1998-05-273817REPS383301998-05-27Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous383309:31:003833Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—by leave—I move:That standing order 48A, (adjournment and next meeting) be suspended for this sitting.I do not wish to delay the House, but it is intended that we sit tonight. This will allow people an opportunity to speak in the House on Appropriation Bill (No. 1). It is intended and agreed between ourselves and the opposition that neither government nor opposition members will call quorums or divisions so that people can have an opportunity to speak as so provided. I thank the opposition for their cooperation.09:31:003833McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The opposition agrees with this proposal, and also with the qualifications given by the Leader of the House (Mr Reith). Given that I will be away in Brisbane while it is all happening, I hope you all enjoy it.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills3833r5383833Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.383309:32:003833Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill complements the National Firearms Program Implementation Acts of 1996 and 1997 supporting a firearms buyback scheme in the territories of Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island.Following the tragic events at Port Arthur in April 1996 the Australasian Police Ministers Council agreed to nationwide gun control measures. A significant element of these measures was the amnesty and compensation scheme for owners of semiautomatic firearms. It was agreed that people who surrendered these firearms during the amnesty period would be compensated and the Commonwealth would pay the cost of the compensation scheme. The Commonwealth also agreed to pay compensation for the surrender of other prohibited firearms of a more dangerous type where the surrender is consistent with the spirit of the national firearms program.The compensation-for-surrender scheme in the states and mainland territories was funded by a one-off increase in the Medicare levy for the income year 1996-97. The funds raised by that one-off levy will also meet the cost of the scheme in the territories of Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island.The bill provides for me to authorise payments for the purpose of providing compensation to firearms owners and dealers and for purposes directly connected to the compensation scheme and for implementation of licensing and registration schemes in the territories. The bill appropriates moneys from the consolidated revenue fund for these purposes.The national firearms program has received bipartisan support. I ask that that support continue. I commend the bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Bills3833r5363833Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.383309:34:003833Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998, which is now before the House, contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to give effect to the government's commitment to remove tariffs on inputs to the manufacture of information industries equip ment. The amendments have been previously tabled in this House in Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 1998.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) made the Investing for Growth industry statement on 8 December 1997. In it he announced that the government would remove tariffs on inputs to the manufacture of information industries equipment, after consulting with local component suppliers to assess the likely impact on them. The Prime Minister also said that, whenever doubts over classification of information technology equipment arise, the lowest tariff will be applied. We are now taking action to address these matters.The issue with tariffs on inputs is one of negative assistance. Most fully assembled information industries equipment is imported duty free. However, many of the chemical products, mechanical parts, electronic components and subassemblies that are used in local production of the same equipment attract either a three per cent or a five per cent tariff. This represents a situation of `negative assistance' in an industry which is highly competitive and in which margins are often small.There has also been an issue within the industry whereby goods classified as information technology equipment are duty free, and goods classified as telecommunications equipment carry a duty of five per cent. This duty differential means that there has been incentive for importers to seek to have goods classified to an information technology item rather than a telecommunications item.Following consultation with industry, we are taking action on two fronts. The central element is an acceleration of duty reductions already scheduled under the information technology agreement, ITA. Australia, along with 42 other countries, is a signatory to the ITA which covers 93 per cent of world trade in information technology products. This agreement produced a list of goods in the information technology industries on which tariffs are being phased to zero on 1 January 2000.With the exception of a small range of finished goods, we will be bringing forward by 18 months the tariff reductions to which Australia is committed under the ITA. A zero duty rate will now apply from 1 July 1998. The goods that will be excluded, and for which 1 January 2000 will remain the operative date for a zero rate, include: line telephone, cordless, mobile and other telephone sets, facsimile and telephone answering machines, digital still image cameras, pagers, antennas and aerial reflectors. The classification issue has been resolved by reducing, to free, the duty on goods which were considered contentious at the time of the `investing for growth' statement.The second element of the approach is the establishment of a new schedule 4 item in the customs tariff for those inputs not covered by the ITA. This will allow duty free entry for other inputs which are currently subject to a tariff concession order (TCO). The new item will cover inputs to the manufacture of information industries equipment. Information industries equipment will be defined in terms of a series of tariff items within the by-laws written to the new schedule 4 item.If the coverage of goods contained in the ITA expands over time, this listing of tariff items will be altered appropriately. Inputs to manufacture are goods that are an integral part of the manufacturing process for this equipment, and include goods that are incorporated into the equipment or consumed during the manufacture of the equipment, as well as certain capital equipment utilised in the manufacturing process. In consultation with industry, an initial list of TCOs covering relevant inputs has been developed. The coverage for the new schedule will be expanded as new TCOs are established for other inputs to information industry equipment manufacture.Australian information technology manufacturers will benefit from duty free access to key inputs which will strengthen the competitive base of Australia's information technology industry. The cost to government is estimated at $80 million over the next 18 months, and this should translate directly to reduced costs for industry and ultimately flow through to lower prices for consumers. Australia's position in the context of the ITA will also be enhanced, at a time when some countries are calling for accelerated action on trade liberalisation. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Parliamentary Zone3835383509:40:003835Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLPMinister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government10—I move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 25 May 1998, namely: Erection of signage on and around the headquarters of the National Archives of Australia at East Block.I am pleased that the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) is in the chamber because there has been some controversy about this issue and I wish to give the following assurance to the honourable member. In moving this motion, I inform the House that the new signs will not obscure the current East Block signs on the building. I am aware that this name is held in great affection by generations of Canberra residents and others familiar with the parliamentary triangle.I also remind honourable members that the Australian Heritage Commission has been consulted about the signage and has advised that the design and location of the signs will have no adverse impact on the national estate values of the building. This advice from the Heritage Commission was lodged, with relevant explanatory papers, with the table offices of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The new signs will be in character and appropriate to the new use of East Block as the headquarters of the National Archives of Australia. I commend the motion.09:42:003835McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—It is coincidental that I am here, but I thank the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government (Mr Somlyay) for his courtesy and his comments. It is true that there would be some concern if the fundamental historic nature of East Block were to be impaired by the changes. The bald statement in notice No. 2 was a bit worrying to me and to other people. Inquiries were made and some reservations were expressed.I think the refurbishment of East Block, to the extent that I have had the chance to examine it, has been very well done and it is a very important thing, as was the previous refurbishment of West Block. Those buildings are not only full of history but, when properly refurbished, they can be modern testaments to our architectural history, as well as good, effective office space. It is very appropriate for the National Archives to be moving there.The National Archives should have a more prominent position in terms of being accessible to Australians and to visitors and should have proper signage. In other countries, particularly in the United States, the archives is a very prominent part and a frequently visited aspect of the national capital, and many important historical documents are on public display there. It is a good thing that we are moving in that direction and that it is close to Old Parliament House where the National Archives from time to time makes good use of the space to display some of its collection.I accept without reservation the minister's assurances and, subject to the continuing scrutiny of bodies like the Heritage Commission and the National Capital Authority, I look forward to the discreet and tasteful implementation of the assurances which the minister has given to me and to the people of Canberra.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills3835r5313835Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Gareth Evans 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 notes that the Budget:(1) does nothing to redress the pain caused to ordinary Australian families, and those doing it hardest in our community, by the impact of successive Budget cuts on health, education, job programs, aged care, child care and many other government programs and services;(2) by seeking to achieve surplus on the basis of savage Budget cuts, rather than on growth and job creation, does nothing to give hope to the unemployed and underemployed;(3) confirms that the Opposition's alternative Budget strategy, as originally announced in 1996, would have returned the Budget to surplus in 1998-99—on the basis of putting growth and jobs first, with much more moderate outlays reductions;(4) lacks credibility in its growth, employment and current account deficit forecasts;(5) confirms that Australia has a private rather than public saving problem—and the stupidity of the Coalition's promise-breaking decision in 1997 to abandon Labor's superannuation co-contribution; and(6) is incomplete and misleading in its projections of future revenue and outlays, in that it makes no provision for election-driven new expenditures and the Government's GST and other tax proposals".09:44:003836Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREWHE4WakefieldLP10—I rise to participate in the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 and to take up the speech where I left off last night. With some modesty, I will say that last night I was in an entertaining and I hope challenging debate with the member for Port Adelaide (Mr Sawford), but the numbers in the chamber this morning would suggest that perhaps it was not as entertaining as I led myself to believe.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sure members will always come to hear you, my colleague.HK5Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREW—Nonetheless, the member for Port Adelaide had, I thought, quite unkindly made the point that the only reason the budget was in surplus was the burden had been carried by, he thought, those people in his electorate who were least able to carry the burden. That, of course, was nonsense. It was nonsense because, far from the burden being carried by those people, this government can claim to have balanced the books and simultaneously introduced the sort of family assistance that guaranteed that those who were least able to bear the burden were not saddled with it. As those of us in this parliament on more comfortable salaries can attest, it has frequently been those in the higher salary range who have been asked to pick up some of the cost of what was Labor's mismanagement.Even more pertinent is the fact that the budget has been balanced largely because this government has been prepared to prune government expenditure and to target it more appropriately. We have every reason to be proud of the state of the nation's economy; every reason to be proud because it has been achieved in the face of the collapse of some of our Asian neighbours. In fact, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) can claim to have effectively fireproofed this economy against that collapse. As everyone in Australia knows, we would be in a dramatically worse situation had it not been for the action taken by this government in balancing the books and in ensuring that we are both back in the black and back on track.There are too few Australians conscious of the fact that under this government exports have gone up, unemployment has fallen and our capacity to service the debt has improved because our gross domestic product has improved. As a result, we are well placed in international terms. Yet all we have heard from those opposite in this appropriation debate has been criticism of the direction the government has taken, even though we have taken the decisions, many of them unpopular, and taken them in the national interest.The truly significant thing about this appropriation debate is that it is being held against the backdrop of all sorts of difficulties facing our Asian neighbours, yet here we stand as a nation in this part of the globe not being as affected by that Asian collapse as we would have been if we had not got on with the difficult job of paying off the debt. The government recognises that, having taken difficult decisions and having effectively fireproofed the economy against the collapse in Asia, it is now time for us to take the next step in reforming the Australian economy, and that step, of course, is tax reform.We have heard from those opposite arguments like 1993 revisited—nonsense debated by those opposite—suggesting that in some way this government is about putting an additional tax burden on the people of Australia. Questions have been posed by those opposite about the rate at which any form of GST would be applied if it were to be applied and about how much money would be raised. What every Australian should be asking about tax reform is one very simple question, and it would not matter who the government was. The question every Australian should ask about tax reform is: how much money does the government want to collect? That is the basic question—not `Where is it collected, at what rate or how?' but, `How much money?'We go into this tax reform debate having given one ironclad guarantee, and that is that, as a government, we do not want or need—and that is the important point—to collect any more general revenue. We do not need additional money. Every Australian needs to know that we are giving them an assurance that, because the debt is coming down, because our obligations under interest and principal repayments are falling, if our debt repayment program stays on track we will have available to us an additional $10 billion a year for as long as this government is in power. Because of that, we do not propose to collect any more general revenue.All of the changes to tax are predicated on the understanding that the government does not need any additional tax, yet no-one opposite seems to be recognising that. I can understand the cynicism of the Australian people. They fundamentally do not believe that a government is not going to collect any tax because their experience over the last 13 years was with a government that, in spite of its l-a-w promises, kept cranking up the tax bracket. But, because we have rubbed out the debt, because we are back in the black, because our GDP is improving and so too our capacity to service our overseas debt, we have a reduced principal and interest obligation that allows us to confidently predict that there will be additional money for government expenditure without having to raise any more money. That is very significant.It is very important that every Australian recognises that the intention of this govern ment is not to collect more tax but to collect it fairly. No-one see seems to dispute that. I do not even know of anyone on the opposition benches who suggests that the present tax system is fair. We propose to introduce a fairer tax system in the interests of all Australians, giving them the obvious guarantee that there is no need for additional tax revenue.I believe the Treasurer has every reason to be proud of the budget he has handed down. We as a government have every reason to be proud of the fact that the nation is now back in the black and back on track. Clearly, that gives Australians an assurance at this stage, particularly when some of our near economies are suffering. I am pleased to be part of a government that has taken difficult decisions in the national interest.09:52:003837Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak during this budget debate. I want to assure the previous speaker, the member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), that he will continue to hear a mantra about tax reform over the next few months from the opposition. That mantra will not be about how we do not need any more revenue. That mantra will be very simple. It will be along the lines of what the member for Kooyong (Mr Georgiou) would do if he had the integrity to be sitting on our side of the political fence following his previous capacity as a political apparatchik. Our message will be very simple: no GST. That is message No. 1 which we will be ramming home month after month, day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute, 30-second grab after 30-second grab.The second message we will be hitting home is the hypocrisy of a government which wants to slug ordinary families with a GST on food, movie tickets and every item of their lifestyle, whilst Senator Parer and others on the opposite side of the chambers have the benefit of family trusts. I think those two messages are very well understood by the electorate. You have people who earn millions of dollars a year paying minimal tax and you have a government which is refusing to do anything about that. Real tax reform is hitting those who can afford to pay—not hitting pensioners when they go to their local corner store to buy a loaf of bread or a carton of milk, but that is exactly what we will see.We all recall that those who are now part of the government opposed every real element of tax reform introduced by Labor during the 1980s. We well remember that the current Prime Minister, the member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), opposed the capital gains tax. We well remember the opposition to the fringe benefits tax, which was going to destroy the restaurant industry and destroy the hospitality industry in this country. We well remember that every single progressive tax reform introduced by Labor was opposed by those opposite. All those opposite can come up with is essentially a regressive redistributive measure in the form of a goods and services tax, while they fail to do anything which would hurt the top end of town.I want to talk about some other issues in the budget that was handed down a few weeks ago. We heard nothing about tax reform in that budget—that is the irony. Here we have the final stages of this parliament leading up to an election sometime later this year and we have a government which has failed to put its program before the people of Australia. We had the extraordinary situation where the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, outlined the basis of Labor's tax plan on Sunday. So we have an opposition leading the way on tax reform, showing leadership and putting its program out there before the people of Australia, while the government continues to not even let its own backbench know what it will be doing. I note that in the government caucus room yesterday, government backbenchers raised the concerns they had about Treasury being allowed to implement its own agenda without any constraints.The fact is that this is a do nothing, mark-time budget but it has failed ordinary working people in Australia. People in my electorate are still reeling from the cuts of the last two Costello budgets, and this year's budget has not gone any way towards making up for those cuts. The budget might be making some government members and people from the top end of town feel relaxed and comfortable, but the government has no idea how real people in the suburbs and the country towns of Australia are feeling.My electorate is a bit different from the Prime Minister's. Figures show that 43.5 per cent of my electorate was born overseas, the fifth highest rate in the country. Grayndler has the sixth highest number of people who were born overseas and have been resident less than five years, and the vast majority of these people come from non-English speaking backgrounds. Eleven per cent of my constituents do not speak English fluently and nearly half the electorate speak a language other than English at home. Large numbers of people have settled in the inner west of Sydney from Asia, China, Vietnam, the Middle East, Greece and Italy—indeed, from all over the world. They are not feeling terribly relaxed and comfortable, because this government has cut off vital resources for new migrants trying to take their place in their new country. There have been appalling cuts of 60 to 65 per cent to the Adult Migrant English Service in New South Wales—and this at a time when those more redneck elements opposite would state that it is very important that people learn English. They say that on the one hand but, on the other hand, they are gutting the funding of those organisations.My electorate has more people on incomes less than $500 per week, fewer people on incomes of more than $1,500 a week and lower median weekly family incomes than the electorate of Bennelong. These ordinary working families are not feeling relaxed and comfortable either. People on ordinary incomes have been slugged with huge hikes in child-care costs as a result of successive coalition budgets. It is not only disgraceful but also unbelievable that this government not only slashed $850 million in child-care funding over the last few years but then, when the budget papers were released, it turned out that child-care expenditure was $117 million less than what it should have been. That means almost a billion dollars has gone from child-care funding since the last election.In Bennelong, the unemployment rate at the last census was five per cent. In my electorate it was twice that. The government's successive cuts to employment programs have done nothing to constrain unemployment. The government itself in these budget papers forecast that unemployment will rise above eight per cent and stay there. There has been $1.8 billion cut out of these employment services over successive budgets, and it has been cut by a further $147 million in this budget over the next four years. The government's new net spending on unemployment programs is less than one-fifth of what it has taken out of job programs.Another thing that is very different in my electorate when compared with an electorate such as Bennelong is the number of rented houses. Forty-one per cent of dwellings are rented in the electorate of Grayndler, the eighth highest figure for any electorate in Australia. Cuts to rent assistance over the last two budgets have meant real decreases in the quality of life experienced by people in my electorate. As people would be aware, rental prices in Sydney are extremely high. The Olympics will do nothing to reduce that pressure in the lead-up to the year 2000, particularly in the inner western suburbs of Sydney. The problem with this government is that it has no real vision. The old relaxed and comfortable cliche has been replaced by security and stability and other buzzwords being used by the government, but it is wearing very thin. The fact is that people in electorates throughout Australia are not feeling relaxed and comfortable. They are not feeling relaxed and comfortable about the slash and burn mentality of this government.In the first two budgets we saw the Howard government slashing billions of dollars from the social welfare programs and the public sector. We saw millions of dollars taken from nursing homes and aged care, millions from higher education, millions from school education, millions from child care, millions from public health and millions from research and development. But slash and burn is not the only tactic that the coalition has used in the last 2½ years. Increases in government service delivery charges are not headline grabbing, but they nevertheless impose a burden on many hardworking and already overstretched families. User pays in Centrelink and the abolished CES mean that employers must now pay to get new staff, yet another burden on small business and yet another disincentive to employment.At least when you go back in time you have to give John Hewson some credit for honesty. At least in the 1993 election campaign with Fightback there was a fair dinkum program for what they would do in government. But along came the last election campaign, the campaign about being relaxed and comfortable, and none of these visions of slash and burn were put forward—and not surprisingly. What we have seen since, however, is two budgets in which Costello cut in every way possible. We now have a budget which is an attempt to say, `Oh, well, we're nice people really,' in the lead-up to an election in the hope that that will wash with ordinary Australians out there in the electorate. The fact is that ordinary Australians are not feeling relaxed and comfortable about these cuts. They are not feeling terribly secure, particularly when you have a government with its massive ideological obsession of smashing people's employment rights for what it sees as the crime of belonging to a trade union, which is essentially what the waterfront dispute is all about. We have seen images on TV of big, balaclava-clad security guards dressed in black throwing people out of their jobs in the middle of the night, using dogs and mace and other weapons and threats. We have seen scab buses employed by the government and the government legislation which it is now saying it might withdraw or not proceed with—the scab solidarity fund, effectively—at a time when this government will do nothing and has done nothing in this budget to allocate money for the miners at Cobar or Woodlawn. Those constraints—this us and them mentality; this divide and rule ideologically driven government—are having a massive impact out there on Australians. Australians are feeling terribly concerned at the direction of this government. I want to conclude by commenting on a couple of local matters in terms of the budget which showed how much was spent as opposed to how much was allocated. The first of those is the massive underspending of the government's insulation program around Kingsford Smith airport, and this at a time when the government some year ago cut off the insulation program at Stanmore Road in my electorate because it said that the change in aircraft noise patterns meant that those people who had been promised insulation no longer deserved it. The fact that the government underspent the amount of revenue which it anticipated spending in the last 12 months is an absolute disgrace given that it has withdrawn from that obligation and from that commitment. I would remind the parliament that this was revenue raised by a ticket tax of $3.40 on every passenger who goes out of Sydney airport. So it is not as if they are not spending any general revenue.The second matter is that in spite of the considerable funds which have been allocated for the development of a second Sydney airport only $8 million was spent on that in the budget, which is something like less than nine per cent of what had been allocated. The people in the electorates of Lowe, Barton, Watson, Grayndler, Sydney, Wentworth and Kingsford-Smith will all have a look at that and say, `Well this government isn't real fair dinkum if they can only spend nine per cent of the funds that they allocated for that second Sydney airport.' At a time when there is urgent need for action there, I think that that exposes the government's hand.10:07:003840Johnston, Ricky, MPMrs JOHNSTONNL6CanningLP10—The coalition, in handing down its third budget, has for the financial year 1998-99 brought the country's finances into surplus—the first surplus for the 1990s. `Surplus' is a word that I suppose not many members opposite would be familiar with. However, it is a word that the people of Canning and the rest of Australia deserve to be familiar with, after struggling through 13 years of Labor mismanagement, including the recession we had to have. The 1998-99 budget is one that comes from a government with a long-term view of economic reform. We do not intend to head down the path of perpetual boom and bust as experienced under the Keating-Beazley leadership. The coalition government is committed to ensuring benefits that will create security and safety for our children and a more stable future for our country well into the next century. Our third budget is again fair and just. It is positive and continues to deliver on our pre-election commitments to create jobs, boost savings, help families and assist small business. This budget consolidates the coalition's plans put into place in 1996. It does so by introducing measures aimed at encouraging people to save for their future and for that of their families. It reaches out a helping hand to small businesses that were given a short straw under the previous Labor government. Our young people will benefit from further work for the dole initiatives, and those who care for the disabled will be better off financially. The average Australian home buyer is now saving $320 per month because of the lowest home mortgage rates that this country has had since the 1970s. Remember that at one stage those interest rates got as high as 16 per cent. Small business interest rates have now come down to 7.7 per cent, the lowest rate for small business since the 1960s. Let us not forget unemployment. While still unacceptably high, we now have the lowest unemployment rate in eight years—meaning, of course, that we have more people now in jobs. But I suggest that a lot more still needs to be done.There are many aspects in this budget that deserve praise. However, as time does not permit me to elaborate to such an extent to cover them all, I will concentrate on those elements that I believe will particularly benefit the people of Canning. As a nation we need to boost our savings base. People need to be encouraged to save, to know that to do so will reap rewards. From July 1998, the savings rebate will reduce tax on savings by 7.5 per cent, and by July 1999 by 15 per cent, for the first $3,000 of income. In this way, many people who save will receive a current benefit that they may choose to reinvest.Our budget is a caring budget. It includes plans to provide a fair safety net to both pensioners and carers in our community. We have also listened to the voices of the self-funded retirees. We have given tax fairness to self-funded retirees and expanded their eligibility to obtain the Commonwealth seniors health card. This government is the first government to legislate a commitment to maintain the single rate of pension at 25 per cent of total male average weekly earnings. By this action we demonstrate the high priority that this government places on ensuring security for the elderly and for those in need.As of January 1999, the gold card for health care will be available to those World War II veterans who faced danger from hostile forces. I am sure that all members would acknowledge that carers make an immense contribution to the lives of those in our community who are incapacitated in some way or another. The $280 million staying at home package expands eligibility for the domiciliary nursing care benefit and has more than doubled the number of people who may be able to receive assistance. I think that is a fantastic achievement.I now turn quickly to speak in support of the coalition government's plan that provides the unemployed youth of our country with an opportunity to increase their self-esteem. I am, of course, speaking in support of the Howard government's further work for the dole plan. An amount of $350 million has been allocated over four years to extend the principle of mutual obligation, to provide job opportunities and to increase young people's self-esteem.Since the first announcement of this scheme, many local organisations in my electorate of Canning have expressed their interest in participating in pilot programs. I am pleased to say that the first two projects so far entered into in my electorate have been very successful, resulting in a high number of their participants finding jobs. Only last night, a representative from my office presented certificates to the participants at Amaroo Retirement Village. Indeed, my office has been inundated with calls from constituents, both young and old, employed and unemployed, expressing their support for the benefits they foresee coming from this plan.Recent statistics show that the average full-time youth unemployment rate in the south-east corridor of Perth, which covers my electorate, is 21.3 per cent. When I spoke on this issue of youth unemployment last year, this rate was at 24.3 per cent—the highest in Western Australia at that time. It is therefore pleasing for me to note that it has come down. Even if it is only a slight reduction, it is at least a trend in the right direction. I acknowledge that we still have a long way to go, but this government has begun a process to reduce the high levels of youth unemployment. I am extremely proud of the achievements that we have thus far achieved. It is my firm belief that work for the dole will help to wipe out the unfortunate stigma that is all too often attached to our young unemployed people—as being lazy, lacking in a sense of moral responsibility or lacking a commitment to hard work. Thirteen years of Labor government did little to dispel that perception. When the coalition government was swept into power more than two years ago, the youth of Australia were left with a legacy of a failed labour market program, the ill-fated Working Nation. Working Nation ensured that our young hopeful people were churned through endless training sessions which secured few real jobs and, sadly, it serviced only in many instances to heighten their growing disillusionment over their future job prospects.Work for the dole, on the other hand, is one amongst many initiatives introduced by the Howard government aimed at addressing the difficulties facing our youth. Measures such as school vocational education programs, apprenticeship and traineeship schemes, numeracy and literacy strategies, Green Corps, the youth ambassadors for development program and the national youth suicide strategy are all focused on bringing the cycle of dependency to an end.This government is also addressing the problems of those in our community who fall victim to illicit drug addiction. Drugs destroy societies. They destroy families. They destroy individuals. They destroy everything that we hold dear. The $7.5 million schools drug education strategy will deliver drug education in Australian schools and support a national goal of no illicit drugs in our schools. It is vitally important that we provide access to effective drug education models for our educators to ensure that those young Australians who need help receive it.Health is another important matter to all of us, not only as individuals but also as a nation. The announcement of $80 million over four years to enhance preventive health programs is most welcome. It is often said prevention is better than cure, but the first step is to make people aware of this concept. In this I believe governments can play an important role through education and promotion of healthy lifestyles. Providing free influenza vaccinations, developing programs to reduce tobacco related illness and the prioritising of areas of environmental health are all good initiatives.The government has committed additional ongoing funding to medical research. I am reminded of a very sad event that happened to a family in my electorate recently. A very vibrant, active young lady died suddenly and tragically as a result of meningococcal fever. Her parents were, and continue to be, devastated, especially because so little is known of this disease. What we do know about this disease is this. The disease has a short incubation period—between two to five days. The bacteria is spread through mouth-to-mouth transmissions by sneezing, kissing or sharing eating utensils. There is no known vaccination against the most common strain of this deadly disease in Australia. I am confident that, with the continued research dollars made available by the federal government, we will see a reduction in the number of deaths occurring from such an insidious disease.Speaking to the Appropriation Bill in 1997, my colleague the member for Fairfax (Mr Somlyay) offered some interesting advice to newly elected members. He suggested that a good way of attempting to gauge the public's acceptance of a budget's merit could be to consider the number of telephone calls each office receives. I must say that in the week following this budget I received only a handful of calls. All of these callers merely requested further information on budget an nouncements which they believe will benefit themselves or their families. It is indeed a popular budget, one that has been readily accepted by the electorate as being based on sound financial management. After all, most people must live within their means and they expect the government to do exactly the same.The Howard government's job, having been left with Labor's $10 billion black hole, has been a most difficult one; but we have met that challenge. We have been tough when it was called for, but we never lost sight—the doing of which was Labor's demise—of the real battlers in local communities like Canning.It is the consensus of many community leaders and commentators that increasing savings and reserves will bring about more important long-term economic benefits for all Australians. In quoting just one of them, let me refer to Mr Ron Silberberg, Managing Director of the Housing Industry Association. He said:The federal government's strategy of conserving reserves is tactically correct and economically responsible.Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have had so many coughing fits during this speech, I will reserve the rest of my speech and allow my colleague to continue.10:19:003842McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The previous speaker, the honourable member for Canning (Mrs Johnston), expressed—and justifiably expressed—concern regarding youth unemployment. I point out, however, to members on the other side that under this government youth unemployment has actually increased; and the trends are that it is increasing. Equally, for those over 55, I think the rate of long-term unemployment is 50 per cent. The facts of the matter are that, these days, if you are over 45 without special skills and you lose your job, you are in real trouble. So there is a lot of insecurity out there. The catch-cry that the government is coming out with is: safety and security—and I forget the third `s', but I venture to say it is `sucked in' for many of those unfortunate Australians who lose their jobs, because the government is not producing any of those things. What is of most concern, however, is that the government is not addressing the fundamental need of Australia to become successful in the world economy, with the opportunities that are transferred to Australian citizens. The greatest threat on Australia's horizon—the greatest black cloud—is the extent of our trading deficit. That is something the government says has been aggravated by Asia. That may well be the case, in terms of some aggravation. But the fundamentals have been destroyed by the government.I will give some figures to illustrate the concern. In the December quarter, the current account deficit was $5.7 billion, an increase of 22 per cent. There was a further massive trade slump in the March quarter, when merchandise exports fell by 12 per cent and merchandise imports exceeded exports by $1.97 billion. In the month of April we saw a $1.3 billion trading deficit—the biggest monthly trading deficit on record. The government's own budget papers predict the current account deficit forecast to rise to $31 billion, or 5.25 per cent of gross domestic product, as compared to 3.4 per cent when they took office. In terms of where this government is going, those figures are damning.What have the government done about it? They have virtually decimated the capacity of our exporters to compete in international markets. I will give some examples of the more significant ones, although I will not go through the entire list of 38. They have abolished the DIFF scheme; they have emasculated the export market development grants program; they have abolished the international trade enhancement scheme; they have reduced the export access program; they have abolished the Asia-Pacific Fellowship Scheme, the Asia business links program, the Tradeblazer electronic commerce program, the innovative agriculture marketing program, the export access scheme and, in the ultimate act of being penny wise and pound foolish, they have cut some $400 million from the budget of Austrade and reduced Austrade's domestic staff by some 25 per cent. In total, the government has cut about $1 billion over four years from export enhancing programs. In total, some 38 industry export promoting programs have been either abolished or emasculated by this government.While it may sound relatively trivial in the overall scheme of $1 billion being gutted from assistance, this year in Lisbon, Portugal, there will be an international exposition, obviously to promote trade and tourism in Europe. How short-sighted is this government when, for the first time, Australia will not be present at a major European trade exposition. One hundred and twenty-three nations, I think it is, will be over there marketing their tourist opportunities and their products for Europe, but this government, particularly given the Asian crisis, have totally missed the boat. They are to be condemned for that act.The government maintains that they have fireproofed the economy. They say they have achieved that fireproofing by creating low inflation and, consequently, low interest rates. But it is interesting, is it not, that the government claim credit for low interest rates but do not claim responsibility for continuing unacceptable levels of unemployment. The facts of the matter are that the work of a number of ordinary Australians who showed restraint over a long period of time during the late 1980s and the 1990s, particularly with the prices and income accords, set in place the infrastructure that enabled the low inflationary results to be achieved. This government has obtained the benefit of that longer term restraint.This government dismiss all that. They, of course, want to claim credit for low inflation. I suppose they can claim credit for gutting, in one year, $7 billion out of the economy, despite the fact that their own budget papers in 1996 showed that, by the year 2001, the budget would be coming back into balance and that that could be hastened by simple and relatively minor adjusting measures. As a consequence of gutting $7 billion out of the economy, we are facing record bankruptcies. The government really has no program in place to market Australian products or, indeed, as I will mention shortly, to develop Australian products and technology.The facts of the matter are that we were developing an enthusiastic, dynamic and cooperative relationship between government and business. In 1983, the former Labor government introduced the 150 per cent research and development tax concession. All competent economists will say that the driving force of a nation and the driving force of a nation's competitiveness is investment in the nation's intellectual base, in terms of both education and research and development.Last year, a prominent international science journal called Nature published a review of Australia's research and development program. It spoke of the startling effects that had resulted from that 150 per cent research and development deduction. Between 1982 and 1994, research and development increased from 0.24 per cent of gross domestic product to 0.75 per cent of gross domestic product. The rate of growth between 1986 and 1988 averaged eight per cent a year, compared with only 1.6 per cent in Japan, 0.6 per cent in the United States and 0.2 per cent in the United Kingdom. So we were really heading towards the front of the pack during that period.External patent applications per unit of economic output more than doubled during the 1980s, whereas the OECD average increased by only 50 per cent. The runs were on the board, and industry, while apprehensive initially that there would not be a long-term structure in place, certainly got well and truly involved in research and development when they saw that it was working. Those figures, which have been recognised internationally, speak for themselves.But what have the government done? Again they have decimated research and development in Australia. The Managing Director of Vision Australia, which exports high-tech medical equipment, said that the government's policies on research and development have drilled us right back into the 1960s. It is difficult not to agree with that. Cutting research and development from 150 per cent to 125 per cent represents taking $1.26 billion out of research and development over a four-year period. The nation as a whole is starting to pay the price for that.The government, through its scapegoating policies, has tried to blame rorters of syndicated research and development programs. But, again, there are many examples of successful research and development programs that have been achieved through syndication and not one concrete example of rorting. Now, because of the red tape that the government has introduced for companies applying for research and development assistance, companies are simply abandoning it or, if they are substantial companies, they are moving offshore to Singapore and Malaysia, where there is a 200 per cent deduction for research and development.Under this government, the number of applications for research and development assistance has dropped for the first time in 11 years. When the name of the game globally is research and development, under this government, for the first time in 11 years, Australia is going backwards. We are going to the bottom of the pack.Figures out just this month show that a third of the money the government allocated for research and development was not taken up by the corporate sector because of the hurdles, restrictions and red tape that the government has imposed. The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies said in a press release on 13 May:By dithering, we are likely to continue to miss the boat . . . The Government seems bereft of ideas. . . Competitive success in the next century will be won by countries which follow the knowledge based path to generate real and enduring employment.The government has missed the boat and, regrettably, under this government Australia is going to miss the boat.The Financial Review reported that 20 per cent of companies in the chemicals and plastics sector are not even bothering with the government's program—it is so complicated. The Australian Food Council said in a media release of November last year:There is an overwhelming need for firms and the nation collectively to invest in research and development.The government has received two major reports—the Mortimer report and the Goldsworthy report—and yet we have not seen anything constructive in terms of industry programs coming from this government. Indeed, it is an indictment of this government that we will not see before the next election any programs in place to assist and develop Australia's automotive industry.Continuing with the organisations which have condemned the lack of vision of this government, I refer to the Institute of Engineers of Australia. It has indicated that $750 million of exports in medical high-technology equipment is at risk because of this government's neglect. It is quite clear that, for purely ideological reasons, this government has retreated from the international sector. The government is simplistic, lacking in vision, boring and dull. But worse than that: it has vandalised Australia's export industry and it has vandalised research and development in Australia.Quite clearly, this government is not up to the grade. I understand that towards the end of this year there is going to be a golf tournament in Melbourne for world leaders. I think that President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, and indeed Nelson Mandela will be coming out here—great men, great men of vision for their countries. If our Prime Minister participates in that tournament, I think those great men will relegate him to the position of caddie.The fact is that it is investment in exports, in innovation, in education, and in research and development that is going to make this nation great. On all those fronts, this government is lacking. Only those areas are going to create sustainable employment opportunities. Only those areas are going to develop Australian living standards on a long-term basis. Without addressing those areas, Australia's balance of trade is going to become worse. If the government does not do anything about it, the balance of trade is going to escalate at an exponential rate. The prospect of this government being re-elected is a matter for real alarm.The reason Australia is not travelling too badly at this stage in terms of not being in the same boat as our Asian competitors is the fact that in the pipeline we have had the results of a decade of export assistance and the results of a decade of research and development assistance, and we have had a highly educated society. But all those things are at risk from this government.Industry leaders out there are not ideologues. Yes, they are concerned for the interests of their companies but, more importantly, they are concerned for the interests of Australia. Before the next election they are going to weigh up the two teams. They are going to look at the team captains and, quite frankly, one of them is not up to the grade. They are going to look at the respective frontbench teams, and they will note that one team has had seven of its frontbench relegated to the reserve bench. With one or two exceptions, the replacements are still reserve graders. They will also look at the game plans of the respective parties, and they will see one that is boring and lacking in vision but, more importantly, they will see a party, if re-elected, that will quite simply continue its program of vandalising Australia's export industry, of vandalising Australia's research and development, of vandalising Australia's education and talent base.10:35:003845Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—The infrastructure strategy, a very visionary program I put together back in March 1996, has served its purpose well in my electorate of Capricornia. When I was elected to office, I believed it was important to have a plan for the region. The plan focused on bricks and mortar projects and capital funding for existing facilities to provide them with a leading-edge advantage over other electorates, with the end result of Capricornia becoming the most profitable and progressive electorate in the country.One project from the infrastructure strategy remains to secure funding—the extension of the Rockhampton city airport runway to 3,200 metres. We can see that it is a very visionary infrastructure strategy and a great plan. The previous speaker, the member for Barton (Mr McClelland), spoke about the importance of having vision. I am pleased to say that there is only one project in the infrastructure strategy left to be funded.The people of Capricornia in the existing parts—and those people coming into the electorate from Dawson and Kennedy as a result of the redistribution—can rest assured that I am currently in the throes of completing the new infrastructure strategy to take us through the new parliament, should I retain Capricornia after the forthcoming federal election. The last plan was very successful, and the next will continue with this trend.The drought has been very destructive to our region, especially to the city of Rockhampton. Well known as the beef capital of Australia, Rocky is the business and service centre to central Queensland. It has been important for me as the federal member to change Rockhampton's dependency on the cattle industry, as the primary producers in the area are very cautious in their spending, especially with the continuing drought.Capricornia produces great wealth in exports, not just for Queensland but for Australia. The beef and grain industries have struggled because of the drought, but have continued to survive in the face of adversity. The coal mining industry has also felt the pinch of the lack of rain for coal preparation. This industry has also done the country proud. Therefore, it is only fitting that Capricornia should receive a spin-off from the budget. I am aware that many electorates did not receive funding boosts from the budget, but as Australia has fared well off the back of the exports from Capricornia, it is only fitting for the government to reciprocate by putting some money back into the region.I am elated that the government has provided Capricornia with a major funding boost from the defence budget, with a total expenditure of $11 million for Rockhampton and Shoalwater Bay military training area. Expenditure of $2.78 million has been allocated to upgrade the airport for a deployment facility. This will redevelop the old civil terminal for military operations, with approximately 9,000 square metres of aprons and taxiways. Also, an explosive ordnance storage facility will be built at the Rockhampton city airport. We will have the ability for aircraft to do more manoeuvres out of Rockhampton, rather than having to travel from Townsville and from the Brisbane area, which will mean a significant benefit and cost saving.Another significant boost for the area will be $4.8 million to upgrade the Base Adminis tration Support Centre in Western Street, Rockhampton. Troops come to the area for training from Singapore, the United States and, of course, the Australian Defence Force. I have been aware for some time that we really need new facilities. This upgrade of the local BASC is imperative for our training needs and ultimately will bring money spin-offs for the local economy, which will be great for the people in the area.Another $1.1 million has been allocated to complete the $2.1 million small arms range at Shoalwater Bay and $327,000 for a $1.1 million sewage works project at Shoalwater Bay. This will complement the existing accommodation facilities at the bay—the taxi drivers, retail clothing outlets, jewellers and the corner stores. Last year, we had a significant win for the small business sector in Rockhampton with the granting of a licence to local operators to sell duty free goods to the visiting military personal from overseas. The visitors do not carry an airline ticket as such. Their military identification card or a letter from their commanding officer is sufficient for them to purchase duty free goods from local retail outlets. This was a significant boost for small business in Capricornia.I take this opportunity to thank the Rockhampton Chamber of Commerce and Mr Phil Peel from Phil Peel Jewellers for their support and assistance while I put this together. It just goes to show that we can do a lot for small business. Federal members just need to listen to what the people they represent want and work together with them. As a team nothing is impossible.We have heard the Labor Party moan and groan about the budget. I do not know what the members on the other side have been doing for the past 2½ years, but I say to them: why don't you get off your hands and help the people you are here to represent? If I can make it happen for Capricornia, I am sure that, if you applied yourselves to your work as much as you do to your constant whingeing and backbiting, this country and those people you are here to represent would be a lot better off.Capricornia has fared well under the coalition government. In fact, all that is left to fund out of my infrastructure strategy, as I said previously, is the extension to the Rockhampton airport runway to 3,200 metres. And, quite frankly, it makes sense to do it. The 1996-97 budget saw funding to the tune of $2.3 million to build accommodation at Shoalwater Bay and a further $2.1 million to build an air-to-ground live firing range at Shoalwater Bay. Now we have the aircraft deployment base being built at Rockhampton city airport and the ammunitions storage facility on site, all that is required is the extension of the runway. That will give assault and large military aircraft the ability to get in and out of the Rockhampton facility—another great win for the people of Rockhampton and Capricornia. It will do a lot for the local economy and is what is required in my region to keep people in business, particularly while the effects of the drought are still biting at the heels of the public.The last two budgets have also seen a win for Capricornia in relation to education. The Central Queensland University has seen increases in funding in the past two years to make Rockhampton and Capricornia an educational hub. This has drawn people to the area who spend money, which helps the local economy and stabilises the area, ultimately creating jobs.We have focused heavily on sporting facilities as well. We have tried to push Rockhampton as a sporting centre for Queensland. In the past couple of years, Rockhampton has marched forward as a sporting destination, particularly with the development of the Kalka Shades hockey fields, which have been pitched with new artificial grass to provide a superior playing surface second to none in Australia. The latest win in the area is the funding to build rowing lanes on the Fitzroy River. These will be used in the run-up to the 2000 Olympic Games. These are but two of the many first-class facilities we boast in Capricornia which will bring people to our area who will spend more money in the region.Water is imperative to the development of any region and Capricornia is no exception. The infrastructure strategy from 1996 was to develop the Nathan Gorge Dam near Theo dore and the Mount Morgan No. 7 dam. The intention is to put 4.5 metres onto the existing dam wall to increase the water supply some threefold. I am proud to say, once again, this is another fully funded project. I turned the first sod several weeks ago and construction is well under way.I take this opportunity to thank the people of Mount Morgan for giving me the honour of having the dam named after me—the Paul Marek Dam. This has been a most humbling experience for me. I walked up a lot of dry gullies to secure the funding for this project, but we secured the funding. I thank the mayor, Richie Bills, and the Mount Morgan Shire Council for playing a very strong role, working as a team and being instrumental in the rebirth of the township, which received nothing but words, not deeds, from Labor.The rural industry has had five interest rate cuts in a row, worth some $500 million to Australia's farmers, which will benefit them by way of a lower exchange rate. The interest rate cuts combined with the currency devaluation represent a $6,100 boost to farmers' income since the coalition government has been in power. Each one per cent cut in interest rates increases farmers' income by some $2,400. The aviation industry, under the coalition, has received the biggest kick-start in years, with the reduction in the excise on avgas by approximately 16c a litre. For those graziers who use helicopters for mustering, this is great news. For those who use air tractors for the aerial spraying of their crops, this is also great news. Effectively, 16c a litre off the cost of avgas will reduce the cost for primary producers by thousands of dollars. One helicopter operator told me he was set to save up to about $32,000 a year.There is a lot of great news in this budget. I mention the gold card for veterans and the Commonwealth seniors health card for self-funded retirees. It is a great budget and a great win for the area. The big issue on the tongues of most Australians at the last election, when the people threw out the Keating-Beazley Labor government, was the extreme debt this country had. Thanks to the National and Liberal coalition team, we have provided this country with a surplus of $2.7 billion. And be warned: the Labor Party will undo all this responsible fiscal management we have put in place if they have an opportunity to take office.Effectively, red stands for debt, which is the Labor Party colours. The budget is in surplus, it is in the black and, consequently, back on track.10:47:003848Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—I wish to make some observations on the federal budget and what it has done in the transport area, which is my shadow portfolio, particularly with respect to the areas of road and rail. I will also make some comments on the stevedoring levy bill and the off-budget attempts to raise money with respect to redundancies in the stevedoring sector. I will conclude by making some observations about the missing item in the budget, the bit that made it a phantom budget, not a real budget—namely, the tax package and the GST.This government came to office with a lot of very overblown promises with respect to road funding, always portraying themselves as the party of the road transport sector, as the party of regional Australia, as the party that would deliver more on roads. We had the promise to maintain Labor's funding in real terms on roads, and in addition to reintroduce the black spots program and also fund the Pacific Highway to the tune of an additional $65 million per annum. Unfortunately, the delivery has fallen well short of the promise, as has been the case in so many other areas of this government.In the budget a couple of weeks ago, we saw yet again further cuts to road funding. Against their own forward estimates from the previous budget, road funding was cut by a total of $28 million in the current financial year. We have seen in particular further cuts to the national highway to the tune of $12 million against their own estimates, the bulk of which, over 55 per cent, is to be borne by Tasmania, whose funding will go down from $28 million of national highway funding last year to $21 million of national highway funding, and a further approximately $17 million worth of cuts to the grants for road funding to the states and to local government. These figures for the national highway look even more stark when you look at the actual expenditure that has occurred in recent years in that area. In the last Labor budget, the figure for the national highway was $834 million. By the 1997 Costello budget, that figure had diminished to $697 million. In the budget two weeks ago, that figure had again diminished to $675 million. So we have gone down from $834 million to $675 million within the space of three budgets.That is a massive reduction in anybody's terms. But to compound that reduction, what we have, on their estimates, is a reduction in the funding for maintenance of the national highway, over a period of four years, of virtually half the budget. The maintenance budget for the national highway for the year 2000-2001 is expected to be roughly half of what it was only four years earlier—in other words, a couple of years ago. Half the maintenance budget has been cut.The implications of that will be borne by the road transport industry, by users of the roads, by regional Australia, in years to come, as that national highway continues to deteriorate. That is the price that the Australian people are paying for electing a coalition government which conned them on road funding, which said, `We are the friends of the road transport industry, we will help you, we will look after you.' In fact, a simple analysis of the figures across Labor's period in office compared with the first couple of years of the coalition government and their projections for the out-years indicates the lie in that claim.Under Labor, in 1995-96 dollars, average road funding from the federal government was $1.7 billion over its 13 years in office. That was the average in 1995-96 dollars. Look at the actual expenditure by the coalition government and its projections in the forward estimates, convert that to 1995-96 dollars and what you get is an average of $1.5 billion—in other words, an average in 1995-96 dollars of a $200 million per year cut in road funding from this government. To add to that outrage is the fact that they have substantially besmirched the model of objectivity and transparency that was introduced by the Hawke government in 1991-92, with the agreement of all of the state premiers, to finally introduce some rationality and objectivity into road funding in Australia.The Hawke government introduced the model whereby the national highway was directly funded and maintained by the Commonwealth government and the balance of road funding handed over to the states and local governments for them to make the decisions about how that money should be allocated. The current government has introduced the roads of national importance category which, as some members will know, we have tagged the `roads of National Party importance category'. We have recently seen the extent to which this is degenerating into pork-barrelling and misuse of government money for the purposes of seeking electoral advantage.Main road 92 in the electorate of Gilmore is to have up to $70 million of federal money poured in to upgrade it. Parts of it are currently gravel road. It is a significant road and it needs upgrading—there is no question about that—but it is not a road that the federal government should be funding, based on the criteria that this government adheres to. You have the absurd situation where this government is proposing to pour money into that road, and not a cent for the Geelong road—the Westgate Freeway—which is desperately in need of upgrading, not a cent for the Great Western Highway which has similar problems, and not a cent yet—and maybe not at all—for the western orbital project. All of those roads are major, critical national economic roads and are far more important to the nation's economy than main road 92, yet the government can find money to pork-barrel in a marginal electorate.I turn now to the area of rail funding, where the record is no better. The Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile), in the wake of this budget, possibly set a new record for the number of times that a funding initiative has been announced. After the budget, he put out yet another press release saying `Government announces new infrastructure funding initiate in the rail industry'. What he was announcing was the same thing that John Sharp announced after the 1997 budget, which in turn was the same thing that the same John Sharp announced after the 1996 budget, which in turn was a scaled down model of what Laurie Brereton, as the then Minister for Transport, announced in the 1995 budget. So we are looking forward to the 1999 budget—if by some mischance these people should actually get back into office—to see what they are going to announce then.They have offered the people of Australia and the rail industry of Australia too little and too late. Under the Brereton proposal in 1995, $370 million was to be spent on upgrading the interstate rail infrastructure of Australia through the means of a new organisation called Track Australia. The new government has broadly picked up on this concept, but it has cut the funding. In fact, John Sharp as minister managed the spectacular achievement of announcing that he was going to continue with this funding but cut it—less money was going to be put in—and proclaim that this was something both new and good. In fact, he was simply reannouncing established policy that was already provided for in the forward estimates. The reality is that none of those figures I have quoted are sufficient to tackle the enormous problem we face with the interstate rail infrastructure. The amount that is required to fix our interstate rail track is in the billions—not in the hundreds of millions—but certainly a few hundred million is a pretty good start. Unfortunately, it has taken two years for anything to be done.We are finally seeing some agreement being reached between the Commonwealth and the states with respect to how this money should be dealt with and what can be done to start the process of fixing the track. The problems are many: speed restrictions in many parts of the track; you do not have the ability to double-stack containers in most parts of the interstate rail track, the main exception being the Adelaide to Perth link; 19th century alignments that have been built around steam trains and their ability to go up hills and the like; all sorts of labyrinthine curves in parts of the Melbourne to Brisbane alignment—and a host of other problems. Concrete sleepers that were funded by the One Nation project are still lying next to the track near Ararat because the Victorian government is refusing to pick up the tab to insert those sleepers. There is a long list of problems.The minister has congratulated the government yet again on its performance, even though its performance is sadly inferior to that of the previous government and that it has taken it a couple of years to get anything done. The sad thing is that now that that money is finally starting to flow, the government has failed to put the initial amount of money at the place where it needs to go most, which is the Adelaide to Melbourne connection. That is where you can get a pretty good bang for your buck fairly quickly—by getting rid of the speed restrictions and by changing some of the configuration in the infrastructure such as the bridges, the tunnels and the like in order to allow the double-stacking of containers.As far as Labor is concerned, our first priority is to fix up that link. Unfortunately, this government has chosen not to do that. As a result, the Overland passenger service, which was privatised as part of Australian National privatisation a year or so ago, is now under threat. And this government is not doing anything to protect it; it is not doing anything to save the Overland. A relatively limited amount of investment in that track would substantially reduce the time it takes for the Overland to travel between Melbourne and Adelaide, which in turn would obviously improve its attractiveness to customers, not to mention the benefits that would flow into the freight rail sector as well.It is estimated that getting rid of those speed restrictions by upgrading the track would cut the time of the journey between Melbourne and Adelaide by two or three hours. These are obvious benefits, particularly for the people of Adelaide who rely heavily on that service and on the tourism and freight services that it brings. That is a double disappointment.Finally, in the transport area, I reiterate the opposition's concern about the stevedoring levy that the government is attempting to impose upon stevedoring companies. Our objections to it are various. First, and most obvious, this is a substantial part of what is found to be prima facie an unlawful conspiracy involving the federal government, Patrick Stevedoring, the National Farmers Federation and various others in an attempt to sack 2,000 Australian workers for no other reason than that they belong to a particular union, without any reference to their individual characteristics, their work performance or the like.We object to the bill because stevedores who have no involvement in the current dispute, such as Strang and Sealand, who do not wish to make workers redundant, are being forced to pay that levy. We object to the bill because it creates a situation where the major stevedores are saying, `We will absorb the $6 and $12 levies,' yet no question is being raised by Professor Fels of the ACCC or, indeed, the government, as to why, if the major stevedores can absorb that levy, the equivalent amount is not being passed on to their customers already. If they can wear the $6 and the $12 per car or per container, why are they not doing that already? Why is the ACCC not investigating these things?These are all issues as to why we object to this legislation. We object to the fact that the government is basically trying to blackmail the workers and the MUA into giving up substantial numbers of jobs, the bulk of the employment in the industry for its members, or putting them in a position where they face companies that have been artificially created with no assets and are being liquidated, therefore creating a situation where large numbers of people lose their jobs with no access to normal redundancy entitlements or their accrued entitlements with respect to long service leave, annual leave and the like.This is essentially what the government is doing: it is trying to blackmail people into copping its political agenda by misusing this stevedoring levy, which in turn is a clear breach of the government's commitment to no new taxes. It is a tax. It is an indirect tax. It is an indirect tax on the users of a particular service; it is not a levy on the industry.In conclusion, on the matter of tax, let me restate both my personal perspective and the opposition's view on the GST. It is amusing to see the frozen faces and the fear in the eyes of members opposite as they start to realise the implications of the GST proposal. It is regressive, it is inflationary, it threatens thousands of small businesses with additional paperwork and bureaucracy and it is grossly unfair.At the moment, we are in a phoney war situation. Every interest group and every commentator out there thinks that their pet hate is going to be solved by the GST: payroll tax is going to be wiped out, the fuel excise levy is going to be wiped out, we are going to get income tax cuts, and so the list goes on. Everybody thinks that their problem is going to be solved. The anomalies in the wholesale sales tax system are all going to be swept away by a GST. At this rate, the GST will be 25 per cent.Of course, the reality is that that is not going to happen; that is not what will occur with a GST. What we will see is all the bad bits. We will see the regressive shift away from income taxation, which means that people on very high incomes will pay the same amount of tax on an item of clothing, a loaf of bread, a trip to the pictures or whatever the case may be as people on a very low income. And, as a result of those things being taxed, there will be less tax on incomes and, in particular, there will be less tax on people on higher incomes. The ordinary people in this country understand that, because opinion polling demonstrates that there is a stark difference in attitude to the GST according to your income. If you are on a low to middle income, you oppose it. If you are on a high income, you support it. That means that the people of Australia understand what a GST is about: it is about redistribution away from people on low and middle incomes in favour of the wealthy. That is what a GST means, and there is simply no way around that fact. That is what this government stands for, that is whom it represents, that is whom it wants to help and that is whom it wants to advantage. That is why it is putting forward a GST.This is not tax reform; this is tax redistribution. It is tax redistribution in a regressive direction. It is tax redistribution in favour of the wealthy. There is no way around it, and the people of Australia will recognise that, as they have recognised it before, and will vote these people out of office accordingly.11:04:003851Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—This year's budget consolidates our finances and sets the scene to ride out the economic difficulties in Asia and Indonesia which are impacting negatively on us. We are in the best economic position for 25 years—in the black with a $2.7 billion surplus.There are plenty of great economic reasons for the coalition government to be working so hard to repay Labor's debt. But it is not just about economics; it is about the quality of life we leave for our children. Currently, we have to raise $8,000 million in taxes to pay the interest bill on Labor's debt. I look forward to the day when this money will be spent on health and education instead of our interest debt.This budget contains certain initiatives that will have a direct impact on the quality of life of Australian families. A budget initiative in my own portfolio area brings together what my constituents tell me are the three most important issues to them—health, the environment and jobs. The budget includes funding for a national medicines disposal program, building on pilot projects already under way in South Australia and New South Wales. This Australia-wide program will improve the health of Australians by removing unwanted and out-of-date medicines from the home, where they pose a danger, particularly to our children. On an average day in Australia, seven children under the age of five years are admitted to hospital because they have taken medicines not prescribed for them. This budget initiative will help the environment by removing up to 700 tonnes of medicines from landfill and sewerage systems each year. While the national program is in its early stages, it is expected to help create jobs across Australia.I am very proud that this national project will grow from an innovative and extremely successful scheme that has its roots in my own state of South Australia. The overseas pharmaceuticals for aid life—or OPAL—program is the brainchild of Geoff Lockyer and his wife. They have had the support of a number of organisations and individuals in setting up and maintaining OPAL—people like Dr Joy O'Hazey, the former Mayor of Mitcham, and Humphrey George, the President of the Pharmacy Guild in South Australia, and those opposite will be interested to know that their former colleague Peter Duncan has also taken a leading role and now chairs OPAL. I look forward to seeing OPAL work with the New South Wales based Return of Unwanted Medicines group to develop a national program that I expect will attract international attention, as so many of Australia's other quality use of medicines initiatives have already done.Most of us believe that having good health is one of the most important things in life. The government agrees, which is why it has featured so strongly in the budget. Free flu vaccines for people over the age of 65 years will be provided from autumn next year. More than 200,000 people in South Australia alone will benefit from this measure.Visits to the doctor will remain affordable, with $127 million being allocated over the next four years to fund rebate increases for GPs. There is $6.1 million for anti-smoking initiatives, a national approach to cancer control will be implemented, and funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council will be restored to a level of $165 million per year—an increase of more than $50 million.The importance of medical research to the community cannot be overemphasised. It enables us to keep pace with our overseas counterparts, it creates jobs, it attracts investment—the spin-offs are endless—and it also means that we do not have to keep doing things in the same old way. New ways of treating diseases are found and put into practice and everybody benefits.This week is National Reconciliation Week, and National Sorry Day yesterday provided an opportunity to reflect on the injustices which indigenous Australians have suffered and continue to suffer. I regret this suffering and I regret the fact that many indigenous Australians do not have the same health, education and employment status and general state of wellbeing that other Australians do. I believe that reconciliation is important—far too important to ever politicise. This budget provides more than $22.6 million to immunise indigenous Australians and ensure early detection of sexually transmitted diseases. There is also increased funding for indigenous health care services and for health infrastructure and capital replacement.Hostel residents will have access to the medication reviews currently available to nursing home residents. This will be provided by accredited pharmacists, and doctors will also be able to identify patients in their own homes for such a review. The pharmaceutical benefits scheme is one of the most generous and best systems of its type in the world. The government is committed to doing all it can to ensure that all Australians—and in particular older Australians as high users of pharmaceuticals—make the most of this system and also use their medicines wisely.Our endeavours are not helped by people like the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) and various Labor candidates who seem intent on scaring the most vulnerable members of our community by making ridiculous and completely insupportable claims about the safety and effectiveness of medicines on the Australian market—much to the horror of health authorities and the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, in relation to another argument about medicines, in the 15 May edition of the Australian Doctor the medical editor wrote of the shadow health minister:We really don't need woolly, unscientific thinking on health.It is grossly unfair to mislead members of the community over something as important as their health. Those who hold public office or who seek to hold public office should not prey on people in this way just because they want to score some cheap political points.When it comes to older Australians, the federal government has a different agenda to the Labor Party. As we head towards the International Year of Older Persons, we have made a real commitment to helping older people retain their independence, both physically and financially. The budget includes $280 million in the form of the staying at home package to help older people remain in their homes and to give support for their carers.Changes have been made to nursing home arrangements to improve the standard of accommodation for the fewer than five per cent of elderly people who enter residential care. Labor had a poor track record in this area, and as it was put to me at the seniors information service in Adelaide, `Why should people leave the comfort of their own homes to die in dormitories?' Improving accommodation where necessary is important.Many low income self-funded retirees have contacted my office over the years expressing concern that they are not eligible for a health card. This issue is addressed in the budget, which provides for 220,000 people in this category to receive a seniors card which will entitle them to cheaper medicines. This initiative rewards people who have taken financial responsibility for themselves. A further 50,000 Australian World War II veterans will have access to a gold card for health care, which provides them with free treatment as a private patient with their choice of doctor in hospital, plus a wide range of other services, free of charge.The budget also includes $291 million for the environment program, up from $256 million—a 14 per cent increase on last year. Funding has been allocated to clean up Australia's rivers, for landcare and bushcare grants and to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than five per cent by 2012.Recently, Australia's unemployment rate dropped below eight per cent for the first time since 1990. About 280,000 new jobs have been created since March 1996. Along with others, the government has worked, and continues to work, very hard in the community to bring that figure down to create opportunities for the next generation. It was concern for our young people's future that triggered us to abolish the CES and install a new system of privately run employment agencies. While it is still early days, the needs of those looking for work are already being catered for by having 19 different job providers operating in my electorate of Adelaide alone—and until recently three CES offices were providing this service.The federal budget builds on the government's commitment to creating a brighter future for young Australians by allocating $350 million over four years to improve education, training and job prospects, including increased funding for the work for the dole program and for literacy and numeracy training. There will be an extension of the job placement employment and training program until the year 2000, which will help people up to 21 years of age who face multiple disadvantages, particularly the homeless. From July, for the first time some 70,000 students will receive rent assistance under the new youth allowance.The government will set up a volunteer ambassadors for development program to provide about 500 people up to 30 years of age with the opportunity to live and work as volunteers in the Asia-Pacific region. We are also providing funding of about $215 million over five years to reduce the demand for and supply of illicit drugs in the community, for drug treatment and rehabilitation and for community education. Earlier this month the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said:Our ambition must be to build a nation whose economy is strong and innovative, whose society is fair and tolerant, and whose contribution to the region and the world is valued because it is principled and generous.I think that appropriately sums up the government's wish list and emphasises the goodwill with which it caters for the people it was elected to serve. I look forward to continuing to work towards this goal in partnership with those who share it.11:14:003853Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—Overall, it can be fairly said that this budget achieves sensible outcomes. It was more fortuitous than good design that the government adopted a budget strategy, from the time it brought down its first budget in 1996-97, to get into surplus at the end of its first three years in government. I say `fortuitous' because the government could not have known of events which were to transpire in our near north, in particular in Indonesia, Thailand, South Korea and even Japan. The fact re mains that if it had not adopted the strategy it did we would have been in a far worse situation than we now find ourselves in terms of the strength of our economy. So it was a strategy tailor-made, but lacking intent at the time, to enable our economy to withstand, to the best possible extent, the worst of the fallout from these crises we have witnessed recently in Asia.Many subscribe to the notion, as do I, that the disciplined budgetary approach of the Howard government is probably its single greatest achievement. It has enabled and runs concurrent with a strengthening of our domestic economy and performance. No-one would dispute the fact that there is room for improvement; nevertheless, the fundamentals are there as far as government can provide them.As I have already indicated, a very desirable outcome of this is that the budget strategy adopted by the coalition does offset to a very important extent those external impediments to economic growth. Having said that—and as usual—there are some extravagant claims for some of the elements within the budget. That is pretty normal in political life, and it seems common to the circumstances which prevail when any budget has been brought down in the past.I just want to touch briefly now on the spending side of the budget. There is a perception in the minds of some that, because the government has budgeted for a surplus, spending has somehow been contained or curtailed. Despite that commonly held view, it is still growing and has grown quite considerably during the lifetime of this parliament. Back in 1989-90, Commonwealth spending, as a proportion of gross domestic product, was around 24 per cent. That was not that very long ago, yet we find that the forecast in the budget papers for 1998-99 is that it is higher—in fact, some 24.6 per cent of GDP.There are many who agree with former Labor finance minister and now journalist Peter Walsh who claims that the high level of spending and the trend of high expenditure to GDP—even though it has come down from last year's figure to 24.6 per cent of GDP—cannot be maintained. As Mr Walsh said, to allow spending to continue at present levels will only postpone the day of reckoning, not eliminate it.I also want to touch briefly on the Medicare levy and some matters arising from that particular impost. A comparison of the take for the Medicare levy for 1995-96 and the estimated take for 1998-99 can be instructive. It shows a 24 per cent increase in the levy over the life of the Howard government to around some $4.1 billion projected for next financial year. What is interesting about that is that, at 30 June 1996, the Medicare levy added to the revenue some $3.35 billion—you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the guns buyback scheme was financed by a one-off increase to the Medicare levy—and, in 1997-98, including the gun buyback money, it totalled some $3.76 billion. This year, we are at $4.16 billion for the Medicare levy. That represents a 24 per cent increase since 30 June 1996. That is partly explained, of course, by an increase in the number of taxpayers paying the levy, but it is also because of the income tax surcharge which the government decided to impose. The budget figures suggest to me that there is an expected huge increase which would not have been apparent when the government announced its intentions in that regard.Despite that particular increase, nevertheless, there remains a substantial disparity between the total levy expected to be collected in the coming financial year of $4.16 billion and the forecast overall expenditure on medical services which the Medicare program facilitates. Total expenditure on medical services alone is estimated for the next year to be some $7.9 billion. We know the Medicare levy does not cover the pharmaceutical benefits scheme or hospital services but, if you add those in, you get a total of $16.4 billion. Altogether, a total of $22.2 billion is being spent by the Commonwealth on health services generally.I want to just take this opportunity to repeat the call I made two years ago and have made since: the Medicare levy should either reflect the total cost of medical services—that is, it should be raising at least $7.9 billion—or it should be scrapped. It is a game we play. It should be scrapped and added on to the marginal tax rates for individuals. We carry on with this pretence and we leave the public with the impression that the Medicare levy pays for all medical services when it does not. It leads to a mental approach by some who think they are actually paying all they need to pay towards the provision of their own health care, when that is obviously far from the truth.Another interesting sideline is that the government is now speculating about adding another tax bracket to the Medicare levy. That was the very point I made when the government introduced its Medicare levy surcharge, if you like. I anticipated it at that time—as will happen with the superannuation surcharge and as already happens—so we are going to have another tax in there which will benefit from tax bracket creep amongst other things. It would be more efficient in taxation terms if the Medicare levy were scrapped and made part of the marginal tax rates for PAYE and other individual taxpayers.Despite its implications for revenue, I think it is about time the major political parties examined the possibility once again of allowing tax deductibility for health insurance premiums. I know it has severe implications for revenue but, in the context of a tax reform package, the coalition might want to think along those lines. The simple truth is that the big stick approach adopted with the surcharge and the like has failed to keep people in private health insurance, and I suspect it is time to get back to offering the taxpayers something of a carrot. If that could be done in the context of tax reform of one sort or another, I think that would be all well and good. The budget papers, amongst other things, say:Growth in Commonwealth health outlays over the decade to 1997-98 has averaged 4 per cent a year in real terms . . . The growth mainly reflects a steady increase in utilisation of medical services and pharmaceutical services over the period and a drift towards more costly drugs and medical services.Health expenditure and health care outlays are a bottomless pit, and the major parties should be doing some radical thinking about that.I have made the point that a positive of this budget is that it arrives at a surplus and it recognises the old dictum that, in relatively good economic times when there is reasonable economic growth, governments should be budgeting for a surplus and they should only resort to deficit spending when there is a need for some stimulus to the economy. That is clearly not the case, and it has not been the case for a number of years. It did take this government to finally overcome the legacy of the $10½ billion underlying deficit it was left when it was elected, a legacy which it did not expect. I think the Australian people did not expect it as well. The government tackled that deficit and it did so responsibly and no-one can take the credit for that away from them.If we are to come to grips with some of the worst aspects of our overseas debt—which has arisen to some large extent out of our current account deficit—we have got to at some time or other improve the rate of private and household savings in this country. The fact is that at the moment our taxation system is simply not conducive to private and household savings growth. Given the low level of savings, it is necessary—as the government has done with its surplus in the budget—to bolster savings by increasing public sector savings to offset the poor and unimproving levels of private and household savings.I must say that I welcome several matters which I have advocated during the life of this parliament being included in the budget. One is the reduction in the provisional tax uplift factor and another is tax deductibilities for businesses meeting the cost of the conversion of computing systems to cope with the millennium bug. Also, I am delighted to note—although I have not seen it in the budget papers, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) has personally assured me that it is there—that donations to the campaigns of independent candidates will in future be tax deductible, as are donations to the candidates of political parties.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—That is a growing liability.ZI4Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHER—It might very well be. I still have some concerns of course about the superannuation surcharge, the government's approach to research and development generally and incentives for research and development in Australia. There are some things wrong with the bills stalled in the Senate—the Managed Investments Bill 1997 —and I guess we are going to hear more about the announced intention in this budget to change investment rules for superannuation funds. I am sure that will be the subject of interesting debate in the coalition party rooms and in the wider community before we see it in some form of legislation. At this stage, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which I have taken the trouble to provide to members around the chamber.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is leave granted?FB6THOMSONMr Andrew Thomson—Is this adjusted for inflation? Are they real figures or absolute figures?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Before the member for Curtin continues, I might say to the minister that whether it is adjusted for inflation or not really does not affect whether it meets the guidelines. I would make the comment that leave is granted and, even more significantly than that, the chair gives approval for it to be incorporated in Hansard , because the practice has arisen, and I think it is appropriate at this time to remind the House, that only such things as tables can be incorporated. Matters which can be read into the Hansard do not meet the guidelines. So I thank the honourable member for Curtin.Leave granted.The table read as follows—CANBERRA TAXES IN 1995-96 AND 1997-98*Revenue Item1995-96 actual ($m)1997-98 revised ($m) estimateper cent increase on 95-961998-99 estimate ($m)per cent increase on 95-96Taxation on individuals—Gross PAYE533026199016.26717026Other95381104015.71095014.8Medicare Levy33503760**12.2416024Gross prescribed payments system2059238015.5257024.8Less Refunds7835900014.8996027Total Individual Tax604147017016.17489023.9Taxation on companies—Income Tax18252187902.9199009Withholding tax13491160-141190-12Superannuation funds tax1634296081.1295019.5Petroleum resources rent tax7919101596021.3Fringe Benefits tax303132005.533209.5Total Company tax25057270207.82832013Total Income Tax854709719013.710321020.7Other taxes—Sales tax12955140908.71509016.4Excise duty—Crude oil, LPG, petroleum10238109006.4111108.5Other261226902.926501.4Customs duty—Imports3124364016.5367017.4Other taxes, fees and fines1960231718.2244224.5Total indirect tax30889336378.8325205.2 Total Taxation Revenue11635913082712.413817218.7Non tax revenue—Interest14031011-181100-22Dividends and other38993610-7.5498627.8Total non-tax revenue53024621-13608614.7Total Revenue12166013544811.314425818.5* Source: Budget Statements 1996-97, Budget Paper No. 1 Page 43-28 Budget Statements 1997-98, Budget Paper No. 1 Page 5-3 Budget Statements 1998-99, Budget paper No. 1 Page 5-3** Increase in Medicare levy in 1996-97 influenced by gun buy-back schemeZI4Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHER—I thank the House and I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In response to the parliamentary secretary, why would you adjust it for inflation? You tell us there has hardly been any over the period.With time running out, I probably will not have the opportunity to comment in detail as I would have liked. But let us reflect on the fact that the government's total tax take from individuals has increased by nearly 24 per cent over its three budgets, or will have at the end of the next financial year. That represents a serious increase in revenues to the government. If you look at gross PAYE taxpayers, they are contributing something like 26 per cent more than they did in total at the end of 1995-96. I have already mentioned the Medicare levy and the fact that it includes a new tax in terms of a surcharge, and I know that the government claims that it is not a new tax but of course such a claim is fatuous. I want to dwell for a moment on refunds. Refunds have increased by 27 per cent over the same period. I suspect that that is largely due to the provisional tax uplift factor being far in excess of what it should be in reality to achieve an equitable result. Those figures are not available, but I am going to attempt to discover them. Even at five per cent, there will be an incremental movement in provisional tax levels which will end up in necessitating refunds being made. So it gives the government the revenue and the use of funds for up to 12 months which it really should not have. I still think at five per cent the provisional tax uplift factor is far too high given the level of inflation in this country these days. All in all, though, the government has earned the credit it has received from commentators for a sound budget. The outcomes are all the more credit worthy because there will be an election before the time the next budget is brought down. In its proposals for the coming year, the coalition resisted the temptation to buy votes in the populist approach which has characterised so many pre-election budgets in the past.11:34:003857Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I rise in support of the 1998 budget delivered by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) on 12 May. Ten years ago Paul Keating brought down a budget that he described as `bringing home the bacon'. History has since proved just what a pig of a budget it really was. But that was typical of budgets in those 13 years—a bit of give, a bit of take. The people gave and the people got taken. When the party was over, for all the noise about the world's greatest Treasurer and their economic vision, Labor bequeathed us a $10.2 billion deficit courtesy of the then finance minister and now Leader of the Opposition, Bankcard Beazley.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mealy-mouthed Howard.ZJ6Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESI—It was not a great place for the coalition to start. Our first budget was tough and not exactly the most pleasant way to repay the people for putting us into office, but we told the truth and we stopped the rot.SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I quite frankly think that the honourable member sitting across the table should be made to withdraw that comment.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Which comment's that?SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—You know perfectly well.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—I did not hear the comment that the minister refers to.SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—It was demeaning of the Prime Minister. It needs to be withdrawn.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If the minister finds the comment in some way offensive, I ask the honourable member for Batman to withdraw.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Which comment was it?SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—You only made one.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Was it the reference to the Leader of the Opposition by the member for Deakin or the reference to the Prime Minister as a mealy-mouthed person? Which one was it?SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—The demeaning comment of the Prime Minister. You know damned well what it was.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Was it the same as the demeaning comment made by the member for Deakin about the Leader of the Opposition? That is appropriate but not the one about the mealy-mouthed Prime Minister?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Batman will withdraw.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—But he is mealy-mouthed.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I ask the honourable member for Batman to withdraw.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I will withdraw and I ask—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is all that is required from the member for—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I ask that the member for Deakin withdraw the comments about the Leader of the Opposition. If you can give it, you take it. I withdraw on the basis that the member for Deakin also withdraws the unparliamentary comments about the Leader of the Opposition. It is tit for tat.SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—On the point of order: there was no demeaning comment by the member for Deakin. It was the comment that the honourable member made and just repeated which he said he would withdraw that needs to be withdrawn unconditionally.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—We will deal with the member for Batman's comment first. I understand you have withdrawn; is that correct?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I have withdrawn but, in doing so, I request that the unparliamentary reference to the Leader of the Opposition also be withdrawn—a comment which seems acceptable to the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. It is almost as if there is one rule on that side of the House and another rule on this side of the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Batman finds the comment offensive. I ask the honourable member for Deakin to withdraw the comment.ZJ6Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESI—`Bankcard Beazley?' Yes, I will withdraw that in order to get on with the speech.SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—Just before you do, Mr Deputy Speaker—WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Oh, sit down and give your own a go.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I believe the honourable member for Corio wishes to speak next in this debate. If he wishes to do so, I suggest that he remain silent at the moment.Mrs Bishop interjecting—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Are you threatening me?SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—Absolutely.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Batman will also remain silent.SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—Very simply, on the point of order, even in the wildest dreams of the member for Batman he could not say that the term `Bankcard Beazley' is unparliamentary language.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I don't regard the term `mealy-mouthed Prime Minister'—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—We are not going to debate the point of order. The honourable member for Deakin, in the spirit of wanting to get on with his speech, has withdrawn the comment. That is the end of the matter.ZJ6Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESI—As I said, Labor's $10.2 billion deficit was not a great place for the coalition to start. Our first budget was tough and not exactly the most pleasant way to repay the people for putting us into office. But we told the truth and we stopped the rot, with the vast majority of Australians recognising that we needed to do exactly that.The third coalition budget is quite an achievement. As with our first two budgets, it sets the stage for a stronger and more stable economic environment. Most importantly, for the first time since the early 1990s the Commonwealth's budget is in surplus. In my electorate of Deakin, people understand about paying their own way. While households from Blackburn to Bayswater North live within their means, it is reasonable that they expect their federal government to do likewise. No parent wants to saddle a child with debt. I do not want to saddle my children with debt. No government should leave future generations in the red.I would like to thank the people of Deakin for their self-sacrifice, understanding and cooperation for their role in wiping out Labor's debt. This debt was only recently acknowledged by Labor who, far from apologising, seem hell-bent on doing exactly the same thing all over again. Labor would have us believe they have changed their ways. But one only had to hear the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) on Monday night to know that is not so. The esteemed Austrian economist and author Frederick von Hayek once said:. . . the ultimate decision about what is accepted as right and wrong will be made not by individual human wisdom but by the disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the "wrong" beliefs.The member for Charlton and so many others on the other side still cling to those wrong beliefs. The class warfare promoted by the member for Charlton and the divisiveness promoted by the union movement and its marionettes in the Labor Party do not go down well with the people of Deakin. Nor did Labor's deficit. Despite our efforts in bringing the budget back to surplus, all of Deakin's residents, whether they are taxpayers or not—the pensioners, students, self-funded retirees, community workers, and working mums and dads—are still paying for Labor's mistakes. Labor knows it; so do my people in Deakin.People may not care for economic jargon, but they are beginning to notice an improvement, a steadiness in the economy with the coalition at the wheel. Benefits are beginning to accrue to many sections of our community. I would like to outline some of those benefits which have taken place in Deakin as a result of this government being in office in the past 2½ years and now delivering a budget surplus.First of all, over 25 per cent of households in Deakin are being purchased. Mortgage rates have come down to their lowest level since 1962—the year when my parents, who came out to this country as migrants, achieved their great Australian dream of buying their first home.Secondly, there are about 4,000 businesses in Deakin, and business interest rates have also come down. At one stage under Labor, the rates were 20 per cent—now they are merely one-third of that. Memo to Paul Keating: `You were wrong. It wasn't as good as it gets!'About 14 per cent of Deakin residents are aged 65 or older. The coalition has increased pensions and is the first government to tie them to average male weekly earnings. Self-funded retirees rightly reminded us that they not only paid taxes but also provided for retirement themselves. We have continued to recognise their sacrifices by, firstly, easing requirements for the health care card to low and middle income seniors—a measure which they have demanded and this government delivered. Secondly, we have reduced the provisional tax uplift factor to five per cent. In Labor's years, it reached twice that. And, thirdly, we have expanded the eligibility for the gold card—a measure demanded by the World War II veterans which it took this government to deliver. Under Labor, there was no possibility of saving any money. Under the coalition, there are now incentives to save. The coalition's crackdown on welfare cheats and high income earners who rort the tax system has gathered extra funds without increasing income tax and without increasing the hidden sales taxes—two measures which are very popular with the Australian Labor Party. Taxpayers in Deakin were angry about obvious rorts that existed, despite Labor's threats to crack down. We heard time and time again from the ALP that they would crack down on tax cheats; yet, once again, it was this government that did it. In the Ringwood and Box Hill Centrelink offices alone there have been savings in excess of $2 million last financial year simply through improved data-matching.While the states have cried poor over health funding, we have offered increased funding to hospitals and to Medicare, with more than $121 million extra earmarked for Victoria. I recognise, as does the government, that more needs to be done in the area of health and I am looking forward to further measures being announced in the coming months not only as part of the lead-up to the election but also as part of the tax reform package initiatives. Furthermore, the people in Deakin have also benefited from the recently announced carers package, a package which injects an extra $280 million to enable people to look after relatives in their own home. Carers now have an opportunity to look after your elderly parents or relatives in their own home. What greater recognition is there for those carers who look after relatives in the safety and sanctity of their own family home than for the government to provide this carers package?We have also made changes to aged care institutions to ensure the growth of that sector and to guarantee a high level of care for the frail. The aged care sector was neglected for 13 years by Labor, despite Labor's protesta tions over recent months. It is a sector which Labor acknowledged was too hot to handle and so they ignored it for 13 years—only now are they starting to cry foul. Aged care facilities in Deakin have done excellent work in looking after our elderly who cannot do it themselves. I am happy to say that nearly every one of those institutions has passed initial accreditation procedures and we can look forward to them providing top quality care well into the future.To single out just one of them: Coronella Retirement Village is currently raising $5 million to ensure their facilities are top shelf. I am pleased to be associated in a very tangible way with that fundraising drive. It will ensure that the retirement village will look after the aged people of Deakin well into the next century. The fundraising drive is made up of local business people, community leaders and members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church—all working hard under the steering committee, chaired by Errol Peterson, to raise those funds.We have also done quite a lot for the business community. In the recent budget, we even announced a package of measures to help business deal with the millennium 2000 bug. I am happy to say that last week the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) visited my electorate. In a dedicated boardroom meeting with a number of IT industry people, the minister went through the various packages and measures with them and received unanimous endorsement and support for what the government is doing. I thank the minister for his contribution that day and for his accessibility to the business community of Deakin.In the tariff area, it took this government to handle the hot potato of the TCF and automotive industries. We did it despite the fear and anxiety created by the Australian Labor Party in the run-up to those announcements. I know the TCF and automotive industries in my electorate have been most grateful for the announcements and the security of investment which this government has introduced. There was evidence of many false promises by the previous government, such as the promises of assistance which they made to DuPont in my electorate. Yet DuPont, only as recently as last week, closed their doors and sold out to Godfreys.Labor spouted on about this nation being called `the clever country'. At the same time, our schools were turning out graduates who could not read or write. Our tertiary institutions had excelled only in mediocrity. The reforms we have made will ensure that institutions offer a higher level of excellence and that our students are better equipped to meet the education and workplace demands of the 21st century.According to the 1996 census statistics, 21 per cent of Deakin residents have a tertiary qualification. But what of the rest? What had the previous government done for the rest? This coalition has concentrated great energy and considerable funds into helping young people who do not go on to tertiary study. In Deakin, I have had the pleasure of working with many young people who now feel there is some light at the end of the tunnel. The electorate of Deakin has a lower level of unemployment than some others—at approximately seven per cent. This is due, in part, to the excellent relationship between government, businesses and schools in the area.I am happy that this budget provides additional funding for the job pathway program. These funds will help organisations such as the Ringwood based Maroondah Careers Network's jobs pathway team. In a matter of months, the jobs pathway team placed 240 young people into apprenticeships, traineeships or employment. My congratulations to Peter O'Connor, Ashley Clinch, Marie Holmes and their team for an excellent result. Having met their placement target, this dedicated team is now assisting those students who have been identified as at high risk of leaving school early.The VET program has also been successful in providing job readiness to over 1,800 students in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Congratulations also to the Eastern Industry Education Partnership. To the ASTF, Tina Hambleton and the Melbourne East Group Training Company through David Windridge, I offer my congratulations on their excellent achievement and wish them well in the next round which will commence very shortly.The initial round of the work for the dole program was most successful and funding has been increased for the next stage. The RSPCA headquarters, located in East Burwood in my electorate, was one of the sponsor organisations for the first round and was very happy with the pilot program. The level of hope has risen among the young and I know that brighter outlook has spread more widely in our community.I give my firm commitment to the young people of Deakin that the work I have embarked on in the last 2½ years will continue—so that they also have the opportunity to work. They deserve the same job opportunities that their parents and I enjoyed. Businesses, schools, job brokers and Jobs East are working hand in hand with me to ensure that they get those opportunities.Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to put in a small word for Jobs East—an organisation that I know you are familiar with. It is setting the standard for area consultative committees in Victoria—they are to be commended for their fine work under Louise Rowland and Louise DeGiusto—particularly for their initiatives in the first stop and one-stop shops in helping young kids get into apprenticeships, traineeships and also for designing measures which will fill the greatest skills gap in the region, that is, metals industry skills.After the despair caused by Labor, our sound economic management has delivered security and a greater sense of purpose. The biggest immediate challenge for the future is to deliver a taxation system that is fair and equitable. Certainly, from the responses I have had in my numerous constituent contacts, their support for real change is considerable. The coalition will propose such a system, and I believe that people will support it. But the question is: will the Labor Party and the Senate independents bow to the will of the people or will they thumb their noses at the Australian people? Will they allow us to capitalise on the first three coalition budgets and set up this nation for a new century? For the sake of the 110,000 people in Deakin, I certainly hope so. I commend this budget to the House.11:52:003862O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The third Howard-Costello budget reflects the mediocrity and lack of vision of its principal architects, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Treasurer (Mr Costello). It fails in the same way the Howard government's two previous budgets failed. It really has just thrown in the towel on the nation's No. 1 problem, unemployment, and it has committed Australia to another period of mediocre economic performance.Australians who have a vision for this great country and who get excited by its potential literally bleed in despair at the squandered opportunities and the unnecessary pain delivered to its citizens by an incompetent government which, after 22 months in office, has forfeited its right to govern.It is a deceitful budget which has been built on delusion. It has been brought down by a government which has had eight ministerial resignations in 22 months, and multiple backbench defections as well, making it the worst government in our nation's history. It is a budget that continues the betrayal of Australia's older citizens who are seeking nursing home accommodation and our young and older unemployed who desperately look to the government and industry to create the full-time jobs necessary to provide them with the dignity of work. It is a betrayal of the young mother with children in child care working to supplement the inadequate income of the household. It is a budget which continues its betrayal of regional Australia.It is a fact that Australians seek a lot from their Prime Ministers. They expect real leadership when the national interest demands it. They expect their Prime Ministers to make significant gestures on their behalf to bring the nation together in order that the nation can progress in unity to the new millennium.Yesterday was National Sorry Day when many in the community took the opportunity to apologise for the untold harm done to the stolen generation of our first Australians. We know how the Prime Minister let the nation down in his response to that event of national significance. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) said yesterday in the House that there is no point in saying sorry, there is no point in making an apology, if your heart isn't in it. The word `sorry' does not come easily to this Prime Minister.On the economic front, many of us are still waiting for the Prime Minister to come into this chamber and apologise to the Labor Party and the Australian community for the absolute mess in which he left the Australian economy in 1983. I would like the Prime Minister to come into this House and say sorry for the 11 per cent inflation rate that he left Labor in 1983 and for the burden that he imposed on pensioners and families in this country. I want him to come into this House and apologise for the 10 per cent unemployment rate and the lack of hope that he left this nation with.We would like the Prime Minister to come into this House and apologise for all the Liberal budget deficits that were run by the Liberal Party from 1975 to 1983, especially the Howard budget deficits during his year as Treasurer. We would like him to say sorry for failing to reform the Australian taxation system when he let $2 billion slip through the net in bottom of the harbour tax rorts. Perhaps it is time for the Prime Minister to apologise for the fact that, when he left office in 1983, Australians were losing their jobs at the rate of 1,000 a day across the length and breadth of this great country.I have listened to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and many members of the government in their attempts to cover up the inadequacies of their fiscal management, feverishly trying to claim credit for the economic achievements of Labor over 13 years. The myth makers in the coalition have been working overtime, but no amount of myth making can gloss over the fact that this is an incompetent and deceitful government, led by a weak and vacillating Prime Minister and an arrogant and incompetent Treasurer.The Prime Minister regularly comes into this place claiming credit for the low inflation rate in this country. He wants us all to forget that, during his time as Treasurer, he left pensioners, families and businesses with an inflation rate of 11 per cent. Labor reduced that rate by nine per cent to around two per cent. The Prime Minister reduces it by a further one per cent and claims a great economic victory! I say to the Prime Minister: when you can reduce the inflation rate by nine percentage points, as Labor did, then you can come to us and claim some credit for your economic achievements.SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—Mr Deputy Speaker, could I take a point of order. Not only are the words painful, but I am sorry to say there is something wrong with the microphone. The sound in this place is just deafening. Although I am perfectly pleased not to hear the words, one can hardly understand the syllables.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—I take the minister's point. The clerk is making some inquiries about the sound now. If it is possible for the sound to be turned down, that will still enable us to hear the remarks of the honourable member for Corio.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Mr Deputy Speaker, I know these are words that the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel opposite and members sitting opposite really do not want to hear. But let me continue. On the growth front, the Prime Minister left the economy in a state of negative growth when we were losing jobs by the thousands in 1983. It took Labor to engineer four years of 4½ per cent-plus economic growth, and massive job growth as well.What has been Prime Minister Howard's and Treasurer Costello's great growth legacy to the nation over the two years they have been in office? They succeeded in lowering the growth rate to only 2.7 per cent in 1996-97, and now we have a slight increase to around three per cent in 1998-99. When you can come into this House and produce for me an economic growth record that equals Labor's, then we will listen to you.Another great Liberal myth relates to the budget deficits. The Prime Minister might be on some high moral ground on this point if his past record reflected some great achievement in the area. But, as the Australian public understand, no Liberal government in the last three decades ever ran a budget surplus. We had Liberal budget deficit after Liberal deficit. It was only Labor in office that was able to run four budget surpluses in a row. And who could forget the Prime Minister's $25 billion deficit legacy to the nation in 1983? What an appalling record by the Prime Minister. We know why he is obsessed with turning any budget into a surplus. It is something new for him. He was never able to do it when he was Treasurer. No Liberal government in the last three decades has been able to deliver a budget surplus, so we welcome the Prime Minister's conversion to the concept of a budget surplus, one which was introduced to the fiscal management of this nation by the former Labor government.The cruellest myth of all being perpetrated in this budget by the government is that it has insulated the nation from the Asian economic firestorm or meltdown by running a budget surplus this financial year. Any junior economist knows that the real buffer against the Asian financial and economic crisis is a strong economic growth rate—not simply a budget surplus. A strong domestic economic growth rate of the kind that Labor had in its last four years of office, of around 4.5 to five per cent, would give Australia some latitude to absorb the shocks of the Asian economic meltdown. We could sustain a falling growth of one per cent. It would enable the economy to sustain and absorb that shock but keep growing jobs and reducing the unemployment rate. In its past two budgets the government engineered a lowering of Australia's growth rate, exposing the nation to an economic shock wave from Asia over which it has little control.I stated earlier in my speech that this is a budget which does nothing for my electorate of Corio. It has not restored funding to the public hospital system which will assist in reducing waiting lists in the Geelong hospital. While the Treasurer arrogantly boasts a budget surplus, working families in Geelong continue to pay more for their child care. The budget has not restored funding to the Commonwealth dental health program, and many Geelong pensioners continue in pain on long waiting lists for treatment—and those waiting lists get longer every day.This budget does nothing to assist the many long-term unemployed in Geelong, who have had their opportunity for another shot at the title in the workplace dashed with the slashing of labour market programs and a poor growth rate. It has done little to allay the fears of Geelong's older citizens who, in the twilight of their years, worry about increased nursing home fees and the prospect of selling their homes to gain admission to nursing homes to obtain proper care.The budget does nothing for Geelong's migrant community, who have seen their local immigration office closed and resources to migrant programs slashed and not restored. It has done nothing for Geelong's tertiary students, who have faced higher HECS fees, reduced class sizes and reduced opportunities as a result of the actions of this government. Nor does the budget assist our young unemployed who have been denied access to proper training support as they seek to improve their skills and create opportunities for themselves.This is a budget which sets the stage for the introduction of a GST, a measure that will turn every small business in Geelong into a tax collector for Peter Costello. And that is not a proposition that any of them warmly embrace. It is a budget from an incompetent government which has short-changed Geelong yet again.In conclusion, let me say that Australia deserves better. It deserves better than a Prime Minister who displays weakness. It deserves better than a government that displays incompetence. It deserves better than a government that delivers only low growth rates. It deserves better than a government that falsely claims to have lowered the inflation rate. It deserves better than a government that is corrupt—with eight ministerial resignations and backbench defections—a government which has long forfeited its right to govern this proud and prosperous country. The sooner the Australian people cut the Howard-Costello cancer out of Australia, the better we will be. We see that Australia has great potential to grow and provide for its citizens, but it cannot do it with weak leadership, it cannot do it with corrupt government. And that is why we warmly embrace the prospect of a federal election so that, once and for all, we can cut out the Liberal-National Party cancer from the Australian body politic.12:07:003864Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—Two weeks ago, Peter Costello handed down the Howard government's third budget and delivered Australia's first budget surplus in almost a decade. The magnitude of this achievement cannot be overstated. When the coalition was elected to office in March 1996, the budget was $10.3 billion in deficit. Over the last five years of Labor's term in office, from 1991-92 to 1995-96, Labor had run deficits of $11.5 billion, $17 billion, $17.1 billion, $13.2 billion and $10.3 billion, deficits amounting in total to almost $70 billion.In less than three years, this government has turned the situation around completely. Today we are in surplus to the tune of $2.7 billion with increasing surpluses projected into the future. By the end of financial year 1998-99, we will have paid back $31 billion of Labor's debt. Taking into account the proposed sale of Telstra, Commonwealth general government net debt is expected to fall to around 1.5 per cent of GDP by 2000-01, which is a far cry from the almost 20 per cent of GDP which the coalition inherited in March 1996.Of course, governments cannot control everything—sometimes I think it is just as well. Never has there been such a stark reminder of this fact as in the Asian economic meltdown. Governments do, however, have a responsibility to put their own affairs in order, to protect the country from risk and to lay the foundation for sustainable economic and employment growth. I believe the government has done this.When the coalition came to office, its strategy was straightforward. The budget deficit had to be addressed to make a positive contribution to national savings, relieving pressure on the current account, inflation and interest rates; to reduce government debt and insulate Australia from adverse international economic shocks; and to give the government some scope for future policy flexibility.Subsequent events in Asia—which were totally unexpected at the time the budget strategy was laid out—have highlighted the importance of our approach. We still do not know what the full impact on Australia will be of the events in Asia. What we do know is that the measures taken in the first two coalition budgets will have reduced this impact, and these have been further built upon by the third budget.Moreover, the government's budget strategy has underpinned a number of fundamental economic positives. Inflation and interest rates are at their lowest levels in a generation. There are now more Australians in work than ever before. Unemployment, while still too high, has fallen to its lowest level since 1990. The OECD has predicted that economic growth in Australia over the coming year will be stronger than in any of the other major OECD economies. The achievements of the budget are quite clear and transparent.What is rather more complex is the response of the opposition. As a humble backbencher, I listen to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) reasonably intently. Actually, it is not a big ask because he tends to give interesting speeches. His reply to the budget was as interesting as any. In the limited time available to me, I want to focus on two of its elements: its dominant motif and his comments on Telstra.The motif of the Leader of the Opposition is, I think, expressed by him right at the beginning of his speech when he says, `We all have our sustaining fantasies.' Perhaps we do, but what is certain is that the Leader of the Opposition must have an extremely rich fantasy life in order to declare that:We need surpluses of the kind that Labor delivered four years in a row . . . surpluses built on jobs and growth.When I heard that, I did not quite remember those years in the same glowing way. So I went back over the budget papers starting in 1990-91, the last year in which Labor ran a surplus. Labor's budget in 1990-91 predicted an $8 billion surplus, which was to be accompanied by economic growth and an increase in employment. It was supposed to produce, in the ringing phrase of the then Treasurer, Mr Keating, `the outcome the government was seeking delivered without the misery and despair of high unemployment and a savage recession'. Unfortunately, the last of the fabled Labor surpluses, surpluses which the Leader of the Opposition tells us were `built on jobs and growth', were actually built on the opposite; they were built on high unemployment and a savage recession in 1990-91. Unemployment rocketed. Employment, far from picking up, actually went into reverse. There were 200,000 fewer jobs at the end of 1990-91 than there had been at the beginning. Far from growing, the economy went negative. Australia went into recession. But there was still a surplus—it came in at $400 million.The Australian people will not forget—even though the Labor Party is apparently desperately trying to—the last fabled year of Labor's surpluses. Paul Keating engraved it in their memories by coining that most brutal and unforgettable phrase `the recession Australia had to have'. We may criticise Paul, usually fairly, but you have to give it to him: he did have a way with words—`the banana republic', `the J-curve', `Placido Domingo', and `this is as good as it gets'.What is sad about the sustaining fantasy of the Leader of the Opposition is not just that it transforms 1990-91—the year so clearly remembered by Australia as the year of the recession that we had to have—into a year in which there was a surplus built on jobs and growth; it also distorts the reality of the previous three years. Those years were based on an economic fraud which could not be sustained and which inevitably tumbled into recession. In fairness, since we are all politicians, you do not have to take my word on this. Let me quote fully what Paul Keating as Treasurer said in November 1990, after the economy that he had spoken of so glowingly just a few months beforehand had fallen in a heap:This is a recession Australia had to have. The Government would not have inflicted this pain on itself or on the community unnecessarily. The unsustainability of spending in the economy over the past couple of years had to be slowed.It is interesting that the concern about the pain inflicted on the government preceded the pain inflicted on the community. But, leaving that aside, the lesson of all this is that sustaining fantasies may have their place but they should not be taken out of the closet and presented as truth.The other observation I would like to make about the reply by the Leader of the Opposition to the budget relates to the privatisation of Telstra. When the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) first announced that the government would move to sell the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, the Leader of the Opposition made this unequivocal declaration: `We will not be privatising the other two-thirds of Telstra; end of story.' Listening to his reply to the budget, however, I noted that the declaration by the Leader of the Opposition was not repeated in that speech. I heard reservations about the full privatisation of Telstra in the fashion proposed by the government, but what was absent was any statement of commitment that Labor would not sell off more of Telstra in one form or another.I was a bit puzzled about this and I thought it might be an oversight, so I followed it up by reading his two subsequent speeches—the first to the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce on the Friday after the budget reply, and the second to the Victorian ALP's conference on Sunday. In both of these speeches he did raise criticisms of the government's decision to privatise Telstra. In neither of these speeches did he rule out the possibility that Labor would sell off more of Telstra.There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that the Leader of the Opposition does not believe that he has the credibility to convince Australians that Labor will not sell more of Telstra, so he does not bring the issue to a point. If this is the case, he is entirely right; in government, the Leader of the Opposition was Labor's great privatiser, and the Australian people simply do not believe him on Telstra. They did not believe him or Labor at the last election; they will not believe him or Labor at the next election.But there is an alternative explanation for the Leader of the Opposition's studied ambiguity. The explanation is that Labor is currently secretly considering selling more of Telstra in some fashion other than that proposed by the government. If that is the case, I think that the Leader of the Opposition should come straight out and tell Australians what Labor's true intentions are. Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that this is an exceptionally good budget and I commend it to the House.12:17:003866Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—There has been a lot of discussion on the economic shortcomings of the budget from those on our side of the House and from others. I will not focus primarily on those. What I want to talk about is the fact that the budget—and, indeed, the image presented by the budget—totally fails to show any vision or leadership as to where the Australian nation is going, especially when we consider fundamental questions such as those concerning our national identity and those concerning questions of race and multiculturalism.I think it is pretty sad that the only international reference to Australia yesterday in the AAP wires, Reuters and so on read like this: `National government refuses to say sorry.' That was the image of Australia yesterday that was presented throughout the world. This is part of the overall picture of our nation that exists at the moment. Having recently returned from travels abroad, having had discussions in a number of countries, the leaders of every country to whom I spoke raised with me these issues: the question concerning the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson); the question of where multiculturalism is going in Australia; the question of whether racism is on the rise in Australia.These are the issues which this government has totally failed to confront in its two years in office. And nothing in the budget and nothing in the pronouncements of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) have done anything to help alleviate these continuing and deepening problems.A few years ago, Australia was held up in terms of an image of a nation that was tolerant, multicultural and an example to the world. In the last two years, and especially in the last 12 months, we have had the politics of division based on attacks concerning race, culture and multiculturalism. Indeed, the failures of the government have now created an atmosphere in the media and in society in which one can become popular, sell books, appear on television in populist programs. Why? In order to pronounce racist views; in order to pronounce divisive views; in order to pronounce views against multiculturalism; and in order to pronounce views against particular sections of the Australian community.You would think that in this context the coalition and the Liberal and National parties would have been alarmed and would have acted. And do you think the Prime Minister has acted in the face of all this? On the contrary, in the Queensland election coming up, we got the news today that all the candidates for the Liberal and National parties, with the exception of only one candidate, one person of Chinese background, are going to give preferences to Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, completely contrary to the public request of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Labor Party that all major parties should put that party last on their how to vote tickets.But what is even worse is that not only did they decide to do that but also they admit to actively seeking out representatives of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and seeking to do a deal with them on preference swaps. These are the same people who protest that they really do support multiculturalism, that they really do support a fair society, that they really are opposed to racism in our community. Imagine that—actually seeking out those officials and seeking to do a deal with them. You can imagine what would have happened in such a meeting, if it had taken place: `Ms Hanson, we are of course publicly opposed to everything you stand for, but we would love to have your preferences.'This is a disgrace for this country. This has created fear in the ethnic communities of this country. That is what it has done—it has created fear. Go and talk to the Chinese community in Australia and see what they think about the Howard government now. The Prime Minister promised them before the election that all of his pronouncements in 1988 were to be forgotten and that he would stand up for their rights. Instead, he has run away in the face of the assault from the member for Oxley and her team.This failure is compounded by many other actions, or lack of action, on the part of the government to show any backbone in relation to this amazing and terrifying threat to our society and to the unity of our country. There is the failure of the government to spend $5 million which it put aside two years ago in its budget for a campaign against racism. We hear from the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) all sorts of excuses: `Oh well, this takes a long time and we've got to do test campaigns and we've got to do this and we've got to do that,' all of which could have been done within a matter of a couple of months. The reality is that this government has never been committed to that campaign, and it has not pursued that campaign. In the end, we had the offensive situation where, as part of this extremely long process of trying to consult people as to how to run the campaign, they had some agency ring up people and pose to them very offensive questions about race and racism. And the minister would not even apologise for that activity.We have also had the virtual emasculation of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The commission made a statement about what was happening, but it did not have any impact. Now there is legislation coming before this parliament which would effectively emasculate that commission and its activities, which are orientated towards ensuring that human rights are properly protected in this country, including human rights based on an opposition to racism and support for a multicultural Australia.With the abolition of the Office of Multicultural Affairs, the promise from the government was that this was only a structural thing—that it was not something which was intended to reduce the level of programs of support for the ethnic communities. But, in actual practice, that is what happened—there has been a reduction in the support of those programs. Increasingly, we have fewer and fewer references to the philosophy and to the practice of multiculturalism. Meanwhile, we have an increasing level of attacks against multiculturalism in the mainstream media from all of the friends of this current government. And what do they do? They get up in the media and they strongly attack the essence of multiculturalism. They try to misdescribe it and to redefine it in some way which is contrary to its true meaning. Then they seek to attack ethnic leaders and specific migrant communities. They attack the question of Australia's role in its neighbourhood within the community of Asia. All those things are part of this process.In Monday's Australian, there was an article by Mr Frank Devine, headed `Tailing the Tigers was a cow of a path'. Basically, if you look through the sophistication of the article, it really comes down to an attack on multiculturalism. For example, he says:Official assertion of multiculturalism without the American coda of "from many, one", has alarmed rather than rallied Australians.Where does he get the evidence for that? Lies! The fact is that all of the recent opinion polls show that more than 70 per cent of Australians support multiculturalism both as a philosophy and as a practice. But that has not deterred people like Mr Devine from claiming nonsense—that the Australian people do not support multiculturalism.Do you think that if I wrote an article in response to Mr Devine it would be published in the Australian newspaper? Of course not. In the last few years, we have had article after article, and newspaper reports and television reports, all attacking multiculturalism. Recently we had attacks in Victoria on the only Cambodian born member of the state parliament, the only Turkish born member of the state parliament, the only Croatian born member of the state parliament and the only Vietnamese born member of the state parliament. All of these attacks were based on a very clear understanding: they were coming from people who were being organised by enemies of multiculturalism; they were organised in such a way as to bring discredit to those people. This is irrespective of the fact that we in this country have an official access and equity policy, and that we have heard ministers and others say, `We want to promote the participation of people of non-English speaking backgrounds in our parliaments and in our society.' And yet we have all these attacks in the media.The responsibility can be sheeted back to the federal government and the leadership of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, just before the election, that he had abandoned his previous views on multiculturalism, that he had abandoned his previous views on race and that he was in a position to say to the Australian people that he now believed in different things. The Australian had an editorial saying, `Forgive and forget, the Prime Minister has learned his lesson. When he becomes Prime Minister, he will be very good on these issues.' Well, he has been appalling on these issues—not only on the Aboriginal issues, so that his behaviour has been overwhelmingly condemned here and internationally, but also on the question of support for multiculturalism and on the question of a clear denunciation of Pauline Hanson, the One Nation Party and its supporters.The Prime Minister himself said only a matter of a couple of weeks ago that the supporters of Pauline Hanson are no more racist than you and I. What is he talking about? Does he know who is behind Pauline Hanson and her party? Does he understand what is going on in this country in terms of the divisions being created by the One Nation Party and its supporters? Why will he not stand up and be counted in these matters?We are facing a crisis situation in respect of these issues and, unless something is done, we will be in a situation where we will have gone from being a united multicultural country based on tolerance to a divided country based on prejudice, on race and on dividing those who come from European or British backgrounds from those who come from non-European backgrounds. Is that what we want for this country?It is about time the Prime Minister made some clear, unequivocal statements on these issues. He should especially condemn the decision of the Queensland Liberal and National parties in relation to giving their preferences to Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party.12:32:003868Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—It is a great pleasure to be able to speak on something that is not portfolio related, and I thank the Chief Government Whip most sincerely for one of these rare opportunities.I have listened with interest to the comments from both sides of the House today and yesterday. I think the clear message that would be received by the Australian people is that there is a huge divide between the coalition members and the members of the opposition. That clear divide is very much evidenced by the fact that we have one group of speakers, the opposition members, who are looking to the past, and another group of speakers, the coalition ranks, who are looking to the future.When we go to an election at the end of this term, there is a very clear choice for the Australian people between a party that is looking back, that is still indulging itself in self-denial and acts of gross hypocrisy, and a government that is looking to the future.If we look at what this country needs, we would have to say that we want a decent Australia. We want an Australia that cares for the vulnerable; we want an Australia that encourages and rewards initiative; we want an Australia that provides genuine opportunities for our school leavers. It is obvious that all the rhetoric I have heard from those opposite in the last 24 hours is a clear indication that they do not share this government's vision for the future.If you listened to every single word said by those opposite, you would understand they have failed to acknowledge that this country has got to start addressing its future and the needs of those who will be running it in the generations to come. I am one of those people who happen to think this younger generation is smarter than we were and more ambitious than we were, and I think they are exceptionally well placed to lead this country into the next millennium. But we as a nation have to make sure that those who are now running this country leave it in a position where those opportunities can be maximised.One of the most distressing things I have heard in the last seven days was a comment by one of the senators in the other place attacking the government for providing a system within which our young people who are still at school are able to start gaining industry experience. They are now able to get dual recognition to do part-time apprenticeships and part-time traineeships. We simply cannot let these young people lurch towards the end of their compulsory education without saying to them, `We have something at the end of this for you, and we are going to maximise your opportunities.'The Labor Party put in place a system whereby 70 per cent of the funding for higher education or TAFE was going to 30 per cent of school leavers. That is simply not fair. It was a system that prejudiced those young people who wanted to make some other career choices, and this government is doing something about that. We recognise the fact that everyone should be given a fair go, not just those who are in a position to go on to TAFE or university.What causes me the most concern is this constant self-denial about what the Labor Party did in government and about the fact that we had a former finance minister, now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), denying—until the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans), the shadow Treasurer, finally came clean about it—the state this nation was left in at the end of their term of government.Some very clear messages were sent to the opposition by the Australian people in 1996. They wanted honesty from the ALP. They wanted proper financial management from the ALP. They wanted the ALP to stop pandering to sectional interests and to provide vision and hope for young people. The ALP has failed on that scorecard. Some two and a half years after the last election when the Australian people said, `This is what our expectations of the ALP are,' it has failed. It does not have the vision which this country requires.I think a lot of people get tired of facts and figures—and they hear a lot of them in this place—but I want to repeat some facts and figures today that are the absolute essence of what this government has done to set this country up for the future. Low interest rates equal high hopes for families. Low interest rates also mean high hopes for small business—the engine room of this country, the great employer of this country, and the prospective even greater employer of this country—and low interest rates mean that we can provide them with opportunities to invest with confidence.In terms of how the Labor Party has failed the Australian people in relation to the question of honesty, after 1993 the people were promised tax cuts—the l-a-w law tax cuts—and what happened? They lost the tax cuts and the former government actually dramatically increased that insidious form of taxation—wholesale sales tax.In the time left to me, I want to talk about this budget and, indeed, the past budgets of this government and the positive effects that they have had on my electorate. A lot of people say that their electorate is a microcosm of Australia; I passionately believe that the federal seat of Ballarat actually is the microcosm of Australia. The effect of reduced interest rates on small business has been dramatic. The effect on families of low mortgage interest rates has been very dramatic. The provisional tax uplift factor for people paying provisional tax in my electorate has been quite dramatic.There are other things in this budget for the people of the electorate of Ballarat. One is their passionate commitment to ensure that the environment we leave our children is an environment that we can be proud of. It is not about hugging trees; it is about realistic assistance for those who are best placed to provide the sort of environment we want to leave our children—our farmers. The tax rebate of 34c in the dollar, up to an annual limit of $10,000, for landcare works is positive assistance to the people who are able to deliver the sort of environment that we want to leave our children.In terms of the money put into tourism, about $50 million has been provided to the ATC to build an Australian presence in new and emerging overseas markets. Some $8 million is provided for a regional tourism program which is going to assist my region greatly. The Ballarat electorate is a high tourism area. Ballan, Avoca, Daylesford, Stawell and Ballarat all have employment generated by tourism. This money is great news for the local tourism operators, and equally great news for the young people who want to enter that industry.An additional $13 million has been allocated to increase the number of GPs in regional communities. People living in Melbourne and Sydney have no idea what it is like to have no access to a doctor. They take it for granted that they are there, but a lot of country people would desperately love that ready access to a doctor. This government has stopped talking and has started to do something about it. We had talk for 13 years and we have now got some action after just two years.A large number of older Australians live in my electorate. The gold card extension has been very warmly welcomed by them. Some 14,000 people over 65 live in the Ballarat region and the free annual influenza vaccine for people aged over 65 is a great initiative. A significant number of the more than 24,000 people aged over 55 in the Ballarat electorate are self-funded retirees and the changes in relation to them are great news, especially on top of the raising of the tax free threshold in line with pensioners and the government's savings incentives. These are important initiatives.This government has addressed the future. We want to leave a country for our young people that we can be proud of. I am a family man, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are aware. I have three children aged 12, 10 and eight. I want to leave a country for them that I can be proud of. I want to be able to say to them, `We have given you the opportunities to maximise your potential. We do not want you to be what you are not, but we want to be able to give you the opportunity to maximise your potential.' The best way of doing that is to have the economy of this country in a position where they can take advantage of those opportunities.These budgets have been important budgets because they have not only provided specific relief and assistance to the Australian community but also set us up for the future. The wanton economic vandalism of the former government should never be inflicted upon the Australian people again. My very passionate view is that the Australian people realise that we had to make some tough decisions. They realise that the government has taken those tough decisions. At the end of the day, it is the Australian people now who will benefit but, of equal importance, it is the young people who will be leading this country in the next 20 years who will gain the most advantage.12:44:003871Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—This budget represents the scorecard on the Howard government's first two years in office. It does not have the government marked down as a winner. It points to the Howard government not being a good economic manager. The budget has delivered an economy which is underperforming. The cuts in the first Costello budget considerably slowed the economic growth that this nation was capable of.In Labor's last three years in office, the economy grew at an average of 4.3 per cent each year. The Howard government, in contrast, has presided over an average 3.2 per cent growth in its first two years. This year's budget forecast is for a decline in growth from 3.75 per cent to three per cent in 1998-99. The Howard government has, through its `good economic management', presided over a decline in growth of over one percentage point. Without growth, you simply cannot get unemployment down. That is why unemployment, under this government, under its policies, in particular the policies implemented in its first budget, is stuck at around eight per cent, with no improvement in sight.The government also claims that, through its budgetary measures, it has `fireproofed' the economy from the effects of the Asian crisis. The truth is it has not because in 1998-99 the current account deficit is expected to rise to around $31 billion, over five per cent of GDP. This is almost double the level of 1996-97. The government has created an environment of falling growth in exports and falling growth in business investment and a budget whose forecasts simply cannot be believed. The analysts do not believe them, and it is little wonder against this background that the Australian dollar has fallen, and that is before the anticipated impact of the Asian economic crisis.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard), of course, wants to shoot the messenger, blaming, in his words, the `poorly informed, economically illiterate money market dealers at the other end of the world' for pushing the dollar to a 12-year low. The truth is the level of the dollar reflects the vulnerability of a slower economy and a continuing deterioration in its current account. The analysts themselves join the growing list of people who cannot accept that the government's forecasts of slowing economic growth will result in increased employment opportunities. How can you create more jobs with less growth and less opportunity? Simply put, the figures cannot be believed.Westpac has found that there are serious risks to the government's fiscal position from overambitious job growth forecasts. It has found that the cumulative negative impact of weaker employment growth on the underlying budget to 2001-02 is likely to be about $7.3 billion. Far from getting the economy into the black, the slower growth, according to them, could take us back into the red. Not only will the falling dollar put pressure on interest rates, but so too will the introduction of a GST. A GST raises prices and that, in turn, raises interest rates.The Prime Minister claims that his government offers safety, stability and security. This is presumably because his polling is telling him that people are increasingly feeling less secure, less stable and less safe. But this polling reflects Australians' reaction to his government's policies. The government policy pursued on the waterfront, for example, is to conspire with companies to sack workers, to actively participate in the undermining of worker security, to back the sackings with legislation and to establish a pattern for other employers to adopt, further undermining job security in this country.The government's policy on tax is not genuine reform but to up-end the existing system and replace it with a complex, unfair and regressive system. Despite telling the Australian people last year of the great adventure in tax that he wants them to share with him, he is simply adding now to their insecurity and fear by not telling them what he has in mind as to either the rate, the exemptions or the so-called compensation. This policy approach, or non-policy approach, is also contributing to a sense of unease, insecurity and, indeed, instability.The Howard government's disastrous policies on nursing homes, child care and charging fees for universities, together with its inability to solve the public hospital crisis—in fact, the only thing it seemed capable of securing was a walkout of all state premiers, a rare act when your own team walks out on you—have not created safety, security and stability but created insecurity, instability and unease bordering on fear. Security and stability do not come from turning the system on its head.In government, Labor was prepared to spend to achieve economic growth. It was done in a responsible manner. We as a government accepted the need for surpluses. Indeed, in our last period in government, Labor produced four surpluses. The truth is that there have been only five surpluses produced in the history of this nation since the war, and four of them have been under Labor. One is now promised by the coalition, about which doubt is already being expressed on the ability of the government to achieve the size mentioned or to sustain it in the longer term.Labor is also committed to producing three more budget surpluses in our first three years back in office, provided the government's parameters stick, but our approach to achieving the surplus is different from that proposed by the government. We would produce the surpluses through higher and more sustained economic growth. We do not accept the need for surpluses at any cost. This government has gone blindly in pursuit of a surplus, cutting without consideration of the consequences.In pursuit of a surplus, the cuts to industry programs have resulted in a decline in development, investment and net exports from that which could have prevailed. Recent figures show growth in business spending on research and development—which reached an all-time high of $4.3 billion in Labor's last year, having climbed every year for nine years—stopped dead for the first time in a decade, following the savage cuts that were perpetrated in the Howard government's first budget. It is these cuts that see business expressing its lack of confidence in the climate for research and development in this country and in innovation. It is driving our research offshore. It is stopping us continuing to become the clever country.Having torn $2 billion out of research and development programs, the government has replaced them with much smaller research and development initiatives. The R&D start program, the government's grand plan, has been a total failure. The budget papers reveal that $54 million allocated to this program will not have been spent by the end of the financial year. A confidential report to the IR&D board reveals that the basis of this shortfall is that only $46 million of the 1997-98 allocation for large grants of $87 million was committed in the first 10 months.Is this underspend any surprise? Not only has the program got only a fraction of the money available to it under the initiatives that we had in place, but the government has also restructured the program to the point of near incomprehensibility. Applicants for the program need to establish whether they should apply for R&D start, R&D start plus or R&D start premium. Businesses are drowning in paperwork for a small return. As a consequence, many are not bothering to apply and, more worrying still, many have stopped doing the research and development.The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore) meanwhile claims, against the evidence in his own budget papers, that R&D spending is `going up'. Indeed, he would like to spread the good news. Whilst he has effectively cut $50 million of research funds, he has also told his department to find $125,000 to buy him a gold sponsorship and a speaking spot at the forthcoming Australia Summit. What other good budgetary news will he tell his audience? That manufacturing support will continue to decline, from $542 million in 1997-98 to $405 million in 2001-02? That the shipbuilding bounty is set to end at the end of 1998-99? That $300,000 will be cut from the anti-dumping system at a time when manufacturers are facing unprecedented pressure from international competitors? That information technology support has collapsed, from $84 million to only $6 million over four years? That no legislation has yet been introduced into the parliament to secure the assistance packages for the TCF and automotive industries which the government was forced to adopt last year? That there has been no provision made in the budget to replace the $100 million import credit scheme for the textiles, clothing and footwear industry? Although the minister did claim in the parliament that funds had been set aside, what he did not say was that only $7 million a year had been set aside.Is the minister also going to tell his audience that support for the pharmaceutical and food industries is falling from $175 million to $55 million? Or perhaps that AusIndustry will be virtually abolished, with support for enterprise development dropping from $38 million to just $1 million over four years? One thing he is unlikely to be talking about is his promise to create 200,000 new jobs in the manufacturing industry by the year 2000. Two years after making that promise, there are fewer manufacturing jobs in Australia, not more. The government is already 102,000 jobs short of its target.When talking about broken promises, we need also to turn to regional development, and I use the term `development' lightly. This government came to power promising to commit to revitalising the social and economic infrastructure of regional Australia, yet in its first budget two years ago, it abolished the department. It wiped out the regional development program—$150 million of it—and the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Sharp) said, `There is no clear rationale or constitutional basis for Commonwealth involvement in regional development.' Regional Australia was betrayed by this government.Since that time, people in the bush have suffered greatly through the actions of this government. There have been cuts for surpluses—again, a consequence of pursuing a surplus regardless of the cost. Regional Australians were looking for a message of hope in this budget. They did not get it. Indeed, the betrayal has continued, because the Telstra sell-off legislation guarantees nothing but existing basic phone technology to the bush. There is no provision to ensure that Telstra delivers new communications technology throughout the country, not just to the areas where it is profitable to do it—the capital cities. The government is allowing 35 per cent of the shares to be foreign owned, and those foreign shareholders will not have any incentive to guarantee services to regional Australians. Regional communities will have their phone services frozen in time.When Labor was in office, we took a conscious decision to stimulate growth. That is why we were able to create employment growth at twice the rate this government has done. We created 250,000 jobs per year; this government has not even reached that amount in two years. Its rate is half that of Labor. How can this government's forecast in the budget that employment growth is going to increase possibly be believed when the budget is forecasting lower economic growth?The truth of it is that this pursuit of a surplus at any cost has held this nation back. It has made us underperform. As a consequence, unemployment is higher than it should have been. Had Labor's policies of growth and the Working Nation program been in place, unemployment today would not be 7.9 per cent, but six per cent. There would have been 150,000 extra jobs. That is the difference between using budget policy and spending to achieve growth. That is the difference you can achieve if you are prepared to recognise an active role for government—not this myopic view that all you have got to measure yourself by is the surplus, regardless of the consequences. The consequences are that this nation has suffered, the unemployed are suffering and there are many others in the community who are suffering as well.13:00:003873Hicks, Noel, MPMr HICKSAH4RiverinaNP10—The coalition government's 1998-99 budget has been an outstanding success, and the response from business and industry leaders, as well as from the broader community, has been very positive. In framing its final budget prior to the next election, the government had to focus on ensuring the delivery of its social and economic priorities, strengthening our national economy against the impact of events in the Asian region and dealing with the dismal economic and policy failure of the Keating-Beazley Labor years.The strong budget outcomes, which have not been the result of good luck, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), have been delivered through hard, disciplined work, strong fiscal policy and good economic management by the coalition. I would like to thank the people of the Riverina for the sacrifices they have made to help put the nation back on track.The coalition has had the courage to take the difficult decisions to turn around the disaster years of Labor and has every right to proudly boast of its achievement of a $13.2 billion turnaround of the budget after two years in office. What an achievement it has been, turning the $10.5 billion deficit inherited from 13 years of Labor mismanagement into a $2.7 billion surplus in two years. I was just listening to the speech by the member for Hotham (Mr Crean), and I heard the wish list. No wonder the previous government got into trouble.However, one of the most important aspects of the budget was health, which is arguably the greatest area of concern throughout the broader community. Despite the problems that currently beset the health system, I think we could all agree that Australia has one of the best systems in the world. But, like most other countries, Australia's hospitals are facing increased stress and strain as a result of the ageing population, the cost of new technology and the sharp decline in private health insurance over the past decade.There is no doubt that the exodus from private health insurance, under Labor, has had a dramatic and deleterious impact on our public hospital system. Labor were determined, for philosophical reasons, to destroy the private health sector, and they nearly succeeded. When they took office 14 years ago, 65 per cent of Australians had private health cover, but that figure was halved to around one-third of Australians now with private health cover. The effect of this exodus has been felt heavily on waiting lists for elective surgery, with only 600 public hospitals to serve 19 million Australians. The challenges that confront our health system can be met only by the Commonwealth and the states and territories working together in partnership for a strong public health system supported by a strong and viable private health system.The Commonwealth pays for almost half of the costs of running public hospitals in Australia, and its total contribution under the next five-year Medicare agreement is $30.2 billion. This represents a real increase of 14.9 per cent in funding to the states. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would agree, $30.2 billion is quite a substantial amount of money.In making that enormous contribution to health, the Commonwealth has every right to expect the states and territories to play their part and deliver value for the dollars they receive. The Commonwealth also has every right to expect the states, which are responsible for the administration and delivery of health services, to focus on efficient and quality patient outcomes, coordinated care and effective disease management.Most Australians now regard free public hospital care as a basic right, but because of the huge costs involved all governments know that delivering this right is a budgetary impossibility. Health costs more every year because people live longer—the average life expectancy in Australia has risen by four months per year over the past two decades, and by the year 2050 the number of people aged 65 and over is projected to be nearly a quarter of the total population—because of the cost of high-tech medicine and surgical procedures (for example, hip replacements are now a routine procedure but at an estimated cost of around $14,000); because of the high rate of hospital admissions—Australia has the highest rate of admissions among the OECD countries for which data is available—and because medical litigation is running rampant and the medical indemnity has soared accordingly.The states must accept responsibility for their own health services and the shortcomings and criticisms. In the state of New South Wales, the system is in crisis. There is ample evidence of this in my electorate of Riverina, and no doubt the situation is the same in many other rural and regional areas of the state. For example, the delivery of obstetric and gynaecology services in the Riverina, even in large centres like Wagga Wagga, is in crisis, and there are many reports which suggest there is a crisis in obstetric care right across non-metropolitan Australia.This is highlighted by the fact that two years ago in Wagga Wagga, the largest inland city in New South Wales, we had six gynaecologists, with five actively doing obstetrics and providing an on-call rotation at the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. In the last four months that number has shrunk to only three obstetricians and gynaecologists, and there is a real prospect of this number falling to two by the end of this year. The sad fact is that these three remaining obstetricians and gynaecologists in Wagga Wagga represent the only remaining specialists in the whole of the Greater Murray Health Service, which takes in the whole of southern New South Wales.From an individual lifestyle point of view, this crisis situation is unsustainable and, without a fundamental change of conditions, on-site obstetric services will collapse in the region. The wider implications of this occurring are quite enormous, and it is a tragedy that specific attempts by the Wagga Wagga doctors to raise the issue have been effectively ignored. A reason common for this decline in numbers is the decreased viability of obstetric practice, and this situation is going to worsen with declining private health insurance, low Medicare benefits rates and seriously rising medical indemnity insurance premiums—the latter being a factor not officially recognised.On the question of medical indemnity insurance, the premiums are rising alarmingly. In New South Wales alone, there was an 18 per cent increase in 1997 and another 15 per cent increase in 1998, bringing the current premium to $38,000. This is an enormous cost impost on medical practitioners and forms a large slice of the estimated $180,000 annual cost of just staying in practice.Let us look at what is happening in the thriving city of Griffith within the Riverina. To provide a proper service in the Riverina, the core staffing at the Griffith Base Hospital should include general physicians, an obstetrician/gynaecologist, a consultant anaesthetist, general surgeons, paediatricians, a director of accident and emergency services, ancillary staff including a physiotherapist and an occupational therapist, and a casualty director.What do we have? I think we are very short on general physicians. We do not have an obstetrician/gynaecologist or a consultant anaesthetist. We have some good general surgeons, but very few. We have been promised a paediatrician. We have an acting director of accident and emergency, and we have one physiotherapist at the hospital. That is simply not good enough in a thriving community like Griffith.All political parties and interested health administrators agree there is an over-concentration of medical services in capital cities compared with regional areas. The federal government has put in many innovative programs which I am sure will have an impact in the medium to long term. Part of the solution in my electorate would be for support for and a greater focus on registrar training schemes from teaching hospitals in both Sydney and Canberra. Over the years, the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital has played a key ongoing role in these training programs, and at the same time the University of New South Wales Medical School has sent medical students to Wagga Wagga for clinical experience in obstetrics and gynaecology.The University of New South Wales also has quite advanced plans to set up a formal section of the medical school in Wagga Wagga to provide wider medical student exposure to high quality medicine, in its broadest sense, and that is not being practised in a capital city. This cannot happen soon enough. Another service that we are trying to obtain in the Wagga Wagga region for the people of the Riverina and the wider community is a radiotherapy unit as part of an oncology unit. This will save people, particularly women, from having to go to Canberra, Melbourne or Sydney for those services.I congratulate the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) on his determined efforts to stem the bleeding in the private health sector and on his role in encouraging private hospitals and medical practitioners to work with the funds to achieve better cost control, establish single billing systems and eliminate the gap payment.In rural Australia, cities like Griffith and Wagga Wagga, just to name two that I know well, find the reduction in health services accelerating at a tremendous rate. This not only affects the cities themselves but also affects the surrounding areas. In Griffith in particular we have a skilled labour shortage in many areas, not only in the health sector. But the irony of the situation is that people wishing to move to fill those vacant positions check to see what health services are available. I know that when I was a young man with a family, I used to do the same thing. As I said, if there is any doubt about health services in an area, people, particularly people with children, will simply not move to those areas. It is the case, therefore, that if cities like Wagga Wagga and Griffith are to reach their full potential, a sound health system must be in place.I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Treasurer (Mr Costello) on their budget. Now that we have become an economically responsible country, I look forward to improvement in many areas, but particularly in the provision of health services in rural and regional Australia.13:10:003876Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—This is a budget that continues the decline in national investment in education. This is a budget that continues this government's regressive policies with regard to education, research and training in Australia. Indeed, it is interesting to note the full extent of the education cuts as outlined in the budget papers themselves. There is a graph at page 437 of Budget Paper No. 1 that obviously the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, was not allowed to doctor; a graph from which you can draw the following figures. When one extrapolates figures from that graph, they show a six per cent fall in total education expenditure between 1996-97 and 2001-02. They show a massive 20.6 per cent fall in higher education expenditure over the same period. They show a 3.2 per cent fall in expenditure on vocational education and training. They show a 1.3 per cent fall in schools expenditure between 1998-99 and 2001-02. They also show a 5.9 per cent decline in expenditure on student assistance between 1995-96 and 1997-98—and that is the last measurement that will be given before those assistance provisions move to the social security portfolio.The decline in schools funding is particularly significant, given that enrolments are expected to be around 70,000 higher in 2000 than in 1996. Overall, schools are losing 1.3 per cent of their expenditure out of Canberra even though they are enrolling some 70,000 more students through the relevant period. These figures show that Dr Kemp's claims about education expenditure are totally false. For example, the claim of a 3.8 per cent increase in schools funding in 1998-99 is absolutely incorrect. Dr Kemp is a master of doctoring the figures, using absolute numbers when only real funding amounts can be applied as a relevant measure.We hear a great deal from the government about its supposed concern for vocational education yet, with 35,000 people missing out on a TAFE place last year, Commonwealth expenditure will decrease by almost eight per cent between 1997-98 and 2001-02. Dr Kemp, on every count, whether he is talking about this government's funding of universities, vocational education or schools, is presenting a false figure. The real figures are provided in the detail of the budget papers. I would urge all educationalists, teachers and parents around Australia to refer to that chart at page 437. They will find the truth in the associated figures; the truth of this government's massive cutbacks in our greatest national asset—the skills and insights of our people.In the time available to me today I want to talk about Labor's repair and reform job when it comes to education policy—briefly, because I only have time to refer to two government measures that Labor will abolish when it wins the next election. The first of these is the government's divisive and regressive enrolment benchmark adjustment. This is a policy which now has a rather unique status in Australian politics. It takes a particularly bad piece of public policy to unite the government and non-government school sectors in this country, yet that is what Dr Kemp and this government have achieved through their divisive enrolment benchmark adjustment scheme. Both sectors want the EBA abolished.This is a scheme that will take $12 million away from government schools around Australia this year, even though those same schools are enrolling 8,500 extra students. What a regressive policy—to take away $12 million in schools funding from schools that are increasing their enrolments around the country by almost 9,000 students. But the very worst aspect of this policy, for so little financial gain in the Commonwealth budget, is that it has reopened the oldest and most divisive debate in the history of schools policy in Australia. It has reopened the state aid debate. This is the old point of division between school administrators and supporters in the government and non-government sectors.This is a divisive debate for so little gain. That is why people from the non-government sector are joining with their colleagues in government schools and saying this is a policy that should be abolished. It should be abolished because it takes money away from schools that are actually enrolling more students. Even more importantly, it is a policy that should be abolished because it has set back the education debate in this country by decades, with Dr Kemp taking us back to the 1960s and the divisive debate about state aid.Labor of course has one principle to replace this policy with, and that is the principle that schools should be funded according to need and growth. I do not particularly care whether it is a school in the government or the non-government sector. If the school is enrolling more students and it can demonstrate need in educational resources and parental capacity to assist, then it deserves more money from the Commonwealth budget. They are the principles that this parliament should be using to fund schools around Australia, the simple principles of need and growth in enrolments—and Labor does not make any particular distinction between government and non-government schools for that purpose. If it is a school in need, we will fund it more. If it is a school that is enrolling more students, we will fund it more substantially than this government does. That is the simple principle that Labor will be applying in the forthcoming campaign on schools policy.The second aspect of repair and reform is another job of abolition—Labor's task in abolishing the regressive up-front undergraduate fees that this government has introduced for university students. It is plain unfair to have a policy for universities that establishes one rule of entry for wealthy families that can afford to pay the up-front fee and a totally different rule of entry for families that cannot afford fees that go up towards $30,000 per annum. There should not be one rule for the rich and one for the not so rich when we talk about university entry. We should be expanding the access that young Australians have to a higher education instead of embarking on this government's policy of taking 21,000 student places off the forward estimates. So Labor will abolish the up-front fees not only because they are unfair but because they have been impractical and unsuccessful in their implementation.We had Dr Kemp, the minister, in this very parliament last November promising the parliament and the people that 90,000 new places could be generated by this policy of up-front fees. How many have been created? There have been 800 places created—less than one per cent of the minister's promise. If he were a student sitting for an exam with a success rate of less than one per cent, he would be tossed out of the institution as an absolutely gross failure. This is a policy that has failed because it is unfair. It is also a policy that has failed because its implementation has been rejected hand over fist around Australia's universities.I turn to an issue closer to home for me as the member for Werriwa. I want to express my dissatisfaction that one of the very few institutions that is embarking on this fees policy is the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur. We have had an attempt by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, David Barr, to introduce up-front fees. This is the wrong philosophy for the University of Western Sydney. It is an elitist attempt to take the University of Western Sydney away from its core charter, which is about access and equity in the working-class suburbs of the Greater West. I would urge David Barr, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of that institution in and near my electorate, to reconsider.The problem with the up-front fees—a problem particularly acute in western Sydney—is that they add to the perception that higher education is now outside the finances of a working family. The changes to HECS have deterred a whole generation of young students from wanting to go on to higher education. The half billion dollar cuts to Austudy have had a damaging impact on the affordability of a university education. So the last thing—the dumbest thing—that any institution can do when it wants to create equity and access is add to that perception by talking about the introduction of up-front undergraduate fees for domestic students.Indeed, the University of Western Sydney conducted an extensive survey—it spent its own money—in 1997 to survey school leavers. This showed that, because of this perception of a lack of affordability, the HECS changes, the Austudy changes and the up-front fees, between 10 and 20 per cent of school leavers are being deterred from going on to a university education. They think, as do their parents, that it is just too expensive for them. They cannot afford the HECS debt at an early age at a low threshold, they are worried about the Austudy changes, while the prospect of up-front fees just scares them witless. That is why the University of Western Sydney's own survey showed that between 10 and 20 per cent of school leavers, particularly from low income backgrounds, are turning their backs on a university education. They are effectively turning their backs on the best chance they had, prior to the Howard government, of holding down a good education and thereby a good job and a good working career.Why would a vice-chancellor at the UWS Macarthur campus then want to rub salt into the wound, want to aggravate the inequity and want to make it much worse by moving down the path of up-front fees? I am heartened, indeed thankful, that the new vice-chancellor at the University of Western Sydney—Vice-Chancellor Reid—has publicly opposed the Macarthur recommendation. She has rebuked David Barr's foolhardy scheme, and I wish more power to her arm in making sure that when it goes to the central decision making body at the University of Western Sydney her view prevails, because she knows that this is not good for the central mission of UWS.Indeed, it makes me rethink the whole question of educational access and opportunity in a working-class area. It is true that in the mid-1980s the Labor government did one of the great things for western Sydney by building and funding that university. But I suppose it is one thing to build an institution with the potential for educational access and opportunity; it can be a different thing in the management of the institution for that potential to be realised. It is a good thing to build it, but we also need to follow through and make sure that the management philosophy is not elitist. We need to make sure that the management practices of promoting policies are consistent with the university's core goals for equal access and opportunity.I bring to the attention of the House some of the figures that have been presented in a recent edition of People and Place published by Monash University in Melbourne. They have produced statistics highlighting the percentage of commencing undergraduate students drawn from low socioeconomic areas in 1996. The low socioeconomic areas are those that relate to the lowest 25 per cent according to postcode. The figures are interesting. The Victoria University of Technology draws 31.4 per cent of its students from the bottom 25 per cent group of socioeconomic status areas—a great equity achievement; overachieving in terms of equity goals. In the western suburbs of Melbourne, going through VUT, a higher proportion of students from those lower socioeconomic backgrounds are going through the university than at the upper level of income groups. The VUT is to be congratulated on having such a high penetration—31 per cent of its students coming from the bottom 25 per cent on the socioeconomic ladder.Let us look at some of the institutions otherwise known as the great eight—some of the oldest and most reputable universities around Australia. The proportion of students coming out of the bottom quarter of suburbs reveal the following results: University of Queensland, 14.5 per cent; University of Melbourne, 14.3 per cent; University of Adelaide, 13.1 per cent; University of Western Australia, 11.6 per cent; and Monash University itself, 11.2 per cent. Then we come down to the University of Western Sydney, which has an equity and access charter, and just 10.7 per cent of its students are coming out of the bottom 25 per cent of socioeconomic areas in the greater western Sydney region—a third of what is being achieved at the comparable institution serving the western suburbs of Melbourne, the Victoria University of Technology. That sort of performance by the University of Western Sydney needs to be enhanced. It needs to be performing up near the standards of VUT to fulfil the basic charter of access and opportunity out of working-class areas—students, no matter their family background, having an equal opportunity to go through to a higher education.I would urge people such as David Barr at the Macarthur campus of UWS to learn from the experience of the Victoria University of Technology—learn how they have moved from passive management systems to a more active approach, of reaching out into communities to let them know that a university education is within their life horizons, within their educational capacity. The policies of VUT reflect a guaranteed place, the student compact and the guaranteed pathways. What VUT can say to each and every student coming out of the western suburbs of Melbourne is this: `Even if you have not done as well as you had hoped at school leaving, we can guarantee you a path that will take you through to your higher education goal.' They can do that. VUT can do it because they are a dual sector institution. They have both university and TAFE sectors working in unison, so they can take someone who wants to be an accountant with a higher education qualification, start them out with a TAFE certificate and move them through the various stages—a guaranteed place and a guaranteed pathway because they have the breadth of a dual sector institution to achieve those particular equity goals.I have had cause to suggest that this same model might be relevant for western Sydney. We should not leave the dual sector model as solely a Victorian phenomenon. We need a national policy statement about the dual sector model for post-secondary education in Australia. Let us not just leave these efficiency and equity advantages to the Victorians. I have suggested that this may be a useful reform—a useful way of considering the means by which the University of Western Sydney can achieve greater and improved equity goals.Who was the first person to jump into print condemning the possibilities of this particular reform? David Barr from the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur. He is wrong on the up-front fees and he is ignorant indeed to ignore the equity possibilities that come out of consideration of a dual sector model for the University of Western Sydney.13:26:003879Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—There we have it: the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) has now confirmed the direction of debt and deficit we will see for our next Labor government. Australia will go back down the path of inflation and rising interest rates, and I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that is not the direction in which Australia should be going into the next millennium.On the issue of the abolition of up-front fees, I do not know what the problem is. This year there has been 19,000 extra people going into tertiary education at universities in this country, and I do not understand the claim of the member for Werriwa that somehow the up-front fees are a disincentive. HECS is the cheapest loan a young person will ever get in their life.One of the notable achievements of the Howard coalition budget has been perhaps one of the least talked about. The shielding of Defence from budget cuts at a time when we were faced with the task of turning around Labor's $10 billion budget deficit has been a significant achievement. Defence, under Labor, was always a soft target for budget cuts. When the coalition secured office following the March 1996 election and found the cupboard bare—in fact $10,000 million in the red—I think it is fair to say that there was more than a little resentment at the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) took a stand on defence and said that there would be no more cuts. There was resentment from many at the decision—but not from Townsville and my electorate of Herbert. Townsville has a long and close association with the Australian Defence Force. Indeed, it is fair to say that Townsville is as much a part of the ADF as the ADF is a part of Townsville, as anyone who has spent any time in our little piece of paradise will certainly testify.Stability in the funding base for Defence is vital. It allows forward planning to be undertaken with certainty and security, and I am proud to have been part of the Howard coalition government which has provided Defence with such a solid and stable funding base for the first time in many years. This does not mean there has not been change within Defence. There has been tremendous change, which at times has been difficult to manage, but Defence are working through that change and, at the end of the day, they will be the stronger for it.The 1998-99 budget further cemented Townsville's place within the Australian Defence Force system. We are the sharp end of the ADF. Over the next financial year there will be capital upgrades to the defence facilities in Townsville valued at more than $19 million. That $19 million is a small part of the major $275 million capital works program that is proposed in the years ahead in Townsville. The figure of $10 million has been allocated this financial year for work to begin on the second stage of the redevelopment of Lavarack Barracks, home of the ADF's Ready Deployment Force; $2 million has also been committed to the first stage of a $70 million upgrade of RAAF Garbutt.I want the House to understand that I am determined that the government is going to proceed with these capital upgrades. I intend to be at the doors of the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) and the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop) as many days as it needs to make sure that this money is provided on a continuing basis, to make sure that the Public Works Committee approves this for Townsville and to make sure that this very much needed work is in fact secured for the ADF bases in Townsville.Other major capital works programs at Townsville include $6.4 million towards continuing upgrades of facilities at the army's 5 Aviation Regiment, which primarily aim to improve the service life of the Black Hawk helicopters. Almost half a million dollars has been allocated to continue the construction of the facilities for 10 FSB and a further $1.4 million will be spent this financial year in the army's high range field training area at 10 FSB. For the Australian Defence Force as a whole and for the individual army and RAAF personnel stationed in Townsville in particular, these upgrades are vital. I intend to see that they are delivered.As I said earlier, the ADF is as much a part of Townsville as Townsville is a part of the ADF. In that respect, Townsville and the neighbouring city of Thuringowa also stand to benefit enormously from these funding commitments. Certainly the business community—contractors, builders, electricians and so on—will benefit directly from the capital upgrade project, but other small businesses will also benefit from the flow of that money back into the local economy.I know that the Liberal Party candidate for the Queensland seat of Thuringowa, Mr David Moore, is a big supporter of the ADF. His commitment to the ADF, as a recent serving officer with the ADF's 4 Field Regiment Ready Deployment Force in Townsville, is matched only by his commitment to his family and his desire to get a better deal for the local community of Thuringowa as their state representative. He has indicated to me on a number of occasions the importance of providing the ADF with secure and certain funding. Indeed, I share with Mr Moore a desire to see in the near future an increase in spending on our defence forces.Governments make many different decisions each day, but only rarely are any identifiable as landmark decisions of major national significance. Last week the Queensland coalition government and federal government indicated their strong support for the establishment of a medical school for North Queensland to be based primarily in Townsville. The establishment of a Townsville based medical school for North Queensland will be an event of major national significance. While the announced support for a North Queensland medical school was not part of the budget—it is still too early for that—I wish to make some comments regarding it.The Commonwealth now needs to commit the extra capital funding that will be required to make sure that this project proceeds. The state government has committed $10 million. The federal government needs to commit an additional like amount. I want to put the Prime Minister, the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) and the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) on notice that I do not intend to rest until that money is secured to ensure that James Cook University gets its medical school. If I have to be sitting outside their door every day while I am in Canberra, I will do it. I want to make sure that this money is delivered, and I am confident that the government will support me in this major new national project. I cannot think of another decision that will have a more lasting and positive impact on the health and welfare of all rural and regional Queenslanders than a decision to establish a medical school specialising in tropical and rural medicine and indigenous health.With the establishment of a medical school in North Queensland, medical students for the first time will be able to be taught and trained in regional centres like Townsville, Cairns, Mackay and Mount Isa. This is significant because students from regional centres currently must leave home and travel to Brisbane and other southern universities in order to pursue a medical career. Once there, few incentives exist for those students to come back home or set up shop in other regional centres. A North Queensland medical school will dramatically improve our ability to attract and hold more doctors in regional towns and communities.Indeed, the indigenous component is very exciting. The university intends to discard the current entry requirements for medical schools and look at the ability of indigenous students to successfully complete a course, not necessarily at the actual marks that they had in their senior year. That is very exciting because it will mean that we can get indigenous doctors into North Queensland, and that can only benefit the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population in our area.James Cook University's Professor Ian Wronski, a central figure behind the push for a medical school in Townsville, firmly believes that establishing a medical school in the north will, in time, rate alongside the formation in Australia of the National Health and Medical Research Council after the Second World War in terms of historical importance. The NHMRC changed the face of medical research in Australia. Similarly, a North Queensland medical school may well revolutionise the delivery of health and medical services throughout regional Australia.While securing a medical school is a big win for Townsville and James Cook University, it is a much bigger win for the tens of thousands of people who live outside Brisbane and the south-east metropolitan corner of Queensland. The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) was not overstating the critical nature of the matter in any way when he once said that securing a medical school for the north was a matter of life and death. North Queensland makes up about 45 per cent of the state's total area and 17 per cent of our population, but it is home to only about nine per cent of our registered medical practitioners. According to Professor Wronski, this ratio has created enormous problems in the Queensland medical work force community. Try making a quick trip to the nearest medical centre or local GP in regional centres like Charleville or Cloncurry and compare that with inner-city Brisbane or Sydney and you are really comparing apples with oranges. They are poles apart, as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) will testify.A recent Queensland Council for Rural Medicine study found that 70 per cent of rural GPs work more than 41 hours a week. Of those, 15 per cent work in excess of 60 hours a week. Many of our rural doctors are literally working themselves into the ground, and it is a problem which is starting to affect Townsville. Only two months ago local medical centres started to shut their doors and reduce their hours of service because of the trouble they were having in finding locums and relief doctors. In the past these problems have been addressed by such means as importing foreign doctors—a solution which is short term at best. Professor Wronski said that Queensland imported some 350 overseas trained doctors last year alone. He said that the problem of accessing doctors and medical services in rural and regional Queensland demands practical, long-term solutions. A Townsville based, North Queensland medical school is such a solution.I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his personal commitment to date for this project. However, I would like to say that I will continue my representations to both the Prime Minister and the health minister up until the day the school officially opens its doors, because I am determined that Townsville, and James Cook University, is going to have its own medical school.This has been a budget of achievement for the coalition in Australia. As the Treasurer said in his budget speech, `We are back in the black. We are back on track.' Australia faces many challenges over the coming months and years. The economic instability that has crippled many of our neighbouring countries demonstrated the importance of this government's decision to bring our economy back into surplus for the first time in some years.The regional military instability we are currently witnessing in the Asia-Pacific, with the actions of the government of India testing nuclear devices, playing a game of one-upmanship with Pakistan, demonstrates the importance of the Prime Minister's decision back in 1996 not to cut our defence spending any further.I am pleased to support the budget. It has been extremely well received throughout Australia. I would hope that the coalition will be able to deliver similar budgets for many years to come.13:39:003882Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—One of the glaring aspects of this year's budget was again the lack of mention of anything to do with positive measures for the unemployed. It is very much a budget that ignores the plight of the unemployed. In his treatise The good society: the human agenda , John Kenneth Galbraith had this to say:There is no serious doubt as to the economic basis of the good society. As sufficiently noted, there must be employment opportunity for all willing members. This means, with a growing population and greater aspiration, a steady expansion of the economy and therewith a steady and reliable increase in the number of workers employed.But what do we see in the associated papers of this budget? We see unemployment staying at around eight per cent. We see estimates of growth of around three per cent. We can be critical of economists not agreeing about many things, but one thing that I have learnt is that most economists agree that without an economic growth operator of at least four per cent there will be no expansion of employment. This is what this budget fails to deliver.This mundane budget claims, as its centrepiece, a budget surplus of $2.7 billion. Australians are asking themselves, and quite rightly, at what terrible cost to this country the budget surplus has come. It is, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), built on the hundreds of deficits in people's everyday lives. The pain that this surplus is built on is something that members are seeing every day in the communities that they represent. There are thousands of examples of how this budget surplus has been achieved at the expense of ordinary Australians and particularly at the expense of people living in electorates such as the one I represent. RH4KERRMr Kerr—And very well, if I might say so.HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINS—I thank the honourable member for Denison. The most obvious victims of this third Howard-Costello budget are the unemployed. As is so often the case with this government, the unemployed are thrown on the scrap heap. Just as in the previous two budgets, there is nothing in this one to give them any hope. Indeed, it is exactly the opposite. The budget forecasts that unemployment will remain around eight per cent for the next 12 months. The budget does nothing to reverse the savage cuts to labour market programs undertaken in the first budget. The amount of $1.8 billion was ripped from programs that gave the unemployed hope, and in this budget there is nothing to replace that. This budget is confirmation that the government has given up on solutions for the job crisis and has once and for all turned its back on unemployed Australians.My office deals with cases every day that demonstrate the suffering that has been caused in reaching the budget surplus. These people's stories are the stories behind Treasurer Costello's budget surplus. Since the start of the Job Network in May, there has been a great deal of concern about its operation and its failure to provide the free universal service that the Commonwealth Employment Service had provided Australians for over 50 years. One constituent contacted my office last week to share with us the story of her treatment at the hands of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs' Job Network.This woman is married and had decided to return to the work force. She used the touch screens at Centrelink and found an appropriate vacancy. The information from the entry advised her to contact Drake Employment. She contacted Drake. Drake told her that she was well suited to the vacancy and was in fact one of the best applicants they had heard from. They then asked her for a Job Network number. She replied that she did not have one and was told to contact Centrelink. Without the Job Network number Drake would be unlikely to give her the job. Without a Job Network number the government would not pay Drake for filling the vacancy. Centrelink advised her that she could not register because she was married. It was this aspect, of all the advice she received, that enraged and angered my constituent the most and prompted her to contact my office.Her experience leads to the question of whether the Job Network is really about putting people who want to work into work or whether it is a cynical exercise to bodgie the unemployment figures by excluding certain categories of people from the labour market. Like me, my constituent is now convinced of the latter. When the government talks of the $2.7 billion surplus, that is cold comfort to this particular constituent. She sees only how the Howard government's Job Network disregards her contribution to the labour market as a married woman.In a further example of the callousness of this government, my office was contacted by a pensioner whose daughter had had to defer her university studies for medical reasons. I stress to the House that this constituent's daughter did not choose to defer her course; she had to. She did so because she was ill and she has medical documentation to confirm this. Centrelink advised her that the 13-week waiting period between coming off Austudy and going onto sickness benefit would apply in her case because she had a relatively small amount of money in her bank account, an amount her father had given her following his work payout. Even under the Howard government, this seemed quite harsh to my office, which then contacted Centrelink. This young woman did, after all, defer her studies due to health reasons and, even with that small amount of money in her bank account, was eligible for Austudy.Centrelink confirmed that what had happened was indeed the case. Had she had no money in the bank Centrelink could have waived the 13-week waiting period because her father was a pensioner. However, Centrelink said that, because she had an amount that was more than one sickness allowance payment in her bank account, the 13-week waiting period applied. So, even if the amount were $1 over one sickness allow ance payment, she would have to wait 13 weeks. I still hope that the minister can tell me that this is not correct and that my office has been given incorrect information. However, sadly, under this government, I and my office have become used to hearing such stories.The government's crude attempts in this budget to gloss over the savage cuts to health in its previous two budgets fool no-one. They particularly do not fool a constituent who approached me in March. This constituent had a mastectomy in October and went back to hospital in December to be told that a prothesis would be fitted in February. She contacted the hospital in March when this had not occurred only to be told that she would have to wait another three to six months because the hospital had insufficient funds available. This comes at a time when the Northern Hospital in Epping in my electorate has been told that it will have to find savings of six per cent in the next financial year because of the Howard government's inadequate Medicare agreement offer to Victoria. I remind the House that this hospital opened only in February this year.These three examples show the pain that the zealous striving for budget surpluses at all costs inflicts on the community. They are only three examples, but I would bet that for every $1 million of the Treasurer's budget surplus there would be, at the very least, 1,000 such stories.Another way that the government has made life far less comfortable for ordinary Australians is by ripping almost $1 billion out of child care. Working parents face decisions about the length of time that children can spend in child care, the length of time that they can work or even if they can work at all. Recently I surveyed child care providers in my electorate to determine what the effect of the cuts had been. Half the responding centres had increased their fees and had done so by more than $10 per week. One centre had increased fees by $25 per child per week. Furthermore, another 60 per cent of centres intend to increase their fees again in the next 12 months by figures ranging from $4 to $10 per child per week. One particularly disturb ing trend in the data is that 70 per cent of the responding centres have decreased their staff in the last year and a half and 60 per cent anticipate further staff reductions over the next year.One feature that unites all centres is that 100 per cent report adverse comments about the new arrangements from parents using the centres. Some of the general comments that providers gave in their survey replies are very revealing. They stated:There is no incentive for community to be involved because there is no help for families, only costly service.. . . . . . . . .I would like to see more support for struggling families who choose to work but end up paying the majority of the second wage in child care fees.. . . . . . . . .There is not time to help families if they have other worries or problems.Another said:Co-ordinator becomes more of a policing person—check on all extra administration, children's hours of attendance, asking parents every day for extra proof of their situation, check whether they are looking for work, study etc.Perhaps the comment that sums up people's overall feeling is the following:The senseless policy of the current government with respect to families of Australia and thus working mothers will lead people to vote for a caring alternative government who can come up with a better child care system or the same one as what was in place before these cost cutting Costellos and Howards ruined the whole system.That is a view that I share wholeheartedly. I also note that in Monday's Australian there was an article quoting top Australian fashion designer Collette Dinnigan as saying that a GST would be bad for small business. If anyone should know, it would surely be a successful, internationally renowned person like Ms Dinnigan, who has been asked by the New South Wales government to chair the New South Wales Small Business Development Corporation. Ms Dinnigan says that small business already has more than enough paperwork and red tape to deal with. She recognises, quite accurately, that the government's GST proposal would turn every small business in the country into an arm of the Australian Taxation Office.I wonder how that fits in with the Prime Minister's commitment to reduce the amount of time small business needs to deal with paperwork, which was made in the light of the Bell report. With the GST on the way back, it is probably about as honourable as his other commitments. We have to remember that this, of course, is Prime Minister Howard of the never-never—we would never, never see a GST.If we look at the contributions from those opposite, we see that many of them, especially those who represent regional electorates, have talked about the need for capital infrastructure in their electorates. That intrigues me because at the same time they have fallen for the government line about the surplus and about the need to reduce what they perceived to be future generations paying for what is being spent now. As John Kenneth Galbraith outlines in his book The good society, that is a very narrow view of the way in which capital infrastructure outlays should be looked at. Much of that is appropriate spending for not only the economic benefit of the present but also the economic benefit of the future.It is quite right to expect that that would be acknowledged by the burden being spread over many years. It is just callous and naive to withdraw and not recognise that that is the basis of much of the borrowings that governments make. Indeed, many studies have indicated that unless we increase our effort in infrastructure spending the infrastructure stock will go backwards in quantity and quality. It is about time governments, like the Howard-Costello government, recognised that.In their contributions to this budget debate, many of those opposite have been chanting the mantra that Treasurer Costello has engaged them to chant. You know the line: the budget in the black, back on track. We now have Howard and Costello—we of the never-never. It is a track all right, but perhaps it is the track to the never-never. Of course, as the Macquarie Dictionary indicates, the never-never is `a remote and isolated region'; another definition is that it is `imaginary'.13:52:003885Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—As I sat preparing these remarks, reflecting on the third coalition budget in this parliament, I asked myself: what would be the single most emblematic image that might encapsulate its achievements? What would be the single image or epithet that is most evocative of this milestone in the journey of the Howard coalition government? On reflection, I have selected the title of this year's appropriation speech from a most uncharacteristic source, that being the quotations of Chairman Mao. While I shall borrow from the imagery of the Long March, the title of my speech today is `Let a thousand flowers bloom'.This budget is best understood not as a series of figures in successive sterile looking budget papers but as the critical next step in Australia's long march back from the financial brink. That journey began with the decision of millions of Australians to make John Howard the Prime Minister of Australia on 2 March 1996. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) has now confessed to the reality that the ALP's principal legacy to Australia in March 1996 was an annual recurrent Commonwealth deficit of over $10,000 million.I note that Mao's Long March over one year was a journey of 10,000 kilometres from Hunan to northern Shaanxi. The coalition's long march over three years has been a fiscal journey of 10,000 million small steps—10,000 million small steps in reducing the Commonwealth's annual indebtedness to future generations of unborn Australians. We have come from the financial brink to our destination today—a shelter of safety and security in a turbulent world economy.Behind Kim Beazley's black hole was a psychology of deficit and debt, which riddled the entire fabric of the former government. Its ethos was eat, drink and be merry for someone else, some day, will pick up the tab. Its entire preoccupation was the next day's headline, the next press release, the next ineffectual spending program, the next opportunity to dish out government largesse and patronage to one of its vested interest groups.It was a view of the world which saw the dead hand of government at the dominant centre and the freedom and opportunity of individual Australian citizens as a mere footnote. It was a world in which enterprise and diversity was starved of sunlight and few flowers bloomed. Under ALP rule, the accumulated Commonwealth debt grew by over $70 billion in the past five years of its government alone. It was therefore essential that we begin the long march back.The first and second budgets of this government were in some respects painful, but we worked to ensure that the pain was shared fairly by the whole community and especially by those most able to bear the burden. By our tenacious commitment to bring spiralling Commonwealth debt under control, we took pressure off private financial markets, which led to five successive falls in interest rates. Official rates have fallen under the coalition's economic stewardship from 10.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent.My electorate of Parramatta includes just under 10,000 people following the Australian dream, paying off a mortgage. They are largely made up of 12,500 couple families with dependent children. For any of those families paying off an average mortgage of, say, $100,000, that rate fall represents $75 a week in additional disposable income. Let me repeat that: $75 a week in additional disposable income. That benefit would be entirely thrown into jeopardy if we ever contemplated a return to Labor's entrenched culture of deficit and debt. So I say to every one of those families in Parramatta: let a thousand flowers bloom.It was my pleasure, with the assistance of my colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr Abbott), two weeks ago to launch the Parramatta Job Network. Under that initiative, this government has replaced the two existing CES officers in my electorate with 14 keen-as-mustard employment service providers. The benefits of reform are already being felt with national unemployment falling below that crucial psychological threshold of eight per cent for the first time in eight years. Unemployment in Parramatta is now well below the national average, and that includes long-term and youth unemployment. Each service provider in Parramatta has expertise in a different area. Each employs different strategies. Each is available to job seekers at no cost. So I say to every job seeker in the Parramatta electorate, old or young: let a thousand jobs emerge.Because of our commitment to doing the right thing, this third budget was in a position to acknowledge the efforts of those Australians who had spent their lives, in a financial sense, doing the right thing. I am referring to independent retirees. These are the people who have sacrificed and saved to take responsibility for the costs of their own retirement. Many in my electorate, which has a high concentration of tradespeople and labourers, find themselves just above the asset and income threshold to qualify for the pension, but their fixed income is barely enough to make ends meet. These people feel, in relation to their entitlement to Commonwealth benefits, that their efforts at self-help have been punished rather than rewarded.The extension of the seniors health card to an additional 220,000 self-funded retirees will allow a significant proportion of the 14,600 retirees in my electorate to buy eligible pharmaceuticals for $3.20. In addition, this budget provides a free flu vaccine for every Australian over the age of 65. So I say to all Australian seniors: let a million healthy winters pass.We have increased funding to $165 million for medical research, including $50 million to make up for Labor's shortfall. This is especially important to me because of the high concentration of medical research which takes place in my electorate in the shadow of Westmead Teaching Hospital and Westmead Children's Hospital, Sydney University and the University of Western Sydney. Sixteen grants from January 1998, involving an increase of seven grants and expenditure of $1.1 million, will fund projects in my electorate which will benefit the health of all Australians.It was my pleasure recently to welcome Minister Wooldridge to a function at the Westmead Institutes of Health Research and, as a consequence of that visit, I expect to be able to make an announcement in the next couple of weeks about a substantial funding grant for that institute. I look forward to continuing these remarks later this afternoon.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Miscellaneous38873887Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As members will be aware, yesterday the level of noise in the House was totally unacceptable. I do not intend to allow it to proceed on that basis.Questions Without Notice388738873887Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—As it was when I made my budget reply, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will not make response. If he does so, he will not be called to ask a question. I suggest that he direct his question, otherwise he will not be called.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls saying yesterday in this House:Our policy of opposition to a co-payment stands. It will not be altered.Is the Prime Minister aware of the report in today's Australian regarding a possible government intention to introduce up-front fees for public hospital patients after the next election? Do you agree with the statement by your spokesman that the government will `go to an election with a health policy to win' and `whatever happens after that is hypothetical'?3887Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The government's policy is that there will be no co-payment. The report in the Australian is wrong. It was based on a complete misinterpretation of what the paper was told. It is absolutely wrong.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind members of the opposition frontbench that they should remain quiet. 38873887Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to recent studies of changes to Australia's indirect tax system? What are the implications for the current debate about tax reform?3887Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In reply to the honourable member for Lilley, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, in asking me a question about tax reform, relied upon a statement made by Dr Neil Warren, a noted academic who does have quite a reputation in this field. As a result of the Leader of the Opposition's reference to Dr Warren, I had occasion to look back over some of the recent academic work of Dr Warren. I came across an extremely interesting paper which he presented to a conference on tax reform and a GST on 15 April 1998.What Dr Warren did in that paper was to lend support to the assertion that has frequently been made by the coalition: that before the 1993 election the Labor Party promised tax cuts without a GST but after the election the Labor Party in government gave us the exact opposite. They not only failed to deliver through their notorious repudiation of the l-a-w law commitment and failed to deliver the income tax cuts but also in fact delivered their own goods and services tax. To add insult to injury and further pain to the working men and women of Australia, they delivered it without any compensation. When you go through Dr Warren's paper, it contains one of the most damning indictments of the two-faced politics of saying one thing in a campaign and doing another once you get into office.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind members of the opposition of my remarks.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is a warning to the entire Australian community. They did it in 1993. If you let them do so, they will do it again in 1998. At the beginning of his paper—it is a document that would repay study by all those who are interested in a proper discussion of the Australian taxation system—this is what Dr Warren had to say:To demonstrate this point most clearly, we shall focus on the equity and efficiency implications of the electorate's failure to support the Fightback indirect tax reform package in 1993 and contrast this with the indirect tax reforms introduced by the newly elected Labor government between 1993 and 1996.This paper will argue that there are a number of important lessons to be learnt, and these include:(1) Labor introduced in 1993 its own form of a goods and services tax but in this case without any compensation to those adversely affected;(2) That, even if Labor had compensated groups for the adverse equity impact of the indirect tax changes introduced, what their tax reform did was(a) make Australia less internationally competitive by increasing input taxation; and(b) make the tax system less economically efficient by increasing the tax rates on a range of selected goods but not on services.This is what Dr Warren goes on to say:Even though in practice no-one advocates the introduction of a GST without compensation, an important finding of this paper is that this was effectively what Labor did in the period 1993 to 1996.What you have from one of the most respected taxation academics in Australia is a clear indictment that, in government, what the Labor Party, having gone to the people and said, `We will cut your tax without fixing the indirect taxation system,' and having sneaked back into office on that deceptive commitment, then did in government was to repudiate the personal tax commitment, effectively embrace a goods and services tax and, to rub the electorate's nose in the dirt, they did it without any compensation to the working men and women of Australia. It represented one of the most cynical and one of the most calculated betrayals of the Australian electorate.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—But you said you would never ever introduce it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I would commend to all members of the House a very careful study. What Dr Warren reveals is that the cumulative effect of the changes introduced by the Labor government between 1993 and 1996 was to erode household real disposable income by an average of 2.1 per cent. In other words, you promise the electorate income tax cuts without changing indirect taxation. You scramble back into office and you do the reverse. You snaffle the tax cuts and, to add insult to injury, you introduce a goods and services tax, you do it without compensation and you rob the poor and the battlers of disposable income to the tune of 2.1 per cent. It represents a total demolition of the credibility of the Australian Labor Party on the subject of taxation.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Tell us about never ever.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is not surprising that there is gathering support within the Australian community for fundamental reform of the Australian taxation system. I want to put on record my appreciation of the willingness of sections of the Australian business community to get behind the cause of fundamental reform.We have needed a better taxation system for a long time in this country. As far back as 1975, the Asprey report to the Whitlam government recommended the need for fundamental reform of the Australian taxation system. We have got the courage and we have the openness to put the proposals to the Australian people. By contrast, the Australian Labor Party deceived the public in 1993. They promised tax cuts; they did not deliver them. They promised no GST; they delivered one of their own and, for good measure, they kicked in with no compensation. That was a total and cynical betrayal of what they told the Australian people. They ultimately deserved the fate they enjoyed in 1996.38883888Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister does not stand by his staff's claims, does he stand by his own claim that his health insurance tax rebate will raise health fund membership to 40 per cent of Australians by the year 2000?3888Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The situation with health insurance is that, if measures had been taken as recommended by Graham Richardson in 1990, there would not have been the loss of critical mass in private health insurance. If we had not taken the measures we took after our election in 1996, the number of Australians in private health insurance would now be significantly lower than what it is. The fact is the Labor Party hates private health insurance. The Labor Party wants to drive people out of private health insurance. The Labor Party wants to disadvantage people who have private health insurance. And that is why they deliberately allowed the system to run down over a period of 13 years.38893889Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Acting Treasurer: is the Acting Treasurer aware of community support for tax reform, and what is the government's response to this support?Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will remain silent.3889Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Makin for her question. I am aware of that widespread support in the community for tax reform. All members of this House would see it whenever they visit their electorate and whenever they speak to community groups, whether they be business or other ordinary Australians. That was confirmed this morning in a report, the Yellow Pages Small Business Index report, which stated that, across all small business, 80 per cent viewed tax reform as `vitally important' or `very important'. It was further confirmed today with a speech given here in Canberra by the President of the Business Council of Australia, Mr Stan Wallis, where Mr Wallis urged a case for comprehensive tax reform. Mr Wallis said in that speech:Tax reform is essential if we want to improve prosperity and employment prospects in the community generally, and it is essential for business competitiveness.Why would Mr Wallis say that? Firstly, he heads the Business Council of Australia. Its members are the major employers in this country who are employing hundreds of thousands of Australians every single day. He and his members recognise that the system that we are currently dealing with is not serving Australia and is not serving Australians. He went on to say:Not to put too fine a point on it, our tax system is in poor shape. There should be no mistake about this: it has come to the point where it is now on its last legs. It is broken in a number of places.We certainly know that on this side of the House. What we see from the other side of the House is that they are prepared to do a bit of readjusting and they are prepared to do a bit of broadening. Only today on radio the Leader of the Opposition stated that, yes, he was going to have a look at the wholesale sales tax area. He is quoted as saying:". . . a bit of a look at where the wholesale sales tax is at the moment but basically in principle, yes (we will leave it as is)" . . . On Sunday the Leader of the Opposition told all Australians, `Our tax system is going to give you a new fridge.' The last time he had a chance to do something about a new fridge for all Australians, he put the price on new fridges up in the tax sense by 10 per cent. The last time he had a chance to do something for Australians on the question of the family car—something all Australians have or seek to have—what was the rate that the sales tax on cars was increased? It went from 15 per cent up to 22 per cent. He added thousands of dollars to the cost of the family car.What he is now trying to put to the Australian people after that speech last Sunday is: `We will do a little bit of tinkering to a system that we created, a system that is broken'—Mr Wallis has stated that again today—`a system that is held together with chewing gum and pieces of string. We'll do a bit of broadening. We'll do a bit of readjusting. We'll add a bit more chewing gum, some more string and maybe a bit of sticky tape. But we don't intend to give Australians the chance to progress with their lives and to progress with their jobs.' The Leader of the Opposition and all members of the opposition should take note of what Mr Wallis has said today because he is taking about benefits for all Australians. He is talking about giving an opportunity for job creation.I have no idea how members opposite can come into this house and talk about leaving the system as it is when they know that it is destroying jobs and it is destroying small business—it is not giving them the chance to employ more Australians. I say again that, before the next election, the coalition will put before the Australian people a fair and simple system—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—We have been hearing that for months.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition. The minister will wind his answer up.HQ5Mr FAHEY—a system that rewards families, a system that will encourage a system that will create jobs and a system that will benefit all Australians.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—The Treasurer said it was snake oil.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio will remain silent.38903890Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister: will the Prime Minister today rule out imposing a GST on health fund premiums?3890Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The attempts of the members of the opposition to divert attention from the mess that they made of the Australian taxation system know no bounds. We will be unveiling the details of our taxation policy at the right time. When that taxation policy is unveiled, I can assure those who sit opposite that the one thing you will not be able to avoid is that the Australian people will see it as a fair policy, the Australian people will see it as a policy that helps Australian families.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Dobell needs to have a pertinent point of order.MG4LEEMr Lee—My point of order, Mr Speaker, is that it was a very specific question: will the Prime Minister rule out today imposing a GST on health fund premiums? He is giving us a general rave.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question need not be repeated. The Prime Minister is fully aware of the standing orders and is responding accordingly.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I can assure those who sit opposite, including the member for Dobell, the policy will win very widespread support from Australian families.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—And when will we see it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Brisbane.38903890Halverson, Robert, MPMr HALVERSON3H4CaseyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration, who is the Acting Treasurer. Minister, can you inform the House of the success of the government's economic plans since it came to office?3890Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I am very pleased to inform the House of the success of the government's economic plans since coming to office, and I thank very much the member for Casey for giving me the opportunity to do just that. This morning the yield on 10-year bonds reached a 16-year low of 5.48 per cent. Prime Minister, I think the last time they were down at that level you may well have been the Treasurer of this country. But I can say that today we have reached a 16-year low: we are back to that position of 5.48 per cent. That is 0.09 per cent below the US rate. This contrasts with the rate in March 1996 when the yield on 10-year bonds was 8.88 per cent—some 2.16 per cent above the US. This reaffirms the success of the budget and it reaffirms the coalition's economic policies since March 1996 in delivering strong, sustainable low-inflationary growth and lasting low interest rates.Low interest rates mean that there are lower costs for investors and for home buyers. Let us just take a look at that. In terms of investors, that covers all small business. Small businessmen—today, yesterday and continually—are out there putting their money up, making an investment, creating jobs; and they do so, almost invariably, with the support of lending institutions. At the beginning of the 1990s, what was the business overdraft rate under Labor? It was 20.5 per cent. What was the rate in March 1996 when this coalition government came to power? It had come back from 20.5 per cent—it was still in double figures—to 11 per cent. What is the rate today, 2¼ years later, as a result of the government's economic plans? It is 7.5 per cent. So we have seen the business overdraft rates—helping investors, helping small business—come down from 20.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, which goes to an early admonition of yours at the time you took over the position on the length of answers. The minister is entitled to write a book and make a statement, but this is an absurdly lengthy answer to the question. The economic achievements of this government could be covered in 20 seconds adequately.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition might be interested to note that I took an analysis of the average time for questions and answers. In 1995 they were 5.2 minutes; in 1996, 3.9 minutes; in 1997 they were 3.8 minutes; and, to date, they are running parallel with that. I would suggest that the minister is responding entirely in accordance—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition and the government will remain silent.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Have you a point of order?5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—I have a question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is still responding.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, you've got to be joking. He hasn't finished? Oh, come on!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.HQ5Mr FAHEY—It is very obvious from that point of order, which was not a point of order, that the members of the opposition do not like the success that is flowing from the government's economic policies.I indicated that business rates have dropped. Let me just talk briefly about what it means to home buyers. Home buyers have seen interest rates drop from 10.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent. That means average rates have dropped by $320 per month after tax. Some $3,800 per year less is being paid on the average mortgage after tax than was the case when Labor was last in office. That represents in excess of $100 per week in the form of a tax rise. That, of course, flows again from the economic plans of this government.To conclude, what we are seeing today in Australia is that sound, fiscal policies and sound, fiscal and economic management under a coalition government are delivering in bucket loads to business, to home buyers and to Australian families.38913891Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Doesn't polling in Queensland strongly suggest that One Nation can win the seat of Hervey Bay with National Party preferences? Are you aware of the widely publicised declaration of Mr Tony Pitt, the One Nation Hervey Bay official, that our Asian neighbours need to be confronted with `the choice of anthrax or the atom bomb'? Hasn't he also claimed that Australia's indigenous people are `primitives' and that opponents of your government's native title legislation are `mixed breed white, yellow and brown troublemakers'?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that the honourable gentleman direct his question.5T4Mr BRERETON—Deputy Prime Minister, in your capacity as Australia's Minister for Trade with responsibility for our international standing, how can you stand by while your party delivers preferences and potential office to One Nation and its racist agenda?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingsford-Smith's question is far too much of a statement and insufficient of a question.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—You don't like it, do you!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader will withdraw that remark.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—I withdraw.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am talking, and I believe it appropriate that I try to get questions put within standing order 144. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, I have said the question is too long, but I call on the Deputy Prime Minister to respond.3892Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I stand very much by what I said yesterday and previously in relation to this matter. I want to say further that people ought to think very carefully about why such issues have come to the fore. It is not necessarily the circumstances and submissions of one particular member for Oxley; it has a lot to do with 10 years of mismanagement of a multicultural issue by the Labor Party when it was in government—and you have much to answer for.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—You have much to answer for in relation to this.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members of the opposition will remain silent. If they persist in that noise, they will be expelled from the House. The Deputy Prime Minister has concluded his answer?DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Yes, Mr Speaker.38923892Hicks, Noel, MPMr HICKSAH4RiverinaNP10—Mr Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Can the minister detail for the House recent developments regarding the export performance of the pig meat and citrus industries?3892Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—Let me say that there has been a very recent development which I want to highlight to the House—and I will come to the Leader of the Opposition as I have been challenged to in that regard—and this is one thing this particular week that the Leader of the Opposition has got absolutely correct. I quote exactly from a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, reported by AAP at 12.56 p.m. this particular day, when he said:There is some rough equity in the wholesale sales tax system.You bet there is—really rough equity! You look at the transport industry, the 22 per cent wholesale sales tax—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister has been asked a question about pigs.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—that every exporter has to pay in respect of the transport industry. Let me remind the House of what your former leader, your much revered Bob Hawke, had to say with regard to the transport industry. He said that the transport industry pays 2½ times more tax than any other industry in Australia.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would suggest the Deputy Prime Minister address the question.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—And why? Because of the rough equity in the wholesale sales tax. So I want to say that we will have a tax reform plan which will be good news for exporters in respect of pork and citrus. It is pay dirt for exporters in terms of fairness, and it will help build our trade.I want to say in more specific detail that, in the first eight months of this financial year—as the member for Burke and, indeed, the member for Riverina who pursues these issues would like to know—pork exports went to 19 different countries. And there was not one kilo of pork exports; in fact, there were 10,000 tonnes in exports to 19 different countries with a total value—CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Go and tell the pork producers.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—You are dismissive of this export industry, but there has been $40 million worth of hard-earned exports by the hard-pressed Australian pork industry: to Holland, $2.4 million; to Russia, $2.7 million; to New Zealand, $4 million; to Germany, $3.3 million; to France, $3.8 million and, to Japan—and the Australian pork industry can walk tall for achieving this—$18 million worth of exports.In the near future the government will be responding to a major submission by the pork industry, and my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy will be providing a more detailed response to that, too.I also want to commend the pork industry and the fresh food people on the pork steaks program. I do not necessarily say that they get everything right—I think their purchasing has to be very carefully considered—but the fresh food people have teamed up with the Australian grown pork grouping to bring you a whole raft of new, high quality pork products which you may well again be dismissive of—CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—No, I think that is terrific.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—but I am not. I think the Australian pork industry is fighting back from a very difficult situation. In that regard, we will be giving them more assistance than you ever did when you were in power.Finally, the member for Riverina asked about the citrus industry. There is good news in that regard. In fact, the Australian citrus industry now exports 50 per cent of its production, and it has achieved that notwithstanding fierce levels of imports from Brazil.In respect of both pork and citrus, I bring some good news. Imports have dropped off a great deal over the last few months. Part of that is a direct consequence of some of the legitimate policies this federal government has pursued and will continue to pursue. We stand for practical, hard-edged trade policies which generate extra markets for industries such as pork and citrus. My congratulations to the pork and citrus industries on their export breakthroughs.38933893Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that a 10 per cent goods and services tax would add approximately $500 to the average cost of a funeral?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent.8I4Mr MARTIN—Prime Minister, how can you justify proposing such a further financial burden on families at their time of grief, and isn't this further evidence that a GST impacts on all facets of life from the cradle to the grave?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, could I take a point of order? The question breaches the same standing order as yesterday. It makes an unauthenticated claim of fact which is prevented under standing order 144. I draw your attention to how, last night, the ABC very quickly grabbed a false statement and propagated it to the rest of Australia. I find that this is not what this parliament is for.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The question was, as I understood it, `were a GST to be introduced'. It did not suggest that a GST has been introduced. It is in regard to a policy issue under current debate.3893Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, could you assist me? The member who asked that question is, I understand, the opposition spokesman on small business. Small business will do for the purposes of this question. Mr Speaker, I am absolutely delighted that the member asked me a question about the taxation system.8I4MARTINMr Martin—It is about funerals and tax.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I make it very plain to him, as I did to the member for Dobell—and in advance can I make it very plain to any other members of the Australian Labor Party who might be minded to ask me similar hypothetical questions—that my response will be exactly the same as the response that I have so far given.As you have raised a matter than in theory could affect the operation of small business, of businesses of various sizes in Australia, it just so happens that before I came into the parliament I was handed a very interesting media release in relation to the Yellow Pages Small Business Index which came out recently. I would not be surprised if my colleague the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, who is a fairly shy, retiring sort of fellow, might get a question on this later on during question time. What is very interesting about this survey is that it shows that 70 per cent of Australia's small business proprietors are likely to vote for the Liberal or National parties.8I4MARTINMr Martin—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister indicated to you that he anticipated getting a question on this later in question time, but my specific question—and this point of order goes to standing order 145 on relevance—was with respect to the GST on funerals. So far, the Prime Minister has not even mentioned the word.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham will resume his seat. The question relates to the introduction of a possible tax. The Prime Minister is talking to it. It applies to many subjects, as I understand.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—But on funerals.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The first paragraph contains the interesting statement that 70 per cent of Australia's small business proprietors are likely to vote for the Liberal and National parties at the coming federal election. I do not know whether that will turn out to be right or wrong.DT4CREANMr Crean—You said you knew nothing about it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—But it is interesting that this survey was completed across Australia from 1,200 small businesses. It was completed just before the budget was delivered and, given the very positive response to the budget, I am not surprised.One of the most interesting observations contained in it was that the economic adviser to the index, Dr John Marsden, said that 80 per cent of all small businesses—DT4CREANMr Crean—Your support went down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Hotham.ZD4Mr HOWARD—view tax reform as vitally or very important. Eighty per cent of people in small business want the Australian taxation system reformed. That no doubt includes a goodly representation of the industry to which the honourable member referred in his question. The truth is that there is an overwhelming case for reform of the Australian taxation system. All the obstruction, all the red herrings, and all the obfuscation coming from the Labor Party opposite are not going to deter the government. I say again that I am delighted that groups in the business community are now prepared to publicly get behind the cause of taxation reform. We do not always agree with the business community any more than we agree with any other section of the Australian community, but I am delighted on this issue—which is so important to Australia's economic future, which is so important to providing for security, stability and protection against the impact of the Asian economic downturn—that taxation reform is the next logical step to further protect the Australian economy in a very uncertain world. Those who have the national interest at heart, like the business community of Australia and unlike the Australian Labor Party, are prepared to get behind the national interest.Distinguished Visitors389410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—On behalf of all honourable members I would like to extend a welcome to a parliamentary delegation from Pakistan, headed by the Chairman of their Senate.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice389438943894Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, it is my understanding that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission yesterday removed a number of provisions from the coal industry award—including last on, first off, and preference for union members. Minister, was the decision made as a result of the government's award simplification policy, and could you inform the House of the implications of this decision for the coal industry in Australia?3894Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Capricornia for his question and for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. He has had a long interest in the coal industry. He was a member, I think, of the CFMEU and a union delegate. He wants to see the coal industry prosper in the future, as we all do on this side of the House. We want to see it undertake significant reform which can secure a stable future for that industry. It is a very important industry for Australia. The industry is Australia's largest export industry: 10 per cent of our exports and more than one per cent of GDP are tied up in this industry.I therefore welcome the decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission as a significant milestone in reform of work practices in the coal industry. It is pursuant to the government's award simplification policy, which was incorporated in the Workplace Relations Act. I do take the opportunity of acknowledging the presence in the gallery today of senior members of the MTIA and of ACM. In their industry they have taken a lead in the award simplification process, and I acknowledge the strong work that has been done by that organisation at the executive level and by the officers of the two organisations. I also take the opportunity to wish them well for their merger which will be a vehicle, I think, for even better services for their members. We appreciate the good working relationship that we have with them.On the coal industry, this decision has actually removed two provisions from the award: one relates to seniority, and the other has removed preference to union members. It reconfirms the government's strong determination that, if people want to be in a union, that is fine. If they do not want to be in a union, that is also their choice, and they should not be discriminated against because of making either of those choices.In the coal industry there has obviously been a lot of interest in the removal of the provision which required the last on to be the first off. It is an interesting provision that has been around since 1902, since Lenin was dreaming of the Russian Revolution. And the union, of course, has been opposing its removal. If Labor were ever re-elected, one of the first things the CFMEU would demand in return for funding the Labor Party is that—3H4HALVERSONMr Halverson—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hate to intrude on what is obviously a substantially pertinent response to a question, but there are photographs being taken at the moment from the press gallery, which I believe to be illegal. I draw that to your attention.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I know nothing of those photographs being taken from behind me.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—There he is!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest to those who might be taking photographs that are not in accordance with directions that they desist from doing so.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, I will look more carefully in your direction.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think he might be doing a good job then!WI4Mr REITH—The point I want to make is that this issue has been around for a long time. It has been a reform that is in the interests of preserving jobs in the industry but which has been resisted for many years by the trade union movement. The reason that I think it is sensible can be drawn from the words of the Productivity Commission which said recently in respect of this rule:It detracts from enterprise performance in the long term by restricting the criteria on which recruitment can be based. As a direct result, mines will be unlikely to achieve the Labor productivity and unit labour cost outcomes that would be possible with greater flexibility. In the long run, retrenchment based solely on seniority can only harm the competitiveness of an individual mine.The simple point is that this was an excellent decision from the commission. It was only made possible by the government's Workplace Relations Act. What it means for the coal industry is security of jobs, stability in the industry and a chance of further export income for this country. It is a pity that this measure has been opposed by the Labor Party against the interests of the industry, against the interests of the rank and file and ultimately, therefore, against the national interest.38953895Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will recall saying on radio last week that Sri Lanka had tried a debit tax and had rejected it because it had not worked. Since this is clearly not true, and the Prime Minister was probably confusing it with Sri Lanka's turnover tax, which is much more like the government's proposed GST, I ask the Prime Minister: what is wrong with having your Treasury prepare a paper detailing the relative merits of the debit tax compared with a GST? Why won't you let the Australian people know the facts?3895Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I understand that some work has been done in relation to the pros and cons of the debit tax. It is my understanding that it is quite unworkable. It is my understanding that it would have a completely distorting effect on financial activity in this country. It would fall unevenly. It would pay no regard to the fact that some businesses are high turnover with low margin; other businesses are low turnover with high margin. The capacity to protect the poor and the capacity to avoid very adverse distributional effects would be quite significant. To cut a long story short, I think it is a thoroughly lousy idea. If there is any further information that I can get for the honourable member, I will do so, and I will be very happy to provide it in the spirit of wanting to make information available.It is important that we have a moderate, sensible debate on this issue. The question is whether we have as a nation the maturity to pursue a dispassionate debate in order to achieve such overdue change. In that context, my attention has been drawn to a comment that was made about taxation reform at one stage in the debate in this country. The person in question made this observation:I have no doubt, unless this climate is acted upon, tax reform will be thrown back into the too-hard basket for another 20 to 30 years at immense cost to the vast majority of Australians.When that statement was made, I agreed with it very strongly and said so publicly, as, indeed, did the current Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition because that statement was made by the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, when he was Treasurer in a speech he made to the Melbourne Age taxation symposium when he was correctly, in 1985—I think with some courage—advocating the cause of taxation reform. Those words would be well heeded by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who, they well know, were two of the only three people in the Hawke cabinet who supported taxation reform.It is a national interest issue. The more that those in the opposition seek to fan prejudice, the more that those in the opposition seek to get the screaming headline as distinct from the calm dispassionate debate, the more they are knifing the national interest.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You know all about prejudice. You don't even say sorry.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Batman. 38963896Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Has the minister seen the latest Yellow Pages business report to which the Prime Minister has already referred? Does this indicate small business support for the government's sound economic policies?3896Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I certainly have, and I thank the member for Robertson for raising this issue. I compliment him on the fact that he has a very well-deserved reputation for being a strong supporter of the small business community. It was no surprise that the Prime Minister had seen this report because he is also a very strong supporter, as is this government, of small business. We are unashamedly pro small business and proud of it. It is one of the reasons that small business has had the attention and the priority that it has had since we came into government.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Like the jobs tax.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman.WI4Mr REITH—The Yellow Pages headline today about their survey says it all. It says, `Strong small business electoral support for the coalition.' Why would anyone be surprised at that when you look within the survey at some of the responses of small business. Small business remains confident about the future. They see the economy getting stronger a year from now. Over 60 per cent see an increase in sales over the next 12 months; 58 per cent expect an increase in profitability over the next 12 months; 89 per cent believe waterfront efficiency will have a major impact on the economy; and 80 per cent view tax reform as vital or very important. They will not be impressed with your proposal which is to hang on to the rotten, hopeless, inefficient, archaic and out of date system we have today, which is Labor's system.This survey was done basically before the recent budget. If you look at what was in the budget—the third budget of this government—you will see that we delivered again. It locks in record low inflation—that is good for small business—and it locks in lower interest rates. Specifically, there is a series of measures in the budget which are good for small business. We reduced the provisional tax uplift factor to five per cent, half what it was when Labor was in government. We provided further assistance to small business to deal with the millennium bug, the year 2000 issue.Mr Speaker, you really could not get a stronger, more stark contrast between what this government have been doing for small business and how small business was treated when Labor were in government. Their policy was to have a review. In fact, in 13 years, they had 17 reviews. When they got into opposition, we asked them what their policy was and their policy was to have another review. This is Labor's interest in small business.We gave the small business sector the best interest rates in 33 years and Labor gave them the highest interest rates. We gave them low inflation and economic growth. And what did the Labor Party give small business? The recession that we had to have. They gave them a recession and then they boasted that it was part of Labor's policy to introduce a recession. Mr Speaker, you can be absolutely sure of one thing for small business—that is, this government is pro small business. From this government, for small business, we have stability, security and safety. It is no wonder that this survey is a good result.38973897Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is the small business survey that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business and yourself have been quoting from the one that reveals that support for the government is actually falling? Is it the same one that reveals that 32 per cent of proprietors nominated unemployment as the main issue before the government, as opposed to 20 per cent on taxation reform? Is it the same small business survey which shows that restoring consumer confidence is vitally or very important, to the tune of 85 per cent, but only 46 per cent describe the GST as vitally or very important?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will draw his question to a conclusion.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Is it the same small business survey which shows that, while 89 per cent of proprietors believe that improved waterfront efficiency will have a major impact on the economy, 58 per cent said they believe the federal government has handled the dispute badly—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will draw his question to a conclusion.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—and only 30 per cent thought they had handled it well?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will draw his question to a conclusion.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—A point of order, Mr Speaker.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Prime Minister, when are you going to restore consumer confidence by taking off consumers the threat of a GST, get your act together and produce some decent reform on the waterfront—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—in the way that the public expects?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will wait. There is a point of order from a member seated behind him. That question was far too long. Frankly, I do not intend to allow questions of that length to be accepted. Does the member for Parramatta have a point of order?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, the length of the question is one of its defects. I note that it contained a multiple series of questions which should be placed on the Notice Paper . The introduction was excessively long; it was in fact a short speech. The material involved gratuitous statements of fact. The material quoted a media statement, with material that would otherwise be inadmissible, such as comment, argument and opinion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta has made his point. I have already drawn attention to the fact that it was far too long, but I believe the Prime Minister would be very disappointed if he did not have an opportunity to respond. I suspect the Prime Minister would like to have an opportunity to comment on that report.3898Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will have to analyse the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition to be absolutely certain that it is the same survey. I can inform the Leader of the Opposition that the survey to which my colleague the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business referred is the same survey that for years gave the Labor government a negative rating of over 50 per cent. It is the same survey that again and again demonstrated that the Labor Party was completely unacceptable to small business. It is the same survey that demonstrated a very positive response to the coalition's reductions in small business interest rates.It is the same survey that makes it very plain that there is overwhelming support in the small business sector for the policies of the coalition. It is the same survey that indicates 80 per cent support for the coalition's policies in relation to taxation reform. It is the same survey that indicates overwhelming support for the very industrial relations reform that the Labor Party so strongly opposes—that is, reform of the Australian waterfront.38983898Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Will the minister outline to the House the benefits for the farm, resources and other export sectors of reform to Australia's tax system? How does this contrast with other approaches to the taxation system?3898Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The industries that he talked about are very important export industries. They are the key to stronger current account performance in this country and they are the key to jobs, growth and prosperity, particularly in regional Australia, where 80 per cent of those merchandise exports come from.We think export industries are very important for this country. But the ALP, not happy with having slugged those export industries in government, all of which are price takers on international markets, not happy with having slugged them in government with inflation and interest rates which were way, way above those enjoyed by our competitors, not content with obstructing all our efforts to turn around their economic mess, including the $10 billion black hole, so that industry could enjoy internationally competitive inflation and interest rates for the first time in years—in the case of interest rates, the lowest in 30 years—not content with their performance in that regard, not content with playing the wrecker in government as well as in opposition, they now want to obstruct tax reform.While they bleat about jobs and regional development, alone in Australia, they want to retain an archaic, anti-export, anti-growth and anti-jobs tax system. They want to retain a tax system that relies far too heavily on a very narrow base—and will rely increasingly heavily on that narrow base in the future unless it is reformed—of wholesale sales tax and fuel excise. They want to retain a system that sees no capacity for stopping the burden of indirect taxes on production cascading through the production chain, all the way onto export markets. Varying estimates put the cost to our competitiveness at an increase in prices of two to eight per cent by the time they find their way onto foreign markets.It is no wonder that, in this light, the President of the National Farmers Federation, Don McGauchie, said a few days ago:Our export and our import competing industries need a tax system which can put them in a position where they are not disadvantaged in relation to the people they are competing against.He went on to say:Our current system is not sustainable. It has negative effects on our international competitiveness and therefore negative effects on employment.They never stop talking about employment. They never stop pretending that they are the champions of the working classes and of job opportunities in this country, but they stand in the way of the tax reforms that people like the NFF see as vital to job creation. He went on to say:For the farming community, there are a great many taxes that fall on our business inputs and, given the highly competitive nature of our industry and the fact that we work on extremely small margins, taxes on business inputs hamper our competitiveness very seriously. We are determined to clean this up and to fix it, and the country's exporters, wealth creators and job creators support us. Because of their expertise in those areas, they ought to be listened to.Our commitment is in plain contrast to Labor's performance. Their record in this area is there for all to see. They promised l-a-w tax cuts and no new indirect tax systems. They delivered precisely the opposite, but at great cost to the nation's exporters and job creators. The fact is that we have fixed your financial mess over three budgets. We have gone from a $10½ billion deficit to a $2.7 billion surplus without increasing taxes—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will conclude his answer.4K4Mr ANDERSON—That is a total contrast to your record.DT4CREANMr Crean—Wind him up.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham has been warned.4K4Mr ANDERSON—We now want to give our exporters a chance to compete to their best ability on the international stage. People ought to be asking themselves not so much what the advantages of changing the tax system would be—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will conclude his reply.4K4Mr ANDERSON—but what will happen if we do not modernise the tax system.38993899O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. Minister, I refer you to your comments yesterday on fuel tax. Are you aware of the Deputy Prime Minister's `never ever' promise on fuel tax, made last year to both the New South Wales farmers conference and the National Farmers Federation conference? The Deputy Prime Minister said:Consumption tax in, transport fuel out.He also said:If you ask me how much reduction I'd like to see in fuel excise, then I have no hesitation in saying . . . 100 per cent. His words. Minister, what have you done to follow your leader's instructions—GST in, fuel tax out?3899Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—What I will say is what the government is not going to do, that is, we are not going to follow the example set by the Labor Party. We are not going to follow the example of the Labor Party which, in its 13 years in government in this country, saw fuel excise in Australia rise from 7c a litre to 37c a litre. The Australian Labor Party did absolutely nothing about it for 13 years, yet you get to the 14th year and start promising things for that year.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on the question of relevance. If he is not going to answer the question, he should say that he is not going to answer it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. The answer is relevant, as he knows.SU5Mr VAILE—The member asked a question about fuel excise, and that is exactly what I am talking about. I am talking about what was done to this country over 13 years by Labor. A series of submissions have been accepted and discussed with the taxation task force, and they will be considered in the process because we are prepared to have a serious and honest look at the taxation system in Australia that the Australian Labor Party want to protect. As I said yesterday, you formulated a lot of these taxes, you promised not to increase them, and then you turned around and increased them. Now you are making 14th year promises. After two years, we are making a commitment to do something about it, and we are going to do something about it. You will find out what that is in good time, when we have had a serious discussion with industry.In conclusion, the Australian people should be under no illusion as to what the Labor Party wants to do. The Labor Party wants to keep the system we have now. You want to keep the unfair taxation system we have now. You want to protect the taxation system we have now. We are saying we want to change it so we can have a modern taxation system to take us beyond the year 2000. We are about fixing up Australia's taxation system so that it is a modern system that assists exporters, producers and farmers, and we will address that. We are not going to be the same as the Labor Party. All you did was ratchet up the taxes for the 13 years you were in government. You increased those fuel taxes from 7c a litre to 37c a litre, and you know it, but you did nothing about it for 13 years.39003900Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, further to the question to you yesterday from the member for Fadden, can you inform the House of the action that has been taken by the Australian government to encourage the Spanish authorities to terminate the residency in Majorca of Mr Christopher Skase? Minister, what has been done over the last six years to get Christopher Skase back to Australia?3900Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for North Sydney for his question. I know all members on this side of the House want to get Mr Skase back to Australia, and they want him to answer the charges he is required to answer. As honourable members are aware, I cancelled Mr Skase's passport in April last year. Since then the government has been making representations to the Spanish government to persuade it not to renew Mr Skase's residency permit, which expired on 13 May this year.Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak with the Spanish ambassador on this issue, and I urged him to let the government in Madrid know that the Australian government feels very strongly about this issue and that we certainly would not like to see the permit renewed. I know that this message has been transmitted back to Madrid and the government is considering not just the political but also the legal issues associated with this.As I explained yesterday, the government has also taken swift action to prevent Mr Skase from seeking a travel document from another country. I would like to place on the record that I appreciate the response of the government of the Seychelles to our representations and the fact that that government has made it clear that in no circumstances will it issue a passport to Mr Skase. So we are doing all we can to try to stop Mr Skase getting another passport.The honourable member for North Sydney also asked me to comment on what had been happening over the last six years in relation to this matter. That reminds me of a discussion about this very matter in this House yesterday and the subsequent arguments put forward by the member for Holt, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and Senator Bolkus that the Labor Party decided to reissue Mr Skase's passport because there was no warrant out for his arrest and so they had no alternative. One of the interesting things about the arguments the Labor Party put forward is that the Labor Party rather give the impression that, in July of 1993, when they issued a new passport to Mr Skase, nobody really had any problems with Mr Skase at that time—he was not really on the screen; we were not thinking about it too much.What is interesting is that, at the time the member for Holt issued a new passport to Mr Skase, Mr Skase had been charged and committed for trial. What is more, the government knew, and of course the member for Holt knew, that they were seeking warrants for his arrest. In July 1993 this was, of course, a very high profile public issue, and that is why the Department of Foreign Affairs placed an alert on any application made by Mr Skase.The member for Holt and Senator Bolkus seriously believe that the press gallery and the Australian community are going to believe that, under the Passports Act, they had no power to refuse to issue a passport, that they had no power to do that at all.Just listen to this. Yesterday Senator Bolkus had a doorstop interview, and he handed out the relevant sections of the Passports Act. The relevant sections cover something like four to 4½ pages, but he handed out just one page; he forgot to hand out the rest. Senator Bolkus, a man always to be trusted! Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect.4G4Mr DOWNER—If you go through the rest of the Passports Act, you will find under section 7D that, if a passport holder has an existing passport, the minister does not have to issue that person with another passport.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect.4G4Mr DOWNER—The fact is that Mr Skase did have an existing passport at that time, yet the member for Holt, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, issued him with another passport. Knowing only too well that the government was seeking warrants for the arrest of Mr Skase, he could have sat on the application pending the issue of the warrants. Or he could have cancelled Mr Skase's existing passport. The fact is that he chose to do none of those things, and that simply demonstrates the point that the former Minister for Foreign Affairs had the power to take action on this matter and made a deliberate decision not to do so, and he should answer to the Australian public for that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will draw his answer to a conclusion.4G4Mr DOWNER—In conclusion, yesterday I said I did not have any further evidence of the involvement of the member for Holt in this issue, yet he stood up later in the day and explained that he had discussed the matter with Mr Lavarch, the then Attorney-General. So it is clear he did have further involvement. I want to point out that one of the documents I am aware of, which is a memo from my department to his office of 10 January 1994, reminded his office that the passport was issued in July 1993 because there were no warrants for Skase's arrest.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will draw his answer to a conclusion.4G4Mr DOWNER—In conclusion, let me say that at the time of that memo arriving in the office of the member for Holt, the warrants had already been issued, yet still the member for Holt did nothing about it. Mr Speaker, he has a lot to answer for.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the member for Calare. As members will know, as a result of the increase in the number of Independents, in the course of a week the Independents are entitled to one more question.39013901Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is also directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister use his influence, our government's influence and this parliament's influence to seek the release of East Timorese political prisoners, including Xanana Gusmao, and an end to hostilities in East Timor by stressing to the Indonesian leadership the enormous goodwill such acts would generate internationally as a sign of the new Indonesian administration's real commitment to democratic and social reform?3901Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the member for Calare for his question. I know this is an issue in which he has a sincere interest, and I think the question he has asked is a very significant question. We are using this opportunity of significant political change in Indonesia to urge the Indonesian government's progress on the issue of East Timor. It is very important that they do use this opportunity. From our point of view as a government, there is no doubt that the military presence in East Timor should be reduced. We are also very strongly of the view that the people of East Timor should have a much greater say in the management of their own affairs.I think the honourable member for Calare would understand that it is not, of course, appropriate for us as a foreign country, a friend and a neighbour of Indonesia to try to micromanage precisely the formulation they use. I sincerely think that the best we can do is what we are doing, not just publicly but also privately behind the scenes, in urging the Indonesian government to make the sorts of changes I have just described.The honourable member also asked very specifically about the release of political prisoners. We welcome the progress that has been made so far by President Habibie in the release of political prisoners, and he is examining further measures. I understand consideration is being given to the case of Xanana Gusmao, one of the particular individuals the honourable member referred to.The Australian government's view is that if Xanana Gusmao's release would contribute towards a resolution of the East Timor issue, the Australian government would clearly welcome such a decision. However, I understand that Jose Ramos Horta has said that Xanana Gusmao will seek to make his release conditional on discussions with the Indonesian government on East Timor issues. I think that is an important point to take into account when considering the future of Xanana Gusmao. It is a matter that the Indonesian government is addressing, I am glad to be able to report to the House. We hope in an overall sense that this whole issue of East Timor will be taken forward and taken forward successfully in the months ahead.39023902Reid, Bruce, MPMr REIDVT4BendigoLP10—My question is to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, could you advise the House on the current situation with the Columbus Canada . What actions are being taken by various parties in regard to the threats that have been made to the Columbus Canada , which has been stranded off the US coast for more than a fortnight?3902Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Bendigo for his question. He has a lot of wheat production in his electorate and I know that he is very interested in this vital issue. I can inform the House that certain matters, on application from the ACCC, have been in the Federal Court today. I am informed that the judge hearing the matter has issued the following injunctions on an interim basis against the named parties, including the MUA, in particular an order that each of the respondents by themselves, their servants and agents, be restrained from aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, inducing, conspiring to cause or otherwise—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members of the opposition will remain silent.WI4Mr REITH—I welcome those interjections from them, because this is an injunction against your mates in the MUA for conspiring to cause damage to Australian exports. You people today are paying $50 a week to a union which is subject to this injunction. You are publicly funding a union against which an injunction has today been issued. You are publicly supporting a union which, pursuant to this order of the Federal Court—Opposition members interjecting—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—That one is interlocutory but this one is guilty.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the members of the opposition persist in their present behaviour they will not be remaining in this House.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order which goes to the question of relevance: he was not asked what the opposition's point of view was on any of this. The old, yet-to-be-indicted conspirator—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will make a correct point of order if he wishes to do that.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—That is exactly the point I am making—relevance. Where in that question was he asked for any particular free character analysis of the opposition, Mr Speaker? It was a question related to a set of court proceedings.VT4REIDMr Reid—On that point of order, the question in fact did ask what actions are being taken by various parties and the minister, I believe, was answering my question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—And so do I.WI4Mr REITH—The answer is very relevant because I think a lot of people would like to know what action is being taken in respect of this ship which has been subject to a blockade.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—What about your interlocutory injunction?DT4CREANMr Crean—Have you indemnity?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Is the taxpayer paying your bills?WI4Mr REITH—There is now a Federal Court injunction preventing—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Against you! Against you!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne! The minister will resume his place. Under standing order 304A, I ask the member for Melbourne to leave this House for an hour.The honourable member for Melbourne thereupon withdrew from the chamber.WI4Mr REITH—The only injunction outstanding on this matter is an injunction against the MUA which is being publicly funded by the Labor Party. That is the position today. You have, with the national secretary of the Labor Party, a fundraising effort under way to support a union which has been conspiring against the public interest to hold up this ship in the US. That is what is happening.That is why a further part of the order today by the Federal Court is that the first respondent, up to 4 June when the matter will be further heard, makes no call upon the ITF or any of it affiliates for assistance in the form of boycott or other action to prevent or hinder the movement or unloading of the ships Columbus Canada and Direct Kea, and further it withdraws any calls for assistance made by it, whether made expressly or by implication, if any, so far as such call would apply to boycott or other action referred to in subparagraph (a).BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Why didn't you chain it to the wharf?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons.WI4Mr REITH—Today in this parliament members of the Labor Party are publicly advocating the boycott of a ship. In respect of that boycott, the member for Charlton yesterday proudly said on behalf of his colleagues in the Labor Party that he hopes that ship sinks—Opposition members interjecting—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order which goes to relevance: the question was about a series of responses to a court order issued today. What the minister is discussing is statements made by persons in this House yesterday. It cannot conceivably be relevant to any set of public reactions or reactions anywhere in the community on a decision arrived at today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that the minister is starting to roam a little wide, but I believe that he is still within the ambit of the question.Mrs Crosio interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—With great respect, Mr Speaker, it can hardly be very wide when I am asked what is the progress of matters in respect of Columbus Canada and I am advising the House of an injunction issued by the Federal Court against the very conduct which has seen this ship held up—Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect will leave the House, in accordance with standing order 304A, for an hour.The honourable member for Prospect thereupon withdrew from the chamber.WI4Mr REITH—The other interesting information on this matter is that what the MUA has been doing—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cowan and the member for Lindsay will stop waving flags around. If you both wish to behave in that way—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members of the opposition will remain silent. If you wish to wave banners around you will also be taking benefit of them and leaving this House. The minister will resume his answer.WI4Mr REITH—The other information that is relevant to the House and to the question is that what the MUA has been doing is that they have been dealing with the Columbus Line and what they have been doing is effectively blackmailing the owners of this ship. To require this ship to come back—QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—On a point of order! Mr Speaker, the minister has already admitted that this matter—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—If you will let me explain, I will.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Explain under what standing order you are raising it.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Under section 44.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will proceed.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—The minister has already referred to the fact that this matter is going back into the Federal Court and is now trying to pre-empt the determinations of the Federal Court by his outrageous statements about the union and about this matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will resume his seat.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—It is the minister who is coupled with this issue.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell no longer has the call.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—He is the one who should be put before the court.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will resume his seat! The minister is entirely in accordance with standing orders.WI4Mr REITH—What is now happening is that the MUA is blackmailing the Columbus line. The blackmail for the Columbus line is that they bring the ship back, that they unload some of the cargo, the cargo which is not Australian—this is the blackmail, and I think all members should know the behaviour of this union.They have blackmailed the owners of the ship to require them to unload that part of the cargo which is not Australian and then return to New Zealand to have the Australian cargo unloaded in New Zealand because it was originally stevedored by non-MUA labour. They require the ship to return to New Zealand for the Australian containers to be taken off in New Zealand and placed on another Columbus ship and then to return to the US west coast.The absurdity of this is that the ship is to go to a port in New Zealand at which the stevedores are both union and non-union. So they are blackmailing this ship with Australian cargo to have it taken back to New Zealand and transhipped back to the US at a massive cost to the exporters, to the Australian small business people whose export product is contained within those containers. They are now subject to a federal court order for unlawful conduct, and the Labor Party is publicly funding the union which is responsible for this action. It is about time a spade was called a spade. These people are acting in support, publicly advocating the breach of Australian law by their mates in the MUA.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister should bring his answer to a conclusion.WI4Mr REITH—It is about time, as I conclude, that this weak Leader of the Opposition stand up to the MUA and require them to let that ship go and let Australian exports go into the US market.39043904Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Clearly, small business has got you right on this one.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You will ask your question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister say on Perth radio this morning that, `If we introduce a new broad based indirect tax, you can rest assured whatever it is introduced at it will stay at'? Is this the same Prime Minister who said before the last election that he would never ever introduce a GST at all? Are we to take this as a core or non-core promise?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Is it a never ever statement?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane!3904Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Is the person who asked me the question the same former Deputy Prime Minister who was part of a government that, in 1993, promised income tax cuts without a GST but, when it won the election, did exactly the opposite? Is he the same former Deputy Prime Minister who conspired with the then Prime Minister of Australia to junk the infamous l-a-w law tax cuts? Is he the same former Deputy Prime Minister who conspired with the then Treasurer and the then Prime Minister to give to the Australian community a regressive, without compensation goods and services tax which had a far more deleterious effect on the low income earners of Australia?I would remind those who sit opposite and the parliament that, in relation to statements I made about tax reform before the last election, with regard to those statements, those statements were honoured. We have not introduced any goods and services tax during the lifetime of this parliament.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The proposition being made by the Leader of the Opposition that, in some way, if you make a policy statement and then there is an intervening election, you cannot then implement a different policy after the election when you have taken that policy to the election is absurd.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Never ever! Never ever!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members of the opposition will remain silent. It is quite impossible for anybody to hear. As I said yesterday, if we do not allow others to speak, we cannot expect ourselves to be heard. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—There is absolutely nothing wrong—and I say this very deliberately—with stating a position on something, honouring that during the lifetime of the term you are then given and then, if you alter your position and you go to the public again with the altered position, having a right to implement it after that election. That is an utterly different position—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Now you qualify it.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, I want the Leader of the Opposition to listen to this, and I want the parliament to listen to this: that is a vastly different position from going to the public and saying you are not going to do something but, after winning the election, doing the complete opposite. It was you who, in 1993, misled the Australian people. We are not misleading the Australian people. I am saying quite openly to the Australian people that I am now in favour of fundamental taxation reform. We will take that to the Australian people. If they agree with us, we will have a right to implement that policy, and we will have a right to implement that policy without any interference from the Leader of the Opposition.By contrast, you had no moral right to introduce your GST in 1993 because you had promised the Australian people before the 1993 election that you would not introduce your GST. There is a vast difference between my position now and the Leader of the Opposition's position in 1993. I have had the honesty to confront the Australian public.DT4CREANMr Crean—Honesty! Give us a break!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have had the honesty to say to the Australian public that I am in favour of taxation reform. I will go to the Australian public in favour of that tax reform. If the public wants it, they will vote for it. If they do not want it, they will vote against it. If we win the election, we will have a mandate to introduce it and you will have no moral or political authority in opposition in the Senate to oppose it.Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations390515:22:003905Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—In his last answer, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said that I had introduced a GST after the 1993 election. That is a blatant untruth, as every single Australian knows. All that happened was that the wholesale sales tax system was kept in place. There were some rises in that, which is exactly what happened with you.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When members of the government remain silent, there will be some opportunity to hear.15:23:003905Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—The claim made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) is quite wrong. The assertion that I made was based on no other authority than the one that he used yesterday. He demonstrated with all the authority that he has that he had introduced a GST, and it was a GST without compensation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is not making a personal explanation and he will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister have each given their version of the events and I suggest you each resume your seats.Questions to the Speaker390639063906Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—Mr Speaker, yesterday in this House you raised the issue of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island flags that are flying outside the chamber in recognition of Reconciliation Week. You mentioned that you were leaning towards presenting the flags to ATSIC and I was just wondering whether you could give consideration to changing that slightly. The Aboriginal flag by all means should be sent to ATSIC, but the Torres Strait Island people are in the process of working towards autonomy and I think it would be a far more appropriate gesture if we presented the Torres Strait Island flag to the Torres Strait Regional Authority on behalf of the parliament.3906Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I understand that there is a process within the Torres Strait Regional Authority and they are seeking separate recognition. The honourable member's suggestion seems appropriate and I will consider the matter. I still propose that we give the Aboriginal flag to ATSIC, but I will consider your proposition of perhaps giving the other flag to the Torres Strait Regional Authority.39063906Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—Mr Speaker, will you review the Hansard tapes of today, which will show the frequency with which the Leader of the Opposition either speaks over or interrupts your verbal attempts to provide rulings on his contributions? If so, would his actions contravene the rules of this House?3906Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I think there are a good many actions that have contravened the rules of the House. I will look at the tapes. In the last two days, there have been significant interruptions, none of which have helped the processes of this place. At the same time, I think we could hear a little more today than we could yesterday. I take on board the honourable member for O'Connor's suggestion.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker—10000Mr SPEAKER—I am still talking. If members continue to talk when I am endeavouring to provide a ruling, it is impossible for that ruling to be heard and, therefore, for it to be executed. In that respect, the honourable member for O'Connor's conclusion is certainly accurate.39063906Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—Mr Speaker, I recall that the member for Calwell has twice risen to his feet in reliance on standing order 44. My understanding is that, if you wrongly rely on standing order 44, you incur an automatic expulsion from the House for 24 hours. I suggest that may be in the interests of the House.3906Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I do not think this is the appropriate time to examine details. The honourable member for Calwell had a concern. I do not know that his analysis of the standing orders was necessarily accurate and that is why I did not uphold his point of order.39063906O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—Mr Speaker, my question arises out of the Prime Minister's answer to the last question. In May 1995, the Prime Minister said:. . . a GST or anything resembling it is no longer coalition policy, nor will it be policy at any time in the future.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke knows that this is not a question to me.CE4Mr O'KEEFE—My question to you—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent. What is your question to me?CE4Mr O'KEEFE—My question to you is that, in the last answer that the Prime Minister gave—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—CE4Mr O'KEEFE—He began to try and say that he did not say that. How do you propose to deal with him misrepresenting his position?3907Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—It is not for me to in any way adjudicate on the nature of questions or answers other than within the dictates of the standing orders. Your question goes way outside them and it is beyond my province.Documents39073907Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Antarctic Science Advisory Committee—Australia's Antarctic program beyond 2000: A framework for the future—Report, October 1997.Government response, May 1998.Australian National University Act—Council of the Australian National University—Report for 1997.Maritime College Act—Council of the Australian Maritime College—Report for 1997.Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—9th report—Amendments to the Bonn Convention—Government response, May 1998.Ministerial Statements3907390715:27:003907Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—by leave—Mr Speaker, I want to take this opportunity on the first day of National Reconciliation Week to confirm the government's strong commitment to the cause of reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. This week all Australians can show a commitment to reconciliation, inform themselves about the indigenous perspective and participate in reconciliation activities.National Reconciliation Week is marked by two very significant dates. Today, 27 May, is the anniversary of the referendum in 1967 which empowered the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal people. The concluding date of National Reconciliation Week is 3 June, the anniversary of the High Court's decision in the Mabo case.The theme this year is Communities Working Together. All over Australia local councils, churches, business and community organisations will be acknowledging the cause of reconciliation, and I urge Australians to join in their local activities. Australia's traditional values of a fair go, of tolerance and acceptance of diversity, of looking after each other in times of need provide the context for successful reconciliation.In 1991 the coalition parties supported the establishment of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of a couple of members of that council—firstly, the honourable member for Aston (Mr Nugent), who represented the coalition parties, and, more recently, my colleague the honourable member for Murray (Mrs Stone). We continue to support the council's objective, which is to promote reconciliation based on an appreciation of indigenous cultures and achievements and the unique position of indigenous people in Australia.There are three major elements to a successful reconciliation process. We should acknowledge the realities of our shared history and its continuing effects. We should, in line with the theme of National Reconciliation Week, work together towards a common future in which we share equally, in which we appreciate and respect our varied traditions and cultures. Finally, and this is the key, we need an ongoing commitment to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage.This is a major policy priority of the government. There can otherwise be no meaningful reconciliation. We do look forward to the day when indigenous people share equally with all other Australians in the social, economic and cultural life of our nation. We look forward to the day when indigenous people are able to leave behind welfare dependence and take control of their own lives and their own communities. We know that this will not be achieved if indigenous people continue to lag behind in the key socioeconomic areas of health, housing, education and employment. My government's efforts therefore have been concentrated in these areas and I believe that we are beginning to see results.In the recent budget, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) issued a ministerial statement which, for the first time, puts on record exactly what the government is doing to meet its goals. It shows that we spend almost $1.9 billion annually on indigenous specific programs and that over 70 per cent of this money is spent in the four key areas I mentioned.Since coming to government, we have increased indigenous health spending by nearly 40 per cent. I will say that again. Since coming to government, we have increased indigenous health spending by more than 40 per cent. That represents a practical, on the ground, sincere commitment to the area that ought to be of greatest concern to people who claim that they are concerned about the welfare of our indigenous people. There is nothing less acceptable that in 1998 our fellow Australians within the indigenous community should suffer such appalling levels of general health. That is why, in line with my government's priorities, we have increased—I say it again—indigenous health spending by nearly 40 per cent.I was very pleased to be able to announce in February a project to address the severe eye health problem in indigenous communities. In a country with all of Australia's comparative advantages, it is intolerable that so many indigenous people should be afflicted with avoidable blindness. The measures we are putting in place will make an appreciable and early difference. We are also providing an immunisation program for influenza and associated diseases which are a major cause of ill health and death in indigenous communities. It is by practical, realistic and effective measures such as these that we aim to achieve significantly better outcomes for indigenous people.We recognise that there is a huge backlog in the provision of adequate housing and health related infrastructure in indigenous communities. Unfortunately, the available funding is not unlimited. We have decided that our priorities should be those communities that are particularly needy and, because of their location in the remote areas, cannot access mainstream programs.The innovative ATSIC army community assistance program, which we initiated shortly after coming to government and which, incidentally, was initiated as a result of a direct approach to me by three members of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, has already had some excellent results. Seven priority remote communities have been identified and the army is providing housing, sewerage, and better, cleaner and safe water supplies. Most significantly, they will also have community members who are trained by army personnel to maintain the new infrastructure so that the value of the asset will be preserved and the benefits in terms of improved health will be sustained.Indeed, during my recent trip to the Northern Territory to visit Aboriginal communities I was able to see the very real improvements which will be made to the community of Elcho Island under the program. These include the construction of 10 homes, the provision of solar power and the upgrading of water supplies. These results demonstrate that this program is delivering real benefits to indigenous people in the most needy of remote communities in Australia. I am very pleased to announce today that the government will commit an additional $5 million to extend the ATSIC army community program. I have asked my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs to consult ATSIC to provide matching funds as it did under the pilot program.I particularly want to express my thanks to army personnel who have contributed so willingly to the success of this program and the productive consultation processes which they undertook with local communities. Indeed, the program is an excellent example of this government's approach to the reconciliation process, particularly in light of the very constructive relationships which were formed between army personnel and the indigenous communities.Indigenous children suffer particular disadvantage in educational outcomes. The comparative participation figures are very telling. Indigenous children have a secondary school year 12 retention rate of less than 30 per cent, compared with some 70 per cent for other young Australians. Only nine per cent of indigenous young people are attending tertiary institutions compared with 22 per cent of the rest of the Australian population. Twenty-five per cent of indigenous students leave school before year 10; for other students, the figure is only two per cent.In terms of educational attainments, 75 per cent of indigenous students in primary schools have significantly low levels of literacy and numeracy, compared with 33 per cent within the rest of the population. The situation is exacerbated by the remoteness of many Aboriginal communities which have no educational facilities and are located a considerable distance from the nearest schools.My government is committed to assisting indigenous students reach their full potential and has provided increased funding, including to the indigenous education strategic initiatives program. I note that the government will be providing a package of initiatives of more than $15 million under this program for new equipment and facilities, including computers, school buses and accommodation for teachers in remote areas. The additional funds will also be used for curriculum programs aimed at improving the reading and writing skills of indigenous children, particularly in those vital early primary years. This funding will go to schools, both government and non-government, preschools and vocational and training institutions. It augments the $20 million announced by my government in December for similar facilities and projects for indigenous students in non-government schools and preschools.We also remain very supportive of the community development employment projects scheme. It may not be very well known that, under this scheme, indigenous people have been working for the dole for the last 20 years. This scheme was introduced by the coalition government led by Malcolm Fraser in 1977 both to gain work experience and to improve community amenities. Demand for places has always been high, despite some disincentives in terms of reduced welfare entitlements and taxation rebates. We have now removed these anomalies and will provide CDEP workers with the same allowances available to mainstream work for the dole participants. This will bring more money into indigenous communities to assist in their economic development.An appreciation in the wider community of the unique culture and heritage of Australia's indigenous people is also integral to reconciliation. I felt very privileged to have experienced the culture of the Torres Strait Islands and Eastern Arnhem Land earlier this year. The pride that indigenous people take in their traditions, the enormous effort that is put into maintaining them and the important role of the family in indigenous communities are greatly admired by other Australians. Over recent years, increasingly, many Australians will have enjoyed outstanding work by indigenous people in the visual and performing arts. Understanding the importance of land to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians is essential to an appreciation of their culture. We have a profound respect for the deep attachment of indigenous people to their traditional land and we support the principles of native title as set out in the Mabo and Wik decisions. But, of course, other Australians also have attachments and rights to land, and a balance must be struck. I believe we have achieved that balance with our native title amendments and, even if no single group is entirely happy with the outcome, I hope it will be acknowledged that the result is the best compromise amongst varied interests.The other key element is understanding our shared history and recognising that this history continues to contribute to today's disadvantage. Last December we announced a $63 million package of practical measures clearly targeted at the most urgent needs identified in the Bringing them home recommendations. The funds we set aside will be used by ATSIC to establish Link Up centres in each state and the Northern Territory to assist people wishing to trace missing relatives. Substantial funds were also allocated to provide new and enhanced counselling services, in recognition of the distress that many have faced.But, importantly, reconciliation is also about the future. It is especially about the future. It is about determining common goals and building enduring partnerships that will take us together into the next century. We are an egalitarian people, a fair and tolerant people. I believe that we have a real commitment to those elements of the reconciliation process that I have talked about—acknowledging the past, appreciating indigenous culture, working together but, most importantly, addressing those disadvantages that prevent indigenous people taking their rightful place in contemporary Australia. We are approaching an important, indeed exciting, time in the history of our nation and, with mutual trust and respect, the process of reconciliation will be one of the greatest successes of that history.In conclusion, I wish to thank and congratulate Mrs Evelyn Scott, the new chairman, and Sir Gustav Nossal, the new Deputy Chairman, of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation on their efforts and the efforts of their fellow council members in coordinating this week's activities. I again urge all Australians to enter wholeheartedly into the spirit of reconciliation. I present the following paper:National Reconciliation Week—Ministerial Statement, 27 May 1998 .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the statement.Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 16 minutes.15:45:003910Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians is critical to our capacity to move forward as a maturing nation. It involves reconciliation between our cultures and reconciliation with our shared history. Reconciling with our shared history involves acknowledg ment, acceptance and mutual respect. It must involve a shared sorrow and regret for the events, attitudes and policies of the past which brought pain then and which have left a legacy of personal and social distress with indigenous people today.The first step in dealing with problems of dysfunction in indigenous families—the problems that arise from the destruction of cultures—starts with the essence of the reconciliation process, which is not a taxonomy of initiatives or otherwise in relation to expenditure but a statement about what is in the human hearts of each of us. It is impossible, of course, to define that, but to some extent it has to be said that by people's deeds you know them.The notable event in race relations in this country, on this day on which we are discussing this reconciliation issue, is the statement made overnight by the National Party and Liberal Party state secretaries that the Liberal and National parties in Queensland will extend preferences to the One Nation Party in the course of this election campaign.The One Nation Party has, as part of its self-definition, attacked the reconciliation process, attacked relationships with the Aboriginal community, attacked expenditures on the Aboriginal community and attacked the Aboriginal community's culture. It has attacked—in some instances—the Aboriginal community's right to exist.All members of the government who have responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy—bar the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—have found themselves, when overseas, explaining the hostility of the majority of the Australian people to this party's operation and how they deplore its positions. It is only possible for the Liberal and National parties to be extending preferences because the Prime Minister has given them licence to do so. And to call upon us for reconciliation when the Prime Minister himself—and this is also well known—has encouraged these sorts of statements is more than a little rich. We all recollect, Prime Minister, your statement after the maiden speech of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). When you went to speak to this same Queensland Liberal Party which has now extended preferences to One Nation, you said:The pall of censorship of the Keating years has been lifted.This directly related to the statements then being made to the leader of the One Nation Party nationally. It has to be said that what is being provoked here is division. And I note here the cynicism—the utter cynicism—of the choice of the one seat in Queensland where preferences will not be directed to One Nation. That one seat happens to have a substantial Chinese population. Talk about hiding your light under a bushel!The Prime Minister notes that Reconciliation Week will end with the anniversary of the Mabo decision. I applaud his assurances that the government accepts the outcome of the Wik and Mabo cases. What a pity the actions fail to reflect the statement and sentiment! The Mabo decision was central to and critical of reconciliation. The pride and assurance that flowed to indigenous Australians from this recognition of their prior rights in this country have been real and measurable—measurable in the willingness and ability of indigenous Australians to pursue the logical benefits of these discovered rights in public and in the courts. It truly affirmed them and gave many of them confidence that our system of justice can recognise and protect them. I do agree that that is an important part of the reconciliation process.A critical part of the reconciliation process—for any person with citizenship, anywhere, whether they be Aboriginal or anyone else—is that if there are particular circumstances that ought to, under common law or in any other way, be recognised, then those circumstances should be recognised. There will be protection of that position in the courts. It does not matter whether you are an Aboriginal or anyone else. But what was the response to that? The response of certain members of the government at the time was to attack the decision and deny its legitimacy.They embarked on a deliberate campaign in regional Australia—and they still conduct it there—to spread misinformation, fear and panic. The Queensland Premier was out there doing precisely that during the course of the last two days. Whatever the short-term political results may have been, we all have to live with the resultant racial disharmony for years to come. They did not stop there; they attacked the High Court that delivered the decision as well. As Gerard Henderson remarked yesterday:Neither Ben Chifley in 1949 nor Robert Menzies in 1951, despite High Court decisions that cut to the core of their political agendas, ever did such a thing.They never did it—not Menzies, not Chifley. Menzies and Chifley were prime ministers for all Australians and they were big men. They were big men in this nation's history and they came from both sides of the chamber.The coalition let loose the more lamentable specimens from the dark corners of the back bench. They assailed the court from the front bench and the back bench in the course of this particular debate. The Deputy Prime Minister's pronouncements on qualities essential in a High Court judge not only reflected on the court at that time but also sullied, by inference, the perceived impartiality of those later selected by his government to join the bench. He and his colleagues ill-served indigenous Australia, the wider community and the rule of law in what they had to say.If the question goes to issues of the human heart in this National Reconciliation Week, the Prime Minister cannot escape the consequences of encouraging that type of sentiment in the community. He has persistently sought an opportunity to let the view run and sought to take advantage of it politically. Now it has hit, big time. The Liberal and National parties in Queensland have taken it to the point where they have determined that it is the basis on which their government may survive. That is precisely why they are doing it, not for any other reason. Rely on Labor Party preferences to get you over the hump, where you happen to be in direct contest with National Party members. But where it is Labor and One Nation contesting those top two positions for the final distribution, extend preferences to One Nation.In all probability you and we will succeed in our task. We will succeed in defeating One Nation candidates and electing National Party candidates. You will succeed in defeating Labor Party candidates and electing One Nation candidates. They will be the consequences of the actions that you have undertaken and that you have persisted with and encouraged.The Prime Minister read out a list of achievements in expenditures and focus. I cannot take exception to any particular item of focus that the Prime Minister put down, but I do think there needs to be some qualification on the said expenditures, because the programs that he alluded to—with the exception of the military one, which I will get to a little later—are against a background of very substantial reductions against the forward estimates in expenditures as far as the Aboriginal community is concerned.It should be noted that expenditure on community housing and the infrastructure program has fallen 15 per cent in real terms, and the new figure represents a fall of $20 million on 1997 funding. The Prime Minister rightly alluded to substantial educational problems. The education strategic initiative program shows a 12 per cent cut for the forthcoming year. The Prime Minister rightly referred to the success of the CDEP program. Indeed, it has been a massively successful program. The forward outlays anticipated when this government came into office, the positioning of some 2,000 additional places—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It is 2,500.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Some 2,500 additional places were slashed, eliminated, and 600 of them have now been effectively restored, as indicated by the Prime Minister in his remarks here today. That needs to be understood as well.And then there was the mention of the Army program. I know this actually brings me into some disagreement with the odd person on my side and elsewhere in the community, but I actually like the program. It is a good program. It is something that ought to be done. It would have been drawn to the Prime Minister's attention for the simple reason that, for a very substantial period of time when I was Minister for Defence and then subsequently Senator Ray was Minister for Defence, every single time the Army conducted large scale exercises in the north or elsewhere, they went through processes, as part of their engineering exercises, doing precisely what this program does. They did very well with it, too, and that drew the attention of the Aboriginal community to the potential effectiveness of these programs, so some who have been involved with them think that they are very good things to pursue—and so they are.We, of course, did it in a context—and this is how I would like it to be presented, instead of the way in which it is—of the integration of the Aboriginal community into the total defensive effort in the north. We have been magnificently served in recent times by the Aboriginal willingness to join our armed forces, particularly in our crack surveillance units.I note Norforce's regular success against the SAS. There has been a considerable capacity shown by the Aboriginal soldiers to locate very well hidden SAS units. The role of Norforce, however, does not permit them to ambush; they call in a heavy mob to do it. Nevertheless, there has been that substantial contribution.So, in terms of Army-Aboriginal relationships, this is a very good thing. But I tell you this: it is not a substitute for a serious infrastructure program. It is a relevant element of the development of the defence policies of Australia. It is a relevant element of Army community relations. It is not a relevant element of a serious infrastructure program to deal with the health and related issues which flow from the substantial problems that Aboriginal communities have concerning access to power, roads, clean water and the like. That requires a much more systematic attack. And the community housing and infrastructure program area of the budget has been reduced—as I said in the figures that I presented a short while ago—by something like 15 per cent.These things need to be reflected upon if this is to be the defence for not addressing the issues of the human heart but addressing the issues of the practical needs. Both have to be addressed. But I would have thought that, if you decide to do one exclusive of the other, effectively you might well have chosen, down the road, a genuine statement of generosity instead of the old Leninist principle of two steps back, one step forward, which is precisely the policy that has been pursued in this regard.Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister made reference to the reconciliation committee that he has established. I share the congratulations that he extends to the existing members of that committee. What a pity their entree to the scene should have been presaged or preluded by such extraordinarily tawdry shenanigans with the then Chairman, Pat Dodson, and Deputy Chairman, Ian Viner. What a pity that it should have been foreshadowed by that. What a pity it should have been accompanied by at least the public assertion—by leaking to the media—that what was expected was a quieter performance and a less critical one from those involved in that reconciliation process. It is manipulation of a group of people to achieve a political outcome for the government, not reconciliation for the community.I am not sure what the current reconciliation committee will do as far as those issues are concerned. I am inclined to think that they will be tough minded enough to continue to pursue the real basis of reconciliation rather than the political agenda of the government.When it comes to dealing with race relations issues in this community, the Prime Minister has said, as he looks back over history, that we ought not to have a black armband view of history. At other times he has called for an end to the self-flagellation, the introspection, the willingness to accept unfounded criticisms—`We can look any people in the eye'—and so on. He has made one statement after another in which it is supposed that the one or two recent remarks about history that he has made offset against that. Perhaps, in terms of public statement and public indication of an attitude, it is the same as expenditure: it is two steps back, one step forward, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned.As an Australian I am enormously proud of Australia's history. We have much to be proud of in terms of military endeavour, scientific achievement and sheer survival in an unforgiving land. The relationship with the Aboriginal community has instances where pride might be applied but many where shame has to be attached and sorrow ought to be the appropriate response. The reconciliation process is supposed to deal with that. The reconciliation process is to bring us together. The reconciliation process is pursued seriously by many members of this parliament on both sides of this House. The Prime Minister ain't among `em.Debate (on motion by Mr Anderson) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance3913391310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The damage being done by the Howard Government's health policies and the dangers posed to the health system by a goods and services tax.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—16:00:003913Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—In the last answer by the member for Bennelong, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), to a question in question time today we had a bit of a revelation of and a glimpse inside the heart of this Prime Minister. And it was a pretty shocking vision, I have to tell you. It was quite Nixonesque. We had the Prime Minister claiming that his promise on the GST would be no longer operative—that his statements before the last election would not be broken if he now seeks to introduce a GST. That is despite the fact that before the last election the Prime Minister said:A GST or anything like it is no longer Coalition policy, nor will it be policy at any time in the future.Then he was asked the question:Never ever?His reply:Never ever. I have gone to the Concise Macquarie Dictionary , which defines `never' as follows:1. not ever; at no time. 2. not at all; absolutely not.That is what the Concise Macquarie says. The John Howard dictionary says that `never ever' means `as soon as you can get away with it'. When this Prime Minister promises to never ever bring in a GST, it means that it applies only for one term. When this Prime Minister says that he will retain Medicare, just like he will never introduce a GST, that is the warning bell that his promises about retaining Medicare are valid for only one term. And guess what—we are getting close to the end of that first term, and that is why under this Prime Minister we are very concerned about what is going to happen to the future of health care in Australia. Mark my words: as sure as night follows day, John Howard will axe Medicare. As sure as night follows day, this Leader of the Liberal Party will be seeking to axe Medicare and undermine it at every opportunity.The plan for the next term is now clear. First, health costs will go up, through the dismantling of Medicare. When they get away with that, they will try to put a 10 per cent GST on top of the higher costs that will be imposed on ordinary Australian families. But to work out what this Prime Minister is all about, to try to work out what he is going to do to you next, you have to look behind the words.You only have to look at his performance over the last two years. Before the last election, he said that Medicare would be retained. Once he got elected, he slashed the federal funding for public hospitals. Before the last election, he said that bulk-billing would remain. Once he was elected, he squeezed that GP rebate to try to force doctors to switch from bulk-billing to charging up-front fees. Before the last election, he said that pensioner entitlements would be retained. Once he was elected, he axed the Commonwealth dental health program. Before the election, he said the PBS would be retained. Once he was elected, he increased the cost of essential medicines for the chronically ill, for older Australians, by taking lots of medications completely off the pharmaceutical scheme. Before the last election, he promised that health insurance premiums would be cheaper. Once he was elected, premium rises went through the roof, completely swallowing up that tax rebate. Before the last election, this Prime Minister promised that private health insurance membership would increase to 40 per cent by the year 2000. Once elected, he spent $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money on health fund subsidies, and membership is down to 31 per cent and falling at 800 a day.Is it any wonder that we are starting to get concerned about some of the things members of the government are saying about health? We had the Treasurer (Mr Costello) stating a little over a week ago:I intend to re-engineer the health care system.We had the Treasurer saying that free care in doctors' surgeries and public hospitals is `a problem'. He said that it is a problem that people are getting bulk-billed or getting free treatment in a public hospital. And we had the Treasurer saying that his view is that public hospitals should only be for those who cannot afford medical care. That is his view of the future of public hospitals in Australia.In some ways this is no surprise. In many ways, this is the fulfilment of the member for Bennelong's view about Medicare and health care in Australia for many years. Let me remind some of my colleagues of the long-term views that the member for Bennelong has expressed about Australia's health care system over many years. He has made the following statements: `We'll take a knife to Medicare.' `We'll pull Medicare right apart. The second thing we will do is to get rid of bulk-billing—it's a complete rort.' `Medicare has been an unmitigated disaster.'We know that the Liberals have always hated Medicare. They have hated Medicare and Medibank from the first days they were introduced. And this mob have their priorities so upside down that they see Medicare as being some dangerous impediment to private health insurance rather than as the guarantee to all Australians of a right to decent health care at a reasonable price.At the last election, the Liberals conned ordinary Australians into believing that things could be improved by subsidising health funds. They promised that premiums would go down and that the membership of the health funds would go up. Premiums have gone through the roof, and the membership has gone through the floor. The tragedy is that that $1.7 billion in health fund subsidies that they have put down the drain—to use Jeff Kennett's words—could have been spent directly on patient care. You can imagine the impact it would have had on local public hospitals right across the country if the same amount of money had been spent by this government on patient care. Even if you had spent it in public and private hospitals, you could have reduced the waiting lists, you could have employed more nurses, and you could have made a real difference to the quality of care out there.Today, the biggest problem facing Australia's health care system is the crisis in public hospitals. We had the AMA saying this week that the waiting lists will double over the next few years if this government does not increase the amount of federal funding going into Australia's public hospitals. Yet at the time that the government brought down a budget with a $2.7 billion surplus, it could not find one extra dollar for Australia's public hospital system.A few weeks ago the budget was brought down with $2.7 billion put aside in the surplus; yet the offer to the states was not increased by one dollar since the Premiers Conference a couple of months ago when Labor and Liberal Premiers walked out because of the inadequate federal funding for Australia's public hospitals.The evidence of the crisis in our public hospital system is growing by the day. Let me draw to the attention of my colleagues an example that the member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence) drew to my attention this morning. She received a letter from one of the staff at Fremantle Hospital. It concerned an inquiry made by the member for Fremantle about one of her constituents who needs a partial reconstruction of her leg. She was told in this letter:Thank you for your enquiry regarding Mrs—I will call her `Mrs Smith'—Smith's wait for surgery.I regret that the current wait for non-urgent surgery is approximately 3 years.This woman, who is waiting for partial reconstruction of her leg, has been told she has to wait three years! That is a symbol of the crisis in Australia's public hospital system right across the country. It is a crisis that will get worse because the government has not been prepared to provide enough federal funding for public hospitals.Even after we have gone through the growing evidence that the government's tax rebate policy has been a failure, we have been unable to get the Prime Minister to admit that he was even wrong. He is unable to learn from his mistakes and unwilling to admit that he was wrong. We now have reports that the government is going to develop a second rescue package to put more subsidies into private health insurance. This is a further example of the Prime Minister's obsession. His obsession with private health insurance means that he cannot lift his eyes beyond the 31 per cent of Australians who have health insurance.The Prime Minister is turning his back on the 12 million Australians who have decided to rely on the Medicare system. He is also blind to the very central tenet of Medicare that, whether or not you have private health insurance, when you are really sick you rely on the public hospital system to look after you or your family. By putting inadequate federal funding into the public hospital system, the government places at risk the health care of every Australian, whether or not they have private health insurance.The more ordinary Australians are placing their faith in Medicare, the more they vote for Medicare with their feet instead of voting for private health insurance, the more determined this Prime Minister is to axe Medicare. If Medicare is working, they axe funding for bulk-billing. If Medicare is helping public patients in public hospitals, they axe the funding for the public hospitals. If Medicare is looking after older Australians, they axe their dental scheme. If Medicare is assisting the chronically ill, they axe the funding for their medicines.In the first term of this government we have seen Medicare undermined by stealth. But as sure as night follows day, if this mob get a second term, Medicare will be axed. After they have hacked off the arms and the legs of Medicare, it will be unrecognisable. The sort of Medicare that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer believe in is a system whereby public hospitals provide care only to the poor. They believe in a Medicare where doctors bulk-bill only the destitute. They believe in a Medicare where families battling to get by on tight budgets are forced to pay more than $2,500—and this is before the GST—for their private health insurance.If the government is re-elected, it will then set out to introduce a GST. A GST on health is a frightening prospect. A 10 per cent GST on full top cover for private health insurance is going to cost families an extra $300. For a hospital admission, for example, for the delivery of a baby, a 10 per cent GST will mean an increase in the cost for a private patient of $350. For a total hip replacement, a GST of 10 per cent will mean an increase of $1,250. For a specialist consultation, a 10 per cent GST will mean an increase of $16. A standard GP consultation will be up $3.70.For pharmaceuticals, simvastatin, a drug used to treat high cholesterol which costs up to $80 a month, a 10 per cent GST will mean an increase of $8. The most commonly used antibiotic will go up $1.10 for every scrip. For a pack of 100 Panadeine tablets, a 10 per cent GST would increase that by $1.50. A 10 per cent GST on glasses would increase the cost by $10. A standard visit to the dentist for a check-up and clean costs $110. A 10 per cent GST on that will mean an increase of $11. The cost for an orthodontist to fit braces on a young child is up to $4,000. A 10 per cent GST on that will mean an increase of $400 or more.Add to that the extra costs that my colleague the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) explained yesterday on families. Child-care costs will go up $17. We will pay an extra $20 for prams and $7 for bassinettes. Families will be asked to pay an extra $3.70 a week just to clothe their children. All in all, fami lies will be asked to pay an extra $10 a week just to pay John Howard's GST bill.On this side of the House, we believe that the government would be wrong to impose a GST. We believe that the government would be punishing those Australians who can least afford it. In many ways, health care in Australia is like a tax. The system we now have in health is not perfect, but the turmoil in Asia, which is growing by the day, demonstrates that, whatever we do, let's not make the problem worse. Our tax system is not perfect, but whatever we do, let's not make it worse. How can a GST improve the tax system?4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—Why not make it better?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy thinks that it will make it better. I would like him to explain to his constituents how a GST on health would improve the health system or how a GST on the cost of the basic necessities of life would improve the tax system. All of us on this side of the House believe that the Medicare system is not perfect. There are real problems in the public hospital system. There is a right for more Australians to get access to better dental care. We believe the way you fix that up is not to impose some new 10 per cent GST on the health system. It is not to give further subsidies for private health insurance when the public hospitals are in crisis. The way to fix the problem is to make sure that extra federal funding is going to public hospitals and dental care.We need to make sure that this government does not get a second chance. If John Howard gets that second chance, as sure as night follows day, he will axe Medicare. He will take the axe to the public hospitals. He will take the axe to bulk-billing. He will take the axe and go hacking after the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. That is not about reforming the health care system; that is about a Howard government trying to get square with the universal health insurance system. It is a universal health insurance system which they have always opposed from day one; a universal health insurance system which they have never understood was the only guarantee that every Australian had a right to a decent standard of health care. That is what we will be fighting for every day until the next election.16:15:003917Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—In the Australian Doctor on 15 May, the editor of that magazine, writing about the shadow minister for health, the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) and some views he held on certain medicines, said:This doesn't augur well should the Labor Party win the next election—we really don't need woolly, unscientific thinking on health.Most unfortunately, we have had woolly and unscientific thinking on health, tax reform and a whole lot of other things this afternoon. The shadow minister has made claims again which just cannot be substantiated. For instance, he said that we have cut funding for public hospitals. That, very simply, is not true. Between 1993 and 1998, there has been expenditure of $25 billion. From 1998 to 2003, in the next five years, there will be expenditure of $30 billion. So I am not sure where this `not one cent extra' comes from.He made claims about cuts to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Once again, there has been no such thing, because the pharmaceutical benefits scheme is continuing to grow by at least $200 million a year. It is imperative that we manage that well so that we can afford to have good, new and safe medicines coming on to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.I am always astounded to hear the shadow minister—or, for that matter, any member of the opposition—say anything about the numbers of people with private health insurance. In 1983, when they came to government, 65 per cent of Australians had private health insurance and the figure fell by over 30 per cent during their term of office. Of course, they had a Prime Minister and a health minister at that time—only a little over two years ago these things were still being said—urging people to accept the fact that they did not even need private health insurance. But now, all of a sudden, because they are in opposition, they oppose everything for the sake of opposition and they are finding fault with the levels of those who have private health insurance. Of course, we would like to see the number of those having private health insurance very much higher than it is. We have been doing, and we will continue to do, everything we can to see that that figure is increased.The shadow minister referred to the fact that the government was wanting to do away with Medicare and bulk-billing. That is absolutely false. In fact, I can inform the House that the level of bulk-billing is higher now than it was in March 1996. The shadow minister referred to the dangers of a GST. One can only assume from this that the Australian Labor Party wants to go backwards, wants to see no reform in taxation and is happy to see low to middle income earners paying far too much tax.K26LATHAMMr Latham—We want clever reform, smart reform.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—We will have smart reforms, we will have fair reforms. They have not been announced; there has been a lot of supposition. But what we can say is that in three budgets in a row—and that has not happened for decades—there have been no increases in taxes. As the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) told the chamber yesterday, there is a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on shampoo, soap, detergent, toothpaste, toilet paper and non-medicated mouthwash. There are a whole lot of other things on which there is a 22 per cent tax as well.After all the fuss about l-a-w and what would and would not happen about tax reform before the 1993 election, the Keating-Beazley Labor government increased taxes on toilet paper, toothpaste, deodorant, soap, shampoo, non-medicated mouthwash, et cetera. In case it has escaped the attention of the shadow minister, all these things are necessary for good personal hygiene, and contribute towards food hygiene, safer living standards and preventive health measures. One could easily and accurately argue that there have been tax increases during the last Labor government's term of office on things that are required for one's personal hygiene and good health.There is a 32 per cent wholesale sales tax rate on many commonly used household items. By contrast, I stress again, there have been no increases in tax under the current government. We have the lowest interest rates and inflation rates in 30 years. These sorts of figures stack up to an increase in wages of about $90 to $100 per week, which always assists with what is necessary to care for one's family, for the mums and dads of Australia. Labor does not want change; Labor does not want reform of the tax system. It is happy to go on arguing about the same old things, but always knocking from opposition.The shadow minister's arguments today do surprise me because the health record of the Australian Labor Party in government is very poor. It has failures in a number of areas. One of the critical failures, however, is in the failure to deliver on promises, yet the shadow minister talked today about promises. However, some of those failures to deliver on promises have actually been a great blessing for patients. For example, in 1992, the Labor government introduced co-payments for general practice services, spelling the end to bulk billing for millions of Australians. Thankfully, this policy only lasted for a few months before the Labor Party heeded the howls of protest from the coalition, the community and welfare groups and dumped that charge. A co-payment for general practice patients is a charge on the sick. The coalition will have no part of it.Another policy initiative that Labor thankfully failed to deliver on was the abolition of the government subsidies for optometry services promised by the then finance minister, Mr Beazley, in 1993, costing patients over $350 million. As well as failing to deliver on these shocking attacks on Medicare, the ALP failed to deliver their 1993 election promises on health. It is interesting to look at the promises the Labor Party made on pages 3 and 4 of their 1993 health policy. I quote:1. New initiatives to contract the private sector to provide elective surgery for public patients on waiting lists— $100 million never delivered—2. Private hospitals included in regional health services planning under the Medicare Agreements—never done—3. An aged care industry review to examine the adequacy of nursing staff to meet the increasing dependency of those living in hostels—never done—4. The National Rural Health Program would focus on expanding rural health centres initiative—it did not happen—5. Access to Medicare rebates for bone densiometry for women at risk of developing osteoporosis—not delivered—6. The establishment of a national health promotion authority—never done—7. Legislative reform to the National Health Act to ensure Australia's commitment to the promotion of health—never seen—8. Provision of language services in public hospitals—never done—9. The establishment of a national health advisory council on ethnic health—not done—10. A continuation of the National Health Strategy—it was abolished the next year—11. The development of a national primary health care policy—never happened—12. A national environmental health strategy—and it was never developed. Here are 12 broken promises on two pages of Labor's 1993 health policy. Remember that the Labor machine is still the same as it was under Paul Keating. The failed former finance minister, who now leads the opposition, is still here. The former Senator Gareth Evans is still here, but now in this chamber. The former communications minister, the member for Dobell, is still here.MG4LEEMr Lee—Only just!8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—Yes, most fortunately for you—just. The former health minister, the member for Fremantle, now sits on the back bench, but is still here. The former ACTU bosses, Crean and Ferguson, are here. This team does not have a good track record, and I think it is a bit cheeky to come in here and pretend what may or may not happen with tax reform and to talk about broken promises and changes to policy which cannot stand up to any scrutiny.As I have said before in this place, I am proud of what we have been able to achieve in just over two years. One only has to look at a few things that have come out of the budget relating to aged care and health. While we as politicians might have headings of aged care and health, those people in the community see them running together. I remind the House that the Commonwealth seniors health card will be extended to 220,000 of Australia's self-funded retirees, enabling them to buy prescription medicines much more cheaply—in fact, for $3.20, the same as for pensioners. This comes into effect in January 1999.People with a yearly income of no more than $40,000 and couples who earn no more than $67,000 will pay $3.20 instead of $20 for prescriptions. Twice as many people will be able to remain in their own homes with the $280 million package `Staying at Home—Care and Support for Older Australians'—and the families who care for them. Over four years, $500 million will pay for a gold card for health care for an additional 50,000 Australian World War II veterans. This provides those veterans with free treatment as a private patient with choice of doctor or medical practitioner in hospital, together with a wide range of other services, free of charge. The shadow minister might be interested to know that this single measure alone will save the states $400 million a year in their public hospital costs, so we need to take a holistic whole of government look at this.The health funding for the states and territories will increase by a generous $2.9 billion over the period 1998-99 through to 2002-03. The shadow minister yesterday made some claims about how none of the state arrange ments could be finalised because the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) was overseas. I congratulate the minister for the initiatives he is taking on HIV and the role that he now plays in UNAIDS. But the shadow minister should have known, if he does not know, that this is an agreement reached between Premiers and the Prime Minister. The Premiers and the Prime Minister are still in the country. I would encourage those Premiers who walked out—rather foolishly, I think; good things can only ever come out of people keeping on talking and sorting things out—to come right back to the drawing board and finalise their arrangements. However, if they fail to do that, the Commonwealth will ensure that they still get their funding.To continue with this good list of things we are doing in health, there will be free annual influenza vaccines for people over the age of 65, which will start in the autumn of 1999 and cost about $20 million a year. Once again, there will be savings for the states in public health. If we can keep these older people from getting pneumonia or coming down with the flu leading to pneumonia, we are going to be keeping them out of hospital.A total of $6.1 million will go towards an anti-smoking initiative—I am sure no-one will criticise that. A national cancer control initiative will be implemented to provide a national approach to cancer control. More than $22.6 million will provide immunisation for indigenous Australians and ensure early detection of sexually transmitted diseases. There will also be increased funding of indigenous health services of $42 million over four years and additional funding of $7.9 million for health infrastructure and capital replacement. The shadow minister would have heard the Prime Minister say just after question time today that there has been an increase of 40 per cent oN spending on indigenous health since we came to government.Funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council has been restored to $165 million per year, which is an increase of about $50 million per year, from 1999-2000. This redresses what the former government did in dropping the funding in this vital area of medical research. If we do not keep up the work that has been done on medical research, our best people will go overseas, we will lose jobs, we will lose good programs and we will lose our international reputation. But, most importantly of all, we will miss out on having things done better and we will miss out on changes that come in. In fact, we will go back to that old bad philosophy of dipping our hands into the Medicare pool and throwing money at people once they become ill instead of investing money in ways to keep them healthy.There is a program for removing unwanted and expired medicines which are hoarded in people's homes to ensure that they are disposed of safely. This will help stop the inadvertent poisoning of young children and will better protect the environment. The single greatest poison in anyone's home and the single most commonly taken poison for any child is their parents' or their grandparents' prescribed medicines. This is a very important measure.The government will also extend access to medication reviews, which are already being provided for people who are residents in nursing homes. This has now been extended to those in hostels. In fact, doctors will be able to nominate patients whom they consider need this type of review, and they will be able to have that in their own homes.I think it was somewhat brave of the shadow minister to come in here and make attacks on what the government is doing in health while not being able to defend Labor's record of the past. I am not surprised about that; it really has been quite a disaster. We are committed to providing good health for all Australians, and we are committed to having a fair tax system in the future so that all Australians will benefit.16:30:003920Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—As was so lucidly and succinctly put by the shadow minister for health, the member for Dobell (Mr Lee), Australia's health system is indeed in a parlous state. Waiting lists for emergency and preventive dental care have blown out following some $400 million being cut from dental care by the abolition of the Commonwealth dental health program; low income Australians are being asked to pay the top rate for pharmaceuticals, again following $1.4 billion in cuts, resulting in increased co-payments for everyone, including pensioners; and there is the introduction of what we might loosely call a `drugs tax' and the removal of more than 20 drugs from the PBS.We have seen participation rates for private health insurance cover at their lowest ever, plummeting at the rate of some 800 per day. Public hospitals will no doubt remain in crisis, given the falsity of the government's claim that the budget contained a 15 per cent real increase for public hospital funding, something that was rejected out of hand by the former Liberal leader, Dr Hewson. There will be more on him later, but suffice to say that he knows, as I am sure most Australians now know, that some $800 million was cut from public hospitals in this government's first two budgets. Indeed, as the shadow minister has said, there has not been one dollar more given to the Premiers over and above what was offered to them when they walked out of the Premiers Conference in March. The AMA has since said that waiting lists will double in the event that this situation is not rectified—and still the government sits on its hands.What is the government's response to this present crisis? Its response is a GST. In summary, our view on a GST is that it is plainly regressive. It hits high income earners at the same rate as low income earners and, of course, places a higher relative burden on low income earners. Contrary to the exhortations of the member for Adelaide (Ms Worth), Labor does indeed recommend tax reform. We will be putting a decent and fair tax policy at the next election, based primarily around the tax credit system, which no doubt whetted her appetite when it was released in recent days.But will the GST apply to health? Health was zero rated under Fightback and, like our beloved former Prime Minister, I too have a copy of the old Acme Fightback in my top drawer. When one reads from it, those opposite still recoil in the same way they recoiled when Paul Keating brought it out. I am not quite at the K-Mart Keating stage that the Treasurer's routine adopted, but I am working on it.If we go to Fightback Supplementary Paper No. 5, at section 5.4.1 we see that it states that, under Fightback, health care goods and services would be zero rated. But Fightback was unclear in several areas. For example, each of the professionals who provide health care, be they doctors, hospitals or others, might be required to pay an additional GST component based on their business input. It can be reasonably argued that the price of medical and health services could increase by more than the rate of a GST because doctors and other health professionals would be taxed on their private consumption and may seek to recoup this via increased fees. It should be noted that the Commonwealth has no power whatsoever over the level of fees that private practitioners charge. Increased fees through a GST may even result, given the perceived need by professionals and others of their ilk to seek compensation for the additional administrative burdens that a GST imposes.The Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge), to his credit, recently called for health to be zero rated in GST terms. This is indicative of what little confidence he has in the tax reform fantasy of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). The minister is also at odds with his Victorian colleague the Treasurer (Mr Costello), who operates on the mantra `the fewer the exemptions, the lower the rate'. But, when all is said and done, the Prime Minister must ease the pain of health system users and give a core promise that health will be zero rated when it comes to a GST. He squibbed that chance on two occasions today: he squibbed it in the Australian and he squibbed it in question time this afternoon.MG4LEEMr Lee—You couldn't believe him if he gave it.YK6Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTON—You couldn't believe him if he gave it; that is correct. But that begs the question: if a GST on health is bad, how can a GST on food and clothing be good? That is the imponderable the Prime Minister must ultimately come to terms with and, indeed, answer. If a GST were to be set at the lower end of the scale, say, at a 10 per cent rate, the shadow minister for health has outlined in some detail what that would impact upon. Let us summarise some more examples. A GST would add $350 to the cost of having a baby as a private patient and, as he said, $8 a month to the cost of the anti-cholesterol drug Simvastatin. If a GST of 10 per cent were to be imposed on health insurance premiums, it would also add $300 to top family health cover with extras. If we were to apply a GST to health insurance premiums, what would be the point of the government falsely claiming that its tax rebate on health insurance encourages people to subscribe to private health insurance while it simultaneously beavers away in its backrooms on a new 10 per cent GST based proposal on private health insurance costs, making it even less attractive and increasing the numbers leaving health insurance daily—currently around 800?I can draw to the attention of the House many other instances of the adverse impacts of a GST on the health sector, especially those for the privately insured. For example, out-of-pocket costs—already at excessively, and perhaps intolerably, high levels—would also be subject to the impact of a GST.I have outlined in overview the impact of a GST on our health system. Let me make a couple of additional brief points. If health and hygiene products were not zero rated or exempt from a GST, the price of all medical and health goods would be expected to increase by the rate of the GST. This would include prescription and non-prescription drugs, wheelchairs, hearing aids, dentures, spectacles, and medical and therapeutic devices.All health and medical services would be expected to increase by the rate of the GST. This would mean, for example, that a typical consultation with a GP would increase in price from $37 to around $40. Outlays by the Commonwealth on medical benefits may also increase accordingly. To that end, I say that consultations with opticians, dentists, physiotherapists, podiatrists, clinical psychiatrists and other health professionals would be expected to increase by at least the rate of that GST, which I am sure is among the many reasons why Australians will soundly reject it, as indeed they rejected the old Acme Fightback in the 1993 election.Above all else, Australians have a right to know—and they have a right to know now—if health services will be zero rated. The Prime Minister cannot go on playing this game of hide-and-seek. Many people out there are suffering pain of the kind that the shadow minister alluded to, based on anecdotal evidence given to him by the member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence). If it was good enough for Johnny Hewson to put out his tax proposals 18 months early, why isn't it good enough for Johnny Howard to put out his proposals eight weeks early? There is surely no safety, security or stability in avoiding this issue.The government should be roundly condemned for placing at risk decent and affordable health care for all Australians. I urge the government to come clean now and state its position on the application of the GST to the health sector in the interests of all Australians who have been so adversely affected by its many across-the-board cuts in this crucial area of our society.16:40:003922Johnston, Ricky, MPMrs JOHNSTONNL6CanningLP10—High spending, high taxing—that is the legacy of 13 years of Labor government. Who in this House does not remember the l-a-w tax cuts? I remember them. The electorate does. And guess what? The l-a-w tax cuts never happened. In 1993, Labor said there would be no new taxes. What a joke. In the 13 years of the Keating-Beazley Labor government we saw the highest taxing, highest spending government in history. In 1996, the Australian people sent a message to the Keating-Beazley government saying that enough was enough. The federal election results showed that its traditional voters deserted the party in droves.But wait! What did Labor do? It reinvented itself and now we have Beazley's so-called `New Labor'. What has been one of its first policies? Health. Labor wants to increase the Medicare levy, scrap the $450 private health care rebate and commit Australians to another $6 billion worth of extra spending that the shadow health minister has already promised. Hold onto your hats everyone—the big spenders have hit town again.Let me to say to the House that I have absolutely no hesitation in telling the thousands of people in my electorate of Canning who now receive the health care rebate that their private health insurance premiums will increase by $450 under Labor should it be re-elected. What about low income earners who depend on Medicare for their health care services? Guess what? Labor wants to increase the Medicare levy.On Nightline, in March this year, the shadow minister for health said, `I think that right now ordinary people will be prepared to pay a slightly higher level of taxation.' Let me remind this House that Medicare is part of the tax system.MG4LEEMr Lee—Finish the quote.NL6Johnston, Ricky, MPMrs JOHNSTON—It's all right, I am going further. The shadow minister went on to say, in the same interview, `If we did have a higher level of taxation, people would be prepared to pay it if it went into the health system.' So why didn't you do it when you were in office? You did nothing about it. You had 13 years and not once did you do anything about it.Then, in true Labor style, on Radio 5DN in May 1997 the shadow Treasurer said, `Middle Australia is well and truly taxed enough at the moment.' Has the leopard changed its spots? Who are we to believe—the shadow Treasurer, who has only just admitted to the $10 billion Beazley black hole, or the shadow health minister sitting opposite me, who has committed Labor to $6 billion worth of spending promises? Then again, do we believe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) who has said absolutely nothing?On the one hand, we have the shadow health minister making unfunded promises, and on the other hand we have the shadow Treasurer preaching fiscal restraint. All of this begs the question: who are we to believe? Who is telling the truth? Where is the money coming from? All I can say is that this rhetoric is, once again, the classic Labor tax and spend, boom and bust approach to fiscal responsibility. Our government considers health a very important matter to all Australians—not only as individuals but also as a nation. We are determined to pursue new directions in preventive and public health. As one who has worked in the health profession for over 20 years, I can say from experience that the system we inherited from Labor was in disrepair. This government has just brought down a budget that is fair and just. It is positive and consolidates the plans we put into place in 1996.In health, we have achieved substantial realignment in spending towards programs that enhance quality, prevent illness, save children's lives and boost our health and medical research efforts. That is not bad for a government that has only been in office for just over 2½ years. Yet everyone should be reminded again that Labor was in office for 13 years and it still could not get its act together.Let us just list a few of the initiatives in the health area that this government is about to put into place: free annual flu vaccinations for all Australians over 65 years of age and $165 million per annum for health and medical research—and that is an increase of more than $50 million a year to redress the projected drop in research funding resulting from previous Labor government decisions. Later this year, the biggest ever public health initiative undertaken in this country will take place to protect our children from measles. Access to Medicare claiming will be improved through the establishment of 200 additional Medicare easy claim facilities in outer metropolitan areas. There are many other issues, and the list goes go on, but obviously time restricts us from covering them all.The single most important initiative that this government has announced in health is its private health care rebate. I have absolutely no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition knows that, in his own electorate of Brand, there are over 12,000 households who receive this rebate. I wonder, how will the Leader of the Opposition explain to his electorate that private health care premiums under his regime, should he be re-elected, will in fact be $450 more per family? Is he going to tell a pensioner couple in Brand that they will be paying $250 more for their private health care premiums? Is he going to tell the people of Brand why he wants to withdraw their rebate and push up premiums by 18 to 25 per cent in one hit?The fact remains that the shadow minister for health proposes to spend more than $6 billion in health policies. I ask again: where is the money coming from? Who is telling the truth—Evans, Lee or Beazley—or does it simply mean Australians will pay more tax again? Higher taxes, higher spending, boom and bust, more of the same—that is all you will get from new and old Labor.For the first time in this decade, this government has handed down a budget surplus. Home mortgage rates are the lowest they have been since the 1970s. Small business lending rates are the lowest since the 1960s. But this government does not stop here. Everyone knows that the archaic tax system in this country is unfair and unworkable for ordinary Australians. It is the system that we inherited from Labor, and we are determined to fix it. We are determined to make it fair for all. Indeed, as somebody from the opposition bench said, we will make it smarter for all.I am sick of trying to explain to families in my electorate of Canning the unfairness of the current system and why it is that toothpaste is taxed at 22 per cent and toothbrushes are tax exempt. Where is the logic in that? Where is the logic in something that is totally opposite? Again, this government is determined to have a fairer tax system for all.But what do we hear from Labor, who have continually said the tax system is okay? Here is an example: when asked on the Sunday program in August 1997 whether the present indirect tax system was equitable, the shadow Treasurer replied:There is some inequity, I think that's fair to say, yes. But I am prepared to state generally that there are some anomalies in the present tax system and there is a case for having a look at that.Again, more forward thinking, more intelligent ideas—get the states to charge death taxes. `The old chestnut of property and inheritance taxes,' I think was how the shadow Treasurer referred to them.The bottom line is that Labor do not think anything is wrong with the present system, and they are not prepared to do anything about it. Even if they were, they have the shadow Treasurer preaching fiscal restraint, they have the shadow health minister promising $6 billion in health spending and they have the Leader of the Opposition running around in circles. This country does not want to see the old days of big spending, high taxes and big budget deficits return.Only the Howard government wants a fairer tax system. Only the Howard government is committed to removing the remaining legacies of Labor's 13 years of neglect of the health care and tax system. We on this side of the House want to make sure that everybody has choice, that everybody has security, that everybody has a fair go and that our hospital systems are what they used to be. We will make sure that everybody gets that opportunity.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion is concluded.Personal Explanations392416:50:003924Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Grievously.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Please proceed.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—During her contribution to the appropriation debate, the honourable member for Canning (Mrs Johnston) accused me of supporting an increase in the Medicare levy and of advocating the scrapping of the health insurance tax rebate, both of which are untrue. She also stated on several occasions that I have outlined $6 billion worth of spending commitments, which is based on a laughable press release of the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge).To demonstrate my position on this, I have advocated an increase in funding for public hospitals. In the minister for health's laughable press release, he claims that is a firm commitment to spend an extra $5 billion on public hospitals, which I am sure the House can understand is a complete and grievous misrepresentation.Bills3924r4863924Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3924Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3924r5013924Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3924Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3924r5033924Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3924Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3925r4613925Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3925Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3925r5093925Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendments presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 9), at the end of subclause (1), add "However, if that day is the same day as the day on which Schedule 3 to the Company Law Review Act 1997 commences, this Act commences immediately after item 32 of that Schedule commences.".(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 13 (lines 5 to 8), omit the item.(3) Schedule 2, item 8, page 15 (line 1), after "share", insert "capital".(4) Schedule 2, item 8, page 15 (after line 2), at the end of section 160ARDM, add:(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply if the amount is a debt transferred under a debt/equity swap (within the meaning of section 63E).(5) Schedule 2, item 10, page 22 (line 18), after "account", insert "(within the meaning of that Act)".(6) Schedule 4, item 1, page 25 (lines 7 to 12), omit subsection (1), substitute:(1) This section applies if a shareholder holds shares in a company (the original shares ) and the company issues other shares (the bonus shares ) in respect of the original shares.(2) If the bonus shares are a dividend, or taken to be a dividend, the consideration for the acquisition of the shares for the purposes of this Act is so much of the dividend as is: (a) included in the taxpayer's assessable income; and (b) is not rebatable under section 46 or 46A.(7) Schedule 4, item 2, page 25 (line 16), omit "For", substitute:If the bonus shares are: (aa) issued for no consideration and are not a dividend or taken to be a dividend; or (ab) rebatable under section 46 or 46A;then for(8) Schedule 4, item 3, page 26 (lines 2 to 5), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) the dividend is taken to have been paid out of profits; and (c) subsection (2) applies in working out the consideration for the acquisition of the shares for the purposes of this Act.(9) Schedule 4, item 3, page 26 (lines 9 to 17), omit subsection (6), substitute:(6) Subsection (5) does not apply if: (a) a shareholder in a listed public company (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 ) has a choice whether to be paid a dividend (other than a minimally franked dividend within the meaning of subsection 45(3)) or to be issued shares and the shareholder chooses to be issued with shares; and (b) the company does not credit the share capital account in connection with the issue of those shares.Note: If subsection (5) does not apply because of this subsection, subsection (3) will apply.(10) Schedule 4, item 4, page 26 (lines 18 and 19), omit the item, substitute: 4 Section 160APA (after paragraph (a) of the definition of frankable dividend )Insert: (a) a share that is taken to be a dividend under subsection 6BA(5); or(11) Schedule 5, item 1, page 27 (line 7), after "(if any)", insert ", including any premium,".(12) Schedule 5, item 3, page 27 (lines 16 and 17), omit all the words after "reduced", substitute:by: (a) the amount (if any) that represents amounts unpaid on shares; and (b) the tainting amount (if any). (13) Schedule 5, item 4, page 27 (line 20), after "than", insert "the definition of paid-up share capital ,".(14) Schedule 5, page 27 (after line 26), after item 5, insert: 5A Subsection 6(1)Insert: tainting amount has the meaning given by section 160APA.(15) Schedule 5, page 34 (after line 6), after item 62, insert: 62A Subsection 272-10(2)Omit "paid-up capital", substitute "the paid-up share capital". 62B Paragraph 272-50(2)(a)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) it pays or credits money, or transfers property, of the company to the person, where the amount paid or credited, or the amount or value of the property, is debited against an amount standing to the credit of the share capital account of the company; and 62C Paragraph 272-90(10)(d)Omit "paid-up capital", substitute "paid-up share capital".(16) Schedule 6, Part 1, page 35 (line 4) to page 38 (line 4), omit the Part, substitute:Part 1—Bonus shares1 Subsection 109-55(1) (table item 9)Omit "because it owes you an amount, and the", substitute "and no".2 Subsection 112-60Omit "because of a dividend or other amount it owes you" (wherever occurring).3 Section 130-15Omit "because of an amount owed to you where the amount is" (wherever occurring).4 Paragraph 130-20(1)(b)Omit "to you because it owes an amount".5 Paragraph 130-20(2)(a)Omit "amount that is a dividend", substitute "shares that are a *dividend (or taken to be a dividend under subsection 45(2) or 45C(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 )".6 Paragraph 130-20(2)(b)Omit "amount that is", substitute "other units that are".7 At the end of subsection 130-20(2)Add: Note 3: Certain capital distributions are taken to be dividends under subsections 45(2) and 45C(1) if a company has entered into a capital streaming or dividend substitution arrangement.8 Paragraph 130-20(3)(a)Omit "amount owed to you by the company is a dividend", substitute "shares are a *dividend (or taken to be a dividend under subsection 45(2) or 45C(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 )".9 Paragraph 130-20(3)(b)Omit "amount owed to you by the trustee is", substitute "other units are".10 After paragraph 130-20(3)(b)Insert:Note: Certain capital distributions are taken to be dividends under subsections 45(2) and 45C(1) if a company has entered into a capital streaming or dividend substitution arrangement.11 Subsection 130-20(3) (table heading)Omit "amount ".12 After subsection 130-20(3)Insert:(3A) If only a part of a capital benefit that is bonus equities is a *dividend, or is taken to be a dividend under subsection 45(2) or 45C(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 , you apportion the first element of your *cost base and *reduced cost base for the original equities in a reasonable way over both the original equities and the bonus equities.13 Subsection 995-1(1) (definition of dividend )After "and (5)", insert "and 6BA(5)".(17) Schedule 6, item 12, page 39 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item.(18) Schedule 6, item 13, page 39 (lines 12 to 18), omit the item.(19) Schedule 6, item 14, page 39 (lines 19 and 20), omit the item.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.3926Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3927r5083927Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3927Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3927r4213927Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Committees39273927392710000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The Speaker has received advice from the Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Halverson to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in place of Mr Tony SmithParliamentary Zone3927392710000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Planning Authority, on behalf of the National Archives of Australia, for signage on its new headquarters, formerly known as East Block in the Parliamentary Zone.Bills3927r5313927Debate resumed.16:58:003927Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—The tremendous thing about the individual measures which I outlined in my earlier remarks is that they have been achieved without recourse to increases in taxes—without increases in income tax, without increases in sales tax and without increases in fuel or other excise taxes. My colleague the member for O'Connor, Wilson Tuckey, recently pointed out to me that no government in recollection has been able to produce three successive budgets without increases in taxes, let alone been able to produce a third budget which actually generates a surplus.I suggest that honourable members ought not just take my word for the great qualities of this budget, but we ought to look to some of the independent commentators who are no special friends of this government. I note that the Daily Telegraph editorial on 13 May observed that:Peter Costello's third budget is, as promised, a responsible document that lays the groundwork for a secure economy in uncertain times.Terry McCrann on the same day said that Peter Costello `can stick out his fiscal chest with pride'. He went on to describe him as a worthy claimant to the title of the `world's best Treasurer'. Most significant of all, in my opinion, was the description by Malcolm Farr of this budget as the `signal of a generational change'. In my concluding moments, I want to emphasise this fact to the listening public and to my constituents in Parramatta: do not focus primarily on any individual budget measure, not even the $2.7 billion surplus, but reflect on the generational change, the sea change, which this budget represents. Ours is a government that believes that, if you are going to lecture the Australian people about the importance of national savings, you have to practise what you preach. We are a government that believes that, before you can fix the national economy with any credibility, you have to get your own house in order. Before you can congratulate yourself on some new spending program, you have to have a way to pay for it. That is the long march back. As Treasurer Costello said, we have completed the first leg of that march in turning around the recurrent deficit. Now we must tackle the accumulated debt. In doing that, this government believes in the essential capacity, the potential, the diversity, the enterprise and the initiative of the Australian people. We do not believe that the sole repository of wisdom is the government itself. We do not believe in so dominating the national life that no other voices can be heard. We seek to create the conditions under which the Australian citizen, the individual, the Australian family, the Australian company and the Australian economy can grow and flourish. The satisfaction we receive is that derived from the success of others. Let interest rates fall. Let debt be repaid. Let us begin the second phase of the long march back and let a thousand flowers bloom.17:02:003928Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—In March 1996 the Australian people elected a government that they thought would make them feel comfortable and relaxed. Those of us who have followed politics for some time were aware of the current Prime Minister (Mr Howard) previously as Treasurer. With that in mind, I want to pose a few questions. Who was the Treasurer, the only one in living memory, that had official advice before an election advising him that all the budget forecasts had gone gang busters, had gone berserk? Who was the only Treasurer in living memory with that information in writing from the Secretary to Treasury? The answer: the current Prime Minister.Who was the only Treasurer in postwar Australia who oversaw double digit inflation and double digit unemployment at the same time? Who caused that? The answer: John Howard, the Prime Minister. Which Treasurer oversaw the biggest drop probably ever recorded since the Depression in the manufacturing work force? Who was that? The current Prime Minister. In 1982 the Australian manufacturing work force declined by eight per cent in one year, in 12 months. One in 12 people working in the manufacturing sector lost their jobs in one year. Which Treasurer left office with a deficit in prospect of, in current terms, $25 billion? The answer is the same one.We know his form very well. He has been around for quite a while and a lot of us know him well. I think the Australian people who thought they were getting someone who was comfortable and relaxed are starting to realise that that is not the case. What we have had since that election has been anything but comfortable and certainly not relaxed. We have had a period of chaos unmatched since 1982, when he was last there. We have had chaos in child care, and we still have, and massive uncertainty. We understand this because, as members, people are coming to us and asking us how it is working, what is happening and why. The answer is that no-one has the answer, including government members. What did the budget in 1996 do for child care and aged care? What did that do to the aged in Australia and their families? The absolute anxiety and trauma that that has caused has been unbelievable. All the patch-up and all the catch-up that is going on now still has not addressed the core problem they caused back then. In relation to the services area, in the Public Service alone 30,000 jobs have gone missing. All those households have now been impacted and hurt by this government. There is chaos in terms of people in the economy. We have seen a shift in national bankruptcy figures, and I quote them from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In March 1996, there were 4,400 bankruptcies. In March 1998, there were 5,900. We are seeing all-time records in bankruptcies under whom? The same man who was Treasurer in 1982. The long-term unemployed in March 1996 was 216,000. In March 1998 it was 233,000. The graphs are there. They are stark. There is no escaping them. The ripping apart of the employment support system for unemployed Australians is now finally being understood by the community. The fact is that hundreds of thousands of Australians who are looking for a job will get no help from the government. In fact, it is the opposite. They will be locked out. They will not be able to apply for a job because the employer and the agency know that the government will pay only for those on the dole. So, if you are not on social security, you either pay yourself or you get excluded from even applying for the job.In two years and three months, we have been seen how many ministers go—seven, eight, nine? This is an Australian record. The events of recent months with the former Speaker were absolutely amazing. We have seen 2¼ years of chaos. What happens this week? We are back to a new mantra, the triple S, which is supposed to stand for safety, security and stability. But what the triple S stands for when talking about this government—they are triple S, all right—is sly, sneaky and slippery. That is the triple S, because that is what they are and that is what they have been doing.We have had 2¼ years of chaos. Then we have the Prime Minister masquerading and talking about security and stability. Go tell that to the hundreds of thousands who can no longer access employment; go tell that to the 30,000 former public servants; go tell that to the thousands of people who have taken their children out of child care or to the many thousands of families whose aged relatives cannot access residential aged care services. Go tell them about security, stability and safety. Sly, sneaky and slippery is what the triple S stands for, and I have no doubt that the Australian people understand that much better than the Prime Minister would have us believe. There is also no doubt that the triple S mantra this week came about because of opinion polling. It has finally got through that the Prime Minister does not understand the country. He did not in his previous incarnation as Treasurer; he does not now.I think Gerard Henderson put it very well last night when he talked about the Sorry Day and said that somehow the Prime Minister has got it wrong and that it is an error of judgment. He certainly has. He has misread and misunderstood the nature of change, the nature of the Australian community and the nature of how we work together. So the Prime Minister has put this country through turmoil such as we have not experienced for I do not know how long—certainly much worse than he left us with in 1983-84.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Ha!FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—The member for Warringah laughs at that, but he was not in this chamber then. He was not facing the difficulties that we inherited with a $25 billion deficit and an eight per cent drop in the manufacturing work force—all the chaos amongst our community in that period from 1983 onwards. He was not there then. He can laugh about it. It was not amusing then, but it is much worse now. I have found it rather amusing to hear government member after government member talking about this budget in such glowing terms. Let us get back to it: this budget is based on a set of Treasury estimates made in about April—perhaps some made before that but most of them would have made by April to be wrapped up in time for the budget—to estimate income and expenditure in the year starting in July through to June of next year.I suggest that those government members who are feeling so ebullient go back and look at all the previous estimates for the previous years, because they are worth looking at. While they are looking, I will give them a couple of figures. The forecast for the taxation revenue in the 1995-96 budget was $124.4 billion. The actual income a year and a half later, as measured by the final accounts, was $121.6 billion. That was a shortfall of $2.8 billion. I say to those government members who think they have a surplus, `Keep thinking it while you can because, let me assure you, you do not have one.'This budget is just as rubbery as the budgets of former Treasurer Lynch and just as rubbery as the last budget of the current Prime Minister. He knew, when he put his budget down in August 1982, that it was already out of date and it was wrong. We all know that these budget forecasts are wrong now. He is going to the polls as quickly as possible because he cannot afford to have Treasury redo the estimates, given the crisis that is occurring in Asia. This budget has underestimated in both its growth figures and its current account balance figures the effects of Asia from which the Treasurer says we are fireproofed. Every serious commentator says that. The reason the dollar has gone down in the overseas money market is due to the underestimation in the budget.This is a slippery, sneaky budget with figures that are rubbery. We know it, and the commentators know it. If you do not get to an election soon, the whole world will know it because you are now going to require Treasury to publish the forecasts. If the forecasts had been published in 1983, they would have shown the prospect of a $25 billion deficit. Those people who are looking at the budget should keep in mind that the Treasury estimates only need to be out by a very small percentage to make a huge difference in the outcome. I say to all the government members who think what a wonderful thing they have done in projecting a surplus: watch it in about November or December when it has all gone, and do not come in here screaming, whingeing and complaining because you are sitting here now knowing better. You are misleading the public of Australia. You know it and you will not get away with it. We have heard a lot about tax reform in the last 12 months. Remember that it is almost 12 months to the day—in June last year—since the Prime Minister announced the formation of a task force which would report within two months. But a year later we have not seen one single thing. We now discover from the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) that the government members' committee that was formed was not allowed to make recommendations. It is a good way to have a debate when a government committee cannot give any advice. Not only is the debate not in the public arena but it is obviously not happening within the government itself either. We need tax reform. The reason we need tax reform is that this is the biggest taxing government on record. This government has ripped more tax out of the Australian people than any government in history—and not just a little bit more but a lot more. Again, going back to the last Labor budget for 1995-96, PAYE taxpayers' revenue was $52 billion. The same projected revenue in the budget in prospect, the budget we are dealing with now, is $65 billion—an increase of $13 billion or 25 per cent. This government has presided over an increase in revenue of 25 per cent from PAYE taxpayers.Yet in this very same budget—and I would prefer members opposite to actually go and look at the budget for a change rather than read the stuff they are handed out by the Treasurer—let me quote from page 21, Budget Paper No. 4, on budget receipts. I have just quoted the individuals (PAYE) income tax. Let me quote the individuals (Other) income tax; in other words, the non-PAYE personal taxpayers. In the current year it was $8.2 billion; in the year in prospect it is $7.8 billion. On one hand, PAYE taxpayers are paying $5 billion more, or 8.5 per cent; non-PAYE taxpayers are paying $400 million less. This is your third budget—you cannot blame us for that! Non-PAYE taxpayers are paying $400 million less for the year in prospect than in the current year. PAYE taxpayers go up 8.5 per cent and your friends with family trusts go down five per cent—a differential of 13 per cent. We sure do need tax reform.You are letting the system fall apart with bracket creep and rorting in terms of disposable income as an excuse to justify the ideological GST. This is what you are really doing—and you know it; it is so blatant. If you were genuine about tax reform, there would be a discussion paper out in the open. We at least put out a white paper, which allowed some discussion. A member left your party yesterday because he could not talk about these things. The need for tax reform will always be there, as will reforms in the workplace, education, health and everything else—the world moves on. Tax reform is not a GST. A GST is regressive. It is not an advancement of the tax system; it is a regression of the tax system.You should go slightly further and think through some aspects of what the GST is about. Some of us have studied the GST proposals, both here and abroad. Business is asking the government to shift the payroll tax off them and to put a tax on services whose major cost is the payroll tax. Effectively a GST shifts a payroll tax from big business to small business at a much higher rate. Anybody who thinks that somehow a GST is about employment should forget it. If you are a supplier of services which are heavily reliant on labour and your consumer chooses to spend the same amount of money per year, what do you do? You reduce your labour costs; that is the only way you can compensate. A tax on services is a tax on labour at a much higher rate.I have been sitting here in recent days and have been having a real feeling of deja vu. I recall the 1992 and 1993 GST debates in this chamber and the fact that the then opposition were gung-ho about what wonderful ideas they had. They did not understand what on earth they were talking about. I am watching it now sink into the minds of government members. You can almost see the expression of shock, horror come onto their faces as they suddenly start to realise what they have had foisted upon them. As the member for Dickson said, it was `without discussion'—a fait accompli.This next election will be a bit of deja vu as well. This budget will fall apart before Christmas. Get to the polls soon. If you don't, Treasury will destroy you. But even in the process, this budget is not one to be proud of. It is one to be a bit embarrassed by. It is a sly, sneaky and slippery budget. And it does not deserve the support of the House.17:19:003931West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—It is good to see that the drip theory is working—that members on the other side are seeing taxation reform as a necessity, to overcome the legacy that they have passed on to this government, a legacy of burdening taxpayers in a most inequitable and disadvantageous way. The coalition government is in the process of mapping out a journey that all Australian families can follow. The government is in the process of delivering stability, safety and security to all Australians and this budget is part of that process.Families have benefited and will continue to benefit from the government's last two budgets because we have set the right priorities and they are high on our agenda. Families now have more disposable income—due to no increase in taxes, no new taxes and no overall increase in the taxation burden for families. The family tax initiative is providing an extra $35 a fortnight for eligible one-income fami lies. The combined impact of lower mortgage rates and no increase in the tax burden has put the equivalent of an extra $100 into the pockets of Australian home buyers. Mortgage interest rates have dropped. We now have the lowest home mortgage rates since 1970. Low home interest rates mean more disposable income for home buyers. By repaying the debts of the past, we can set up new opportunities for the future—for the future of our families and our youth.In the words of the Treasurer (Mr Costello), this year Australia—and the Australian government—will live within its means. It will live within its means not because of any increase in taxes, but by getting government spending under control. We all reap the rewards of this controlled spending because this government is clamping down on people not entitled to benefits. Those people cheating on the system is one area of keeping spending under control. When we started, we clamped down to the tune of $28 million a week. With Jocelyn Newman as our Minister for Social Security, that is the kind of issue that is reaching into the heartland of the Australian community. People in the community were fed up. They did not want to see these rip-offs continuing. After all, it was their hard-earned money being wasted by rorters. Labor let this practice continue for 13 years.It was also the Labor government that let the time-wasting, soul-destroying, incentive-breaking habit of `revolving door' labour market programs continue. Labor did not even blink an eye when unemployment hit 11 per cent. We did not hear, `Shock, horror!' from the Labor government. Let us face it, they had no idea how to solve this growing problem. This government took on the task of reforming labour market programs, but not just in the marketplace: schools are also becoming a part of this reform process. What better way to achieve long-term changes than to foster a sound work ethic in the minds of our youngsters? Instead of accepting the gloom-and-doom `as good as it gets' attitude, we can offer hope and a better future—a future based on generating the belief amongst our youth that they will be prepared for employment through their schooling years, and that there will be jobs when they finish.A key priority of this government has been to expand employment opportunities. We are committed to ensuring major improvements in education and training and ensuring vocational education subjects are provided in all our educational institutions. I am fiercely proud of the fact that in my electorate of Bowman, Wynnum State High School, Alexandra Hills State High School, Wellington Point State High School, Iona College, Wynnum North State High School, Cleveland State High School, Carmel College and Moreton Bay College all provide curriculum opportunities that focus on employment outcomes for their students.No longer do students attend school for purely academic pursuits. Vocational education options are a significant part of real choices for our students, particularly in my local area. Our schools have benefited and will benefit over the next four years in accessing part of the $340 million allocated to address the issues associated with youth unemployment. Of particular merit is Wynnum State High School's joint education initiative program, boasting 10 certificate subjects and strong student participation and support. I commend the efforts of our school communities in providing a diverse range of educational opportunities for both vocational and academic careers.Workplace learning is developing as a beneficial option for many students returning to post-compulsory schooling and our TAFE colleges also provide a wide variety of practical employment courses. The long-term unemployed and youth of my electorate are clearly benefiting from the work for the dole program. Two groups—the Moreton Bay Marine Association and Wynnum Enterprises—have succeeded in providing worthwhile community activities to assist our unemployed. With people such as Craig Belmano, David Gasteen, Rob Wolski and Paul Ryan coordinating these groups, they have provided excellent opportunities for skill development and community assistance while fulfilling their tasks in the Wynnum and Bayside areas. A street poll in a recent edition of the Wyn num Herald asked a random selection of shoppers, `Should unemployed people have to work for the dole?' The newspaper ran the following responses:1. "Yes. They shouldn't be able to just sit there and get paid for it."2. "Yes, because it improves your self esteem so you are more likely to get a job."3. "Yes, because if you don't do something you get into a rut. You need to keep your mind active."Not only do these projects enjoy wide support, but also the environment and the community benefit from their continuing efforts. I wish them every success in future applications for funding.Job placement and employment and training have also come under close scrutiny. With new Job Network groups such as Drake, Sarina Russo, Bridgeworks, Leonie Green, Employment National, Bayside Adolescent Boarding Inc. and Trevor and Clare Sterling, more options are now available for our unemployed to provide them with real work opportunities—not just the two CES offices that we had previously in the local area.Others who missed out on the tender have not given up. They continue to provide complementary employment preparation assistance. REPS of Cleveland and Wynnum-Manly Workplace Training both offer literacy options and up-skilling in subtendering for some of these employment agencies. The Job Club of Wynnum is keeping its options open to assist local unemployed as well. The new youth allowance, which simplifies income support arrangements, encourages young Australians to further their education and develop basic skills needed to secure their future. Students who may be at risk due to a variety of factors, including family circumstance, social conflict, personal neglect, family abuse and criminal activity, will benefit from pilot projects.The Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training (Senator Ellison) recently visited my electorate to discuss specific strategies at a local level with Capalaba State High School. The administrators and coordinators were in agreement that these pilot projects should be available. These services will go a long way to securing a combined effort to assist students returning to school for vocational opportunities that will lead to better employment.The health and wellbeing of our young people has not gone unnoticed as $80 million will be provided over four years to enhance preventative health programs. A school education campaign to warn our children of the dangers of smoking will be part of the $6.1 million awareness campaign to reduce tobacco related illnesses.The recent drug summits, coordinated by myself in conjunction with community based organisations such as Queensland Health, the Queensland Police, the Redland Shire Community Safety Consultative Committee, Life Education and Save the Children Residential Care, aim to secure funding for regional drug education assistance. It is hoped that some of the $215 million provided for the national illicit drug strategy over the next five years will be channelled into local areas of need.Mr Deputy Speaker, what better asset to invest in than our youth? Their health and wellbeing are our primary concern. Parents need assurance that all levels of government provide real opportunities for the future of their children. That is what this government is all about—future opportunities. Paying back Labor's debt provides Australians, young and old, with opportunities. And remember, once we pay back our inherited debt, we will not have to raise $8 billion in taxes to pay our interest bill. We can spend that money on schools, health and education. The opportunities are endless.This government inherited a debt of $96 billion. Why should our children inherit this debt? Why should our children's children inherit this debt? Whilst unemployment is still too high, it is now the lowest it has been in Australia since 1990. We are laying the foundations for continuing jobs growth through sound economic policies. I am proud to represent my electorate of Bowman in a government dedicated to building a better and brighter future for our children and our children's children.17:30:003933Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—It was interesting what the member for Bowman (Mrs West) said about the so-called debt they inherited. She claimed it was $96 billion. What she did not say in the next sentence is how much it has gone up since then. It is another $26 billion or $28 billion, from memory. You know the old debt truck going around Australia? If you are going to quote things, you need to finish the quote and say that it has gone up, under this so-called government, by another $26 billion to $28 billion.History will show that this budget was somewhat of a sleight of hand, like the speech of the honourable member for Bowman. We are now starting to see the real nasties—not coming out so much from the budget just brought down but from the preceding two budgets. I listened to the honourable member for Bowman saying how families are going to benefit from this budget. I will tell you one area where the families will not benefit, and that is the area of the youth allowance, which was announced a couple of budgets ago but starts on 1 July. This measure will hit middle and low income families. The electorate of Throsby, with its high rate of youth unemployment will be particularly hard hit. It contains only middle and low income families, and many will be forced into poverty, with the government withdrawing income support for their 18- to 21-year-olds.While there has been much criticism of the youth homeless allowance, I predict a huge rise in the youth homeless allowance after 1 July. Those opposite make much about the sanctity of the family, and constantly parade their family values, yet see nothing wrong with disadvantaging working-class families by withdrawing income support for 18- to 21-year-olds. Perhaps—and who am I to argue?—this is a disguised measure to keep these young people at home.One of the proudest boasts of the Labor government during our years in power was what we did for child care. Despite the comments of those opposite, I remember what the child-care situation was in my own electorate and throughout Australia when I was first elected in 1983. Under Labor, I saw the growth of good, affordable child care, and it saddens me immensely to see the attacks that this government has made on child care. It also amazes me when I hear those opposite parrot their weasel words about child care. The simple fact is that Labor put child care on the agenda. It was affordable, it was accessible, and you have attacked it and made it non-affordable for so many families.With their cuts to child care, this government is creating a generation of latchkey kids. Only last week a child-care worker at a centre in my electorate was telling me that people are withdrawing their children from centres because of the increase in fees and are presenting the children with a key to the door. We are returning to the 1970s when latchkey kids were commonplace because of the lack of child-care facilities. The Labor government provided the centres and now this government, with the withdrawing of operational subsidies and substantial fee increases, is returning us to the latchkey generation, with all the inherent problems. So much for this government's so-called commitment to families.Mr Deputy Speaker, as you probably do not know but it would be appreciated by members from New South Wales, Throsby is basically a working-class electorate. We do not have the high income earners, the high rollers, but we do have lots of what the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) refers to as battlers. We do have battlers in Throsby, and their battles have been made even greater by the uncaring, anti-family policies of this government in power.In a policy of pure spite, federal government services in Throsby have been withdrawn. I remember the Liberal candidate for the seat of Throsby making his one visit to the electorate before the election. They could not find a Liberal candidate in Throsby to stand—I do not think there are any Liberals in Throsby—so they imported a chicken farmer from the outer suburbs of Sydney. When the chicken farmer came to the electorate, the big issue for some time in the Dapto area—which is one of the fastest growing parts of my electorate, given the developments in west Dapto—had been to have a Medicare office located in Dapto.I remember that pensioner groups and others had been running a campaign for some time to get a Medicare office. They had been to see me. I had brought them here on a couple of deputations. It was explained to the people that, with the growth in west Dapto, they would get a Medicare office but not immediately. Well, our chicken man, the Liberal candidate, came to Dapto and stood outside the Dapto post office—which, incidentally, has been closed by the Liberal government. He said that if the Liberal Party were elected—he did not say `if he was elected' because he knew it was a pretty uphill battle in Dapto, even for a chicken farmer—then Dapto would get their Medicare office.As we all know, as Australia knows to its cost, the Liberal Party was elected, but what happened to the promised Medicare office in Dapto? `Was it built?' I hear you ask. Is it up and running? Is it processing the forms and so on? No, it must not have been a core promise. Not only was the Medicare office not built but, in a fit of pure spite, the closest Medicare office to the proposed one, the office at Warrawong, was closed. To add insult to injury, the next Medicare office at Corrimal, in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Martin), was also closed. So, instead of a new Medicare office being opened, as promised by the Liberal Party—a non-core promise—two Medicare offices were closed.The Illawarra region, covering the electorates of Cunningham and Throsby, is one of the most ethnically diverse regions in Australia. We had a fully functioning Immigration office. Hardly was the poll declared when it was announced that it would be closed. Now people from our region, if they want any information or need to go for an interview, have to travel to Rockdale in Sydney. What in the Illawarra would have been an hour's visit to our local office now involves a one-day trip to Sydney.The slash and burn policy of this crowd does not stop there. Centrelink at Warrawong was also closed. The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service at Shellharbour Square was closed. The CES offices at Shellharbour, Dapto and Warrawong have been closed and only last week there was a threat of closure of the Centrelink teleservice centre at Warilla. Yet we hear those opposite come in here and parrot how wonderful this government is.If one looks at the speeches by the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash), one will see that she always waffles on about how she has had no complaints about the fear and uncertainty of those approaching nursing homes in her electorate or how the young people from Nowra are dancing with joy because they are working for the dole. Mind you, she has been known to write the odd letter getting stuck into the government on dental care, but she will not come into this chamber and give the government a serve on their disgraceful role in regard to dental care and a whole range of other issues.It amazes me when I listen to those opposite speak. How can they come in here and not properly represent their electorate? Why can they not articulate the problems that are being put to them? I do not believe the electorate of Gilmore is all that much different from my electorate. Yet I do know the problems with nursing homes and other problems that have been put to me. Why do they have their slavish adherence to the Howard-Costello line, which will cost them dearly at the next election? The other thing you hear is that they come in here parroting the old party line. Why can they not debate these issues? Why must they always so slavishly and foolishly follow their party leaders?The one thing that really surprises me in this parliament is the hatred of those opposite for the trade union movement. I sometimes wonder, given they so often have a small business background, whether any of them have ever spoken with a trade unionist. It would be wonderful if we had reached that utopia where there was no need for the protection of the trade union movement, but unfortunately that utopia is still a long way away. Hardly a week goes by when someone does not come into my office to tell me how they have not got their entitlements or how they have been discriminated against in the workplace.I am not talking about the situations of the Cobar or Woodlawn miners or the Grafton meatworkers, or even Clutha. They have been shocking indictments of this government which have received wide publicity. I am talking about the ordinary worker, such as the guy who came to see me last week who had a job as a courier. Part of the job deal was that he could not belong to a union. Given the high unemployment level in the Illawarra, this married person with two young children took the job paying $10 per hour with no overtime and no penalty rates. He was lifting a large crate which fell. He fell and hurt his back and, of course, he got up and continued working. Next morning he could not get out of bed. He was put on sick leave. Then after six months he was sacked from his job. This is what is constantly happening. That is why we so often need trade unions.I have no argument when people say they should have the right to belong or not to belong to a trade union. That is fine, but I make the point that, if you do not belong to a trade union, do not have your greedy hand out to get the benefits that the trade unionists or their unions get for you. If you do not belong to a union, you should not be entitled to any of the benefits that come from union membership.17:41:003935Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—I am pleased to tell the House that the 1998-99 budget has been warmly received in my electorate of Swan over the past week and a half and I know of no phone calls to my office that have had any criticism of the third budget from this highly responsible government. The member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) makes some very good points. I was a union representative myself, so I am not down on unions.QT4FILINGMr Filing—Which union?PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—I was a local representative for the Teachers Union. But I have to say to the member for Throsby: you have just come out with a lot of ideological claptrap. But, anyway, you are entitled to your opinion.The third budget in the first term of the Howard government epitomises what good government is all about—responsible expenditure of taxpayers' money, ensuring that this country does not live beyond its means in this region of uncertainty. To deliver a budget surplus in our first parliamentary term, after 13 years of reckless spending by the Labor Party, is something of which every member on this side of the House can be justifiably proud. I am sure the member for Moore (Mr Filing) would also say that it is a very responsible budget. The old analogy of the speeding ship hurtling towards the deadly iceberg is in mid-story. We might have stopped the ship, but now we have to concentrate on turning it around and sailing to better chartered waters.QT4FILINGMr Filing—Presumably without hitting the iceberg.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—Absolutely. You have seen Titanic . Better still, it is ordinary Australians around this country and throughout my electorate of Swan who are reaping the benefits of getting back in the black and back on track. The 12,000 families in Swan who are currently paying off mortgages are saving on average $3,800 a year because of this government's responsible economic policies that have produced the lowest home interest rates since 1969. The pollsters are reporting that this is the best received budget in years. The member for Brand, Kim Beazley, and the ALP have not been able to dent it, despite their best efforts.The Australian people are pleased with this budget. Under the coalition government, families are now more than $300 a month better off than they were when they were paying off their mortgage under Labor. This is cold hard cash back in their pockets—something they understand very well.There are 7,000 small businesses in Swan. They are now paying just one-third of the interest on their overdrafts that they were paying under the high debt interest rate policies of the previous government. As small business is our largest employer, this is great news for job seekers.This budget, along with the two previous budgets, has put Australia in a strong position to weather the economic storm and the currency crises which have plagued our Asian neighbours. When we came into office in 1996, no-one predicted what would unfold in the Asian markets, but by paying off Australia's debt—paying off Labor's debt—our house is now in order.I shudder to think what would have happened if Labor had been voted in for another term and they had continued on their big spending, high debt merry-go-round. We would have been a partner to the Asian meltdown. Despite creating a $2.7 billion surplus, this budget continues to focus on important issues for those in my electorate: families, older Australians, health, small business, and employment growth.Government spending as a proportion of the nation's total income, measured by the gross domestic product, has reduced from nearly 27 per cent to around 24.6 per cent this year. This represents about $12.7 billion less in government outlays and this government projects that spending will be reduced further as a proportion of GDP by 2001-02, down to around 22.8 per cent. That is a great achievement.The message is clear: good economic management can deliver a surplus, while still providing for appropriate and adequate government spending. The government has put in place better controls on spending and has not raised revenue through higher taxes. Again, there have been no new taxes. This is miraculous—for the third budget in a row, there have been no new taxes, no increase in taxes, under this government.The opposition can claim there have been harsh cuts and reductions. The member for Throsby tried that line. But the reality is that welfare spending has increased. A larger and larger share of the budget under this government has been allocated to welfare spending—to nearly 38 per cent of the budget. But this government's approach to welfare is markedly different from the opposition's. It is clearly a hand-up, not a hand-out, approach. This government's spending on welfare assists those who have helped themselves, like the superannuants, but who still clearly need government assistance. This is particularly evident with the introduction of the seniors health care card, which will assist around 220,000 self-funded retirees.Families, importantly, benefit greatly from this government's spending on welfare. I refer to family allowances, family tax payments, parenting payments, child- care payments, maternity allowances and sole parent benefits. These schemes together receive a significant proportion of this budget and will assist families to bring up our greatest asset, our children, who are the future, naturally, of this great country.The unemployed continue to receive assistance, but coupled with the government's initiatives involving mutual obligation, work for the dole, volunteer work and so on, and an improved and streamlined employment agency scheme called Job Network, opportunities for the unemployed will be greater. This is already starting to be seen, with the lowest unemployment rate since 1990. Again, it is another fantastic achievement. We are taking the problem of unemployment seriously. We are not going to throw money at schemes to keep people out of the real unemployment figures, as the previous Labor government did. Unemployment is now at its lowest level since before Keating gave us the recession that he said we had to have, and we are looking at a target of three per cent growth which, by the way, is higher than the figure for the United States, Britain and most of Asia.Nearly 400 World War II veterans in Swan will benefit from the budget announcement that they will receive the gold card.QT4FILINGMr Filing—They deserve it.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—Absolutely, they do deserve it; the member for Moore is quite correct. These veterans spent quite a number of their younger years risking their lives for this country and now, at an average age of 76, it is time to take care of them. They will receive comprehensive health care as part of this package. Labor chose to ignore this section of our community who have lobbied for this measure for years. It has been a priority for this government, and it has been delivered.It is ironic that in my home state of Western Australia, the largest number of veterans to benefit from this budget measure live in the seat of Brand. I wonder how the member for Brand is going to explain the fact that he did not deliver to the veterans, but that it took a coalition government to do so.The benefits of the Commonwealth seniors health care card are now being enjoyed by up to 3,000 self-funded retirees in Swan, many of whom have already contacted my office expressing their gratitude for the government's move. Most of these retirees believe that this budget measure to provide them with cheaper medicines at last recognises this sometimes forgotten section of our community. A common question asked of me is: `Why should we scrimp and save to make sure we can look after ourselves in retirement, not go on overseas holidays and live modestly, if we always seem to be penalised compared to pensioners? We've paid our taxes all our lives and we still pay tax.' By lifting the income limits for a health care card to $40,000 for a single retiree and $67,000 for couples, we are able to help this group now, as well as remove a disincentive for those coming close to retirement to save.QT4FILINGMr Filing—That is another good measure.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—Absolutely. This budget also recognises that younger Australians face many challenges. As a former teacher, I know only too well how important it is for our children to be able to read and write. This budget provides $176 million for literacy programs in our primary schools. The national literacy and numeracy plan aims to have every child in Australia reading and writing properly by the time they leave primary school. The funding will help to establish assessments for literacy standards for all children in years 3 and 5, as well as providing professional development programs for teachers to help them identify children with literacy and numeracy problems. Their older brothers and sisters will also benefit from the budget with more government-funded university places than ever before—in fact, up 10,000 on 1996 figures.This budget puts Australia back on track but there is still a lot of work to do. With gun law reform, native title, aged care reform and welfare fraud compliance measures, this government has proven that it is not afraid to tackle the big issues that many might put in the too-hard basket or simply ignore. The Howard government is willing to tackle these issues if it means that the outcomes will benefit ordinary Australians now and well into the future.That is why we must introduce tax reform. Everyone in Australia—including the welfare sector, as well as the business community—recognises the need to reform our outdated and unfair tax system. Labor has chosen to put its head in the sand over tax reform. I think they are selling Australia short with their attitude to this issue. Even their own supporters must feel let down.We do need to reform both the direct tax system and the indirect tax system. Both are unfair, inconsistent, grossly outdated and remove incentives to work and save. In fact, ordinary Australians, especially middle income earners, pay too much income tax. You do not have to be an economist to work that out. All you have to do is earn 1.5 times the average weekly wage to experience paying nearly half of what you earn in tax.High rates of direct tax encourage those who can afford it—the millionaires the Labor Party wants to keep in the present system—to avoid paying their fair share of tax, and it puts the burden on everyone else. I would like to have spoken in detail about the hidden tax system and such things as wholesale sales tax and the rates that were left to us by Labor and sales tax costs and the system of sales tax that really was invented for a time well before now; but, noticing the time, I will move on. I make a commitment to my constituents in Swan that, before the next election, they will know clearly and precisely the details of the Howard government's tax reform package. I will do what it takes to make sure my electorate can make an informed decision when they vote for tax reform at the next election. I believe that when more information comes out about the detail of the government's tax reform and the electorate compares it with the opposition's belligerent, inflexible attitude towards tax they will embrace the reforms as they have embraced the most recent budget. I commend the budget to this House.17:54:003938Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—I was interested to hear the comments of the member for Swan (Mr Randall), and he is entitled to take some credit for the good measures in the budget. I have been campaigning for some of those for some time, and I am pleased to see them eventually come to pass, particularly the gold card for World War II veterans and the seniors card or health care card for self-funded retirees within particular income thresholds.I want to mention a couple of things the member for Swan has spoken about. One of those is the question of interest rates. There is no doubt the government have been more fiscally responsible than the previous government, and I commend them for it. But, if one looks at the Economist magazine and looks at the table which samples a basket of developed nations and their interest rates, one will see that Australia still has the highest prime rate of the countries sampled in that particular basket which, in its own way, puts the interest rates back into context. They are certainly a lot lower than they were under Labor.Mr Randall interjecting—QT4Filing, Paul, MPMr FILING—The point is that, if you are endeavouring to make Australia a competitive nation, able to compete with its neighbouring countries in trade and other forms of economic activity, quite clearly you have to have competitive interest rates. All I am saying is that, if you were to compare them with the countries that the Economist magazine chooses to compare Australia with, you would see that Australia still has the highest prime rate of those sample countries. I am not making a harsh criticism. I am just saying we should put it back into context. One of the problems of taking credit for lower interest rates when they are low is that you then have to take the blame when they go back up again. One of the possible consequences of the Asian meltdown is that interest rates may start to rise in the medium future. Will you accept responsibility for that? I doubt it; no-one generally does. But the point is that they, in themselves, are possible consequences of events that are outside the control of the government and, therefore, all one can do—as you have rightly said—is trim the sails of the government's sailing boat to ensure that it is in the right position to take full advantage of whatever economic conditions prevail in our region. The second thing I want to mention is in relation to tax reform, and I imagine there will be tax cuts included. I want to make a couple of observations. I recollect Fightback quite clearly, as I am sure you do, Mr Deputy Speaker. I recollect quite clearly back in 1990 or 1991, when the Fightback package arrived at Parliament House, we were all given a copy and essentially told to learn it and go out and promote it. In my view, after that experience, that is not the way to formulate policy.One of the things that concerns me is what I have heard about the so-called tax task force activities and the government's attitude to the tax task force—whether or not, for instance, the government is seriously considering the tax task force's work and its possible recommendations as part of the considerations for the tax reform package. I very much doubt it. Being a bit of a cynic and having seen programs like Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, I would think that when the suggestions go into the suggestion box they will probably go straight down into a shredder. I suspect that a tax reform package is going to arrive at Parliament House—somewhat similar to the Fightback package in its presentation—for members to go out and promote in their electorates as part of their election campaigning. I hope not. I hope the coalition has learned from that particular era because that, I felt, was a mistake.At the time, in the euphoria of the release of Fightback back in 1990, when it was seen to be a plan that could solve some of Australia's serious economic problems, we overlooked the fact that in the end policy making has to be as closely connected as possible to the people we represent. You cannot make policy an abstract, you cannot formulate policy as though it were some sort of philosophical fight, because the people will not accept it—and they are far smarter than governments sometimes care to admit. There is a very strong prevailing commonsense in the Australian community, and the Australian community reacted to the attitude, the arrogance and the dismissive attitude of the previous administration by throwing it out in a big way and electing a large number of coalition members as well as a record number of Independent members—numbers that have been augmented in recent months—and in fact the largest number of Independent members in the House of Representatives since Federation.In speaking to this bill, I want to start by commending the government for having as its guiding light a determination to return our economy to surplus and a sense of fiscal responsibility. We cannot ever hope that this country will live up to its potential unless we are able to pay our own way and get away from the spiralling debt of the past. It is unnerving, however, to have watched as the term `fiscal responsibility' has become a mantra for the Howard government, where ministers and backbenchers recite the term as if it is a known truth and believe that simply by attaching it to a policy endeavour that makes it a good policy.I have watched as small `l' liberal policies and philosophies, promises and undertakings have been dropped by the wayside in the name of some fiscal responsibility, and it has become almost a form of political correctness, rivalling the mantras of previous Labor administrations. But, to their credit, the people have taken the Howard government at its word that the national debt must be reduced and that, in doing so, some necessary suffering will come to pass. However, now that we are told that the structure is in place for economic revitalisation, instead of sharing in the fruits born of hardship, the community is being told to remain vigilant and not to relax its adherence to the commandments of fiscal responsibility.At the same time, the government has made deep, substantial cuts to spending on health, education, aged care, child care, disability spending, law and order and the like. Although I intend to participate in the process, one has to question the overwhelming importance of the projects of national significance that are going to be funded through the program in members' electorates.Unfortunately, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would know, having been in this place for some time, it is difficult at times not to reinforce the public's perception that the government is out of step with the community and that it is lost in the mire as it follows its own agenda of reform. The Howard government has asked the Australian people to endure the hardship caused by its program of fiscal responsibility without really explaining the fine print and telling us what it is and what it will mean. Further to that, now that we can achieve a surplus of $2.7 billion, even after its $1 billion natural heritage exercise, it still proposes to deny average Australians a direct share in the rewards they logically expect through government programs.I have spoken a number of times about the results of Hugh Mackay's research in his latest book Generations. I note with great interest that the government has finally picked up on my comments and, I must say, Mr Mackay's writings. For instance, I now see that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) is using his slogan of security, safety and stability. Those words actually echo the comments made by Hugh Mackay in his latest work. One of the fundamental points made by Hugh Mackay in his work is that the community is deeply affected by a very strong, underlying sense of insecurity.One of the problems with reform programs is that reform can at times feed insecurity. People who have become used to particular programs or policies suddenly find they have changed and that the acronyms have changed. Let us face it, when you ask people what particular acronyms actually refer to, they find it extraordinarily difficult at times to know what you are talking about. The officials responsible for administering programs get to learn the acronyms, programs, policies, fine print and, of course, the interpretation of the law. All of a sudden, the reform programs come in and they have to change. With the best of intentions, that leads to a further sense of insecurity. I am glad to see from the Prime Minister's recent statements in this place that he is now intent on responding to the electorate's feeling of insecurity. Obviously he or one of his staff has now read Hugh Mackay's work. But the Prime Minister needs to pay more attention if this is indeed an election year. He of all people should acknowledge the reality that part of the reason for the current government's initial popularity is the unpopularity of the one it replaced. That initial impression has been replaced with a growing cynicism that some of the change that has been meted out to the community has not been worth the suffering. The failure of the government to carry out its election commitments through to workable legislation has further damaged this.While the Keating government could be criticised for caring more about and measuring its success by its volume of spending rather than the quality of spending, the Howard government is equally to be criticised for its policy of determining its degree of fiscal responsibility in terms of the volume of its cuts to spending rather than their quality or uniformity. You do not have to look at the government's philosophical attack on welfare spending to find questionable funding cuts.I will give a very brief example of a funding cut in my own area. It relates to the CSIRO laboratory at Marmion. Back in the days when the member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) was the Minister for Science and Technology, he promised that this would remain as one of the most significant contributions on the part of the government to scientific research of the ocean environment and to fishing management research. I was recently contacted by a constituent regarding government funding for the facility of around $3.6 million about 15 months ago. The money had been spent to upgrade the facility to allow scientists and researchers there to better study marine ecology, especially important to WA with its extensive fishing interests and offshore gas exploration and mining. The problem is that the improvements have been made, but nothing more. On investigation I was advised that the offices are closing down or essentially becoming dormant. The lab now concentrates on marine ecology in the North West Shelf area, and it has had some interaction with the petroleum and gas divisions of CSIRO. Most of the fish species research is done elsewhere by universities and state fisheries organisations. This project was to look at external earnings from its research on marine ecology, including environmental impact studies, through harvesting or industry placement. So far, however, it has done no research and it appears the project has lost its way.The explanation I received was that, `The government has cut operating costs for the CSIRO, creating a situation where the Division of Marine Research is faced with a financial deficit that had to be addressed.' The federal government still refuses to provide any money to the laboratory to keep it operating properly. This has caused a decision by CSIRO to close its coastal ecology subprogram and to redeploy its people to other sites. There is a risk of up to 10 potential redundancies from 280 throughout the division.The $3.6 million was allocated for the building of hardware, tanks, pumps, pipes and research stations within the building, but the government did not allocate anything for ongoing costs. The building/research areas were completed early last year, and have been undergoing proving work since then. No actual research seems to have been done at all. There are currently 13 researchers there, with facilities for up to 60 to 70. The crazy thing is that we have this wonderful, world-class facility but apparently no money to operate it. The CSIRO's solution is to now go forward and negotiate cooperative partnerships with universities, CALM, WA fisheries and other state departments such as the WA museum, et cetera, to share the facility for research purposes as a means of keeping it going.Despite the government's somewhat unthinking financial cuts, the situation may be salvaged. The potential is there for a very productive industry research entity which could generate significant income and valuable productive research either to exploit the marine ecology sustainably or to best develop multiple use strategies. This will depend on negotiations between CSIRO and the other entities. If the situation is salvaged, it will be down to the action of the CSIRO, not the government.How many other stories like this can be told about the Howard government? I make the observation—because the member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) is here—that the National Party for a long time, probably since the early inception of the CSIRO, has very strongly supported its objectives and has ensured over the years that it has been properly funded. All I can do is urge National Party members who have a commitment to the CSIRO's important contribution to scientific and agricultural research in this country to pressure the government to make sure that the particular industries I have mentioned are not let down by the closure of, or further reductions in, facilities at this important research station.I now want to talk about vertical fiscal imbalance because this is the most important facet, in my view, of any proposal for tax reform. I have raised this issue a number of times. The West Australian newspaper had some very interesting articles criticising the Liberal Party members in this place from Western Australia who have failed to properly represent the cause for a better deal for Western Australia from its tax revenues.We have a situation where, in essence, Western Australia has lost a calculated $778 million of what would be considered to be its fair share of taxation revenue over the past five years. In terms of vertical fiscal imbalance, I want to talk about getting a better deal for WA. Western Australia needs to have a better deal in order to become the dynamic economy that it should be. If we can liberate the economy of Western Australia from the shackles of the Commonwealth-state fiscal relations at present, Western Australia would become one of the great financial and economic centres in our region—the Indian Ocean region. Until recently, this region has been largely ignored by the Commonwealth government as far as economic potential is concerned.I subscribe to some of the views expressed by Professor Cliff Walsh at the fourth annual micro-economic reform conference. He said:. . . to limit excessive coercion and increase democratic participation through multiple access to government, it would seem essential that, to the greatest extent possible, all governments should have independent access to revenues to enable them to respond to citizen preferences and that they then be capable of being held appropriately accountable for their use of those revenue sources. In a simpler form, this means the converse of the cry from the Boston Tea Party immediately prior to the American Revolution—`No taxation without representation.' The converse of that is `No representation without taxation'.Whenever one of my constituents in Western Australia complains to me about the absence of a particular community facility or service, I contact the relevant state minister and immediately get the cliched response, `Oh, it's Canberra's fault. Go to Canberra and tell them.' So I did. I took them at their word and I came here as part of my duties and asked the Prime Minister what I should tell my constituents, given that we have been dudded out of $778 million. He stood there and said, `Tell them to vote Liberal. What is the problem? WA is doing very nicely indeed.'The West Australian, which had been following this quite closely, then asked those Liberal members who had said, `We don't actually grandstand in the House about vertical fiscal imbalance—we chew the ear of the Prime Minister and his senior ministers in private.' They said, `As you have been chewing his ear so much, how come you came up with such an answer?' They said, `Well, you don't expect him to know everything.'In essence, this means that Western Australian ministers and members of the Western Australian parliament are not accountable for the lack of services that they provide and are responsible for. They say that it is Canberra's fault. Canberra then says that it is their fault. As a consequence, my constituents get nowhere. When they want a new school or the railway line extended, or they need more police—as they desperately do—the old answer comes back, `It's not our fault, it's Canberra's.'This is the problem. Until we reform Commonwealth-state fiscal relations by giving the states a proportion of income tax collection for their own purposes, we will have this age-old handball exercise ad nauseam. Unfortunately, the people who lose out are people like my constituents in the developing areas of my electorate who cannot get schools for their children, who are faced with virtually the lowest ratio of police to citizens in the state, and who have the situation where the local Joondalup Health Campus as it is now called—it used to be called the Wanneroo Hospital, which I thought was a perfectly reasonable name for it—has cancelled non-essential or elective surgery because of funding cuts and cost overruns.The citizens ask me, as their local member, `Why is this so?' When I ask the question here I am told that everything is okay. They say, `That is their fault because they are not administering their grants properly. Go back and see them.' When I see them, they say, `Go back to Canberra and blame them.' This has to change. It is childish and unproductive. It has led to the situation where Western Australia, which has the potential to become one of the great economic powerhouses of our region, has been shackled by a system that has been going on for years and years and is in essence a straitjacket on the sort of development that we want to see in our state. We need devolution and reform of the taxation system—not arguing the toss over whether or not you have a broad based cascading consumption tax or a retail services tax or you merely reform the wholesale sales tax—where we fundamentally reform the relations between the Commonwealth and the states.In conclusion, as representatives there is no greater task for us than to make appropriate representations on behalf of our communities, our citizens, our voters. As the result of a tax reform package that really works, I want to have a situation where I can go back to my citizens and we can identify where the problem really exists and fix it so that those services, those things that they require or need or have an expectation of, can be provided at the best possible cost and in the most efficient way. In the end, what we need is a new way of looking at the relations between the Commonwealth and the states. It is long overdue. (Time expired)18:14:003942McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—The most appropriate aspect of this budget is that unemployment in my electorate of Griffith has dropped to below seven per cent and, in some suburbs, to below five per cent. This is a fact overlooked by members of the opposition as they champion their reign of high interest rates, high unemployment and an ever-increasing welfare bill that was sending Australia and all Australians bankrupt. I am fast coming to the conclusion that the Labor Party and its policies are the dinosaurs of Australian politics. I am convinced that the opposition is so firmly entrenched in its socialistic beliefs that even its proven failure to balance the taxpayers' books has not yet hit home. The fact that other socialist governments such as the Soviet Union have crumbled in the last decade and are still desperately struggling to rise out of the disaster of their socialist policies also seems to have gone unnoticed. Times and technology have changed, but apparently not the Labor Party.In listening to the opposition's speakers during the last two days, I heard a constant, unbroken theme—that is, this government is to be damned for not spending enough and Labor will do better by spending more. The former minister for health, the member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence), accused this government of `ripping funds out of hospitals', while repeating that old Labor mantra—that is, this government is attempting to undermine Medicare. Nothing could be further from the truth. Medicare remains unchanged, as promised by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard).The crisis in our public hospital system, referred to by the former Labor health minister, was not of this government's making. Under both a Labor state government and a Labor federal government, Queensland had the worst—and I mean the worst—and the longest hospital waiting lists in Australia. The coalition government has turned that completely around, and today Queensland has the best waiting list in the nation. A typical example of just how Labor underfunded our public health system in Queensland was one Queensland hospital where patients on the vital category 1 list had to wait for treatment longer than the recommended 30-day period. Today, under the coalition, there is no-one waiting on the infamous category 1 list.As for the so-called slashing of funds to public hospitals statement by the former health minister, the opposition gets it wrong again. In 1993, the Labor government gave the states $25 billion to run their public hospitals. In this budget, the Howard government has committed $30 billion. All I can say is that, typically, Labor cannot get its sums right. Queensland's public health system is heading into the year 2000 with a $2.4 billion building program which will see my constituents able to use facilities that will rank with the best in the world. That is this government's contribution to public hospitals—a complete turnaround from Labor's worst waiting lists in Australia, as I said before, to the best in Australia.Next, let us take a look at unemployment. We all want to see an economic environment that creates job opportunities for everyone. But Labor did not manage to do it during its 13 years of social programs which created a culture of training for jobs that did not exist. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) made the accusation that this government is `brutal in its disregard for the unemployed'. I beg his pardon. This government has reduced our national unemployment figure, not by prolonging training programs that lead to more training programs but by totally reforming a tired and worn-out system.The coalition's Job Network has utilised the technology of today to make a wider range of jobs available to every job seeker who enters the new Centrelink one-stop shop. The former CES system presented to job seekers only 20 per cent of available jobs, at best. Today, the coalition's Job Network, which utilises the skills and talents of professional job brokers, presents 80 per cent of available jobs to its clients.Our vocational training program in schools is more than a pathway into a career. It is a complete social reform. Students are now given a good, productive reason to finish their secondary education. The government's new apprenticeship and traineeship programs allow for employers and employees to cut through the red tape and get down to the reality, which is a career path for young people and a return to fulfilling an urgent need for trained tradespeople. These are budget measures which the Howard government put in place with the first budget, measures which proved to be a firm foundation for the second, and now the third, budget. The result in my electorate has been a drop in unemployment figures to below six per cent in the majority of suburbs and to below five per cent in many others.The member for Hotham (Mr Crean) has had the temerity to claim that this government's child-care reforms are `disastrous'. The only people who are claiming we have cut funds to child care for Australians are the Labor Party. The truth is that, under the Howard government budget reforms, more women with dependent children now have access to government funding for child care. The Labor Party, with its casual attitude to book work, omits the fact that more women are now working, both full time and part time, than three years ago. In fact, the increase is some 36,000 since April 1995.Under Labor, the system did not take this increase into account, nor was it fair. Labor provided a subsidy to community based centres, which provided less than 30 per cent of all centre based places. This same subsidy was not available to the remaining 70 per cent of places, which means that 70 per cent of people needing child care were not receiving the government's subsidy—a total of some 70,000 families.The Howard government redressed that imbalance and spread the subsidy to enable an extra 51,000 families access to government funded child-care assistance. The truth is that the Howard government is today spending more on child care than Labor did in 1995-96 and the funding has been directed to low income families, those who need the most help.The member for Hotham summed up the opposition's attitude to spending Australia's hard-earned dollars. He said in his speech:In government Labor was prepared to spend to achieve economic growth.Spend it certainly did, but at the detriment of not only our economic growth but also our social growth. Just how can a couple afford to buy a house when the interest rates rocket to 17½ per cent, as they did under Keating? The facts are there for all of us to see. Today an Australian family can take out a mortgage for as low as 6.25 per cent and that is the foundation for economic growth if ever I saw it.The member for Hotham had the temerity to add that Labor now promise to produce a surplus balance if restored to office. Labor could not do it before, so what has changed? All I have heard in the past few days is just how many of the government's programs Labor intend to abolish if they could just get their hands back on the till.A front page article in today's Australian states that Labor is expected to vote for the government's $2 billion savings rebate, even though it intends to scrap this initiative if it wins the next election. The article goes on to say that Labor wants to use the money to top up the tax cuts it will offer in its own election platform. That says it all. Labor needs the coalition to pay back its own debts and put money back in the bank so it can go out and spend it all again.I wholeheartedly support the appropriation bill because it is the culmination of not one but three cautious and effective budgets to give all the people of this great and free nation safety, security and stability. It has given the people of my electorate of Griffith more jobs. It has been done without any increase in income tax, without any increase in company tax, without any increase in petrol excise and without any increase in the wholesale sales tax. It has also seen the engine room of the Australian nation—small business—benefit from a drop in interest rates from 11 per cent two years ago to 7.7 per cent today. It has stabilised our nation to such an effect that we are riding out the Asian crisis without falling back into Labor's black hole. Yet the opposition continues to preach doom and gloom, trying to convince the people of Australia to re-adopt its policies of out-of-date welfare programs and unbridled spending and its fundraising methods of spiralling taxes. The Howard government has established a strong foundation and one which I do not believe the people of Australia will allow to be trashed by the Labor Party which admits its policies require spending, spending and more spending. Labor has proven its policies mean debt, debt and more debt, which trans lated means higher taxes for all Australians. Because this budget and those before it have wiped out Labor's $10.3 billion debt without one cent of increases in taxation, I see a return to the values of the past, the values which the Howard government aspires to, which are simply security for all Australians. I support this bill.18:27:003945Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDINGCH4Melbourne PortsALP00—I must say that the people sitting in the public gallery today at question time would have been entitled to think politics in this House was something of a blood sport. I think it is time perhaps as an institution that we looked at the nature of the body politic, because the unfortunate thing is that any objective observer making a judgment about this House as an institution would feel—and probably rightly—that at question time we could do much better than we do. I do not believe the sorts of exercises that took place today and on most days do us as an institution any credit.Perhaps before we bring them into question time we should provide some sort of a system where they see the hard work that is done on the various committees of this parliament, and I have served on many of them. Members relate to each other. They still have their political philosophy, they still have their differences, but they are able to relate to each other, embrace each other's opinions and produce a report which deals with many of the problems faced by the government of the day.AE4NEHLMr Nehl—They work in harmony.CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—That is right, I adopt the expression of my colleague. It is unfortunate therefore in this sense that within our Westminster system—and I am a strong supporter of that system—there are aspects to our processes which are in fact unduly and unnecessarily adversarial. I was a part of this institution and these processes in a state parliament for some time but, as I will be retiring at the next election, I hope I can make some comments which might strengthen this very important institution.I just want to say that there are many issues which, by their very nature, will always produce controversy. This is not a House for sissies; this is where arguments will be put and argued cogently and forcefully. Equally, we should not forget that on many of the issues which government and the parliament have to deal with there is a large measure of agreement and that policies have been developed in this institution and in the old House which have become very much part of the social fabric of our community. I refer—and I think this is probably the most interesting example—to the way the late Arthur Calwell founded the basis of our multicultural society.You only have to go to any kind of naturalisation ceremony to see people from all political parties—and in my own community there are members of the state parliament who are members of the Liberal Party who retail their own experiences as young people coming from migrant families—who are as strong and positive supporters of multiculturalism as I am. I think that is one of the things which we can take credit for in this parliament. We have had a series of ministers for immigration from all political parties who have been dedicated and committed to extending that concept so that it has become part of the fabric of our Australian society.Equally, one of the controversial issues of this government was the introduction of its gun laws. It was done with the support of the opposition. Without that support it could not have been done. It was a reaction to a tragedy that beset Australia. Of course, the government has had to carry a lot of the flak—but I think we also carry some of it—from the gun lobby around Australia. But the more we look at what is happening in America where the lack of gun laws is a part of their history the more we are seeing children being executed in their schools—when some kid wakes up not feeling too well, he blows his parents away and then goes and shoots some of his colleagues at the local school. It is an increasing pattern.What I am saying is that there are many issues on which as Australians, as part of this community, we agree. The focus of this institution is part of its tradition. If you are in government, you support your ministers, you support your colleagues, and the opposition is treated as the political enemy, despite the fact that on many issues we can work together in a very positive way.Questions without notice have become a bit of a joke. They have been a joke for years because the one thing they are not is questions without notice. One of my colleagues has left a list of the number of people who are supposed to ask questions to ministers and the ministers probably prepared the questions and prepared the answers. That is not just a sin of this government; it was a sin of Labor governments, and it was my own sin when I was a minister. Therefore, some of the heat that can be engendered in question time in some way vitiates that system.But it is important, certainly in my own experience, that there are many core values on which as a community and as members of this institution we have common agreement. I think within this parliament there is no doubt of the strength of the feeling right across the parliament about the nature of our gun laws and our willingness to listen but not to resile from the position that was taken by the parliament. I think it was a correct position, and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) is entitled to claim some credit for it, but I would remind him that he did it with our assistance.The other policy which I think has become part of the mosaic of Australian society is our support for the concept of multiculturalism. All ministers succeeding Calwell have extended and expanded that policy. It has altered the fabric of our society, I believe, for the good. It was therefore with considerable concern and with some dismay, and I might say with some disappointment, that I read in today's paper that the Premier of Queensland has decided—and he must be feeling fairly desperate—to give preferences to the One Nation Party over the Labor Party.I have been in politics too long to carry my heart on my sleeve, but if there is a decision which I believe will cause concern, not merely within the broader community but within the ranks of his own party and within the business community of Queensland, it is that, as well as the attitude that has been expressed in this parliament by the honourable member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). She came in as a new member. She is the only member in this House I have ever heard say that they regard Aboriginal people as privileged. She is the only member I have heard in this place denigrate those Australian citizens who have had their birthplace or their origins in China. I do not believe, by the way Australian society is developing, that those sorts of views, whilst she is entitled to express them as a member of this parliament, are entitled to any kind of support from any of our major political parties. I include in that, of course, the Liberal Party.I say with complete candour that if a One Nation candidate popped up in my electorate I would have no hesitation in putting them last. The situation that we have arrived at in Australia did not come about by accident, but we have produced a multicultural society. That is important for Australia in its geographical location in the world. So many of our primary producers and businessmen are geared to servicing markets in Asia.Whatever might be said about our political structures, we are a politically stable community. We cannot trade with Asia if any major political party in Australia, in an endeavour to obtain a small political advantage in an electorate, is prepared—and the major political parties are not—to embrace any of the views of One Nation, because those views are not only detrimental to our society but also detrimental to the way we are thought about in Asia.When I was in Asia recently we had, over a lunch or a dinner, parents saying, `What is all this problem about? We want to know whether we can send our kids to Australia to be educated. Will they be the subject of racist taunts and vilification?' You can say with confidence, `They won't—not in Melbourne, not in Sydney and even, I believe, not in Brisbane.' But there are organisations which beat the racist drum. In Queensland one of the prominent organisations—which had its historic origins in Victoria; it is the most historically based organisation—that has always played a leading role in anti-Semitism is the League of Rights. When the honourable member for Oxley got all those invitations from elderly gentlemen in dress suits for $50 dinners she was wandering around the corridors of parliament saying how kind `the league' was to her. Did she not know what `the league' was? I suspect she may not have. It was the League of Rights; they are there, they are active.On one occasion I was privileged to represent the Prime Minister at the creation of a Holocaust memorial in the Jewish section of the cemetery at Surfers Paradise. It is a small cemetery, but it was a matter for great involvement by the Jewish community and a great commitment from the donor of the memorial. Within 24 hours it had been vandalised. There will always be people with those sorts of views in Australia. We live in a society where people are able to express whatever political view they like. The government of the day, the Liberal Party, is a serious political party. It is the party founded by Menzies, Fraser; it has a distinguished list of prime ministers. Would they seriously embrace One Nation? Would the members who represent marginal seats in this place embrace the kind of lunatic assertions that come from the member for Oxley? I do not believe that they would. I think more highly of them than that.I do not think it will be successful but it is a grievous blow to the body politic. It is sad that any political leader is feeling so desperate in the run-up to an election that he gets into a situation where he says, `We will put the Labor Party last—One Nation as a matter of preference before them.' And he does not even get an effective political deal. He says, `We will do that in every electorate except one where there is a large Chinese community.' Who is he trying to kid? A great deal of work has been done to produce the kind of political institutions we have and this is an important one of them. It is important that people come to value the role of this institution and the role that people play in it. There is really no place in the society we are trying to build in Australia for the kind of political opportunism shown by Mr Borbidge. I do not believe it will succeed, but it is sad in a party that has played an important role in the development of Australia. I have plenty of differences with the Liberal Party in my own state but I say this: I do not think Jeff Kennett would ever make that deal. I do not think any political leader—although their philosophy may differ from mine—would get into the kind of sordid political stunt that this is. It gives a credibility to someone who is passing on the political scene, who is not and who has never been treated seriously in this parliament and does not deserve to be. She is a creature of the press. The very unorthodoxy of her views has made her that and she has had some interesting characters writing her speeches and being her political mentors and guides.Politics for most of the people in this place is a serious business. There are people who would probably do much better economically outside this place if they did not regard it as serious business. It is time that all members of parliament put some value on themselves, their institution and their own political parties. All political parties go through periods of strength and weakness. In a major policy party you cannot separate a Queensland branch from a Victorian branch; they may have quite different attitudes but if you are the premier of a state, even if you are holding on by only a narrow majority, there is not only a public responsibility but also a political responsibility. The Premier of Queensland deserves to be consigned to political oblivion because of the action that has been taken today. It is not only an action that is not in the interests of the Australian people but also an action that is not in the interests of his own party. It is a sordid political endeavour which deserves to fail because it brings him and his party to a depth of political cynicism which I did not believe I would ever see in Australian politics—and I have seen a fair bit.I believe it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to say to Mr Borbidge, `If you are going to go down that track, don't expect any support from me, my ministers or the members of our parliament.' It is also regrettable that the National Party, whatever its problems, seems to have got itself involved in this. I hope saner views will prevail because it is important. It is not for me to tell other political parties how they should behave. I do not do all that well in telling my own party. But I think it is important that on a matter which embraces some of the issues that are involved here which go to the very nature and fabric of our society, all of us stand up and be counted and say, `This is not a game we are playing. The kinds of decisions that are involved here go to the nature of how we see ourselves and, more importantly, how other people who have come to this country and people with whom we are trying to build close relationships will see us.' This has been a retrograde step for the body politic in Australia and I hope it will be resolved.18:37:003948Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—At the outset I commend the member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) for a great deal of what he said. I was interested in the way he started his contribution because I intend to do exactly the same thing. Like him, and I am sure many of our colleagues, I have got to the point where I am most dissatisfied with the standard of behaviour in this place during question time. That is not to say that we should not have a vigorous exchange. Question time, after all, is the focal point of the parliamentary day. It is the only time when all the ministers, all the shadow ministers and all the back benchers are here. It is being broadcast. It is being telecast. It is a theatre. There is no doubt about that. That does not mean that there cannot be a vigorous exchange, but when we have got to the point of having gratuitous rowdiness, which makes it impossible for Mr Speaker and other members to actually hear what is being said, I think collectively we do ourselves a great disservice.Without being piously pompous, I would certainly like to encourage all of our colleagues to give some thought to this. I will name no names. After all, if I am sitting in that chair if I name names, they walk. So no names. There are people here who engage in constant, ceaseless interjection and running off at the mouth. I sometimes have the thought: if only your mother could see you now, what would she think? I know what the kids sitting up in the galleries think. I get a lot of schools here from Cowper. I give them the special `Gary Nehl tour'. I take them everywhere. They come out of question time and they say `Oh, Mr Nehl, we wouldn't be allowed to behave at school like that.' And of course they are right.I, like the member for Melbourne Ports, am passionate about democracy. I know he is, and I respect him for it. I made mention of the schools that I have taken around here. I take every opportunity, whether it is in talking about parliament or presenting a flag, to bash their ears about democracy and freedom and liberty, because democracy is a very fragile flower. It is something that everybody in this place has a responsibility to protect and cause to flourish.I suppose, as this is the appropriation bill, that I should perhaps talk about the budget, although before I do I must comment on something else the member for Melbourne Ports said. That was his great defence of multiculturalism. He may well remember other speeches I have made in the time that I have been here and in the old place. I do not endorse multiculturalism the way he does. I endorse cultural diversity. I acknowledge the great benefit to Australia from the vast numbers of people who have chosen to leave their own homes, who have chosen to benefit us as a nation by becoming Australian. But I have doubts, I have reservations, about multiculturalism as it is practised. I believe that it engenders to some extent, the way we are doing it, a degree of separateness, and that I am really concerned about. But cultural diversity? Certainly.Getting to the budget, I have to say right at the outset that this is a great budget for Cowper because there are so many good things in it which will benefit the people whom I represent. I am reminded of Norman May and his commentary on us winning gold medals. You will recall that he called: `Gold, gold, gold for Australia.' The thing that comes through first and foremost for me is gold, gold, gold for World War II diggers. I congratulate the government and, in particular, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Bruce Scott, because this is recognition of the service given to this country by those World War II diggers over the age of 70 who faced danger from the enemy. My late father, of course, was one of those. I have enormous sympathy and empathy for our returned servicemen community. I am so pleased and so thrilled that we have taken this action.I acknowledge, too, the tremendous support that I had in working for this from the veterans' community right throughout my electorate. I am so delighted that it has happened. I am also very pleased that self-funded retirees of pension age have had the qualifying amount of income extended to I think $40,000 for a single and $67,000 for a couple to enable them to get the seniors health care card, the very real benefit of which is in pharmaceuticals. It gives them the opportunity of paying only $3.20 per prescription for the first 52, and then their pharmaceuticals are free thereafter.It is not very often understood that a great many self-funded retirees whose income is such that they just miss out on getting a pension or a part pension in many cases have been worse off than pensioners because they do not get the benefits—they do not get the reduction in vehicle registration, they do not get the reduction in rates, they do not get the telephone concessions and so many other things.I am delighted that the Howard-Fischer government not only has increased the tax free threshold for self-funded retirees but has taken this very positive step of giving a real benefit to people who are advancing in years and who will benefit enormously from paying not $18, $20 or $25 for their chemist prescriptions, but a maximum of $3.20 per prescription. That is a tremendous benefit.I would like to talk too about how disappointed I am with my friends and colleagues in the opposition who have already embarked on a scare campaign about `the GST'. One would think, to hear the people on the opposition benches speaking, particularly in this appropriation debate, and at every other opportunity, that tax reform involved one facet only, the GST. But as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the tax reform package required for the Australian people is far more than the GST. A goods and services tax, if it comes—no decision has been made on that yet—will be but one facet of a package.Let me say that I for one—I do not know what is in the package—will be incredibly disappointed if wholesale sales tax is not abolished totally. It is a most unfair tax; it is a tax that inhibits business, it is a tax that destroys our exports. I had hoped, but I do not have time, to take the people who may be listening to this speech or who may read it for a walk through their home, through the kitchen, through the laundry, through the bathroom and just point out the items that they pay sales tax on.Let me say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if any of my constituents do take a walk through their home and visit every room, there will be very few things they will find there that do not have sales tax on them. I do not have the time to do that. I would just like to make one point. I am a father and a grandfather, as many, or most, of our members are—and there are many mothers here, too. One of the things that we all like to do is to have photographs of our kids or our grandchildren but what Mr and Mrs Cowper should realise is that when they buy a film to take a photo of the grandkids, they pay 32 per cent sales tax on that right now, and it has been so for years. When they actually take the film to the chemist or the photo shop to get it processed and printed, they pay another 22 per cent sales tax. So there is 32 per cent sales tax on the film and then another 22 per cent on the top of that. People do not realise that—and they should.I well recall the situation when we had the Fightback program some two elections ago. Then we had the same sort of scare tactic coming up as we have now. I want to take this opportunity to say that sales tax is almost everywhere, even on a pound of butter. I can recall Mr Keating saying there is no sales tax on butter. The reality is that on a kilo of butter—I will get up-to-date, away from the pounds—if you take it right down the line from the dairy farm and the delivery and manufacture of the fertilisers, and all the other things, there are 320 separate tax inputs on a kilogram of butter; but they said there is no sales tax. What we have to have is a tax reform package—and we will have it—which is fair for every Australian.I want to dispel once and for all the scare tactics of the opposition. Pensioners and low income earners will be totally protected and isolated and insulated from any adverse effect. What we will be seeking to do with the tax reform package is get Australia back on track. We are back in the black. We want to make it even better—and it will be. I conclude by saying that this budget is really great for Cowper and the people I represent; and I congratulate the government for what they have done.18:57:003950Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I want to depart from the normal political rhetoric that has engulfed most of the debate on appropriations from the differing viewpoints and actually look at the economics of the package. When we lost office in March 1996, the financial year 1995-96 figures showed a growth in the Australian economy of 4.1 per cent. These are average year growths. In fact, when we left office in March 1996, the growth rate for that quarter was 4.6 per cent, a huge rate of growth in the economy that was producing opportunities and jobs and generating wealth opportunities for all Australians. That average rate of growth of 4.1 per cent in our final year of office has not only not been matched on any occasion by this government but has deliberately, through the actions of three budgets now, been suppressed.In their first year in office the Howard government comatosed the economy. They used their rhetoric from the election campaign to justify cuts that were ideologically driven and for which there was no economic necessity. They took an economy which was averaging 4.1 per cent growth in our last year of office and immediately, in their first year in office, turned that into a growth rate of 2.7 per cent only—a very substantial cut in the opportunities available for Australians to share in prosperity. Put simply, the cake was not growing as it did the year before.There was no massive Asian currency crisis in 1996-97, there were no external influences that produced that cut in economic growth in Australia; it was a direct and deliberate outcome of mismanagement on the part of the Howard government in their first budget. If it was not mismanagement then it was driven by deliberate ideological desire to cut into the public sector and through their rhetoric to convince the public that there was a crisis in the economy which in fact did not exist, and they talked the economy down. They created the self-fulfilling prophesy that totally sapped the confidence of the business community and consumers.I was quite surprised to find—as were others on the Labor side who were in touch with their electorates—that small businesses in my area which I am certain did not support us in March 1996 were saying in frustration a year later that the economy was so bad they wished Paul Keating was back because they were doing well then.In its first year in office, this government produced a cut in economic growth from our level of 4.6 per cent in the March quarter of 1996 to an annual average in its first year of 2.7 per cent. In its second year, it managed to return economic growth of 3.75 per cent, still well below that which it inherited in March 1996 from the Labor government and, I might say, well below our average for the three years. That 4.6 per cent with which we ended our term in office in the March 1996 quarter was in keeping with the sort of growth rates we had achieved over a three-year period. In our last three years in office, economic growth in this country averaged four per cent—a figure which has not been met in any year by this government. In the second year they managed to get it up to 3.75 per cent.This is their third budget and it predicts that economic growth is going to shrink again, back to three per cent. That three per cent is widely regarded by commentators both here in Australia and abroad as an optimistic assessment. The simple fact is that most economic commentators believe that the Australian economy will fall back to below three per cent growth in the year ahead, back to the levels that the Howard Liberal government produced in its first year in office. That denies millions of Australians an opportunity to not only share in jobs but, for those who have employment, it denies them any security. It means that they cannot be confident that the job they have is going to be there the next year.The government has made great play about interest rates and the fact that they have come down, and of course it is a good thing that they have come down, but every member in this place knows—except the members on the government side do their best not to think about it—that, whether interest rates are at two per cent, 12 per cent or 22 per cent, people will not invest in new opportunities, take loans to redo the house, build a new house, buy a new car or go on a holiday if they do not have confidence and if they do not believe their job will be secure in a year or two. If they do not think that they have got an income stream next year, it frankly does not matter to them what the interest rate is. They will not invest. That is the reality in the economy at the moment; it is a reality produced by the blanket this government has thrown over economic growth to which I have just referred.Economic growth is predicted to be less in the 12 months ahead than it was in the past 12 months. With that lower economic growth, the government budget predicts that they will reduce unemployment at the same time. There are not a lot of laws in economics that hold true, but it is a bit hard to construe any economic analysis to say that a lower economic growth rate will produce greater job opportunities. Of course it will not. The government is talking about the unemployment rate, not job opportunities. The unemployment rate does not just reflect how many people have a job; it reflects how many people are looking for a job. What this government hopes will occur in the next year is that many more thousands of Australians will stop looking for work, as occurred last year and the year before. It hopes that the confidence in the economy, which is gone, will turn so many Australians away from the job market that the unemployment rate will actually come down. The economic growth will not produce the necessary jobs. If the participation rate stays at its current level, in 12 months time unemployment will be substantially higher than it is today. That is an inescapable outcome of the government's own budget projections.The government has also sought to make great political play about government debt and foreign debt, and I want to say a couple of things about that. I remember that foreign debt truck that broke down in the Blue Mountains—the foreign debt truck that was 100 per cent imported, adding to the debt of the country. In March 1996 the foreign debt was well below the current levels of debt. In fact, the foreign debt today is some $25 billion to $30 billion more than it was when this government took office.If all of the things government members said prior to the last election were true, it is even more true today that they have failed in every one of those measures. Foreign debt is now $25 billion to $30 billion higher than it was at the time of the last election. The simple fact is that when Labor left office the economy was in good shape; by any international comparison, it was in very good shape.One of the other measures of the federal government's performance prior to 1996 is the government debt. The Treasurer (Mr Costello) and others like to refer to debt fairly amorphously and merge them all together. As I have pointed out, net foreign debt is now worse than it was before. In terms of government debt as a percentage of GDP, 1996 OECD figures show that Australia's general government net financial liabilities as a percentage of GDP—that is, how much debt the government had—was 27.6 per cent. That beats the hell out of just about every other OECD country. The United States in 1996 was running at 48.4 per cent, Germany at 48 per cent, France at 40 per cent, Italy at 110 per cent, Canada at 70 per cent and the United Kingdom—after it had suffered under 15 years of Thatcherite slash and burn policies—was at 44.3 per cent of GDP government debt. What was the Australian government debt that John Howard inherited in March 1996? It was 27 per cent; well below all of those countries that we would compare ourselves with.The simple fact is that the Australian economy was in good shape. In those days John Howard, the Prime Minister, was prone to make the odd honest statement about these things and actually referred to the fact that the economy was better than good in parts. It was, but that was said in one of those rare outbursts of honesty which have since eluded him as the polls get worse for him.One of the other fallacies is that this is a government that has not increased tax. We will leave aside in this debate the new taxes the government have imposed. There have been new taxes. There is the superannuation tax—except the government call it a surcharge, but everyone out there understands it is a superannuation tax—and there is the new reef tax. But I do not want to talk about those things. I want to talk about the sleight of hand; the sneaky way in which this government has managed to ratchet up the tax revenue and pretend that they are not increasing the tax burden.In every budget document there is an interesting table that sets out how much money the government is bringing in—that is, its revenue from the Australian economy, the percentage of the GDP, what the country has produced in the year. How much of that is the government actually taking out? The government's own budget papers show that this year that revenue has increased to 25 per cent. Twenty-five per cent just happens to be the highest take of any federal government since 1991, bar one year. We need to understand that. This budget plans to extract from the economy in revenue 25 per cent of GDP, which is the highest tax grab from the Australian economy since 1991 except for one year in that period.This is a high tax budget and this is a high tax government. Where are they getting the money from? They are not getting it from their mates in big business. They are not getting it from ACCI. The crew that have been out there in the media in the last day or two saying, `We want tax reform. We want to have a GST,' are not saying that because they think business should pay more tax. I have not heard anyone in ACCI say they want to change the tax system because they think companies are getting off too light. Where is this government planning to get this money from? In the budget papers there is a great table. I notice that the people in the advisers box have some interest in this. The table can be found on page 5-3 of statement 5 on revenue. It shows where the money is coming from. This government is taking that money away from ordinary workers. It is gross PAYE, pay-as-you-earn. This year the government plans to increase the tax that it takes from the money in the pockets of ordinary working Australians who pay tax every week. There will be an increase in tax of 8.4 per cent, but the members of the government say there is no tax increase. Their assertion is totally untrue—totally, absolutely and deceitfully untrue. There is an 8.4 per cent increase in PAYE revenue this year. That is the sneaky way of getting the money.This government is using bracket creep to get the money through the back door and pretending that they are not hurting people. It is a bit like the sneaky way the government tried to present itself in defence funding. As the shadow minister for defence I will make a couple of quick comments about that. This government managed to conduct a pretty good mirrors trick on the public and on some of their own members who did not understand what they were doing when they said they would quarantine defence spending. Most people thought that meant the government were not actually going to cut defence spending. Most people though that meant defence would get what they got before. It did not mean that at all. In fact, the 1996-97 budget, the first budget of this government, cut defence by $50 million in real terms—a 0.5 per cent cut in real terms.What the government really meant but did not want to tell some of its own backbenchers or the military or the community was that it was actually going to cut defence. It was not going to maintain the defence budget; it would maintain the defence estimates. That is what the Labor Party was going to spend. Finally, that has been admitted to. In a press release issued by the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) on Wednesday 14 May, just after the budget, he said a number of things, one of which I like very much—it was an admission. He said:Outlays for Defence under the Howard government are exactly the same as those that would have occurred under Labor.Thank you very much for an outburst of honesty. Yes, that is absolutely true: you have adhered to the forward estimates of the former Labor government and provided to defence exactly what Labor was going to provide. It is about time you were honest about it.It is a pity that for three years you deceived defence and actually took out $50 million over the three years which has not been replaced. That means that, if you had done what you actually had promised the public you would do and what the public thought you were saying, defence would have had $150 million more in these three budgets. But they do not because of the dishonesty in the way in which this government has presented itself.Time is up because of the restrictions of time in this debate. I look forward to having an opportunity in subsequent appropriation bill debates to say more about these matters and expose the deceitful way in which this government has portrayed its economic management.19:13:003953Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of joining this debate on the appropriation measures in a very fine budget brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) recently which, for the first time in eight years, saw the Commonwealth accounts returned to the black. We have a $2.75 billion surplus. I must say that that ought to be compared to the $10.3 billion deficit left to us by the former Labor government. `Back in the black and back on track'—that is the catchcry and those are the catchwords which are being used around the nation by people who are independent arbiters to comment on the important achievements of this third Costello budget. This is a wonderful performance—the best since the recession that the Labor Party said we had to have.We all know that in March 1996 the Labor Party claimed that the budget was in surplus. We remember that the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and other Labor luminaries said in the media that their budget was in surplus. We sought to get the figures but they claimed they could not tell us the exact situation. However, it was amazing that, on the Monday after the Saturday when the Labor Party was decimated at the general election, the magic figures were brought forth. We all saw that the Labor Party was $10.3 in deficit—$10.3 billion added to the deficits which they had successively brought down over the 13 years of Labor rule.Understandably, the government said that never again would the people of Australia be subjected to such deceit by a government approaching an election, and we brought in the charter of budget honesty legislation which has become law. That will ensure that prior to any election campaign independent public servants will be able to give a state of the accounts for the nation so that Australians, when they go to vote at the polls, will know exactly the economic condition of the economy and of the nation generally.It is interesting to note that for a long time the Labor Party sought to defeat this legislation. The Labor Party was not prepared initially to back this legislation which will ensure that the accounts of Australia are open, transparent, obvious and clear for all people to see, so that the electors are able to go to the polls with a clear conscience knowing that they are voting for or against a government on the basis of true facts. No longer will governments be able to lie and cheat their way back into office, as the former Keating government sought to do.It is interesting that people, many of whom are not close friends of the government, have been prepared in an objective way to give honest and open praise of the achievements of the Howard government in the budget brought down a few weeks ago. Mark Paterson, CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:This is a good budget which leaves the Australian economy stronger and more resilient in the face of certain difficulties which will arise because of the crisis in Asia.Imagine how desperate the plight would have been for this country had we gone on with the same deficit budgeting which had been the hallmark of 13 years of Labor rule. Stan Wallis, President of the Business Council of Australia, said:This is a budget that is absolutely right for the times. This budget makes sure that we keep a check on interest rates and inflation. This must be good for national savings, good for investment and good for jobs growth.Terry McCrann from the Daily Telegraph said:The benefit for all Australians of eliminating government debt cannot be overstated.Mrs Maureen Kingston, National President of the Association of Independent Retirees, said that the association is `delighted that the government has listened to the voice of independent retirees who have endeavoured to provide their own income in retirement'. Editorial comment equally was very praiseworthy. The Daily Telegraph said:Peter Costello's third budget is, as promised, a responsible document that lays the groundwork for a secure economy in uncertain times.Piers Ackerman said:After five years of fiscal snake oil, financial sleight of hand and monetary gimcrackery, Treasurer Peter Costello's third budget appears at first blush to be positively soporific. It is reassuring that it isn't boring.The Australian Financial Review said that Peter Costello should be applauded for a budget that promises to deliver Canberra's first surplus since 1990-91.So there was adulation in the Australian community for the sound, solid, responsible economic performance which got the economy back in the black and back on track. On the Sunshine Coast, an area I am privileged to represent, most people who contacted me said what a wonderful document it was. The praise that flowed for the performance of the Howard-Fischer government and the performance of Treasurer Costello in the budget was quite overwhelming. The budget sets the right priorities as we move towards the next millennium. We inherited an economy that had been suffering from high government debt, high unemployment, high inflation and high interest rates. We really did not have much going for us despite the words given to the House recently by the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis). This budget delivers on our pledge to live within our means and to put the budget back into the black. A $2.7 billion or 0.5 per cent of GDP surplus is expected during the 1998-99 year and further surpluses are projected over the period to the year 2001-02. Our budget repairs have helped achieve a stronger Australian economy able to withstand the Asian economic crisis, the lowest bank mortgage interest rates since 1970, rates of inflation not seen since the 1970s and the lowest unemployment rate in eight years.The Labor Party are obviously aware that a few months down the track the people of Australia will once again have the opportunity of condemning their abject failure during 13 years of government. That is why we will find Labor speaker after Labor speaker rise in the House and seek to denigrate the responsible, sound economic management of the Howard government. But the people of Australia will see through them. They saw through them in the March 1996 election and they will continue to do so, because there is an appreciation that in Australia we need to manage the nation's books in exactly the same responsible way that we would seek to manage our own household accounts.I do, however, in the remaining minutes available to me, want to comment on the importance of the extension of the Commonwealth seniors health card to an additional 220,000 self-funded retirees. These are Australians who have planned for their own retirement. They were fortunate to be able to plan for their own retirement. They have been hit by the successive interest rate reductions which are very good for the economy as whole, but they are folk who scrimped and saved to put themselves into a position where they would not have to call on the public purse. These are fine citizens. They have worked during their lives to contribute to make Australia the wonderful country that it is.The pharmaceutical benefits scheme gives concessional access to some people, and the Commonwealth seniors health card is one mechanism by which Australians are able to obtain pharmaceuticals at concessional rates. I was privileged to be Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs during the time that we had an inquiry into concession cards. Mr Deputy Speaker Forrest, you were my successor following the Prime Minister's appointment of me as Government Whip.MG4LEEMr Lee—Your successor did a better job.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—We are both doing a wonderful job, as the honourable member for Dobell would know. If we needed any proof the parliamentary system works, we would only have to go to the report entitled Concessions—who benefits? handed down in October 1997 by the committee I formerly chaired. It recommended that the government extend eligibility for the Commonwealth seniors health card. We did have a robust discussion on the committee, as Mr Deputy Speaker would be aware, as to the extent to which there should be access to the Commonwealth seniors health card. I was one who wanted the committee to go as far as the government has now gone. The decision contained in the budget is fair and equitable. Even the Labor Party has been prepared to congratulate the government on extending the Commonwealth seniors health card to 220,000 Australian retirees who have scrimped and saved to provide for their own retirement.Time is limited in this debate. This is an opportunity for those of us in the House to be able to congratulate the government on the wonderful economic management it has given to the people of Australia since the election in March 1996. We have made some difficult decisions. We inherited a black hole of $10.3 billion when we attained government. We were not responsible for creating the problem, but we do accept that we have a responsibility to fix it—and fix it we have. We have made some difficult decisions. It has not been easy, but these tough decisions have had to be made because of the irresponsible way in which the former Labor government sought to run this country.The feedback that I am getting from people right around the country is that this government is on track, this government knows what has to be done and this government is carrying out the economic responsibilities entrusted to it by the people of Australia. Whenever the election is, I am absolutely and utterly convinced that the Labor Party will be exposed, once again, as the snake oil merchants of Australian politics.People listened to Prime Minister Keating and Prime Minister Hawke and other Labor ministers over 13 years. At the end of the day they failed. They claimed that the budget was in surplus, but the reality was quite different. They sought to lie, rob and cheat their way back into office in the March 1996 election. The people of Australia saw through them. We got elected to office. We now have a charter of budget honesty, and prior to the next election people will be able to see that this government's word is its bond. This government will tell the truth, and I believe that we will receive a continuing ringing endorsement from the people of Australia. I commend the budget to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—Before I call the member for Dobell, members in their contributions to this debate are going very close in some of their terminology in a way that makes me uncomfortable, and I ask them to please be very careful about their descriptions.19:26:003955Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Listening to the member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), it is hard to keep a straight face. He is probably lucky it is an empty public gallery, an empty House of Representatives chamber and not a broadcast day, because for him to claim that this government is on track is a great endorsement of things like the crisis in public hospitals. The crisis in public hospitals is on track, according to the member for Fisher. As bulk-billing rates fall, as this government squeezes the GP rebate, the member for Fisher says, `Health care is on track.' As the waiting lists for dental care increase by the day, the member for Fisher says, `Health care is on track.' He finished with a great rhetorical flourish, saying that this government's word is its bond.We all know that the two issues that will dominate the next election campaign are this government's plans to introduce a GST and this government's deliberate intention to axe Medicare. I make it clear right from the start that you have only to listen to the words that the current Prime Minister (Mr Howard) used time and time again before the last election. He said that a party that he led, the coalition that he led, would never ever introduce a GST. Yet today we have this farce. Following the member for Fisher's claim that the government's word is its bond, the Prime Minister's words that he would never ever introduce a GST do not seem to have much of a bond about them; they have about as much strength as a bond as a rubber band.This government sets out to introduce a GST, and one of the ways that they are going to go about trying to win enough votes to get themselves over the line at the next election is to have a few giveaways in this budget. The member for Fisher was trumpeting away about the benefits that flow from the government's decision to award seniors health care cards to self-funded retirees. I hope it was not against the standing orders of the relevant committee or this chamber, but the member for Fisher revealed that, within the considerations of the relevant House of Representatives committee, he was advocating a recommendation that seniors health care cards should be extended to couples with incomes of up to $67,000 a year, which is what the government has finally done.I am sure you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the actual report of the relevant committee recommended a much tighter upper income limit for the awarding of the seniors health care card. I suppose it says something about the advocacy skills of the member for Fisher that he admitted here tonight that he was rolled by his own committee and he was not able to convince his own committee that there should be an upper limit of $67,000 for eligibility for the seniors health care card—although perhaps he has been able to persuade his own government to head down this path.That, in itself, raises some concerns in that the government has decided to award 200,000 self-funded retirees the benefits that flow from having a seniors health care card—mainly, cheaper pharmaceuticals. That is fair enough in that self-funded retirees were hit by this government in the 1996 and 1997 budgets through pretty dramatic increases in the costs of their health care, particularly in pharma ceuticals. So we certainly do not object to self-funded retirees getting something back, given the massive slugs that were applied to them in past budgets. But what disturbs me is that, for every self-funded retiree who gets a card because of the budget, there are 20 other pensioners and low income family members who, like the self-funded retirees, were hit in 1996 and 1997 and who have got nothing in the budget. In fact, the government is going to spend about $200 million a year over the forward estimates in the budget on the extension of the seniors health care card. If you look back at the savings the government made in the 1996 budget, the decision to increase the costs of essential medicines for pensioners, increasing the minimum amount from $2.70 to $3.20, saved the government about $300 million. While full-rate and part-rate pensioners were slugged in 1996 to save the government $300 million—people on very low incomes were hit in 1996 and were given nothing in this year's budget—self-funded retirees, who were also hit in 1996, were given back $200 million or so in this year's budget. I think it does raise certain questions about whether low income earning pensioners and low income families should have been entitled to something in this budget as well. If we focus on the area of health, there is a real crisis out there in Australia's public hospital system. That crisis in the public hospital system will only be able to be addressed if the federal government faces up to its responsibilities and provides extra funding for Australia's public hospital system. I am sure I do not need to bring to the attention of the House some of the graphic examples that are around about the extent of that crisis. An article in the Advertiser of 6 May under the headline `Brown warning on "corridor patients"' said:SOUTH Australian patients would soon be sleeping on stretchers in hospital corridors, the Human Services Minister, Mr Brown, warned yesterday.Giving evidence to a Senate inquiry into Medicare funding . . . An article from the West Australian entitled `State considers patient fees as funds cut hurts' said:WA Health Minister Kevin Prince has refused to rule out the introduction of fees for public hospital patients to make up for shortfalls in funds.An article in the Age entitled `Hospital waiting lists may double' said:Hospital waiting lists would double unless the Federal Government dramatically lifted its Medicare funding offer to the states, doctors said yesterday.This is based on the views and statements of one of the AMA's federal councillors, Mr Robert Hodge, who said:Some 116,000 Australians are on hospital waiting lists—this is likely to double over the next few years unless a better deal is struck.Back in South Australia Dean Brown, in his evidence to the Senate committee, said the following:. . . there are examples where people have been asked to leave the hospital earlier than good health care and medical advice would suggest they should.This is Dean Brown, the Liberal Minister for Human Services in South Australia. He continued:You are increasingly seeing, I think, poor or third-rate health care delivered to people as a result of those [funding] pressures.There is certainly very strong evidence around the country that the public hospital system needs extra funding. The great tragedy is that the government, in its private health insurance initiative, the tax rebate, has spent a very large sum of money, some $1.7 billion, in subsidising health funds. If media reports are correct, the government is planning on putting more money into subsidising private health insurance. It really is disturbing that the government, having spent a very large sum of money on private health insurance, has not realised that it has not kept its promises on private health insurance. Private health insurance premiums have gone up, not down. Membership has not increased, as the Prime Minister promised; it has actually declined. We are now down to 31.1 per cent and falling at 800 people a day. Yet the government claims that it has been unable to admit its mistakes and unwilling to face up to the policy errors it has made. As a result, the government is now looking at throwing more money into health fund subsidies at the very time that the public hospital system is in absolute crisis.I would have thought that the government would realise that, with a $2.7 billion surplus, perhaps some extra funding could have been put into the public hospital system. But, in fact, on budget night we learnt that not one extra dollar was provided by the Howard government for the public hospital system. That was not on the table at the Premiers Conference two months ago when all the premiers walked out. The government decided not to put one extra dollar out of that $2.7 billion surplus into dental care despite the fact that we have large numbers of Australians who are in pain because they cannot get access to emergency and preventative dental care. I met one gentleman from Rutherford in the Hunter Valley last Thursday when I was visiting the electorate of Paterson with the former and the next Labor member for Paterson after the next election, Bob Horne.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Fat chance!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I reckon he would be a better bet than the honourable member for Mitchell in his own electorate. We all know that he is in a bit of trouble in Mitchell. I am sure Bob Horne will be home before he is in Mitchell, although I would not put a large amount of money on that bet. The gentleman from Rutherford who spoke to me at Maitland made the point that he had been unable to chew meat for 12 months because of the time he had been waiting for some pretty basic dental care. When you consider that people on low incomes like him are sentenced to simply eat soft meat or soups because they have been unable to get the dental care to which they are entitled, it is a—SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Oh, a three-year program that you pulled in—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!SD4CADMANMr Cadman—I can't believe you. You can't present that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will get his opportunity shortly.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Mitchell interjects by saying that it was a three-year program. Every time he or anyone else makes that claim we on the opposition simply ask them to explain how the 1996 budget papers could claim a $100 million a year saving on the forward estimates by abolishing the Commonwealth dental health program if the program was going to end in 1996. We know that the member for Mitchell is one of the leading lights with great talents in the area of economics, so perhaps he could explain to us how the 1996 budget papers contained that saving of $100 million a year totalling $400 million over the forward estimates by abolishing the Commonwealth dental health program if it was going to end in 1996, the end of the three-year period.The truth is that the former Labor government had funding $100 million a year out in the forward estimates. That is why the government could claim the saving by abolishing the scheme, and that is why this government is going to be held responsible for that $400 million saving. That $400 million cut is forcing people—like the gentleman I met at Maitland—to wait for the dental care that he is entitled to. It is something that needs to be addressed if people on pretty low incomes do not get the care to which they should be entitled. All of these are areas of concern, and we are entitled to ask what the future holds for the Australian health care system—the future of bulk-billing, the future of Medicare and the future of the public hospital system.One of the great concerns I have is that increasingly it seems that the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) is not calling the tune in this whole policy debate. We had the Treasurer (Mr Costello) a couple of weeks ago saying that he was going to re-engineer the entire health care system. We also had the Treasurer stating that free access to doctors' surgeries and public hospitals was a problem. His view was that free access to treatment in a public hospital should only be available to people who could not afford medical care. I am sure that there would be many people in most honourable members' electorates who would be very concerned by those sorts of messages that the Treasurer is sending out.We also have the Prime Minister working on a second rescue package for private health insurance. All the signals are that the current minister for health is not playing the central role that you would normally expect the minister for health to be playing in health policy development. That concern led me back to the minister for health's first appearance as health minister on the Sunday program on 24 March 1996, shortly after the election. When asked by Laurie Oakes about his Master of Business Administration course at Monash University and his thesis on how the Fraser government messed up health policy, the current minister for health said:Michael Wooldridge: Well, the people deciding the policy were separate from the people implementing the policy; and, second, there was a complete breakdown between the Health Minister and his department, and the Government and the department. So they're two mistakes that won't be made again..Laurie Oakes: I mean, when people talk about the people deciding policy, you mean the Prime Minister's department, don't you? They imposed a policy on the Health Department.Michael Wooldridge: In the 1970s, it was the Prime Minister's department and Treasury, but things are quite different today. Departments have far more autonomy and I don't think what happened in the `70s could happen again.Isn't it funny how early interviews can come back to haunt you? Despite the minister for health's wishes to control health policy, it is the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer—ironically, it was the Prime Minister, the then Treasurer, who was accused of interfering with both Ralph Hunt and Jim Carlton's administration of the health portfolio—who are clearly calling the shots on the future directions in health policy.If this government is re-elected, as sure as night follows day John Howard, the member for Bennelong, will axe Medicare. We will see continuing attacks on bulk-billing and on funding for public hospitals; we will see no money going into dental care; and we will see increased costs of essential medicines. All of those things will mean that pensioners, older Australians, people with chronic illnesses, and families living on tight budgets will be the ones hit by these changes. They are the ones who will feel that axe that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister will wield on Medicare.19:41:003959Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—A quick review of the Australian economy now and the opportunities for Australians, particularly those who are involved in small business, must really paint for all Australians the massive change that has come about in Australia over the past 2½ years. I would like to remind the House that a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 June 1995 spoke of the need to pay attention to the economic needs of Australia. This is what the Sydney Morning Herald said about the prospect of an interest rate drop:But with US ratings agency Moody's on Friday reminding everyone that more needed to be done to cut Australia's $27-billion current account deficit, recent concerns about the weakness of the Australian dollar, and signs that the Government's May Budget package is fraying at the edges, the Reserve Bank simply could not justify a cut in interest rates so soon after the release of such a bad figure.That was Australia less than four years ago—an absolute cot case, a basket case—and the Labor Party comes in here to speak about this last budget before the next election portraying their period as one of success and wanting to build on the success of the current government. They claim that nothing was wrong previously but now things can be fixed for the future. How wrong they are, because the Australian people will not forget that period less than three years ago when Australia was a cot case and, in the words of the Sydney Morning Herald , `the Reserve Bank simply could not justify a cut in interest rates so soon after the release of such a bad figure.' What were the circumstances in 1995? We were a bankrupt Australia with our current account deficit at $27 billion. The cost of our annual payment to cover our debt was around $9 billion or $10 billion. So the amount we were paying for education or defence was the same as our annual interest and capital repayment bill. That is the record of the Australian Labor Party. Australia had record borrowings in debt to everybody around the world and was having to pay it off, record unemployment and a record tax take.At a time when the Australian government had maximised its income by charging Australian taxpayers more, when they had borrowed more than any other government previously and when they had laid off people from their workplaces to reduce costs, Australia was still going broke because of the tenuous and difficult circumstances of the Australian economy. As the Sydney Morning Herald said, `the Reserve Bank could not justify a cut in interest rates so soon after the release of such a bad figure.' On top of that, we had world-class, record breaking unemployment figures—there were one million people out of work during the period that the Australian Labor Party was in office.What has happened since in the 2½ years? It has been 2½ years of hard work and valiant toil and real commitment. Some of it has not been easy. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Forrest, among those in this chamber, have carried a share of some of the difficulties and problems that this government has had in repairing the budget and getting Australia back on the road again—back on the road to prosperity, back on the road to proper planning, back on the road to effective decision making.And so what has happened? After 2½ years this budget has an underlying surplus of $2.5 billion. That is an amazing turnaround from a current account deficit of $27 billion. Approximately $2 billion a month further into debt was the Australian Labor Party's record—each month, a further $2 billion down the drain. I cannot believe it because in that same year, 1995, the IMF came into Australia and warned the federal government about its practices and about the economy. And the contrast is salutary. Just past November of 1997, the IMF could not visit Australia, because they were too busy doing important things, and say, `We do not need to come to Australia as Australia is managing okay.' What a difference! What a contrast in the world environment—and the attitudes and thoughts of the government.Not only has the budget been repaired but we have seen changes to workplace relations that are gradually bringing about opportunities that few Australians imagined they could have without tight, centralised control of wages and conditions. The MUA has attempted to divert the Australian work force back to the past. It has been sad meeting some of those representatives of the MUA, because when you suggest to them that they could be part of the solution rather than part of the problem the shutters go up and they want to continue with the past. Well, the past is over and most workers in Australia—perhaps a few in the building industry and a few in the mining industry cling to those past things—are enjoying better benefits, better opportunities, more freedom and a greater sense of direction and vision in their lives than those members of the MUA do. And that is sad. I am pleased that Australia is changing, but it does not alleviate the pain for those who find change too difficult or are too unwilling to undertake change.So workplace relations are changing. We are having Australian workplace agreements or certified agreements, an option that workers thought they would never have. To sit down with their employers and plan the future of their businesses and their enterprises together is a wonderful opportunity that has been offered to Australians and they are grabbing it with both hands—day after day. In February alone, the number of workplace agreements that were entered into doubled compared to the total of the previous period since the legislation came into action. As for opportunities for small business also—we have changed the scene there.But there is still one major reform that this government will need to undertake, that is, the reform of taxation. That is on the agenda because, having resolved the budget difficulties created by the Australian Labor Party, having put Australia in the mainstream of the world stage in our workplace relations and how we work together, more has to be done to allow the average Australian to take home the benefits of their hard work; to make sure that those who avoid taxation are brought into the system; and to make sure that there are charges and taxes on those industries that have come into being since we first thought of an income tax and a wholesale sales tax—a spreading of the taxation system so that it is fairer and so that those who save or want to prepare for their future are properly cared for. That is the last remaining process that the government is confronting and will put to the Australian people before the next election.In the small business area, an area for which I have some responsibility, a surplus budget has produced record low interest rates and record low inflation. What a terrific environment for people who make plans and decisions for their small businesses. Interest rates have fallen 250 basic points since June 1996. They are now at their lowest since 1973—and perhaps longer. That is an amazing figure. On an average bank loan to a small business of $100,000, there is an average saving of $2,500 per year. Banks are keen to lend money. They are providing the lowest rates that we have seen for 30 years.We now have a growing economy and growing opportunities for small business. Tax reform will give us a fairer, better and more modern system of taxation that will encourage people to work, to save and to provide for families in the process. We have cut paperwork from the Bureau of Statistics. We have reduced paperwork through the paying of withholding tax. We have lessened the tax compliance burden on small business by extending payment and lodgment times.Under our new fundraising rules it is made easier for small businesses to raise funds. We have eliminated a whole layer of red tape for Victorian small business employers by combining the Commonwealth and Victorian industrial relations systems into one. We have forced government departments to assess small business impacts when reviewing existing or new regulations. We have required government purchasing to make 10 per cent of its purchases from small businesses in Australia. We are providing the Business Entry Point—a cutting of red tape through an electronic system in place. We have changed the processes of the relationships between small businesses and large businesses. We wanted to change the unfair dismissal processes and that has been successful, except in the part where the Senate has chosen to intervene.And so in all of these areas we have brought change and improvement. It is really interesting and helpful to read comments such as those published in the Economist Intelligence Unit World Outlook 1998, which I quote:The Australian dollar, long seen as unacceptably volatile, has ridden through the Asian currency crises reasonably well, losing value against the US dollar moderately and predictably.That is the world judging us, and the Australian Labor Party carps here about minor things. I remind you that Paul Keating said the present Prime Minister was too narrowly focused in his view of world trade. He referred to John Howard as thinking: `I want security from Asia. I want to go back to the United States.' And, says Keating:He (Howard) is looking for the insularity. He is always hankering after the monoculture. Whenever he has had a chance to beat the immigration drum, he has. He is always hankering after the monoculture. He does not realise that the negotiation with Asia is not complete.Thank goodness we had a change of government and we were not locked into Asia at the most difficult time in their history and in our own development.19:53:003961Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—Government members have sought to sell this budget with a glib one-liner, `Back in black: back on track.' However, for those of us who reside in Canberra, this is a `back to back: attack after attack' budget. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), in his reply to this budget, said:. . . there is no point in delivering a surplus ringed by deficits. A surplus bought from the million deficits in family budgets.I would like to take the limited time available to me today to inform the parliament about some of the deficits in the lives of residents in my electorate of Namadgi as a result of three years of the Howard government. Like its two predecessors, the third Costello budget has delivered virtually nothing for the ACT community. This budget, like the two before it, has done nothing to encourage the creation of jobs in the ACT. Unemployment in the territory has come back a little from the historic highs this government created when it sacked thousands of public servants and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), unfortunately, thumbed his nose at Canberra by his actions. However, unemployment is still far too high and more work needs to be done to reduce it.I would like to give credit to the local Canberra businesses for their efforts to reduce unemployment—the small fall in unemployment that we have witnessed solely due to their continued investment and belief in our city. I only wonder what Canberra business could have achieved if the Commonwealth government had not cut this economy so savagely and reduced confidence so much.The message out of this budget is that the personal deficits of thousands of unemployed Canberrans are secondary to this government's manic desire to achieve an accountant's surplus. The sad reality is that, aside from some money for minor works in the parliamentary triangle, the budget does very little to increase short-term economic activity in the ACT community. It certainly does nothing to assist Canberra families struggling to meet increased child-care costs, increased health costs and increased education costs.There can be no doubt that this budget is paid for by two years of savage cuts to health, nursing homes, education, child care, job programs and the Public Service. A total of $821 million has been cut out of child care and not a cent has been put back; $3.6 billion out of public health in cuts to hospitals, dental services, pharmaceutical benefits and Medicare and less than $2 billion put back; $500 million from nursing homes and absolutely nothing put back in this budget; and $3 billion in cuts to universities, TAFEs, government schools and student support and just one-thirtieth of that has now been put back.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Where did you get these figures from? Don't you think the people of Canberra can read?5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—The Howard government's decision to ignore Australia's unemployment crisis for three consecutive budgets shows very clearly that they have no ability to create a real future that works for Australia's jobless. Labor, by contrast, wants to rebuild and re-energise the Australian nation. Labor aims to cut unemployment to five per cent, as a first step towards achieving full employment.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—Why didn't you do it in your 13 years in government?5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—Labor is committed to investing in job creation in regions of high unemployment. Labor has ambition for Australia and wants to create a future that works. I am disappointed to note not only the rude interjections but also the fact that this budget sees a continuation of the slash and burn approach to the Public Service. With another of his inane grins, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) has announced 9,000 additional public sector job losses, taking the total number of jobs lost in the public sector to over 30,000 since March 1996. Who can forget the promise of the Prime Minister and the former Liberal member for Canberra, made in full-page advertisements in the Canberra Times in the lead-up to the 1996 election, that there would be only 2,500 job losses in the Public Service under a Liberal government. I do not believe that is honest.Since being elected in March 1996, the Howard Liberal government has delivered us a public health system lurching from crisis to crisis. In his first two budgets Mr Costello took $3.6 billion out of public health in cuts to hospitals, dental services, pharmaceutical benefits and Medicare. He has put back less than $2 billion. That does not include $500 million cut from aged care as part of the continuing nursing home fiasco for elderly Australians. In the area of child care, the budget papers show that expenditure on child-care assistance is down by $117 million on what the government expected to spend in the year. This is the case because parents simply cannot afford formal care. They are leaving work, or putting their children into backyard care, because this government's policies have put quality child care out of their reach. The $117 million is an additional cut on top of the $820 million slashed from child care in the last two budgets. This means almost $1 billion has gone from child-care funding since the last election.There are many human losses on which this accountant's surplus has been built. Only two days ago I received a letter from a constituent in Gordon, in my electorate, detailing the effects of this government's child-care policy on her family. This constituent had three children, aged seven, nine and 11, in an after school care program at a local primary school. She and her partner work in the federal Public Service and this after school care was invaluable in ensuring that their children were safe and engaged in supervised activities until they could be picked up after work.In 1997 this after school care cost the family $220 per fortnight for the three children and they were eligible for the child-care cash rebate. In 1998, as a direct result of this anti-family Liberal government's policies, the new fees payable by the family jumped to $330 per fortnight—an increase of 50 per cent. Add to that the reduced rate of child-care cash rebate and this family's situation is compounded. Because of these huge increases in child-care costs, this family has been forced to remove their now 12 and 10-year-olds from the after school care program years before they intended. In her letter my constituent said:Whilst the children are responsible and trustworthy and have access to support from adult neighbours with children at the same school, the thought that government decisions are actually working against a safe and supportive family environment is ironic considering the espoused family values upon which this Liberal government campaigned for election.I am hearing many similar stories from families in my electorate. They are being asked to believe that this budget rewards them for carrying the cost of two years of Howard government. But we all know that it falls way short of doing so. No-one will be fooled by the policy reversals the Treasurer has announced. Most of them do not even go halfway towards making up for the savage cuts he has already made. This is a nothing budget, intended to provide a distraction while the government tries to put a positive gloss on what I believe will be its regressive GST proposals.This government has stopped caring about people. It is a government that thousands of residents in my electorate of Namadgi want no more to do with. They want to get rid of a government that loses seven ministers and three backbenchers in two years. My Namadgi residents are sick of a Prime Minister who defends Minister Parer, with his tens of millions of dollars in family trusts, yet wants them to pay a GST on food, clothing, rent, education, health care, and rates.We need a government that believes in progress and change for the good of the whole community, a government that believes in the rights of all individuals, not just those who are rich and powerful or have the loudest voices. As the Leader of the Opposition stated: Labor will go into this next election believing in a different Australia. We believe in a proud, confident and intelligent Australia. Labor believes in an Australia that wants security in its workplaces, peace of mind in a strong health system, and opportunity flowing from an education system which gives its citizens the best chance they can get in a global economy.I am looking forward to taking this alternative vision for Australia to the voters in Canberra, doing it very soon, and receiving—I might add—their very strong endorsement at the next election.20:02:003963Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Madam Deputy Speaker—5K6ELLISMs Ellis—And thank you for the very rude reception. I should stay here and do the same back to you.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—You are quite welcome to.UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—The member for Mitchell was heard in silence but you did not give her the same courtesy.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—We have all sat here and listened to the contribution from the member for Namadgi (Ms Ellis) on the Appropriation Bill, and I really think that she should speak to the Chief Opposition Whip or perhaps the Treasury spokesman because, quite clearly, she has been fed a terrible line. The member for Namadgi has got her facts on health, nursing homes, education, and child care all wrong. I could spend the next 10 minutes going into the detail of all the areas. For example, the member for Namadgi has been trying to claim that we have been taking money out of after school hours care, when the fact is that the federal government has put money into after school hours care in this budget. In fact, almost every example that she gave—cuts of $500 million to nursing homes without putting any money back, cuts of $3 billion to education with one-thirtieth of it being put back—is absolute, arrant nonsense. I would suggest that, before the member for Namadgi embarrasses herself again on an issue of such importance, she should check her facts, otherwise she is going to end up with the same reputation as Gareth Evans when it comes to fiscal credibility, which is pretty limited.In just under one term in government, the coalition have undone the 13 years of fiscal incompetence by the former Labor government and have given Australians a sense of safety, stability and security in the knowledge that our nation has stopped going backwards and is back on track for the 21st century.Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—In just under one term in opposition, the Labor Party have demonstrated that they are no more the wiser, as the comments by the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) from the dispatch box give evidence to. In fact, Labor would have Australia back onto their tax and spend prescription which had Australians so entrenched in national debt during the Asian boom of the early to mid-1990s.But old habits die hard, and Labor have already announced unfunded promises of $8 billion to the health system alone. In the time since these announcements were made, Australians have been wondering which taxes Labor would increase or introduce to fund these promises—and, hopefully, the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) might give us some indication of exactly which taxes are going to be introduced or increased to fund the $8 billion of extra promises in health alone that the Labor Party has made.Last weekend, Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, went one step further in announcing that a Labor government would not only increase spending by over $8 billion, but would also deliver substantial tax cuts to Australian families. But Mr Beazley's credibility on economic issues speaks for itself. In the 1996 federal election, Mr Beazley, as Minister for Finance, looked straight into the television camera and told the Australian people that the budget would not return a deficit. The $10.5 billion budget black hole speaks volumes for the Leader of the Opposition's economic integrity. Indeed, there is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that Labor does not have the ability to deliver tax cuts. The ill-fated l-a-w, law, tax cuts which Labor promised in the 1993 election campaign were abandoned by Labor after the election. Instead of promised Labor tax cuts, Australian families and small businesses were slugged with a two per cent across-the-board increase in wholesale sales taxes.In reciting the government's many economic accomplishments, the coalition government's fundamental achievement is occasionally overlooked. Put simply, by paying off the debts Labor left all Australians with, we are reducing our interest rate repayments on our national debt so that we have more money to spend on families, older people, education and medical research. If we can start eliminating Labor's debt, we can start redirecting the $8 billion of taxpayers' money per year in repayments, and start spending it on schools health and education instead. Many of my constituents in Sturt are already seeing the benefits of the coalition government's responsible and disciplined economic management and, as we pay off more debts, it is my expectation that people in Sturt, particularly families and older people, will see even more benefits. The legislation presently before the House makes it possible to fund an additional 220,000 Commonwealth seniors health cards to self-funded retirees. We have raised the income test threshold from $21,000 to $40,000 for singles, and from around $36,000 to $67,000 for couples. As of 1 January 1998, cardholders will be eligible for pharmaceuticals at the concessional rate of $3.20 per year. Any prescriptions above 52 per year will be free of charge.Also commencing on 1 January 1999 is an expansion of the gold card to include an additional 50,000 Australian World War II veterans who faced danger from hostile forces in that war. The expansion of the gold card will benefit approximately 400 veterans in Sturt, and it is a fitting benefit for their service to Australia and the Allies.Prudent economic management has resulted in other tangible benefits for elderly Australians. Treasurer Peter Costello's announcement that the government will be further reducing the provisional tax uplift factor to five per cent has also been welcome news to people in Sturt. Increases to single's pensions of $6.80 per fortnight and $5.70 per fortnight for partnered pensioners is another indication that the coalition's policy of addressing the fundamentals of the economy is paying social dividends. The benefits which the coalition has delivered may at times seem modest and humble, but they are real and they are paid for. Any apparent benefits delivered by the former Labor government were rarely paid for and were put on the national credit card. This practice not only put Australia further into debt, but it unfairly created a fool's paradise, deceiving the Australian public into believing that our lifestyle was sustainable.In fact, all the Labor Party ever offered Australia was deceit, deficit and debt. The coalition government acknowledges that living within our national means is not in itself a guarantee to national prosperity. The coalition government has been very conscious of the need to fund social programs which complement each other. Labor consistently demonstrated an ability to throw taxpayers' money aimlessly at dubiously conceived programs in the desperate hope that some of their expenditure would represent acceptable value for the taxpayer. The coalition has introduced a number of initiatives which complement other policies.Labor's neglect of nursing homes, culminating in a 75 per cent cut in capital funding by the Leader of the Opposition, has been well documented in this House. Worse, the former Labor government made no attempt to cater for alternative scenarios for the elderly. I am very pleased to say that this legislation provides funding of $280 million for the government's Staying at Home: Care and Support for Older Australians package. This very important social justice program returns some autonomy and independence to the elderly. The coalition recognises that governments should provide assistance to the elderly who choose to live in their own homes when they would otherwise have been placed in a nursing home. It is all about empowering older people.Complementing this package is a $20 million national industry restructuring package to target nursing homes most in need following the Leader of the Opposition's funding drought to nursing homes which created the appalling conditions that the coalition government has been left to fix up. Indeed, the care of our elderly and the sick remains one of this government's strongest priorities.The government is building a stronger health system. This legislation allows for additional Commonwealth expenditure of $2.9 billion—almost $3 billion—over five years for Australian health care agreements with the states and territories, in comparison to the hastily signed agreement of 1993. The 1993 agreement between the former Labor government and the states and territories was a flawed document which allowed for state abuses of the Commonwealth funding for health. That fact was acknowledged by the Leader of the Opposition in the 1996 federal election campaign.The availability of this additional funding underscores the coalition government's support for our public hospitals and Medicare. Again, this government will continue to introduce and develop complementary health programs. A focus on preventative health measures is one such area. Accordingly, this legislation provides for additional spending of $80 million over four years to enhance preventative health programs. Specific measures will include a free influenza vaccination program for older Australians, in addition to strategic investment in public health areas such as cancer control.Other preventative health initiatives announced by the Treasurer include programs designed specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. An extension of the Tough on Drugs initiative is also an important area of preventative health.Drug abuse remains one of society's greatest afflictions. The social costs have long been recognised by successive governments. However, the economic costs of drug abuse among our young are only now starting to be assessed. There is no doubt that drug abuse is placing an ever increasing strain on our public health system. The treatment of drug abuse and addiction is placing a necessary but largely avoidable pressure on the resources of Australia's health system.Similarly, tobacco related illnesses also place a considerable strain on the public and private health systems. Heart disease suspected to be caused by smoking still accounts for an alarming proportion of patients in the health system. Administered separately, these measures will not be responsible for any substantial improvement to the health system. However, as a series of programs which complement one another, there is every reason to suspect that the coalition government's lateral approach to addressing the shortcomings of the health system will yield future dividends.While the goals are enduring, the coalition remains a patient architect. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we are getting there. We now have the lowest inflation since the early 1970s. Unemployment is the lowest it has been since 1990 in the recession Labor said we had to have. The coalition government's policies are also securing lower interest rates, with the lowest bank mortgage interest rates since the 1970s producing big savings for home buyers and the lowest small business interest rates since the 1960s. These are the results; we have the runs on the board.After 13 years of Labor driving the economy into the ground, the coalition government has found a couple of gears and is driving the economy forward. The reverse gears and the double clutching of the former Labor government no longer pose a threat to the Australian economy.20:12:003966Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN5A5CharltonALP00—The first thing I want to say about the government's budget for 1998-99 is that it is quite clearly a fraudulent document. The reason I say that is that it has been based on quite fraudulent forecasts. This has been confirmed by a former leader of the Liberal Party and a former aspirant for the position of Liberal Prime Minister, John Hewson. The budget indicates that there should be a surplus of $2.7 billion. If there is a surplus, it is going to be the first occasion on which a Liberal government has been able to provide a surplus in a budget at any time since Federation, any time this century.During the 1980s, there were four occasions when the Labor government had the responsibility for national economic management when it was able to provide for four consecutive budget surpluses. If there is any suggestion being made by members of the government that it is an indication of economic and financial competence when a government delivers a surplus, I remind them that during the 1980s Labor delivered four consecutive budget surpluses.I said it was a fraudulent budget. It is a good example of a way in which a government can use sleight of hand approaches to financial management. There are examples in it of the thimble and pea trick. Media commentators and analysts who have taken the opportunity to spend more time analysing the budget are coming to the same conclusion. We will increasingly find that, in the pronouncements by those people who accept the responsibility for some deeper analysis of government financial statements and documents, they will bring those facts to the attention of the Australian people.I said it was based on fraudulent forecasts. One of the fundamental elements of the government's forecasts, and one of the parameters on which its budget is based, is an assumption that there will be, during the coming financial year, in the Asian area economic growth of two per cent. There is no question that in the Asian area there will not be growth of two per cent. I need go no further in connection with that assumption than to refer, for example, to a comment by Nigel Stapleton, the senior economist with Westpac. He said:The government still expects 2% growth in South-East Asia, but we—that is, Westpac, and other financial institutions as well in Australia and elsewhere—expect a negative for those economies.That forecast by Nigel Stapleton is certainly much more reliable than the forecasts that were cooked up in the office of the federal Treasurer (Mr Costello), and it is now being refuted by all reputable and creditable economic analysts and forecasters.I referred as well to some of the comments that have been made by a former leader of the Liberal party, Dr John Hewson. He said, in connection with the question of Australian growth over the next financial year, that it was likely to be more like 2.5 per cent than three per cent.I draw attention to the discrepancies between the forecasts by the Treasurer's office and those by people like Dr John Hewson and Nigel Stapleton, both of whom I would credit with greater competence in the area of economic forecasting, in the area of objectivity and in the area of credibility, than those people in the Treasurer's office who were cooking up those estimates.You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) promised that they would accept and apply the estimates and forecasts of the Treasury. They have not done so. Treasury will not endorse the forecasts which underlie this budget, because they know that those forecasts are crook. The primary underlying forecasts were cooked up in the Treasurer's office, and those forecasts are simply designed to provide the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and this government with pre-election gimmickry.Some of the comments made by the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne), who preceded me in this debate, were quite absurd. I find it difficult to understand how it is possible for members of the government to get up and make the claims they do and keep a straight face. The member for Sturt must know that those claims were not correct.To take one element as an example, I refer to this government's attitude to the health portfolio. We all remember the Prime Minister, the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) and the Treasurer making claims that they would be injecting a 15 per cent real increase into Australia's health system over the next few years. Dr John Hewson said they are doing no such thing. Dr John Hewson said that if there is an increase in real terms over that period of time, it will be a one per cent increase.In connection with health, the Commonwealth is still in dispute with the states. Of that $2.9 billion that is being provided by the federal government as a result of its responsibilities in this area, a mere $69 million can be considered in any way to be new money.That was an incredible performance at the meeting of heads of government, on the question of health funding in particular. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, because both you and I had experience at the state level—our shadow minister at the table, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) had experience at the state level, so he could confirm this as well—there have been plenty of occasions when premiers and chief ministers of the territories have met with the Prime Minister and, as part of their tactics, they have said to the Prime Minister, `We will not proceed further with this discussion because we are not prepared to accept the offer that you have made and you know it is not fair dinkum.' And they have walked out.But on every previous occasion when they have walked out, they have reassembled. They have met and redefined their tactics and they have come back in. That was not the case this time. For the first time ever, those premiers and those chief ministers walked out of that meeting and went home. That reflects the amount of credibility that this government has, that this Prime Minister has, that this minister for health has, that this Treasurer has. The premiers and the chief ministers—and all of them but one conservative brothers and sisters of this government—walked out of that meeting and went home. So it is not just people like ourselves who are concerned about the performance, the credibility and the truthfulness of this government—and concerned as well about the fraudulent nature of its budget.As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Labor was in government for 13 years. If there is any strength underlying this economy, then that strength was built up over those 13 years. For a government, after two years, to make the claims that this government has been making is nothing short of absurd. If they believe they are fooling anyone, they fool themselves. I feel sorry, as I said, for some of those people who have attempted to defend the government.One other thing that concerns me is that people now are referring to the budget as a statement by the government to reflect the government's financial management. I emphasise the expression `financial management'. The reason they are doing that is that the budget has ceased to be an important document, an important strategy, an important plan charting out the future direction of Australia, a document about where the government feels Australia should be heading and how Australia should be moving towards that objective.You think to yourself, `Well, what should governments do?' The government is moving completely out of any type of involvement in the provision of national production and national services. For example, we know that the most recent exercise being undertaken is the sale of Telstra. The government is moving out of active participation and active involvement in the Australian economy. So you think to yourself, `Well what would it be doing as a national government? How would it be fulfilling its responsibilities? What is its vision? Where does it want Australia to go? How does it want Australia to get there?' Madam Deputy Speaker, you can look through that budget, as I know you and others have, and you will find no evidence of that. You will find something completely to the contrary.For example, every time we direct a question during question time to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile), we refer to him as the minister for transport. Why do we do that? Because there is no regional development; in fact, the minister himself cancelled out any funds available to him within his portfolio for regional development. So this government has opted out of regional development. It has opted out of the hospitals in that it is now reducing the real volume of funds available for our national hospital system.There have been reductions in transport funding, and reductions in the real level of funds for all of those types of important national initiatives, all that type of investment in national infrastructure. They have had the guts ripped out of them. Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for the use of the expression, but that is precisely what has happened. We expect more from governments; the Australian people expect more from governments. We want governments with vision, we want governments with commitment and we want governments that use the national annual government budget as a strategy to determine where they want the economy to move. This government has not done that.I think it is a great pity that opportunities of that kind have been lost. I am not the only one who is referring to the change that has taken place, particularly under this government, in the role, the function, the construction and the contents of the federal budget. When they use the expression `financial management', they are talking about ordinary domestic household budgeting: `How much money are we going to get, how much money are we going to spend, what is the bottom line, is it a deficit or a surplus?' But then you look in it for some type of vision, some sort of strategy, some indication as to where this nation is going, and there is simply nothing there. It is a fraudulent document; it is a dishonest pre-election political statement.The members on the government side know that before the budget the government asked: `Where has the greatest sensitivity been? Where do we need to take some remedial action? We've upset the elderly in connection with nursing homes, so we'll shove a bit of money in there.' They said, `As a result of the savagery of those attacks on elderly Australians, we have alienated people in those older age brackets. What we'll do now is to make a symbolic gesture, and we will lock into legislation a provision whereby the age pension in Australia will be maintained at 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings.' We said, `Well, that was a commitment that we had before.' The government said to us, `Yes, but you didn't legislate for it.'Madam Deputy Speaker, I will tell you why we did not legislate for it, and I will tell you why they did. We did not legislate for it because we had two annual indexations of the age pension related to the CPI. As it happened, the rate of the age pension increased. We said that we would set a floor under that—that it would never be less than 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, but it could be more. And it most often was. Let every aged person in Australia realise this as well: they are being taken for mugs, the same as all the other interest groups in Australia. Let all those elderly people in Australia know this for certain: as a result of the government saying, `We will lock the age pension rate in at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings,' they have legislatively prevented it from rising above that level.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—We have increased it.5A5Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN—The parliamentary secretary at the table—from one of those silvertail north Sydney electorates—sits there and makes no significant contribution at all to the consideration by this parliament of the issues that come before it. The best he can do is to sit there and go on with these puerile, childish interjections. We had the same thing happen with our previous speaker, the member for Namadgi (Ms Ellis). The interruptions were persistent from the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne) and we see again the childish petty behaviour on the part of these members on the government side. If they spent a little more time examining the documents that have been presented—the documents that they are supposed to be able to defend but have so much difficulty in defending—they would be better using their time.I am aware of the constraints; we have all agreed to limit our contributions so that more people can make a contribution to this debate. I will, of course, be taking the opportunity as well within my electorate, within my ALP branches and with all of those people and organisations that I meet with regularly to expose this budget for what it is—a fraudulent document.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I call the honourable member for Dawson. I would remind the members who are in the House that, when the honourable member for Dawson has the floor, she has the floor. I am loath to keep interrupting and calling people to order, but I think out of courtesy we should refrain during this appropriation debate.20:30:003969Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise tonight to talk on the Appropriation Bill. I want to start by saying what a responsible and caring budget this has been.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—You will probably get a bit more courtesy from this side than we were getting from your side. We will extend the courtesy to you that we didn't receive.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—That does not appear to be the case. I listened to you in silence.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I say to the member for Charlton that I have given the call to the honourable member for Dawson.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I reiterate that this is a responsible and caring budget. It is responsible because for the first time we have an underlying budget surplus of $2.7 billion. The government has taken us back to the days of the Beatles, blue suede shoes and bell bottoms. We now have a strong economy with the lowest inflation since the early 1960s. We have the lowest interest rates since the 1970s. We are on track to more than halve the government debt ratio, the Commonwealth general net debt, by the turn of the century. We have gone from a 20 per cent debt to GDP ratio down to 10 per cent, and by the year 2000 it is anticipated that will be 1½ per cent. That is a tremendous record.In the meantime, we have been paying back Labor's debt. By the end of 1998-99, we will have repaid around $31 billion in net debt from the level of almost $96 billion that the government inherited. Can I explain what that means for a daily debt repayment. Every day we pay back $42 million worth of Labor's debt. Every 34 minutes we pay back a million dollars worth of debt. That is a rate of about $500 a second. That is a tremendous contribution for the people of Australia, because what it means is that inflation and interest rates are coming down.What does that translate to for average Australians? A family with a mortgage of $100,000, which is apparently the average rate across Australia, is saving $4,000 a year on their mortgage rate. Admittedly, some families choose to draw back the period of the loan through their banking facility or financial institution. Others, however, prefer to have the money in their pockets, as well they should. For a small business, again with an average overdraft or loan, there is a saving of $2,500 each year after those five interest rate drops. That is real money for real Australians—business people and families.In this budget we have also reduced the provisional tax uplift factor for business. When we came to government, it was eight per cent; it will be brought down to five per cent. We have set up the economy for the next millennium, we have set it up for the difficulties in South-East Asia, and we have certainly set it up as something for our children to inherit and be proud of.Can I talk now about responsibility. Every week now in Australia we are saving $28 million by stopping social security rorts. That is a tremendous amount of money that has obviously been allowed to slip from the taxpayers' fingers in the past.I talk about caring as well, and I want to speak about the aspects of the budget that show care and concern for those who deserve it. We are seeing the gold card extended to World War II veterans. There will be 50,000 World War II veterans who will now have access to free treatment as private patients with their choice of doctor, optical, dental, physiotherapy, podiatry and chiropractic services. They will also get the pensioner concession on pharmaceutical products, and they will not pay the Medicare levy. For these people who have in many cases sacrificed their health, and certainly their wellbeing, in facing hostile forces on behalf of us in battles around the world, I think it is a very proud thing to be able to say that we are going to care for them now when they need us most—in their old age, when they are frail and when they need health care for the sacrifices they have made for us.I also want to talk about other Australians. From 1 January next year, not only is there the gold card for World War II veterans but there is a health care card for independent retirees. The income test threshold is being raised. For single people it is being raised from $21,000 a year to $40,000. For couples it is being raised from $36,000 to $67,000. This means that there are 220,000 self-funded retirees who will now have access to pharmaceuticals for $3.20 and, once their prescriptions exceed 52 a year, they will have those prescriptions free of charge.This measure is perhaps just a small line in the budget, but it is one that I am particularly pleased about: caring for someone else's child is really a labour of love. Foster parents who are caring for a child who would usually be eligible for a health care card will also have access to that health care card when they are caring for the child. As I said, perhaps it is a small change but one that I think shows that we care for those who are caring for others.The previous speaker made comments about this being pretty much a nothing budget. Can I say that we have made some very significant changes. One of the things that we are doing—and we have been trying to get it going since 1962—is providing a medical training facility in Townsville. North of Rockhampton, we have an enormous population but no medical training facility, yet in towns in the southern states there is sometimes one if not two medical schools. It has meant that our young people have had to travel sometimes 1,000 to 2,000 kilometres to Brisbane. There has been no facility for our indigenous students to train in. Now for the first time—and I am deeply grateful to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for this, and I have to thank the member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), who I know has put a great deal of work into this—there will be 60 medical places available through the University of Queensland, initially in Townsville and later at James Cook University as responsibility is transferred; 20 new places that have been created, 20 from the University of Queensland in Brisbane and 20 from the southern universities.What a difference this is going to make. Five places will be held specifically for indigenous students. I have just finished a tour with one of our standing committees through Cape York and the Torres Strait and the need for indigenous medical practitioners there is very great. An indigenous medical officer is able to give culturally appropriate care. There is a far better opportunity for an indigenous doctor to have indigenous people attend a clinic. It is going to make a tremendous difference. I am pleased that our young people in the north are going to have the opportunity to attend this new medical training facility.They are going to change the entry criteria. In many of the southern universities entry is based on academic performance. While that is appropriate, it needs to be broadened such that young people who have the desire to serve as a medical practitioner, who are looking to go to far-flung communities, and who are not fazed by the idea of being obstetricians, anaesthetists, GPs or surgeons in difficult circumstances, are able to gain entry to our new university. I am very excited about this change. It is going to cost the Commonwealth $1.2 million a year in recurring costs, but it is a tremendous chance for our young people and one I am very pleased has finally been delivered for the north.In the few moments left to me I would like to mention another initiative for our regional areas: $50 million for the Australian Tourist Commission, with $8 million specifically for rural and regional areas. This is certainly going to allow us to promote tourism in our regional areas. Sadly, as a result of the South- East Asian crisis, we have seen a fall-off in the number of international tourists, but I believe that this will greatly assist. With the small $1 million package we had for the Whitsundays, we were able to increase our tourist numbers there by six per cent, a very encouraging figure. I believe that budget initiative will greatly assist in boosting those numbers in regional areas. I commend the budget to the House.20:40:003971Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Clearly, the mantra from the government is `back on track'. I can inform the House that this government is way off track when it comes to the most serious issue of unemployment, be it youth unemployment or mature age unemployment. I suggest to the House that the budget is the final confirmation that the Howard government is a government that will not generate jobs. For the third year in a row, the Howard-Costello government has brought down a budget which does nothing to tackle Australia's No. 1 economic and social problem—unemployment.The government's own forecasts are that the unemployment rate—and the former leader of the government in opposition, Dr Hewson, has seriously questioned these forecasts—will rise above eight per cent again in the coming months and stay stuck at eight per cent on average over the next 12 months. That is in the budget papers—the government's own forecasts. The budget forecasts that economic growth will slump sharply to three per cent in each of the next two years, well below the four per cent levels which this government has never achieved and that are needed to get unemployment down. The forecast of 1¾per cent employment growth for the next year is even less than the original forecast of two per cent employment growth made in last year's budget—and they are back on track! I would hate to see them if they were off track.As we all know, even the original modest forecast itself had to be reduced sharply mid-year to 1¼ per cent in a humiliating admission of failure by the Treasurer (Mr Costello). The government is now aiming, I might indicate, for less than one-half the employment growth which Labor was generating in government and it will not even get this, based on its own economic growth projections.The government also expects no improvement in Australia's low participation rate which, interestingly, has fallen by more than half a percentage point since the Howard government came to office, reflecting people's loss of hope of finding jobs. The truth is that some 90,000 fewer people are looking for jobs now than were when the Howard government was elected. If these people had not been pushed out of the search for work by the lack of hope in the capacity of this government to create jobs, the official rate would have risen dramatically to as high as 8.8 per cent today. That is what the real unemployment rate would be today if the participation rate which existed at the time of the last election had held up.In his budget speech, the Treasurer claimed, `A particular concern has been our unemployed youth.' He tried to make out to the Australian public that the government has done well in this respect, but what he failed to refer to was the actual factual situation. Let us go to the factual situation. It shows very clearly that in fact the government has set youth unemployment rising from 26.4 per cent to 27.1 per cent since it was elected 26 months ago. Moreover and unfortunately, it has also driven up the number of long-term unemployed people in Australia by 33,200. That is important because more and more of those people are middle-aged unemployed people with family responsibilities—and the government suggests that it is back on track!Unfortunately, the government has now announced further measures which will worsen these trends. It announced in its third budget that $147.6 million less will be spent on employment services in the next four years, and that is at a time of a very serious employment situation. These further deep cuts can only make it harder to get the long-term unemployed back to work. The Treasurer said in his budget speech that the government has `improved incentives for employers to take on apprentices'. Again I ask: what are the facts?In fact, its first two budgets cut many of these incentives, leading to a fall of 5,000 apprenticeship commencements since Labor's last full year in office. That is 5,000 fewer apprenticeship commencements since this government was elected, and that is at a time of major emerging skill shortages in Australia. We all know the potential impact of those skill shortages not only for employment in Australia but also, unfortunately, for wages and, potentially, the rate of inflation.The Treasurer now seems to think that an expanded work for the dole scheme is a solution to youth unemployment. That is the Treasurer's way forward, even though the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) has previously clearly admitted in this House that work for the dole is `not a solution to youth unemployment'. Expansion of work for the dole, with no innovation to introduce skills training and turn it into a comprehensive work experience program, will do nothing to generate real jobs. Enforcement of work for the dole on older Australians—the hidden agenda of a second Howard government—who need real jobs and real incomes, rather than being pointed at and blamed for being unemployed, will cause real resentment and alienation in middle Australia.No serious new measures to tackle unemployment were, I suggest to the House, announced at all in this third Howard-Costello budget. The only new program, or endeavour to create a suggestion that there is a new program, detailed in the budget is for 500 Australians aged under 30—and, interestingly, mostly with professional qualifications—to go and work overseas. This is hardly in line with the need to generate and create tens of thousands of jobs here at home for the most disadvantaged of our young people.Further, the claimed announcement of an additional $350 million over four years for a range of measures to address problems associated with youth unemployment was all announced way back in January. Talk about recycling announcements—this contribution was actually in a prime ministerial headland speech announced in Adelaide in January this year. This is another endeavour to clearly misrepresent to the Australian public the real situation—announced in January, reannounced on budget night.The net new spending on jobs programs represents less than one-fifth—that is right, one-fifth—of what has cumulatively been taken out of jobs programs by this government in three Howard-Costello budgets. The Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs will put up to $13 million more into regional assistance programs. I suppose we can say that, on balance, this is better than nothing. But, at best, it will restore specific funds for regional employment strategies to little more than half the levels when the coalition took office—small bickies from a mealy-mouthed government. It really is small bickies for regional Australia from a mealy-mouthed government that has no commitment to regional Australia.It is also fair to suggest that the government has inflicted two years of pain on regional Australia by cutting programs and closing offices and services. The end result has seen the unemployment rate rise sharply in seats like Richmond, Page, Gilmore, Braddon and Bass. Now, in acknowledgment of the pain it chose to inflict, the government is making a few soothing sounds rather than acting for genuine repair and regeneration.The extra $142.8 million for the new literacy and numeracy training program for the young unemployed might sound good on the face of it, but the devil is in the detail. So too do the other small increases in the jobs related programs announced in the budget. But they do not sound as good when you put them into a proper perspective, and that is what tonight's budget discussion is about. It is a real objective analysis of what has occurred not just in this budget but over 26 months of the Howard-Costello regime.Those announcements must be compared with the $1.8 billion cut—that is what it is—in the Howard government's very first budget from a wide suite of effective jobs programs. The $6.4 million extra to help young people gain the skills necessary to begin an apprenticeship also sounds good, but the truth is that it comes after a $14.3 million cut from vocational training in the previous budget, a cut principally made up of reductions of incen tives for employers to take on new apprentices. In addition, there were huge cuts in vocational education and training grants to the states—short-sighted actions which have caused new training opportunities for our young to decline.Further, the short-sighted, dishonest and double dealing nature of this government is also apparent in its actions on immigration policy, and its lack of action and support of multiculturalism was again reinforced in question time today by the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Tim Fischer). Not surprisingly from a government which is now giving preferences to Pauline Hanson, this budget again fails to deliver an active commitment to the anti-racism campaign it promised Australia prior to the last election. I suppose then they were after votes from multicultural Australia; today they are after votes from One Nation Australia.In this budget, the government has also completely ignored the need to provide help to get newly arrived migrants into jobs. No initiative has been taken to improve the prospects of migrants, who no longer get unemployment benefits, to receive active assistance to find work in their first two years in Australia. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot say no benefits whilst at the same time saying to those people who want to work that there is no assistance to get the skills and no ability to actually seek out work in Australia. In that vein, there has been no restoration of the hundreds of millions of dollars cut in the two previous budgets from specialised programs which improved migrants training in the English language and their chances of employment—programs like the job seeker preparation and support program, the special intervention program and the highly effective job clubs.One initiative in this budget is to commit $51.6 million over four years to enhance visa processing and improve border monitoring. Obviously, the opposition supports the intent of those announcements, but we do not support a grab for dollars, as is really the nature of that visa charge.I suggest to the House that this government is not back on track. Yes, there is plenty in the government coffers, but what about the pain and suffering that Australia at large is now experiencing? What about the fact that, as a result of this budget, yet more Australian Public Service jobs will disappear? In actual fact, 9,000 in total. There have been no initiatives to help the displaced, mature aged unemployed. There has been no help for those new arrivals to actually get the skills to get a job. I suggest that we are going backwards on the training front, with fewer apprenticeship commencements and no commitment in this budget to do something to reduce unemployment.Labor by contrast wants to rebuild and re-energise the Australian nation. We will aim to cut unemployment to five per cent as a first step towards achieving full employment—a target which, despite intimidation from the coalition once they were elected, the department of employment actually acknowledged that Labor in government could have achieved. We are committed to investing in job creation programs and committed to investing in actual training opportunities for our young people, rather than the cruelty of pointing the finger and suggesting that they themselves are responsible for being unemployed. It is about leadership, it is about decisiveness, it is about a willingness to actually take a few risks and do something for Australia's unemployed. The government is not on track. The fundamentals go to a sense of security in people's lives, which in turn is about a job, a reasonable level of income and the right to go to work and not be confronted with a situation in which you could be sacked for daring to belong to a union. That is what this government stands for—not safety, security and stability, but really an endeavour to undermine security in people's lives and to rip away from families a capacity to live with a sense of love and compassion not only within their own family home but within the broader community.One Nation first. No sense of compassion. It is about divisiveness and Australia going backwards. That is the real intent and the end result of three successive Howard-Costello budgets. I believe that the Australian com munity are finally awake to the fact that they were conned in the lead-up to the last election. Promises were made; promises have been broken. There is no sense of cohesion in Australia. It is about governing on the basis of divide and rule, division, short-sighted decisions and no long-term perspectives. Australia deserves better than what is on the table tonight for discussion after three successive Howard-Costello budgets.20:56:003974Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I think I need to pick up a couple of points that were mentioned by the previous speaker, the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), before I go to what I had planned to speak about. The first thing that I would say to the honourable member for Batman is that his statement that the government is giving its preferences to Pauline Hanson is simply not true. That sort of outrageous statement has to be challenged, and it has to be put on the record that it is not true. The government has not made any such statement. In fact, many members in this House—including me and I believe the gentleman at the table, the member for Berowra (Mr Ruddock)—have made it abundantly clear that that will not happen. So let us make it quite clear that the government has made no statement that it is going to give its preferences to One Nation. The government has made no such statement, and the member for Batman knows that what he said is not true.The second point I want to make about the member for Batman's contribution is that, as the opposition spokesman for employment, he spent a large part of his time talking about unemployment figures, quoting figures, playing with figures and so on. Unemployment is a very serious issue and we can play with the figures all day, but there are a number of key figures that the member for Batman needs to understand, and I will use my electorate as a good example.My electorate is an outer eastern suburban electorate in Melbourne and in 1983, when the ALP came to power, the local unemployment rate was 1.4 per cent. When the ALP left government, the unemployment rate was about nine per cent. That was the result of 13 years of Labor government. Obviously, we all understand that the vagaries of economics, the influence of world economies and so on mean that the rate is going to vary under any government over a period of time. But if at the end of 13 years we have an unemployment increase of that size, then that sends a very clear message to my electorate.What this government has done is turn around a super tanker—the national economy is clearly a super tanker—and it is not easy to do that. You cannot turn it around in five minutes but, in a little over two years, we have brought the national unemployment rate down to under eight per cent and the trend is downwards. It seems to me that they are key figures that we need to put into perspective.I want to try to address in the brief time I have got this evening a couple of issues. I want to talk about the impact of the budget on my electorate and, if I have time, I want to talk about a particular area of interest, overseas aid. My electorate in outer eastern Melbourne is a typical middle-Australia electorate. It is overwhelmingly young. Twenty-five years ago it was all fields and orchards. It has now been built out. We have a huge number of mortgage payers. Until recently, I had the most number of mortgage payers in any electorate in the country. It is filled with young families, blue-collar workers, semi-skilled white-collar workers, not the captains of industry and not particularly people with a high tertiary education—nevertheless, it has a lot of people in wholesale and retail. It is really typical middle-Australia.This budget has been the third of a series of good budgets for electorates such as mine. Of course there has been some pain. We inherited a huge debt from the previous government. Clearly, to put any household or any national economy on the right track you need to stop bleeding to death every year in terms of debt. That is something we have had to do. Of course that has caused some pain. We regret that, but it is necessary. We have also done a number of very good things partly due to our economic management and partly because of international economic factors, but very largely due to our sound economic management. Interest rates have come down spectacularly. When I was elected in 1990 by winning the seat from the Labor Party, interest rates in my electorate were 17 per cent. They are now under seven per cent. A large part of that is due to the good economic management of this country. Inflation is under control. That is good for pensioners and that is good for the average family so that their household bills do not go up day by day.As I said before, unemployment is trending down. Unemployment in my electorate is now 6.4 per cent compared with well over eight per cent when we came to government. So the runs are on the board. As we have heard, we have a surplus in the federal budget for the first time in many years. That is good basic housekeeping that is not achieved without some pain, but it is necessary, because you cannot go on running up a debt year after year as the previous government did. We have also delivered other things. We promised before we got elected that we would deliver tax cuts to families, and they were delivered on time and in full. I would remind the honourable gentleman who spoke before me that that is in sharp contrast with the promises made by the previous Prime Minister who promised before the 1993 election the l-a-w tax cuts, which never happened. Worse than the fact that they did not happen is that, when the Labor government got returned after 1993, not only did we not get the l-a-w tax cuts for families but also all the wholesale sale taxes went up and went up and went up. So there was an extra tax slug. This government has not increased the tax take at all. There have also been a number of other things in terms of the gold card for veterans and so on and so forth. We have turned around the disastrous financial situation which we inherited and we have started to put together a sound basis for the future.There is more to be done. One of the things that the opposition has said is, `Why don't you spend some of your surplus out of this budget?' What we know from history is that throwing money at problems does not always work. We saw the previous government throw money at job programs and all sorts of other things and tax more and spend more, but it was not effective in terms of dealing with unemployment. It was not effective in terms of cranking up the economy. It was not effective in terms of boosting our exports. Just throwing money at the problem is not the answer. Given the Asian problem, which is an external factor and a reality that we have to deal with, we need to be prudent. We need to have some money in the bank.Of course we have more to do. We know that we need to sort out the tax system. We know that the tax package will come before the next election. That will be a replacement tax package for what is there now with no extra tax, with more equity across the board and where the low paid will be well looked after. The reality of life is that when we introduce that tax package the detail will be on the table. That is in marked contrast to everything we have heard from the opposition in recent weeks. We hear a few general good intentions but we do not hear how it is going to happen. The member for Batman said that the Labor Party will aim for a rate of five per cent unemployment but of course gave absolutely no detail—absolutely no detail—of how that would be achieved. There are things that we will be talking about in the next few weeks. Obviously there are further things we want to do in health. We have already talked about privatising more of Telstra so that we can clear more of the federal government debt so that we have a smaller interest bill so that we, recurrent year after year, can provide the services and the goods to the electorate that they need and deserve. In the brief time I have available to me I want to say something about a particular area of interest. Although that wide economic question is most important, there are particular areas that I would like to have the chance to talk about. One is the subject of overseas aid. It is interesting that governments of both persuasions over the years have cut the aid budget. This year for the first time for a long time we have seen an increase in the overseas aid budget. This country is going to spend $1.48 billion in aid during the next 12 months. That is a $50 million increase. It is not a huge amount, but at least it is a move in the right direction, and it is a move in the right direction for the first time in many years. We are spending some 0.27 per cent of GNP on overseas development aid compared with the average of aid giving countries of 0.25 per cent. We are slightly ahead of the game, but it is not as good as the average that both this government and the previous government set of 0.7 per cent. We rank ninth out of 21 of the OECD aid givers. I think it is a creditable performance, but I would certainly be urging the government to spend more. There are some 1.3 billion people in the world who live on less than a dollar a day. A wealthy country like Australia has a responsibility to spend more on overseas aid.We focus on health, education, infrastructure, agriculture, rural development and governance. We do it bilaterally, we do it through regional arrangements and we do it through multilateral arrangements. We do it through disaster relief. We spend about a quarter of our aid in PNG, but we also help in many other parts of the world. This is an area where I would be pleased to see the government, as we continue to deliver those healthy budgets in future years, take advantage of having got back in the black by increasing our aid budget. I see that I am out of time. I will leave the House with this thought: we are back in the black. We are back on track, but we are not complacent. We know what we have to do. We have a very clear plan as to how to get there, which is in stark contrast to the opposition.21:07:003976Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—Back on track, on the backs of my constituents. Those opposite can brag as much as they wish about being back on track, but they should just understand that there are many constituents in their electorates in exactly the same situation as my constituents with the loss of services, the increased costs for pharmaceuticals and the entry fees for nursing homes. You can try to pretend that it is not happening but it is there. We know it is there and we know you are getting complaints about it.I say to my dear colleague the member for Aston (Mr Nugent) that the government has a bit of cheek: you have thrown $1.6 billion at private health funds to try to prop them up when less than one in three people in this country think that putting money into private health funds is value for money. With less than one in three people are in private health funds, you have thrown more and more money at them—and now you are proposing to throw more. Well may you complain, but look at your own record and your own performance. This is a mark time budget, a budget to fill in the gap until the government's real agenda is revealed in the coming election campaign. It is a budget about which the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and government members brag. They brag about the estimated $2.7 billion surplus in the coming year—a surplus built on the backs of the families, on the backs of the unemployed and on the backs of the pensioners, the aged, the ill; a surplus obtained by attacking those in our community who need help the most.There are two major concerns for people today—jobs and job security—but this budget does nothing to address those issues. If anything, it seeks to aggravate those issues. It does nothing to give hope to the unemployed, nor to make those in work feel more secure about their jobs. In fact, this government's policies do the opposite. A budget surplus should be built on growth and job creation, not on savage budget cuts. Bracket creep alone in the income tax scales in this budget will add $4½ billion to revenue in 1998-99.There is a lack of credibility in the forecasts for economic growth and employment. In 1997-98, employment growth was 1¼ per cent at a time when gross domestic product growth was 3¾ per cent. This government is now forecasting in the budget a GDP growth of only three per cent but an accelerated growth in employment of 1¾ per cent. That cannot be right. It is not factual. If GDP growth goes down, you are trying to tell us, employment growth will go up. Numbers are numbers: it does not add up; it does not compute. It is just a bit of presentation until the election comes. Clearly the growth estimates are fudged, and they cannot be believed.In this government's first 26 months in office, it has increased employment by an average of 9,077 jobs per month, or 236,000 jobs in total, compared with a growth of 550,000 jobs in Labor's last 26 months in office, which is an average rate of 21,154 new jobs per month. The budget is forecasting unemployment to rise back to over eight per cent—and surely it will with the contents of the budget during the coming year—before again dropping to below eight per cent. As I said, those estimates are fudged.The participation rate has already dropped from 63.8 per cent to 63.2 per cent. That is, there are 88,000 fewer people in the work force today than in March 1996. Add those 88,000 people into the equation and you have an unemployment rate of 8.8 per cent. So you can play with the numbers, you can fiddle and you can fudge, but the truth is the truth.In my electorate, in regional Australia, the unemployment rate is considerably higher and rising. That is happening because the government is discouraging people out of the work force with increased child-care charges, with less service available from employment offices and with less money available for programs to help create employment. In regional Australia where I come from people are being discouraged out of the work force and, when they drop out, it means the participation rate goes down. The government seeks to achieve a lower unemployment rate in that way.Savage cuts since this government was elected include outlays in education down by $3,000 million and outlays in health of $3.6 billion. The budget puts back $2 billion, still leaving a deficit of $1½ billion. That $3.6 billion consists of $1.4 billion cut from pharmaceuticals, $800 million from public hospitals, $1 billion from Medicare and $400 million from the abolition of dental care.Other cuts include outlays on job programs down by $1½ billion; child care down by $800 million, rising to $1 billion later; aged care down by $400 million; and 79,200 people slashed from the federal Public Service. Australians will not forget these meas ures. Australians in the next few weeks will not forget those actions of this government. Certainly, they will not forget the savage nursing home entry fees that this government has forced in.The Commonwealth seniors health card will be made available to 220,000 self-funded retirees. My constituents are asking me: why is it that single pensioners on $9,000 per year and couples on $15,000 per year are forced to pay more for the newest and safest drugs under the therapeutic group premiums and why have 20 drugs been removed from the PBS altogether?Likewise, I have had young families—they are earning between $25,000 and $33,000 a year with children to rear and a mortgage to pay—asking me: why is it that retired people over 65 years of age who have no children and an income of $60,000 a year can pay $3.20 for their prescription when they as a young family have to pay $20? These are questions the government is going to have to answer. As one age pensioner in my electorate commented, `As far as pensioners are concerned, I didn't think we were given anything compared to retirees.'The budget surplus is built on ruthless and destructive decisions to dismantle public services, to abolish entitlements and to increase taxes and charges that are hurting families, retirees and the unemployed and that are retarding regional Australia—especially people in the Hunter and Central Coast regions where I come from. Since March 1996, in our area, more than 700 federal Public Service jobs have been abolished by this government and the flow-on effect has directly caused the loss of a further 2,000 jobs in the private sector.Some of the jobs and services that have been ripped from our region include: the Immigration office in Newcastle being closed; the Customs Service reduced to a token level; the Belmont CES office closed, and then all CES offices abolished; the funding of publicly assisted non-CES employment offices cut or abolished altogether; the area office of DEETYA abolished where 104 jobs went in one swoop; Charlestown Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service abolished; and the Swansea Visiting Service of the Department of Social Security abolished. The Department of Social Security has been absorbed into a shrunken Centrelink agency—an agency which is quite unable to handle the tasks being placed upon it, such as the example last week of 4,000 cheques not being sent out to beneficiaries because of inadequate resources being available. The latest is the closure of the Belmont Medicare office.These closures, these abolitions of staff, are causing more mistakes, longer delays and worse service for people who need Commonwealth services. In government, Labor recognised that regions needed regional services and that services and the jobs that provide services needed to be brought to the regions. So we did that. But this government's speediest action on election was to abolish the regional development division of the Department of Transport and Regional Development. It was first off—bang. I have never seen a departmental division disappear so quickly.In 1993, Australians saw through the three-card trick of the GST that was canvassed by the Liberal-National parties at that time. The Australian people threw it out; they knew it was unfair to most families in this country. They would not have a bar of it. That is why the current Prime Minister said on 2 May 1995:A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition Policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia.He went further. Almost a year later on 19 April 1996 he said:No, there's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy—never, ever. It's dead. It was killed by the voters at the last election.This never-ever Prime Minister's `never-ever' apparently means `in just a few short years'—maybe one and a half years or two years. There is a new definition now. This is the same Prime Minister who cannot even say sorry, who does not have the heart, the feeling, the respect for other fellow Australians to say sorry.EM6STONEMrs Stone—What rubbish!HI4Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRIS—All the world can see it, if you cannot, dear colleague. If your eyes are shut and your ears are sealed, I am sorry for you.The families of Australia know one thing. A GST takes more tax from families on low incomes and takes less tax from families on high incomes. A GST is not fair. It has no regard for capacity to pay. It is a tax which increases the cost of bread, meat, milk, child care, fruit, vegetables and other necessities in order to make the price of expensive cars and luxury items cheaper. There is one thing you can say about a GST: the price of a Mercedes will go down, but the price of second-hand cars will go up. I have to say that in my electorate there are a number of my constituents who have to make do with second-hand cars as they cannot afford Mercedes.But this is the same Prime Minister who, as Treasurer, gave us that wonderful trifecta of his: double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment and record cash interest rates. But there is more: the first negative growth in thirty years, a 60 cents in the dollar marginal personal income tax rate and a company tax rate of 46 cents in the dollar. And there is more: double taxation of dividends—tax the company profits and then tax the dividends in the hands of the recipient. This is the same gentleman. Prime Minister Howard was the Treasurer Howard who did that for several years. And he gave us a top sales tax rate, the sales tax system that he now rails against. The sales tax system is the child of conservative governments since World War II. He had a beautiful rate—the top rate was 32.5 cents in the dollar. The wholesale sales tax system of today is the legacy of earlier Liberal-National Party governments.But the king hit of Treasurer Howard's legacy was the $25 billion deficit, in today's dollar terms, for the incoming government, concealed—not revealed, deliberately concealed. There was advice from the then Secretary to the Treasury, John Stone, of the deficit which was concealed. That was the legacy that we picked up. So do not ever let me hear from the other side and from this Prime Minister any railing about what our government did. I lived through his government. I saw the results of it and I have heard it, over and over.The Treasurer also studiously ignored the advice of the then Taxation Commissioner. Under Treasurer Howard, paying income tax for high income earners became optional. The bottom-of-the-harbour tax rorts raged. He had advice to deal with them but he did not. He deliberately ignored it, over and over again. So paying income tax was optional if you were on a high enough income.But now he says to low and middle income Australians, `Trust me, I will bring you a tax system. It is not too far away. It is a year into the great tax adventure—only a year since I first mentioned it—but trust me, it will be a fair and honest tax. It will be a good tax for you. Trust me.' No Australian trusts him. Ask the pensioners who no longer get their pharmaceuticals or who pay more for their pharmaceuticals. Ask the pensioners and the aged sick who now have to pay to get into a nursing home. Ask the mothers with their children in child care—they trusted him. And so it went on. But this Prime Minister says, `Trust me.'Journalists have been waiting for a year for this great taxation adventure to take place. Now we see—and we hear it from government members opposite—that they hope to sneak it in, after holding it back as long as they can. They say to the opposition: `What is your tax policy, opposition? You have not revealed it.' We say to you: put your proposal out now because Australia can see what it is that you are trying to do by holding it back. You are trying to sneak it through in the few weeks of an election campaign, just as you did with so many of your policies in the 1996 election. You are trying to make sure there is no time to examine, analyse and expose the unfairness of it.In my last minute and a half, because of the limited time, I just want to say something about the government's new slogan of safety, stability and security. This Australian, and the Australians where I come from, do not want a bar of your government's security. Your form of government security has been seen around the world as an appalling spectacle: uniformed thugs, balaclavas, guard dogs, mace sprays, midnight raids on law-abiding citizens and their workplaces, vilification of members of unions, their wives and their kids.All Australians are coming to realise that when you have a government, a prime minister, a treasurer, a minister for workplace relations and a former minister for transport who actively support a corporation and a corporation leader that contrives the bankruptcy of its own companies so that it can avoid its obligations to its own employees, then no working man or woman in this country is safe. More and more people are coming to understand that now.We are seeing the greatest debacle in transport, in international trade and commerce, that this country has ever seen. How has this happened? Why have hundreds of millions of dollars been lost? It is because of the incompetence, the sheer malice, the malevolence of this government and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) and the apparatchiks around him, and their manic and obsessive hatred for people who work on the waterfront and on ships. The plot was hatched last year and, as the weeks go by, more and more will be revealed. That is not the Australia my constituents want, and that is not the Australia that Australians in general will want. We will see that in the election results in a few weeks time.21:23:003979Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—This budget has been welcomed by hardworking Australians, by those who need and are looking for work, those who are frail and elderly and those who are raising their children. The budget has been welcomed in particular by the people of the electorate of Murray—the people I so proudly represent—because Murray is a region that needs a lot of infrastructure support. It is an area that has a fragile environment and, as a regional area of Australia, that environment needs to be sustained so that the economic basis of the local economy—the agribusiness—can thrive, but not at the expense of our biodiversity and the watertable situation which, as many people in the coalition understand, is one of the most difficult problems we have to deal with. The budget brought some of the nation's hard-earned dollars to the electorate to help build the infrastructure and roads. You can imagine the joy when the $53 million for the four lanes of the Goulburn Valley Highway was finally announced in the budget. That highway has been a federally funded highway for quite some time, but it was ignored by the previous government. When that highway becomes four lanes it can transport the fruit, dairy products, rice and the products of our vineyards to the ports and wharves of Australia where those products can get out of this country quicker, especially after reform on the waterfront. This $53 million is for the first section. In announcing the funding of the section from Seymour to Nagambie, our Prime Minister (Mr Howard) announced the plan to take the highway through to the border. You can imagine what a difference that will make in a region that depends on our transport systems to ensure we can become world competitive in agricultural trade through fast and reliable delivery.At the same time, we welcome the continuation of the funding of the Supermarket to Asia initiative. The Murray electorate is a major food producer and manufacturer and without the growing access to markets that our budget encourages through the export market development grants and other initiatives, such as the research and development funds, we cannot compete with other nations that produce products not dissimilar to ours.With the Supermarket to Asia initiative we have been able to develop a local Murray Supermarket to Asia forum. We have a secretariat funded through the federal initiative. That forum has all of our smaller and larger food manufacturers gathering together where they can address issues such as our skills gaps, energy needs and problems such as brownouts—and our ageing power supply systems. Our manufacturers can get together to talk about collectively bargaining for a cheaper power supply. They can discuss industrial relations issues. In particular, they can discuss how we can ensure the development of new local food manufacturing industries across our region.Without a government like ours, regional Australia would have continued to feel that they were the poor relations of this nation. We would have continued to see the brain drain, with our brightest and best leaving the country areas as soon as possible in search of education and jobs. Another significant budget initiative for this nation is the attention now given to traineeships and apprenticeships and the extra dollars for our tertiary education systems.It is incredible that the opposition once claimed to be on the side of the blue-collar worker, yet it was under Labor governments that this nation saw the biggest decimation of trade skilling that there has ever been. In fact, our tradespeople became an endangered species as it became more and more difficult to get an apprenticeship. Skills gaps were evident throughout Australia but particularly in regional Australia. For the first time in the electorate of Murray, we are seeing a growth in apprenticeships. For the first time, we are seeing manufacturers able to go into our schools and have industry-school linked programs where our young people are taking on courses that relate to jobs like metal fabricating and food technology, hospitality and tourism.It took this government to address the fact that only 30 per cent or so of our young people move on to university education. Under the previous government, the other 70 per cent were supposed to make do as best they could—supposedly failing the system because they did not reach that golden goal of a university education. Our government sees every young Australian as having the same potential to be a major contributor to our economy and to the cultural and social life of our nation. We expect to see, over time, a redressing of the imbalance between people who are skilled technicians and those who are skilled in other areas.In an electorate such as Murray, which is only a few hours from a capital city like Melbourne, it seems incredible—but it is true—that we have major problems in attracting doctors to our hospitals and general practices. This budget has addressed these significant problems. We see, particularly in Murray, the ongoing funding of the Goulburn Valley-Melbourne University department of rural health. This department is one of seven throughout Australia. It is an initiative that was long overdue, but of course it would never have seen the light of day under the previous government. Labor simply did not understand that, while doctors might cluster in the metropolitan areas of Australia, with bulk-billing clinics on every second corner, our rural population was going without the most basic of medical service provisions, or the access was so limited that the poor and the needy went without.I remind honourable members that in a city the size of the Shepparton only 26 per cent of those who go to a general practitioner have access to bulk-billing services. The average in Australia is well over 80 per cent. So this government has addressed issues such as the maldistribution of general practitioners in Australia, and is making sure that, as time goes by, we reverse the flow of our young doctor graduates into the cities and see them coming out to the regions.With our department of rural health in the Goulburn Valley Hospital now established and receiving another $1 million in infrastructure support, we can look forward to perhaps becoming in our part of Victoria an international centre for rural health services training. That is our goal and our vision. I was very proud to preside over a meeting just last week with our medical service providers from the region who will be establishing a reference group to help support this initiative. We look forward to working very closely with Melbourne University as they help us to reverse this status differential between medical service providers who work in cities and those who choose to come to the country. I know that you will agree with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that doctors who practise in country areas have to be much more skilled, much more dedicated, to take up practices in regions, compared to those who stay in metropolitan centres.As a regional electorate we looked at the budget and we saw that there was a major commitment to looking after our older Australians and our veterans. Of course, in an area like Murray where much of it was developed through Soldiers Settlements and where we have older and long established communities going back six and seven generations, we have huge numbers of veterans and a number of self-funded retirees. You can imagine how they responded when they saw that we are now going to make sure that self-funded retirees are not treated differently from those who earn extra while they are very rightly in receipt of social security benefits and are of similar age to themselves. They also welcome some access to health care cards.It is those sorts of initiatives that have made Australians understand that we really do look hard at our constituencies. We listen. We are not captured by minority or interest groups who are mostly to be found in the big cities or around the coastal fringes. This government considers the needs of all Australians. It understands the needs of its ethnic and racial minorities. It understands the needs of women. It understands that regional Australia often does it hard; that at the same time we are communities who deserve the same standards of living; that we have the same sorts of aspirations for our children as those who happen to be born in the cities. So I am proud to be part of this government and to be a representative of a region. And I am proud to say that I do not expect to see my constituents paying much attention to the sorts of threats and innuendos made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris), who seemed to suggest, for example, that we let people down when we addressed the problems of maldistribution of funds that previously went too often to health services based in bigger population areas.I also remind the previous speaker about our spending on the indigenous population of Australia, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The previous speaker seemed to suggest that we were not as caring as the former government. From one look at this budget you can see that our expenditure on indigenous affairs is substantially higher than its expenditure in previous years. But it is not just dollars that count. For all the dollars spent we want to see an improvement in the life experience of indigenous people.As I was saying earlier this week, it is one thing to talk about the need for reconciliation in this nation—I do not think any caring Australian ignores or rejects that concept—but you cannot talk seriously about reconciliation if you do not seriously address the fact that our indigenous populations have poor health and poor housing and employment outcomes. As long as a young Australian Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island baby is born with less of an opportunity to grow up healthy compared with a mainstream Australian, no-one on the opposition benches can stand proud.Not only do we have the right sense of caring and sharing with all Australians, particularly our indigenous populations, but also we believe that the additional dollars we put into our budget will be better spent. We are going to target those dollars where they can be used, where our indigenous populations have said that they feel the dollars need to be spent. We are going to make sure that at the end of the day we monitor that spending and that there are outcomes that change the life experiences and outcomes of our indigenous people.So this budget is a caring budget. It is economically responsible. It is making sure that our nation can weather the storms that are right now buffeting some of our Asian neighbours. It is a budget that is particularly important for regional Australians. And as a regional representative I have been very proud to present this budget back in my electorate, where it has received nothing but praise. It is with a great deal of pride that as a member of this government I look forward to our next term in office when we can see the groundwork that we have laid in the first three years consolidated and we lead this nation to being a substantial player in our region and, ultimately, internationally.21:36:003982Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—I rise to join tonight's debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 conscious of the fact that it is getting late in the evening, that the parliament has sat through the dinner break and that there are more than 30 speakers on the list of those waiting to make their contribution. So I intend to limit my remarks.This is the first time in my parliamentary career—which spans more than 14 years as a state parliamentarian and the past two years as a federal parliamentarian—that I have spoken on an appropriation bill, free from the shackles of the dominance and, dare I say, the subjugation by the major political party system that greatly diminishes the integrity of its MPs. This imposition of undemocratic disciplines robs the parliament—and consequently the people—of its proper functions of legislative review and scrutiny of government actions, as well as unconscionably forcing MPs to toe the party line, thereby putting the party ahead of the people.I listened to contributions by honourable members of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party in this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 , the contents of which were predictable. The Liberals and National Party members all fell over each other in their fawning adulation of the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and his budget. Everything he did was right and visionary and would prove to be the solution to Australia's ills!ZT4SOMLYAYMr Somlyay—Hear, hear!ZK6Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMIT—Of course, they all made sure that they said the obligatory things about the Labor Party being the source of all of our society's ills, and so it went on and on.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Hear, hear!ZK6Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMIT—I note the `Hear, hears' from the ministers at the table. No mention was made by any of the coalition members, in the spirit of constructive criticism, as to how the budget may have been improved on or any personal disappointments they may have had as to any lack of specific funding for their electorate, no doubt out of concern of a resultant rebuke from the party elite. The Labor members' contributions were exactly the same but in the reverse; everything contained in the budget was wrong, mean and peppered with their predictions of doomsday being just around the corner. Little wonder then that there is such growing disenchantment by more and more Australians who see Australia's system of government—both Labor and coalition—placing all the power in the hands of the Prime Minister and his cabinet who now dominate the national parliament of this nation.I remind honourable members that it was not always like that. In the beginning, all parliamentarians were independent people—there were no parties—and the government was answerable directly to the people through its representatives. So I join the debate tonight on the appropriation bill before the parliament as an Independent, which differentiates me from the coalition MPs and the Labor MPs in that I can be supportive or otherwise of the government of the day on the issues as I see them. Ultimately, my constituents will judge me accordingly at the ballot box. However, what my constituents know is that I will stand up for them and place them and their interests ahead of that of the interests of the political elite.Therefore, my comments in tonight's debate follow my new-found freedom, which, incidentally, is now shared by a record number of eight Independent members of the House of Representatives of this, the national parliament of Australia—eight Independent MPs representing a record number of one million Australians.I turn now to some specific details in the budget that I want to comment upon. On the positive side, the budget predicts a surplus of $2.7 billion in 1998-99, bringing the budget into the black for the first time in 10 years. It also gives an additional 220,000 long-suffering self-funded retirees some assistance in providing a seniors health card. Cardholders can access eligible pharmaceuticals at concessional prices of $3.20, with prescriptions in excess of 52 within a year being free of charge. Also, all Australian citizens aged 65 and over will be able to access free flu vaccines.From January 1999, the gold card will be extended to an additional 50,000 World War II veterans—those over 70 who faced danger from hostile forces—with free treatment as a private patient, choice of doctor and other benefits. Another initiative in this budget that will be welcomed by the business community is the reduction in the provisional tax uplift factor. The budget will allow businesses to accelerate the tax deductibility of the cost of the computer software to tackle the year 2000 millennium bug by assisting the business community to the sum of $1 billion over a four-year period.Also, $127 million will be provided over four years to fully index Medicare rebates and to encourage doctors to bulk-bill. I note that there is an extra $50 million for foreign aid, taking the aid allocation to a very respectable $1.48 billion. Indigenous health programs get a much needed lift of $73 million over four years. The environment receives a sizeable amount of $294½ million for Natural Heritage Trust programs. I am pleased to note that defence spending remains virtually unchanged at $10.9 billion—that is, nearly $11,000 million. That, no doubt, will be well received by our military.I turn now to the negatives contained in this budget. We have a health care system in crisis on our hands. In the Treasurer's first two budgets, $3.6 billion was taken out of public health with cuts to hospitals, dental services, pharmaceutical benefits and Medicare. In this budget, as we have heard stated several times this evening, less than $2 billion has been put back.Treasurer Costello has taken $500 million from nursing homes and put nothing back. The Treasurer is keen to keep repeating his phrase `the budget is back in the black'. However, it is a black day for our senior citizens who are dependent on nursing homes. Seniors will find it increasingly difficult to obtain a nursing home bed. Additionally and tragically, some nursing homes providing quality care may be forced to close their doors. Despite assurances to the contrary, the coalition government has not provided capital funding for the building of new nursing homes beds for the less privileged and for the refurbishment of existing facilities.About 10 per cent of Australia's 3,000 older nursing homes are simply not able to produce the necessary funds from their own resources to upgrade. This problem is further com pounded by the fact that there has been a decline in numbers entering nursing homes following the introduction of means tested fees for new residents in April of this year. Under great difficulties, nursing homes are providing top flight care. However, unless they upgrade, they will be forced to close and the government will stand condemned.In the education portfolio, there have been cuts of $3 billion from universities, TAFEs, government schools and student support, and just one-thirtieth of that has been put back in this budget. No mention at all has been made of science and innovation in this budget—hard to believe, but true. This further compounds the problems caused by the massive $1.7 billion cuts to the research and development tax concessions which have driven down private sector investment just when Australia needs jobs growth. The lack of adequate funding for research and development is forcing many of our top scientists and researchers to relocate overseas, and Australia is the poorer for this.I believe the cuts to university operating grants of $378 million by the year 2001 represent one of the greatest mistakes of this budget. It will be felt increasingly by our university undergraduates over the next few years, to Australia's detriment.I turn now to what will no doubt be one of the two or three major issues at the forthcoming election. I refer to unemployment, which languishes at around the eight per cent mark, and at an unforgivable 28 per cent for youth unemployment. Honourable members will no doubt recall the recent debates we have had in this parliament on the issue of youth suicides. Australia now has, on a pro rata basis, the highest rate in the industrialised world, to Australia's shame. A projected three per cent growth figure in this budget is just too low to make any appreciable inroads into our chronic unemployment figures. It certainly gives little hope to our unemployed young people.I well recall the billboard truck organised by the coalition when they were in opposition which travelled all over Australia prior to the federal election and in which they were highly critical of the Keating government's youth unemployment rate. In fact, I well recall that billboard truck visiting my own electorate when I was the Liberal candidate for Lowe, when the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister (Mr Howard) visited my electorate for a photo opportunity. Two years later, during the term of the Howard government, we find the youth unemployment rate virtually unchanged at an unacceptable 28 per cent. The social impact on our unemployed young people is devastating.I do not want to in any way belittle the pain and suffering which all of the 740,000 unemployed Australians and their families experience, especially those aged 45 and over who are in the prime of their lives—the mature-aged unemployed who have children to support and mortgages to pay off. However, most of them at least have had a taste of working life. One-third of our unemployed young Australians have not even had that most basic of all experiences, to work, and many will probably continue in the ranks of the unemployed; gradually, they will join the ranks of the long- term unemployed and, regrettably, they will then become unemployable, unless we act now to eradicate this national shame which can only be rectified by government intervention by way of a large job creation program.I turn now to the issue of families and child care. Parents with unemployed 16- and 17-year-olds will be deprived of government assistance, with no dole and loss of other benefits. Additionally, families with unemployed 18- and 19- year-olds will find that their children's dole payments will be reduced once the parental income reaches $23,350.In child care, one small mercy is that there have been no further budget cuts to add to the $800 million in cuts since the Howard government came to power. Nothing was put back in this budget. An unheard-of 68 private centres closed their doors last year. The response by the minister to this tragedy is to establish a new child-care advisory council to investigate—another committee under the old and tired, timeworn government excuse to do nothing while awaiting the findings of a committee. This injustice hurts Australia's working mothers with young children the most, as they are badly affected by the Howard government's cutbacks in child-care funding.The hoped-for assistance for ordinary families with sick children by providing medicines for free or at the $3.20 rate did not eventuate. Perhaps Adele Horin put it best in the Sydney Morning Herald when she said, in describing the budget:Families are usually the focus of the Government's rhetoric, but in this budget, they hardly rate a mention.In summary, my assessment of the budget is that it is a `steady as she goes' economic document but it does little for the most disadvantaged in our society. The $7 billion of spending cuts over the past two years, with all the resultant pain and suffering, in hindsight, we now know may not have been necessary at all. As I said earlier, it is regrettable that the federal budget provides little vision and hope for the average Australian, who is under constant social and economic pressure.I conclude by saying that the budget, apart from going into surplus, does little to reassure our fellow Australians that the Howard government is other than the classic economic rationalist government, with little heart for pursuing the framework for a just, compassionate and tolerant society.Madam Deputy Speaker, I am mindful of the time. As I said in my opening remarks, so as to allow as many speakers as possible to speak on the budget, I will go into specific details as to how the budget impacts on my electorate of Lowe when the matter is debated in the Main Committee. I conclude my remarks at this point.21:50:003985Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—It gives me great pleasure to speak on the budget tonight, and I want to take a slightly different angle from that which has been approached by many so far. I think if one term were to sum up what the Labor years in government were about, it was a roller-coaster ride—there were good times and there were bad times. But the bottom line was that there was very little security for the future. People did not know whether we were going to have high inflation, low inflation, a surplus, a deficit, whether we were going to be attacking unemployment, or pumping up the economy with massive inputs of money, which the Keating government certainly attempted to do to bring down unemployment.The one thing that industry needs, the one thing that business needs more than any other, is certainty as to what the future holds. By doing that, they can then invest with some sort of surety. We have seen only too clearly in recent months what has happened in Asia. The tiger economies, as they were known—and they were heralded as being what we should be aiming for—are now seen, as they lie in ruins, to be something of a myth. These were economies that were built on false promises. They were built on governments chasing money, chasing foreign capital, and putting into place a regime which looked good, but the fundamentals were not there.It is important if you are going to have jobs growth not to hide figures, as the opposition certainly did in job market programs, or to prop up the economy. Japan has tried that. Japan has pumped trillions of dollars into its economy, yet unemployment has continued to rise and there has been very little growth.These are only short-term measures. It takes a government with real steel and real determination to ensure that the decisions and the policies are put in place so that everybody can benefit long term from economic growth. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Zammit), spoke about the lack of growth and that three per cent was going to be insufficient to create jobs. It would be great if the economy was travelling at four or five per cent—and if they are the sorts of projections he would like us to make, I am afraid that he is looking at pie in the sky. The fact is that Asia, which we have got most of our growth from, is now in recession. At best, it is on a level playing field and bumping along the bottom, and many economies are recording negative growth.On the basis of that, and since we export so much of what we produce, how does he propose to create the jobs and the job making programs that he says the government should produce? It simply cannot happen. Under the previous government, over successive budgets we saw inflation rise rapidly and fall. We saw interest rates rise, as we have heard time and again, with business interest rates exceeding 20 per cent. Let us put that into perspective: if you borrowed $1 million as a small business you would be paying $200,000 in interest—that is, you would have to make $200,000 profit just to repay your interest, and you have not even looked at your capital yet. If you were looking at Australia as an opportunity in which to invest, would you do so on that basis? We are not talking about outside capital; we are talking about Australians investing in Australia. And they wonder why the icons of Australia went offshore. Simply, it was because there was not the money or the confidence in this country for people to invest in their own nation—and that is a very sad state of affairs.The problems with this economy were also ones of inflexibility in our labour market arrangements. We had the Accord in place for 13 years. It held the Labor government in power and destroyed the framework which made this country great, including the flexibility that allowed people to negotiate in the workplace to ensure that the worker and the boss worked cohesively to produce an outcome which was going to be good for both and good for the country.This government has taken on industrial relations and, with the assistance of others in other places, in particular the former Senator Cheryl Kernot, ensured that there were major reforms in that area. We have taken on the waterfront. Why? Not for some ideological daydream, as the ALP would have you believe, but simply because business needs to have a framework whereby their products can leave this country and enter this country in an efficient and cost effective manner. It is not about whether you get 24 or 17 or 16 containers out of the port every hour; it is about the surety of knowing that when that ship arrives, it is going to be unloaded and your product is going to be at your door in a very short period of time. I was in small business. I needed that reliability and I never got it. Waterfront reform must be taken on.Tax reform is the other major reform issue. This government has already indicated, and the whole of Australia knows, that we are prepared to take it on. Why? Because it is a fun thing to do? Well, of course it is not. People stop me in the street and say, `Why the heck don't you just do it after the next election?' If they only looked over at those in the other place, they would know just how obstructionist they are—and that is quite improper. On top of that, aren't we elected to take on the difficult decisions? Aren't we elected to do the things that need to be done for the country? Why should we shrink away from the task that is before us?Keating recognised that it needed to be done in 1985, but his party room did not have the guts to do it—that is the bottom line. Hewson recognised that it had to be done. Whatever his failings, he recognised the challenge for Australia, took it up and, unfortunately for Australia's sake, he was rejected. People say to us, `Why would you take it up again?' The simple fact is that this system, this Labor system of taxation, has got more holes in it than you can poke a stick at and, at the end of the day, if we do not fix it, then Australia is going to be in peril.I will return to where Australia's future lies in the few minutes remaining to me. Australia is so fortunately placed geographically in the Asian region, this area which, whilst it has had a major setback, I believe will grow again into the new millennium. We are well placed to take great benefit from that growth, but it will not happen naturally. It will not happen unless the fundamentals are in place so that Australian and foreign companies that intend to work from this country, to export and to create jobs know that we have a low inflation rate which is going to stay, know that we have low interest rates which are going stay, know that we have an industrial relations system which they can rely on and know that they can get productivity for the dollar that they spend. If you have those things, they finally will know that when they produce the product, it is not going to be held up at the port and rot in containers, if it happens to be fresh produce, or know that they are going to lose contracts because they were not able to maintain the contractual arrangements with their overseas customers.Of what we produce as a nation, 80 per cent is exported. Most countries consume most of what they produce and export the surplus, but we do the opposite. If we close ourselves off to globalisation and to those opportunities, we stop the opportunities for young people to get jobs—and I do not think either party wants to see that happen. That is why the government has undertaken industrial relations and waterfront reform and has ensured that we have the budget back in balance so that we take the pressure off inflation and interest rates.I saw on the news tonight that GMH had a great announcement for all Australians. They are now selling 7,000 new Holdens to the Middle East. These are not rural products or primary industry or mining products—they are manufactured goods. Australian products are world quality, and they expect to be able to export 40,000 GMH cars in the very near future. That is over $1 billion in cars alone. That is more Australian jobs for South Australia. In an area of South Australia where they are going to have to set up a new assembly line, it will mean jobs for the people in those suburbs. Elizabeth is a suburb that I have visited and I know well. They require those jobs because GMH is the largest single employer. In fact, a lot of people believe that if they do not get a job at GMH their future is very limited. So now more of those people have a future because GMH, working in consultation with this government with the package of reform measures that were put in place to assist that industry, has been able to export cars for Australians. That is a marvellous thing for us.Madam Deputy Speaker, we must get away from being on the roller-coaster ride. We have to give back to Australians some security into the future. Business has to know that it can invest its hard-earned capital with some surety, and that if it does that, then the jobs that the other speakers have spoken about will be there. They will not be there on a false promise of taxpayers' money being spent on pumping up a false economy. You must get those economically rational fundamentals right. People do not like them; they do not like to talk about them; and they do not necessarily understand them. But if they are not there, you cannot produce the social equities that this country needs. The greatest social equity that any government can produce is a job for everybody that wants one.This government has achieved the lowest rate of unemployment in eight years; it has done that in only two years of office. Remember, we only sat for the first time on 30 April 1996. We have been in this parliament for just two years, and we have an eight-year low in unemployment. That is something to be proud of, but it will improve only if we are able to ensure that the fundamentals we have put in place can be built on. The waterfront reform must be completed and tax reform must go through.If we get those two things, we will build much needed infrastructure for this country—I will speak about that at a later time—and this country can be, and will be, not only the focal point for Asia but also the manufacturing sector not just for minerals and primary produce but for manufactured goods and highly technical goods for the rest of the world. We can do it, and we will do it, as long as this government is given the mandate to continue the work that it has commenced in the first two years.22:01:003987Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I listened with interest to the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Longman (Mr Brough). I must say that, in the parlance of judging Olympic diving, the $2.7 billion surplus delivered by this government is worth a nine for fiscal gymnastics, but for style, in the area of social economics and in terms of social deficit, I would have to give it a mark closer to nil. There were no tax increases, and one would assume there will be no borrowing as a consequence. But we still have a very serious current account deficit. My colleague the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) alluded to this last night. He suggested, and I agree with him, that that is largely a result of the lack of any serious industry policy from this government, in that we have allowed our industry to be downgraded to such an extent over recent decades that we are in a parlous state. In fact, we are in a state far worse than some of our neighbours who are regarded as being in a serious economic condition.We may be back in the black and back on track, and there may be some very good points in this budget, such as the 34c rebate for landcare, which on the surface appears pretty attractive, but I have already had feedback from my electorate to suggest that, on the income threshold that has been set, there is perhaps very little scope for anyone to invest the $5,000 required to attract the 34c. Assuming everyone does, there would be $80 million worth of rebate available, and one would suggest that, at 34c, it means there is a potential $240 million of investment in landcare, fencing and tackling the critical problem of weeds and other issues out there. But I think not. I do not think we are going to get that sort of investment. I do not think it is attractive enough to attack in any way the environmental concerns, particularly of those farmers out there in landcare groups who tell me there is no incentive in the system, particularly for fencing, to pay for the requirements to do a decent job.This budget is good for self-funded retirees, with the provision of a health card, and for veterans, with the gold card. I must point out here my admiration for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott). There are many ministers with whom I have had a lot of dealings and for whom I have a lot of time, including the minister at the table, the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government (Mr Somlyay), but Mr Scott is a stand-out in this regard for his understanding of his particular portfolio and his sensitivity to the needs of our veterans.While my political opponents may say, `What has an Independent achieved in the seat of Calare?' it is interesting to go through the list I have been keeping of what we actually have achieved.ZI4ROCHERMr Rocher—Not as much as in Curtin.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—As the member for Curtin would acknowledge, the very fact that an Independent is the incumbent in this seat means that it is disregarded at the absolute peril of both the major parties. That is the irony of the whole situation. I have enjoyed the establishment of offices for veterans' affairs in both Orange and Oberon. I think two out of only three in inland New South Wales are in the seat of Calare. They are doing a very great job to fill a real need out there amongst our veteran community.Calare has had $1.5 million in landcare and $2 million in black spot funding out of a budget of $38 million. Calare has done very well in that regard from this government. There was an announcement last week of $250,000 for the home and community care program in Lithgow. Orange, Blayney and Bathurst have increased amounts under that same program. There are also the multipurpose health centres, which I have spoken about to the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge). I have put submissions to the two ministers responsible for family services.ZI4ROCHERMr Rocher—I thought you did not like this budget.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Curtin is not in his place.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—If the member for Curtin is patient, I will get on to the negatives in a moment. The Yeoval multipurpose centre in my own electorate is an example of the sort of health service we require in country Australia, delivering everything from acute care through to aged care. In Yeoval's case, it delivers it in an absolutely reactive fashion to the needs of that community and is doing it exceptionally well. That particular community centre was grown from a local cooperative when the classic economic rationalist, Nick Greiner, a graduate of the Harvard School of Economics, decided that Yeoval had no further purpose in the health system in this state. They fought like mad and held on to it, and now they have the absolute model of what smaller community health care should be in this country. This government has recognised that, and I hope it recognises it even further in that particular hospital's claim for dementia care assistance in the next little while.Moving on to the bad aspects of this budget, in the area of health care for the aged, there was no restoration of cuts to the dental health program, which I think every member in this House has had feedback and represen tations on. It was not just a trial program that had run out of time. It filled a real need out there in the community, and I think that no member can fairly say that it did not and that it should not be restored.There was no restoration of services like the tax office in Orange. The lack of a tax office is continuing to cause enormous difficulties for small businesses, tax agents, accountants and the general public. There is concern over operational subsidies for child care. Why were some of these not restored in some of the areas that have lost them and are finding it particularly difficult to provide an economic service to the clientele?A lot of this budget is premised on the sale of Telstra. The billion dollar Natural Heritage Trust fund was established with the first sale. I remember speaking on that particular bill, and the former shadow minister for the environment, now the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan), spoke to me afterwards and said that he agreed with my point that a billion dollars for the environment is, to use a colloquial phrase, absolutely sweet Fanny Adams given the extent of the problem in the environment that is facing us.In that speech I said that the Murray-Darling Basin is not a 2001 problem, it is a 2101 problem if we are going to attack it properly and that we need a billion dollars alone for it if we are going to reverse the degradation of that particular catchment area. What happens when this money runs out? If you did a survey or a referendum west of the sandstone curtain, 68 per cent would be against the further sale of Telstra, and Australia-wide it would be up to 80 per cent in the country areas. Why? Because after that one-third sale of Telstra they have seen a decrease in the standard of service out there from Telstra.They know, the same as with their mobile phone coverage and the analog coverage, that the marketplace is all about maximising the return to shareholders, maximising the income from those major profit generating areas, but not giving a damn about those more remote areas. With the review currently being done on analog, I hope that the ACA listens not to the digital providers but to the many councils, farmers and other community groups that have put in submissions on this. You might find that the analog system will have to remain as it is until we have a cost-effective satellite system or whatever else in place to cover the area that analog covers now.Driven as it is by the Harvard school and the economic rationalists, or whatever we want to call them, the whole economic debate has lacked for many years discussion of the issue of social economics. I am not talking about socialism, I am talking about social economics. I am talking about the cost of not doing things. I am talking about the cost of not rebuilding our infrastructure, which has fallen in a heap over the last 20 years. I am talking about the cost of not providing adequate services to people in the bush: the banks; the government services; the selling off of banks, and the Commonwealth bank in particular, and the lack of community obligation that they now show; the threat to the post office services in the marketplace situation; and the cost of not adhering to community service obligations, whether it be State Rail or Telstra phones.I am talking about things like filling in the fiscal black hole where we have a surplus at the end of the day, but we truly do have a social deficit. I am talking about things like the income maintenance period, a particularly cruel innovation which was brought in in September last year. For instance, those laid off from the Clarence coalmine or from the Blayney abattoir suddenly found that they could not access newstart or any social security assistance until such time as they used up their accrued holiday pay, long-service leave, sick pay and such—which, in many cases, particularly in the abattoir and the mine, they had saved up diligently over 25 years.Those people had worked their butts off, working double shifts in some cases, to set that money aside as a nest egg for retirement, as a compensation for the superannuation they did not have. What do they find now? Wham! From September last year the income maintenance period requires them to use that for the period of the leave for which it applied. How fair is that when we are talking about savings and when we are talking about people providing not only for their retirement but for the insecurity that is in the workplace now. As someone in business said recently, `No-one should expect to go to work on Monday and think they will have a job on Friday.' That is the sort of climate we are working in today, with people seen as units of cost and not employees, and there is bitterness and insecurity out there, and that is the sort of hard edge of economic rationalism that is really cutting people to the quick out there.Calare is a cross-section of Australia, judging from the parliamentary report that most members have received, with 8½ per cent unemployment which is just above the national average. But it is not the Centrelink client figures that are so often quoted as the official number of unemployed; the figure is 20 per cent, in fact, with underemployment thrown in. People are cobbling together a portfolio of part-time and casual jobs to try to keep the whole thing together. They are the people who are really hurting out there. You only have to work for an hour a week and you are not on the unemployment list. That is the hidden unemployment and the hidden hurt in our economy.America claims that it has four per cent or three per cent unemployment, but let us look at the underemployment in economies like that. Let's not just spruik the official figures, because there is a very large hidden number of people in all of the Western economies, particularly Germany, who are going to be the seeds of discontent in this 80:20 society that is emerging in the Western world. In America, they do not have to vote, so the government does not have to care a hell of a lot about them. I am very concerned about any moves to cut out compulsory voting in this country because I fear that the sort of people who consider just marketplace economics will not give a damn about that 20 per cent either, and I do not want to see that sort of country here.We are not talking about the dead hand of government, as has been suggested by the Japanese finance minister recently. I am talking about a benign hand of government. We are all representatives of the people, for heaven's sake, whether it be in parliament or in government. It is not a dead hand of gov ernment unless you let the bureaucrats, the Treasury people and the executive get hold of it. We should debate things here, talk about them openly, talk about the hurts out there. We should not do it behind the closed doors of the party room but in here, in the debating chamber, where only the Independents really give questions from left field and debate these issues with any real passion.Trade policies are bewildering people out there. The pig farmers at the moment are told, `Readjust. Get used to it. If you're a 100-sow piggery, you're too small. Get out.' So what do we have? We have corporation piggeries from Canada sending boned leg ham into this country. Of course they could do it cheaper. It is the same story as Thailand where apple producers from my electorate worked their butts off for 10 years to get a market in Thailand—good exporters, efficient. What happened? The Chinese gazumped that market with American help. They planted a million acres of Fuji apples, I think it was. They took their market away, undid 10 years of hard work, and they said, `What's the worth of this? We're not big enough. How do we get critical mass together to challenge that sort of thing?' That is the sort of thing we have to look at in this whole trade debate.Infrastructure support: why are we running away from government supporting infrastructure? Why is there $18 million less for roads in this budget? I know they have taken the local government component of that out and added it on to the general roads grant—and it looks pretty impressive. But when I look at the figures—correct me if I am wrong—it stands out. It is $18 billion less than last year. It is a trend that has continued for the last six or seven years.What about the Great Western Highway? Is there going to be some sort of announcement about a road of national importance before the election? Let us hope there is. What about the Parkes IMC export airport concept? There are 50 councils out there supporting it. Already the consultants have said it is a goer. Let us see if David Asimus says it is or whether the excuse of a depressed Asia will be a convenient way out. Let us look at the social economic factor. Build social economics back into it because there are people out there who are hurting and seriously questioning why we have to downsize by so much in both the government and the corporatised sectors. The power industry is another on the agenda.I support, and have supported, the `user who can pay' principle in aged care. I have been out there arguing that in very difficult circumstances for this government. I have been talking to big meetings of old people and saying, `Those who can afford to pay should expect to pay.' I have no problems with that. I support the amendments to the unfair dismissal legislation. I know that in small business it drives a wedge between the employer and the employee. It should not be there for just 15 employees—perhaps 20 or fewer employees.The government has better targeted child care generally, but I have concerns about some of the operational subsidies in several cases. I support workplace reform—and I have said so—but the amended one that includes the Industrial Relations Commission. You must have the arbitrator. You must have the judge. You must have the middleman. But I do not support a payout using a public line of credit to help Patrick's out of their problem.There has to be a fair return to the bush. Local governments are down on their grants over the last couple of years, despite the two per cent increase this year. They are behind the Council of Australian Governments' agreement several years ago. We have to finance from the non-productive into the productive sectors of the economy. The member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and the member for Kalgoorlie alluded to that last night so eloquently.Job generation in the bush is what we should be about, and that involves the benign hand of government spending some more to generate those jobs and to get those infrastructure projects rolling, especially for the young people. I have 21 per cent young unemployed—the 15s to 19s—in Calare. The Australian average is not much above that. There is very little sign in this budget of anything that tells me about job generation.22:20:003991Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—It is very easy in this place to be negative, to harp on things that are facing governments, and in many respects I think that is when they see their leaders, the representatives of communities, spending so much time dwelling on negatives and criticisms at a time when we are looking for fresh ideas. We are looking for reasons to provide encouragement to young people, some of those young unemployed that the member for Calare (Mr Andren) spoke of.We are not so much talking, though, about the beauty and the elegance in the dive—to pick up the member for Calare's analogy. The fact that it is technically sound is a good step in the right direction, I believe, because you can always add some flair to sound technique. It is when the flair is presented as a substitute for technique that we have problems, and this is what this budget is about rectifying.The member for Calare may be interested to know that, under the former Labor government where flair and the sizzle were more important than the stake and the technique, we had $80 billion of debt accumulated to this nation—$4,500 for every man, woman and child. Not only do we know in our own lives and in our own homes that we cannot continue to accumulate debt, as it is lead in our saddlebag in many respects, but in servicing that debt we displace the resources that are available into probably the singularly most unproductive use of resources of this nation—that is, paying off the debt.This budget sets about ending that sizzle and that flair that the member for Calare seemed to be alluding to. That is the same fluff and fanfare that the vast majority of Australians found quite repugnant in the former Labor government, where the fanfare and the fluff seemed to be more important than getting on with addressing some of the real issues in real people's lives.This is why I am quite proud to be standing here tonight talking about this third budget as the representative of the fine community of Dunkley on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria. It is a place that has for many years always looked within itself and to itself to address some of the issues that are before the community. It has that spirit that says, `We've got challenges before us but, gee, we've got some opportunities.' There is one thing that inspires the community that I am a part of and that I seek to support: the simple fact that our opportunities, by any measure, far outweigh the difficulties and challenges that we face.But we need a bit of wit, we need a bit of courage, we need a bit of creativity, we need people with ideas, we need people like the members of the Howard government, who are prepared to look at the issues standing in the way of our achieving those opportunities and securing the benefits of those opportunities for our people. That is what we need in this place. That is what this nation needs—people who can identify those opportunities and deliver them as good results for real people in this nation, not people who sit back and nitpick over myopic details and spend a lot of time hand-wringing about things we would all like to address.This is not a perfect world, but this is a great nation. Dunkley is a great electorate with fantastic people in it, and we have got this opportunity now before us as a nation to build on these solid fundamentals—the technique that the member for Calare sought to deride—and move forward and take advantage of the opportunities that are all around us. I would much rather have a solid technique and a solid foundation to pursue those opportunities than have the fluff, the sizzle and the fanfare because that goes. When people stop gum-flapping, that goes and the opportunities go with them. This is truly a terrific budget. It is an exciting time in our nation's history. To those people who are listening to the discussion tonight, I just ask them to think about the opportunities that are here. People in my electorate say to me, `Bruce, there is so much going on in this world, sometimes you can't hear your own heartbeat.' Things are moving so quickly. Issues are before them. They are getting bombarded with information, and they cannot sometimes hear themselves think. Now we have got a budget that is actually saying that, to help separate the good from the bad, to secure the opportunities that are there and to protect us against the risks that we are exposed to—that every citizen of the world is exposed to—let us get the foundations right. Without a solid base, securing those opportunities is not doable. If you cannot rely on where your feet stand, how do you reach up for something that is in the stars? How do you do it? You do not do it.You do not secure those opportunities for the nation by standing up in this parliament—and I am talking about any member in this parliament—and just deriding and making negative points. Negative points sell in politics; you know that, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is far easier to sell a negative line than it is to inspire someone with something positive and something that is looking forward. The Howard government has actually accepted that great challenge of trying to map out a better future for the nation and trying to tackle the difficult issues that are before us so as to secure that.You have heard the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) talk about safety, security and stability. I think we would all like that peaceful life where we know what the next day holds, where we can be certain about the sorts of issues we have to put our minds to and where we can be certain about the sorts of experiences we can expect. That is a luxury that I do not think many of us can enjoy. I certainly cannot and most of the people I represent cannot. What they do look for in their representative is someone to help them improve their circumstances, and that is what is really terrific about this budget.This is the third budget in a series of Howard government budgets. It is the third budget in a series that has helped deliver the lowest unemployment rate since Paul Keating told the Australian people that it was the recession we had to have. That is what he told the people, and they are the same people who the Labor Party members are telling us are so terrified. Guess who frightened them. It was the Labor government which stood up and said, `I'm sorry. We're going to turn your life on its head because this is the recession we had to have.' That was the arrogance of the Labor government and Keating. You wonder what has shaken the tree of many of the people in our country. I think that had a large part to play in it. It ruined so many small businesses. It meant people who dreamed of owning their own homes all of a sudden saw negative equity in their homes. They were paying ballistic interest rates. An enormous proportion of the income that was available to their household was going just to keep a roof over their heads, and having a roof over their heads was the No. 1 goal for them.The government sought to address these issues in a sensible and thoughtful way that recognised that we do have to make some choices and live within our means. Above all, we sought to provide a solid foundation to secure those opportunities that were before us and we are starting to see the advantages. For example, low interest rates are like a breath of fresh air to the small businesses in the Dunkley electorate. For the families who are trying to buy their homes, this is like an enormous weight off their backs. There was trauma in their lives, wondering if they were going to be able to make that mortgage payment because interest rates in the past were so high. We have greatly reduced that burden on them and they are more comfortable and more secure in their own homes because of it.I have spoken of the unemployment rate. On the Mornington Peninsula, there are 25,000 more people in employment now than when the Labor government was thrown out and the Howard government was elected. That is 25,000 real people who now have an income stream from working. If you are wondering what that does for people, how that inspires them, I can tell you that all of a sudden we have had this enormous leap in the participation rate of those of working age on the Mornington Peninsula. From being some way behind the national average, it is now four per cent above the national average and over 67 per cent. Our unemployment rate on the Mornington Peninsula is too high, as long as there is one person looking for employment and not able to secure it.I am suggesting that we have achieved, over the three coalition budgets, enormous steps in the right direction. But within that third budget that we are speaking about tonight, we are not seeing promises that are irresponsible, that cannot be funded and that are reckless. We are seeing modest commitments that are funded and that are responsive to very real needs in real people's lives, like the lives of the people in the electorate of Dunkley.To take one example, I refer to the decision to give seniors health cards to self-funded retirees. What a sensible move that is for people who have gone without, who have been frugal in their earlier lives or have provided for their own retirement and who, on most measures, may have very little difference in their disposable income from those perhaps on an old aged pension, yet are denied the reward for their frugalness. This is a sensible, affordable measure that 1,500 self-funded retirees in the community I represent will benefit from. I say good on them and congratulations to the Howard government.There is also the issue of the gold card for the very many veterans in the Dunkley community. We have a very proud veterans community in the Dunkley electorate with very good veterans organisations supporting them. The decision to allocate the gold card to those World War II veterans over 70 who faced danger in their service of this nation is an enormously positive decision for those people.My theme tonight is to look at the foundations the Howard government has delivered this nation and to look at how we are now better placed to secure some of those opportunities that we all know are in our lives and in our region. What I hope to be talking about for years to come in this place in representing the Dunkley community is how we have continued to reduce the unemployment rate and how we have continued to be able to provide more benefits to those that need them because we have a solid base to work from whereby those benefits are secure simply because they are not funded on the bankcard—and we all know that we cannot fund programs on that basis forever.You wonder about security and you wonder about those sorts of social programs. The best way to put those programs at risk is to have more of them than we can afford, because then it is just a matter of time before they disappear before our very eyes. That is not the sort of comfort, the security and the safety that I hope to contribute to the Dunkley community by being a part of the Howard government. I will save many of my other remarks for another occasion in this place.22:32:003994Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—Australian science will always be a sound enterprise, given the quality of the people and institutions which underpin the endeavour. But, taken as a whole, science now lacks public policy direction and vision. In the context of this parliament, we seem to be running towards an election even though the term of this parliament still has something like nearly a year to run, but it does seem as if the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) is in election mode. Following his third budget, something which the House is debating this evening, it is indeed appropriate at this two-year mark to review those three Howard budgets in the context of science and to see how science and innovation have fared under this government. That can be best expressed in a quotation from the President of FASTS, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies. In response to the budget document, Professor Peter Cullen said:This Government seems bereft of ideas. Competitive success in the next century will be won by countries which follow the knowledge-based path, to generate real and enduring employment.This requires a strong science base and smart programs to link industry with science. This needs strong leadership from Government.That is not what we are getting from this government in the area of science. Let us look at the way in which this government has treated the various aspects of our science budget.Again, in this year's budget statement and the budget speech by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) there was no mention of science or of innovation or of research and development. Unfortunately, the government has again failed to highlight in the Treasurer's budget speech the importance of science and technology, of innovation and of research and development in the generation of economic wealth in this country and securing jobs for Australians in the next century. We have many fine institutions in this country who have a long and proud record of public sector science. The CSIRO, our CRCs and the universities are all institutions that have contributed a lot to Australian science over the years and have ensured that this country has a sound base on which to build a good scientific reputation in the world.The CSIRO is an organisation which this government promised, when it was in opposition, would benefit from a substantial injection of public funds. Unfortunately, the promise was honoured both in the undertaking and in the breach. The funds were provided to CSIRO but additional funds were taken from CSIRO to bring that total back to a net negative for the organisation. Although the additional funding was provided, the final consequence, as is so often the case with this government, has been a record of failure, a record of withdrawing funding rather than boosting it. The same is true of the CRCs, the cooperative research centres, which are such a good mechanism for bringing industry, academics, leading edge research and postgraduate students together in one environment which is well directed towards the applied benefit of industry. Those CRCs have again seen their overall budget reduced.After allowing the CRCs to be suspended in a period of disbelief following the Mortimer report, which recommended the abolition of the program, the government referred that to a committee, spent months taking advice on the subject and then finally decided to continue the program at a slightly reduced level. How was that to inspire confidence in the CRCs, in their supporters and in the private sector partners who fund the CRCs' work? Naturally, they were left very unsure of this government's response to the CRC program and were left very unsure of the strength of their commitment to it. The universities have always been a mainstay of public sector science in this country. There is a very substantial contribution by academic research to future job creation opportunities by industry. Academic research indeed has a very high percentage return as an investment. The estimates from the United States are that academic research returns perhaps 25 per cent on the investment made in it in terms of the economic wealth which it subsequently generates for the country. Estimates by the academies of science are that the universities in this country, under the Howard government, have suffered something like a $3 billion reversal where costs have been transferred to parents, to students and out of the public sector purse. The universities have suffered considerably as a result of that and their funding is significantly depleted.Science suffers even more in that context. Good science is expensive to do. Good science costs dollars in the universities. A university faced with a reduction in funding under this government will turn first to its science budget and cut that first, because that is where the money is, that is where the easy reductions can take place. University administrators, confronted by a declining base in their funds and confronted by a declining base in infrastructure funding in grants from government institutions like the ARC, are bound to cut the science budgets first because of the cost.What message has this government sent to science and engineering students themselves? Well, it nearly doubled their HECS fees contribution. Any government that believes in market forces and then doubles the cost to students of doing a science degree in this country can only expect—as will subsequently prove to be the case—that students will respond to those market forces in the way we know they will; that is, by withdrawing from science courses in the universities.New enrolments in science in our universities have declined under this government for the very simple reason that the government sent science students a very powerful message about the way in which it values their future career and about the way in which it values science in Australia by doubling the cost of their degree to them. Of course, students have had to withdraw from those courses in significant numbers. I think the cost of that to the nation will not be felt for many years, but it will be a very real and very powerful cost. One thing which exemplifies what value is placed on science by this government is the way in which they have treated the position of Chief Scientist. One of the first decisions of this government on coming to office just over two years ago was to reduce the funding for the position of Chief Scientist in the federal government from a full-time position to a one day a week job. Any government that can reduce the funding for its Chief Scientist and say, `This is a part-time job of one day a week,' clearly does not take science as a very serious undertaking. It may have been better if the government had scrapped the position altogether, if they had been honest and up-front about it and said, `Look, we don't value science and we're reducing the funding to just a day a week.'That has still not been restored in this budget. That is something which I consider it to be a very serious insult to the science community. I believe the Chief Scientist actually contributes a fair bit more than a day a week because he understands the importance of his job. We are probably taking advantage of his good will and gaining more than what we pay him for. While that is a credit to him, it is certainly a debit to this government. What has happened to many of the other important science programs under this government? In the very early part of their term, they reduced the R&D tax concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent and they abolished the syndication scheme. The Treasurer has sought, and continues to seek, to portray the syndication arrangements and R&D funding generally as a tax rort. He has sought to diminish the value of this in industry and business by painting them as nothing but rorters, as people who have had their hands in the public trough in some improper way. Of course, there is always the opportunity for dishonest people to exploit any version of the tax concession.But I happen to believe that the R&D tax concessions and the syndication schemes sent a very strong message to industry that the Labor government of the day—certainly not this government—valued very highly industrial research and development. It also valued the mechanism whereby companies who had substantial amounts of taxable income could assist those start-up companies who were ideas rich but cash poor with a syndicated R&D scheme under which resources were transferred to the company that needed the innovative break and that needed the assistance. But, of course, that scheme has been entirely abolished. If we look at the overall funding for some of the important programs like R&D support, we see that it is in decline. That is best summarised by looking at the government's own budget papers. If we turn to Budget Paper No. 1 where the government sets out its budget philosophy and we look at government support for science and innovation, the government's own words in describing that budget are very revealing. They say:Total outlays decline slightly over the forward estimates. This is largely explained by a decline in ARC—that is, the Australian Research Council—funding for research infrastructure, collaborative research grants and the High Performance Computing and Communications Programme.So this government itself describes in the budget papers a decline in overall funding, and how true that is. If we look at the constant price summary of major Commonwealth support for science and innovation through the budget and other measures, which again is a table from that budget paper document, we see that science is very much in decline under this government. The reality is that science funding under the Commonwealth budget is now back to 1993 levels.I know that the Prime Minister wanted Australians to be relaxed and comfortable, and I think the decade in which the Prime Minister would have been most relaxed and most comfortable would have been the 1950s. Well, he is very slowing driving the science budget back to the 1950s. We are already back to 1993. That is the last time when in real consequent dollars science funding was at the same level that it is now. We have seen an approximate 11 per cent decline in science funding in real terms under this government. I expect that that represents their view of the importance of science research and innovation. But the reality is that the importance of science is very different from that. Although the new Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, Mr Moore—in his first budget as science minister following the resignation of the former minister—claimed after this year's budget that science funding was $90 million up, I am afraid that is somewhat of a misleading of the public and of this parliament. The reality is that, although in strict actual dollar terms, the budget is $90 million up, on the government's own figures that is minus one-half of one per cent in real terms. Combined with the previous budgets where science funding dropped some nine per cent, in real terms we see that it is this year down half a per cent of the total budget. Contrary to the minister's assertion that it is $90 million up, the reality is that after inflation his budget is significantly down.Why is all this so important to the country? It is important because science is not a cost; it is an investment. Education is an investment. Science and education go hand in hand in ensuring that this country has a competitive place in a globally competitive world in the next century. The reality is that if Australia is to take a real and meaningful role in the Asia-Pacific region in the next century—if it is to be a high wage, high skill country and not a low wage, low skill country—and not just a farm and quarry for the rest of the world, then we need real investment in science, in innovation and in education to ensure our people are able to meet those challenges in the next century.Science and innovation can deliver to this country a real future, one which people will be very pleased to leave to their children. It can certainly be said in very clear terms that our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors. If we are good ancestors to the next generation, then we will have made a real contribution during our term of office in this parliament and in any term of government that the people may bestow on us. In that context, the best thing that we can do is to bequeath to the next generation a very sound economy and a sound education system—one which values science and innovation and one which encourages, through the overall public policy budget, strong investment by business in science and in research and development.So we have all of those factors coming together. We need sound public policy in CSIRO, in the CRCs and in the universities. We need strong investment in R&D by the private sector to ensure that the jobs are there in the next century. We need the government to provide the necessary leadership and to send the right messages to the community to ensure that this process occurs as we have discussed this evening.The reality is that this government have abandoned any attempt at leadership in the science infrastructure. Their constant reduction of budgets, their dismantling of programs, the declining forward estimates, the messages they send to students by doubling the HECS fees, the messages they send to the community and the universities by slashing tertiary sector expenditure all combine to show a complete lack of leadership in science and public policy, as the academies of science and the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies have all recognised in their budget response. This government has lost the opportunity that this budget presented to make a strong investment in science and R&D. It is a budget of lost opportunities and one which will be a real cost to this nation for decades to come.22:46:003997Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—In standing to speak tonight in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1), I am proud to be part of a government which unapologetically has committed itself, through fiscal responsibility, to building a better Australia for all those who call themselves Australians.In taking this budget to my electorate—a very representative electorate, I might add, with diverse needs—I found an overwhelming response. I doorknocked businesses in Gladstone as recently as last Friday and I was surprised at the level of support there was for the budget. I came to the conclusion that the people of Australia know a fair deal when they see one. They also recognise a committed and responsible government doing what is best for all Australians.Many of my colleagues tonight have outlined the various attributes of the budget and some of them bear repeating, if only in dot point form. For example, the $2.7 billion surplus, taken against a deficit of $10.3 billion, means that over the period of this government there has been a turnaround of $13 billion. There was no increase in income tax, no increase in company tax, no increase in sales tax, no new excise taxes and no increase in the Medicare levy. The provisional tax uplift factor has been reduced from six to five per cent, having at an earlier date been reduced from eight to six per cent; so it has come down three per cent overall. We have the lowest unemployment since 1990.One of the benefits which has flowed from the budget is 50,000 extra World War II veterans to receive the gold card—a very popular measure, I might add, with veterans in my area. One of the great wishes of 220,000 self-funded retirees was to be included along with pensioners in the seniors health care card, and they have had that wish granted in this budget. That too is enormously popular and gives a lot more security to that sector of the community whose overall income is not that much further ahead of the pensioners—something that is not readily understood. Two hundred extra Medicare easy claim centres will be placed in pharmacies in rural and regional areas. Those things are all great for my electorate and for Australia as a whole.However, if we look at the effects that this budget and the two previous budgets have had on the economy of Australia we see that, as I said before, we have had the lowest unemployment since 1990; further surpluses projected to 2002 to halve the government's net debt by the turn of the century; the lowest inflation since the 1960s; the lowest mortgage interest rate since 1969-70—in recent times down from 10.5 per cent under Labor to 6.5 per cent under the current government; and the lowest business overdraft interest rates, down from 11 per cent to 7.7 per cent.Growth of three per cent, though derided by a number of opposition speakers, is an extraordinary result given the events that have occurred in Asia. I ask those who were denigrating them: where do you think we would have been if we had continued along the track that the previous Keating government laid down for us? Where do you think we would be another two or three years down the track with a deficit of who knows what? The accumulated deficits of the previous government were in the vicinity of $70 million, so perhaps they would now be $110 billion, $120 billion or $130 billion. It is extraordinary to think where we might be and what effect that might be having on the economy of Australia.I hate to inject any negative tone into a speech like this, but there is one aspect of Australian life that I deplore and despise, and that is the tactic that the opposition has well honed since the 1993 election campaign. It goes something like this: when you have no cogent argument, when you do not have a recognisable policy, but, worse, when you do not have any vision for Australia, you go out like a pack of hyenas, a policy-devoid mob of agitators, and you target the old, the frail and the deprived and you make your one objective to scare the pants off them—to scare the hell out of them.That has been done over and over again and tonight I refer to two instances—nursing homes and labour market programs. Labor and its cronies in the nurses union have been peddling the line in my area of Queensland that we have reduced spending on aged care. Clearly, that is not the case. It is quite wrong. If you look at the figures on what has been spent on residential care in nursing homes and hostels, you will find that, when we came to office, the government was spending $2.4 billion on that sector. In the last three budgets we have taken that from $2.4 billion to $2.6 billion to $2.8 billion and, in the most recent budget, to $2.9 billion.The line is also peddled that somehow, because of our new and simplified RCS, which replaces a seven-tier system with an eight-tier system and changes the denominators, nursing home proprietors will have to reduce staff and services. I have even had this claim thrown at me in my electorate. On investigation of the particular nursing home where the claim was made, I found that, under the new reassessment of classifications, the first 31 residents that were reassessed in this nursing home resulted in that nursing home having an increase of two per cent—not a reduction. Yet the nursing union and a number of nurses went round peddling the line that the ALP have been pushing in Canberra.On top of that, the accommodation charge, which in its earlier form was to have been a bond—again, this was the subject of a scare campaign—has been replaced with an up-front accommodation charge. This will return $1.3 billion to the nursing home sector over the next 10 years. Anyone who has looked at Australian demographics knows that, if we do not act now on aged care, there will be a chaotic situation by the turn of the century or early into the next century. It is something we must confront now. We must do it in such a way that we can build, renovate and extend nursing homes.One of the things that I find extraordinary after the scare campaign concerning the bond is that when I go into nursing homes patients say to me, `Mr Neville, we would have preferred to pay the bond,' or nursing home proprietors say, `We were a bit hasty at first. Really, the bond scheme would have been better.' It was interesting to see the Minister for the Status of Women (Mrs Moylan), who is at the table, unfairly pilloried by the ALP at that time. Again, it is this unconscionable idea that any time you cannot get your own way you scare the pants off people.I now refer to tonight's presentation by the honourable member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson). I would have thought that someone interested in employment and something for the young could have produced something more than the mean-spirited and pessimistic retort he made to the budget. Why would he harass this government for an unemployment rate of 7.9 when his own track record was 11.2—the worst since the Great Depression? How could he have the gall to come in here and criticise the government?The honourable member painted a very negative picture of work for the dole. Again, he was just trying to scare the old. He was saying that older people are going to have to work for the dole in future and it is the big scheme of the Howard government to trap these poor oldies into that scheme. I do not know whether that will occur or not, but I can tell you the effect it is having on young people. In one work for the dole scheme in my electorate, which has been licensed for 240, 182 have been placed. Of those 182, 38 have found jobs and 10 have gone on to further training or education.I understand that another skillshare down the road from Gympie, which is working in the Isis shire in the southern part of my electorate, has had kids going to work on the third and fourth days of the week because they are so keen. They are not just going for the two days as required; they are turning up and wanting to participate on the other two days of the four-day work for the dole week. I understand—and I did not get this directly from them; I got it second-hand—that of their first 40 clients about a third have found jobs.Let us compare that with what the Labor Party offered, which was an endless cauldron of hopelessness as people were churned around in these labour market programs. The daddy of them all must have been the NWO program—the last one—which worked out at $140,000 for each positive outcome. You could have given the kids $100,000 to go out and buy a business and you would still have been $40,000 in front. What a terrible and unconscionable waste of public funds. Then the Labor Party comes in here and tries to scare the pants off people about work for the dole.By comparison, this government has given us the schools to work program; the schools to apprenticeships program; Green Corps; and apprenticeships and traineeships. I say to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp), through you, Mr Speaker, that I am most grateful that in my area of Wide Bay, which encompasses the Hinkler and Wide Bay electorates, we have been granted 1,900 new apprenticeships which will go a long way to covering the needs of the 1,600 young people who are out of work in that area.The member for Batman visited my area recently. I thought I would have to take to him with a stick in the media because of his negative approach up there, but I found I did not even have to put out a press release. Some of the 10 job providers that have these new programs under the Job Network program came out themselves and gave him a nice old touch-up. In fact, it was not necessary for me to get involved. It is interesting that, whereas before we had two CES offices and a couple of private providers, in my electorate we now have 10 providers and two Employment National offices. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous3999Motion (by Mr Andrews)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration: Payment Systems and Netting Bill 1998 Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment (Turnback of Cheques) Bill 1998 Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment Bill 1998 Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998 23:00:003999House adjourned at 11 p.m.Notices3999The following notices were given:Mr Warwick Smith to present a Bill for an Act to provide financial assistance for the period of 5 years starting on 1 July 1998 in respect of health care services.Mr McClelland to move—That this House:(1) notes that the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) proposes to ship consignments of used research reactor fuel back to countries of origin for reprocessing;(2) notes that the shipping operation will mean that such consignments of used research reactor fuel will be transported through suburban streets;(3) calls upon the Minister for the Environment to conduct a full environmental impact statement procedure under the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act to enable full and proper public input into issues relating to the transportation of used research reactor fuels including (a) ensuring that (i) the spent fuel is properly packaged, (ii) each package is properly certified as meeting all relevant international and national regulations for safe transport of radioactive materials including the Australian code of practice for the safe transport of radioactive substances and (iii) there is proper coordination between all regulating authorities for the shipment and (b) the extent to which Australia's international obligations restrict publication of transportation routes;(4) further notes that there remains unresolved complex issues of liability as to which authority would be responsible for compensating any private citizen in the event of an accident during the course of such transportation; and(5) calls upon the Government to assume strict liability in respect of the consequences of any such spillage which may affect an Australian citizen.Mr Sawford to move—That this House calls on the Government to:(1) recognise that the largely single option of a comprehensive high school system in this country is inappropriate for a majority of students at a secondary level and that this fact often leads to a perception that the public secondary school system does not meet the needs of parents and students; and(2) encourage through differential funding a range of types of public secondary schools that among others would include a re-evaluation of single sex and technical high schools.Mr Robert Brown to move—That the House of Representatives:(1) declares its total opposition to a goods and services tax (GST) and notes that: (a) as an indirect tax any GST would be seriously regressive and would impact most severely on low and middle income earners because (i) a GST would be imposed at a flat rate on purchases irrespective of the income or wealth of the purchaser and thus lower income earners would pay a higher proportion of their income in the form of the tax than would higher income earners, (ii) a GST is imposed on what people spend, not on what they save, and thus lower income earners who have to spend most of their income are forced to pay tax on a larger proportion of their income than high income earners who are able to save more and avoid the tax, (iii) a GST which must be regressive would replace part of direct income tax which is structured at a progressive rate to ensure greater equity by taxing higher incomes at a higher rate, (iv) the revenue from a GST which is largely paid by low and middle income earners would be used to compensate for the reduced personal income tax which would be paid by high income earners who would benefit from any reduction in the higher marginal tax rates and (v) a flat rate GST would impose retail taxes on a wide range of basic household purchases which ordinary Australian families need while, at the same time, reducing the rates of tax imposed on the purchases of the rich such as furs, jewellery and luxury cars; (b) a GST would have an adverse economic impact because (i) it would increase the inflation rate by increasing the prices of all goods and services to which it was applied, (ii) higher prices would translate into higher interest rates with adverse impact on home buyers, small business and farmers, (iii) an unfair burden of administration, record keeping and tax collecting would be imposed on about one million retail and service outlets across Australia and (iv) higher prices, higher interest rates and increased administration would stifle enterprise and discourage small business production and employment; (c) a GST is not necessary to achieve sensible reform of the taxation system which can be achieved by such measures as the (i) removal of anomalies in the present wholesale sales tax system, (ii) adjustment of marginal tax rates to eliminate the incidence of bracket creep and ensure that all tax increases are discretionary and transparent, (iii) elimination of tax law provisions which have allowed the rorting of the tax system as high income earners and corporations have been able to construct sophisticated and artificial arrangements to avoid their tax obligations and (iv) effective policing of the existing tax system to eliminate tax evasion by the shysters and prosecute those who persist; and (d) experience in other countries which have adopted a GST indicates that (i) of 26 industrial countries with a GST the rate has been increased in all but three countries and the average rise was 42 per cent, (ii) a GST provides governments with an opportunity to increase the rate and extend its application thus imposing an ever increasing burden on the people, (iii) any arrangements built into the initial GST to compensate lower income earners are soon dissipated thus leaving those people—especially pensioners, other welfare recipients, single income families and the unemployed—with a continually declining defence against a continually increasing tax and (iv) core services such as education and health are effectively priced out of the reach of many low and middle income families often with appalling sectional impact;(2) acknowledges that the main support for a GST comes from highly paid financiers, bureaucrats and other high income interests and from the corporate business community while the chief opposition comes from people and organisations, including church and welfare groups, which represent the broad mass of Australians;(3) urges all Australians to reject any attempt to burden them with a GST and to condition them with the false claim that a GST is either inevitable or essential for Australia's economic wellbeing; and(4) calls on the federal Government to abandon its push to introduce this discriminatory, regressive, unfair and unjust tax.Documents4001The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 27 May 1998:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Part 105 Amendments 1998 22 (2), 24 (3), 27(2), 29, 30 April, 1 (2), 4, 7 (2), 11 May.Part 106 Amendments 1998 20, 30 (2) April, 12 May.Part 107 Amendments 1998 23 April, 8 May.Export Control Act—Export Control (Orders) Regulations—Livestock Export (Merino) Orders (Amendment) 1998 No. 1.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936—RHQ Company Determination 1998 No. 5.National Health Act—Determination No. ACC.DNCB.98-01.Public Service Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. FAT4, FAT5.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation 1998 No. 3.1998-05-27Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.Bills4002r4864002Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:004002Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The object of the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill is to ensure that the indexed component of the war widows pension is maintained at 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings and that it retains parity with the maximum single rate of the age and service pensions. As shadow minister for veterans affairs, I indicate from the outset that it has the strong support of the opposition. The war widows pension was introduced in 1914. It is a form of compensation payable to the surviving partner of a veteran whose death arose out of or was attributable to their war service. The pension is also automatically payable to the widow of an ex-prisoner of war, or of a TPI or EDA pensioner.Just under 100,000 war widows and a small number of widowers currently receive the payment with a majority also receiving the means tested income support supplement of up to $120.10 a fortnight. Australia's war widow population overwhelmingly arises from our participation in World War II. Ninety thousand war widows receive the pension as a result of their late husbands' World War II service. A further 2,600 are the surviving partners of veterans of World War I.Given this background, it is not surprising that most are over 75 years of age. Indeed, more than a quarter are over 80 years of age. This bill is therefore directed at a very vulnerable and increasingly frail group of women to whom the nation owes a considerable debt of gratitude. Many made their own largely unheralded contribution to our war effort. They raised children and often subsequently cared for their grandchildren as well as their partner.To understand the rationale of this bill, it is necessary to consider the history of adequacy benchmarks for Australian pensions. For several decades there has been debate about the best way to maintain the relative living standards of pensioners in relation to both inflation and the growth in average earnings. It is not being partisan to point out that Gough Whitlam was the first Prime Minister to explicitly commit his government to raise the basic pension rate to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. This followed from the groundbreaking work of the committee of inquiry into poverty, led by the late Ronald Henderson. This inquiry decisively identified the persistence of poverty in Australia, despite the post-war economic boom and the prevalence of poverty amongst older people, particularly widowed or single older people.It is easy to forget that, prior to the Whitlam government, pension rates were set purely on an ad hoc basis, being increased only when governments felt compelled to act. During the period 1972 to 1975, the real level of payments was significantly increased. In 1976 the system of twice yearly indexation of payments, in line with increases in the consumer price index, was introduced. It was not until Brian Howe established a social security review in 1986, that the question of an adequacy benchmark regained prominence on the wider political and policy agenda in this country. As a major by-product of that review, the Hawke government developed a white paper on a national retirement incomes policy.Amongst other things, this white paper contained the crucial commitment that the single rate of pension would be increased to at least 25 per cent of average weekly earnings and that its real value would be maintained in line with increases in overall community earnings. As part of this, the 1989 budget provided funding for an additional increase in the pension on top of indexation. That took it above 25 per cent of average weekly earnings as from April 1990.Since that time, pensions have maintained their value in comparison with both inflation and average earnings, thus providing pensioners with a twin guarantee. It is true that, until recently, no further additional increase was needed on the average weekly earnings front because the relative growth in inflation was generally much higher than the corresponding growth in average earnings. This does not alter the fact that a benchmark or guarantee of adequacy has been continuously in place since 1990.I provide this lengthy history because the coalition's commentary on the matter strangely seems always to begin with a piece of legislation that was passed by the parliament just last year. This was the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Act 1997. It was introduced in an attempt to reassure pensioners in the face of the 1996 report of Treasurer Costello's National Commission of Audit which had seriously questioned the 25 per cent benchmark and many other benefits for older Australians. So, in reality of course, this was an attempt by the current government to say that Costello's initiative in regards to that commission of audit and its questioning of whether we really were paying war widows and pensioners in this country too much money was correct.Despite its rhetoric, the government's original bill was far from reassuring. Not only did it contain a five-year sunset clause but it also excluded a number of veterans and social security payments from the benchmark. As well, the bill implemented a revised methodology whereby the pension is benchmarked against male total average weekly earnings on an annualised rather than a quarterly basis. Fortunately, Labor was successful in having the coalition's sunset clause deleted in the Senate but the other features remained intact. All this meant that when average weekly earnings for the September and December quarters in 1997 increased substantially more than the consumer price index, legislation was in place to automatically apply the 25 per cent AWE benchmark to age and service pensioners, amongst others, to provide them with a $6.80 a fortnight increase from March. This legislation did not, however, encompass war widows pensions, veterans disability pensions, or a number of social security payments.When war widows became aware in March that they would not receive an increase in their pension, there was an immediate outcry. The strength of this outcry was such that the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, was forced to announce on 26 March that the increase would flow on to war widows and would be backdated to 20 March. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the position of war widows was not fully considered during the passage of the earlier legislation.As I have already noted, the chief concerns at the time were about the original sunset clause and the coalition's restrictive interpretation of the 25 per cent benchmark. In addition, the total of the war widows pension was so far above 25 per cent of average weekly earnings—that is the total rate, I am stressing—that it did not appear conceivable that it would ever fall below 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Strictly speaking, this remains the case today.The key to this is to closely examine what the government has been saying about this welcome increase for war widows. The Prime Minister's original announcement said he was raising their pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. A simple check of the rate of the pension reveals, however, that it has never actually fallen below 25 per cent of AWE and was at the time more like 27 per cent. For the 52,000 war widows who also receive the income support supplement, their total pension payments were more like 36 per cent. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) knows this, which is why his second reading speech refers to a linkage between the basic rate—I stress basic rate—of the war widows pension and the rate of the age pension. It is also why the explanatory memorandum for the bill refers to an adequacy benchmark for the indexed component of the pension.Essentially what has happened is that the government has rediscovered the fact that the war widows pension consists of an indexed supplement of $347.80 a fortnight and a non-indexed component of $24 a fortnight. As noted by the minister, since about 1964 the indexed component has always been the same as the maximum rate of the age pension. Given the outcry over the original exclusion of war widows from the March pension increase, what the government has actually decided to do is to apply the 25 per cent average weekly benchmark to the indexed component of the war widows pension. The real object of this bill is thus to maintain existing relativity between the rate of the war widows pension and that of the age pension.In passing, I note that the rate of the war widows pension is, in round terms, 107 per cent of the age pension and 140 per cent for those who also receive the full income support supplement. In making these comments I imply no criticism of the government's action or of the provision to the bill. As I said earlier, the proposal has the opposition's strong support. I simply put the correct situation on the public record for those who would otherwise be misled by government media releases uncritically reported by a media that apparently does not even check the accuracy of the prime ministerial announcements on an ordinary calculator.YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—They don't read them.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—Yours either, mate. You need a bit more publicity, and I am constantly trying to help you. As I noted in my media release at the time, pension payments to a large number of disabled veterans, including TPI and EDA pensioners, are still not covered by the March increase. Whilst I recognise the complexity of their situation and particularly the large number who are also on service or age pension, it is remarkable that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has not formally outlined the government's thinking on their situation and on the relativities that apply to their disability pensions. I trust that he will do so in his reply. I would also be interested in the minister's response to three other outstanding issues in regard to war widow pensioners. The first two arise directly from the coalition's own 1996 election statements for veterans. They include the commitment on page 9 which states:The Coalition will review the situation which has seen the Income Support Supplement (age and disability) paid to widows/widowers frozen since 1986. Another area for review will be the treatment of widows who remarried prior to 1984 and the Coalition will reassess this.They have had quite a bit of time to reassess, to review, to investigate and to look at these issues. Given that since the last election three coalition budgets have come and gone without any action on these matters, one has to question the sincerity of these commitments prior to the last election.PK6RANDALLMr Randall—What about the gold card?8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—The member interjects by asking, `What about the gold card?' As we quite well realise, the government has followed the precedent of the Labor government at the time—and the Prime Minister has stressed this constantly and consistently—in introducing, roughly, a similar time period from the previous war. That has been stressed by the Prime Minister and the minister. If we are to believe—and this a very interesting point for the minister over there, when we are talking about commitments, honesty and integrity—the leaked cabinet documents reported in the Financial Review of 4 May, these commitments were apparently not even included in the minister's bids in the recent budget. These commitments, these promises, these reassurances to war widows that his predecessor in opposition committed this government to, were not even put to the cabinet. The reality is that these commitments in regard to war widows were just basically put on the backburner for another decade.The third issue is one that I have been pursuing for several years on a personal level, under successive governments. It concerns the widows of intermediate rate disability pensioners who have to go through a complex and distressing process to establish their eligibility for the war widows pension. Unlike the widows of TPI and EDA pensioners, and of ex-prisoners of war, they are not automatically transferred to the war widows pension. This is an issue that affects only a small number of widows each year but does need looking into. In my experience, it causes incredible and unnecessary distress to veterans on the intermediate pension rate, who worry that their spouse may not be eligible for the war widows pension and its associated benefits after their death.I stress that both sides of politics have basically had an attitude that there are very few people affected, and essentially there is no outcry, no public pressure on the matter. But I want to stress again that this matter does need review. We are talking about a very insignificant number of people who go through a traumatic experience wondering whether or not they are eligible. At the end of the day the vast majority of them receive the war widows pension. I question whether we really have to continue this process of putting them through that. Quite frankly, it probably costs us just as much having this apparatus, this investigatory process, as it does to give them the pension. In conclusion, I note that there is a bipartisan commitment in this parliament that war widows are entitled to support and recognition. The opposition supports the bill and will help expedite its passage through the parliament.10:15:004005Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I am pleased to see the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Bruce Scott, here with us this morning. His stewardship has delivered very many benefits to veterans, and his work is highly regarded widely in the veteran community and certainly in my area, Townsville. Minister, you are welcome any time to come to Townsville, because I get continual feedback about the good work that you and the Veterans' Affairs department are doing.I am really pleased to be able to speak on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998 today, because it has delivered an increase of $6.80 per fortnight to our war widows, and that has been warmly welcomed in Townsville and Thuringowa. It is a welcome change; it is a positive change; it is a change which flowed through from the government's decision to generally index pensions at 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. That is going to occur, backdated from 20 March this year.For some people, an extra $6.80 per fortnight might not seem like a great increase, but each time those CPI records come out, my office takes calls from pensioners—as would the office of the honourable member for Swan (Mr Randall)—asking how the change in the CPI is going to affect their pension payments and if they are going to go up. For many people on pensions and low incomes, $6.80 is certainly a very significant increase. Pensioners tell me—as they would tell other members of the parliament—that, even though CPI may be zero or negative, the price of such basics as bread, milk and so on still seems continually to rise. So this is a wonderful opportunity to look after pensioners, low income people and certainly war widows, in relation to rises in basic commodities that are not covered with CPI rises.A point was made by the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) in what I would call a rather smart-alec manner during question time on October 22 last year. You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Nairn) putting a question to the Treasurer (Mr Costello) about inflation results and how the government had achieved sound economic growth without fuelling higher inflation and higher interest rates. In his answer to that question, the Treasurer said, `If you happen to be a pensioner, because of the inflation outcome, you will know that you are protected against price rises,'—which is quite true, as the member for Jagajaga should have noted before she went to the dispatch box and basically screeched down the microphone, `No pension rise: that's what it means!'The coalition knows this to be the case—which is why, in the run-up to the 1996 election, we promised to index pensions to 25 per cent of average male weekly earnings, and we have done that. That is something which the member for Jagajaga and the Labor Party had 13 years to do—but, of course, they were going to do it in the fourteenth year. The government realises the need, and that is why we have legislated to maintain the age and service pensions at the 25 per cent benchmark.Extending the indexation arrangements to war widows means that their pension stays in alignment with the other age and service pensions, and that is a good result, too. It also ensures that, as people in the work force receive benefits, the benefits will also flow on to pensioners, making sure that the buying power of the pension is well and truly maintained. For Townsville and Thuringowa war widows, this means that they received a payment increase of $6.80 on 9 April as a result of the government's support. It is a decision that has been warmly welcomed by war widows and the veteran community in general. I have certainly had a lot of contact with the war widow community, particularly through Betty Rintoul at the RSL villas at Rose Bay in Townsville, and the feedback that I have received has noted very strong support indeed.More recently, the government announced its intention to extend repatriation health gold cards to an additional 50,000 World War II veterans. This decision, to take effect on 1 January next year, will directly benefit those World War II veterans aged 70 years and over with qualifying service. In Townsville, that means about 280 veterans; and throughout North Queensland, 1,100 veterans.Townsville Returned Services League welfare officer and advocate, Mr David Turnbull, was one among a number of local veterans who welcomed that significant decision. As Mr Turnbull said to me, `The RSL has been working very hard for a long time to have the gold card entitlements extended to World War ll veterans. This decision will ensure that our veterans will be able to access a wide range of health care benefits at a stage of their life when it is needed the most.'I also note that the RSL's national president, Major General Peter Phillips, said of the decision on April 27, `This is certainly the most significant achievement for the RSL, and indeed the whole veteran community, in many years.' The extension of gold card benefits has been a high priority for the RSL for some years now. We worked and lobbied long and hard for this change. I would like to acknowledge today the efforts of many veterans in Townsville who helped to bring about this important change. I have no doubt that the RSL would like to see the gold card extended further to include veterans from the Korean, Malayan and Borneo conflicts. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether you get feedback from your electorate that those veterans from Korea, Malaya and Borneo are now seeking this extension. Bearing in mind their rapidly diminishing numbers, I believe there is a strong case for the government to give this urgent consideration; certainly, sooner rather than later.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Are you going to contact the minister?HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I am sure, Mr Slipper, we will have the strong support of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. He is a great supporter of veterans in Australia. I wholeheartedly support this amendment bill which indexes the war widows and war widowers pension. I certainly commend it to the House.10:22:004007Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—I am happy to speak on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998 . I will not be using my full time. I just want to take a short time to make sure that people realise that I wholeheartedly endorse this bill because of its positive nature and the positive things that it does for veterans, particularly war widows. As we know, this bill completes a commitment made by the coalition government to maintain the pension benchmark of at least 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Last year this government introduced legislation which now brings certain pensions into line with the 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings.This bill in tandem with that legislation introduces parity and equity between like pension rates, and has been warmly received by war widows in my electorate of Swan. In fact, I spoke to Mrs Joan Fitzgerald from the Belmont RSL around Anzac Day. She mentioned just that point, that this bill gives them certainty. The member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson), who I think is a very decent sort of person—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—But politically misguided.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—But he is a good sort of person. In this case, I found it unusual that, even though he said he endorsed the bill, he had to criticise it all the way through. I know what a good sort of person he is; I would have thought he would have been a bit more positive. I am pleased that, in general, the opposition supports this bill.My local constituents tell me that this commitment gives them certainty into the future, that they are not going to be at the whim of some political force into the future and that this is actually benchmarked now. All war widows and widowers in receipt of war pensions will receive this pension increase. Around Australia there are 100,000 war widows. In my electorate of Swan, there are approximately 882 war widows who will directly benefit from this increase—that is a significant number of widows. Similarly, the benchmarking of pensions against male total average weekly earnings, as provided for by the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill last year, has also been warmly received by pensioners in my electorate of Swan.A lot of people in Swan and a lot of people around the country will be better off under this legislation because, as has been stated earlier this morning, they receive increases of up $6.80 a fortnight on top of any CPI increase. I must make that point—this is on top of any CPI increase, not standing alone. This increase will cost the government around $23 million in 1998-99 and around $164 million over four years, so it is a significant financial commitment.People receiving pensions, which will be maintained at no less than 25 per cent of the male total average weekly earnings, who are on the age pension, wife pension, disability support pension, widows pension, parenting payments, carer payment, mature age allowance and mature age partner allowance, service pension, partner service pension and income support supplement will all be better off under this legislation. So it certainly covers a wide range of people who are going to benefit.These people do deserve a hand. These people are genuinely in need and deserve government assistance. This is the direction of the government's welfare assistance—to the genuinely needy, those identified as needing help. One of the hardest parts of my job as the member for Swan is taking calls from pensioners who have waited for the consumer price index to be announced only to find that it did not increase and so their pensions did not increase. Try telling a pensioner that their increase is going to be 70c, or even less, as happened last year.The complete lack of increase was a reflection of the consumer price index, the CPI, and the fact that there is no increase really means that inflation is stable, whereas we know that in some cases it has been negative and the cost of living has not increased. As the member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) said, these people do not understand. They will show you a shopping list from 12 months before, and the price of bread and the price of milk has gone up marginally. Try telling them that they are not paying any more money, that because of negative inflation they do not deserve an increase in their pensions. As I said, the rudeness of it was that 70c was one of the increases—and that is not even the price of a `scratch and match'. It certainly did not go down too well.One of the great benefits of this benchmarking is to take the pensioners and the aged out of the ridiculous CPI way of calculating things which included mortgages. Mortgages, as we know, have dropped substantially in this country under the coalition government. But I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that very few seniors and aged people are subject to the effect of mortgages, so it really does not benefit them at all. It is really quite sensible to see that they have been taken out of this CPI calculation, where one of the great impacts has been the reduction of mortgages, because they have either paid off their mortgage or they are renting. I think that is a lot fairer system of calculating the way that these people should be remunerated.As I said, one of the hardest things to do is to tell a pensioner that they are not too badly off. I know that no matter what we give, $6.80 or whatever—certainly 70c was no good, but $6.80 is something they can appreciate—it does mean a lot to people who count every cent that they get. But when they only get a few cents increase per fortnight they just will not wear the fact that they are well off. Most pensioners will tell you that they battle to live on any sort of pension. At least this government has acknowledged that there needs to be some increase and has given them the assurance of doing so through benchmarking.This increase of $6.80 a fortnight is something much more tangible and, as I said earlier, it is on top of any other increase they may receive through the CPI. So it does go some way towards giving these people the recognition they deserve by providing them with a little more that they can either use or save. In saying that pensioners find the amount of money that they get is quite often insufficient, I do know some pensioners, though, who tell me they can save on these pensions. I know one gentleman, a Mr Coffey, next to the school where my daughter goes, who regularly buys the children at the school ice-creams and Smarties and all that sort of thing from the amount of money he saves on his pension. So there are some people who actually can live, even though frugally, on the pension. But I am aware that in general, seniors and veterans, et cetera, find it difficult to live or save with the amount of money they get.In conclusion, I am pleased to be part of a government which does take seriously its commitment and responsibility, particularly in this case to war widows and widowers and those people I mentioned earlier on age pensions, people whom this increase will directly and significantly assist. It is with pleasure that I support this bill and commend it to the Main Committee.10:31:004009Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak this morning on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998 . The very narrow purpose of this legislation is to align the treatment of war widows pensions with the treatment of other pensions, and therefore to treat those pensions consistently with the decision that was made by the government to introduce the 25 per cent benchmark.I have not yet heard an explanation from the government of why war widows were not included in the first place. Perhaps I missed something on the way, but I can only assume that they were forgotten or that it was because of some oversight that they were not included in the first place. It was a rather serious oversight. I was a member of the government at the time and I recall, very quickly after the announcement came out, starting to get calls from veterans organisations and from war widows organisations, in particular, asking where was the parity in the treatment of war widows. I would have liked to hear at some stage an explanation from the government of why they were not included and perhaps an apology to Australia's 100,000 or so war widows for having overlooked them in the first place.We cannot disagree in any respect with the merits of this legislation, and I certainly do not. But I do think some explanation is owed as to why they were forgotten in the first place. Perhaps it was not fully realised at the time that there would be problems with parity and equity between pension rates if all like pensions were not included, but to have forgotten the war widows pension was obviously a very serious oversight. An apology from the minister might have been in order rather than an attempt now to portray this legislation as having all the merits it does have, without an acknowledgment simply that this legislation is necessary because of an oversight in not taking care of war widows at the time it occurred.I should declare an interest in this. My mother is a war widow and at 83 years of age she deserves every dollar she gets from her war widows pension. She took care of my father, who served throughout the Second World War and suffered throughout his life as a result of his war service. In the years prior to his death he was a very sick man and my mum, true to her wedding vows, which I pay tribute to her for, did not renege for one moment on the care that she had to provide to my very sick father, which for 18 months or two years was a very difficult task indeed. I pay tribute to war widows because of the first-hand experience I have had in the situation I have just described and because I know that many of them suffered the same sort of difficulties. Hence the importance of the war widows pension. Now that I am not a government member I feel liberated to talk much more freely about this and a number of other issues. I feel passionately about veterans matters, for a number of reasons which are probably perfectly obvious to most people—VT4REIDMr Reid—Would it have anything to do with the badge you're wearing?FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—I am wearing an RSL badge, thank you, you are quite right. The member for Bendigo is very observant this morning. I am proud to be wearing this badge because the RSL is a very fine organisation. It is not full of Bruce Ruxtons, contrary to popular opinion. It is actually a very fine organisation. It still speaks not only for veterans, ex-servicemen and current servicemen, but it speaks also for a lot of Australians who do not necessarily qualify for membership of the RSL. So I thank the member for Bendigo because his comment gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to a great Australian institution. That is what the RSL is today. We appreciate the good work that they do.Now that I am the federal parliamentary leader of the Christian Democratic Party, I want to place on record a little bit about my—3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—You're the deputy leader and the membership as well.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—Yes, the deputy leader and the membership. That is pro tem. I need to underline that. But I do want to say a few things about my—3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—I thought you would be modest and call yourself the deputy leader.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—Hang on, I do not want to waste my time here by being distracted. I want to put on the record a few comments about my new party's policy on veterans affairs, which I am taking some interest in developing. The CDP will be uncompromising in its support of veterans. I want to be seen personally, and I want my party to be seen, as the voice of veterans, in this parliament. Veterans do need a voice. We hear from both sides, from all members in this place, about veterans and about how valuable their service was. However, in the end we are not seeing, I am sorry to say, the rhetoric matched entirely by action.The latest budget is an example of that where we see some reductions in a number of important areas in the veterans appropriation. The government's current program, `Their Service—Our Heritage', sounds fine, but what veterans want now, particularly our older veterans, is substance, not symbolism. Very often what they are served up is symbolism, and most of them do not want that.In 1995 we had the Australia Remembers year. It was a great year, an appropriate year, and all of us got into the spirit of that. My friend Con Sciacca was the minister at the time. I was not on the same side of politics as him but—3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—He did a good job.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—He did more than a good job, he did an outstanding job. He was a fine minister and he served the veterans community extremely well, and so did that year of Australia Remembers. The government of the day did a great service to the veterans of Australia in 1995, and I pay tribute to them.I suppose `Their Service—Our Heritage' is something of a pale imitation of that year. I must say I thought at the time when it came into being that the program was something of an attempt to carry on the euphoria of 1995 and to carry it over from the Labor Party to the coalition. I do not want to be too much of a detractor of it. There are obviously some real benefits. Some people have got certificates—I suppose I have awarded about six. But in Australia Remembers I awarded hundreds.One of my great moments during the eight years I was the member for McPherson—I still am, but I will not be for much longer—was the day I presented those Australia Remembers certificates to veterans. We filled one of our local community centres with people. I received more accolades and more letters of thanks and deep appreciation for the day that I put on to award those Australia Remembers certificates than I did for anything else I ever put on. I look back at 1995 as being a high point. What we are attempting to do now is something of a pale imitation, as worthy as some aspects of it might be. As long as it is not costing a lot of money—0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—You're leaving out a lot of substance.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—What veterans want is recognition of—0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—There are worthwhile benefits there.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—Okay, I accept what the member for Macquarie is saying. I accept that there are some very worthwhile benefits coming out of that. I concede that point, that that is the case. We have the heritage, and what a wonderful heritage we have as a result of the service of those who went and gave their lives and those who came back. But theirs was the service. Let us get this in its right context. We have the heritage, but they had the service. Many of them are still fighting today, I believe, for benefits to which they are entitled.I feel a sense of grief when I talk to some of the old diggers on Anzac Day, and other days, and hear how difficult it still is for them to get entitlements. We still seem to take the attitude that we will make it as difficult as possible for them to get what they believe they are entitled to. The latest decision by the government is to restrict access to legal aid for them, and for appeals to the AAT, which is a part of the process to which they are entitled. They are entitled to go to the AAT as the ultimate point of appeal in relation to claims that they are making on the system. Yet that is now a Clayton's right, because legal aid is being restricted and some bureaucrat will be making a judgment about whether the case has merit. Surely the point of going to the AAT is to determine whether the case has merit. It is abrogating the rights of veterans if there is to be some bureaucratic interpretation put on that or a decision made on that.The government has to revisit this whole issue. I know it is being reviewed because I saw a statement by the minister about it the other day. However, at the moment, veterans are being prevented from seeing their full rights exercised in terms of their appeals. There are financial constraints being imposed on appeals. I am told by advocates, with whom I deal almost on a daily basis, that, with respect to the amount of money allowed for appeals, it is not possible to prosecute an appeal. So, even when appeals do go through, there is that practical limitation.I would like some clarification as to what the government is doing to reinstitute the original arrangements whereby legal aid was granted by the Commonwealth. It is now granted by the states but the states have other priorities for legal aid—for example, Queensland has got family law matters and every other matter—and to lump veterans appeals into that whole pot is unsatisfactory and unfair to veterans. Again, let us have substance instead of rhetoric on the question of legal aid so that veterans are able to prosecute their entitlements to the full extent to which they are entitled to do so.As I said, on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I want to be uncompromising in support of veterans. I understand, perhaps better than anyone in this place, or as well as anyone, that there have to be limits in place. There have to be rules in place and there have to be definitions. The act is very clear about defining all sorts of things in terms of qualifying service and so on. I understand all of those things, and that we cannot go totally overboard, but my appeal today is for our Second World War diggers. They are now all getting very old and I believe that life should not be made difficult for them. They should be helped every step of the way to get their full entitlements but the point is: they are not. They are still having to fight for entitlements. Many of them they fought in the war 50 years ago and now they are having to fight the system.I know the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Bartlett) has a lot of veterans in his electorate, and I know that he gives them very good service, but if he is not getting them coming to him with these sorts of complaints, then I suspect that something is wrong. I get veterans coming to me and I talk, as I said a moment ago, to the people who are advocates for them and they are not entirely happy.Sometimes veterans are described as whingers but the categorical response to that is that they are not. Many believed that, having served their country, their country would take care of them as a result of any disabilities they suffered. However, many veterans now feel that their country has let them down and, progressively, over time, I think it can be demonstrated that their benefits have diminished. I do not mind whether they were conscripts or volunteers. Some people make a distinction between whether people were conscripts or volunteers, and whether it was for the Vietnam War or whether it was for the Second World War.If you were a conscript, in a sense you may argue a case such as, `I did not choose it. I was taken.' I am not speaking personally here, but a person can be taken off civvy street and put into the services and sent overseas essentially against their will. They obviously deserve special consideration. On the other hand, of course, those who volunteered, as my father did—incidentally he left Australia in January 1940 with the 6th Division—certainly would be entitled to the very best attention they could get. I described my situation a moment ago. I should say in addition to that, that my dad, when he got back from the war and despite some serious disabilities, got on with his life and actually made pretty much a success of it.In the context of this debate, I want to talk about disability pensions for a moment. There is a lot of confusion about disability pensions and the average member here probably has a bit of difficulty understanding how it all hangs together. I just want to say that whilst these are indexed to the CPI this act we are dealing with deals with some of the complexities about the cross-fertilisation between the indexation and the 25 per cent benchmark. With disability pensions, of course, they are not income in the assessment of service pension payable.I want to draw the attention of the House to an important element of discrimination which exists within the disability pension regime in the way that the disability pension is treated by the Department of Social Security vis-a-vis the way that it is treated by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I say this contains a very serious element of discrimination. If you are entitled to a Veterans' Affairs pension, a service pension, then your disability pension is treated exactly as it should be and that is as compensation. You get it on top of your pension. But if your service was such that you do not get a service pension and you get an age pension through the Department of Social Security, then you are a second-class veteran for a start. It is a pity that we treat a large number of our veterans as second class. The point is that your disability pension which is compensation for your service related injuries is actually treated as income and so you lose the value of it or at least some portion of the value of it.I have been drawing the attention of successive governments to this matter now for years. I first wrote to the current government—I have only got the latest part of the file—when I wrote to Senator Jocelyn Newman in April 1997 about this issue. She wrote back and thanked me for the letter inquiring about the progress of the review. The government promised a review when it came to government of the treatment of disability pensions as income for social security pensions purposes. The review had taken longer than expected but was then close to finalisation. This letter came in on 26 June 1997 almost a year ago. I wrote back again shortly after that and you always get an interim letter from the minister's director. Finally a letter came back in February of this year—I will not read it all—saying:My department concluded the review of the social security treatment of the Department of Veterans' Affairs disability pension under the income test for social security payments this month.Now get this:The report acknowledges the difficulty of this issue and the underlying concerns of veterans.That is a big step forward. That is progress.I am currently considering the recommendations made in the report. Any move to exempt the DVA disability pension would involve significant costs which would need to be considered in the light of budget priorities for the social security and veterans affairs portfolio. I appreciate your interest in this matter.I am glad that the minister appreciates my interest. We waited for the budget, did we not? We got this far with the review. The review is finished. She understands the problem. However, they have got to spend money to fix it. We waited for the budget. I assume nothing happened in the budget. It is very difficult and maybe the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) when he responds can make it clear now. It is probably not so much a matter for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It is really a matter for the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) seeing she would have to, I assume, cough up the money. But somebody needs to tell us whether they have fixed this problem.The minister says, `Yes, there is a problem. Yes, it affects veterans, but it is going to cost money to fix.' This has been going on for years. I have been raising this matter in this place for eight years—with both the previous government and the current government. As I said, we had a review: we waited months for the review. The review was delayed but finally the review said, `Yes, there is a problem, but it is going to cost money to fix.' I wrote to the minister again, on 22 May 1998, just the other day, asking what was going to happen next. I will wait a few months and see what the minister tells me on this particular issue.I did have a large number of other matters I wanted to raise about the gold card issue and the fact that again there is a large group of—VT4REIDMr Reid—A very good initiative, I might add.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—Yes, but a lot of people have missed out on getting the gold card, and I was going to speak up for them as well. (Time expired)10:51:004013Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—It is a pleasure to rise in support of any legislation that enhances the entitlements of our veteran community, a community that is well deserving of any help that we can give them. It is a privilege to speak for this particular piece of legislation, the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998 . It is a shame, however, that the debate is not in the main chamber. Certainly I can understand that this is not a controversial piece of legislation, but it is a shame that something so significant cannot be debated in the main chamber itself.It seems to me that this legislation is significant for at least three main reasons. Firstly and most obviously, it is of vital significance and importance to the war widows and war widowers themselves—those dependent for their living on the pension that they receive.FT4BRADFORDMr Bradford—Why were they forgotten the first time around?0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT—This covers 100,000 members of our community, and I am pleased to say that those 100,000 members of our community will be better off as a result of the enactment of this legislation. The bill provides for the continuation of the link between the age pension and the war widows pension, a link that has been in place since 1964. Further, it builds on the potential for steady growth. It is not that there was no growth potential there before—there was. However, that growth was limited to growth in the CPI.This legislation links growth to male average weekly earnings. It provides a benchmark for the war widows pension to be linked to a minimum of 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings. This ensures that the 100,000 recipients will benefit from the general rise in living standards that the community experiences.The bottom line is that average weekly earnings and also male average weekly earnings tend to rise faster than inflation does. For example, between the March quarters of 1995 and 1998, the CPI grew by 4.88 per cent, whereas male total average weekly earnings grew by 13.32 per cent. There is a significantly faster rate of growth in male average weekly earnings. Therefore, this step of linking war widows' pension entitlements to male average weekly earnings gives them a much greater rate of growth in their pension than does indexation to the CPI.This step means that there will be a real increase in the value of their pensions; it means that war widows and war widowers will benefit from the growing affluence of the community and the growth in productivity in the community, and their living standards will rise as a result. In the last quarter, the March quarter of 1998, this step meant a fortnightly rise of $6.80 for each single recipient, and $5.70 for each of a couple, and that has been the best rise for some time.Secondly, this legislation is indicative of the commitment of the government to our veteran community. Notwithstanding some of the comments from the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford), I believe that this government is honouring its commitment to our veteran community. Since 1914, successive Australian governments have honoured the undertaking that widows and widowers of deceased servicemen and service women would be looked after.For the hundreds of thousands who so willingly risked all, this was a vital commitment. They had to know that their partners would be looked after. For the 102,000 who, over the decades, have paid the ultimate sacrifice in various conflicts around the world, it was the very least that could be done. I am pleased to say that successive governments have honoured that commitment. Obviously, the payment of such a pension could in no way compensate for the death of a loved partner owing to war related causes. It could in no way go close to easing the pain but it does at least provide a minimum and growing standard of living for those pensioners.The legislation before us in fact involves a commitment of around $168 million over the next four years, and it does not stand alone in this government's commitment to the veteran community. The introduction of the program called `Their Service—Our Heritage', to which the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) referred, provides more avenues not only to recognise the contribution of our veteran community but also to assist them.For instance, under the community seeding grants, there is a potential to provide tangible benefits to our veteran community. I am pleased that some veteran organisations in my community have benefited. For instance, the Blue Mountains Ex-Servicewomen's, the Blue Mountains Vietnam Veterans and Associated Forces Incorporated, Springwood RSL, the Kurrajong-Colo RSL sub-branch and the Leura Memorial in Lone Pine Avenue in Leura have all benefited as a result of this program of the government.Further, and very significantly, there has been the introduction of the health gold card for another 50,000 World War II veterans. Sure, we could say that it could have gone further—the member for McPherson has said this. Obviously, there are other groups in the community who would like the benefit as well. But that should not in any way be seen to undermine the value of this commitment. It is a benefit to another 50,000 recipients who were not beneficiaries before, and a commitment of $500 million over the next four years that will directly benefit the health of our World War II veterans. That is an enormous, significant, very worthwhile and valuable commitment by this government that should in no way be underrated. It is a very strong commitment of this government to our veteran community.There are some 260 veterans in the electorate of Macquarie who previously had no access to the gold card. They will now have access to the health gold card and those 260-odd World War II veterans are, I am sure, very grateful for that commitment from the government.Thirdly, in a broader sense, this legislation is indicative of the government's commitment to our older Australian community generally. It is tangible evidence of our commitment to improving the welfare of older Australians. Month after month, we have had the dishonest rubbish from the opposition about how we are undermining the commitment to our older Australians. This is absolute nonsense. There have been many measures—and this is one of them—that in many ways improve the wellbeing of our aged citizens.The indexation of pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings does not only cover war widows and widowers but also all aged pensioners. All aged pensioners will benefit from the growth in living standards that will come from having their pensions indexed at a rate generally faster than the rate of growth of inflation because, as I said, male average weekly earnings grow significantly faster than CPI. Here is a commitment to our whole pension community for a steady, ongoing rise in their standard of living—a genuine commitment of this government to the welfare of older Australians. This was a pre-election commitment by the coalition that has been delivered in full.I bring to the attention of the chamber some of the other benefits that this government has introduced to enhance the welfare of older Australians. There has been an increase in the carers allowance incorporating the domiciliary nursing care benefit—an increase of $16.80 a fortnight. This is an increase of 29 per cent in the carers allowance—the allowance for those caring for frail aged. There are reforms to the nursing home sector that will bring about a tangible improvement in the quality of care in nursing homes, something the former government had neglected and ignored year after year.There was the recently announced $280 million staying at home package, a package that will make it easier for the thousands of elderly citizens who would rather stay in their homes if appropriately assisted. This package includes provisions such as an extra 3,900 community aged care packages, on top of the growth that is already planned; a program for continence assistance; the establishment of another 15 carer respite centres; greater assistance for carers of those with dementia; increased funding for aged care assessment teams. This commitment of $280 million is further evidence of our commitment to the welfare of older Australians.The provision of the seniors health card to another 220,000 self-funded retirees, allowing them pharmaceuticals at concessional rates, is a very significant, very worthwhile improvement for those people who have worked and saved all their lives to look after themselves in their retirement. It is a measure that has gone down very well in the broader community. Also, there was the provision in the budget last year raising the tax-free threshold for low income self- funded retirees to the same level as that which applies to pensioners on similar incomes. These are all very clear measures that prove beyond doubt the commitment of this government to the welfare of older Australians generally.This bill provides for an ongoing, real and substantial improvement in the living standards of war widows and widowers. It is further evidence of this government's concern for the welfare of our veteran community and it is further evidence of this government's commitment to older Australians generally. I commend the bill to the House.11:01:004016Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I rise today to strongly support the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998 . This bill will continue our government's commitment to our veterans and their families by making amendments to maintain war widows and widowers pensions at a rate of no less than 25 per cent of the male total weekly earnings. The bill proposes amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and makes this necessary adjustment.For the last 34 years, the war widows pension has increased at the same rate as the age and service pensions. Adjustments to all pension payments were made in an ad hoc manner which finally led to the current situation where all pensions were adjusted to the CPI twice a year. Legislative changes were made last year to link the age and service pensions to the male earnings benchmark. However, the amendment did not include the widowers pension.The linkage between the three pensions continues to have very widespread community support and reflects community expectations that the war widows pension is a form of compensation for the loss of a loved one. This amendment to benchmark the war widows and widowers pensions should have been made when the changes were made to the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Act in 1997. However, given that this action was not taken at that time, I am extremely pleased that we are now rectifying that situation. I believe it would have been a great travesty not to have continued to link the war widows pension with the single rate of the age and the service pensions.The amendment will cost an additional $168 million over four years, which I am proud to say is totally and fully funded, unlike many of the opposition's policy initiatives. These amendments came into effect on 26 March, with the first increase for widows and widowers pension recipients resulting in an increase of $6.80 per fortnight for a single pensioner, increasing the pension to a level of $378.60 per fortnight. I acknowledge that this legislation is retrospective. However, the benefits that will flow through to this very deserving group were far too important for me not to comment today.The recipients of the widows pension find themselves receiving this pension through no fault of their own. The reason they are receiving this pension is that their partners, in most cases, have paid the ultimate price in serving their nation. It is these people that Labor certainly forgot while in government, just as they forgot to adequately fund and support the currently serving men and women of the Australian Defence Force.As indicated in the budget, the budget for the Defence Force for 1998-99 is nearly $11 billion, an increase of some $589 million on the forecast outlays for 1997-98. This budgetary figure, although a substantial amount, representing 1.9 per cent of our GDP and 8.7 per cent of the Commonwealth outlays, still does not really paint the full picture of the revitalisation of the ADF since the coalition came to government in 1996. The approach to the defence forces by this government, and a renewed commitment to veterans and their widows, is shown through legislation like this that is being put forward here today.These pension recipients fall into two categories. First, where a veteran dies as a result of a war or defence caused disease or injury, then a pension is payable to the surviving partner, whether married or de facto. Second, where a veteran was severely incapacitated as a result of war or defence, then the widow or widower of the veteran may qualify for the pension.This amendment bill will make sure that the rate of widows and widowers pension is increasing by a mechanism that is clearly understood and, therefore, does not continue on the ad hoc adjustment basis that it has in the past. The amendment will ensure that, in the low inflation economic climate, the pension keeps pace with the rest of the community and is not depreciated in real terms by the low CPI figure. In this way, as we benefited from their partners' wartime service, widows and widowers can benefit from the country's economic growth.The linking of the widows and widowers pension to 25 per cent of the total average male weekly earnings follows on the back of other very major policy announcements designed to lighten the load and recognise the immense contribution of groups of Australians that deserve recognition but, in the majority of cases, are never the first ones to ask for handouts. These government initiated reforms, like this amendment bill, will see benefits flowing through to the silent majority in our community, the majority which I believe Labor has certainly continued to ignore.The gold health card is a prime example of the positive changes that this government is making. The gold health card will be extended from 1 January 1999 to an additional 50,000 World War II veterans, who are over 70 years of age and faced hostile forces. This, again fully funded, $500 million initiative will provide veterans with free treatment as a private patient with a choice of doctors and a range of other benefits. This has all come about, quite frankly, because, as the Treasurer (Mr Costello) said, we are now in the black.I believe that special consideration should be given to extending the gold health card to other groups of veterans. I would certainly like to see, as we recover economically, those extensions made to other World War II soldiers and also to Korea and Vietnam veterans. We are starting to see even Vietnam veterans get up into that age group, and I think that that would be a very appropriate recognition for their very important contribution to this nation. I would like to see such an extension in the not so distant future.The member for McPherson raised the matter that the veterans disability pension is viewed by the Department of Social Security as income. That is an area that I also have had some concern about. It is an area that we need to look at seriously. For example, a constituent in my electorate—in Cooktown—John Shea, and his wife Bev are very seriously affected by the way in which this formula is dealt with by Social Security. He has three boys, two of them at university at the moment. He has been compelled to take a relatively small disability pension. This pension, from Veterans' Affairs, puts his income slightly over the benchmark for Austudy. As a consequence, he is in a situation where he has two kids away at university, both of whom he is funding—I think that costs somewhere in the vicinity of $400 a fortnight each, which leaves them with a pay of less than $250 a week—and he has got a third boy ready to go to university next year. So it is causing the family considerable concern.I support the view of the member for McPherson that these are little areas that we should be tidying up around the side. I believe that they may cost a little bit but, as I say, we are in the black and we are focusing on needy groups that have missed out in the past. I am of the view that this is one of those areas that we need to look at very seriously. I would certainly encourage our government and the minister to rectify this anomaly because that disability pension has been earned through a service and a commitment to this nation that did not have to be given by a lot of other people. I think that that should be recognised independently. Like the gold card that was issued, nobody asked for a means test on any of the soldiers that were sent overseas. They came from all walks of life and many of them died.I certainly applaud the gold card. The gold card is given irrespective of financial situation. I think that veterans pensions and things like that, where people have war related disabilities, should be treated in the same way. So I certainly encourage our government to look very seriously at that and deal with it, hopefully, before Bev and John Shea's third son goes to university. Because, unless that is done, unfortunately, they are not going to be able to afford it, and I would hate to see that happen.I am very proud to state that there have certainly been other initiatives, as well, that have been targeting our veterans. The budget allocation, for example, was the largest ever, at $7.25 billion. Other measures include $600 million to the Veterans' Affairs portfolio for the direct purchase of hospital services over four years. Another one is the Australian War Memorial which has had its base funding increased by $2 million per annum for repair and maintenance of the building.I think that this bill certainly continues to give war widows and widowers the recognition that they deserve and it certainly will assist them in contributing to their financial security. I believe that this additional money is certainly money very well spent. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.11:12:004018Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—I, too, would like to associate myself with the support shown by previous speakers for the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998 . This bill, if passed, will amend section 198 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. In doing so, it will allow increases in the rate of pension payable under paragraph 31A of that act to widows and widowers of a deceased veteran, linking those payments to male total average weekly earnings.There are approximately 100,000 war widows and widowers in this country. The war widowers' side of things is very small indeed—I think there are only about 150 of those. But this act, if passed, will provide for payment of a pension to the widow or widower of a veteran whose death was war caused, or defence caused, or to the widow or widower of a prisoner of war, or one who was in receipt of a special rate of pension or an extreme disablement adjustment immediately before death, such as a TPI pension. As I say, it is very welcome.We have had a history in this country of supporting veterans to the degree that we could. In fact, war widows pensions have been paid since 1914. This is a recognition of the special compensation that is due to these people for the loss of a family breadwinner. Those widows themselves stayed at home throughout the war. They looked after the children and, in some cases, looked after the business, or the farm, and made a contribution to the war effort during the period of the war.For a number of them, their real service started after the spouses returned. Whereas the spouses had been to the war for five years or so, the wives often had to look after them through illness for another 50 years or so. In many cases, that has been a lifetime of sacrifice that, I believe, is appropriately recognised through the payment of this pension.The pension, of course, is not taxed and it is not means tested. For the first time it gives a formal link, a legislative link, to the male average weekly earnings. It is pitched at the rate of 25 per cent of those earnings whenever they increase at a greater rate than the CPI. And in determining the rate it is rounded up to the nearest 10c. This link was an election commitment that the coalition made in 1996 and I am pleased to say we have fulfilled it.In passing this legislation here today, it ensures that war widows and widowers will have this backdated to the last rise which was given to single pensioners, granted by other legislation, which for a single pensioner worked out at $6.80 per fortnight. In this case with war widows it will lift that pension rate to $378.60 per fortnight, or $189.30 a week. There will be a cost to revenue in doing this and for the remainder of this financial year that will be $4.74 million. Next financial year it is projected to rise to $22.59 million for the full year. For the year after that it rises to $35.29 million, and in the year 2000-01 it rises to $46.72 million. For the year after that it rises to something in excess of $50 million. So there is a total commitment over the next four years in excess of $165 million, in round figures. The reason why the cost to revenue goes up is not just because of the extra payments, it is also a recognition that many spouses who fought in the war will unfortunately pass on between now and then and so there will be an increase in the number of widows and widowers who are entitled to receive the pension.I might join with previous speakers in mentioning briefly other initiatives that have been taken to assist not only veterans but also other aged people in the community. These initiatives have come in over the last two years since this government took office in March 1996. The gold card, the benefits of which are enjoyed already by 135,000 diggers, will be extended to another 50,000 who are over 70 years of age. That is recognition at long last, 53 years since the cessation of World War II, that they should be looked after properly. All their medical expenses will be picked up and they will be given private hospital care. Ultimately, that entitlement will be further extended, I believe, to Korean War veterans and Vietnam War veterans, as is right and proper.The Commonwealth seniors health care card will be given to another 220,000 people, a welcome initiative, by raising the means test threshold for a single person from $21,000-odd to $40,000, and for a couple from about $37,000 up to $67,000. This will enable them to receive their pharmaceutical scripts at $3.20 instead of a maximum of $20. And after 52 scripts, an average of one a week, they can receive those for nothing. I was talking to a person the other day, a person of limited means, who outlays over $100 a month in prescription fees. You can imagine what this benefit will mean to that particular person.The savings rebate of 7½ per cent on the first $3,000, lifting next year to 15 per cent, will put another $450 a year into the hands of self-funded retirees, those who have been able to look after themselves. Self-funded retirees have also been specifically recognised by giving them the same tax treatment as pensioners. I believe that was a very welcome and long overdue initiative. That means a single, self-funded retiree can have an income of $12,163 before that person starts to pay tax. I think that is only right and proper. Of course, the new five-year health agreement which we will be debating in parliament shortly will give another 15 per cent of Commonwealth funds in real terms to the states over the next five years to be put into public hospitals and so on.We have also introduced initiatives over the last couple of years that recognise carers more than before, by making more places available for respite assistance for people who are suffering from incontinence. Other initiatives increasing funding to HACC programs, and other measures all show the coalition's commitment to the welfare of older Australians.The veterans budget this year is pitched at a record level. I acknowledge the presence of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott), who has joined us for the debate, and particularly compliment him for the initiatives in the program `Their Service—Our Heritage.' These initiatives are being extremely well received in the Parkes electorate. The money is helping to restore memorials, and also it is being used to purchase such things as community buses to help ferry veterans around, making their lives so much more enjoyable in the twilight years of their life. I conclude by saying that I strongly support the bill and I congratulate the government for introducing it to the House.11:21:004020Johnston, Ricky, MPMrs JOHNSTONNL6CanningLP10—In rising to comment on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998 being debated today, I think it is only fitting to pay tribute to some of the heroic actions carried out by those Australians who defended our country at times of world and regional conflict. It is not just the heroic actions that must be recognised; equally important is the recognition of the day-to-day activities carried out by all of our veterans, male or female.Indeed, Australia owes much to these people. When our community sent our young service men and women to other countries we promised that, in the event of war causing their death, their widow or widower would be looked after. In other words, they would be compensated for the loss of the family breadwinner. This undertaking has been adhered to since 1914 and has been in the form of the payment of the war widows pension. It is important to note that this payment is neither taxed nor means-tested and until now it has been indexed according to the consumer price index.In the lead-up to the 1996 federal election, the coalition gave a commitment to deliver a pension benchmark of at least 25 per cent of the total male average weekly earnings. This is an important measure because male incomes are generally recognised as being pegged at a higher level than those of females in our community. The war widows pension is but one of the many pensions where the rate of pension will be maintained at 25 per cent of the total male average weekly earnings.The Veterans' Affairs Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998, links the war widows and widowers pension to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings, whenever this measure exceeds the growth of the consumer price index. This means that it will ensure that war widows and widowers will continue on the same level as the age and service pensions, thereby retaining parity. Without the application of this bill the rate of the war widows pension would fall behind that of other pensions. The immediate impact of this bill is an increase of $6.80 bringing this pension up to $378.60 per fortnight. This new measure is expected to cost approximately $164 million over the next four years and will provide further financial security to 540 women in my electorate of Canning. It clearly shows that the commitment that this government has is enhancing the quality of life and the living standards for older Australians.In talking about this, we should not forget the extension of the gold card to veterans aged 70 years or over who faced hostile contact in World War II. In my electorate of Canning alone just over 150 additional people are eligible for this. As I understand it, right around Australia, more than 50,000 World War II veterans will benefit from the gold card initiative. The gold card enables qualifying veterans to access the comprehensive health care arrangements of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. These arrangements include private patient hospital care, specialised care and many other services such as physiotherapy, dental and others.I will just take a moment to make some comments on the 1998-99 Budget because there are other measures in that budget that will also help the elderly and that includes our widows and veterans. The staying at home package; the funding that we have provided for medical research; the funding for preventive health programs; and the funding that we have extended to self-funded retirees are all initiatives that have been very enthusiastically received in my electorate of Canning and no doubt right around Australia.I think the very important aspect that we should all remember is that elderly people, more than anybody else in this country of ours, understand the need to live within their own means. They understand how to budget. They understand that they cannot exceed their household budget and I think they have recognised the tremendous job that the Treasurer (Mr Costello) has done by making sure that once again Australia too has managed to live within its means and has brought its budget into surplus. I congratulate the Treasurer on doing that.I meet with many veterans in my electorate. Indeed, many of my personal friends are people who were involved in the theatres of war in the Second World War as well as Vietnam and Korea. It is quite disheartening to see at times the impact that those particular conflicts have left on them. Many of them, of course, have come back from Vietnam troubled with potential diseases associated with Agent Orange. Their lives in many cases have been destroyed and it is sad to see that many of these people were forgotten. But I am happy to say that not only have they been recognised by the previous government but more exceedingly so by this government which has ensured that they have been given some financial benefits through the measures in this budget, especially in regards to the widows pension.As I have already said, I am very often touched by the stories that these people tell me. I would suggest that today's Australians can truly be very proud of what the veterans did for us, because they protected our country for us and that is a very important aspect. This government recognises the sacrifices that many of these families have made and we express our thanks to them—sometimes through very small things such as presenting `Their Service—Our Heritage' certificates to them and sometimes in larger ways by enabling their war monuments or their RSL halls to be extended and to be upgraded. Again, the government has done much through this bill and I, too, would like to join my colleague, the previous speaker, the member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) in thanking the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) for the very responsible way in which he treats his portfolio.Just briefly, in summing up, the difficult times that veterans experienced were often made even more difficult because they were separated from family members in far-flung places around the world. I am quite sure that everyone in this House, regardless of which side we sit on, has met people of that calibre and admired them for what they have done for our country. Ensuring that those who survived do not have to endure unnecessary hardship is extremely important. This bill goes a long way towards doing just that. It provides safety, it provides security and it provides stability. It clearly indicates that this government has a strong commitment to enhancing the quality of life for all Australians, including those who helped to serve and protect this country.11:29:004021Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—In legislating the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998 , the government is underlining the longstanding commitment by the coalition parties and their antecedents to repaying the debt that we owe to our veterans. It was the Cook Liberal government in 1914 which first announced that there would be a war widows' pension to ensure that those who were bereaved of loved ones on whom they had been dependent and who had made the supreme sacrifice would not be left destitute. It was the United Australia Party government under Joseph Lyons which in 1935 first introduced the veterans service pension to recognise the valour shown and the sacrifice made by Australians in such theatres of war as Gallipoli, the Somme and the Passchendaele. It was the Fraser coalition government in 1976 which first introduced twice-yearly indexing of pensions, including the veterans service pension. Now it is the Howard coalition government that has enshrined in legislation for the first time that pensions shall not fall below 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings.The bill seeks to bring the war widow and war widower pensions into line with the legislation enacted last year with regard to other pensions. It is interesting to read Hansard pertaining to the implementation of the original war widows pensions in 1914. By the time the bill came to be implemented, it was the Labour government under Andrew Fisher which controlled the Treasury benches. It was pointed out by the then Liberal opposition that the new plan was not as generous in its provisions as theirs had been, in particular with regard to the provision made for totally incapacitated returned servicemen and their wives.The Liberal opposition further argued that the wives of totally incapacitated returned servicemen should receive a set amount—not one graduated according to their husband's rank, as was the case in the Labour government's bill. Nevertheless, the broad thrust of the bill was supported on both sides of the House, and I am sure that a similar sentiment will prevail today.In my electorate of Makin, the bill will be a welcome initiative. It fulfils our commitment to our servicemen and service women when we sent them to war: if the war caused their death, their widow or widower would be looked after. More than indexation to inflation does, this measure ensures that the recipients of this pension keep pace with living standards and do not fall behind as the rest of the community becomes more affluent.It is appropriate also to place this measure in context with other initiatives undertaken by this government to pay proper respect to the contribution made by our veterans in the service of their country. I am happy to inform the House that the allocation of $660 million over four years to extend the gold card to male veterans of World War II who had experienced danger from hostile forces was warmly welcomed in the electorate of Makin. Prior to the government's announcement of this initiative, considerable support was expressed by veterans in my community for the idea that, just as we had done for veterans of World War I, we should also honour our veterans of World War II by extending gold card privileges to that group.The government has also demonstrated its commitment to our veterans in its other budget commitments. These have included an additional $750 million over five years to be given to the states and territories for veterans hospital care, and a permanent increase of $2 million in the funding base of the Australian War Memorial. These and other measures add up to a record budget for Veterans' Affairs of over $7 billion.This government has underlined its commitment to veterans not with empty rhetoric but with practical measures to show our veterans that we do appreciate the immeasurable contribution that they have made to our security and our way of life. This government has remembered, and I congratulate the government and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Bruce Scott, for his tremendous achievements for our veterans.11:38:004022Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—in reply—Firstly, I thank members on both sides of the parliament who have contributed to the debate on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998 . I certainly want to thank the seven members from the government side—the members for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), Swan (Mr Randall), Macquarie (Mr Bartlett), Parkes (Mr Cobb), Canning (Mrs Johnston), Leichhardt (Mr Entsch) and Makin (Mrs Draper)—for their contributions, which showed an excellent understanding of the reasons for this legislation and also of other matters relating to the Veterans' Affairs portfolio.I will say at the outset that the legislation will affect approximately 100,000 war widows and war widowers currently. This initiative will in fact be magnified in the years ahead, because it is anticipated—based on the department's predictions—that the numbers of war widows and war widowers will in fact increase from that current 100,000 to approximately 125,000. Whilst the initiative brings improved benefits to those currently receiving this entitlement, the number of recipients is going to increase over the next five to seven years. The initiative will be magnified, as obviously will the financial contribution that will be required.The legislation gives great certainty to our war widows and war widowers because it links male total average weekly earnings to their compensation payment—the war widows or war widowers pension as we refer to it. Linking it to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings will ensure that they can share in the improved living standards of our nation. And why shouldn't they share in the improved living standards? That is why this is an important initiative: they should share in the improved living standards of our nation because our improved living standards are a direct result of the efforts of our older generations. Our war widows and war widowers have a very special place in our society and they, too, should share in the improved living standards.Many of them rely wholly and solely on this income. The CPI increases were the only linkage to the war widows or war widowers pension, and that was just a measure of the cost of living and not a measure of the improved living standards that our nation achieves as it gets bigger and stronger. We believe that our war widows and war widowers should be able to share in that living standard.I thank the shadow minister for his commitment that the opposition intends to expedite this legislation through the parliament. His contribution this morning was a bit of a history lesson down memory lane. I thank him for that. For a moment, I thought he was going to say that this was something that was on the opposition's agenda way back in the days of Whitlam, but somehow, in their 13 years of government, they did not do anything about it.I want to touch on some of the issues of concern that he raised. He mentioned the frozen rate or the income support supplement for war widows and war widowers. I remind the opposition that, in 1986, it was the then government, the now opposition, who actually froze the income support supplement for war widows and war widowers. He said that this is now a concern. It was actually the opposition who froze it, and they had reasons at the time for that.He did not suggest in his speech that the opposition was going to do something about it in the future. He just flagged it as a concern. I would like to know from the shadow minister whether it is the intention of the opposition to put forward a policy, whether they intend to do something about it or whether it is just something that, as he travels around Australia, he raises on radio and at meetings in a veiled way to indicate that it is a problem. I wonder whether he is trying to get people to believe that, if the opposition were ever in government again, they would do something about it. I remind him that it was the Labor Party, when they were in government, who froze the income support supplement.The opposition spokesman focused on the question: why is this bill in the parliament now? Why wasn't it passed with the original bill that increased age and service pensions? Why didn't it link them to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings? A quick glance of Hansard will reveal that there were no amendments moved in relation to war widows or war widowers when that bill was in the House or the Senate. There was not one word mentioned about it. There were no amendments moved. He comes in here and asks: why didn't it happen then? I ask: why didn't the opposition come up with amendments then, if they felt strongly about it?I looked at the Hobart policy statement of the opposition. I thought something in there might suggest that war widows and war widowers pensions or compensation should be linked to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. I found about five or six dot points with no mention of the 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings for the service pension, let alone the war widows pension or widowers pension.So he does not come in here with any record of having fought for this or suggested this. It is this government that has introduced it. I would hope people out there will judge people on actions rather than statements. This Hobart document really was one of dot points, vague references to continuing to honour the debt to veterans through programs and compensation: `Labor will continue to provide compensation,' `Labor will continue to fund veterans' community organisations.' That was in February. This is May. I have to ask why the shadow minister comes in here and vaguely refers to the fact that perhaps this should have been something that was done earlier. There was no reference to it in the House when the social security legislation went through.To the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford), now the Independent member for McPherson, can I just say that I was rather disappointed with his contribution. I say to him also that my doors are always open to any member of this parliament to come forward to me with a concern relating to veterans; that if they are not receiving adequate attention from the Department of Veterans' Affairs and they want to bring it to my attention, my doors are always open.One of the great things about this portfolio is that members on both sides of the House have generally tried to achieve the maximum that this nation can afford to compensate the very worthy veterans of our nation. But I do not think the member for McPherson has actually been through my doors once since we have been in government. I would welcome him to my office with some of the concerns. He suggested that in the budget brought down a few weeks ago there had been cuts. I have actually brought a kit in and, had he been here, I was going to present him with the budget review for 1998-99 which clearly shows that this budget has a 7.2 per cent increase in appropriations over the next 12 months over the figure for the previous 12 months. That, to me, does not indicate a cut in the funding for veterans. In fact, it is an increase over the next 12 months of something like $500 million—hardly a cut.I would suggest that the member for McPherson gets his facts right before he starts getting around his own community, as he represents it now as an Independent, not as a member of the coalition. He was suggesting that `Their Service—Our Heritage', the commemorative program that we have put in for the next four years, is a very pale imitation of Australia Remembers. I well remember when I became minister that in my first answer to a question in the parliament I paid a tribute to the work of the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs. We have the opposition's first spokesman on veterans affairs sitting opposite at the moment. I think all members of the parliament participated in that Australia Remembers program. It was an extremely successful commemoration in 1995 of the end of the Second World War in 1945.I do take exception to the fact that the member for McPherson says, `This is a pale imitation.' We are not trying to imitate Australia Remembers; what we are trying to do is continue the commitment of commemoration, awareness and education. It is to commemorate all those who have served this great nation of ours since Federation. His comments clearly, I believe, do a grave disservice to those who have served, from the Boer War and the First World War, to Korea, Malaya, Borneo and Vietnam—his own service was in Vietnam and in 1996 there was a pilgrimage under `Their Service—Our Heritage' back to Vietnam to commemorate those who served in Vietnam—and in the Gulf and the peacekeepers in Somalia, Cambodia and Rwanda. It is to commemorate all those who have served this great nation of ours. As we lead up to the centenary of Federation, I believe it is important that we focus on those who have served this country and those who are prepared to put all on the line in the defence of our and others' freedoms.I remind the member for McPherson that we have the regional memorial upgrade program under `Their Service—Our Heritage'. I think it was in Victoria that the one millionth dollar was granted recently; that went to upgrade a memorial that was built commemorating those from that community that served in the Boer War—a very small grant but it is upgrading a very important memorial, a very important part of the nation's heritage.We have the regional art collections and the collection from the War Memorial which travels around Australia. I think the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) recently opened one of those—8I4MARTINMr Martin—No, I didn't; your department—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I ask the member to address his remarks through the chair.8H4HAWKERMr Hawker—One travelled to Hamilton.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—It has been to Hamilton, too. It is another way of communicating with the broader community, with the very powerful message that art has to give, particularly the art from the Australian War Memorial. So I would just ask the member for McPherson, before he goes off on such a tangent, to look at the budget papers and look more closely at the commemorative program of `Their Service—Our Heritage' over the next four years. If he really wants to make a contribution, he could involve his own community in a very meaningful way in those commemorative programs. I would have thought that it was in his best interest to see this as a commemorative program that all members, whether independent, opposition or government, can get behind. This portfolio, I have always thought, is one that has more of a bipartisan approach than a political approach. I think that is the way the veterans see it; it is the way that I think governments for a long time have seen it. Long may that be the case.The government certainly does seek to do more. Perhaps we would have liked to do more in the budget that was introduced by the Treasurer on 12 May, but I have to remind people that when we came to government we had a deficit problem to deal with, a $10.5 billion debt that had to be addressed. We cannot ignore that, but we do have the best repatriation system in the world because a nation must, firstly, look after its veteran community. But it has to be able to afford improvements in those entitlements.Whilst we have the best repatriation system in the world, I want to assure the chamber that we do not intend to rest where we are. There is a lot of work to be done. The numbers of veterans that will receive benefits in the coming four to five years and up to eight to nine years are even going to increase, according to the department's estimates. So there is a lot of work yet to be done and, of course, that will require budget appropriations. But it is about making sure that a nation can afford it and so through that process we are able to deliver greater benefits to our well-deserving and wonderful veterans.In conclusion, I just thank those who have made a contribution. I note that the opposition has said that it is going to expedite this legislation through the parliament. I thank the opposition for that and I thank all members for their contribution to this landmark legislation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4026r5014026Debate resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.11:49:004026Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, at the outset and before making not too many comments—because, clearly, this is very much a technical bill—I just want to indicate to the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss), and to the government, naturally, that the opposition will not be opposing the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . I wish to indicate to the minister that, as was the case with the last piece of legislation debated in this chamber this morning, we offer to expedite its passage through the other place, as well.There are only a couple of comments that I would make on this now. Of course, this technical amendment is simply to pick up an issue associated with avgas and to reflect a decision that was introduced in some earlier package of measures dealing with fuel substitution. Effectively, this proposal seeks to ensure that the amendments made in this bill reduce the excise duty payable on avgas from 3 July 1997 to 0.17403c per litre, and that reflects a package of measures which was introduced into the parliament, and I understand that that has probably passed through this place, as well. As a consequence, of course, this amendment is required.Very briefly, the fuel substitution issue is one that we touched on when the package of measures came through earlier and was debated in this place. I note that there was extensive consultation with the petroleum industry and that there were no objections raised at that time. Similarly, of course, there are no objections raised to ensuring that the policy, which had certainly been announced previously, is included through this amendment in the existing regime.Minister, I simply say to you again that the opposition has absolutely no problems with this. It is a sensible measure and it simply puts in place the issues which had been flagged before. I shall therefore not detain the business of this committee any further.11:52:004027Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—in reply—I thank the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) for his comments and support for the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . As he says, it is simple and straightforward. I, also, will therefore not detain the committee further. These are obviously sensible amendments. They reduce the rate of excise and customs duty on aviation gasoline, as was pointed out by the member for Cunningham, and they contain some technical amendments to remove any misunderstandings in relation to the fuel substitution issues. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—If no member wishes to discuss the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4027r5034027Debate resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.11:53:004027Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—The National Measurement Amendment Bill 1998 is a relatively technical measure which makes certain drafting changes to the National Measurement Act to rectify drafting errors in relation to the certification of regulatory measurements. It also amends the act to remove the compulsory retirement age of the executive director of the National Standards Commission. As it is a particularly technical matter, the opposition does not propose to oppose this bill. In fact, we will support it and ensure a speedy passage if that is the government's wish.However I think that it is appropriate at this point to place on the record some brief remarks about the national measurement system and the importance of it. It is often too easy to neglect the importance of standards and measurements systems in the technological age in which we now live. For our industry to be competitive on a global basis, and for us to take advantage of technological advances in other countries, it is very important that our national system of measurements—our system of standards in Australia—are well maintained and that adequate investment is undertaken in research and development in that area to ensure that industry is equipped to take advantage of these advances in the technology of measurement. It is a very precise and exacting science, and one in which Australia has a substantial presence. So I believe that it is important to acknowledge the work of the standards associations and the work of the National Measurement Laboratory in ensuring the global competitiveness of industry and encouraging industry throughout Australia to ensure that it is up to date in standards and measurement areas because that has a very significant impact on our ability to export and on the productivity of Australian industry generally.Many Australian companies are now ensuring that their quality standards are to international best practice. However, it is certainly something which we need to continue to work on. We need also to continue to understand the importance of an aspect of industrial practice which is often not remarked upon because it is something which is so much an underlying part of the activity. Despite the fact that it is not particularly obvious, it is very important. This bill is a small contribution to that process and so I commend the bill to the committee.4028Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—in reply—I thank the member for Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans) for his comments and interest in the National Measurement Amendment Bill 1998 , and indeed for his interest in these matters. I certainly concur with his view that these are significant issues that are perhaps not often thought about by the men and women of Australia. They are the sorts of underlying regulatory frameworks that are essential to almost every aspect of our daily life, but we just tend to take those things for granted.The government has been taking a number of initiatives in response to the Kean report in relation to standards issues. Indeed, only last week I chaired the first meeting of the Standards and Conformance Advisory Council that has been established to assist the government in addressing some of these issues. It is particularly pleasing for me that Mr Kean has himself agreed to be the vice-chairman of that council, and so we have the benefit of his expertise and knowledge still available to us. As indicated by the member for Bonython, these amendments are largely of a technical nature. There were some previous amendments to provide for mandatory meteorological requirements for legal measuring instruments, and at the same time for improving chemical measurements by the use of certified reference materials. Unfortunately, both of those initiatives were frustrated by a drafting error in the definition of a certifying body. Therefore, it has been necessary for that error to be corrected in this legislation.A second feature of the bill is to remove the retirement age of 65 for the executive director of the National Standards Commission, and that is in line with government policy. Similar measures are being taken in relation to a number of authorities. I again thank the committee for its speedy consideration of this matter and I commend the bill to the committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4028r4614028Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Mrs Moylan:That the bill be now read a second time.11:58:004028Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The opposition will not be opposing this particular piece of legislation, the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 1998 . The bill seeks to impose new carrier charges on telecommunications carriers to meet the cost of monitoring the performance of carriers in meeting their industry development plan obligations. The Labor Party is a very strong supporter of the Australian communications manufacturing industry. We believe that the obligations which the former Labor government imposed on telecommunications companies played a very important role in making sure that we had a vibrant and growing manufacturing capacity in telecommunications.It was not that long ago that Australia's exports in this area were quite small. In fact, when the current Prime Minister (Mr Howard) left office as Treasurer of Australia in 1983, Australia only exported about $50 million a year worth of telecommunications products. However, when we left office in 1996 it was $800 million and heading for $1 billion a year. I am sure that despite the fact that we have had a severe economic downturn in Asia, Australia still has a very strong, vibrant, growing telecommunications manufacturing capacity.The attitude that we took in office as we deregulated the telecommunications market is one which the current government has continued; that is, we do not impose obligations on telecommunications carriers to meet particular targets or numbers in levels of Australian content in purchasing but instead we require carriers to submit an industry development plan. The obligation which was placed on companies such as Telstra, Optus and Vodafone was to meet the plan that they themselves had drawn up rather than seek to meet some criteria that the government had artificially imposed on them in some Soviet centrally planned manner. We believe that it is important that the obligation remains on carriers that they meet that industry development and that they be required to prepare industry development plans. We think that is the guarantee to the Australian public that telecommunications companies will not be allowed to simply import all of their equipment requirements. That then allows me to make a few other comments about other areas that are funded by carrier licence charges.Telecommunications carriers are also hit with licence fees that meet the cost of the Australian communications authorities' regulatory role and also the ACCC's role. On several occasions when we have been debating telecommunications legislation in the parliament, I have been expressing my very strong view that in many ways I think Telstra is out of control. I think that the move to ACCC regulation of telecommunications has seen Telstra no longer being regulated by Austel and the former telecommunications act is out of control. We are facing, in my opinion, a diminution in competition in the communications market if we do not see the regulator playing a stronger role than the ACCC has played to date. If I could be allowed to express a personal view: if the ACCC and Professor Fels are not prepared to use the powers that the parliament has given them in being tougher on Telstra then I think it is time for us consider whether the ACCC should continue to have those regulatory roles. Professor Fels and the ACCC want to go off on their escapades in investigating other activities that have been in the news in recent times, but while Professor Fels likes to open up new fronts for publicity, it is very important that he makes sure that he is doing the job that the parliament has given him in making sure we have as much aggressive communication and telecommunications as possible.I have made the comparison in the past that we used to talk about Telstra being a 600-pound gorilla in the Australian communications market because of its monopoly inheritance; it is now the 600-tonne godzilla. I have mentioned this before and I will not repeat it but if you have seen the preview for Godzilla with it approaching the gentleman fishing at the end of the wharf you will know what I mean.Telstra does have the power to dominate the Australian communications market. Sure, in mobile telephony and to some extent in long distance, to a greater extent in international calls, there is competition, but on local calls and to some extent in long distance calls Telstra is the price setter. Telstra has a virtual monopoly in local calls. It is the price setter in many of the other markets. I think we need to have a strong regulator using the powers that the parliament has given it. If the regulator needs extra powers then the regulator should let the parliament know that it needs extra powers to make sure that Telstra does not sit back to maximise its profits, which provide a benefit to the government at the moment through the dividend stream. I think there is a real danger that if the regulator does not do its job properly then ordinary consumers will be the big losers, because when we set out down the path of greater competition in telecommunications we wanted to make sure that the big winners were consumers. While there have been some price reductions to date, I am sure people on both sides of this committee would want to see the greatest possible reductions in prices in future.The other thing that has been happening lately—and I do not know if other members are finding this—is that I have had an explosion in the number of complaints that are coming into my office about Telstra's performance. The number of people who are ringing my office every week with reports of greatly increased times for Telstra to repair faults or install telephones is really quite disturbing. I will just go through a few.I might begin with a letter from a resident of Berkeley Vale. The gentleman sent me a copy of his letter addressed to the Manager of Customer Service at Telstra. I am not sure if there is such a human being but I hope there is a manager of customer service at Telstra. The letter reads:I would like to express my deep disappointment at the way we were treated in our recent experience at having our phone go `out of order'.On Monday morning May 4th I discovered our home phone wasn't answering—gave an engaged call. Using the service difficulties check I realised we were out of order. I reported the difficulty at 9.00 Mon morning and I was told by a very helpful consultant that he would have me contacted at work about 2.00 p.m.At 6.00 p.m. I again rang Service Difficulties—this time I was made to feel rather stupid as this consultant proceeded to tell me how it must have been my fault that our phone was out because I have a modem! I was also told that it is not policy to ring back a customer (despite their giving a contact number!). On ringing on Tuesday evening I learned that she had registered my complaint as a `minor service' difficulty—the line was dead, how much more major could it get? The consultant that evening corrected this registration but told me our phone couldn't be attended to until Monday 11th—a tough call seeing I am a casual teacher and rely on schools ringing me.Wednesday, Thursday I contacted the centre to see what progress was being made. Then `shock, horror' Friday afternoon we had a line out but incoming calls only gave one weak `bleep'. On ringing the S.D. centre a very helpful consultant had me check the main phone and extension point—all had line out but incorrect incoming—she warned me it could drop out as it seemed to still be a line fault not an instrument one. Sure enough, by 6.30 p.m, we had no line out. Another call to S.D. informed me that I had a serviceman booked for Mon 11th—a bit hard because I work in Sydney on that day. Mark rebooked me for Wed 13th (a.m.) . . . .Imagine our surprise when on coming home on Saturday (2.15 p.m) I find a card in the book telling me that Gary had called in and I needed to contact S.D. for a further booking. It was then that I spoke to Mark who alerted me to the Monday booking which we then changed.Again imagine my surprise that on our return from Mother's Day Lunch, there was another note to say that Peter had come around, but, alas, we were not at home—again please ring for another appointment. I rang and again confirmed that Wednesday was the day.Then Monday morning (6.30 a.m) without any warning we had a line in and out.And guess what? A serviceman called around on Monday! Only that my son was home sick was he able for some mysterious reason to inspect our phone . . . .I guess, I'm amazed at this rather sorry saga of confusion and lack of apparent co-ordination from such a professional body as yours. We were without a phone for eight days—had to go to the local shops to use the public phone and, as a casual teacher, I still don't know what damage has been done to my work this term.I hope this may give you some guide for a review of some of the aspects of your repair procedures.That letter was from a gentleman in Berkeley Vale. I also have a complaint from a resident of Mardi whose phone was due to be installed on 20 May and who has now been told that it will not be installed until 24 July. He is a fireman and his daughter is an asthmatic. He obviously needs to be able to receive messages when he is needed to provide to the local community his services as a fireman, and it is pretty outrageous that this gentleman and his family have to wait until 24 July for the work to be done.Another constituent has had to wait three months; another has been told they have to wait six weeks to have their phone fixed. There is a very long list of residents of the central coast that are being forced to wait too long to get their phones repaired. I suspect that if I were to raise this with the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) I would get the response that the government has actually improved the system by offering a customer guarantee.I hope the people I have listed do get the compensation payments that the government claims that they will now be entitled to. But these people do not want a rebate on their next telephone bill: they want their telephone to work. My concern is that either Telstra is becoming less efficient or the staff reductions at Telstra mean that the waiting time for telephones to be installed or repaired is blowing out because of the changes that the government has made. Without wanting to reveal the contents of briefings that have taken place within this building, I know some members of the government—they may be in this room this afternoon—have raised concerns about the impact of changes in Telstra's ownership on service to the bush in rural and regional areas.Many people believe that, if this government has its way and sells the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, the staff reductions that will inevitably follow that full privatisation will mean that these complaints will only increase. The times to have telephone faults repaired will blow out. The times to have telephones installed will get worse and there is very little hope of any aggressive competition from Optus or Vodafone, or any of the other carriers, to fix local telephones in my electorate or to install phones in most other electorates around Australia.Competition is not the answer. What we need is a more aggressive regulation to try to ensure that Telstra lifts its standards. For those reasons, I have made the point that the charges that we levy on telecommunications carriers, that we are discussing today, do fund the regulatory role of the ACCC. As a parliament, we need to make sure that the ACCC is using those powers of regulation. If they need more powers to make sure that Telstra is doing its job, then I, for one, am prepared to put up my hand to give the regulator the powers it needs to make sure that the customers receive the service to which they are entitled. For those reasons, we think it is important that Professor Fels puts in a bit of time to focus on this particular issue. I pointed out at the start, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the opposition will not be opposing this particular bill, but we are very concerned about the apparent increase in the costs and times of making repairs to Australia's telecommunications services.12:12:004032Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—There is no doubt that Australians should feel a lot more comforted as a result of this government's actions with regard to consumer based issues in the delivery of services by the various telecommunications carriers. The Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 1998 involves the mechanics of raising the funds that are necessary to run some of the watchdogs and the instruments in determining that proper plans are place and that proper execution of those plans occurs.It is worth reflecting on some of the previous comments, as I generally do in telecommunications bills. I often follow the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) and I always delight in that particular approach. It is worth reflecting on a few of his comments. It is certainly a fact that the previous government set in train a series of events that have led to a lot of the complaints the member for Dobell has aired today. The natural advantage they legislated for Telstra in their 1991 act springs to mind immediately. Telstra was allowed to turn its back on legitimate requests from potential competitors to provide the infrastructure for those competitors to compete. This was a great shame. Before the member for Dobell interjects and says that I am suggesting a socialist instrument in the form of some sort of national telecommunications infrastructure, I have said this before and I will continue to say it: it is a legitimate role of government in this country, with sparse population, to provide infrastructure for industries to use.Essentially, to paraphrase the way the 1991 act worked, it would be like getting Lindsay Fox and TNT and a couple of other transport companies each to build a Pacific Highway for their own trucks to travel on. Essentially, the Labor government was not going to legislate that there should be infrastructure in place. They essentially said, `If you want to go and run a telephone company, Optus, you go and build your own cable system.' It was like saying, `If you want to run your own trucking company, Lindsay Fox, build your own Hume Highway.' That is just a nonsense. That approach has cost the country $8 billion or $9 billion in infrastructure duplication and the unsightly mess of mobile telephone arrays scattered on corners in your electorate, I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, as they are in mine. Those matters were addressed in the 1996 Telecommunications Bill that this government brought to this place, which was passed and which brought about a tougher regime on telecommunications carriers, just as we are bringing about a tougher regime to make sure consumer issues are being addressed.It is worth knowing that Telstra as an organisation will continue to dominate the Australian marketplace for those sorts of reasons and many others. The aspirations of local call providers—and there are umpteen different companies that would like to provide cheaper local calls to Australian consumers—are always going to be dashed by the difficulty of infrastructure. This government has provided a requirement on telecommunications infrastructure providers to give access to those aspirants. That, I think, is proof that this government has acted. The previous government signed away the potential for change because of technology in the area of analog phones in rural and regional Australia, on which I know the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), amongst others, has had some strong views.8H4HAWKERMr Hawker—Yes, I have.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I know you have. The matter of analog phones in rural and regional Australia is a matter created directly by the previous government's failure and lack of insight to properly plan. Planning is what is at the heart of this particular bill before us today. It is interesting to know, on the question of analog phones, who signed the contract, who signed the deal with Vodafone that effectively is at the heart of why analog phones have to be phased out in a compulsory sense. It was the Hon. K.C. Beazley. Mr Beazley, of course, is now the Leader of the Opposition.All I will say is that if Telstra is failing to meet certain matters of consumer expectations on deadlines for repairs and maintenance and those sorts of matters, they are things that I believe the ACCC has to look at. The ACCC, within its functions and powers, has some specified directives that they can offer. They have tougher powers and tougher penalties that they can impose because of this government's own actions. But the reason some of these matters might be occurring is simply because the previous government set the whole system up for a fall.I have my own complaint: the Network Operations Centre in Brisbane has been relocated to Melbourne. I think the Hon. Jeff Kennett, the Premier there, provided a very aggressive incentive program to Telstra to do that. But 90 jobs were lost for Queenslanders involved in the NOC centre. In my letter to Frank Blount about that, which he never did respond to—he got someone from some department somewhere to respond to me, which I thought was quite discourteous—my argument was that if a line broke in Julia Creek, the NOC centre in Melbourne would probably fix the one between Melbourne and Geelong before they got around to Julia Creek. So there are some understandable difficulties that are perhaps inherent in the system. The member for Bruce (Mr Griffin) might be happy about that particular result but I am sure the electors of the member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) would not be. In fact, I said to him that Melbourne is as close to an area like Julia Creek as a place like Vanuatu is, or perhaps Jakarta, so I suspect the Network Operations Centre could have been there.I do think the member for Dobell has expressed a legitimate concern, as others on this side of the chamber have, about the staff allocation priorities of Telstra. But again, if they do not perform, if they do not get results, there are some tough measures in place to penalise them, and I think that is good. But at the heart of the difficulties is the fact that the Labor Party in government did not legislate for real competition. To have the member for Dobell in here today talking about competitive regimes and the need for real competition to perhaps, through market forces, keep Telstra honest in these particular maintenance areas is in itself an absolute farce. You only have to look at the collapse of the Galaxy-Australis group in recent weeks to know that they are also a victim of the big fall that the previous government legislated for, to know that exactly what I mean is true.The bill before us today is all about the imposition of an annual charge on the carriers, to be sure that the ACA, the Australian Communications Authority, and the ACCC are able to meet their very modest costs in monitoring the industry development plan arrangements—some $600,000 in the first year, based on the expectations of part 2 of schedule I of the Telecommunications Act 1997. It is likely to grow as the number of carriers increases, and that is fair enough. This bill will enable all the various costs imposed in the monitoring of these matters to be recovered by the Commonwealth.The other point I would like to make is to offer a caution to these various instrumentalities monitoring the progress and processes of commercial enterprises. I would hate to see them go the way the Department of Communications and the Arts spectrum management people have gone. Under the previous government, progress on the matter of local area plans for commercial radio operations, amongst other things, fell way behind. For people who need to be able to plan with certainty and to understand what might be occurring in what particular area, having three- and four-year delays in getting basic plans in place is an absolute farce.With new technology constantly imposing itself in the area of telecommunications, carriers would be rightly upset if the bureaucracy monitoring them were to retard their natural aspirations to progress their industry in order to provide better technology, better services. Those involved in the monitoring must not slow the operator's natural aspirations for progress.In this bill the government is showing an understanding of the need to plan and to have Australian content involved in the equipment for the delivery of telecommunications services. It is important in a regime which is encouraging more carriers to get involved, and more participants in offering telephone and telecommunication services generally to the Australian consumer, that we have proper monitoring of standards and proper planning. It is, though, as I said at the outset, of great regret that the previous government set up the whole matter, not necessarily to collapse—it has not done so—but certainly in a way which put a great deal of pressure on the system. To get real competition in this requires, perhaps, a heavier financial commitment than would have been the case if infrastructure, rather like the Pacific Highway or the Hume Highway, had been offered for universal access, rather than the situation being set up that Optus had to go and spend so much money. About $8 billion or $9 billion more than this country should have had to spend was expended to duplicate, in a lot of cases, our telecommunications infrastructure. Naturally, I commend the bill to the Main Committee.12:23:004034Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I thank the member for Moreton (Mr Hardgrave) and the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) for their contributions to the summing up of the debate on the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 1998 .I would like to make a few points on the importance of this bill. The first concerns what the bill is designed to do. From July 1998 this bill will enable the recovery of costs incurred by the Commonwealth in monitoring telecommunications industry development plans under the Telecommunications Act 1997. These costs will be recovered as a component of the annual carrier licence charges which are currently levied on carriers to recover other administrative costs, including those of the ACA and the ACCC. Also, the bill will give effect to the government's decision to recover the costs, which was announced in the context of the 1997-98 budget.Part 3 of the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997 provides for the imposition of an annual charge on carrier licences. It currently limits the amount of the charge, however, to the amounts attributable to the ACA's and the ACCC's telecommunications functions and powers for the immediately preceding financial year, the proportion of the Commonwealth's contribution to the budget of the International Telecommunications Union for the calendar year that is to be recovered from carriers, and an estimate of the grants likely to be made by the minister during the financial year to fund consumer representation and research in relation to telecommunications.In regard to industry development plans I make the following points. The IDPs are telecommunications carrier plans for the development in Australia of industries involved in the manufacture, development or supply of facilities and related research and development activities. They are part of the sector specific industry policy measures which, since their introduction in July 1997, have provided a regulatory environment that actively encourages carriers to maximise their involvement with the domestic telecommunications supply industry on a commercial and competitive basis, and to form long-term strategic alliances that benefit all parties.These industry-specific policies which build on arrangements put in place under the previous 1991 regulatory regime, have been successful in encouraging the carriers to seek out price and quality competitive domestically manufactured telecommunication equipment, software and services. They have encouraged the carriers to enter into strategic commercial supply alliances with domestic based transnational equipment and software manufacturing and service firms and, in turn, have encouraged these transnational firms to form strategic commercial supply partnerships with indigenous firms. These partnerships have assisted local firms to gain access to technology, quality systems, capital and export markets. They have encouraged carriers to source their telecommunications equipment and software requirements locally wherever possible and have increased the level of R&D spending by carriers, equipment manufacturers and software suppliers while not imposing any significant costs on the carriers or users of their networks, and at the same time they are being World Trade Organisation consistent.Lastly, what this bill proposes to do is sensible and it will impose only a minor additional burden on telecommunications carriers. Of course, in that respect, the yearly cost associated with the administration of the IDPs is estimated to be around $600,000. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4035r509Billsr508Bills4035Debate resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.12:27:004035Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The two bills that we are now debating, the Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Bill 1998 and the Income Tax (Untainting Tax) Bill 1998 , involve related anti-avoidance measures which are necessary because of the proposed reforms to company law. Those relevant reform measures are contained within the Company Law Review Bill 1997 which is presently before the Senate.Labor supports the Company Law Review Bill 1997 as it represents an evolution of our own initiative in government. However we do intend to move some amendments to improve that particular bill and to attempt to address the deficiency which has allowed the Patrick corporation to unjustly dismiss members of the Maritime Union of Australia.Indeed, the need for those sorts of amendments to that particular bill was pointed out as recently as yesterday by Henry Bosch, who is, of course, a former chairman of the National Companies and Securities Commission. Mr Bosch said that he was concerned about the long tradition in Australia of parent companies being allowed to walk away from the debts of their subsidiaries. That was a reference, of course, to the collapse of the four Patrick subsidiaries which employed some 2,000 waterside workers after the subsidiaries were stripped of their assets. Mr Bosch said that the winding up of subsidiaries was a serious problem in Australia, which had a long tradition of allowing companies to walk away from subsidiary debts because of the basic legal notion that every company was a separate legal personality.I am most concerned about that and I know a lot of Labor MPs are most concerned about what Patrick has been able to do. Therefore we intend to endeavour to do something about it when the Company Law Review Bill 1997 is being debated in the Senate.This particular piece of legislation, however, is necessitated by the fact that some of the company law reforms that are part of the Company Law Review Bill 1997 give rise to what might perhaps be described as `tax planning opportunities'. In particular, the Company Law Review Bill 1997 contains a proposal for the abolition of the concept of a par value for shares. This reform, in the absence of the bills now before us, would have allowed companies to make distributions to shareholders which were classified as capital distributions and which are not taxable, instead of the current situation where the distribution would have been a taxable dividend.In addition, the bills are designed to stop dividend streaming. That occurs where some shareholders are paid a non-taxable capital amount where that is advantageous, and other shareholders are paid normal dividends. This is achieved through a general anti-avoidance provision in the bill. Also, the bills ensure that the existing provisions in the tax law that are dependent on the concept of a par value operate consistently with the new company law structure.The legislation also ensures that bonus issues of shares and the issue of shares at a premium, that is to say at a higher price than the par value, are treated in the same manner that the law currently treats such transactions. A share premium account, or SPA, is a reserve where a company has raised capital in excess of the par value of a share. Currently, funds from a share premium account can be distributed back to shareholders as a non-taxable capital distribution. This is not a rort. However, the rule could be rorted if other amounts, for example, profits which would be taxable when distributed, could be included in the share premium account.To deal with such a situation the law currently provides that if incorrect funds are included in the share premium account then that share premium account is described as tainted. The result of such tainting is that the share premium account ceases to be a share premium account and therefore any distributions from it will not be tax free.This same concept of tainting is adopted in the bills before us now to ensure that the new share capital account, or SCA, will be tainted if profits are transferred into it. Any distributions made from a tainted SCA will be fully taxable to the recipient. If a company with a tainted SCA wishes to untaint it, it may do so. However, the untainting, which is complex, involves paying tax on the tainted amount within the share capital account.This legislation is necessary to ensure that the proposed reforms to company law which abolish the concept of par value for shares cannot be abused to convert what would be taxable dividends paid by companies into tax-free distributions. I stated when this issue was previously being debated before the Main Committee that Labor would not be passing the Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Bill 1998 unless and until appropriate anti-avoidance legislation was introduced to ensure that tax loopholes were not introduced through reform of company law. Accordingly, we will be supporting these billsHowever, on the subject of tax avoidance I should say that we are concerned that the government has failed to pick up some of the real issues concerning tax avoidance. On 27 April this year the Sydney Morning Herald produced a report which made it clear that the Treasurer (Mr Costello) has sat on his hands and watched hundreds of millions of dollars leached from the tax system by so-called independent contractors. The Treasurer has ignored Taxation Office warnings, delivered into a detailed confidential paper in 1996, that the existing tax law is unfair and has to be changed in order to stem the flow of sham contractors avoiding PAYE tax. As a result, ordinary employees are required to pay more than their fair share of the tax bill. Soon after the 1996 election, Treasurer Costello promised:I make it clear on behalf of this government that where anomalies and exemptions are being unfairly exploited, they will be addressed.That was said on 20 June 1996. But the Treasurer has failed to correct a major tax anomaly where a section of the work force uses artificial schemes to avoid paying its fair share of income tax.Firstly, he refused to proceed with Labor's legislation introduced before the 1996 election which, by broadening the definition of salary and wages under the PAYE system, would have ensured that individuals doing the same jobs face a similar tax regime. Secondly, the Treasurer has refused to follow up on the Labor initiative to cut down on tax avoidance by artificial schemes involving interposed entities, that is to say, companies, trusts or partnerships.Instead of paying PAYE income tax like other workers, some independent contractors set themselves up as companies, partnerships or trusts. As a result, they are able to take advantage of the tax law to claim deductions which are not available to PAYE workers, to defer income tax, or to split income with other members of their families. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary workers, doing the same job, at their side, often at the same site, pay higher income tax as a result of this scam. And millions of ordinary taxpayers pay higher taxes because of the subsequent erosion of the income tax base.A former Labor Treasurer, the member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) began a more detailed analysis of legislative remedies to cut down on tax avoidance through the use of artificial schemes of this kind. He announced the release of a public discussion paper, with legislation to apply from 1 July 1996. But in the 1996 budget, Treasurer Costello announced that `in a boost to small business' he would not be proceeding either with Labor's PAYE amendments or with any legislation to deal with the interposed entity problem. How can we take seriously the government's claim that the tax system is broke, when they fail to take action on a tax scam which is costing hundreds of millions of dollars each year?Their deliberate refusal to do anything about bogus independent contractors makes a mockery of their claim that they want a fairer tax system. We have seen this, similarly, with the issue of high-wealth individuals. Nothing has been happening on that front, despite the identification by the tax office of that as a major problem for revenue in this country. It is not good enough to say, `The tax system is broke. The only way to fix it is with a GST.'—which results in extra costs on just about everything: nappies, prams, school fees, schoolbooks, food, electricity, water, council rates, visits to the footy, the theatre, hairdresser, you name it, the necessities of life which are presently untaxed—when the government has not been the slightest bit interested or fair dinkum about addressing real tax avoidance problems and maintaining this nation's revenue base.We have had circulated today a number of amendments to be moved to the government's own bill. The opposition has had the benefit of a briefing concerning those amendments and I indicate at this point that we will not be opposing those amendments during the committee stage of the debate.12:38:004038Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—in reply—I thank the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) for his contribution, although some of the comments I could not agree with on this area. I would just like to say that there is a difference between the opposition and the government, particularly at this stage, in regard to reforming an outdated and outmoded taxation system in Australia. Basically, the coalition believes that it has to be reformed—there needs to be change; it needs to be done as a gradual evolutionary change—whereas the Labor Party really wants to stick with an archaic dinosaur which is really out of date and outmoded. It is a matter of going ahead as a country in regard to taxation reform. I think that the overwhelming majority of Australians believe that we have to move forward into the third millennium with a reform in taxation which is appropriate for this stage in Australia's development.I just want to very quickly summarise this particular debate in regard to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Bill 1998 . The changes made in the Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Bill 1998 make various consequential amendments to the taxation laws as a result of changes to the Corporations Law made by the Company Law Review Bill 1997 , which will abolish the concept of par value for shares and the associated concepts of share premiums as well as make it easier for companies to return capital to shareholders. The amendments will ensure that the provisions in the tax law that are currently dependent on the concept of par value can continue to operate appropriately in the future and introduce an anti-avoidance measure to prevent companies entering into capital streaming and dividend substitution arrangements. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be moving a number of amendments in the consideration in detail stage. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4038Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.NaN:00:004038Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 9), at the end of subclause (1), add "However, if that day is the same day as the day on which Schedule 3 to the Company Law Review Act 1997 commences, this Act commences immediately after item 32 of that Schedule commences.".(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 13 (lines 5 to 8), omit the item.(3) Schedule 2, item 8, page 15 (line 1), after "share", insert "capital".(4) Schedule 2, item 8, page 15 (after line 2), at the end of section 160ARDM, add:(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply if the amount is a debt transferred under a debt/equity swap (within the meaning of section 63E).(5) Schedule 2, item 10, page 22 (line 18), after "account", insert "(within the meaning of that Act)". (6) Schedule 4, item 1, page 25 (lines 7 to 12), omit subsection (1), substitute:(1) This section applies if a shareholder holds shares in a company (the original shares ) and the company issues other shares (the bonus shares ) in respect of the original shares.(2) If the bonus shares are a dividend, or taken to be a dividend, the consideration for the acquisition of the shares for the purposes of this Act is so much of the dividend as is: (a) included in the taxpayer's assessable income; and (b) is not rebatable under section 46 or 46A.(7) Schedule 4, item 2, page 25 (line 16), omit "For", substitute:If the bonus shares are: (aa) issued for no consideration and are not a dividend or taken to be a dividend; or (ab) rebatable under section 46 or 46A;then for(8) Schedule 4, item 3, page 26 (lines 2 to 5), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) the dividend is taken to have been paid out of profits; and (c) subsection (2) applies in working out the consideration for the acquisition of the shares for the purposes of this Act.(9) Schedule 4, item 3, page 26 (lines 9 to 17), omit subsection (6), substitute:(6) Subsection (5) does not apply if: (a) a shareholder in a listed public company (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 ) has a choice whether to be paid a dividend (other than a minimally franked dividend within the meaning of subsection 45(3)) or to be issued shares and the shareholder chooses to be issued with shares; and (b) the company does not credit the share capital account in connection with the issue of those shares.Note: If subsection (5) does not apply because of this subsection, subsection (3) will apply.(10) Schedule 4, item 4, page 26 (lines 18 and 19), omit the item, substitute: 4 Section 160APA (after paragraph (a) of the definition of frankable dividend )Insert: (a) a share that is taken to be a dividend under subsection 6BA(5); or(11) Schedule 5, item 1, page 27 (line 7), after "(if any)", insert ", including any premium,".(12) Schedule 5, item 3, page 27 (lines 16 and 17), omit all the words after "reduced", substitute:by: (a) the amount (if any) that represents amounts unpaid on shares; and (b) the tainting amount (if any).(13) Schedule 5, item 4, page 27 (line 20), after "than", insert "the definition of paid-up share capital ,".(14) Schedule 5, page 27 (after line 26), after item 5, insert: 5A Subsection 6(1)Insert: tainting amount has the meaning given by section 160APA.(15) Schedule 5, page 34 (after line 6), after item 62, insert: 62A Subsection 272-10(2)Omit "paid-up capital", substitute "the paid-up share capital". 62B Paragraph 272-50(2)(a)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) it pays or credits money, or transfers property, of the company to the person, where the amount paid or credited, or the amount or value of the property, is debited against an amount standing to the credit of the share capital account of the company; and 62C Paragraph 272-90(10)(d)Omit "paid-up capital", substitute "paid-up share capital".(16) Schedule 6, Part 1, page 35 (line 4) to page 38 (line 4), omit the Part, substitute:Part 1—Bonus shares1 Subsection 109-55(1) (table item 9)Omit "because it owes you an amount, and the", substitute "and no".2 Subsection 112-60Omit "because of a dividend or other amount it owes you" (wherever occurring).3 Section 130-15Omit "because of an amount owed to you where the amount is" (wherever occurring).4 Paragraph 130-20(1)(b)Omit "to you because it owes an amount".5 Paragraph 130-20(2)(a)Omit "amount that is a dividend", substitute "shares that are a *dividend (or taken to be a dividend under subsection 45(2) or 45C(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 )".6 Paragraph 130-20(2)(b)Omit "amount that is", substitute "other units that are".7 At the end of subsection 130-20(2)Add:Note 3: Certain capital distributions are taken to be dividends under subsections 45(2) and 45C(1) if a company has entered into a capital streaming or dividend substitution arrangement.8 Paragraph 130-20(3)(a)Omit "amount owed to you by the company is a dividend", substitute "shares are a *dividend (or taken to be a dividend under subsection 45(2) or 45C(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 )".9 Paragraph 130-20(3)(b)Omit "amount owed to you by the trustee is", substitute "other units are".10 After paragraph 130-20(3)(b)Insert:Note: Certain capital distributions are taken to be dividends under subsections 45(2) and 45C(1) if a company has entered into a capital streaming or dividend substitution arrangement.11 Subsection 130-20(3) (table heading)Omit "amount ".12 After subsection 130-20(3)Insert:(3A) If only a part of a capital benefit that is bonus equities is a *dividend, or is taken to be a dividend under subsection 45(2) or 45C(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 , you apportion the first element of your *cost base and *reduced cost base for the original equities in a reasonable way over both the original equities and the bonus equities. 13 Subsection 995-1(1) (definition of dividend )After "and (5)", insert "and 6BA(5)".(17) Schedule 6, item 12, page 39 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item.(18) Schedule 6, item 13, page 39 (lines 12 to 18), omit the item.(19) Schedule 6, item 14, page 39 (lines 19 and 20), omit the item.I want to make a few comments about the amendments that we are moving. There are 19 amendments and they are minor technical changes that it is important to make at this stage. Amendment 1 will ensure that the amendments made by the bill and those made by the Company Law Review Bill 1997 can commence on the same date. Amendments 2 and 3 will correct two minor technical errors to the provisions dealing with the tainting rule within the bill.Amendment 4 will prevent an unintended consequence to the tainting rule within the bill. Broadly speaking, the tainting rule is designed to prevent companies disguising a profit distribution—that is, a dividend—as a tax preferred capital distribution from the share capital account by first transferring profits into that account and then distributing them from it. As drafted, the rule applies where a company transfers an amount to its share capital account from any other account.However, the rule can adversely impact on certain transfers that do not confer any tax advantage. These circumstances are where a company transfers debt to its share capital account, under a debt for equity swap arrangement. As a result, the government will be moving an amendment to the bill by providing an exception to the tainting rule where an amount is transferred to the company's share capital account under a debt for equity swap arrangement.Amendment 5, a transitional provision within the tainting rule, also provides an exception to the tainting rule where companies transfer share premiums to their share capital account upon the abolition of par value shares and share premiums in accordance with schedule 5 of the Company Law Review Bill. The transitional provision recognises the nature of genuine share premiums as being equivalent to share capital. Unlike under the Corporations Law, the tax law definition of `share premium account' results in the account ceasing to be such an account if it includes amounts other than share premiums.It has been suggested to the government that the transitional provision is drafted in such a way that the term `share premium account' could take the meaning provided in the Corporations Law and not that in the tax law. If this argument were to be upheld, the transitional provision could sanction the inappropriate transfer of tainted share premiums to a company's share capital account. To prevent this possible outcome, the government will be moving a clarifying amendment to the bill by providing that the term `share premium account' takes the meaning provided in the tax laws, for the purposes of the transitional provision.Amendments 6 to 10 and 16 make technical amendments to the provisions of the bill dealing with the taxation of bonus shares, to ensure that the provisions operate as intended and to improve their readability. Amendments 11 to 15 and 17 to 19 make minor technical amendments to the definitions of amounts paid up on a share, paid-up share capital and share capital account, to ensure that they operate as intended. I commend the amendments to the chamber.Amendments agreed to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question now is that the bill be reported to the House with amendments.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4042r5084042Consideration resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—As no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, the question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills40424042Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Mr Reith:That the House take note of the report.12:45:004042Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—In speaking in this debate, I want to make a number of comments in continuation of those that I made the other day in relation to the splitting of the city of Wanneroo, an event of some considerable importance to people who live in my electorate. At present, the city of Wanneroo is the only municipality that serves my electorate; following the split, it appears that there will be two: the shire of Wanneroo and the city of Joondalup.The state government has not actually indicated what it believes the real effect of this split will be on residents of Wanneroo. That is a key question and one which the state government seems unable to answer to the satisfaction of residents. Surely, it cannot believe that smaller councils will be that much more representative, when it seems happy to maintain its appointed commissioners until the year 2000.I am not alone in my criticism of the splitting of the city of Wanneroo. My colleague the member for Cowan (Mr Richard Evans) appeared in the local paper recently, criticising the lack of information available from the state government on this matter. He also opposed the government proceeding with the split, and although I commend him for this courageous stand, no doubt he would have received some unpleasant attention from the Western Australian Liberal Party for his troubles.My electorate of Moore has one of the highest proportion of young families who are new home owners in Australia. It is a very fast growing region which relies fundamentally on the ability of the local government authorities to provide a range of services which ensure that their quality of life meets their aspirations. I am opposed to any action by any level of government which might diminish the ability of local government to deliver these services.The Commonwealth is not without blame in this area. Since the removal of tax sharing with the Commonwealth, local government financial assistance grants have been on a downward trend. The Western Australian Municipal Association advises that the real FAGs per person have fallen by nearly a quarter of their value since 1985-86. The recent budget has redressed this to some extent by restoring adjustment to local government assistance in real terms per capita in 1998-99. It remains a fact that the Commonwealth general purpose funding assistance to local government has declined substantially over the last 15 years, both in real per capita terms and as a share of the total taxation revenue. They were 0.62 per cent of Commonwealth revenue in 1997-98 and reduced to 0.59 per cent in 1998-99.In 1996-97, the budget cut the funding base further, resulting in a loss of around $7 million to councils in Western Australia. The base assistance to local government was lowered in 1997-98 by failing to restore the per capita guarantee. This has already cost local government $30 million in two budgets. This is yet another symptom of vertical fiscal imbalance and its effects are increasing every day that the Howard government reneges on its election promise to solve this tax income-spending dilemma.All I can do, as part of my presentation today, is to urge the coalition, with great seriousness and a great deal of urgency, to examine the whole question of Commonwealth-state fiscal relations as part of their tax reform process. If there is no real change or reform to Commonwealth-state fiscal relations, then much of the other debate around tax reform is irrelevant. This area of local government is one of those key areas where this type of problem is a very serious one indeed. I understand that Treasury has argued that this reduction has helped fund the Commonwealth recovery from deficit.I want to make the point that, unlike the states, local government was not consulted on the cuts or given the opportunity to negotiate reasonable options. The cuts to financial assistance agreed to by the states last year were temporary and quarantined from the state FAGs, but the local government cuts had been permanently built into the system. While the states receive supplementary competition incentive payments to offset their contributions, local government's only incentive to implement competition policy was the real terms per capita guarantee.Although this report is important in maintaining an overview of the third tier of government, without adequate support from state and federal levels, our entire system of basic service provision to residents who are electors is jeopardised. I commend my views to both the federal and state governments in Western Australia for their serious consideration and immediate remedial action.I might reflect again on this problem of vertical fiscal imbalance between the Commonwealth and the states. It has been estimated that Western Australia has lost somewhere in the region of $775 million of its real share of taxation revenue during the past five years. One of the problems we have in our system at present is that it has been entirely possible for state members of parliament, when questioned about the absence of state government provided services, to merely flick the ball to the Commonwealth and accuse Canberra of failing in its obligations.Conversely, when one comes to Canberra and questions the Commonwealth government about its responsibilities, one gets a reply, as I did from the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), `Oh, well, Western Australia is doing very well indeed. What are you talking about?' What that in effect means is another handball flick back to the states. The problem for the residents and service recipients, the people who have the expectation of these services, is that in the meantime this leads to poor decision making, poor management and, in many instances, the failure to deliver the services at all. Local government is now fulfilling very critical service delivery, particularly in municipal areas in the Perth metropolitan area.Western Australia has, as we all know, its own peculiar geographic problem of being a very large territorial area with a relatively small population which requires service delivery over vast areas of the state. This means that in the local government division of the state grants, in the distant areas or those areas—I will not to use the word `regional' because that applies to all parts of the state—that are considered to be remote or that have areas that require special assistance, the dividing up of those grants is done on the basis of trying to alleviate these particular problems. This exacerbates the problems for municipalities such as the city of Wanneroo because they then receive, as a proportion, a far smaller share than would be the case if Western Australia did not have this peculiar geographic feature of being a very large state—one-third of the continent, to all intents and purposes.So we have a situation where the taxation system, the sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states, not only impacts on the delivery of state and Commonwealth services to residents in my electorate but also impacts on the service delivery of municipal services by local government. Local government is a very important tier of government. I recollect that in 1988 there was a move by the then Labor government to have local government recognised in the constitution. I opposed that because at the time it was tagged to other constitutional amendments which in my view were not a benefit and should have been resisted, and they were. Western Australia ended up with one of the largest `No' votes in the country. But it is important that local government has recognition as being responsible for the delivery of services that are inherently important to residents.This problem of the sharing of revenues between the Commonwealth and the states not only exacerbates the problems for local government, particularly when they are not consulted about funding cuts in budgetary outlays, but it also brings us to the essential nub of taxation reform. That is that no matter what sort of consumption or sales tax regime you might introduce as part of a tax reform process, if there is no real change to Commonwealth-state fiscal relations, it is all really irrelevant.Western Australia is shackled by the present Commonwealth-state fiscal arrangements. If part of the taxation raising processes was given back to the states, and in particular to Western Australia, in my view we could liberate our state to become one of the powerhouse economies of the region—and I say `region' because I am talking about the Indian Ocean region. That is something that Western Australia desperately needs to do, to be able to access markets and to draw in capital from this incredibly dynamic region. Local government deserves better. I commend the report, but I urge the government to consider taxation reform as a matter of urgency. (Time expired).00:56:004044Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—As is apparent from the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Moore (Mr Filing), and given the nature of this report on the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act, this is a fairly wide-ranging debate. There are a range of issues raised in the report which relate to the full ambit of activities of local government. I will just take up a couple of points made by the previous speaker on the question of the circumstances of Western Australia with respect to its position in relation to grants received versus the potential for raising revenue in its own state.I come from another state, Victoria, which historically has had a similar problem in that we have been subsidising some other states. That has varied over time, but it has been a problem for some of the larger states for a very long time. It is certainly an issue which is raised with me by constituents, as a question of how much they pay in taxes and so on in relation to what they see in service delivery. I am collating some results from a survey that I have done in my electorate. One thing that has come through clearly from that is concerns by local residents about service delivery at the local government level.That also comes back to the question of what state and federal governments, both past and present, have done on the question of funding. Another very important issue which was raised earlier was the whole question of funding that has been provided to local government—from the federal government directly, in some respects, but more particularly in terms of grants through the states—and what that means in terms of services in our electorates. It has some very important implications.In addition to that, in the Victorian situation there has been the question of council amalgamations and also a greater push towards competitive tendering. I personally support aspects of competitive tendering, or certainly the principles behind competitive tendering. But I am very concerned about what is occurring in Victoria in some council areas in regard to competitive tendering. I do not think that it is appropriate that some of the services that are being tendered out are evaluated solely on, essentially, an economic rationalist model as has been happening in Victoria. It has some real implications with respect to service delivery.QT4FILINGMr Filing—Give some examples.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—As one example, there are aspects of services by outdoor staff of one of the local councils, in the city of Greater Dandenong. Although I do not object to those services themselves being tendered out, the interesting question there is that the best tender, as I understand it, was actually from a company from New Zealand. It is a question of a company or a council in New Zealand actually operating within the Victorian context, to provide council services in a particular municipality. I have got some real concerns about what that really means in terms of—Mr Filing interjecting—VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—Probably they would stay over on weekends. But it certainly does raise some very important issues.There have been aspects of other issues like library services and other directly community related services which I think are of considerable concern. Although competition is important, there are also issues about service delivery. It relates to the question, in a broader sense, of privatisation in terms of services like the SEC. Although I can see an economic argument in some respects as to why this is being done, an increasing number of concerns is raised by constituents about what they believe is shown by the examples they raise of service implications for them—an increased number of blackouts, inability to get maintenance work done. There are real issues there which relate to that question of service delivery and it is something that governments should look at closely.On the question of amalgamations as a whole, it has certainly produced some potential economies of scale but it is taking local government some time to adjust to that question of amalgamation. In the longer term, however, that has probably been a good thing. But it also raises the general question of how much federal government should go through a state government with respect to dealing with councils. It is a longstanding issue, about the three tiers of government. There is an argument more and more for federal government to work directly with local government in many ways, shapes and forms. The issue with local government is always that it is closer to the people because it is there on the ground, it is a smaller area; local government will by definition know a lot more about the needs of a particular area and be able to plan accordingly.There are also issues of overall national interest and overall national policy settings. That is important. As to just where state governments fit into that as councils get bigger, I have got some concerns and some questions. I note that the previous speaker, the member for Moore, talked about Western Australia being such a huge geographical area. That is true. In the same way we can make points about the question of what WA has in common with, say, Queensland or Victoria. We can also ask what Perth has in common with Kalgoorlie.There are issues there about how relevant even the state boundaries are and it is a wider issue, not something that can be resolved today. It is something that may be looked at in the future. I think that the amalgamation processes led to a situation with local government where there is scope to look to them as a better instrument for implementation of national policy issues, and a more effective approach can be taken in that way.One of the issues that is a key to all of that is the question of funding. As was mentioned earlier, if the money is not there to provide the services and the work, then the work will not be done as well as it should be and people will suffer accordingly, and that is an issue. When we look at governments addressing budgetary concerns through squeezing other levels of government, we have got to ask ourselves whether that is really in the interests of the community, or whether it is merely a question of budget bottom lines and, if so, is that the way we should go? I note the time and I will leave my comments there at this stage and I commend the report to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Anthony) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 1.02 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing4047The following answers to questions were circulated:4047(Question No. 2723)27234047Martin, Stephen, MPMr Martin8I4CunninghamALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 5 March 1998:(1) What total sum is available to the electoral division of Forrest for grants under the National Tourism Development Program.(2) What was the closing date for applications under the program.(3) Were applications received for (a) a tourist visitor centre project in Bunbury, WA, (b) the Busselton Jetty program and (c) a project involving the Wannerup Wetlands; if so, in each case, (i) on what date was the application received, (ii) who were the proponents and (iii) what was proposed.(4) When will a final decision be made on grants under the program.(5) Has he held discussions or received correspondence from the Member for Forrest concerning grants under the program; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) what applications has the Member for Forrest (i) supported and (ii) opposed.4047Thomson, Andrew, MPMr Andrew ThomsonFB6WentworthLPSport and Tourism;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No specific funding allocation is identified for the electoral Division of Forrest.(2) 31 October 1997.(3) (a) Yes.(i) 31 October 1997.(ii) The Bunbury Tourism Board Inc.(iii) To construct a regional visitor centre at Bunbury, Western Australia.(b) Yes(i) 31 October 1997.(ii) The Shire of Busselton.(iii) To construct an underwater observatory to be located on the jetty at Busselton, Western Australia.(c) Yes(i) 31 October 1997.(ii) The Department of Conservation and Land Management. (iii) To develop visitor facilities and provide a protected wetland and waterbird area for conservation, recreation and education and improve the nature based tourism experience at the Vasse-Wonnerup wetlands at Busselton, Western Australia.(4) Grants for Round 2 of the National Tourism Development Program were announced in April 1998.(5) Yes. I refer the Honourable Member to the Member for Forrest.4047(Question No. 2751)27514047McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 11 March 1998:(1) How many persons have worked in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility under a contract for services entered into with a firm whose sole or predominant business is the hiring of labour to clients (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(2) In what sections of the department, agency, authority or company were the persons referred to in part (1) employed.(3) What are the names of the labour-hire firms referred to in part (1) which provided services (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(4) How were the labour-hire firms selected.(5) Will the Minister provide a copy of the tender documents in each case where a labour-hire firm was selected by public tender.(6) Will the Minister provide a copy of the terms of reference for the selection of labour-hire firms.(7) Who comprised the selection panel for successful tenders.(8) What commission was payable by each department, agency, authority or company to each labour-hire firm for each person contracted for labour.(9) What total sum (a) is owed and (b) was paid to each labour-hire firm. (10) What total sum was paid to labour-hire firms in total (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(11) What projected labour requirement will be met by labour-hire firms in the departments, agencies, Commonwealth authorities or companies, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility from (a) February to June 1998 and (b) July 1998 to June 1999.(12) How many government employees have been replaced through labour provided by labour-hire firms in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility.4048Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—On 14 May 1998 (Hansard , page 3350) I provided an answer to the above question. Notes were provided regarding parts of my department and portfolio agencies which transferred into and out of my responsibility during the period concerned, as follows:"NB: The Remuneration Tribunal transferred to the Department of Finance and Administration effective 18 February 1998. Their entire answer will be detailed in the response to Question No 2756, provided by the Minister for Finance and Administration.The Office of Small Business transferred to this department effective 17 July 1997. The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism will provide the relevant details prior to this date, as part of Question No 2753.Maritime Group transferred to this department effective 9 October 1997. The Minister for Transport and Regional Development will provide details prior to this date, as part of Question No 2759."Information was, in fact, provided in relation to the Maritime Group for the entire period covered by the honourable member's question. Therefore, there will be no need for the Minister for Transport and Regional Development to provide these details, as I originally stated.4048(Question No. 2753)27534048McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, upon notice, on 11 March 1998:(1) How many persons have worked in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility under a contract for services entered into with a firm whose sole or predominant business is hiring of labour to clients (a)in 1996-97, and (b)between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(2) In what sections of the department, agency, authority or company were the persons referred to in part (1) employed.(3) What are the names of the labour-hire firms referred to in part (1) which provided services (a)in 1996-97, and (b)between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(4) How were the labour-hire firms selected.(5) Will the Minister provide a copy of the tender documents in each case where a labour-hire firm was selected by public tender.(6) Will the Minister provide a copy of the terms of reference for the selection of labour-hire firms.(7) Who comprised the selection panel for successful tenders.(8) What commission was payable by each department, agency, authority or company to each labour-hire firm for each person contracted for labour.(9) What total sum (a)was owed, and (b)was paid to each labour-hire firm.(10) What total sum was paid to labour-hire firms in total(a)in 1996-97, and (b)between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(11) What projected labour requirement will be met by labour-hire firms in the departments, agencies, Commonwealth authorities and companies, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility from (a)February to June 1998, and (b)July 1998 to June 1999.(12) How many government employees have been replaced through labour provided by labour-hire firms in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility.4048Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:All questions are answered within the following parameters:. In some cases, figures shown, including dollar amounts and the number of personnel, are best estimates rather than actual amounts.. The size and diversity of CSIRO and the Australian Customs Service was such that collection and verification of financial details would have required excessive administrative resources. CSIRO has research projects and administrative units across Australia located at over 70 sites. Similarly, Customs operations are located across Australia.. The Australian Technology Group did not employ any temporary personnel during the period in question and therefore have a nil response to these questions.The following table lists acronyms/abbreviations used in this response to identify departmental divisions, and portfolio agencies and Commonwealth authorities and companies (CACs).Department of Industry Science and TourismDISTAnalytical & Mapping Division(incl. Australian Government Analytical Laboratories—AGAL)AMDAusIndustryAusIConsumer Affairs DivisionCADCorporate Services DivisionCSDIndustry Division A(incl. Information Industries Online Taskforce)IDAIndustry Division BIDBIndustry Policy DivisionIPDScience & Technology DivisionS&TSport & Tourism DivisionSpTPortfolio AgenciesAustralian Customs ServiceACSAustralian Institute of Marine ScienceAIMSAustralian Nuclear Science and Technology OrganisationANSTOAustralian Sports CommissionASCAustralian Sports Drug AgencyASDAAustralian Tourist CommissionATCCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationCSIROIP AustraliaIPAusNational Standards CommissionNSCPortfolio CACsAustralian Technology GroupATGExport Finance and Insurance CorporationEFIC(1)1(a)25511545387201162220959221(b)308143034081236047177801DISTACSAIMSANSTOASCASDAATCAUSLIGIPAusNSCEFICTotal(2) Agencies and CACs were unable to provide a breakdown of sections in which temporary personnel were engaged because collation of this information would have required excessive administrative resources. The following breakdown for the department is by division.1996-97112425192218410237/97—2/981093772834464736DivisionAMDAusICADCSDIDAIDBIPDS&TSpT(3)Agencies, CACsAgency, CACquestion 3aquestion 3bACSTempline, Morgan & Banks, AllStaff, Green & Green, Anderson Consulting, Drake, Powerplus People, Wizard, Stratagem Computer Contractors, Computer Power, Power of Ten, Bligh, State Staff, RSA, Team Recruitment Specialists, Metropolitan Employment Servicing Unit (WA).Templine, Morgan & Banks, AllStaff, Green & Green, Anderson Consulting, Drake, Powerplus People, Wizard, Stratagem Computer Contractors, Computer Power, Power of Ten, Bligh, State Staff, RSA, Team Recruitment Specialists, Metropolitan Employment Servicing Unit (WA).AIMSTownsville PersonnelnilANSTOSouthside Technical, Lugarno Services, Science Know How, J-E Interpreters, Entec, CMPS&F, Quality Assurance, Commercial Design, Morgan & Banks, Simpson & Banks, Cord Management, Library Locums, Zenith.Southside Technical, Lugarno Services, Science Know How, J-E Interpreters, Entec, CMPS&F, Quality Assurance, Commercial Design, Morgan & Banks, Simpson & Banks, Cord Management, Library Locums, Zenith.ASCWizard.Wizard.ASDAAdecco, Quest.Adia.ATCAccountancy Placements, Bureau, Chisholm Recruitment Services, Command, CV Management Services, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Equatorial Talent, Equus People, Jackman, Julia Ross, Library Locums, Hays Metier, Morgan & Banks, Peoplebank, Select Appointments, Staff & Executive Resources, Zenith, Relistaff LLC (US), Kelly Temporary Services (NZ), Travel Personnel (NZ), Dominique HR (Jap.), Manpower Japan (Jap.), Intelligenc (Jap.), Career Power (Jap.), Human Resources International (Jap.), The Skills Shop (Lon.), Crone Corkhill (Lon.), SS Buro (Lon.), Kelly Services (Lon.), Boussagen (Lon.), Schreiburo (Lon.), Bligh Appointments (Lon.), Joinmore Management Services (Sin.), Adecco (Sin.), CMA Consultants (Sin.), Lindy Williams (HK), Adecco (HK).Adecco, Barbosa, Equatorial Talent, Equus People, Jackman, Julia Ross, Select Appointments, Staff & Executive Resources, Temp-Tation (Command), The Personnel Department, Zenith, Alectus Recruitment (NZ), Kelly Temporary Services (NZ), Manpower Japan (Jap.), Career Power (Jap.), Human Resources International (Jap.), Communicators (Jap.), Prap Japan (Jap.), Mile Post Consultants (JAM) (Jap.), Tourism World (Jap.),Simul International (Jap.), Crone Corkhill (Lon.), SS Buro (Lon.), Boussagen (Lon.), Hewitson Walker (Lon.), Bligh Appointments (Lon.), Reed Accountancy (Lon.), Joinmore Management Services (Sin.), Adecco (Sin.), CMA Consultants (Sin.), Lindy Williams (HK), Adecco (HK). AUSLIGSouthside Technical Services, General Geomatics, Accountancy Placements, Zadover, Adecco, Avtech Australia, Professional Careers, Whitson Technical, Skilled Engineering, McKenzie HR & Assoc., Kelly Services, Drafting Services, Armstrong Personnel, Adia Value Engineering, Bayside Personnel, Paxus People, Cadastral Cartographic, Drake, Technical Resources.Adecco, Professional Careers, Accountancy Placements, Green & Green, Wizard, Paxus People, Drake.IPAusTempline, RSA, Morgan & Banks, Info Sources Aust, MC Computer Services, Parity People, Quasar Professionals, Wizard, Paxus People.RSA, Green & Green, Morgan & Banks, MC Computer Services, Quasar Professionals, Computer People, Paxus People, Praxa.NSCnilTechStaffEFICAdecco, Balanced IT Services, Drake, Hamilton James & Bruce, Integrity Staffing, Interpro CRI, Markham Appointments, Metro, Michelle Adonis Consulting, Natural Timing, Platinum Technology, Select Appointment, Staff & Executive Resources, Western, Alectus, Challenge consulting, Greythorn, Hitech, Inshala Consulting, Laughlin Saxby, Mastech Asia Pacific, Michael Page International, Morgan & Banks, Recruitment Solutions, Robert Walters, Small & Assoc, Temporary Solutions.Adecco, Balanced IT Services, Drake, Hamilton James & Bruce, Integrity Staffing, Interpro CRI, Markham Appointments, Metro, Michelle Adonis Consulting, Natural Timing, Platinum Technology, Select Appointment, Staff & Executive Resources, Western, Alectus, Challenge consulting, Greythorn, Hitech, Inshala Consulting, Laughlin Saxby, Mastech Asia Pacific, Michael Page International, Morgan & Banks, Recruitment Solutions, Robert Walters, Small & Assoc, Temporary Solutions.DISTDIST Divisionquestion 3aquestion 3bAMDAdecco, Alectus, Anderson Consulting, Aust Wide Contracting, Drake, Ecco, Flis Training, Hoben Recruitment, JKM Consulting, Labstaff, Morgan & Banks, Parity People, Professional Careers, Recruitment Options, Select Appointments, Technican Group, Techstaff, Western, Zenith.Green & Green, Hays Metier, Adecco, Alectus, Anderson Consulting, Aust Wide Contracting, Drake, Ecco, Flis Training, Hoben Recruitment, JKM Consulting, Labstaff, Morgan & Banks, Parity People, Recruitment Options, Technican Group, Techstaff, Western, Zenith.AusIHays Metier, Ecco Personnel, Drake, AllStaff, Green & Green, Wizard, Adecco, Templine, Western.Green & Green, Wizard, Drake, Quest, Western, Templine, Adecco, AllStaff.CADTempline, Western, Drake, Wizard.Western, Wizard. CSDGreen & Green, Direct Appointment, Management Innovation, Computer Power, Morgan & Banks, Library Locums, Hays Metier, Adecco, Alectus, Computer People, PR Placements, Western.Green & Green, Direct Appointment, Management Innovation, Computer Power, Morgan & Banks, Library Locums, Hays Metier, Adecco, Alectus, Computer People, PR Placements, Western.IDATempline, Green & Green, Alectus, Select Appointments.Templine, Green & Green, Alectus, Select Appointments, CP Resourcing.IDBKoomarri, Green & Green, Wizard, Alectus, Greg Ryan & Assoc, Tonvia.Koomarri, Green & Green, Wizard, Alectus, Greg Ryan & Assoc, Tonvia, CP Resourcing.IPDTempline, Omega.Templine, Omega.S&TTempline, Green & Green.Templine, Green & Green.SpTGreen & Green, PR Placements, Library Locums, Hays Metier, Western, Templine, Quest, Alectus.Green & Green, Western, Hays Metier, Ecco.(4) Labour hire firms are selected in accordance with Government purchasing and temporary recruiting guidelines.(5) Yes, all publicly released tender documentation can be provided if required.(6) Yes, all publicly released documentation can be provided if required.(7) Selection panels for tender processes were comprised of Departmental officers.(8) The commission charged by each firm varies. Some firms charge an all inclusive commission on total salary paid to personnel engaged through the firm—the average was around 10 to 12 per cent across the portfolio. Alternatively, an initial placement fee, rather than a commission, is often the preferred payment option.(9) (a)This information is not readily available. Collation of this information would require excessive administrative resources.(b) The following figures show amounts paid directly to labour hire firms over the period from July 1996 to 28 February 1998. For staff on the DIST/agency payroll, the amount only reflects commission payable. Where personnel were not on the DIST/agency payroll but paid directly by the labour hire firm, the amount charged includes all components such as commission and salary payments.Labour hire firmquestion 9b ($)Labour hire firmquestion 9b ($)Accountancy Placements254955Kelly Services24496Adecco851865Kelly Services (Lon.)12450Adecco Personnel (HK)1913Kelly Temporary Services (NZ)578Adecco Personnel (Sin.)2149Koomarri Association20760Adia3166Labstaff2481629Adia Value Engineering257820Laughlin Saxby18599Alectus Personnel448406Library Locums60615Alectus recruitment (NZ)1251Lindy Williams (HK)60332AllStaff22187Management Innovation7538Anderson31008Manpower Japan (Jap.)93769Armstrong Personnel5801Markham Appointments62034Aust Wide Contracting12379Mastech Asia Pacific109335Avtech Australia63574MC Computer Services433418 Balanced IT Services845McKenzie HR & Assoc383792Barbosa Personnel7588Metro Personnel4578Bayside Personnel13081Michael Page International241003Bebbington Cartographic5827Michelle Adonis Consulting46076Bligh Appointments (Lon.)70605Mile Post Consultants (JAM) (Jap.)6575Boussageon (Lon.)5577Morgan & Banks392660Bureau Personnel309Natural Timing2802Cadastral Cartographic6980Omega Personnel85370Career Power (Jap.)10359Parity People83648Challenge Consulting172249Paxus People389221Chisholm Recruitment Services12166Peoplebank30344CMA Consultants (Sin.)1736Platinum Technology59673Commercial Design349841PR Placements18747Communicators (Jap.)525Prap Japan (Jap.)3158Computer People28034Praxa Limited59368Computer Power300Professional Careers72276Cord Management113262Quasar Professionals ACT205315CP Resourcing32086Quest Group14132Crone Corkhill (Lon.)1665Recruitment Options637930CV Management Services28221Recruitment Solutions144316Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu48151Reed Accountancy (Lon.)5951Direct Appointment531Relistaff LLC (US)12943Dominique HR (Jap.)11867Robert Walters Associates24362Drafting Services9683Recruitment Services Australia7105Drake845363Schreiburo (Lon.)7006ECCO Personnel16591Select Appointments42848Entec298313Simpson & Banks98766Equatorial Talent133094Simul International (Jap.)2016Equus People219488Skilled Engineering60412Flis Training14110Small & Associates9708General Geomatics46958Southside Technical Services446835Green & Green Group579202SS Buro (Lon.)7788Greg Ryan & Associates13055Staff & Executive Resources12668Greythorn105470Technical Resources15715Hamilton James & Bruce17000Technician Group643598Hays Metier31581TechStaff2121440Hewitson Walker (Lon.)8068Templine4100Hitech Personnel96086Temporary Solutions2174Hoban Recruitment83999Temp-Tation (Command Personnel)80700Human Resources Int'l (Jap.)32306The Personnel Department2851Info Sources Australia325293The Skills Shop (Lon.)6294Inshala Consulting20723Tonvia2230Integrity Staffing151Tourism World (Jap.)4562Intelligenc (Jap.)616Townsville Personnel3555Interpro CRI72140Travel Personnel1510 Jackman Consulting Group89689Western Staff Services141785JKM Consulting164768Whitson Technical66262Joinmore Management Services (Sin.)2714Wizard210410Julia Ross Personnel164457Zadover463491Zenith219990Note: Detailed information on the Nuclear Technology division of ANSTO, Australian Customs Service and CSIRO has been excluded. Collation of this would require excessive administrative resources.(10) For staff on the DIST/agency payroll, the amount only reflects commission payable. Where personnel were not on the DIST/agency payroll but paid directly by the labour hire firm, the amount charged includes all components such as commission and salary payments.(a) $11,199,391(b) $6,923,052Note: Detailed information on the Australian Customs Service and CSIRO has been excluded. Collation of this information would have required excessive administrative resources.(11) It is expected to be consistent with that experienced in the period from July 1996 to February 1998.(12) Personnel engaged through labour hire firms are used to fill voids pending filling of positions, to meet immediate workloads where permanent or other temporary staff are unavailable or in special circumstances that might otherwise arise.4054(Question No. 2821)28214054Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 March 1998:Will he provide a list of Defence properties (a) sold or disposed of since 1996, (b) in the process of being sold or disposed of and (c) scheduled to be sold or disposed of, indicating, in each case, (i) the new owner of the property and (ii) its former use, including the (A) identification of ADF units occupying the property and (B) site of their relocation.4054McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As a result of a number of major reviews including the 1991 Force Structure Review and the 1997 Defence Reform Program, a large number of Defence properties have been disposed of or identified for disposal. The reviews examined all aspects of Defence activities with increasing emphasis on rationalisation and consolidation.Where activities or units have been relocated to a variety of bases or establishments, the principal site is identified. For example, the rationalisation of Defence storage facilities led to the establishment of the Defence National Storage and Distribution Centre (DNSDC) at Moorebank where the majority of storage activities were transferred, whereas some higher priority stores were relocated to operational bases.There are no site relocation details provided for disestablished units or for redundant properties such as rifle ranges.(a) Properties sold since 1995/96 financial year.PropertyNew OwnerFormer Use/UnitSite of Relocation1995/96NSWMerrylands (part)McDonalds P/LARes Training Depot(4/3 RNSWR)IngleburnMillers PointLewis Davoren Urban Projects P/LARes Training Depot(Psych Unit)Victoria Barracks,SydneyNewcastle, BlacksmithsLandcomTraining DepotAdamstownKing St, NewcastleRhaeto P/LTraining DepotAdamstown North Sydney, Walker StDelodo P/LHydrographic OfficeWollongongQuakers Hill (HMAS Nirimba)NSW Dept. of EducationNavy Technical Training FacilityHMAS CerberusWattle Grove (part)DHATraining Area QLDHorn Island (part)Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)Training Area MoorookaBlueshop P/L & Clemwell P/LTraining DepotArcherfieldSarinaSarina Shire CouncilTraining DepotTASDeloraineMeander Valley CouncilTraining Depot (Spt Coy 12/40 RTR)YoungtownVICAraratRural City of AraratRifle RangeBroadmeadows (part)Broadfield Estates P/LBarracks (Tpt Coy 4 BASB, Fd Wksp Coy)Site rationalisationBendigoCity of Greater BendigoRifle RangeBroadmeadowsCommonwealth Serum LaboratoriesVacant LandCaulfieldCity of Glen EiraTraining DepotOakleighColacDr MaddenRifle RangeLonsdale (North)Maizcay P/LBarracks/AdminPort MelbourneVictorian GovernmentDrill HallTottenhamACN 007 152 598 P/LStorage DepotMoorebankWAPerth (Swan Barracks)Swan Barracks Holdings P/LFormer Army HQLeeuwin Barracks1996/97NSWChester HillThe Assemblies of GodDomestic AccommodationConcordRegla P/LOffice AccommodationDefence Plaza, SydneyThorby Ave, DubboCalveda P/LAdministration FacilityHurstvilleBaseview P/LTraining DepotRandwick BarracksKelsoBathurst City CouncilStorage DepotMoorebankLeichhardtNSW RTATraining DepotBanksmeadowMuswellbrook (part)Smoothpost P/LSurplus LandNewington NSW State GovtStorage DepotRAN Kingswood, HMAS Stirling, SomertonCarrington Rd, RandwickIsparta P/LARes Training DepotRandwick BarracksTomagoBizitay P/LShipyardVillawoodSaranbay P/LStorage Depot MoorebankHolsworthy (part)Liverpool CouncilVacant LandZetlandLandcom (NSW Govt)Navy Storage DepotMoorebankQLDMoretonBareena P/LLandpac Corp Manz Enterprises P/LNaval EstablishmentBulimbaYerongaHalken P/LMilitary HospitalEnoggera BarracksSA Beulah ParkStephan Evans Training Depot (144 Sig Sqn)Keswick BarracksNTAlice SpringsVarious on local marketUS housesUS Govt HousingTASHobart (HMAS Huon)Hobart Marine BoardNaval EstablishmentHuonvilleMr RE KruseGRes Training DepotDowsings PointLongfordNorthern Midlands CouncilTraining Depot (Spt Coy 12/40 RTR)YoungtownScottsdale DSTODorset CouncilSurplus LandGlenorchyElphinstone Nominees P/LTraining DepotDowsings PointUlverstoneFH & RE Jones and GJ & JM Van EkTraining Depot (12/40 RTR)LauncestonVICNetherby—8 Queens Rd, South MelbourneKah Australia P/LAdministration Facility WatsoniaBandiana (part)Murray Valley CentreSurplus LandBeaufort Zignet P/LRifle RangeAllingham St, BendigoCity of Greater BendigoStorage DepotCarpenter St, BendigoJ Lawson & A Karam Administration FacilityDysart SidingFR & MJ U'RenRailway SidingFitzroy NorthMillenium Properties P/LTraining Depot (Army Financial Services Unit)WatsoniaIvanhoeAng Shun Group Developments P/LTraining DepotNorth CarltonCassar Constructions P/LTraining Depot (4/19 PWLH)WatsoniaGipps St, RichmondA. Lawson, L. Lawson, J. Armytage, G. Brodbeck, and A. FisherTraining Depot (3 Trg Gp)WatsoniaSturt StMelbourne City Link AuthorityTraining Depot (3 Movement Unit)WatsoniaLaverton (part)Hiddins Trading P/LLogistic Facility1997/98NSWTrescoPaliflex P/LRepresentational HomeWilloughbyRobert Dunnett P/LTraining DepotPymbleVICSouth KensingtonUrban Land AuthorityUnit (104 Sig Sqn)WatsoniaLavertonCedarwoods P/LAirfieldDeer ParkUrban Land AuthorityExplosives Factory and buffer landMulwalaMiles St, South MelbourneVictorian GovernmentWorkshopMaribyrnongWarrnamboolSouth West Water AuthorityRifle RangeGrosvenor—55 Queens Rd, Sth MelbourneLandmark Queens Road P/LAdministration FacilityWatsoniaFitzroyGeorge St Developments P/LDrill HallWatsoniaSeymourW. Rhode and R. PattersonRail sidingCobramMonsfar P/LTraining Depot (8/7 RVR)SheppartonFishermens BendDPA Investments P/LTest CellsTASScottsdaleMr. J. McDougallTraining Depot (Spt Coy 12/40 RTR)Youngtown WABroomeEric McCormickNORFORCE DepotBroomeKununurraCheryl and Anton CavlovicNORFORCE DepotKununurraSAAlbertonAdelin P/LTraining Depot (10/27 RSAR)Keswick BarracksQLDFrenchville (Rockhampton)Ariah P/LRifle RangeAcacia RidgeMr and Mrs MussigCommunications Station (136 Sig Sqn)ACTFairbairnCapital Airport Group P/LRAAF BaseTo be determined VIP Fleet to remain(b) The following Defence properties are in the process of disposal:PropertyUseSite of RelocationNSWRandwick (Frenchmans Road)Training Depot (1 LSG)Randwick BarracksRandwick (Bundock St)Stores Depot (General Logistics Navy)MoorebankDubboRAAF Storage DepotMoorebankStocktonRifle RangeAdamstown (part)Vacant LandOrange (part)Surplus LandParkes (part)Surplus LandJaspers BrushParachute Drop ZoneHMAS AlbatrossMt St ThomasTraining Depot (14 Flt NSWAIRTC)WarrawongLithgowTraining Depot (1/19 RNSWR)MarrangarooCoomaTraining DepotCanberraCootamundraTraining Depot (256 RCU)WaggaAlburyTraining Depot (4/19 PWLH)BandianaCrow's NestARes Training Depot (5 Fd Amb)BanksmeadowForest LodgeTraining Depot (8 BASB)DundasGladesvilleStorage DepotDundasRegents ParkStorage DepotMoorebankRydalmereStorage DepotMoorebankHomebushStorage DepotDundasKingswoodStorage DepotMoorebankPenrithStorage DepotMoorebankPadstowTraining DepotBanksmeadowPaddingtonTraining DepotHMAS PlatypusNaval EstablishmentGarden Island WABelmoreTraining Depot (23 Fd Regt)SutherlandHaberfieldTraining Depot (21 Const Regt)HolsworthySchofieldsAerodromeIngleburnArmy Establishment (2 Trg Gp)HolsworthyArncliffeTraining Depot (2/17 RNSWR)RockdaleNorth HeadSchool of Artillery PuckapunyalAlexandriaMaterials Testing LabMosman8 BdeDundas Georges HeightsTraining Command 1 Commando RegtTo be determinedWoolwichArmy Transport FacilityTownsvilleVICLot 1 Fishermens BendStorage FacilityBandiana (part)Storage DepotMoorebankPowlett St, East MelbourneTraining Depot (MUR)CarltonPortseaTraining EstablishmentBonegillaBallaratRifle RangeIndigo ValleyRifle Range SiteLonglea, BendigoExplosives StoragePunt Lane, SaleSurplus LandVictoria St, MelbourneAdministrative FacilityMentoneSurplus LandLandene, Sth MelbourneAccommodationCharsfield, Sth MelbourneAccommodationRockbankCommunications StationDiggers RestCommunications StationMaribyrnong (Afton St)Surplus LandSpencer StStorage DepotStawell Rifle RangeQueenscliffCarparkMaribyrnongExplosives FactoryMulwalaMaribyrnongStorage DepotSomertonMollison St, BendigoTraining Depot (15 Tpt Sqn)BendigoWangarattaTraining Depot (4/19 PWLH)WangarattaKorumburraTraining Depot (3 Rec Coy)OakleighMangaloreAmmunition Depot (SVLG)PuckapunyalSaleTraining Depot (A Sqn 4/19 PWLH, 308 RCU)RAAF Base SaleSurrey HillsTraining Depot (B Coy 5/6 RVR)Proposed MUD, Waverley TraralgonTraining Depot (Tp A Sqn, 4/19 PWLH)To be determinedBairnsdaleTraining Depot (Tp A Sqn, 4/19 PWLH)To be determinedDandenongTraining Depot (22 Fd Bty 2/10 Mdm RegtProposed MUD, Geelong MaryboroughTraining Depot (Sig P1, Spt Coy 8/7 RVR)BendigoQLDTighnabruaichRepresentational HomeMulgrave Rd, CairnsSurplus LandZillmereSurplus LandKelvin GroveTraining Depot (9 RQR, 4 Pvnt Med Coy, 11 Psych Unit, 21 Psych Unit)Enoggera BarracksSandgateTraining Depot (Spt Coy 9 RQR)Proposed MUD, Pine Rivers WacolBarracks and Training AreaAnnerleyTraining Depot (1 Fd Regt)Gallipoli BarracksGoondiwindiTraining Depot (25/49 RQR)ToowoombaArcher St, Rockhampton Training Depot (42 RQR)Weston St, RockhamptonIndooroopillyBarracks (QLD University Regt)To be determinedDysartTraining Depot (Pl B Coy 42 RQR)To be determinedAyrTraining Depot (B Coy 31 RQR)To be determinedAmberleyVacant landSABirkenhead (HMAS Encounter)Naval EstablishmentUnit closedGawlerTraining Depot (3/9 LH (SAMR))Elizabeth NorthSmithfieldStorage Depot SomertonTraining Depot (9 MP P1)Keswick/WarradaleElizabeth NorthTraining Depot (A Sqn 3/9 LH (SAMR), 49 RCU)RAAF EdinburghSalisbury (part)DSTO Establishment (part)Site RationalisationWABushmeadRifle Range (Tpt Coy 13 BASB)Dilhorn, East PerthArmy MuseumArtillery Barracks, FremantleFremantleFuel InstallationCollieTraining Depot (11/28 RWAR)BunburyBullsbrookSurplus LandCavershamTransmitter SiteNT11 Mile (Berrimah)Transmitter SiteProposed Robertson BarracksLee PointTransmitter SiteTo be determinedWinnellieTransmitter SiteProposed Roberston BarracksAlice SpringsFuel DepotACTGungahlinCommunications StationBelconnenTransmitter SiteRiverinaTASBeaumaris HouseTraining Depot (12/40 RTR)Dowsings PointBrightonArmy Establishment (6 Trg Gp)Proposed Anglesea Barracks(c) (i)(ii) (A) and (B) The following properties were identified for possible disposal under the Defence Reform Program. In some instances, a decision to proceed with the disposal of the individ ual properties is subject to studies on the feasibility, cost and benefit of the rationalisation and consolidation of functions and activities. These properties are still owned by the Government.PropertyUseSite of relocationSHORT TERM (Within five years)NSWBathurstStorage DepotMoorebankJenner/Bomera/TaranaOffice AccommodationTo be determinedBringelly Transmitter StationTo be determinedGan GanTraining FacilityJenningsStorage DepotTo be determinedLondonderry Transmitter StationTo be determinedQLDCowley BeachTraining AreaTo be determinedInnisfail DSTO FacilityTownsville Jezzine BarracksLavarack BarracksSATorrensTraining Depot (10/27 RSAR, AUR)To be determinedTASAlbeura St, Hobart (part)Office AccommodationAnglesea BarracksVIC BendigoMap Production FacilityTo be determinedBroadmeadowsLog FacilityTo be determinedRAN SomertonStorage DepotTo be determinedWANorthamTraining FacilityTo be determinedMEDIUM TERM (2001-2006)ACTHMAS HarmanNaval EstablishmentTo be determinedNSWRAAF GlenbrookAir HeadquartersTo be determinedRAAF RichmondRAAF baseTo be determinedRAAF WaggaRAAF baseTo be determinedRAN Kingswood and 1 Central Ammunition Depot (RAAF)Explosives Ordnance StorageTo be determinedWirlingaExplosives Ordnance StorageTo be determinedQLDWacolBarrack FacilitiesTo be determinedWallangarraStorage DepotTo be determinedTASFort DirectionExplosives Ordnance StorageTo be determinedVICMaribyrnongDSTO/ATEATo be determinedMangaloreExplosives Ordnance StoragePuckapunyalRAAF Point CookRAAF baseTo be determinedFort QueenscliffTraining EstablishmentCollocated Staff CollegeLONG TERM (beyond 2006)NSWBogan GateExplosives Ordnance StorageTo be determinedGlossary of AbbreviationsAMSAAustralian Maritime Safety AuthorityAResArmy ReserveATEAArmy Technology and Engineering AgencyAURAdelaide University RegimentBASBBase Administrative Support BattalionBdeBrigadeConst RegtConstruction RegimentCoyCompanyDHADefence Housing AuthorityDSTODefence Science Technology OrganisationFd AmbField AmbulanceFd BtyField BatteryFd WkspField WorkshopFltFlightInf BnInfantry Battalion LH (SAMR)Light Horse (South Australian Mounted Rifles)LSGLogistic Support GroupMdm RegtMedium RegimentMP P1Military Policy PlatoonMURMelbourne University RegimentMUDMulti-User DepotNORFORCENorth West Mobile ForceNSWAIRTCNew South Wales Air Training CorpPlPlatoonPsychPsychiatricPvnt Med CoyPreventative Medicine CompanyPWLHPrince of Wales Light HorseQM Det AFSUQuarter Master Detachment Australian Financial Services UnitRCURegional Cadet UnitRec CoyRecovery CompanyRegtRegimentRNSWRRoyal New South Wales RegimentRQRRoyal Queensland RegimentRSARRoyal South Australian RegimentRTRRoyal Tasmanian RegimentRVRRoyal Victorian RegimentRWARRoyal West Australian RegimentSig PlSignal PlatoonSig SqnSignal SquadronSptSupportSVLGSouthern Victorian Logistics GroupTptTransportTrg GpTraining Group4061(Question No. 2876)28764061Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:What was the average cost of land freight from origin to export container terminal for each kilo of beef exported to the Republic of Korea in 1996-97.4061Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised this information is not available within my Portfolio.I am further advised the Department of Transport and Regional Development does not have data on the freight rates charged on the various modes of transport, sea, land and air. These rates are industry based, and are confidential between the transport agent and the customer, owing to individual commercial contracts being negotiated. It is pos sible that the State rail authorities may be able to provide average freight rates for cargo carried over their systems. The highly competitive nature of the road transport industry may prevent individual operators supplying freight rate figures.4061(Question No. 2877)28774061Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:What was the average cost of land freight from origin to export container terminal for each kilo of beef exported to Japan in 1996-97.4061Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised this information is not available within my Portfolio.I am further advised the Department of Transport and Regional Development does not have data on the freight rates charged on the various modes of transport, sea, land and air. These rates are industry based, and are confidential between the transport agent and the customer, owing to individual commercial contracts being negotiated. It is possible that the State rail authorities may be able to provide average freight rates for cargo carried over their systems. The highly competitive nature of the road transport industry may prevent individual operators supplying freight rate figures.4062(Question No. 2878)28784062Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:What was the average cost of land freight from origin to export container terminal for each kilo of beef exported to the USA in 1996-97.4062Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised this information is not available within my Portfolio.I am further advised the Department of Transport and Regional Development does not have data on the freight rates charged on the various modes of transport, sea, land and air. These rates are industry based, and are confidential between the transport agent and the customer, owing to individual commercial contracts being negotiated. It is possible that the State rail authorities may be able to provide average freight rates for cargo carried over their systems. The highly competitive nature of the road transport industry may prevent individual operators supplying freight rate figures.4062(Question No. 2879)28794062Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:(1) What was the average Australian stevedoring charge per kilogram of beef exported to the Republic of Korea in 1996-97.(2) What was the average Korean stevedoring charge per kilogram of beef exported to the Republic of Korea in 1996-97.(3) What was the average sea freight charge per kilogram of beef exported to the Republic of Korea in 1996-97.4062Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) I am advised this information is not available either within my portfolio or that of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business.(3) See answer to House of Representatives Question 2876.4062(Question No. 2880)28804062Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:(1) What was the average Australian stevedoring charge per kilogram of beef exported to Japan in 1996-97.(2) What was the average Japanese stevedoring charge per kilogram of beef exported to Japan in 1996-97.(3) What was the average sea freight charge per kilogram of beef exported to Japan in 1996-97.4062Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) I am advised this information is not available either within my portfolio or that of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business.(3) See answer to House of Representatives Question 2877.4062(Question No. 2881)28814062Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:(1) What was the average Australian stevedoring charge per kilogram of beef exported to the USA in 1996-97.(2) What was the average US stevedoring charge per kilogram of beef exported to the USA in 1996-97.(3) What was the average sea freight charge per kilogram of beef exported to the USA in 1996-97.4062Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) I am advised this information is not available either within my portfolio or that of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business.(3) See answer to House of Representatives Question 2878. 4063(Question No. 2892)28924063Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:(1) Is there a telephone which can receive (a) both the GSM digital signal and an analogue system signal and (b) both the CDMA signal and an analogue system signal.(2) Can the GSM signal interface directly with satellites.(3) Will a system be produced which allows direct interface between the GSM signal and satellites; if so (a) which satellites and (b) will the satellites use GSM or CDMA technology.(4) Is it a fact that there is no difference between GSM and analogue signals; if so, why is the analogue system being discarded.(5) Does the GSM system have technological advantages over analogue systems; if so, what are they; if not, why is the former being preferred to the latter.4063Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) There are a number of different interfaces that are used for mobile telephony resulting in different standards being used around the world. Equipment manufacturers have started to produce mobile handsets that are compatible with more than one standard, much like some modern television receivers that can receive either the European PAL signal or the American NTSC signal.It is entirely up to the commercial judgement of the equipment manufacturers to determine what combinations of standards are built into the handsets they design and sell. While any combination of standards may be theoretically possible, there are some combinations that are likely to become available and other that are not, depending on how the various technical standards are taken up in various regions of the world. In response to the specific questions:. the GSM/analogue AMPS combination in the 800/900 MHz band is not currently available, and is unlikely to be developed;. there are phones available that have analogue AMPS and CDMA in the 800 MHz band. The 800 MHz spectrum being offered in the current auction process could be used for CDMA.(2) and (3) There are a number of new global satellite systems being developed and coming into service in the next few years. They are intended to operate in a complementary way with digital terrestrial mobile services. The subscriber will use the terrestrial cellular service where it is available and will use the satellite where terrestrial is not available. The subscriber will need a new handset (GSM + satellite) or (CDMA + satellite) to access satellite services which have their own frequency bands and interface standards. Manufacturers are producing a variety of handsets with various interface combinations to suit the different regional markets.(4) There are fundamental differences between the GSM and analogue signals in the same way as there are fundamental differences between vinyl records and CD discs.All analogue phones transmit speech as identifiable and decipherable waves on particular radio frequencies.All digital technologies, by contrast, encode speech and transmit this code which is subsequently decoded when it is received.(5) In the 1990 Government policy statement, the decision was announced to license three public mobile carriers and to accept prima facie AUSTEL's recommendation that GSM digital technology should be adopted as Australia's first digital standard. At the time of the decision, the AMPS analogue technology was capable of supporting only two operators, whereas digital technologies such as GSM could support more than two operators. GSM was adopted as the first digital standard, but this does not restrict the introduction of further digital standards.The technical advantages of changing from analogue to digital technology include:. digital technology allows the telephone network to carry more conversations at one time and this helps to minimise network congestion;. digital transmissions are far less easily intercepted than the unencoded analogue transmissions; and. by virtue of the signal processing that is a necessary part of a digital system, digital services also potentially offer more enhanced services to the user. For example: - data and fax originating and terminating - fax mail store and forward - sending and receiving short messages—Mail - personal answering service—Memo - integrated voicemail services - advice of message by voice call, SMS or pager - remote mail, LAN and Internet access, fax back - full control of diversion, on voice, data, fax, SMS - virtual private network—dial plan - auto national and international roaming 48 countries.