from a place of departure to Australia. Passengers on these flights would be examined and immigration cleared for entry prior to departure for Australia. Upon disembarkation, they would enter Australia without further immigration formalities. It is proposed to provide that a stamp in the form indicating the date, airport and country of departure for Australia will be placed in the passport of a traveller embarking on a pre-cleared flight. If a pre-cleared flight lands at any other country prior to arrival in Australia the pre-clearance has no effect. Passengers would then be processed in the usual way. The amendments empower the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs to proclaim flights for the purposes of pre-clearance. Given the pivotal role of electronic records and systems in the department's task in processing passengers, it is necessary to guarantee the integrity of such records and systems. This is essential in securing the general confidence in the new system. The Bill therefore provides that perusal or alteration of records and systems associated with passenger processing be limited to authorised officers in the performance of their duty and provides penalties for breach of these provisions. The further consequential amendments flowing from the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Act 1987 seeks to place a statutory visitor who might be granted an entry permit on an equal footing with other entry permit holders. The adjustments contained in the present Bill essentially correct oversights in the initial consequential legislation. The package of provisions in this Bill, as they relate to the important task of passenger processing at Australia's international airports, provide the legislative base for the progressive introduction of a system of passenger processing which is arguably the most advanced in the world. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Sharp) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, for Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories (5.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Superannuation Act 1976 to provide a new supervisory mechanism for the provision of superannuation benefits to Commonwealth sector employees, in addition to that already available. These changes constitute an integral part of this Government's reforms of Government business enterprises. They will allow certain enterprises to determine their own future superannuation arrangements within guidelines issued by the Minister for Finance. This contrasts with the current provisions of the Act. At present, in all instances, the detailed written approval of the Minister for Finance must be obtained before superannuation benefits can be provided to statutory office-holders, employees of statutory authorities and certain Commonwealth-owned companies or Commonwealth-funded bodies. Initially the guidelines approach will apply to Qantas, Australian Airlines, the Australian National Line and Aussat. It will enable these enterprises to play a key role in the further development of this nation guided in their actions in relation to superannuation by commercial considerations. It is envisaged that in the future enterprises such as Telecom, Australia Post, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation shall also be able to make their own superannuation arrangements within appropriate guidelines. These changes are an important component of the reform packages, announced in the May economic statement, that will make Government enterprises more accountable for their own performance. Managers of these enterprises will be forced to measure up. At the same time, this Government has not overlooked the public interest in these changes and honourable members will note how the provisions of the Bill relating to contraventions provide a sufficient deterrent to managers who might seek to exploit unduly their new freedoms. Further, it is intended that enterprises operating under guidelines will be required to publicly report their actions in relation to superannuations as part of their annual reports. This requirement will further enhance the public accountability of the management of Government business enterprises. This Bill also seeks to correct a deficiency in the former provisions. The Act will now fully implement the decision of both this Government, and its predecessor, that the Superannuation Act 1976 should be the exclusive source of legal authority on superannuation for Commonwealth sector employees. This approach needs to be modified when the Minister relaxes his control under the guidelines approach. The Bill allows the Industrial Relations Commission to conciliate and arbitrate on their superannuation arrangements. This is consistent with the commercial environment in which the authorities subject to the guidelines are expected to operate. There will be no direct financial effects resulting from this Bill. However, to the extent that these amendments facilitate improvements in the rate of return of Government business enterprises, there should be increases in revenue to the Government in the form of increased dividends from these enterprises. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sharp) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and orders of the day Nos 2 and 3. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(6.01) —At a time when so many individuals, business groups and professionals in tax practice are voicing concerns about taxation law and the administration of it, we again have to consider another omnibus tax Bill. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) is the fourth such Bill for 1988. It is an understatement to say that it is a little disappointing to note that some of those concerns being expressed are again not to be sympathetically addressed. No such luck! Whatever happened to consensus? We do not hear much about that these days-not that consensus was anything more than an early slogan used by what is becoming little more than a sloganeering government. Even the Commissioner of Taxation has been infected by the slogan bug. His public relations machine is churning out gems like `Taxes-building a better Australia', and his latest: `Collecting for kids'. We await with breathless anticipation the next little beauty to be dreamed up by the back room propagandists of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). In the meantime, the penny, along with the value of our dollar, has dropped out there in the real world. Suddenly, it seems that the realisation has set in and the increasing waywardness of the Commissioner is being questioned. His many departures from what is actually prescribed by law to what the Commissioner apparently believes the law should say when applied to selected taxpayers are becoming legion. This was almost inevitable. Since the heady days of consensus and the largely forgotten economic and tax summits, abuse of the tax laws is as much the province of some in the Australian Taxation Office as it is of those who still seek to evade their obligations to pay lawful taxes. Despite recent interest, publicly stated, it was all predictable. Discretionary power has been heaped on the Commissioner's already hefty discretion in practically every piece of a veritable avalanche of tax legislation over the past 5 1/2 years. Along with the Commissioner's discretion, which has been deliberately included in laws, has developed the mentality that, by queer twists of logic, enables even the letter of our tax laws to be administered as if the Commissioner had carte blanche. As I have said on other occasions, history is littered with examples of tax collectors being hanged or otherwise executed for overzealous policing of tax laws. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) and his Government merit the political equivalent of hanging for aiding and abetting, as well as hiding behind, the present Commissioner. Willing horse that he is apparently infatuated with the sight of his own name in print and getting a real buzz out of the whirr of television cameras in his ears, the Commissioner seems to be happy to run interference for his Treasurer. The recent publicly stated concerns of the Confederation of Australian Industry and others about the heavy-handed tactics of the Commissioner should have been levelled at the Government in general and the Treasurer in particular. Were they? Of course they were not. Apart from one press release from the Treasurer between overseas trips, there has been virtual silence from the Government. The ploy seems to be to let the Commissioner take the heat, and he has shown himself to be more than willing. In more ways than one the buck stops at the ATO these days. Perhaps even more telling in condemnation of the Treasurer and the Commissioner are the views of the President of the Law Council of Australia, Mr D. M. Byrne. That strictly apolitical organisation has deemed both the Treasurer's and Mr Boucher's excesses worthy of critical comment in recent times on at least three important scores. In short, those issues are raids on, followed by searches of, solicitors' and accountants' offices; legislation by press release; and the primacy of law as enacted over the rhetorical preferences of the Commissioner and the Government. It is the second and third of those concerns expressed by the Council that are of immediate interest, the first being sub judice. It is not the Treasurer, nor anyone in the Government, who accepts responsibility for departure from the principle of rule of law in tax matters. It is not the Treasurer, that well known defender of the requirement to file personal tax returns within lawful period, who says, `Ease up, Mr Boucher; if the law says one thing and you want to use your already enormous powers to intimidate taxpayers into doing something else it is just not on'. Nothing of the like has been heard from this man, who poses as a paragon of virtue in matters which are plainly his responsibility. He ducks off overseas. He goes into seminarian retreat. He does not want to know. The Treasurer has shown that he can absorb a brief and the jargon that goes with it, but when it comes to administration of tax laws, for which he is also directly responsible, he has shown time and again in this House that he does not even understand the effect of his own legislation, either when it is in Bill form or afterwards. He obediently reads the second reading speeches prepared for him but there is no real comprehension on the Treasurer's part. Part of what can be described only as a concerted assault on the senses and sensibilities of the public is the technique adopted by the Commissioner, with the support of his captive Treasurer, to accuse certain groups and those in particular categories of taxpayers of usually nefarious conduct. That particular technique is primarily intended to intimidate but, equally seriously, it denigrates and brings into disrepute whole classes of professionals, tradesmen and business proprietors. What we now are witnessing are the first signs of an overzealous Commissioner, with the usually tacit support of the highest taxing Treasurer in 43 years, employing methods adopted by Senator Eugene McCarthy. Backed by a public relations unit at the ATO, which in itself is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money, we now see a campaign emanating from the Commissioner that is blatantly intended to soften up public opinion. This is being done by publicly targeting groups, not individuals, implying that doubtful tax practices are rife amongst those in the groups named. We see barristers, solicitors, dentists, tradesmen and others named as distinctive breeds deserving of the wrath of the Australian people because of some unidentified malfeasance. We get the edict delivered from the mount, as it were, by way of press release or speeches from the Commissioner of Taxation. It continues as a great surprise to me that there are still many people naive or foolish enough to believe that if the Commissioner or his Treasurer make some sweeping accusation there must be something in it. There are such people. There are a great many more who are intimidated by the real and perceived power wielded by the ATO, to the extent that they will not publicly question or criticise the propaganda which is intended to manipulate public opinion against certain named categories and in favour of the excesses of the Commissioner and his captive Treasurer. That strikes me as classic McCarthyism. Of course, some barristers and solicitors, along with commensurate numbers in any segment of our community, minimise and perhaps even evade payment of their lawful taxes. But why is it necessary to name them all in a way that, without offering any evidence whatsoever, brings all barristers and solicitors under suspicion in the minds of the public? The same can be said of dentists and the same question should follow. Is it because those professionals are made up of what might be said to be soft targets? It is one thing for those of us who have had to pay an account from a solicitor or a dentist, without any knowledge of the cost structure of an office or clinic, to comment casually on the charges for those services. It is entirely another for the Commissioner and his Treasurer to bludge on latent resentment and to suggest, in speeches and press releases, that tax evasion abounds in these professions. The same deplorable device has been employed with some success by this Government against doctors in the context of the health care cum Medicare debate. The naming, once again, of tradesmen in relation to this Bill involves another and different deceit. The genesis of the deceit is to be found in the rhetoric of the justification offered in 1983 by this Keating-Hawke Government-when it was the Hawke-Keating Government-for its prescribed payments system (PPS). Do honourable members opposite not remember-that is a problem because no-one is here-that the prescribed payments system was to be the answer to the then maiden Treasurer's prayers? All those terrible brickies and chippies out there were to be caught in the net to be woven and cash in the hand was to be taxed, almost without exception. Apparently, and not surprisingly, they were not caught because the Commissioner says, once again, that he will target them. This new onslaught has been paraded as part of a wonderful new initiative. This will be despite the equally wonderful words parroted in this place often enough by honourable members opposite that the PPS was a great success. The outcome of that grand plan was, according to the Commissioner, his Treasurer and apologists of all kinds, another 40,000 taxpayers on the books paying their lawful taxes. That was an enormous lie. I will tell you why, Mr Deputy Speaker. If 40,000 individuals who should have been paying tax previously but were not suddenly were identified, prosecutions for tax evasion would or should have ensued automatically. I challenge anyone opposite to ask the Commissioner how many of those alleged 40,000 taxpayers were prosecuted. Was it a couple of thousand or was it merely a couple of hundred? Whatever the actual number, it was infinitesimal against the 40,000 cited in the big lie. For all that, the Commissioner and his Treasurer exploit the fact that they can, it seems, fool some of the people some of the time. If further evidence of that is needed, we need only refer to the well-practised device of tax legislation by media release. Although it needs detailed examination, discussion of that increasingly vexatious problem is probably best left to an amendment to be moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at the committee stage. Of great immediate importance is the attitude of the Commissioner and his captive Treasurer to the rule of law in tax matters. To set a framework for my concerns, I refer to a classical exposition on the British Constitution by A. V. Dicey in a tome entitled The Law of the Constitution-the eighth edition-according to which the rule of law: . . . means, in the first place, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of government. Taking that as a starting point, it gives me no satisfaction to note that large sections of our tax law fail on all counts as expressed by Dicey. I will not entertain any interjections about Dicey's assumptions. Most of us believe in the supremacy or predominance of regular law for taxes, as much as for any branch of the law. I venture to suggest that most people thought that that was and is the case. Despite perceptions, it is patently not so. Let us take the first test applied by Dicey in his definition. It stipulates the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law over arbitrary power. In Australia, arbitrary power accrues to the Commissioner and his captive Treasurer in several ways, not the least because the Government both legislates and assumes power not explicitly spelled out in statutes. On the score of arbitrary power and tax laws, the Government fails miserably. So does it score pathetically on the second test. Tax laws as written do not exclude the existence of arbitrariness. The opposite is true. Arbitrariness figures prominently in, first, the letter of the law and, second, in the spirit of tax laws as both practised and interpreted by the Commissioner and his now well and truly captive Treasurer. The same can be said on the count of prerogative. To the extent that prerogative in this context may differ from arbitrariness, the end result is that as far as the observance of the criterion applies, the Government once again plumbs the depths. Overwhelmingly, the worst aspect of tax laws in Australia today is the wide discretionary powers and authority conferred by the Keating-Hawke Government on the Commissioner of Taxation who, in true Yes, Minister tradition, has abrogated his power and responsibility to the Treasurer. The Treasurer has never, in fairness to him, claimed to know much about the detail of the tax Bills given to him by the Commissioner; nor has he cared much about how those laws are being administered. As the member for Manhattan, the Treasurer is more likely to be away in space, more concerned with jargon and mesmerising talk about macro-economics and the price of Italian suit cloth than with the tedious detail of tax laws for which he accepts only nominal responsibility. If it were possible to hand out minus scores the Keating-Hawke Government would qualify for one on the test of the absolute supremacy of regular law, which must logically exclude the existence of wide discretionary power exercised as it is by this Government. In summary, the government's commitment to rule of law in tax matters is dismal. It does not even pay lip service to the principle of supremacy or predominance of regular law. The essence of this fundamental abrogation of duty is to be found in the discretionary power of the Commissioner, the power he insists upon having and is given, as well as in the Nelson of Trafalgar treatment whereby the Government turns a blind eye to the day to day administration of tax matters by the Commissioner. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Law Council of Australia are numbered among those representative bodies which felt the need to criticise, publicly, the administration and oversight of laws by the Australian Taxation Office in recent times. One matter stands out like a lighthouse in the debate on the administration of tax law in Australia. It is that very few individuals will make their criticisms in public. I suspect that that may encourage the Commissioner and his captive Treasurer, given the superior propaganda apparatus at their disposal. Even members of this Parliament, who are usually fearless in representing their constituencies and constituents, are loath to express concerns. It is not as if they are unaware of abuses by the ATO of the principles of the rule of law or of intimidation of taxpayers by some ATO staff, because many have indicated to me in private that they know of many such examples. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that even individual members of Parliament can be intimidated, because they know only too well that they could be subjected to the same pressures that individual taxpayers now have to endure. The Treasurer does not have to worry, nor does the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins); their tax problems have been settled favourably and amicably enough. But that is not true for far too many Australian taxpayers who cannot expect privileged treatment as can those two gentlemen. Until laws meet the stipulations of Dicey and there is absolute primacy of regular law, the potential for corruption of the principle of law in both administration and the statutes themselves will be realised. It is about time the Treasurer accepted his responsibility and stopped hiding behind the Commissioner of Taxation. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(6.20) —It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity today to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) and cognate Bills. I would like to begin by congratulating the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) on what I thought was an excellent speech. Some of the points he made about the extended discretion under the Income Tax Assessment Act and the abuse and use of that discretion, I think will probably turn out to be a major issue in this country in the course of the next 12 months, if not, indeed, an election issue. I would like to preface my remarks today by commenting on what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said on the subject of tax last Monday when he was attempting to bucket Terry McCrann for his article in the Melbourne Herald of that day entitled `The great tax grab'. For some reason I was reminded of Richard Nixon and Watergate as I listened to the Treasurer respond to the McCrann allegations. Honourable members might recall the classic account of the Watergate saga by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post in a book entitled All the President's Men. Honourable members might also remember what kept Bernstein and Woodward going in their hot pursuit of the Watergate truths. It was the realisation of the phenomenon called `non-denial denials'. They soon realised in their search for circumstances that many people who commented on events in the White House or in relation to the Watergate break-in never actually denied key facts or developments; they always appeared to deny key facts or developments. It was always that non-denial denial phenomenon that kept them going. So it was with the Treasurer and his attack on Terry McCrann. His attack was singularly distinguished by that non-denial denial-as it always is with this treasurer when he answers allegations in the area of tax. For example, if we suggest to him that the Hawke Government is the biggest taxing Government in our history, we will get a non-denial denial. If we say that he and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-as McCrann did-have been cheating the nation of income, we will get a non-denial denial. If we suggest that when it comes to tax he and the Prime Minister have been mugging Middle Australia, we will get another non-denial denial. The simple fact is that the Treasurer shows an acute sensitivity when it comes to his own record on taxation. And so he should. He clearly showed an acute sensitivity to Terry McCrann. One might readily conclude from his remarks that he does not particularly like Mr McCrann. The simple fact is that Terry McCrann is one of the few journalists in this country who have failed to succumb to the incredible bullying tactics that this Treasurer is noted for using in relation to the media. The full extent of the Treasurer's own paranoia and dementia in relation to Terry McCrann was evidenced by his boast in the House last Monday when he referred to a luncheon conversation he had earlier this year with McCrann when he claims to have said: Listen, Terry, before you open your mouth, let me make this point: you are a marked man; you are a Liberal; you support the Liberal Party. Thank God that Terry McCrann was not from the Left or, in fact, with the Prime Minister; because we can imagine what the Treasurer might have said in those circumstances. Having been on the receiving end myself of some of the Treasurer's pressure on the media in my days as a columnist, I can vouch for the fact that if the Treasurer decides to bucket someone then that person is probably doing a very good job, probably scoring a lot of very good points and being very successful. The Treasurer sets out to even the score. What did McCrann say that offended the Treasurer? He really stated a whole lot of facts. I will put a few of them on the record. Firstly, he said that fiscal drag or bracket creep is now pumping-in McCrann's estimate-about an extra $8 billion per annum into the Canberra coffers compared with 1982-83. Secondly, he said that there were more than two million taxpayers who have been pushed into the two top tax brackets since 1982-83. He said that by the close of this financial year, one million more taxpayers will be in the top tax bracket. Thirdly, he said that even some taxpayers who are below average weekly earnings are now in the second highest tax bracket, facing 41 1/4 per cent tax on every extra dollar that they earn. It is no wonder that Terry McCrann called his article `The great tax grab'. These points are made quite clearly by McCrann recognising that this ever-rising tax grab has happened despite two rounds of so-called tax cuts by this Government. The facts are really simple. While the Treasurer set out to try to destroy and demolish McCrann and his arguments and to create the impression in this House that he was indeed answering the thrust of McCrann's arguments, the reality was very different. The Treasurer really only attacked the periphery. His statement, as I have said is so often the case in relation to taxation, was simply a non-denial. The fact is that while some technocrats might debate the elements of McCrann's calculations, he was substantially right. The Treasurer has clearly been stung. The world's greatest tax reformer has been unmasked. I will put four fundamental questions in relation to tax and deal with each of those. First, how can the Treasurer deny that tax burdens have increased under the Hawke Government? His usual non-denial-on this it takes a particular form-is to the effect that total revenue has fallen as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) from its peak of 28 per cent in 1986-87 to an estimated 27.3 per cent in 1988-89. It sounds good, does it not? However, it is a fudge. It is a fudging of an argument. I ask honourable members to ask themselves why the Treasurer took total revenue and not tax revenue in that sort of calculation. The answer is that non-tax revenue has declined dramatically, particularly because of the profit take of the Reserve Bank of Australia. The simple fact is that tax revenue, as a proportion of GDP, in 1988-89 is still projected to be 25.7 per cent, the same as last year. This is the second year in a row in which we have had a peacetime tax record. I suggest that the Treasurer's sensitivity reveals the fact that he has been hoist with his own petard. The second proposition I put to the House is: How can the Treasurer deny that bracket creep has been significant? His usual non-denial denial here is as follows. As he has said on one occasion in 1988-89 bracket creep is only about $1.5 billion, which will be more than offset by cuts in indirect tax, reduced company tax, lower tariffs reductions and lower Reserve Bank of Australia profits worth about $3 billion. I make several comments on that non-denial denial. The first is that the Treasurer's estimate of bracket creep is probably an understatement of the cost of indexing the tax scales for one year only. But as McCrann correctly points out, fiscal drag cumulates too. As I have sought to emphasise on a number of occasions, using some estimates provided by Access Economics, bracket creep in 1988-89 has cumulated to about $7 billion. It will rise to about $10 billion next year. These estimates are being particularly generous to the Treasurer because scales have been indexed only from 1986-87 onwards so as to preserve the 1985-86 tax cuts that the Treasurer announced at that time. The second point that I would make about this non-denial denial is that the cuts in company taxation and Reserve Bank profits to which the Treasurer refers have nothing to do with take-home pay. This is clearly just a furphy to distract attention from true argument underlying bracket creep. Similarly, the reference to tariff cuts in the same vein is misdirected. Tariff cuts have hardly flowed through to the consumer at all, if indeed they ever will given the uncompetitive nature of many of our import competing industries. Clearly, this is just another non-denial denial. There is absolutely no substance to the Treasurer's argument usually raised in response to the second proposition that I have identified. My third proposition is: How can the Treasurer deny that his Budget surplus, the one he has lauded all over the world, stands as monument to bracket creep and to the mugging of Middle Australia? His usual non-denial denial in regard to this particular proposition is generally in the following terms. I quote an oft-repeated example, most recently used in this speech to the British-Australian Chamber of Commerce in London on 11 October when he said: . . . move into surplus was not achieved as a result of revenue increases. It has come entirely from outlays reduction. That statement is blatantly false. It is blatantly dishonest. The Treasurer works on the Goebbels propaganda principle that even if something is completely wrong, if one repeats it often enough most of the media and everybody else will pick it up and ultimately become quite familiar with the idea and accept it. That is backed up, of course, in the case of the media, with the usual dose of Keating influence. My final proposition is: How can the Treasurer deny that the average Australian is really hurting under the increased tax burdens of the Hawke Government? The truth is that he does not try to deny this; he simply never addresses it. He simply never deals with the sorts of sums and figures that we have released on the impact of increased taxation on the average Australian. For example, a single person on average weekly earnings in March 1983 had an average tax rate of 22.9 per cent, faced a marginal tax rate of 30 per cent and paid $85 a week in tax. Today the same person would face a 25.1 per cent average tax rate, a 40 per cent marginal rate and pay a whopping $143.30 in tax. Similarly, a single income family on average weekly earnings paid an average tax rate in March 1983 of 17.5 per cent, its marginal tax rate was 30 per cent, and it paid only $65 tax a week. But today its average tax rate is 21.6 per cent, its marginal tax rate is again 40 per cent, and it is paying a whopping $123.60 in tax. I find it interesting that the Treasurer chooses not to address those arguments, because they are pretty persuasive. Similarly persuasive is the argument we have developed about the extent to which the standard of living of the average Australian has fallen, essentially because of the Government's tax take since 1982-83. We have suggested it would take $56 a week to compensate the average Australian for the fall in the standard of living as a result of taxation, the Medicare levy and so on. If we want to get a true picture, we have to add increased housing costs, which would probably be another $14 a week for the average Australian. There has been a significant fall in the standard of living of the average Australian under this Government. Another way of looking at this is to look at the Government's tax record. These are not the sorts of calculations that the Treasurer likes. For example, total income tax on individuals since 1982-83, including this year, shows a 63.7 per cent increase. Inflation over the same period has gone up by only 43.5 per cent. That makes a pretty persuasive point in relation to bracket creep. Company tax over that period has gone up by 67.7 per cent, total income tax has gone up by 68.5 per cent and sales tax-remember the man who was not going to broaden the sales tax base, not going to change the incidence of sales tax, and abandoned the idea of any of these sorts of things-by 103.8 per cent over the life of this Government, 2 1/2 times the rate of inflation, a staggering increase, and total tax revenue by 56.5 per cent. I come finally to the promised tax cuts for next year. This is an area where, I suggest, the world's greatest Treasurer has no credibility. There have been so many confusing statements and inconsistent remarks by so many people involved at all levels of this corporatist Government from the union movement, through some of the Ministers to the Treasurer himself, that the average Australian is left in a totally confused state as to what is going to happen next year. Interestingly, when the Treasurer went out of the country, going back to my Watergate example, the Deep Throats came into play in Australia. Senator Walsh and Senator Button are two perfect examples of Deep Throats in the area of the tax debate. They have done what they can to set the record straight against the inflationary rhetoric of this Treasurer and his Prime Minister. Senator Walsh started to down play expectations by drawing attention to what he called our vulnerability. He expressed his concern over the balance of payments figures for the first two months of this financial year and he painted what he called the `worst case scenario', that is, if the current account deficit continued to run at much higher levels than had been expected, which would call for `doing something further on the outlay side', and, by implication, put the tax cuts at risk. Today's balance of payments number nearly another $1 billion and significantly continues the trend we have seen in the first couple of months. Over the last six months there has been a fundamental weakness in our balance of payments. The current account deficit on that basis is running at an annual rate of about $12.5 billion to $13 billion a year. Senator Walsh, however, was not alone. He was followed by Senator Button, who said: Some people have talked enormous figures in terms of tax cuts. I don't think they are affordable. I mean, we are really not in a position where we can indulge ourselves too much at the present time. Given the way this Government runs its macro-economic strategy, he is dead right. It has not been prepared to cut government expenditure, so it would get itself into an awful mess if it were to move in the current circumstances. Just about everybody else has got in for their chop since that situation was created by Senator Walsh and Senator Button. We are all left with virtually no idea about what size tax cuts we will get next year, what the tax cuts depend on, where they will be concentrated and whether they will be phased in over one or two years or more. Yesterday, in an effort at damage control, the Prime Minister put a gag on his Ministers talking about tax, except for himself and the Treasurer. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he should put a gag on the Treasurer, because he seems to be as confused as everybody else when it comes to tax. Look at his record in terms of statements over the last few months. At Budget time he spoke of substantial tax cuts, conditional then on wages outcomes in 1988-89 and the wage tax trade-off to be struck next year with the union movement. Then the Treasurer, with his usual degree of modesty, more recently said: Next year's tax cuts will still go ahead even if Australia's trade performance suffers as a result of slower world economic growth forecasts. . . I don't see a slowing by any margin that would complicate that-our trade performance. The Government will handle all that-next year's wage tax trade-off-with due aplomb and skill. As I said, a fairly modest statement from the Treasurer. Not long after that statement Mr Keating softened his line, and an article in the Australian Financial Review of 13 October stated: Mr Keating appeared also to soften slightly the Government's commitment to tax cuts next July, answering only `I think so' when asked whether they would still go ahead despite poor current account figures . . . Yesterday in Parliament he made the tax cuts explicitly conditional on economic circumstances next year when he said: . . . in considering the magnitude and quality of such a tax trade-off we would need to see what wage outcomes were in this financial year and also look at the quality of such a trade-off in demand terms for the economy over the ensuing year. Those judgments will best be made some months away. On the basis of the Government's expressed view about this in the Budget, there is no point now, and one cannot possibly assess the macro-economic conditions which will obtain at the time such a tax cut would be negotiated. At the time of the Budget he was linking tax cuts only to the wage outcomes in 1988-89 and to the nature of the trade-off between tax and wages struck next year. As of yesterday he had broadened that to include economic circumstances in the middle of the year, consistent with what had been a softening of his position on the commitment made on tax cuts. Yet today I read, just before coming into the House, that he has apparently now said that he will pay the tax cuts all in the one hit next year, without giving any indication as to what they will be. But he still raises the possibility that the top rate can be phased down. In fact he was quite explicit, in the quote I saw, in saying that this has been his position for some time. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the most amazing situation has now developed in one of the most important areas, and that is the area of income tax. The tax cuts that have been promised to the people of Australia, who have suffered a significant decline in their standard of living under this Government, are now no clearer. There is no firmer commitment than there was when this idea was floated some months ago. The average Australian is still left totally in doubt as to whether he will get the tax cuts given the likely trend in the balance of payments over the coming months. I was interested today to see with the balance payments number that the Government now has to achieve balance payments deficits on average, in each of the next nine months of this year, of about $628m per month. Since early 1985, when we had that exchange rate crisis, I think there have been only three months when the monthly balance of payments deficit number was below $628m, and that was during a period which had seen very favourable commodity prices. I suggest that the balance of payments is a fundamental structural weakness and that our tax cuts are therefore clearly at risk. Mr TAYLOR(Groom)(6.39) —I am privileged to follow the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) whose technical knowledge of the issues, I would suggest, is unsurpassed in this House, a point which I think the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will increasingly discover over the months to come. In addressing the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) and cognate Bills this evening I would like to take the opportunity of highlighting three attributes of the Hawke-Keating Government's approach to economic management, and in particular its taxation record since 1983. I regret to say that some of these attributes were reflected once again in this place during Question Time this afternoon. What are those attributes? The first one is an attribute of arrogance, clearly demonstrated by the Treasurer during his recent overseas trip when he lectured major powers on the need to do better, whereas clearly he should have restricted his comments to the domestic problems that we have at the moment. The second attribute is one of aloofness. The Hawke-Keating Government has lost touch with the ordinary people and, in particular, is preoccupied with big business. We only have to look at the 12 per cent swing in the Oxley by-election on 8 October to be reminded of what I am saying. The Government has forgotten about the pensioners. I thought that last evening the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) gave an eloquent dissertation on the problems for those pensioners. It has forgotten about small business and, very importantly, it has forgotten about the pay as you earn (PAYE) taxpayer. The third attribute is immorality, particularly in respect of its high taxing regime. It is not allowing the Australian people the benefits of personal income tax reductions now but rather holding them up as a blatant political carrot for the next general election, whether it be late next year or early in 1990. If it occurs, I hope that it is seen exactly for what it is. It will be a crass, opportunistic ballot box bribe. I draw particular attention to six major points germane to the Treasurer's projected $5.5 billion surplus in 1988-89. The first point is that tax, as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP), is estimated at 25.7 per cent in 1988-89. Of course, that maintains last year's record peacetime level. I point out that, under the previous coalition government, the ratio average was about 3 per cent less than that. The second point is that PAYE tax receipts will rise by 13.8 per cent or $4.3 billion to $35.2 billion, with total individual tax receipts, including the Medicare levy and prescribed payments system, rising by 13.6 per cent or $5.7 billion to $47.6 billion. Of course, the provisional tax uplift factor has been increased by 1 per cent to 12 per cent, even though inflation is officially expected to fall over the year. The third point is that income tax receipts, as a proportion of total revenue, will increase from 51.7 per cent in 1987-88 to 54.3 per cent in 1988-89. My fourth point is that the Treasurer has tried to muddy the waters claiming that total revenue as a proportion of GDP has fallen from a peak of 28 per cent of GDP in 1986-87 to an estimated 27.3 per cent in 1988-89, whereas this ratio, which includes non-tax receipts, has fallen because non-tax revenue has fallen, principally in the area of Reserve Bank of Australia profits, which are down $1 billion on 1987-88. My fifth point is that the Treasurer also claims, as the honourable member for Wentworth indicated, that bracket creep in 1988-89 will be only $1.5 billion which is more than offset by cuts in indirect taxes, reduced company tax and tariff reductions and lower Reserve Bank profits worth $3 billion. Finally, my sixth point is that since 1983 Labor has increased its tax take from superannuation by 1,000 per cent. In other words, the Treasurer has taxed the shirts off all Australians and is now promising, with some qualification subject to the vagaries of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to give back the buttons in 12 months' time. I agree entirely with what the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) had to say in this place earlier this afternoon about `the insatiable greed' of the Hawke-Keating Government. Furthermore, there is a persuasive statistical argument that Australia is now in the hands of international bankers. I exemplify that by pointing out that in 1977 gross foreign debt, as a proportion of GDP, was 4.4 per cent. In 1983 that had climbed to 13.5 per cent. In the financial year 1987-88 it had escalated to $115 billion or by in the region of 32 per cent. This evening I would also like to make a comment on the administration of the taxation system, its complicated legislative framework and, in particular, the provocative role that the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Trevor Boucher, is playing in the administrative processes. Of course, this factor was referred to in this place last evening by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and earlier this evening by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher). What did the Treasurer have to say about the tax system? Late last month he said: . . . the Government has given Australia a decent tax system for the first time ever and is now going to be polluted by an attempt by lesser people to intimidate the Tax Commissioner in the carrying out of his statutory responsibilities. I have told the Commissioner to come down like a ton of bricks on companies and institutions which rort the system. Of course, in the process he accused some of the business leaders of what he termed a `lurk' mentality. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on that point said: I am all in favour of stamping out rorts and evasion and any decent citizen and any honest businessman should support any government that does that. He went on to talk about the atmospherics being created and said: This idea that you smear everybody with the sins of a few and create a climate of hostility towards sections of the business community is quite ridiculous. The rhetoric of Mr Keating's remarks and the Commissioner's are creating that atmosphere. I am objecting to the impression being created that the law will be what the Commission decides it to be as distinct from what in reality it is. Other people have spoken of Mr Boucher's attitude. In particular, I draw the House's attention to the Chief Executive of the Confederation of Australian Industry, Mr Darryl George, who last month said: It appears the Commissioner is moving into areas beyond artificial schemes. We are simply supporting the right of people to optimise their total net income, provided this is strictly within their law. Mr Martin Souter said: The Tax Commissioner appears not to recognise that there can be any tax minimisation through legitimate application of the law. Companies must aim to minimise tax, not to maximise it. Moving on to the Law Council of Australia, the President, Mr Denis Byrne, also referred to Mr Boucher in the following terms: . . . an over-zealous official pursuing a crusade collecting revenue according to his own standards of fairness instead of according to the law. He was doubly disturbed that the Treasurer had come out publicly in support of Mr Boucher. He went on to say: The views of Mr Boucher and Mr Keating that there is something wrong in a taxpayer arranging his or its affairs so as to minimise liability for tax fully deserves the condemnation they have received. It was for Parliament to determine the rules governing liability to tax and it was then for taxpayers to arrange their affairs with those rules in mind. Their responsibility is to comply with the law. He went on to say: Instead of exhorting people to pay their fair share of tax, Mr Boucher should give urgent consideration to the way his officers were conducting searches of solicitors' offices with scant regard for the professional privilege which attaches to documents held by them. I think it is fair to say that business unease has been heightened by Tax Office raids in recent months on the offices of leading institutions, including Citibank in Sydney and the prestige law firm Allen Allen and Hemsley, prompting the Chairman of Western Mining Corporation Ltd, Sir Arvi Parbo, to comment: To invade an office and break open the records and filing cabinets . . . it doesn't seem to fit our type of community. As far as the professional groups are concerned, the normally conservative Australian Society of Accountants is accusing Mr Boucher of `scaremongering' and jeopardising the confidence and trust of the business community. Society President, Elizabeth Alexander, has said that the Tax Commissioner is creating unnecessary discord. She went on to say: He seems to be suggesting that all taxpayers should organise their affairs to pay a maximum of tax, but every company has the right to arrange its affairs to pay the minimum of tax legally due. Maximising tax benefits may well be a vital means by which many Australian businesses become more viable and internationally competitive. Furthermore, the Institute of Chartered Accountants says that Mr Boucher's attempts to make taxpayers bear the burden of establishing the spirit of the tax laws is ridiculously unfair. Of course, for their part the tax officials say that Mr Boucher really believes that he is doing the right thing for the right reasons, so the business community's criticism just bounces off him. I remind the House that before Mr Boucher's appointment the Commissioner of Taxation had never really tested the limits of his powers. But now both business and the accounting industry are mortally afraid that he has become, to quote from the Australian Financial Review of 23 September, `the 800-pound gorilla who decides to sit where he likes'. I understand the alarm of the business community at what it seems as the Taxation Office's excessively hard line approach, which the Treasurer has supported. What has particularly angered business interests is the Tax Office statement that businesses that did not obey the spirit of the law would be prosecuted even though they might have obeyed the letter of the law. As both the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Business Council of Australia have pointed out, Australia's tax laws are confusing and cumbersome, with many grey areas that are open to interpretation by the taxpayer and by the Tax Commissioner. But when companies sought to interpret the law for themselves they were accused of being cheats or, in the Treasurer's words, of taking a `conceptually squalid' approach. I have no sympathy with companies that spend their time devising schemes, the aim of which is to exploit loop holes and minimise, if not flagrantly avoid, their share of taxation. But to tar all companies with that brush is grossly unfair. The fact is that the taxation laws need to be made clear and comprehensible so that there is no contradiction between the spirit and the letter of the law. I would now like to draw the House's attention to one specific ruling affecting not just one group of constituents. It has far wider implications. It was referred to in this place earlier this afternoon by the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann). With the House's indulgence, I will read an excerpt from a letter that I received in July this year from a group. The letter states: We have just learnt that the Commissioner of Taxation has ruled that donations to support the activities of Mobile Life Education Centres throughout Australia no longer qualify for income tax deductions under subparagraph 78 (1) (a) (ii) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. These centres exist due to public demand for specialised educational programs to prepare our children to resist drug abuse and so build a happier and healthier Australia. The whole purpose of the centres is to prevent drug abuse rather than to spend scarce resources on the very lengthy and costly process of rehabilitation. Ironically, funds spent after a drug problem has been created are still tax deductible. The ruling of the Tax Commissioner goes against the well accepted fact that `prevention is better than the cure'. Currently life education centres in Queensland receive only $63,270 from the State Government. The rest of the funds necessary to educate and help our children to resist drug abuse comes from the people of Queensland who until this ruling had some taxation relief for their urgently needed donations. I wrote to the Treasurer in August. On 19 September I received a reply from the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peter Morris). The letter stated, inter alia: The Commissioner of Taxation confirmed that for donations to mobile life education centres to be deductible, it is necessary that the latter meet the description of a public benevolent institution. Although the phrase public benevolent institution does not have a statutory definition, it is generally understood to be an institution for the relief of poverty, sickness, suffering, distress, destitution, misfortune and helplessness. Public benevolent institutions have, as a common feature, the giving of relief freely to those who are in need of it and are unable to care for themselves. . . . Consequently, the Commissioner concluded by saying that gifts to such centres do not qualify for deduction under the existing provisions of the Act. In the last few days I have written back to Minister Morris expressing my disappointment at this overly legalistic approach. I hope that in the fullness of time, as the Treasurer said in the House this afternoon, that will be reconsidered. In summary, the Treasurer asserts that many companies and individuals are rorting the tax system. I have to say that some are. None of us should condone this. More importantly, the Treasurer is deceiving the Australian people by not allowing personal income tax cuts and by allowing tax revenue, particularly from pay as you earn taxpayers, to build up by over $4 billion in the financial year 1988-89. He is clearly using the Australian people as the tax scapegoat to set the scene for a general election some time next year or in 1990. Furthermore, he is using officers of the Australian Taxation Office-notably Mr Boucher-to push his fixation with increased revenue as part of his strategy of a `taxing surplus' as distinct from an `axing surplus'. I therefore hope that Mr Boucher will temper his public views and that in tax matters the Government will think a little more about Mr and Mrs Average Australian rather than its big business mates. In particular, there should be a more sympathetic interpretation of a `public benevolent institution' in so far as it affects such irreplaceable association as the life education centres, without which the youth of our great nation would not be prepared for the drug and alcohol abuse so inherent in society. I hope that Ministers Keating and Morris will heed this call. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(7.00) —I thank the honourable members who participated in the debate last evening and today. I refer briefly to the second reading amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). The amendment to the motion for the second reading questions the raising of the uplift factor for calculating 1988-89 provisional tax. The level of the factor will be 12 per cent. The uplift factor is intended to ensure that the provisional tax payable in respect of the income of the year of income will approximate the tax ultimately payable in respect of that income and the uplift factor has regard to the expected movement in property incomes and incomes in the unincorporated business sector. An uplift factor of 11 per cent was used for calculating 1987-88 provisional tax. Ultimately, the actual movement in taxable incomes of provisional taxpayers for that year was higher. The estimated movement of incomes for provisional taxpayers for 1988-89 indicates a movement higher than 11 per cent. Separately, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) criticised the removal of the 5:3 depreciation concession and he indicated that the decision will increase the cost of capital for small business. Again I say that the Government was concerned that the 5:3 depreciation provided investors in certain plant and equipment with a significant tax deferral benefit and that this benefit resulted in a substantial and increasing cost to revenue. It also found that the existing accelerated depreciation concessions led to a distortion in investment decisions and that they gave greater tax benefits for investment in long lived assets relative to short lived assets. The new effective life system with a 20 per cent loading will provide a tax benefit to investment in all plant and equipment. It will also remove the distortion to investment in long lived assets. I refer to the matter raised by the honourable gentleman who has just resumed his seat, the honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor) in respect of the representations made to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and to myself and referred to by the Treasurer in Question Time today. Obviously, the Treasurer made it clear that he was prepared to review the matter and look at it in light of all the other circumstances involved. Therefore, I do not want to say any more about that at this stage than just to recognise that the matter has been raised. I believe it does not contribute anything to public debate to have the kind of attack that we have heard in this Chamber, not only from the last speaker but also from earlier speakers, on the Commissioner of Taxation. Honourable members on the other side of the House, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and those on this side know very well that public officials are charged with public duties. Parliament legislates in respect of those duties and, put simply, those officials are in the position of being damned if they do and damned if they don't. Considerable public consultancy work has been carried out by the Australian Taxation Office, its officers, regional managers, deputy commissioners and assistant commissioners participating in business forums and public forums to ensure as far as possible that the changes that have been made in taxation law in recent years are known as widely as possible around Australia. Even commencing that task is almost a superhuman task but that action has been taken and I am sure that honourable members in this chamber are aware of the efforts being made. I have read many of the press reports in respect of that action but to assault in this place the official charged with the responsibility does not achieve anything, and I refer particularly to some of the concluding remarks of the honourable gentleman who resumed his seat a few moments ago. I do not want to say any more about it than that. I was thinking of saying more but this issue has been raised by people on either side of the chamber on past occasions. There are proper ways, if an honourable member feels that a genuine grievance has occurred in respect of a constituent or a company or business, to raise the matter. I see some of those coming through in my correspondence and I reply to some of them. I am sure that if they were brought to the attention of the Taxation Commissioner himself, he, similarly, would want to see that the proper and courteous consideration were given to those representations and to anything that somebody may feel should not have occurred in the manner of conduct. Two other matters were mentioned also-that of Citibank and Allen Allen and Hemsley. Again I do not want to comment on those because both of those cases are subject to current appeal proceedings and there has been some publicity about them. I think they have been dealt with and court decisions have been taken. In conclusion, I thank the honourable members who have participated in the debate for the contributions they have made. I commend the Bill to the House and reject the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Peacock's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Kerr, D. J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGorman, R. N. J. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Humphreys, B. C. Tickner, R. E.Jakobsen, C. A. Uren, T.Jenkins, H. A. West, S. J.Johns, G. T. Willis, R.Jones, Barry Wright, K. W.Kelly, R. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Moore, J. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McCFisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldBowen, Lionel MacArthur, F. S.Blewett, N. Millar, P. C.Klugman, R. E. Burr, M. A.Bilney, G. H. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 24-by leave-taken together. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(7.15) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 13, page 13, lines 31 and 32, omit ``4 February 1985'', substitute ``31 August 1988''. (2) Clause 24, page 20, line 7, omit ``after 31 August 1988''. The amendments that I have moved to clauses 13 and 24 of this Bill were foreshadowed in my speech in the second reading debate. As I said then, we are attempting to stop what the Opposition considers a gross case of retrospective abuse. The substance of clauses 13 and 24 deals with the introduction of a tax on non-cash business benefits. This was prompted by the opening of an apparent loophole since a Federal Court decision held that existing law takes non-cash business benefits only if the benefits are convertible to cash and are in the nature of income according to ordinary concepts. Where a benefit is not convertible to cash, it is not presently subject to tax under any provision of the law. The Opposition has no objection to the substance of the legislation. What it does object to, however, is the outrageous attempt to retrospectively apply the legislation to a date 3 1/2 years ago. I spoke on this matter at great length last night in the second reading debate, so I do not want to cover it in the same detail as I did then. But this proposal is bringing government by press releases to ludicrous heights. We therefore believe that it would be extremely inequitable for the legislation to apply retrospectively. Clause 13 should apply only to benefits provided on or after the day of introduction of this Bill-that is, 31 August 1988. As I noted in my speech during the second reading debate, the press release did not give taxpayers much indication of how affected benefits would be valued. The announcement stated: As a general rule the value to be taxed will be the amount which the benefit would have cost the taxpayers in an arm's length transaction. Undoubtedly, taxpayers could reasonably have expected that detailed valuation rules would apply to the benefits from the date on which they were announced, certainly not some date 3 1/2 years ago. Under the proposed legislation, benefits must be valued, broadly speaking, at the amount the recipient would have had to pay to obtain the benefit under an arm's length transaction. Therefore, to determine the taxable value of benefits received over the previous 3 1/2 years, taxpayers will have to ascertain the amount they would have had to pay to obtain those benefits at the time each benefit was granted. Unquestionably, administrative nightmares will abound. Being late in the day, and so trenchant was I on this issue last night, I will not delay the Committee unnecessarily. I will more succinctly say that the Government and its Treasurer (Mr Keating) have a shameful record of government by press release. That record is an absolute insult to the Parliament. It is in fact a usurping of Parliament's primacy over the executive branch of Government. It is a sign of pathetic administration. We have had illustration after illustration of legislation being introduced six months, 12 months, 18 months and two years after press releases have been issued. But in this instance the period is 3 1/2 years. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peter Morris) will seek to say that the Opposition is taking an exaggerated view. I say to the Committee that there is no way from the general statement of a press release that one can interpret with accuracy the way in which the legislation is in fact provided for. It is grossly unfair to have to wait 3 1/2, having sought to make arrangements in that period. When we went into opposition in March of 1983, I said to my shadow Cabinet that if there was any element of retrospectivity around, it would have to be washed out of our hair. I said that we would oppose the Government on every occasion that it sought to bring forward legislation which effectively acted retrospectively. This enormous omnibus Bill contains many provisions. We will vote against the retrospective element in regard to non-convertible cash benefits because of the 3 1/2 year delay and the retrospectivity that is unquestionably present. I say to the Minister that it takes a touch of exquisite genius to wait 3 1/2 years to insert two pages of legislation in a large Bill such as this. We cannot in conscience let this go through without moving the amendment. Three and a half years to produce about two pages of legislation is a nonsense and we will not let it pass here unchallenged. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(7.21) —As has been said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) when moving the Opposition's amendment, the Government's announced intention to legislate for a new tax on certain non-cash benefits goes way back to February 1985. Here we are, over three and a half years later, being called on to pass an amendment to section 21a of the Act. In the interim, those taxpayers, who were always going to be affected, have proceeded out of commercial necessity to do business on their understanding of what the law was going to require. Of necessity, that understanding had to be gleaned from a press statement issued in February 1985. In taking the natural meaning of the words in that press statement, affected businesses took the usual precaution of obtaining professional advice, and offered incentives which they had every reason to believe would not incur to them or those given the incentives additional tax. In the event, they were unwise because the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was again about to show himself as not to be as good as his word. Section 21a, as he proposes to see it, does not match the word of the Treasurer as he gave it in writing, by press release, on 4 February 1985. Those now to be saddled with a new impost were hoodwinked. They have been allowed to go their merry ways for more than three and a half years because the Treasurer is trying so hard to emulate his lame duck Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in breaking undertakings or promises. It bodes ill for the promised July 1989 tax cuts. The example before us is the clearest yet of the malpractice of legislating by press release. It is an example of that unjust technique which the Law Council of Australia might have had in mind when it renewed its condemnation of the practice of the Federal Government known as `legislation by press release'. The Law Council reiterated its cogently argued concern as recently as 18 July 1988. Sadly, it is not a new practice. The Law Council in its statement reminded us of the words of the now Chief Justice Mason-then Mr Justice Mason of the High Court of Australia. In 1985, in condemning the practice of legislation by press release, he said. There is, first, the risk that the proposed alteration will not be made by Parliament and there is, secondly, the possibility, sometimes unfortunately realised . . . and this is one of those occasions: . . . that the law when enacted will not correspond exactly with the antecedent announcement. Above all, it is a technique calculated to encourage people to disregard and, indeed, to disobey the law. The last sentence has no relevance here but I thought I should quote it in full. It is the words `that the law when enacted will not correspond exactly with the antecedent announcement' that have application in this debate. Amended section 21a, as proposed by the Treasurer, will not `correspond exactly with the antecedent announcement'. Therein lies the reason for our amendment. Given that the Government's amendment is not exactly the same as it described on 4 February 1985, the application of section 21a should have effect only from 31 August 1988-the latter date being the first on which the Treasurer's intentions were spelled out. In any other forum, the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be accepted. It is fair, just and reasonable. Regrettably, these are not virtues cherished by the Treasurer. I have one other reservation about section 21a. Section 21a is designed to help attribute a taxable amount to a person who receives a non cash benefit of an income nature as a reward relating to some business dealing. It was inserted to overcome the decision in the Cooke and Sherden case whereby independent retailers of soft drinks were not assessable on the value of a holiday given to them by the manufacturer of drinks because of the achievement of a certain sales target. Broadly the section, as it is proposed, does what I would expect it to do. However, there is some suggestion that it interacts with section 51ak. Section 51ak denies a tax deduction to a person who incurs business expenditure to acquire property for a service and also receives a `sweetener' or incentive benefit for entering into the business. It seems to me, and certainly in the absence of anything said on behalf of the Government, it may be that the two proposed sections have no overlap. But particularly because section 51ak requires an agreement before it is operative whereas section 21a has no such requirement, there may be no overlap. I am not at all convinced that non cash business benefits would not be caught by both sections, thus effectively resulting in double taxation, and that is my concern. It seems to me that the law should make clear if it intends to allow such an overlap. That is my second quibble, if the Committee likes, with section 21a as proposed by the Treasurer. Otherwise, I simply reiterate my total support for the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He is on sound ground, both legally and, heaven forbid, morally. It is one that we should uphold and contest through the both Houses of Parliament. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(7.28) —I briefly endorse the intention of the Opposition on this issue of retrospectivity. The Government has adopted a practice that was instigated by the Opposition of a Treasurer making an announcement and at a later date legislating for those announced changes to tax law. But three and a half years is an intolerable time for that delay to take place. The community cannot operate in this way. This action is typical of the Treasurer and the way in which he has administered his portfolio. Even simple inquiries from honourable members failed to be acknowledged. The disdain and arrogance of the Treasurer with respect to the community at large are recognised in this Parliament and even more widely. Three and a half years retrospective legislation is not good enough. We are waiting, as I am reminded, for legislation to change the superannuation arrangements announced in the mini Budget. I do not know how much longer we will have to wait. Those people seeking to take up superannuation or adjust their arrangements are in a state of limbo. And it goes on and on, time and time again, where the Government slowly and retrospectively tells the community of its intentions. No doubt the same thing will apply to the market linked changes to investments for pensioners where there are consistent and long delays. The community has been significantly damaged by the policies of this Government. Not only has the Government ripped off additional tax to the extent of $56 a week out of the pockets of the average Australian, but also is insult added to that injury of not taking people into the Government's confidence by stating its intentions. Press releases are too general for people to make decisions on. We have a rampant Commissioner of Taxation who runs wild, making interpretations on law and on press releases in such a way that the community is at a loss to know how to manage its own affairs. I just wish to reiterate my statement that the community will not tolerate these actions. Progress reported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Beazley-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(7.31) —The previous speaker, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), took a cheap shot at the attitude of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I want to reject that. He also took a cheap shot at the Commissioner of Taxation. The Taxation Commissioner, as I said earlier, is carrying out his responsibilities under taxation law. It does not help the performance of public responsibility to receive that kind of cheap shot. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), said that it took an exquisite genius to be able to come back in 1988 and legislate for an announcement that was made in February 1985. Similarly, there was an exquisite piece of inaction on the part of those who sit opposite when back in 1980 the full Federal Court of Australia highlighted the substantive limiting factor in the tax law in holding that non-convertible non-cash benefits were not caught within the existing tax law. What did the then Government-the current Opposition-do about it? It did nothing. This Government, as part of cleaning up the mess left by the Opposition whilst in power, announced in February 1985 that these tax free arrangements should be taxed and should not be subsidised by the rest of the community. I do not know what part of Australia honourable members opposite are moving around in but I can tell them about the very resounding message that is coming from the communities I move in: they want to see a fair tax system. They do not want a continuation of the rorts and the avoidance and the preferential treatment that those who now sit in Opposition practiced over the years. The Opposition can peddle its line, but what Australians want is a fair taxation system, not a tax system that is weighted against salary and wage earners. I want to make it clear that since 1985, by various tax reform measures such as the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, imputation and the foreign tax credits system, this Government has made the tax system fairer and more equitable for all Australians. It also has to be said that the vast tax reform work undertaken by Treasurer and Australian Taxation Office officials with the limited resources available has meant that some legislation has had to come later in the queue than other legislation. We accept that, accordingly, there has been a longer than usual delay between the announcement and the legislation. We do not think that because there has been a delay it can be said-as claimed by those opposite, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-that there is a retrospective application of this law. The Deputy Leader claimed that there was a lack of clarity in the announcement. He spent only six minutes speaking on it last night and he touched on it very briefly tonight. It is not clear from his statements, what aspects of the 1985 press release lack certainty. In that announcement the Treasurer provided a clear and comprehensive statement as to what arrangements were to be caught, what benefits were to be assessable, how to value them and who was to pay tax. I suggest to honourable members-without taking time now because we are into adjournment time-that if they read page 2 of that press release they will find it is set out quite clearly. If they cannot follow that, I think they are contriving not to understand it. To ensure that the legislation contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1988 has no element of retrospectivity, transitional provisions have been included in clause 54. The clause makes provisions in terms as contained in the 1985 announcement. It ensures that taxpayers will be assessed in those terms only in respect of non-cash benefits provided before 31 August 1988. The words and the language of clause 54 were drafted on the basis of the 1985 announcement so that no taxpayer could complain that the legislation now contains any new approach. The provisions of the other related clauses, 12 and 24, apply only after 31 August 1988. Clause 13 applies subject to the transitional provisions found in clause 54. The valuation rule contained in clause 13 is the same valuation basis mentioned in the press release-the arm's length value of the benefit. No new valuation rule has been included in this legislation. There is no retrospectivity in this legislation. Mr Rocher —Of course there is. Mr PETER MORRIS —We had a public announcement telling people what was to be legislated. That announcement and that undertaking are being carried forward. Mr Peacock —Look at the Bill. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member can dispute that, but I will come to it in a moment. I have already explained it to him. If he does not want to accept that, that is his decision. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also suggested that the proposed legislation would double tax on non-cash benefits when received by employees. That is clearly incorrect. Section 23l of the Income Tax Assessment Act removes the possibility of any double taxation of a benefit received by an employee. Where a taxpayer derives a fringe benefit within the meaning of the fringe benefits legislation, the benefit is exempt income under the Income Tax Assessment Act. I want to emphasise that the advice I have is that since 1985 the professional taxation journals have highlighted the proposed non-cash legislation as being outstanding. When it was introduced into this House it did not surprise taxpayers or their advisers. We on this side of the House believe that the Opposition, in proposing this amendment, is again acting on behalf of a minority who claim that they were not aware of what was going to happen or on behalf of some who may have been aware but are seeking to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. In effect, that means that honest taxpayers are required to continue to subsidise those whose revenue has been forgone. Mr Peacock —We are not disagreeing with the principle. We are disagreeing with the date. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is not retrospective. The honourable member read the statement. He is an intelligent, very able politician and a very able former Minister. I defy anybody to convince me that he could not understand what that means when the provisions in the statement have virtually been written into the clauses of the Bill. It may make people unhappy that eventually it is coming through, but the Government made the announcement. There has been no representation that further advice should be sought. In those circumstances, the Government has no alternative but to reject the amendment. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Peacock's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr Ronald Edwards) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Aldred, K. J. Macphee, I. M.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Miles, C. G.Beale, J. H. Moore, J. C.Blunt, C. W. Nehl, G. B.Braithwaite, R. A. Peacock, A. S.Cadman, A. G. Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C.McGauran, P. J. Woods, R. L. Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, JohnGrace, E. L. Scott, LesGriffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Hollis, C. Staples, P. R.Howe, B. L. Theophanous, A. C.Humphreys, B. C. Tickner, R. E.Jakobsen, C. A. Uren, T.Jenkins, H. A. West, S. J.Johns, G. T. Willis, R.Jones, Barry Wright, K. W. Cameron, Donald Darling, E. E.McArthur, F. S. Bowen, LionelMillar, P. C. Blewett, N.Burr, M. A. Klugman, R. E.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Bilney, G. H.Howard, J. W. Hawke, R. J. L. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(7.46) —I had indicated a third amendment which was consequential on the first two which have just been defeated. As a consequence it would be inappropriate for me to press that amendment. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 31 August, on motion 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. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Debate resumed from 31 August, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(7.49) —Last night in the second reading debate I foreshadowed that I would be moving an amendment and I put forward the arguments and justification for the amendment. Therefore, I do not intend to speak to it now. 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: (1) expresses its concern at the increasing costs of Medicare despite a fall in the delivery of medical services, particularly to the poor and needy; (2) deplores changes made by the Government to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme; and (3) calls on the Government to ensure that all Australians obtain the high-quality, affordable health care, to which they are entitled'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Peacock —I second the amendment. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations)(7.50) —I will not delay the proceedings of the House. I simply say in response to the Opposition that we reject the amendment and what it stands for. It represents a deprivation of the aged, the sick and the poor in this country of the provision of adequate medical care and a continuation by the Opposition of its support for the strongest trade union in this country, the Australian Medical Association, and the denial of assistance and medical care to the aged and to the sick. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Shack's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. 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. Scott, L. J.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Willis, R.Johns, G. T. Wright, K. W.Jones, Barry Aldred, K. J. Macphee, I. M.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Miles, C. G.Beale, J. H. Moore, J. C.Blunt, C. W. Nehl, G. B.Braithwaite, R. A. Peacock, A. S.Cadman, A. G. Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C.McGauran, P. J. Woods, R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldBowen, Lionel McArthur, F. S.Blewett, N. Millar, P. C.Klugman, R. E. Burr, M. A.Bilney, G. N. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. House adjourned at 7.59 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Humphreys to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to veterans' entitlements and other related matters. Mr Tickner to move- That this House recognises- (1) that the question of human rights is a legitimate international concern, transcending national boundaries and rejects attempts to describe a concern for abuses of human rights as interference in the internal affairs of other states; and (2) the contribution made by Amnesty International in defending human rights around the world. Mr Beazley to move- That standing orders 45, 46, 47, 199, 200 and 285 be amended by omitting ``two'' (wherever occurring) and substituting ``four''. 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: Development of a Military Police Complex at Green Hills, Liverpool Military Area, New South Wales. 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 a shell filling facility for St Marys Munitions Filling Factory, New South Wales. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 October 1988: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals for collection of information-1988- No. 58-Census of commercial and other private sector child care centres. No. 59-Topics to be included as supplements to the monthly Labour Force Survey: labour force experience, labour mobility and educational attainment. No. 60-Update of ABS Register of Businesses. No. 61-Quarterly collection of statistics on shipping and cargo movements.