Tuesday, 23 October 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they so wish to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 280 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have perpetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown in the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular Mr Frank Costigan QC. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Commission and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the re-activation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least 31 March 1985 and also to provide the Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated by both Houses of Parliament . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Messner (from 127 citizens) and Reid (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG and M rated video- cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ''X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/ discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 63 citizens) and Lajovic (from five citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support Senator Chipp's 'Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Bill', A BILLFORAN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE MANUFACTURE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN, AND THE INTRODUCTION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS INTO, AUSTRALIA effectively declaring Australia as a: 'NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE' Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Senators, regardless of political affiliations, support this Bill. Not just for our sake but for our children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp (from 68 citizens), Haines (from 75 citizens) and Mason (from 50 citizens). To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Labor Party: 'Is committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons and the ultimate achievement of general and complete disarmament' (ALP Platform 1984, 12E); and will: 'promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans' (ALP Platform 1984, 12E.34); 'oppose the development and acquisition of nuclear, chemical, bacteriological or other weapons of mass destruction for Australia's Armed Forces; nor permit any foreign government to station such weapons on Australian soil' (ALP Platform 1984, 12F.41); and 'oppose the storage of nuclear weapons on Australian territory and the staging of operations involving nuclear weapons from Australian territory' (ALP Platform 1984, 12F.48). Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Federal representatives of the Labor Government, and Federal representatives of all other political parties including independents, vote for Senator Chipp's Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions Bill 1984, the passage of which would effectively make Australia a nuclear weapons free zone and would leave no doubt as to the present Government's stated commitment to disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. Amendments to the Customs Regulations have removed legal barriers to the importation of hard core pornography into Australia; 2. The introduction of X classification in the A.C.T. by the Prohibited Publications Ordinance, has removed legal barriers to the sale of hard core pornography within the A.C.T.; and 3. The distribution of pornography degrades women, injures children and undermines family life. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: 1. Disallow the Prohibited Publications Ordinance and the amendments to the Customs Regulations; and 2. Introduce legislation which adequately reflects community standards. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supercede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; That the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 96 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we strongly oppose the 'A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill', introduced by Senator Jack Evans, because it will adversely affect sporting organisations and small businesses in the A.C.T., it reverses the onus of proof, and represents an unnecessary intrusion by Government into the private affairs of individuals and other groups. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 304 citizens). To Senator the Honourable Douglas McClelland, President of the Senate, and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia and Electors of the Division of Maranoa showeth- That the requirement by the Commonwealth Government that open tenders be called for all work pursuant to work to be performed on Road Development projects under the auspices of the Australian Bi-centennial Authority is detrimental to the outback and other areas of Australia and in particular to the Murweh Shire, Booringa Shire, Bungil Shire, Paroo Shire, and Murilla Shire and the Maranoa electoral district generally for the following reasons: (1) Open tenders tend to result in contractors outside of the areas where the work is to be performed being awarded the contract and thereafter using their own work force who are generally only temporary residents in that area. (2) Whilst this may appear initially attractive to the Government on economic grounds, local contractors established with local employees and plant overheads are being deprived of these contracts causing or being likely to cause lay-offs of men, cessation of plant use and the payment of crippling repayments on idle plant, a lessening of spending in the community, loss of security of tenure of the contractors and their families and in cases the departure from the district of local contractors to seek work elsewhere. (3) An increase in the trend for country dwellers to move to the cities depriving Queensland of the benefit of its decentralised areas, and being apparently inconsistent with the policy of the Federal Government in that regard . (4) Preliminary figures tend to show that there are approximately 120 local contractors and employees in the above areas and together with their families they represent a large number of people whose departure or lessened standard of income is likely to affect the local and business communities of many of the small towns in outback Australia. (5) The local contractors should receive favourable consideration because of their preparedness to live, work and have their children educated in these areas in sometimes adverse conditions and being deprived of those more favourable conditions prevailing closer to the coastal regions. Your petitioners therefore pray that the requirement that open tenders be called for the Australian Bi-centennial Authority Road projects be removed by the Commonwealth Parliament Legislation and that in lieu thereof tenders be offered to local contractors. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 425 citizens). Petitions received. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Hawke Government for pursuing a petrol pricing formula which means that Australians do not benefit from our Bass Strait reserves; (b) demands that the Federal Government change its current import parity pricing formula which is a recipe for higher petrol prices and higher inflation in Australia at a time when petrol prices are falling world wide; and (c) urges the Treasurer, Mr Keating, to put into effect policies which take into account the cogent criticisms of the import parity pricing formula that he enunciated whilst Opposition spokesperson for resources and energy so that new petrol pricing arrangements can be devised to reduce rather than increase the price of petrol to Australian motorists. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) censures the Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Tom Uren, for his gross incompetence and mishandling of the Commissioner for Housing Loans Scheme; (b) reminds the people of the Australian Capital Territory that the former Liberal-National Party coalition government has devised and was negotiating a housing loans scheme to be administered by building societies in conjunction with the Federal Government; (c) condemns the Minister for abandoning the coalition proposals without adequate consideration immediately on gaining office, and leaping blindly into the disastrous scheme of his own making; (d) notes that in the wake of his self devised disaster, the Minister is now having to revert to the assistance of private enterprise, and is now negotiating with building societies in a desperate bid to salvage his own credibility; (e) expresses surprise and regret that the proposals and negotiations of the former coalition Government, which would have offered considerable savings to the taxpayers and prevented the recent emotional distress inflicted on the many people who had their hopes so falsely raised, were so heedlessly cast aside; and (f) calls on the Government to assure the electorate that such a fiasco will never be allowed to again occur through such hastily devised, over promoted, and ill-planned schemes. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes that the general independent consensus throughout Australia has praised the Liberal and National parties' new policy on taxation. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Uren, for appointing an Assistant Commissioner to the National Capital Development Commission, with salary and allowances of about $60,000 per year, without first advertising the position; (b) expresses concern that the newly appointed Assistant Commissioner and her family are reputed to have been very close friends of the Minister for many years; and (c) is of the opinion that such appointments must not only be made solely on merit and after adequate advertising of the position, but such appointments must also be seen to fulfil those requirements. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.08) —Pursuant to contingent notice of motion No. 5, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Harradine moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. I intend to seek the approval of the Senate to debate, and I hope adopt, notice of motion No. 172 standing in my name. That notice of motion reads as follows: That the Senate- (a) noting that the Annual Report for 1983-84 of the Public Service Board, tabled in the Senate on Thursday, 18 October 1984, shows that youth recruitment as a percentage of the total annual recruitment of the Australian Public Service Board has fallen to an all-time low; and (b) noting also that persons under 21 years constituted 22.6 per cent of the Australian Public Service staff in 1966; falling to 12.2 per cent in 1974, and falling further to an all-time low of 6.7 per cent as at 31 December 1983, calls on the Federal Government to instruct the Public Service Board to take positive action to remedy the apparent structural bias in appointment procedures , which at present discriminate against youth. I understand that I must contain my remarks at this stage to why this notice of motion should be dealt with and why Standing Orders ought to be suspended. That restricts me in that I cannot really comment on the merits of the proposition. Suffice it to say that the percentage of recruitment of youth to the Australian Public Service has reached an all time low. The figures I have mentioned in the notice of motion are for those under 21 years of age; the figures for the youth group as described by the Australian Bureau of Statistics are for those under 20 years, as distinct from those under 21 years. The figure for that age group has fallen to 4.2 per cent of total staff of the Australian Public Service. So we have reached a very critical stage in the employment of youth in the Australian Public Service. Unless this matter is dealt with now there will be no opportunity to deal with it again until it is re-established on the Notice Paper late in February of next year. Of course between now and February of next year the bulk of appointments will have been made to the Commonwealth Public Service. It is important for the Australian Public Service Board to understand that all sides of the Parliament are most concerned about youth employment and the fact that youth employment in the Public Service has reached an all time low. I hope that members of parliament from all sides agree that this is a matter of such vital importance that we should at this point direct the attention of the Public Service Board to this fact and request the Government to instruct the Board to desist from its apparent policy of discrimination against the employment of youth. We will not have an opportunity to debate this matter again until at least late February because of the election. I repeat, the bulk of appointments to the Public Service for next year will either have been made or be too far down the track to be reversed. Therefore, I suggest to you, Mr President, and to all honourable senators that this is a matter of the utmost importance. Unless we deal with it now the horse will have bolted so far as appointments of youth to the Commonwealth Public Service are concerned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(10.13) —The Government does not support the suspension of Standing Orders to deal with this matter. We regard it as inappropriate in the present circumstances. In saying that I do not in any way wish to canvass the issue which Senator Harradine has raised. He has made a point and I will certainly undertake to draw the attention of the Public Service Board to it. However, in the context of the present Parliament, which has a lot of pressing and urgent business to attend to, we do not regard it as appropriate that Standing Orders be suspended to deal with this matter. I think that Senator Harradine would, on analysis of the figures of recruitment and breakup of the Commonwealth Public Service, see there has been a changing pattern over a number of years which relates to retention rates and a whole range of things which are very complex. I do not think that we have time to deal fully with those matters at this stage. In those circumstances, as I have said, we do not regard the suspension of Standing Orders as appropriate and will not support the motion. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.14) —I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that it will not be supporting Senator Harradine's motion. Like the Government we do that without wishing in any way to take away from the importance of the matter which he has raised. Indeed in considering whether we should interfere with the remaining business of the Senate, we considered the fact that late last week we supported Senator Harradine in bringing on a matter of public importance which, whilst not on this specific aspect of youth employment, was on the general issue of youth unemployment. Senator Harradine had the chance to bring this forward and, indeed, he did promote a debate in which both the Government and the Opposition participated with the Australian Democrats on the very significant problem which is faced by many young Australians in finding a job. Our attitude to this matter is essentially dictated by the fact that we have the Appropriation Bills before us and other legislation which must be dealt with . We have a limited amount of time. Senator Harradine has been able to bring forward one aspect of the matter recently in a debate and it was appropriate that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) said, as he did a moment ago, that he would draw the matter to the attention of the Public Service Board. I was a little surprised by the statistics that were brought forward when Senator Harradine gave notice of his motion yesterday. I think it is a matter which warrants consideration and I would certainly wish to put on the public record that in our view the Government and the Board should give very careful consideration to measures which will ensure to the maximum extent possible that young Australians are given an opportunity to obtain work in the Commonwealth Public Service. I know I speak on behalf of all Opposition senators when I say we share the concern that Senator Harradine has. We do see it as a matter of significance, but we do not think it would be appropriate to set aside the business which has been laid down by the Government in order to bring this matter on for debate. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.17) —in reply-I can only express my regret and disappointment that this matter is not to be debated now and that the expression of the Parliament as a whole about this matter is not to be conveyed to the Government and thence to the Australian Public Service Board. I have made a detailed study of the reasons that have caused this substantial drop in the employment of youth in the Australian Public Service and I was fully prepared to debate those if this matter were able to be debated today. I believe that that opportunity has now been missed and, sad to say, the Public Service Board will not be under the pressure that it would otherwise have been under to reflect the viewpoints expressed by a motion of this Senate-that is, the viewpoints of the elected representatives of the people who are most concerned about the plight of unemployed youth and the unfair and unnecessary burden of youth unemployment in this country. Question resolved in the negative. [COGNATE BILLS: APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1984-85 APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1984-85 ADVANCE TO THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE 1983-84] Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(10.18) —Last night I was summarising the redistributive effect of the Budget as I saw it and I referred to the abolition of various taxation rebates which were of advantage to wealthy taxpayers. I instanced the dividend rebate of $1,000 which was abolished by this Government. The figures which have been published by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in association with the Budget Papers this year indicate that for the 1982-83 income year taxpayers on taxable incomes of more than $100,000 saved more than $ 120 average as a result of the dividend rebate, but taxpayers on an average income of around $18,000 on average saved only $7. That really shows the loopholes that existed and the tax concessions that were available to the wealthy under the Fraser-Howard Government and which have now been abolished. The Budget also increases redistribution by focusing the social security increases on the neediest pensioners and beneficiaries in the community, in particular pensioners renting private accommodation and pensioners with children . In addition to increases in pensions and benefits, there are further income tax rebates for pensioners and beneficiaries. The Medicare income exemption level has been raised and that also has a redistributive effect. Some 150,000 Australian taxpayers will no longer be liable for the one per cent Medicare levy as a result of this Budget. Of course, one of the keys to redistribution is to reduce the inflation rate, because there is no doubt that inflation is probably the most powerful force working against an equitable distribution of income and resources. I am very pleased to say that under this Government inflation has been reduced significantly, from 11.5 per cent per annum when we took office to the figure in the 12 months to the June quarter this year of 6.5 per cent. No doubt all honourable senators are hopeful that when the inflation rate figures for the September quarter are released this week they will show a further fall in the increase in the cost of living. Redistribution is not easy in an economy which is operating with less than full employment. It is very hard to redistribute resources in an under-employed economy, but I believe that in the two Budgets we have brought down, and as a result of our May economic statement last year, we have made quite respectable gains on the redistribution front. I turn briefly to the effects of the 1984 Budget on my own State of South Australia. I am very pleased that at last the Adelaide Commonwealth Centre is being constructed. It is a long overdue move. It will enable a consolidation of Commonwealth Public Service employment within the city of Adelaide and, most importantly, it will create greater convenience for people in seeking Commonwealth services. That Centre will provide a long overdue boost for the local construction industry. The value of the work on that project will be $38m. The Budget provides for the extension of multicultural television to Adelaide by June next year. The allocation in the Budget for the Special Broadcasting Service has been increased from $34m to $38m, and another $4m has been provided for transmission of multicultural television to five Australian cities, including Adelaide. The Budget provides over $1m for further work on Adelaide metropolitan flood plain management. It should enable further reductions in flooding in and around Adelaide, which I am sure will be of great benefit to many of the residents. The Budget also provides $7m for water treatment, both for the Adelaide metropolitan region and for the Iron Triangle region of South Australia, that is, the cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie, which will benefit from this allocation in terms of better water quality. Further work is occurring at Adelaide Airport, with a further $3m to be spent this financial year on its upgrading. Funds provided in the Budget for the motor vehicle industry will, of course, have an effect in South Australia, which is a major producer of motor vehicles. The funds to provide for Australian design support and for tooling for the industry will particularly help South Australia, which has been the tooling centre for the industry. Another item in the Budget is $500,000 for the State's sesquicentenary celebrations in 1986, and that item is very welcome indeed. Looking ahead, the 1984-85 Budget forecasts, across the financial year to June next year, growth in Australia's non-farm gross domestic product of 5 per cent. I am pleased to say that that growth in our non-farm gross domestic product will be slightly ahead of the very respectable growth we achieved last year. The Budget provides for an extra 2.5 per cent growth in employment through the financial year, or about 150,000 extra jobs. In terms of unemployment, the Budget forecasts a further slight fall in the jobless total. It forecasts that the rate of unemployment should fall by about one per cent in 1984-85, compared with the level of the previous financial year. On my calculations that suggests a fall in the average unemployment rate from 9.6 per cent in 1983-84 to 8.6 per cent this year-a further welcome reduction in the unemployment tally in the community. The Budget also provides for a number of measures which should have some effect in reducing pressure on Australian capital markets. I am hopeful that that reduced pressure will enable further reductions in interest rates to be made in the community, particularly interest rates on housing loans. Earlier in my address I referred to the fact that housing interest rates, first mortgage rates charged by savings banks, have been reduced from 13 1/2 per cent early last year to 11 1/2 per cent now. I hope that there will be further reductions in housing loan interest rates in the near future. I believe this Budget is appropriate for an economy in its recovery phase. Under the Hawke Labor Government there has been and will continue to be a clear lift in the living standards of Australians, particularly those extra people who are now employed in the work force-those people employed in both the public and the private sectors of the economy in jobs created under the Labor Government. There will be a further rise in the living standards of social security recipients. In summary, this Budget is a Budget for consolidation; it consolidates the worthwhile gains made last year. It is a Budget for greater equity and fairness. It is a Budget to allow further growth within the Australian economy. I believe it should be supported by all honourable senators. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.26) —The appropriation Bills are set on a false, inaccurate and improper premise. They are set on the basis of certain receipts in the coming 12 months. The appropriations flow from the August Budget, in which certain assumptions are made. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) brought down his Budget in August with a speech full of self-congratulations. We were told that the economic growth last year was a result of the Government's policies and that no one could seriously argue that 'we'-to quote the Treasurer- could have done better. We were told about the 230,000 Australians who had found jobs last year. He did not say that a number of those were part time jobs. The 664,400 Australians who did not have jobs at the end of June 1984 did not rate a mention. These are the people who are bearing the true cost of Labor's prices an incomes accord, which has been a remarkable success if one accepts that it has achieved the preservation of wages of union members at the expense of the unemployed. Earlier this year, in March, the Treasurer, in his speech to the Economic Planning Advisory Council, described the cause of the upswing in economic activity rather differently and, in my view, perhaps more accurately. He pointed out that the temporary influences which had stimulated activity during the financial year 1983-84 would wane during 1984-85. The temporary influences which the Treasurer referred to were the end of the drought, which resulted in an enormous 47.1 per cent growth in farm product to the September quarter of 1983; the turnabout in the stock cycles; the growth in dwelling investment, which was largely stimulated by the first home owners scheme; the general improvement in world economic activity, particularly in the United States of America; and, importantly, the previous Liberal Government's wages pause which enabled progress to be made in reducing the very high level of wage costs within Australia. In the same speech to EPAC the Treasurer identified perhaps the most important factor necessary for a sustained recovery. He said: Sustaining the momentum of growth will require business investment to replace the temporary influences which are operating at the moment. In a later speech to EPAC in May the Treasurer emphasised the importance of private investment, this time in the context of the Budget. He said: There is one aspect that stands out and which is undoubtedly central to Budget considerations; namely the need for a revival in business fixed investments during the course of 1984-85. The Treasurer is in no doubt as to how governments are able to facilitate private sector investment. In June 1984 Mr Keating told the Premiers Conference: If private sector activity is to be encouraged governments at all levels need to reduce their demands on capital markets. In other words, government spending must be cut and deficits must be lowered. The Treasurer has now presented a Budget which, as he pointed out, will create a deficit of $6.745m-$1,216m less than last year's deficit. What was not made so clear is that this deficit is based on substantial real growth in government spending and precariously optimistic revenue estimates based on shaky assumptions of Australia's future economic performance. Certainly in nominal terms the Treasurer can tell us that the 13 per cent increase in Budget outlays is a lower increase than for any year since 1979-80. But if we look at the increase in outlays in real terms-that is, adjusted to remove the effects of inflation-the picture is very different. In real terms government spending on Budget outlays will rise by 6.1 per cent. Total outlays will reach an estimated $63.945m in 1984-85, representing an enormous 31.1 per cent of gross domestic product. The two Budgets of this Labor Government have increased spending by an annual rate of 6.9 per cent. One should compare this with the record of the previous coalition Government, which held back the increase in Government spending to an average of 2.1 per cent over seven consecutive Budgets. Of course, we were faced with rectifying the damage caused by the three disastrous Budgets brought down by the Whitlam Government, which increased spending at that time by an average of 10 per cent per year. Furthermore, it is of the utmost concern that these vast sums of money spent by the Government will not increase the productive capacity of the economy; they are simply financing current consumption expenditure. Capital expenditure as a proportion of total outlays has fallen dramatically over the last 10 years. In 1974-75 over a quarter-25.1 per cent-of Budget outlays were payments for capital purposes. In this Budget only 8.9 per cent of Budget outlays are on capital expenditures. In addition , a very large part of this year's outlays will serve as debts which have accrued as a result of continually increasing Government spending. In 1984-85, $5,601m will be spent on public debt interest payments; that is, 8.8 per cent of total outlays, only slightly less than the 9.1 per cent of outlays spent on defence, and an increase in real terms of 21 per cent compared with last year. The Budget is only one sector of Government spending in the economy, as Mr Keating properly points out. Governments at all levels make demands on the financial markets. The total public sector includes, as well as the Commonwealth Budget, commercial Commonwealth authorities such as Qantas Airways Ltd, Trans Australia Airlines and Australia Post, and State and local government sectors. In 1983-84 outlays for the whole of the public sector reached a staggering 41.8 per cent of GDP. Just over 10 years ago, in 1972-73, public sector outlays were 31.3 per cent of GDP. In the relatively short time since then they have increased to consume a further 10 per cent of GDP. The implications of that are clearly spelt out in this year's Budget Paper No. 1, which states: In the short run at least, growth in total public sector outlays will tend to increase the aggregate demand for resources. Over the longer term, there are implications for the mix of goods and services which are produced and for the flexibility of the economy. The levels of taxation associated with increased Government spending can also have implications for incentives, the allocation of resources and wage demands within the economy. The very high levels of public sector spending seen in recent years have resulted in public sector borrowing requirements in 1983-84 of $14,807m, 8 per cent of GDP. Compare that with 1971-72, when the public sector borrowing requirement was only 1.7 per cent of GDP. Under Whitlam that figure leapt to 5.6 per cent of GDP in 1974-75. Perhaps even more horrifying than the public sector deficit for 1983-84 is the level that the total stock of public sector debt has reached. Using estimations of securities on issue, the total stock of public sector debt reached $74,495m at the end of 1983-84; that is, 40 per cent of GDP. This takes account only of conventional methods of financing debt and does not show the effect of some of the alternative sources of finance which have been used by some public authorities and State governments, such as New South Wales, recently. One is the lease-back arrangement. The concomitant of this level of public sector debt is huge interest payments, which lock in future high levels of government spending. Interest payments required to service the public sector debt were about $8,191m in 1983-84, 4.4 per cent of GDP. During the last two years business fixed investment has been at historically low levels, falling from 16.5 per cent of GDP in 1981-82 to 13.8 per cent of GDP in 1982-83, and further last year to only 12.2 per cent. At the same time there was an increase in lending by the household sector as a result of the 4 per cent increase in household income, which interestingly enough was not matched by an equivalent rise in consumption. So the savings ratio increased from 12.4 per cent in 1982-83 to 13.6 per cent. Combined with some increase in corporate profits from the very depressed levels of 1982-83 these factors have meant that during the last year financial markets were able to cope with the demand for funds without excessive pressures. However , should this very much needed recovery in private investment materialise, the pressures created by the public sector borrowing requirements could result in increasing interest rates which would choke off business investment. The awareness of that possibility acts as a powerful disincentive for the business community for as long as we have these high and rising deficits in the public sector. This was clearly outlined, of course, in Budget Paper No. 1 which states : Sustained growth in the Australian economy will depend very heavily on continuing recovery in private investment, which in turn requires a reduction in the public sector borrowing requirements to take pressure off financial markets and reduce interest rates. Of course, reining in government spending is a task which might risk some short term unpopularity-a commodity which this Government is clearly unwilling to sacrifice for the longer term good of Australia, in view of its plans for this early election. The Government's failure to cut the Budget deficit by a really significant amount is also in part a reflection of the costs of buying the goodwill of the trade unions. As I said earlier, ultimately the need to reduce the deficit had to take second place to some placatory tax cuts. This eventually was foreshadowed by the Treasurer, again in his May speech to EPAC. Then he pointed out the degree of conflict between: . . . the emphasis upon reducing the Budget deficit and on providing tax cuts to support the wage moderation aims of the accord. An additional danger which could arise from the pressure on financial markets created by the high levels of government spending is a further increase in borrowings from overseas. Certainly the experience of 1981 and 1982 was that the sharp increase in the corporate sector's demand for funds was met, in part, by an increase in foreign lending. Foreign funds are not, of course, a perfect substitute for domestic capital because of exchange rate risks, unfamiliarity with overseas credit markets, and economic and political differences between countries. More serious, however, are the implications of Australia's steadily rising external indebtedness. Ten years ago, in 1974-75, Australian's gross external debt stood at $5,363m or 8.7 per cent of GDP. In 1982-83 the Treasury estimated that this had risen to 20 .6 per cent of GDP and stood at $33,719m. I believe that estimates of gross external debt for 1983-84 suggest that it has risen even further to around $42, 000m or 22.8 per cent of GDP. The cost of servicing that level of external debt is enormous. Interest and capital repayments for that estimated debt during 1983-84 cost Australia 45.4 per cent of earnings on exports of goods and services. Forty-five per cent of our exports went to repay our overseas loans. Thus a very substantial part of our export income is now being used to finance our foreign debt burden. Our ability to continue to meet these debt repayments depends upon strong growth in exports, which in turn makes it vital that we improve our international competitiveness. The total overseas debt is made up of borrowings from both the private and public sectors. While public sector borrowings abroad make up the smaller part of the total, they have followed the overall rising trend. Gross public overseas debt increased from 1.8 per cent of GDP in 1975-76 to 7 per cent of GDP in 1982-83, and is estimated to have increased further to around 7.8 per cent of GDP in 1983-84. The end result of those borrowings depends very much upon the use to which they are put-specifically whether they are used to increase the productive capacity of the economy, such that the means to make future loan repayments is generated. Unfortunately, there are indications that this has not been the case and that the overseas loans have not all been used to contribute to productive capital development. In the supplement to the April round-up of economic statistics, ' Australia's External Debt', the Treasury concluded: Although the net inflow of resources from abroad has been historically high in recent years, the same cannot be said of domestic investment which, as a proportion of GDP reached higher levels in the 1960s. It has been consumption expenditure-and particularly government consumption expenditure-which has been at a high level. A recent Department of Trade paper on the same subject pointed out that a high level of external debt is indeed a risk for the domestic economy and to bear this risk it is vital that capital is put to the best uses. It is quite unacceptable that foreign borrowings should be undertaken merely to finance profligate and non-productive government spending. Turning back to this year's estimated Budget deficit, it is based, as I said earlier, on a forecast of an increase in receipts of 17.7 per cent during 1984- 85. This growth in revenue is dependent upon a very optimistic forecast of this year's economic performance. The uncertainties which cloud this view are clearly set out in Statement No. 2 of the Budget. Of the overseas market it is stated: Growth is expected to moderate, financial markets are precariously placed and competitive pressures are becoming increasingly fierce. It is pointed out that Australia is particularly vulnerable to a decline in the level of world economic activity because of the effect on our terms of trade of any associated falling off in commodity prices. As it is, commodity prices are at very low levels with little sign of improvement in the near future. Wheat prices, for example, are at their lowest levels since the Second World War. The price of sugar is perhaps at its lowest level ever. Iron ore prices have fallen back to the levels of 1981. The commodity index in United States dollars shows an overall fall in metal prices of 14.6 per cent for the year ended 31 July 1984 . That index has fallen considerably since. The same index for agricultural commodities shows a fall of 21 per cent over the same period. It is anticipated that there will be a fall in aggregate farm receipts of 29 per cent this year. On the domestic front, it is noted that a precondition for growth in employment is wage restraint and a further fall in inflation. However, the point is made that: Past Australian experience has been that it is difficult to restrict increases in wages and other employment benefits to those granted by the arbitral authorities in an economy where excess capacity is diminishing and profits are high and rising. In addition, I make the point that in my view, and I am sure in the view of most employers, some of the benefits that have been granted by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission recently will have the effect of dramatically increasing the associated costs of employment to the employer. In particular, I refer to the job security test case decision which was recently handed down by the Commission. This decision which sets very high levels of redundancy payments has, according to the Confederation of Australian Industry, 'potentially lopped whole percentage points off Australia's future rates of growth and has added an entirely new dimension to the problems involved in getting unemployment rates down'. The uncertainties that are pointed out in Budget statement No. 2 are not therefore vague possibilities, but a very real threat to our economic growth. I also draw the Senate's attention to the inaugural edition of the National Economic Review, recently published by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research. Its predictions are described in one very telling sentence in the Australian Financial Review of 18 September 1984 as 'confirming the Federal Government's political wisdom of going for a Federal election before the economy goes off the boil'. Predicting growth in non-farm gross domestic product of 3.1 per cent in 1983-84 compared with Treasury estimates of 4 per cent, the National Economic Review says that no further improvement in the unemployment rate is likely during 1984- 85, and by the end of 1985-86 it will have risen to 10.3 per cent. With the policies of this Labor Government that is a very realistic scenario. Two-thirds of the jobs in Australia are provided by the private sector and it is upon an expansion of this sector that the creation of new, productive employment depends . Yet the resources of the economy are being directed away from the private sector towards the public sector. This Budget, which has increased outlays by 6. 1 per cent in real terms to 31.1 per cent of GDP, will, despite very large increases in expected revenues, require borrowing by the Commonwealth Budget sector alone of $6,745m. Of course, that will further exacerbate this process. As I said earlier, it is my view that those forecasts of receipts are a great deal higher than are likely to be realised. In the minerals and metals sector commodity prices such as coal, uranium, iron ore, nickel, lead and all our basic export ingredients are showing very low levels of return. The farm sector has declined, and the manufacturing sector is very wobbly and patchy, and is very narrowly based in terms of its growth and expansion. Therefore, one has to ask from where it is likely that the receipts will come and where there will be growth in the economy in the coming 12 months. It is my view that the economy will take a serious downturn and that the Government knows that, and that is the reason it is having an early election. In the unlikely event that the Australian Labor Party is returned, the people of Australia will reap the harvest of electing a Labor government for the next period. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(10.46) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise in the Senate in the appropriation Bills debate the matter of youth unemployment. This has been discussed a number of times, most recently in a matter of public importance raised by Senator Harradine. I found that debate curiously disappointing. It was curious because Senator Harradine and the Government, represented by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, appeared to agree on the problem but the Government firmly rejected every line of action that might have done something about it. At least they did agree on the problem, and it is a very serious one. Some 25 per cent of our 15- to 19-year-olds are unemployed, and it is quite untrue to say they are not looking for work. Overwhelmingly, they are very anxious to get work and very disturbed at their inability to do so. Despite the improvement in the economy in the last 18 months-an improvement, I point out, that was caused by the breaking of the drought, the effect of the Fraser Government's wage pause and the upturn in the American economy, none of them anything to do with the present Government-the proportion of young people among the unemployed has risen over that period. This is a very serious worry. It causes among the young despair, frustration and alienation because they do want to work and they do not like the feeling of being rejected by society. Some of them take it out on society. Senator Harradine cited some interesting statistics on crime in the State of Tasmania. He showed that unemployed young persons proportionally commit far more offences than other young persons in their age group. For instance, 54 per cent of offences for breaking and entering by 15- to 19-year olds were committed by unemployed youths, 70 per cent of motor vehicle thefts, 60 per cent of drunkenness offences, 58 per cent of fraud cases, 50 per cent of shoplifting offences, and 48 per cent of assaults. These were committed by young unemployed people. This is a very serious long term concern for our society. What does the Government offer? Senator Grimes feebly offers as a palliative the community employment program. Over $400m is being expended on make-work programs, job creation programs, in which the level of skill of young people is not being lifted and as a result of which they will not be more competitive in the labour market at the end of the subsidised job. In fact, they will not even have a job when the subsidy expires. At a seminar on job creation Dr Peter Scherer of the Australian Bureau of Labour Market Research said: A job was only 'real' if it achieved something other than putting someone on the payroll . . . Jobs which did not fulfil any function were despised by the community and could be counterproductive for those holding them if their work experience was discounted as meaningless by other employers. One shire council has written to me referring to these types of jobs as rotating dole queues, and said they are actively harmful to the people concerned. About all the Government is prepared to offer is the CEP and a mish-mash of job training schemes. What it is doing cannot be taken seriously. It is obvious why the Government is not doing much. The President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions said last year that 90 per cent of people were in jobs, and his job was to look after that 90 per cent. The Government sees its job as being to look after the ACTU and the accord with the ACTU which has institutionalised unemployment in this country. In particular, it has institutionalised unemployment among the young because no one is looking after unemployed youth. We must ask ourselves why so many young Australians are looking for work and, secondly, why so many are failing to find it. The answer to the first question is easy. We have a very low proportion of young people aged 15 to 19 in full time education; it is a very low level by international standards. On the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development table of 24 developed countries we rank seventeenth, with 44 per cent of our 15 to 19- year-olds in full time education. We are down among Greece, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. We sometimes console ourselves with the thought that this figure does not include apprentices. We have many apprentices. We do have some apprentices, but at any time their number is between 3 and 4 per cent of the 15 to 19-year- olds. That does not take us far up the table. We are still very low by international standards. Australia has 44 per cent of its 15 to 19-year-olds in full time education, compared with the United States which has 75 per cent and Japan which has 71.4 per cent. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing these comparative figures of education retention. Leave granted. The table read as follows- 1. United States 75.0 (1979) 2. Japan 71.4 (1979) 3. Switzerland 70.1 (1977) 4. Finland 68.5 (1979) 5. Netherlands 65.0 (1979) 6. Norway 65.0 (1979) 7. Canada 64.9 (1977) 8. Belgium 61.3 (1975) 9. Denmark 57.4 (1977) 10. Sweden 56 .3 (1976) 11. France 55.9 (1979) 12. Ireland 50.5 (1979) 13. United Kingdom 46.2 (1977) 14. Germany 45.4 (1978) 15. Greece 45.4 (1975) 16. New Zealand 44.8 (1977 ) 17. Australia 44.4 (1979) Italy 43.9 (1976) Spain 41.3 (1978) Luxembourg 37. 3 (1978) Portugal 33.4 (1976) Austria 32.0 (1977) Turkey 12.7 (1975) Iceland (Not Available) (Source: OECD Observer, March 1982, page 30, and March 1983, page 26.) Senator HAMER —It is very disturbing that only 40.6 per cent of young Australians complete the final year of high school. In America the figure is about 80 per cent and the term 'high school drop-out' is one almost of criticism of someone who has failed to take advantage of the opportunities offering. By the American terms, two-thirds of our young people are high school drop-outs. We cannot accept this with equanimity. The first question to ask ourselves is whether our school leaving age is too young. Are we allowing young people to leave school too early, thereby encouraging youth unemployment by putting more young people on the market than the market can absorb? The minimum school leaving age in Australian States is 15 throughout, except in the case of Tasmania where it is 16 or the completion of year 10 schooling. This might be compared with the figures in other countries. In the United Kingdom the school leaving age is 16; in Japan, 15; in Canada it varies from province to province but is usually 15 to 16; in West Germany, 18; France, 16; Italy, 14; and New Zealand, 15. I think there is a case for the Tasmanian approach. It is deplorable that people leave school before completing at least year 10 education . It would be up to the States, but a case can be made out-the Commonwealth provides funding-for the States to see that students do not leave school before the completion of or attempt at year 10. It cannot be conclusively said that having a low school leaving age causes poor retention. Take, for example, Japan, which has the same school leaving age as Australia, 15 in each case, yet Japan has 71 per cent of its 15 to 19-year-olds in school. We have 44 per cent. We can get a clue about what is happening by looking at our figures of the number who complete the full 12 years of education . In the non-Catholic independent schools the proportion is 92.9 per cent. In the Catholic schools, it is 51.3 per cent. In government schools it is 33.7 per cent. Considering those in turn, 93 per cent of students complete 12 years of education in non-Catholic independent schools. There is nothing to say that the intelligence of the children going to the independent non-Catholic schools is higher than that of those going to the government schools. I know one famous school at which a survey was done of the intelligence quotients of the boys attending. They were found to be exactly on the national average. There was nothing to say they were more intelligent or more suitable to go on to 12 years of education. One could perhaps argue that the parents are more able and prepared to support them throughout the education process, whereas in other families that might not be the position. Let us look at a different point of view. There is nothing to suggest that the average affluence of parents who send their children to Catholic schools is higher than the affluence of parents of children who attend government schools. In fact, the evidence I have seen suggests that it is slightly lower. Yet in the Catholic schools the retention rate to complete secondary schooling is 52 per cent and at government schools 34 per cent. Why is this so? Why is it that in government schools there are so many high school drop-outs? It does not happen to anything like the same extent in the United States of America, Japan or Canada, countries of reasonably comparable affluence with Australia and where the parents get no assistance to keep their children in school. They support themselves because, obviously they and their children regard education as important. The fundamental problem is that for a high proportion of our children who go to government schools the parents and children do not believe the value of the education children get is a help in their future careers. This is very serious for the nation as a whole. Another factor that is almost uniquely Australian is that 16 and 17-year olds are being lured away from school by the offer of unemployment benefit when they leave school. This is very unusual. Almost all other countries have insurance schemes and a person does not get unemployment benefit until he or she has been in work and contributed to the scheme. However, we offer unemployment benefit to children who have never been in work. We are luring children away from school by offering them support which other countries of comparable affluence do not provide. This seems to me to be a very mistaken attitude. We have a fundamental national problem of attitude to the importance of education. If we do not improve this attitude, we shall be doomed to slip further down the relative economic world scale. I do not believe that in dealing with these matters the education profession, the teachers, are helping. There are many admirable and dedicated school teachers. There are also many who are not and who become teachers not because they wanted to be teachers but as a means of getting subsidised education at tertiary level. They now find themselves stuck in a profession for which they have no aptitude and in which they have little interest. Even worse, the leadership of teachers' organisations has fallen into the hands of people who are in no way, in my view, suitable for such a responsible task in the community and who are doing great harm to education in this country. It is not-although some people seem to suggest it is-that the resources are not going in to government education. I saw figures that prove to my satisfaction that if accounts were properly kept the cost of educating a child in an average government high school would be higher than the cost of educating a day pupil at Geelong Grammar. There is no way in which it can be said that we are skimping on resources for our high schools. The reason costs are so high is that the pupil- teacher ratio in the government system is higher than it is in the independent schools. That is not to say that the class sizes are not larger but that teachers do so much less class time. As a result of having relatively less class time, there are smaller classes and fewer options. But basically in terms of the cost of school teachers and of running the school, salaries are by far the largest item. The cost of running a government high school is higher than the cost of keeping a day pupil at Geelong Grammar. Senator Crichton-Browne —Are you saying that the pupil-teacher ratio in a government school is lower? Senator HAMER —There are more teachers for a given number of pupils in a government high school. That is not to say class sizes are not larger, but those same teachers teach very much fewer class hours per week than do teachers in independent schools. That is quite apart from the fact the independent school teacher does a great deal of outside school work which many government school teachers do not. What is even more worrying is the way in which the government system seems to be constantly led away on trendy dead-ends. That system seems to pick up American concepts with a time lag of about 10 years and not learn anything from the American experience. We usually find ourselves adopting those methods at the very time the Americans are abandoning them as dead-ends. This too, I think, is very damaging to our education system. Most serious of all is the attitude of teachers which seems now-I speak particularly of Victoria-to be more concerned with removing any controls on themselves than with the interests of the children. For instance, they do not want to have any external assessment of any description of how they perform. They want to stop external exams, which is a way of assessing their performance, and have them entirely internal. If internal exams were to be of any value-they would not be comparable-we would have to start making assumptions that the quality of students at each school was the same and that the quality of instruction at each school was the same. Both those assumptions are patently absurd. This removal of external exams will do great harm to our young people, particularly those who come from disadvantaged areas. Employers will not trust the standards; I can assure the Senate of that. They will be forced either to set their own tests, which they will not necessarily be very good at or, more likely, to assess the children by the school they came from. The results of children from fashionable or well known schools will be trusted and believed but a highly intelligent, able child coming from an unfashionable school will find his results disbelieved and will be very seriously disadvantaged. I am alarmed that the school teachers do not seem to see that point and are not prepared to do something about it. Government schools perform a vital role in the community. I wish they were doing more. In the United States of America during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the high schools were the vital melting pots which enabled the integration of people from all over Europe and converted them into recognisable, distinctive Americans. For many years we were taking in-we have ceased now-immigrants on a higher ratio to base population than America ever did . We badly needed and still need our high schools to integrate people from many backgrounds into Australians. If the government system is allowed to run down, if people opt out into independent schools, we will lose that vital function of independent schools. We must somehow urgently improve the quality of our independent schools. It has nothing to do with resources. There are three things that I believe we must do. The first is to stop the geographical locking in of children to particular schools. Let them choose their own schools by voting with their feet. If schools are not performing we will find that they have declining enrolments. That will be the very clear indication of where quality education is being provided. The second thing is that we must have highly qualified principals of prestige and authority in our schools. The great difference between independent schools and government schools is the quality, authority and prestige of the principals. We badly need that. Finally, we must have a system whereby the principal has the right to hire and fire teachers. Until we can do that we will not have a satisfactory government education system and the nation and the children going to government schools will be the very great losers. Even though we have an abnormal number of young people not in full time education we are still left with the question of why they are not able to find jobs and why youth unemployment is rising as a percentage of total unemployment. Throughout the 1960s, for instance, youth unemployment was running at a rate of about 3 per cent, which meant that virtually all young people who wanted work could find it. Now we have the horrifying figure of 25 per cent. It is self- evident that the real problem is our wage structure. The minimum wages are too high. The criticisms of that proposition which have been advanced by a number of people are so absurd that they are virtually undiscussable. In many awards junior rates have been eliminated. We have young people competing with experienced adults, particularly women re-entering the work force. Where the junior rates have not been eliminated we find that they have risen much more towards adult rates. In addition to that, we have the problem of penalty rates, which this Government has not even attempted to tackle. Finally, the other great difficulty for young people is that many unions have imposed quotas on the number of juniors who can be employed which bears little relationship to the demand or the need of industries that arbitrarily force employers to take on adults when young people could and should do the job. But basically this is not really a matter of young people taking adult jobs. What it is really all about is re-creating jobs which have been destroyed by our wage structure. Take motels, for example. I remember a few years ago that during a radio program I criticised the effects of penalty rates on our tertiary industries and said that there had to be a job growth in the service industries. The managing director of a big motel chain rang up to say that he had done a costing of his motel chain and had found that the elimination of all penalty rates would reduce the cost of a room by only 30c. I replied that I had stayed in a number of his motels and that I was astonished that cutting out penalty rates would save anything at all because as far as I could determine there were no after hours services of any description ever provided at his motels. That is what it is all about. These jobs have gone. One should try to get a meal late at night in a motel. One should try to get service. Try to work out who carries one's bag at a motel. All these jobs that used to be performed by young people have been lost because of too high wages and the effect of penalty rates. This can be seen in many other areas. When did you, Madam Acting Deputy President, last see a telegram boy delivering telegrams or when did you last get a second mail delivery a day? I have already mentioned hotel services. All of these jobs have been destroyed as a consequence of our wage policy. This has nothing to do with affluence. These sorts of services are provided in all comparable countries. These jobs have been destroyed in Australia and New Zealand because of our wage structures. As a consequence, these jobs and the employment opportunities of young people have been destroyed. What does the Government do? It does nothing. Some jobs, of course, have been destroyed for good. Look at what has happened in respect of petrol stations and what used to be called pump jockeys and who now, I understand, are called driveway attendants. When one now goes to a petrol station one has to get out and fill one's car oneself. One has to pay the money to someone sitting behind a counter. No one checks the tyres, water or oil or cleans the windscreen. One does it oneself. All those jobs have gone. Senator Button —Are you saying that Australia is unique in that respect, Senator ? Senator HAMER —It is very much worse than in any country I have been to. Senator Button —Oh, come on. Have you been to the United States? Senator HAMER —The United States has a problem but it is not nearly as serious as ours. The Minister heard what I had to say about motels. He would find three or four times the number of mostly young assistants in motels in the United States as there are in Australian motels. I am making the point that once a garage has installed the remote control petrol pump it will not employ driveway attendants again even if penalty rates are reduced. Those jobs, regrettably, have been lost for good. The reason is that the penalty rates applicable at weekends, during which time a great deal of the work is performed, is one and a half times the award rate on Saturday and one a half times or double the award rate on Sundays. We are imposing a gross penalty on young people by adopting the minimum wage. In fact, I believe there is no need for minimum wages at all. In my view wages would find their own level. There was no safety net when the minimum wage concept was introduced and there could have been gross exploitation in those circumstances. Now the unemployment benefit is available. If the wages that are offered are too low compared with the unemployment benefit people will just not take the job. They will say: 'I would rather remain on the unemployment benefit' . Adequate wages have to be offered to induce people to accept the work. If we allow wages to find their own level there will be a great increase in the number of jobs and this will be of great advantage to the whole of our society. Of course, some of these jobs will be of a dead end nature and people will lose them when they reach 18 years of age. That is only proper because other young people should follow them in those jobs. However, the people who have had those jobs for a year or two years will have a far better chance of getting an adult job than they would if they had been on the unemployment benefit or engaged in make-work schemes. What the unions and the Government are doing is a cruel confidence trick on our young people. I admit that the whole problem is one of enormous complexity, largely because there are so many different agencies involved. The trouble is that at the moment they all seem to be pulling in different directions. We have State and Federal wage fixing authorities. We have employers, many of whom are perfectly happy with high minimum wages. They cannot provide services and, as long as their rivals also cannot, they do not mind. Many of these most damaging agreements have been made as consent awards. We have employers. We have the educationalists. We have firms employing apprentices. We have governments giving unemployment benefit. We do not need more investigations . The facts are known. What we badly need is some co-operative plan to find our way out of this mess. I suppose if we do nothing, some of the problems may solve themselves with time. Time may or may not be a great healer, but undoubtedly it inflicts deep suffering, particularly on the young unemployed. Surely we owe it to the community to see whether we cannot by discussion work quickly towards agreed solutions to this very difficult problem. We must get all interested people together, and I think goodwill and commonsense might emerge if the facts are presented clearly and fairly. Of course, it might not work, but the alternative of sitting back and waiting for something to turn up is worse. We must try to solve this problem. After all, we have nothing to lose but our youth unemployment. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.12) — I take the opportunity of speaking on the appropriation Bills this morning to refer to a matter which I believe needs to be publicly exposed. In particular the Government's record and attitude in this matter need to be publicly exposed. I take this opportunity because of the refusal of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in the course of this year to answer reasonable questions and to respond to reasonable requests put to him over and over again in this chamber and elsewhere that he make public the Bill of Rights which he is working on, which he says is at an advanced stage of its preparation and which has been the centrepiece of the Australian Labor Party 's-in particular Senator Evans's-law and justice policies. In the last election campaign the Hawke Government made a promise regarding that policy to give priority to the enactment of a judicially enforceable Bill of Rights to set the general standards against which legislative enactments and Executive behaviour- that is Government behaviour-both at the Commonwealth and State levels would be decided. Officers were put to work on the drafting of that Bill, as I understand it, last year. At one stage last year the Attorney-General was promising that that Bill would be available before the end of the year. That was amended and it was to be ready early in 1984. Early in 1984 the Attorney-General was asked a number of questions about when that Bill would be made available and an exposure draft would be introduced into the Senate for us to study, as has been commonly done with many pieces of legislation in this Parliament in recent years, particularly ones of such importance as a Bill of Rights. On 27 March this year in answer to a question from Senator Chaney the Attorney- General said that it was taking longer than he had anticipated and that the measure would in fact make sense only in the context of a package of legislation including the restructuring of the Human Rights Commission and amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. He went on to say that it was believed that it would be possible to introduce the whole package during the autumn sittings and that although the Bill of Rights was close to fruition he hoped to have more substantial consultations with the States. He said that the other parts of the package were lagging and therefore he could not meet the second promise to introduce the Bill early in 1984. The first promise was that it would be introduced at the end of 1983. Then he made a remarkable statement. He said: It became apparent that the whole package, including the machinery part of it, would not be ready for introduction until well into the Budget session. That is the session that is now drawing to a close. He continued: We would then be confronting a situation of an election year- that was in March this year- albeit, perhaps, an election for only half the Senate. But it would be a context in which passions could be expected to rage fairly high. In that anticipated hothouse atmosphere it was thought unlikely that here in the Parliament, let alone in the community at large, it would be possible to have a claim and rational debate on this measure that its significance and importance justifies. We will certainly be pursuing this measure because we regard it as being of quite fundamental importance . . . But we will be doing so at a later time than was originally anticipated. The reason the Attorney gave for not introducing the Bill was two-fold. First, he said that it was part of a package with the restructured Human Rights Commission legislation and other pieces of legislation in the human rights field and, secondly, he did not want to introduce a Bill of Rights in an election atmosphere. As I said, he has been asked a number of questions on when the Bill will come into effect. It is now perfectly clear that it is not to be introduced and its details are not to be unveiled before the unnecessary premature election on 1 December. It will be introduced some time next year. The latest statement of the Attorney-General on this matter was in answer to a question from me last Wednesday. He said: . . . there is no draft in existence in any final form, nor do I have back all the comments that I wanted to receive from various sources before I wanted to make the Bill public. It is certainly part of the Australian Labor Party's continuing policy commitment to have a Bill of Rights. I fully expect it to be part of our policy commitments for the new Parliament and to have the measure introduced into the Parliament for an ample period of public comment and reaction to it some time next year. A promise was made during the election campaign in February-March 1983 that a Labor Government would introduce a national Bill of Rights as a centrepiece of its law and justice policy. It was stated that it would be available for public exposure and comment before the end of 1983. That was postponed to the beginning of 1984. At the beginning of 1984 it was postponed indefinitely because of the various matters to which I have referred, particularly the election. I emphasise that Senator Evans did not want to have the Bill exposed in an election atmosphere. He did not want the people to know what would be in the document so that they could make their own judgments during the election campaign. That is why we are not having it this year. The Attorney-General put up a smoke screen about it being part of a package with the Human Rights Commission legislation and other Bills. There was no substance to that argument because he has already introduced Bills to restructure the Human Rights Commission. The package argument did not stop him introducing that legislation but, of course, the package did not include an exposure draft of the Bill of Rights. Now we have the statement that, because of the discussions that have been going on, this Bill will not be introduced until next year. It is simply not good enough for this Government in an election to say that it will have a Bill of Rights. That is what it said last time. The important thing is not whether it will have a Bill of Rights, but what is in the Bill of Rights. What does a Bill of Rights contain? How will it work? To what extent will it completely override the States under our federal system? Although the Government has not introduced that Bill of Rights, and thus has not let us see exactly what is contained in it, nevertheless, Senator Gareth Evans the other day challenged me to speculate on what would be in such a Bill of Rights. It is obvious what will be in the Bill of Rights because it will be based upon the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It has to be based on that Covenant to make it an effective exercise of Commonwealth power under the external affairs powers of the Constitution. One does not have to be a wizard to understand what will be in the Bill of Rights or the way in which the Bill will operate. However , one would have thought that the Attorney-General, who put this matter at the forefront and made it the centre-piece of his policy in the last election and presumably will do so again at this election, would have wanted to have his Bill of Rights, drafted in his own words, available for public discussion particularly during an election campaign. So one must only speculate that the Government is simply not game to have a public debate about an issue of this importance during this election period. I propose to help the debate along this morning. I will indicate the nature of Labor's proposed Bill of Rights, in broad terms, and how it will work. I think it will not be surprising to anyone to understand why the Attorney-General has been so coy about it and why he does not want the public to know all about it. Labor's proposed national Bill of Rights will turn the federal system of government in this country, as we know it under our Constitution, on its head. It will advance the cause of centralism in this country by light-years and make previous forays by the Whitlam and Hawke governments look decidedly puny. It is little wonder in those circumstances that the Attorney-General-so unlike this great proponent of freedom of information-will not tell us what the details are. The reason is that the proposals are so controversial that Senator Gareth Evans and the Government want to keep the people in the dark about them during this election period. However, the Bill of Rights is, and must be, entirely based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This will be implemented by virtue of the interpretation by the High Court of Australia of the external affairs power of the Commonwealth which it made in the Franklin Dam case. But the application of the external affairs power in a document such as a Bill of Rights will have a far more devastating effect on the federal system of government and will advance the cause of centralism by light-years compared to what was done in the Tasmanian dam case. On the other hand, the Opposition has given a clear undertaking not to use the external affairs power to override traditional areas of State law and powers. In this current sitting of the Parliament I introduced a Bill designed to amend the Constitution, to cut back the external affairs power in a way which would prevent its use to give effect to treaties of this kind proposed by the Government. However, the present Labor Government and particularly the Attorney- General, Senator Gareth Evans, glories in these vast new powers which have resulted from the High Court decision in the Tasmanian dam case. The Bill of Rights will be a high water mark of such a policy. If it took effect vast areas of State law would be made subject to its overriding provisions and they could be struck down by a judge coming to a conclusion that they were not consistent with the vague and general provisions of the International Covenant. These State laws are ones which traditionally, under our Federal system, have been the province of the States. Broadly, they relate to matters such as freedom of speech and the relevance of defamation laws in that regard; freedom of religion, for instance, questions of rating on church properties; freedom of assembly; freedom of association and, in particular the general content and administration of criminal law and the criminal justice system of this country. State electoral laws will also be subject to scrutiny as to whether they meet provisions of the covenant and, in particular, whether they provide for equal suffrage, which is a guarantee of the covenant, such as, no doubt, the question of one vote one value . State electoral laws will certainly be able to be challenged if they are thought not to meet the principle of one vote one value. When the Commonwealth and the State governments negotiated the ratification by Australia of the international covenant, during the life of the Fraser Government, State laws were put under the microscope to see whether they satisfied the tests of the international covenant. By and large State laws were judged to conform with it except in a few cases where reservations or declarations were made by Australia at the ratification of that covenant. One example of this is the requirement for the segregation of prisoners in State gaols and, in particular, where the covenant seeks the segregation of juvenile offenders from adult offenders in State prisons. As we all know we do not have Federal prisons in Australia; we have only State prisons. It was thought simply not practicable to expect the States to implement fully this ideal. Compliance with the covenant would force the States to go to vast expense immediately to observe that requirement. If one has a Bill of Rights that hedges these around with certain qualifications, the fact remains that great pressures would still be placed on the States to carry out this task, to force them to spend their funds in this way, to the exclusion of other priorities that they may have. That is only one example; there are several others. By and large the State laws stood up extremely well to the very close scrutiny, the microscopic scrutiny, under which they were placed during this process which went on for about 18 months or so during the life of the Fraser Liberal Government. I am very familiar with it because I, as Attorney-General at the time, was responsible for all those negotiations with the States over that period. The fact of the matter is that it is simply not necessary to have an overriding Federal law in order to force the States to comply certainly with the spirit and, by and large with the letter, of this international covenant. Overwhelmingly, State laws do comply with the spirit of the covenant and they have done so for a long time. In the vast majority of cases they comply also with the letter of it. Where they do not the States are very conscious of the need to move gradually their laws and practices into conformity with it. Nothing in this Bill of Rights which the Government is proposing will do other than create confusion and doubts as to the way in which those State laws can be brought into conformity with the covenant. The main point is that the State laws overwhelmingly comply with the covenant and the States are conscious of the need , where necessary, to bring even the letter of State laws into conformity with it. I believe that it is totally insulting to the States for a Federal government to impose such unnecessary rules with this holier than thou attitude towards the States exemplified by the policies of Senator Evans and the Labor Government. It is ironical to note that the policies which will be imposed by this Bill with such self-righteousness just happen to coincide with the particular pre- occupations and interests of Senator Evans in particular and the beliefs of a Labor socialist Government. However, many other important issues of human rights are ignored in the covenant and will be ignored in this Bill. There is nothing in the international covenant which guarantees the right to own property and not to have it confiscated without compensation, as the Wran Labor Government did in 1981 with its infamous coal acquisition Act, which deprived thousands of people of their rights to the coal under their land with no compensation paid-an outright piece of confiscation by the Wran Government. What sort of attitude is that to a very important human right to own property and not to have it resumed without fair compensation? The international covenant does not protect people from being forced to join trade unions, even though it gives a guarantee that people may form trade unions and may join trade unions. It does not contain a guarantee to protect people from being forced to do so by direct or indirect means. There is a very interesting contrast between the international covenant and the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in respect of that matter. Clearly, the laws which the Labor Party espouses so strongly about preference to unionists will be entirely unscathed by the Bill of Rights. I point out, as I did the other day in this chamber, that the Opposition, in its industrial relations policy, will remove from the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the power to impose preference to unionists. A decision taken by this Parliament is the best way of ensuring that human rights are effectively determined in this country rather than by vague, general provisions such as a Bill of Rights. Although the international covenant protects the rights of the child it does not guarantee any rights of the child before its birth. The Bill even leaves open to challenge the provisions of the Marriage Act which define marriage as a union only between a man and a woman. However, we can all be assured that there is one comfort arising out of this Bill of Rights and on which I am sure we can all agree. If this Bill is brought into effect, from then on in Australia no person shall be held in slavery or in servitude. It is really a burning issue in Australia today-whether or not we ought to be in slavery or servitude! I am not sure whether the Attorney believes that in State laws or maybe even in Federal laws there are really threats of this kind to us; I do not know. But at least when this Bill of Rights comes into force it will protect us from that fate that apparently awaits us! As I have said, we have this self-righteous, holier than thou attitude of the Attorney-General to the laws of the States of this nation. He wants to bring in a Bill of Rights so that the States will be brought into conformity, not by the decisions of the people of the States, not by the decisions of the parliaments or the governments of the States, but by the decisions of some judge who is asked to determine whether a particular State law conforms with the vague and general provisions of the international covenant, a covenant which, in itself, provides for many exceptions to its general rules but whose general rules are themselves stated in very vague and general terms. This proposed national Bill of Rights will mean that Federal laws will override State laws. It cannot override Federal laws, no matter what attempts are made to say that Federal laws must comply with it, because this Parliament could always change Federal laws or the Bill of Rights if it wanted to do so. I think that reveals the real mockery of this exercise. It is simply an exercise in overweaning centralist power, another strong dose of centralism in this country. It will advance that cause by light years compared to any action taken by previous Labor governments, even the Whitlam Government, and even this Hawke Government in Tasmania last year. That is what this proposed Bill is all about. It will impose those attitudes, preoccupations and policies on the States, whereas, as I have said, the State laws have traditionally and overwhelmingly complied with these principles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is of course a major document and is meant to exhort people throughout the world to observe the basic principles of human rights. Those basic principles have, I believe, been developed largely by our systems of government, by the rule of law, and by free and democratic institutions which we have enjoyed in this country and which we inherited from the United Kingdom. The international covenant is really based upon principles which have animated our legal system and our democratic institutions. There is no need whatever to have this Parliament impose those principles upon State parliaments, which have also inherited that tradition and whose laws overwhelmingly comply with those principles. It is simply unnecessary and it is insulting, and as I have said, it is an exercise in self-righteousness for this Parliament to move towards implementing a Bill of Rights of that kind. I believe the Attorney clearly knows that because he refuses to make the details of his Bill known to us and to the people of Australia before the election on 1 December. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.38) — The Senate is debating Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1984-85, the Advance to the Minister for Finance 1983-84, and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1984-85. These Bills are the basic appropriation for ordinary annual services of government proposed for the forthcoming year and arising out of the Budget announcements made a little earlier this year. We have a Budget which confirms, without any possible doubt, that the Government in Australia today is a high taxing and big spending government, the indications of which can be seen from the fact that receipts from individuals are projected to increase by 23 per cent in the current year and payments of provisional tax are expected to increase by 44 per cent in the current year. Before we deal with the detail of this Budget, I think it would be interesting to look at some of the reactions of business to what is going on. One hears the claims made by this Government that it has done a great deal to overcome unemployment and to restore the economy. First of all, let us look at who did what to restore the economy. An independent judge, who can perhaps be regarded as relatively apolitical in making this sort of comment but who has some expertise to enable him to do so, is quoted in the Business Review Weekly of 14 to 20 April of this year as saying: 'It is generally accepted that the economy has a long way to go before it is back to its 1981 level ', . . . 'Much of the recovery so far has come from the breaking of the drought, the wages pause, a slower rate of decrease in stocks, world economic growth and government economic policy'. Government economic policy is put last. That was Sir John Moore dealing with the flow-on case in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Let us look at what business thinks of how much the economy has improved and what stage we have reached. Perhaps the most recent comment is that from the Confederation of Australian Industry, and the Director-General, Mr Bryan Noakes, is quoted in the Australian a few days ago. The article states: Australia's peak employer body, the Confederation of Australian Industry, has claimed much of the economic recovery has been illusory because of the government's clampdown on tax avoidance affecting the figures. The CAI's director general, Mr Bryan Noakes, said yesterday there were strong indications that the economy was slipping towards long-term stagnation. He went on to express his and his Confederation's concern at a variety of the indicators of activity in Australia, and I will come to a lot of those indicators in a moment. Let us just see what the Business Council of Australia had to say in the August Business Council Bulletin: Companies are currently reporting increases in profits which, expressed as a percentage increase over the previous period, look, in some cases, dramatic. The impression created, however, is misleading. We have been through a period of severe profit downturn. After the historically low profit performance of 1982 -83, the present upturn represents no more than a movement back towards average longer term levels. A period of sustained higher profitability is required to restore confidence on the part of businessmen that an adequate return can be obtained from business investment and greater business endeavour. . . . . An investment recovery is, in turn, essential if we are to achieve economic growth, rising real incomes, and most importantly, a significant reduction in our rate of unemployment. A little later on it states: To motivate and find finance for investment, businesses need to anticipate an after-tax return per dollar that exceeds the return obtainable on alternative, safer opportunities such as government securities. Yet this Government apparently believes that it is going to encourage investment and encourage real employment to be created in the wealth-creating areas of the economy by cutting out the investment allowance. As I have indicated in this chamber before, and let me indicate it again, an entirely different view is taken by the Opposition. The Opposition will, when it returns to government, not only maintain the investment allowance at 18 per cent, which it currently is-as I have said, the allowance is to be cut out by the present Government-but will increase it to 20 per cent during the life of its first parliament. We have looked at two of the areas of big business. Let us also look at what small business had to say about this Budget. The Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, in a media release on 21 August headed 'Election Year Budget Ignores Small Business', said: 'Government has not addressed itself to the impact of continuing Budget Deficits on the total economy in such areas as the total National Debt, increasing Public Debt interest payments, impact on interest rates and borrowing programs-COSBOA states Government should have entered into a commitment to reduce possible future Budget Deficits to a ''break-even'' point within the next 5 years or less without an increase in levels of real revenue receipts'. It goes on to comment about some other undesirable aspects, and states: 'All in all the present Government continues with its record of high taxation, based on a per capita basis; it had a golden opportunity through a significant economic recovery to introduce meaningful and responsible concessions to the Income Tax System'. We know the Government did not do that. As Sir John Moore and others have said, and I think is beyond any doubt, the Government was fortunate that its election to office coincided with the breaking of the drought in Australia. It coincided with the United States led world economic recovery and it coincided with the apparent benefit of the previous Government's wages pause. All of these factors gave the Government a tremendous economic start to be able to manage the affairs of this country and bring us back to a stage of real economic growth. I think the facts as to the reality of what the Government has managed to do to this country of ours speak for themselves. So often we hear great stories about what the Government has done, all the jobs it has created and what it claims it has been able to achieve. One of the first points that need to be made is that it is being a little rude to the State governments because all the State governments have job creation programs. Insofar as jobs have been created in Australia, it is significant that a large number of them have been created as a result of State government programs, not as a result of this Federal Labor Government's programs. If one looks at the overall picture of this country one sees it is little short of disastrous. Public sector borrowings as a result of high deficits are now estimated to reach $90 billion this year. The statistical section of the Parliamentary Library has calculated that that means an interest bill for the average taxpayer in Australia of $34 per week. That is, if one averages out the interest bill on $90 billion of public debt in Australia between all of the taxpayers it amounts to $34 per week for each and every taxpayer. We hear this Government claiming in relation to industrial disputes that there has been more harmony than ever before and that it has solved the problem of industrial disputes. The fact is that in July the number of workers involved in disputes was the highest for a very long period and was at a higher rate than the average rate for the whole of 1982, which is the last full year that the previous Government was in office. These are facts and every one of them can be sourced. We find that the latest statistics, published on 16 October this year, show that overseas investments have reached the lowest point for the past three years. A few days ago the Bureau of Agricultural Economics forecast an expected decline of 29 per cent in rural production for the year ending 1984-85. This is the wonderful picture that this Government tells us is the rosy future for Australia! Capital investment in Australia was 10 per cent lower in 1983-84 than it was in 1982-83. That is a fall of 10 per cent in capital investment as a result, one supposes, of the efforts of this present ALP socialist Government. On another indicator which could be relevant, since this Government has been in power the trend in relation to manufacturing production has continued downwards. The downward trend has now got to the stage where it has fallen below the line and for the June quarter of 1984 there was a fall in production of 0.7 per cent. Retail sales are another indicator of the success or otherwise of the economy. Seasonally adjusted retail sales are down 0.9 per cent for August 1984 on the figure for July 1984. That is, for the months of July and August, after talking into account seasonal adjustments, there has been a fall of nearly one per cent. A similar fall is reflected in the three months to the end of August 1984 compared with the three months to the end of May 1984. Throughout 1984 there has been the continuing problem of industrial disputes, growing to the July height. We find a continuing problem of public sector borrowings growing at a very rapid rate and a continuing fall in overseas investment. We have a forecast of a dramatic fall in rural production. We have had a fall in investment and yet the Government takes steps to discourage further investment. Manufacturing production and retail sales are going down. I could go on to look at a few more examples. Seasonally adjusted, the numbers of new motor vehicle registrations and motor vehicle sales are down approximately 6 per cent for August 1984 on the figures for July 1984. Again, that is an indicator of what is happening to the economy as a result of this Government's economic management. Average weekly earnings in Australia for the 12-month period to the end of June 1984 increased by 12.3 per cent. Taken together with part of the inflationary pressures from indexed increases in government charges, that can only mean that we are looking to what the Commonwealth Bank has recently referred to. It indicated that it saw a return of inflation as a real threat to Australia at the moment. The much vaunted claims about employment by the present Government do not bear investigation. In the real areas of productivity-agriculture, mining, manufacturing and transport associated with those areas-in the period in which this Government has been in power there has been a loss of over 50,000 jobs; that is, a net loss of over 50,000 jobs during the period that this Government has been what it calls job creating. What it has been doing is creating jobs with government money in the government sector or jobs associated with government expenditure, particularly in housing. I am not knocking the housing policy but what I am doing is identifying where the growth has taken place, and it has not taken place in the areas of real productivity. While this Government has been in power there has been a net loss of approximately 50,000 jobs in the productive, wealth creating areas of the community. These problems are recognised by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, who, on 17 October, stated: I think the economic recovery will continue in the somewhat patchy way it has into 1985 and probably into 1986 . . . as has been said in the context of this Congress already, that the Government will have very significant budgetary problems in 1985-and probably 1986. The figures which I am reading out certainly corroborate the Minister's concern. Let us look at Australia's comparative performance because again there has been a tendency to pluck some figures out of the air and pretend that they reflect what is really happening in the economy. Australia's unemployment rate is well above the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. In June 1983 Australia had an unemployment rate of 10.1 per cent; the OECD average was 8.8. In June 1984 Australia had an unemployment rate of 9.1 per cent whilst the OECD average was 8.1. Both unemployment rates have dropped but Australia's still continues to be significantly higher than the OECD average. The profit share of total receipts, which peaked at over 16 per cent in the March quarter of 1984, has since declined in the June quarter to well below 16 per cent. In comparison, the wage share of total receipts has increased from 62 per cent to 63.5 per cent. The savings ratio has continued to increase since the June quarter of 1983 from 13 per cent to 15 per cent a year later. This, of course, indicates that demand is still low and hence consumer spending is not generating economic activity. One can imagine that with the introduction of the assets test there will be a spending spree by people getting rid of their assets and this might change the savings ratio figure a little. We find that Australia' s wage earnings are the second highest in the major industrialised countries over the past 12 months, which underlines and emphasises our international lack of competitiveness. We hear extraordinary and differing statements from various sections of the Government about whether we should be internationally competitive or whether we should be running an economy which is solely ours. Those opinions vary within the Australian Labor Party. The Minister himself expresses one view while other people in his Party express entirely different views. One just does not know which policy is likely to be followed. Let us look at a comparison of growth rates, gross national product and unemployment so that we can see how badly Australia has done. In the past three months in the United States GNP has remained the same. In Australia the GNP growth rate has fallen from 10.1 to 9.4. The American economy is holding its growth rate, but the Australian economy is falling back. On the unemployment rate, in the United States the latest figure is 7.4 per cent, whereas a year ago it was 9.2 per cent. In Australia a year ago it was 10.2 per cent and it is now 8.9 per cent. There again, the fall has not been as significant as it has been in the United States. According to the Business Review Weekly, the main cause of inflation in Australia today is government sector goods and services. These rose in price by 11.6 per cent in 1983-84, while private sector prices rose by only 5 .1 per cent. Both of those figures exclude the health cost factor and therefore they are comparable in that way. There are so many of these alarming statistics that it is extremely frightening to hear Ministers and Government speakers lauding the Government for what it has succeeded in doing to the Australian economy. The figures I have quoted, unless I have sourced them separately, have come from the official record of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. With that in mind, I shall later move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85, which reads: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Hawke Government should be condemned for presenting a Budget which totally fails to take account of or to provide for the correction of the serious state of the economy, namely, that in Australia- (a) public debt in 1984-85 is estimated to be $90 billion, which involves an average interest bill of $34 per week for each taxpayer; (b) overseas investment is at its lowest level for the past three years; (c) the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has forecast an expected decline of 29 per cent in rural production in the year 1984-85; (d) private fixed capital investment in 1983-84 was 10 per cent lower than in 1982-83; (e) manufacturing production in the June quarter 1984 actually fell by 0.7 per cent, continuing a trend of decreasing growth over the past 18 months; (f) seasonally adjusted retail sales fell by 0.9 per cent in August 1984 compared to July 1984; (g) inflationary pressures arising from the indexed increases in government charges and from the fact that average weekly earnings for the 12-month period to the end of June 1984 increased by 12.3 per cent; (h) public sector employment and public sector funded employment has increased drastically while employment in the productive sectors of the economy such as agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and the associated area of transport has actually fallen by 50,000 during the term of the present Government; (i) Australia's unemployment rate remains above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average; and (j) the Government sector is the main cause of inflation in Australia; and (k) a widespread and justifiable fear exists in relation to severe increases in taxation in the event of the re-election of the Hawke Government'. I am told that Labor Ministers in State governments have confirmed that they expect and believe, on good information, that in the event of this Government being re-elected, there will be a mini-Budget introduced to increase taxation early in the new Parliament. I must bring my remarks to a conclusion in order to allow other speakers to take part in the debate because there has been a shortening of the total time available for this debate. There are a large number of matters to do with the Budget to which I would have liked to refer, but I shall move my amendment at the appropriate time. Senator Harradine —Why has the time been shortened? Senator PETER RAE —Because the Government and the Democrats have come to an arrangement to guillotine the debate on the Budget Bills. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.02) —I have just been informed that the Australian Democrats and the Government have made some sort of arrangement to guillotine this debate on the Budget Bills. I believe that that is a retrograde step. This is an opportunity that is available to members of parliament to exercise their representative functions and if such action is proposed, it is a denial of the right of parliamentarians to exercise those rights on behalf of the people who elected them. The events of the last month or so have given Australians much food for thought . First, of course, there was the Budget and the Bills implementing that are being dealt with today. There was the widespread debate on organised crime and questions arose as to whether the central figures in organised crime were being allowed to slip through the fingers of justice. Questions arose as to whether young people, particularly, were being exploited and exposed to unnecessary dangers. There was unfortunately an undue emphasis by the media generally on the family affairs of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I must say that I never talk about the family affairs of even the most public persons, but I do express concern at the type of media treatment that was meted out to the Prime Minister. In that respect I feel sympathy for him. There is no doubt that the tears he shed at the time were the result of a genuine outpouring of emotion caused by pressure on his own family. As far as I am concerned, he is no less of a man or a leader for that. But before it is all over many other parents will have cause to weep about the situation facing young people today. I believe the time has come to recognise that many of the pressures on young people are permitted by the failure of governments or parliaments to act and by their failure to support parents. The fact is that parents are parenting in a largely unresponsive society. That is reflected by the failure of successive governments to take measures to protect young people from unnecessary exposure to enormous pressure. Let me just give honourable senators one example. When the Government amended the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations to legalise for the first time the entry of hard core pornography into this country, I pointed out that it also deliberately removed the power of Customs officers to prevent the importation of publications pushing the use of hard drugs. When I pointed this out in the Senate on 2 May, the record shows that Government senators said I was not telling the truth. Fortunately, I had a document officially issued under the authority of the Attorney-General's Department which indicated that publications could be imported which 'consistently incite the use of hard drugs'. Some weeks later the Attorney-General admitted that what I had said was correct, and he took steps to bring in an amendment. The point of that example is that many things are being done by the Government at the behest of a trendy and libertine element that has become influential in the Labor Party to the detriment of society, particularly to its young people. Whether or not the Prime Minister or government members as a whole have at last woken up will be tested by whether the Government is prepared to place a moratorium as requested by the Senate on the importation of objectionable publications and videos, which are incapable of meeting the 'reasonable adult person' test, pending the outcome of the Senate Select Committee which has been established to investigate video materials. Another test will surely be whether there is sufficient will on the part of the Government, supported by a concerned community, to track down the key figures in organised crime and to generate sufficient admissable evidence against them to ensure that they are put behind bars. A further and most effective test of the Government's concern for youth is whether it will effectively face the challenge of disgracefully high youth unemployment, and provide the moral and economic support for families which social justice demands. Now, we have the announcement of the election date. The campaigning has started , but we should not let the campaigning of the political parties obscure the real issues challenging the Australian people, particularly the youth. I listened to comments made earlier this morning by Senator Hamer. It appears that people have not grasped the importance of the youth unemployment problem or what I pointed to last Thursday. The real issues are not being faced up to. At present we are in an election mode and on the one hand a rosy picture is being painted of Australia and on the other hand there is a dark picture. But if one is unemployed, one can hardly get into that picture. If one has a niggling fear that 1985 will see cherished values and community standards further undermined, one is censored. The debate on video material received very little publicity. The debate on youth unemployment last week-which is a vital issue-received very little media coverage. I believe that one of the dangers, as we lead up to the election, is the raising of false expectations, which could condemn people to frustration and eventual disillusionment when the expectations are not realised. Let us acknowledge that we have an unacceptably high structure of unemployment problem remaining with us. For years the previous Liberal Government kept saying that as the economy picked up, unemployment would recede. Now, the Labor Government is falling into the same trap. Of course, one must attend to the economic factors. One must also acknowledge that, unfortunately, Australia does not have the population for a self-sufficient, self-generating economy. There is a need to make efforts in the economic area. But for years I have been warning that unless we realise that the problem of unemployment has a social as well as an economic aspect we will not get near to solving it. Senator Hamer stated that neither the Government nor I has directed our attention to the real problem of unemployment which, broadly stated, he said was the problem of youth wages and, I think, penalty rates. Of course, it is a nonsense to imply that that is the real problem. He mentioned one other matter-the low participation rate of youth in education. But given all those three factors there would still be a massive problem of youth unemployment, and studies which have been done all bear this out. Let us look at the question of youth wages. It is just simply a scapegoat. Let us analyse it so far as the Public Service is concerned-the matter that I raise today and raised last week. The employment of youth as a percentage of total employment in the Australian Public Service has fallen to an all-time low. Youth , 15 to 19 years of age inclusive, represent a mere 4.2 per cent of the total work force in the Public Service. I use the group 15 to 19 years inclusive because that is the group used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Public Service Board seems to define youth as being 15 to 20 years old inclusive . It should be borne in mind that in 1966 that group comprised 22.6 per cent of Public Service staff. That figure fell to 12.2 per cent in 1974, and fell further to an all-time low of 6.7 per cent as at 31 December last year-the latest figures available. Has that got anything to do with youth wages in the Public Service? Of course it has not. The ratio of youth wages to adult wages over that period in the Public Service has remained virtually static. It has nothing to do with the level of youth wages at all. When I raised the crisis question of youth unemployment in the Public Service today as a matter which required the urgent attention of the Senate so that we could express an opinion to the Government and ask the Government to instruct the Public Service Board to desist from it discriminatory treatment of youth, I received no support at all from Senator Hamer, from the Opposition, or from any Government senator. Let us put that scapegoat attempt concerning youth wages to rest. I will quote Mr Justice Macken of the New South Wales Industrial Commission on this matter to further put it to rest if what I have said already has not done so. In an article which appears at page 248 of the Journal of Industrial Relations of June 1984, Mr Justice Macken, in talking of casual and part time employment, which again is another panacea that is pointed to for overcoming the unemployment problem of youth, said: As such practices grow, and as overtime diminishes, the shrinking volume of work has to be shared by an ever-growing workforce. It is one thing to try for a short period to tolerate employment of 10 per cent or thereabouts-it is a different proposition to accept a permanent unemployment level going up each year from a 10 per cent platform. Ten per cent unemployment is socially unacceptable, and no society will long survive even 10 per cent unemployment. With an ageing workforce, as we have in Australia, the position ahead appears almost hopeless, as a dwindling workforce, with dwindling wages, has to maintain an ever-increasing dependent social sector. The social conflict generated already is instructive in the lessons it provides as to how such difficulties should be handled. Two examples will suffice. It is argued that junior rates are too high and prevent the effective employment of juniors, leading to their constituting an artificially high percentage of the unemployed. But the contrary argument is that, if you reduce the junior rates in order to encourage their employment, those jobs will be taken from the adult, breadwinning sector of the workforce. Mr Justice Macken continued: Another example is illustrated by the presence in the workforce of large numbers of married women. No one would argue with the proposition that married women have the right to work, but I find it hard to accept that a married woman who chooses not to go to work under a master/servant employment contract, of the type so rapidly disappearing, but who remains at home is not performing socially desirable work. This is particularly so when her presence in the workforce will be at the expense of another bread-winner. It is one thing to recognise the rights of women to work, but it is a quite different matter to recognise a social system that compels women to work who could be at home performing the doubly desirable social function of housewife and mother. What Mr Justice Macken pointed to was quite clear. Simply stated the problem of unemployment is that at the moment there are more people in work or seeking paid work than there are jobs available, at the same time as new technology is slashing job opportunities. Yet the Government -not only this Government but also previous governments-continues with policies which force people to stay in the paid work force when for better reasons those people could be out of the very jobs which could be taken by the unemployed. This applies to those who want to retire but cannot. There are many people in this category. Last week I stated the percentage of those who desire to retire even before reaching 60 years of age is increasing despite the fact that they would experience a substantial drop in their standard of living. There should be positive policies which would encourage persons who desire to retire to do so-not force them into retirement- and which would ensure that they would not experience a substantial decline in their standard of living. That is the problem which the work force faces at present and surely those policies would alleviate the situation of unemployment. There are mothers with dependent children who, given a true freedom of economic choice, would leave the paid work force. As Mr Justice Macken indicated, no person should be compelled to leave the paid work force. Neither should any family be forced, by economic pressures, to have both partners in the work force to the detriment of the family. That is what is happening at present. Mr Justice Macken suggests it is quite a different matter to recognise a social system that compels women to work who could be at home performing the doubly desirable social function of housewife and mother. The policies which exist at present, which impose an enormous burden on young people who are setting up a house and home, who face the enormous burden of mortgage repayments and so on, are preventing a number of people from exercising a true freedom of choice. No one could accuse me of being discriminatory against women in the work force. I took on one of the very first equal pay test cases in Australia. When I was a member of the Executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions I supported the Executive recommendation at the congress for equal pay for work of equal value, against, I might add, the pro-communist left proposition that it should be equal pay for equal work. If one analyses the differences in those two propositions one will see that our proposition was more favourable to women and enabled more women to receive equal pay. The result of this pressure on the participation rate in the work force is that one in every four of our young people cannot get work. In my State of Tasmania the situation is even worse. Thirty-three per cent of males aged 15 to 19 years in the metropolitan area of Hobart cannot get work. An announcement has been made that job opportunities on the west coast will further diminish because of the problems that are being experienced in the mining industry in that area. The situation is nothing less than scandalous. I believe genuine family support policies and a recognition of the economic value and social importance of the home-maker are urgently needed to create the true freedom of choice which is needed to release jobs, particularly for young girls. But apparently the priorities of the Government are elsewhere. The proposed human rights Bill will not create one additional job. I heard Senator Durack talk about the proposed Bill of Rights which the Attorney-General intends to introduce. I have had a good deal to say about that proposed Bill of Rights. I remind honourable senators that the Attorney-General has been significantly coy about what will be contained in that Bill of Rights. This is particularly interesting because in a newsletter issued in February of this year Senator Evans stated that his major single objective for 1984 was the enactment of the Australian Bill of Rights. I know what was contained in the Murphy Bill of Rights previously. It did not please me and I am sure it did not please many people because one change involved the family and its protection. Article 23 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. That was completely omitted from the previous Murphy-Evans Bill. So were certain provisions of Article 13 which protect parents' rights of freedom of choice in education. The right to life provision in Article 6 also underwent some subtle rewriting. Why does the Attorney-General not come out now and tell the people exactly what he proposes to include in the Bill of Rights? Tomorrow morning the Attorney-General will be going to Hobart to open the law courts. I will not be able to be present because Parliament is sitting and I cannot get a pair. When working in the Hobart Trades Hall in 1974 as the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council Secretary little did I realise that 10 years later that building would house the Family Court of Australia. The Family Court did not even exist at the time. It was established, as everyone knows, in 1975 as a result of the passage of the Family Law Act, which was the brainchild of the former Attorney-General, now Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. Surely it is time to reflect on what has happened since the Family Law Act became operative on 5 January 1976. There were 355,010 divorces from 1976 to 1983, involving nearly half a million children. The incidence of marriage breakdown rose significantly during the last half of the 1970s and remains high. Forty per cent of all new marriages in Australia will end in failure, based on the 1983 divorce rate. The cost of marriage breakdown to the taxpayer this year is expected to be in excess of $1.2 billion. In 1983, $758m was paid out in widows' pensions. Well over half of those pensions are paid to divorcees. That represents an increase of 180 per cent since 1975. Of the recipients of the supporting parent's benefit in 1983, 68.6 per cent were deserted wives and de factos, a 300 per cent increase since 1975. Very few in our society would begrudge the payment of those moneys, particularly in view of the trauma, dislocation and distress experienced by those involved. However, the stark fact is that a major cause of poverty in Australia today is the consequences of marriage breakdown. The law does little or nothing to help people live up to their marriage promises and commitments. Judges and staff of the Family Court have the unenviable task of administering a law which fails to reflect the concept of justice for the ordinary person. Honourable senators should note the words of the former South Australian Chief Judge, Dr J. Bray, in his address a week ago to the National Society of Labor Lawyers in Adelaide, which Mr Justice Murphy attended. He said: I cannot see why the contract of marriage should be the only contract the breach of which is not only not penalised but positively rewarded. It is always dangerous when the law departs from the ordinary conception of justice-those of the ordinary man in the street. During my years at the old Trades Hall I settled many an industrial dispute by bringing the parties together to consider the legal, social and financial consequences of the dispute. Honourable senators will recall that I attempted to do precisely the same thing in the marriage area last year when I sought to have amendments passed to the family law legislation which would have had the effect of requiring separated marriage partners contemplating divorce to attend an early meeting with a marriage counsellor for the purpose of considering the legal, social and financial aspects of the marriage dissolution and also possible reconciliation. Whilst acknowledging the merit of that proposal, the Government refused to support the move. It is nothing short of a national scandal that the tragedy of divorce is ignored by a Parliament which fails to give genuine legislative support to the fundamental institution of our society- marriage and the family. I foreshadow an amendment to the motion for the second reading. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(12.31) —The appropriation Bills we are considering are the result of some new directions being taken by this Government , some directions which are continuing from previous governments and, regrettably, very few new directions, despite the prodding and support which will be given to those new directions by the Australian Democrats. One has to look a little more deeply than the Budget Papers and the appropriation Bills before the Senate at the moment to discover why there is a lack of interest in the new areas, a lack of involvement in legislation which would bring to this Parliament a new approach for Australia, for our economy and for the people in this country. Regrettably, when looking for reasons, when one goes deeply enough into what is happening in Australian politics, one can draw no other conclusion than that for some time now the political parties have been heading towards a new conservatism. I refer to the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party. When one reads the Budget and the appropriation Bills before us one could quite easily make the mistake of believing that this is a Liberal-National Party Budget and these are Liberal-National Party appropriation Bills. What seems to have happened is that, on achieving government, the Labor Party has become as conservative, as stagnant and as backward-looking as was its predecessor. The effect is that we now have what amounts to an indistinguishable Liberal-Labor dominated Parliament. If we look to the reason for that we have to go back to studying the political parties. Just at the time when there is a diminishing pressure on the Labor Party from the Left of that Party there is a strengthening pressure on the Liberal Party from its Right. So we discover that effectively we now have in this Parliament two kinds of politicians. On the one hand, we have conservative politicians, the politicians of stagnation who are afraid to move into the 1980s, many of whom are still debating the problems of the 1950s when they first entered Parliament. On the other hand, we have a relatively small number-nevertheless, they represent a very large number of Australians-who may be termed radical or reformist politicians. These politicians are endeavouring to bring Australia into the 1980s, to prepare us for the challenges of the 1990s . I put it to honourable senators that the Australian Democrats are at the forefront of that movement. We are giving the lead to this Government just as we gave it to the previous government. But that lead is being picked up too slowly by the government of the day. The difficulty that the present Government has is that so many of its members and supporters seem to believe that radicalism equates with either socialism or the dries' version of conservatism. Of course, to equate it with the sort of Whitlamesque socialism would be anathema to the pragmatists in the Labor Party. Whitlam made some tragic errors between 1972 and 1975 but at least one must give him credit for being prepared to try to bring Australia into the 1970s. Senator Peter Rae —John Gorton had already done that. Senator JACK EVANS —Indeed, John Gorton, to give credit to a small 'l' liberal, did endeavour to bring Australia up to date when he was Prime Minister. Regrettably, the forces on John Gorton were even stronger than the forces within his Party on Gough Whitlam; he was unable to achieve his objective just as Gough Whitlam was unable to achieve his; the forces of pragmatism played their part on both of them. Pragmatism to politicians of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party means getting oneself re-elected. It has to be the number one priority. Radicalism is simply adapting to our environment and recognising and planning for the probable environment of the future. That is the role of the Australian Democrats and a few other parliamentarians, I am very happy to add, from the Liberal Party and the Labor Party-but a very small minority in each of those parties. We have seen a change in the electorate. It has been interesting to watch how that change has been picked up by the politicians in their Budgets. The changes seem to have been from an attitude in the 1960s and 1970s of 'How much can I take from the system?' to a reversal of that in many people in the 1980s, to an acceptance of some sense of responsibility. It was recognised by parliaments in the late 1970s and more so in the 1980s that there was a growing disenchantment with tax avoiders and tax evaders. Malcolm Fraser was the first to recognise this and to take advantage of this changed attitude and these changed values of Australians when he introduced his first bottom of the harbour legislation. He took the first step towards outlawing tax evasion and making tax avoidance socially unacceptable. Another change that we have seen in the sense of responsibility of Australians has been an awareness and an acceptance of the responsibility for the plight of unemployed and socially disadvantaged people. The term 'dole bludger', which was coined in the 1970s and accepted by many Australians as an excuse for sitting back and doing nothing about the unemployed, in the 1980s has been accepted as an area of responsibility which we all share. One would expect, therefore, that in an election in 1984 unemployment would be the number one item on the political agenda in the election campaign. But, of course, it has been buried by a fatuous taxation debate about which we will be speaking a little later in the day. The new values in the 1980s include a responsibility for our environment-not to exploit the environment for what we can take out of it today, but a responsibility for what we will leave to future generations. This is not necessarily an acceptance right across the nation, but there is a growing recognition of the responsibility that all Australians should have for our environment. There is a growing recognition of the need to share the limited number of jobs available. Regrettably, recognition of that responsibility has not yet got through to the trade union leaders who continue to exploit their strength and their domination over this Government to get better salaries, wages or take home pay for those who are employed and to ignore totally the plight of the unemployed who are not part of the system. Again, we will see this as part of the big tax debate which will leave three million Australians totally ignored in this election campaign while we talk about how much more we can give to employed people and pretend that we do not have a problem with unemployment. The values of today include a recognition of the potential disaster to the people on this earth and to the earth itself of the nuclear holocaust. A growing number of people are expressing their concern and accepting their responsibilities as Australian citizens and citizens of the world to work and to fight for nuclear disarmament, to try to get the message through to the leaders of this nation and of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that the people of the world are not content to sit back and allow proliferation of nuclear weapons any one of which could trigger off the literal end of mankind as we know it. New values also embrace an acceptance of the responsibility of the whole community for the health and safety of all of our people-not just those who are within our immediate family or work group, but the whole community. People are starting to recognise that there is a tragedy in occupational health which has grown and grown in this country. It is a tragedy for every person who is injured on the job. Although people may be compensated financially, their health can never be compensated for the disability which they suffer as a result of this. We are starting to recognise that we have a responsibility to the younger generation, not to lead those young people into an unhealthy lifestyle, not to tempt them, encourage them or entice them to take up smoking, not to try to persuade them that the way to adulthood is to become a big alcohol consumer, and to try not just to shelter them but to guide them into adulthood with different messages from those that they get from the advertisers of some of these products . The new values also embrace a recognition-something which we accepted the responsibility for decades ago but which we seem to have abandoned in recent years in a very high proportion of our population-that we owe it to ourselves as a people and as individuals to care for the aged, to care for the disabled and to care for the young people in Australia-not just in financial terms; not just by dollar handouts in the form of an age pension, a youth unemployment benefit or a pension for the handicapped. Far more than that, we owe it to these people as well as to ourselves to recognise that we have a responsibility to help them to have a lifestyle which is acceptable to them, and not to put them into some hidden place out of the way, unrecognised and therefore not accepted as a responsibility of the whole nation. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I note that a meeting is scheduled for this week between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions to discuss the future of the prices and incomes accord. On what basis will matters affecting taxation policy be discussed in view of the Government's public no policy stance on all tax matters until the completion of the review by the Economic Planning Advisory Council? When is the EPAC report expected to be received by the Government? Senator BUTTON —A meeting has been scheduled between the ACTU and the Government for some time now, as there will be other meetings in respect of the future of the prices and incomes accord. To the best of my knowledge at this stage there is no scheduled agenda for that meeting. I will make inquiries regarding that and give the honourable senator an answer as soon as possible. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed also to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and I refer to the Opposition's taxation policy released yesterday . How will the Opposition's proposal affect the Government's economic policy? Has the Minister made any assessment of how- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator ROBERTSON —I am not surprised that there is amusement on the Opposition side of the chamber. We are talking about the Opposition's economic policy; that is enough to amuse anyone. Has the Minister made any assessment as to how workable the Opposition's 'policies' are? Is it true that the Opposition has proposed an inquiry into taxation? Senator BUTTON —The Government's economic policy will not be affected by the Opposition's announced taxation policy. Indeed, the Government's economic policies of the last 18 months have not been affected by outpourings from the Opposition. That is a very good thing for the country. However, the Government has had the chance to conduct preliminary examinations of the Opposition's taxation policy. I repeat for the benefit of honourable senators that the Government has promised a review of the taxation system. I have mentioned that on one or two other occasions in the Senate in the course of this week. That is being done because there is a need for fundamental reforms. If we are to succeed with the implementation and improvement of the equity of the Australian taxation system, we need to reach a community consensus about the desirable changes. The Government will be conducting a full ranging inquiry for that purpose. I make the point that the Liberal Party of Australia singularly failed to do that in any of the utterances it made about any policy matters during its period in government. Of course, what we have seen with the announced taxation policy yesterday is a further tinkering with the taxation system. Presumably, if this Opposition were ever elected to government, those things would be imposed on the Australian people without any added discussion. In fact, yesterday we got from the Opposition a policy which was totally unspecific. There were no figures, no adequate costing, no timetables-nothing. All we got were some ideas and wishful thinking in the Opposition's policy-what the Opposition might like to do if budgetary circumstances permitted. Of course, budgetary circumstances would not permit, when we look at the enormous program of expenditure which this Opposition proposes. What in fact did the Opposition promise yesterday? It promised income tax splitting and some form of indirect taxation. I will look briefly first at the question of income tax splitting. The full cost of that would be $2.2 billion. Even a limitation of incomes to be split at $18,000 would cost $1.5 billion. Of course, the question is how the Opposition would pay for that. We are told that the way the Opposition would pay for it is by introducing a system of indirect taxation. Any other tax proposals would have to be huge in their effects. Even if a $2 billion increase in indirect tax were brought in to pay for that income tax splitting proposal, it would have the effect of raising the average household cost of living by about $8 a week. That would be the imposition on Australian households. Taxpayers would be slugged with a $8 a week tax increase to pay for income splitting. As the Treasurer has already pointed out, that would be of more benefit to higher income earners such as the Treasurer, Mr Howard, Opposition senators and senators on this side of the chamber. Such people would benefit much more than low income earners. The Opposition is not even sure about the indirect tax proposal which it makes because it is going to have an inquiry into one aspect of the taxation system. It is not going to have a comprehensive inquiry as has been advocated by numerous people in the community. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is a clear provision of the Standing Orders that the Minister shall not debate the question. The Opposition is providing a chance for the Government to debate the question after Question Time. The Leader of the Government is squibbing on the opportunity to take part in that debate. I simply say that if we are going to allow the Leader of the Government in the Senate to turn Question Time into a debate, we should at least allow equal time for the Opposition. This is an absolute absurdity. He is misquoting the Opposition's policy laid down yesterday. He is selectively quoting from it but, most importantly, he is misquoting. It is a pathetic performance from a man who has been inviting a more rational tax debate. It flies in the face of everything he has chided the Opposition about. He should be ruled out of order and sat down. Senator Button —Mr President- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Button, do you wish to speak on the point of order ? Senator Button —Yes, Mr President. Just briefly, I wish to say that I resent the charge of squibbing from Senator Chaney. He can have me on any time he wants. I suggest that we have a meeting at-- Senator Chaney —This is more important than you. The PRESIDENT —Order! I will rule on the point of order. In accordance with long established practice, there is a bit of elasticity allowed by the Standing Orders at election time. I am allowing a certain amount of elasticity, but I ask Senator Button not to debate the matter too much. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Are you allowing the Senate to be a little pregnant or are you going to apply the Standing Orders? The PRESIDENT —I call Senator Button. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, with great respect to your ruling, I say that if there is any elasticity in this chamber it is in the Opposition's fears on its taxation proposals and, indeed, on its election promises. The point I was making is that the question of comprehensive review of the taxation system has been an issue in this Senate for two weeks now. The Opposition is proposing an inquiry into which of three forms of indirect taxation it would introduce. These are the very things it criticised the Government about. I make the point that the arithmetic of the Opposition's proposal does not add up. It is already stuck with a structural deficit problem amounting to $2.5 billion and there is no explanation of how these tax proposals will fit into this proposal. Ultimately the issue the Australian people will have to judge is the credibility of both parties in government in respect of these issues. I mean both parties in Government because I am referring also to the Opposition's record in government. After all, it was the Opposition that in 1977 introduced the fist full of dollars and the dial a tax cut into the Australian political scene. That tax cut was withdrawn five months later. That is the Opposition's credibility on taxation issues. The vast majority of Australian taxpayers-not people receiving incomes at the level we receive-will get a tax cut on 1 November this year of $7 .60 a week. That will not be withdrawn by the Hawke Government, just as other undertakings have not been withdrawn in the course of the period we have been in government. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —Mr President, obviously those things are unpalatable to members of the Opposition. I will give them a respite from their pains for a moment. Senator HAMER —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister, not about what may be withdrawn but about what may be added. I refer to the Minister's admission that a capital gains tax would be considered if the Australian Labor Party won the election, and the Prime Minister's claim that the family home would be excluded from the tax. I ask the Minister: Will the Government also be considering an annual net wealth tax and death duties, and will the family home be excluded from these? Senator BUTTON —On a number of occasions in the Senate I have said that the Government favours a comprehensive review of the taxation system. If ever a need for a comprehensive review of the Australian taxation system has emerged, it is now, when irresponsible political figures in the Opposition float the crazy sorts of taxation policies which have been floated in the last 24 hours. When a comprehensive review of the taxation system takes place, all aspects of taxation will be considered because that review will be directed towards providing greater equity in the Australian taxation system. Australian taxpayers, particularly pay as you earn taxpayers, know that they have been very severely treated by governments over the last few years, and it has got progressively worse. In any review of the taxation system the question of equity and fairness will be the prime concern of the Government. If the Opposition is of the view that certain aspects of the taxation system should not even be thought about, without in any way presuming to say what would arise from that inquiry, in the view of this Government that is a wrong view. Senator HAMER —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Do I understand the Minister's answer to my question to be yes? Senator BUTTON —I have said I think on 20 occasions in the Senate that, if we have a comprehensive review of the Australian taxation system, a wide range of issues will have to be considered, and the agenda will not be composed solely by the Government because the consultative mechanisms that this Government has used and which the Opposition has never understood have reflected a wide range of community views in any discussions on these matters. For example, yesterday at a Liberal Party meeting Mr Hugh Morgan said that in his view capital gains taxes should be on the agenda for any wide-ranging review of the taxation system. This Government cannot ignore in any comprehensive review consideration of those matters, and it will not ignore them. Senator Chaney —Try them on a resource rent tax. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney says to try them on a resource rent tax. We will, in the context of any comprehensive review of the taxation system. I would not get particularly excited about any of these things. If we look at what has been said about the taxation system in this country by the most distinguished commentators over a number of years, including reports commissioned by Liberal Party governments, we find that there is a continued call for a full review of the taxation system. That is what we are going to do. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Will you accept all the recommendations? Senator BUTTON —I do not know what the recommendations will be. I will not preclude any acceptance or otherwise of those things. Senator TATE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of reported statements by the Tasmanian Minister for Transport, Mr Roger Groom, that the choice of the new Bass Strait passenger ferry, Nils Holgersson, might have been different had the Tasmanian Government known at the time that it was to run the service and bear any financial loss incurred? Does he acknowledge the substance of Mr Groom's allegation? What are the facts behind the agreement reached between the Federal and Tasmanian governments? Is Mr Groom to be allowed to mimic his Premier, who apparently believes that agreements between the Tasmanian and Federal governments are to be ignored or misrepresented? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware of reports published in some newspapers that cast doubts on the suitability of the new vessel, the Nils Holgersson, which has been purchased for the purpose of providing a passenger service across Bass Strait. These reports have certainly caused some consternation and surprise at the Commonwealth Government level, having regard to the facts surrounding the purchase of the vessel. If Mr Groom is reported correctly, it would appear that he is following a similar path to that taken by many other Ministers in the State of Tasmania-his public position is completely incomprehensible. The Nils Holgersson was recommended as a suitable vessel for the Bass Strait service following a joint study of a team consisting of Commonwealth, Australian National Line and Transport Tasmania officials. In Mr Groom's telex of 9 April this year he conveyed the Tasmanian Government's request for Federal Government financial assistance for the introduction of this vessel, and stated that the Tasmanian Government accepted the joint study report and its recommendations as to the suitability of the vessel. On the basis of that request the Commonwealth Government provided a grant of $26m to the Tasmanian Government towards the capital cost of introducing the Nils Holgersson into the Tasmanian passenger service. This grant was accepted by the Tasmanian Government on 9 May without any reservations as to the vessel's suitability or otherwise for the service. Since that time the Tasmanian Government has not raised any doubts or criticisms about the purchase of the vessel or its suitability for that run. Nor had it indicated, until Mr Groom made his statement, that it was unhappy with the agreement made with the Commonwealth or the financial assistance which I believe the Australian Government has been generously able to supply towards the cost of the vessel. So it does appear that Mr Groom is following the path of the Tasmanian Government. It is a government of knockers, and is recognised as such. From the Premier down, whatever relationships they have with the Commonwealth Government they always find some reason to try to apportion part of the blame to the Commonwealth. However, in this particular case there is absolutely no justification for it at all because the introduction of this vessel was the result of an agreement properly entered into between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments. Senator HARRADINE —Does the Minister for Industry and Commerce recall the Senate Select Committee on the Operations of the Mount Lyell Company which consisted of former Senators Wright and Everett and Senator Grimes, Senator Townley, Senator Messner and myself, which recognised that if the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd closed down it would have devastating effects on employment in Queenstown and indeed the whole of the west coast? Is the Minister aware that the Renison Goldfields Consolidated Ltd Mount Lyell operation has lost $4.8m in the past six months and that the company has indicated that, unless substantial assistance is received to change mining operations, there will be a closure as early as the end of next year? What response can the Minister give to this very real problem being experienced by the people of the west coast of Tasmania? Senator BUTTON —I am sorry, I do not recall any of the precise details of the Senate committee on which Senator Harradine and others sat, but I suppose the important point is the conclusion to which Senator Harradine adverted in his question. We have received no request from the Goldfields company for any particular assistance in respect of the operations of the Mount Lyell mine. Certainly I am unaware of any request having been received; it may have been directed to another Minister, but I do not know of that. If such a request is received we will examine it on its merits. I certainly concur with the implications of the question Senator Harradine raised about the importance of that mine to employment and so on and to the infrastructure on the west coast of Tasmania. I will have the matter examined and try to get the honourable senator a further answer in due course. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is also addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask whether, in respect of indirect taxation, Mr Howard told the Parliament in 1981: The arguments for a change included greater community sensitivity towards personal income tax, being, as it is, the most visible form of taxation. I ask the Minister what he understands by this. Is it just another way of saying that we can introduce indirect taxes more easily because people pay them as they buy goods and they are concealed in price rises? Is it possible, therefore, that the Liberals' tax policy is just a cunning way to make people pay for their outrageous promises? Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether it is a particularly cunning way of making people pay for the Liberals' outrageous promises. Their outrageous promises are there for everybody to see. I think people are very aware of the consequences of indirect taxes of the kind suggested in the question. Senator Withers —Who put on the wine tax? Senator BUTTON —Who put on the wine tax and who will take it off? Mr Peacock or Mr Howard? They cannot agree. Mr Peacock wants to take it off and Mr Howard wants to leave it on, so I do not know what advice we should accept from the Opposition on that issue. The statement referred to in Senator Zakharov's question is a candid admission by the discredited former Treasurer, made in 1981 and not mentioned in Liberal Party policy in 1984. It is in sharp contrast to the Government's quite open approach to a comprehensive review of the taxation system in this country, an inquiry into all taxation matters and our attempts to develop, as we have with other issues, a community consensus on this issue. There will be no stealth in this Government's approach to taxation questions. Senator Chaney —Ha! What are you doing now? Senator BUTTON —We are promising a comprehensive review of the taxation system, which the Liberal Government did not do in seven years. In Opposition it is still tinkering with aspects of the taxation system and ignoring the very fundamental issues which have to be faced up to. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows that asked by Senator Zakharov. I ask whether the Hawke Government indexed excise duty so that it is increased twice a year without reference to this Parliament. I further ask the Leader of the Government whether he will give a firm undertaking that should the Hawke Government be re-elected it will not increase indirect tax or broaden the application of indirect tax in Australia. Senator BUTTON —So far as the first aspect of the question is concerned, yes, the Government did provide for indexation of excise duty. I contrast that with the behaviour of the previous Government which whacked on excises in various Budgets , took them off in the next Budget, and put them on again in the one after-a totally incoherent manner of behaviour in respect of excise duties. I also remind the Opposition that when we are talking about inflation the Opposition and the people of Australia should remember that when it went out of office the inflation rate in this country was nearly twice what it is today. We have nearly halved the inflation rate in 18 months in government. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I suggest that the Leader of the Government is getting a little more pregnant than he should be. No part of the question was directed to the level of inflation. I asked him a clear and simple question about whether we could have an undertaking that should the Hawke Government be re-elected there would be no increase in indirect taxes or a broadening of the tax base. The PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition knows that I cannot direct the Minister to answer questions in the way in which he might like them answered. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney perhaps does not remember, but his question was in two parts. I was dealing with the first part, which was asked in the context of the effects of indexation of excise on inflation. Senator Chaney —I did not maintain that. Senator BUTTON —Yes, you did. With respect to the second part of the question, as to whether the Government will give a firm undertaking that in the next period of government there will be no increase in indirect taxes under a Hawke government, let me say this: We have said on a number of occasions in the Senate that we will have a comprehensive review of the Australian taxation system. It is inconceivable to me, if only because the Opposition is so concerned to impose indirect taxes on the Australian people, that that subject would not be addressed in the context of a comprehensive review of the Australian taxation system. One thing I can say is that in the course of that review this Government will be very concerned about the inflationary impact of anything it does, as it has been in the last 18 months. It will be very concerned to see that there is no introduction of indirect taxes which would be regressive in respect of low income earners. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women whether she has seen Nicholson's cartoon in today's Age which illustrates a relatively poor working family with four children. The husband is saying: 'My wife has to work to make ends meet'. Also illustrated is an obviously rich family with the breadwinner saying: 'My wife will have to stay at home to make ends split'. What would be the impact on women, especially those in low income families, of any proposals to introduce income splitting for employees for tax purposes? Senator RYAN —Insofar as it is possible to make any comment on the proposal, it is clear that this proposal, like all of the tax proposals coming from the Opposition, would mainly favour high income wage earners who had a stay-at-home spouse. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, yesterday drew attention to the fact that, should such a proposal be implemented, he or any of us on a high income with a stay-at-home spouse would benefit much more than a person on a low income with a stay-at-home spouse. Senator Grimes —Mr Howard agreed with him. Senator RYAN —As Senator Grimes has pointed out, Mr Howard agreed with Mr Keating's analysis, as he would have to, because all the proposals of this ilk that come from the Opposition are framed in terms which favour the high income earners in our community. We are interested in a review of the taxation system which our Leader, Senator Button, has described yet again to the Opposition, in order to create a more just and equitable system, in order to create systems of taxation which do not discriminate against low income earners and low income families, whether they be two income or single income families or whether they be families with no wage at all. There is a very large number of such families at this stage-families which have to live on the dependent parent's rebate and whose circumstances are completely ignored by a proposal such as this. The Opposition's proposals ignore current trends in the Australian work force. For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey on Australian families in 1982 found that 65 per cent of married women with dependent children were in the labour force or wanted a job; that 54 per cent of married women with children four years of age or under were in the labour force or wanted a job; that 72 per cent of married women with children aged five to 14 years were in the labour force or wanted a job. In the face of this clear statement of what Australian women want, the Liberal Party's proposal, which would provide a disincentive for women, particularly those with the opportunity to earn only a low income, to participate in the labour force, is really quite incomprehensible . Under the income splitting proposal a married woman who considers entering the work force would have to take into account the additional tax incurred by her husband as a result of a decision to enter the work force. That disincentive may be offset in some ways for those with young children by the proposal, still very vague, for a child care rebate. The increase in the disincentive for married women to enter the paid work force would impact most on low income families because in those families women tend to make a larger contribution to the combined income of the family. The proposal offers nothing to single women and women in couples without dependent children. As with all the Opposition's tax policies, their direction is to favour those on higher incomes. Senator Chaney —Will the Minister please table the document from which she has quoted? Senator RYAN —Happily. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security and concerns the plight of the 300,000 children of the Australian unemployed. Is the Minister aware that social workers in the field regard the low level of assistance to these children as a major national problem resulting in a massive region of deprivation and even malnutrition, with appalling consequences for the future? Is it a fact that, when the dole and family allowance payments are taken into account, a one-child family is required to feed, house and clothe the child for a total amount of $19.70 a week and a two-child family for $20.92 per child? Assuming the most minimal costs for clothing and accommodation are deducted from this, does the Minister believe a child can be provided with a balanced and healthy diet for the $2 or so a day remaining? If so, will the Minister issue a statement recommending a healthy, $2 a day diet for a child? If not, will he undertake to institute an immediate inquiry into this area of need, with the objective of alleviating it as soon as possible? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware, as I believe every senator should be, that among the most deprived people in the community are the unemployed with children, particularly those in rental accommodation. I have never backed away from that; it is obvious to anybody. For that reason the Government since coming to office has done something Labor had advocated for many years: We removed the iniquitous state of affairs under which families who found themselves in such a situation were taxed on their allowances for children and their supplementary rent allowances. Since coming to office Labor has increased the allowance for beneficiaries' children in this area by 40 per cent. I am not saying that makes them wealthy or that that is enough. The Government was limited by budgetary restrictions, as is any government, but within the limits of what we could do we targeted our expenditure to those people because, as Senator Mason said, they are the people who are in the most difficulty. Other policies Labor has instituted in the area of public housing, and so on, have been aimed partly at alleviating the problem in this area, but in the long term the solution is to get the parents to work. I am unsure of the source of Senator Mason's figures but I do not question them . I presume that they are from the Institute of Family Studies paper which has been released in recent months. I am aware that the people to whom Senator Mason referred find themselves in difficulties, despite the fact that the Government has increased their benefits as much as it has. The Government intends to continue to target social security assistance to those most in need. As Minister for Social Security, I have no intention of issuing a diet statement as requested by Senator Mason. What I shall continue to do is to try to get a fair go for these people by seeking to increase the benefits available to them and the services available in the community. In the past they have been sorely and sadly neglected by government. Senator RICHARDSON —Will the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Resources and Energy confirm a statement made by the New South Wales Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Mr Peter Cox, in the New South Wales State Parliament on 20 September that spending on private oil exploration in New South Wales is expected to double next year? Will the Minister outline the value and details of exploratory activity that will be undertaken in New South Wales next year? Senator Crichton-Browne —Just off the cuff. Senator GRIMES —Just off the top of my head, as Senator Crichton-Browne said, I am aware that Mr Cox, New South Wales Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, made a statement about a month ago in which he said: I expect a total expenditure of $14 million compared with an expenditure of $6 million last year. The Department of Minerals is drilling a stratigraphic hole at Grafton and is undertaking seismic surveys at Tibooburra. This year I expect at least eleven wells to be drilled in New South Wales, and a big increase is expected in the drilling of stratigraphic holes. In addition, 1750 kilometres of seismic surveys will be made. Mr Cox's statement is generally consistent with reports from industry sources concerning expenditure on oil exploration in New South Wales. Although the Commonwealth has no direct involvement in the administration of petroleum exploration on-shore, I emphasise that these activities are monitored closely. At a national level, the immediate outlook for exploration is for a continuation of the high levels of expenditure recorded in recent years. I happen to have, for Senator Crichton-Browne's benefit, a statement by the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association Ltd which has been put out in the last couple of days. That statement showed that, for the nine months to the end of September 1984, 166 exploration wells-130 on-shore and 36 off-shore-and 85 development wells had been completed. Exploration wells completed on-shore during the third quarter were up 39 per cent from the previous quarter of 1984 and 20 per cent from the third quarter of 1983. Exploration wells completed off- shore during the third quarter were the same as for the previous quarter, but were up 36 per cent from the third quarter of 1983. The graph supplied with the statement indicates that the high level of drilling activity reached in early 1982 has been maintained. Off-shore development wells, the association points out, completed during the quarter were half the number completed in the previous quarter, but were up 67 per cent on the third quarter in 1983. It is expected that this high level of exploration will continue for the immediate future not only in New South Wales but throughout Australia, first demonstrating the health of the industry in this country, and, secondly, giving the lie to the nonsense we have heard from the Opposition that Government policies would result in a rapid downturn in exploration. Senator REID —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button. I refer to the Prime Minister's reported statement that he will be making an announcement on taxation later this week. Will the statement be made before the Senate rises so as to enable debate and questioning on what the Prime Minister says, and will the Prime Minister announce the timetable and the agenda for the review? Senator BUTTON —The specific matters directed to me in that question will be announced by the Prime Minister at the appropriate time, which will be later this week. The Senate will not be sitting then, if I have anything to do with the matter. Senator ROBERT RAY —Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to Press reports that the Queensland Premier is planning to appoint a pseudo-Liberal to the Senate to replace Senator Martin after she resigns to contest a House of Representatives seat? Are there any constitutional barriers to such a move, and does the Attorney believe that the Queensland Premier is contemplating such a move because the Liberal Party is full of trendies or because the Labor Party is 'ungodly'? Senator GARETH EVANS —Since the disgraceful behaviour in 1975 of the Queensland Premier in appointing a pseudo-Labor man, Senator Field, to this place, the Constitution was amended in 1977 after the Australian Constitutional Convention resolved to that effect by inserting a new section 15. In the event that Senator Martin does not seek reappointment herself-and judging by the way the colt is running at the moment it is a little premature to be writing the valedictories- an appointment would not be valid unless the person concerned were a member of the Liberal Party. If the person appointed should be expelled from the Liberal Party or otherwise ceases to be a member of it before taking his or her seat in this place, under the Constitution the appointment would be nullified and the vacancy would again be notified to the State Governor. The remedy for any political manoeuvring of the kind that disgraced this place in 1975 is therefore in the hands of the Liberal Party. If the Queensland Premier were to appoint a pseudo-Liberal to any possible Martin vacancy, the appropriate course for the Liberal Party would be to expel that person. If it failed to do so it would have only itself to blame for finding itself in such a position. As to the last part of Senator Ray's question, I do not know whether Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen shares Mr Sinclair's view that the Liberal Party is full of whimps and trendies, but he certainly seems to think that the Labor Party is full of the ungodly, on the basis, it seems, given this morning's Press reports, of an alleged substantial proportion of our numbers seeking an affirmation rather than an oath at the time of the swearing in of the last Parliament. This is a grotesque claim for a number of reasons. For a start, he has his arithmetic wrong. In fact only a minority of the Labor Party-52 to 53 I think-were affirmed rather than sworn. But, more importantly, the implication is that everyone who takes the oath is a Christian or otherwise genuinely godly, which is a very large claim to make of most of our colleagues in this Parliament. Secondly, the Premier is implying that only Christians are people of integrity who can be trusted. That is a peculiarly grotesque claim from a man who this morning in the Queensland Parliament, quite apart from on numerous other occasions, was guilty of a grotesque breach of trust and confidence in a statement he made on a piece of legislation. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. Under the Standing Orders the same protection is given to a member of a State parliament as is given to a member of this place. I think the words which have just been used about circumstances of which I am sure most of us are ignorant-about the Premier's activities in the parliament-are not parliamentary and should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have to make a line ball decision, but I ask the Attorney-General to be careful in his language in respect of members of other parliaments. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Queensland Premier also in his statement totally overlooked the fact that some very genuine Christians decline to take the oath because they take the view that there is a biblical injunction against this. I understand that the injunction in question, as Senator Tate has acknowledged, is in Matthew 5, verses 33-37, which I do not seek to have incorporated in Hansard, but it is there for reference. Sir Joh was heard to say that no Christian should vote for anyone who did not take the oath. I simply make the point that that would put in grave difficulty, among others, Senator Martin, again, who is standing in this election, not to mention the shadow Minister, Mr Ian Macphee, in the other place. Finally, I make the point, because this is a serious subject, that section 42 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to make an affirmation or an oath when being sworn in, has been in the Constitution since its foundation. It was based on an English Act of 1888 which enabled members of the House of Commons who had conscientious objections to taking the oath to make a solemn affirmation instead. I wind up by saying that the nineteenth century society was infinitely less tolerant of free thought than it is today. If honourable senators want to know just how bigoted that society was and how difficult it was for non-Christian people of integrity then, they will not have to go very far north of the Tweed today to get a demonstration. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Am I to gather from the comments made by the Leader of the Government that he agrees that the Australian taxation system provides an advantage to the self- employed person who can split his or her income to the disadvantage of the pay as you earn taxpayer who cannot? Does he agree that this is unfair and inequitable? Does he agree with the Prime Minister's description of the Opposition's proposal to correct this anomaly as a fizzer? Senator BUTTON —First of all, Senator Archer cannot take it, as he put it, that I said anything of the sort. What I did, in answer to a question, was to draw attention to the inequity of the tax splitting proposals which the Liberal Opposition is apparently advancing and, more importantly, to the problems which are associated with the Liberals' statement; namely, how they are going to pay for the proposals, the enormous cost involved in the exercise, the fact that it does not help single taxpayers without dependants at all, enormous inequities associated with it and the very real problems in paying for it in terms of the prescription offered by the Opposition spokesmen. Those are the things which have to be addressed in the context of the overall debate. Whether Mr Hawke described the policy as wimpish or wet or something like that I do not know; I did not see that statement. I certainly would not associate myself with any of those comments. Senator ELSTOB —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate of the outcome of Australia's candidature for the United Nations Security Council? Can he also inform the Senate of Australia's priorities in the Security Council? Senator GARETH EVANS —As was reported this morning, Australia was elected to the Security Council yesterday for a two-year term beginning on 1 January 1985. The elections for five places took place in the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York. What was not fully reported was that Australia was elected on the first ballot, receiving the highest number of votes among the successful candidates. In fact, we received 146 votes out of a possible 157 in a situation where only two-thirds of the General Assembly was necessary. It needs to be appreciated that the 15-member Security Council is a most important body in the system of multilateral affairs, charged as it is with the primary responsibility under the United Nations Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security. Australia, as we all know, is a founder member of the United Nations, and has served on the Security Council on three occasions , most recently in 1973-74 under the previous Labor Government. As a member of the Council, Australia will pursue actively the search for international peace and security, social progress, justice and understanding. We will also be seeking, in co-operation with like minded countries, to promote proposals to make the United Nations system more effective and more responsive to the needs of member states. The election of Australia to the Security Council is a fitting recognition of the standing that Australia once again enjoys in the international community. Senator SCOTT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Resources and Energy. The Minister may be aware that the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association has been granted legal aid by the Government to assist in legal costs for the Association's appearance before the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia, currently being conducted. Additional special applications have been made to the Government by the association for further urgent funds. An earlier application in July for $20,000 was refused, but subsequently, I am advised, Senator Walsh verbally agreed to provide the extra funds. As the hearings are currently in progress, and the money is urgently needed by the association, most of the members of which are pensioners, some in poor health, can the Minister undertake to pursue the matter urgently so that the association knows what funds it has available to appear at these hearings? Senator GRIMES —The Government has had requests for funds from four nuclear veterans organisations, including the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association in Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales. The Government has already decided on the provision of legal aid to these organisations. It was necessary to decide the legal aid issue and the scope of the funding under these arrangements before considering requests for further assistance to the organisations themselves. It has also been necessary to consider similar requests for assistance on behalf of Aboriginal groups. The matter is made yet more difficult because of the fractured organisations representing nuclear veterans. This raises the issue of whether the Government should responsibly fund four separate organisations. The Government anticipates finalising its decision on this matter and on the funding of the Aboriginal groups for research shortly. I hope that when Senator Walsh returns next week he will be in a position to announce the final decisions in this area; but, as I said, it is not an easy problem to solve with the number of organisations which are claiming to be represented and which are asking for assistance in the preparation of their cases. Senator CHILDS —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to the Opposition's recently released policy on veterans' affairs. To what extent is that policy at odds with this Government's policy and what would be the implications for spending in his portfolio in the unlikely event that the Opposition got the opportunity to implement its policy? Senator GIETZELT —I welcome the Opposition's veterans' affairs policy because in fact it is not at odds to any marked extent with the policy being pursued by me and the current Government. In fact, it amounts to a tacit endorsement of the initiatives that we have taken since we came into office in March of last year. There are, however, two issues on which I could comment. I think that the other six or seven issues that are raised in the document are substantially in accordance with the Labor Government's policy. One could even be unkind enough to suggest that they have been stolen from our policy initiatives. However, one firm new policy is the Opposition's commitment to extend the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. The Opposition does not appear to be aware that last year we extended the counselling service for Vietnam veterans on a couple of occasions. In fact, we have further plans in hand for even more extensions. However, there are a couple of vague statements of intent in the policy statement in respect of which I would like to make some reference because, if implemented, they would represent a substantial outlay of funds and would dramatically increase what would already be a massive structural Budget deficit. These are problems with which I have to grapple. Having regard to the Opposition 's overall approach to tax and to spending programs one can only say that the policies, if implemented, would represent an outlay in each and every Budget of an additional $200m. I refer substantially to the Opposition's statement that it would seek to examine further criteria for the definition of a 'theatre of war'. If that proposal were carried out to its fullest extent at least 70,000 people who did not serve in a theatre of war and who do not meet the theatre of war service criteria would be brought into the system and the cost in a full year would be at least an extra $70m. The other matter, of course, in the Opposition's policy, on which I suppose there is some degree of common ground is defence services homes. However, the cost to the Government of eliminating the waiting period in the first year of operation would be $60m. If we were to increase the defence service loan in accordance with the demands of veterans' organisations from $25,000 to $40,000 and extend the portability the cost would be something approximating another $ 70m. Therefore, whilst in general terms there is a degree of uniformity, there are several areas which would really commit a future government to substantial increases in veterans' affairs expenditure. Having regard to the Opposition's general policies on the economy in respect of which it wants to change the tax structure, reduce tax income and spend money building railways and other expensive undertakings, one must ask where the money is going to come from. Senator DURACK —Did the Attorney-General have in his office in Parliament House on any days preceding statements in the House of Representatives by Mr Lionel Bowen, the Deputy Prime Minister, or Mr Tickner the Attorney-General's departmental file relating to representations made by or on behalf of Morgan Ryan to myself for a no bill in respect of his committal on charges of forgery and conspiracy in March 1982? If so, for what reason was the file in the office of the Attorney-General? Did the Attorney-General or any member of his staff peruse the file and, if so, for what purpose? Can the Attorney give an assurance that the file was not perused by any other person? Was any information about any material on the file provided by the Attorney or any member of his staff to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tickner or any other unauthorised person? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do recall that the files were in my office for a period of time over the last few weeks. I am not quite sure precisely when but it could well have been before statements were made by Mr Tickner; I do not think it was before statements were made by the Deputy Prime Minister, but I would have to check that. They were in my office for the purpose of a response that I was asked to make in my recollection by the Senate committee dealing with the matter of Mr Justice Murphy. The Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, I think, wanted at one stage some information from me about the chronology, the sequence of events and the handling of the Morgan Ryan matter over its whole history, including the dates on which no bill applications had been made. That had an obvious relevance to its terms of reference. It was part of a normal process of processing information for the purposes of the Committee. I have no knowledge whatsoever of the file being perused by anyone else than members of my staff for that particular purpose. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question. Did any officer of the Senate committee or anybody connected with the Senate committee in fact exercise a request to have access to the file when it was in the Attorney's office? Senator GARETH EVANS —I would need to check that matter. I will give the honourable senator information accordingly as soon as I do so. Senator GILES —Will the Minister for Social Security explain the carefully developed priorities of the Hawke Government in relation to the provision of children's services and assistance to the families for which such services are established? Senator GRIMES —The Government has taken the view that the most efficient and equitable way to provide child care services and enhance existing services is via direct capital and recurrent cost funding to community based groups which manage child care facilities and by providing financial assistance to those unable to meet the full cost of child care. To this end we have given a very high priority to child care. In the last 18 months, since coming to office, we have provided $40m for new services and initiatives-$10m in the first Budget and $30m in the 1984-85 Budget. In 1984-85 we will see a very dramatic increase in the number of child care places because of this funding and because of the co- operation between the Federal Government and the State governments in the provision of child care places. This contrasts with a virtual freezing of funds for new services by the previous Government in its last two years of office and a decline in real terms in Commonwealth expenditure over its whole period of office. This additional money will now be spent in high need areas or the introduction of new and innovative services for disadvantaged people in particular-for example, the children of unemployed, single parents, new migrants, Aboriginals and disabled children. We believe that this concentration on the less affluent areas and the more needy groups in the community is important. We will continue to fund in this way and we will continue to have a high priority in areas of high need. I am pleased to see that we will continue to get co-operation from the States to this end. It is, therefore, with interest that I note, in passing, the new policy announced by the present Opposition and previous Government, which is apparently willing to forgo some $200m in revenue on a rebate for child care. However, during its time in office it was unable to expend any extra money at all and in fact was responsible for a real decline in funds. It is willing to spend money on a rebate which in fact will go to those who are paying taxes and which will be of no assistance to those who are on low incomes or pensions and benefits and do not pay taxes. When the tax rebate in the Oppositions taxation policy is viewed against the extraordinary vagueness of its social security policy, which many people will be surprised to know was also released yesterday, one wonders whether the social security policy was not released at the same time as the tax policy to make sure that no one noticed that it was around. No mention is made of figures in the extraordinarily vague child care provision in the Opposition's social security policy. It is claimed that the policy will give no assistance in special areas. It seems to me that the only undertaking is the tax rebate mentioned in the Opposition's taxation policy. That rebate, I repeat, will benefit those who are paying the most tax and those who are wealthy and is in extraordinary contrast to the willingness to spend almost $200m on child care through taxation forgone in a coming government when in a previous government the Opposition was willing not only to spend nothing more but also to decrease expenditure as the years went by. Senator MISSEN —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether, in view of the action of the coalition parties in now presenting publicly a considered and comprehensive policy on 'Regulation, Deregulation and Reform of the Regulatory Process' based on consultative methods and more rigorous parliamentary scrutiny, he can inform the Senate which of the three conflicting courses the Hawke Government now proposes to adopt, namely, first, to obey its National Conference decision of July 1984 based on interventionist policies and fundamental insistence on planning; secondly, to continue with its recent reaction to criticisms by the Business Council of Australia by creating a tripartite committee of government, trade unions and business to explore the possibility of deregulation in the future; or, thirdly, to abandon its party policy and its recent inadequate response and hurriedly put together a regulatory reform policy to meet the grave burdens now imposed on industrial efficiency and on business competition. Senator BUTTON —This question of deregulation has been dished up to me before. I am surprised Senator Missen has seen fit to have another go at it. We are asked which of the three conflicting courses we would follow, and Senator Missen itemised them as he understood them. The decision to establish a mechanism for deregulation of the business sector was not taken in response to pressure from the Business Council, as Senator Missen alleged. I was present at the meeting with the Business Council. The Prime Minister made a speech there in which he announced that decision. In a prior discussion with the Business Council he also announced that decision. It is now alleged that it was taken as a result of pressure from the Opposition. I will deal with that canard in a minute. Before I do so, let me say that this Government in its 18 months of office has been committed to deregulation. If those opposite want to ask themselves for a moment why there is such a regulatory mess in Australia constituting inhibitions to competitiveness and efficiency in industry, I remind them that Liberal- National Party governments have been in office in this country for 27 of the last 34 years. That is why the mess has arisen. In the last seven years they were in government they did nothing about this issue. Our record on deregulation in the 18 months we have been in government stands up better than anything they did in those 27 years. Senator Crichton-Browne —Even the Prices Surveillance Authority? Senator BUTTON —Yes, it does. We have been singularly successful in deregulating the financial sector of this country. We are now moving to deregulate the business sector. I do not know why those opposite keep bouncing up these silly questions. Their record on these matters is abysmal. This Government stands on its record of deregulation. Senator Peter Rae —Say one thing and do another, that is your record. Senator BUTTON —Senator Rae gets very hurt when the Canberra Times reports him as saying that the Opposition has an abysmal record in respect of deregulation. Whether or not he said that, it is a pretty accurate description and I think everybody in the business community knows it. As we are prepared to address these issues of competitiveness for the first time, which those opposite did not do, we have announced the review of business regulation which will now go forward. Senator MISSEN —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Senator Button said in his answer that no pressure was brought to bear and that Mr Hawke announced the decision in an address to the Business Council. Will he deny that within a week or so before that the Government received a very detailed submission from the Business Council, several pages of it referring not only to deregulation, which he only talks about, but also to regulatory reform itself, both of which are covered in our policy? Will he deny that his Government received this detailed criticism from the Business Council on the eve of the occasion on which Mr Hawke addressed it? Senator BUTTON —Not for a moment will I deny that. The Business Council has made representations to this Government on a whole range of issues, including deregulation. It made them to those opposite too, and they did nothing about them in seven years in government. We have done something about it. That is the difference. It is a question of credibility, which can be judged on performance as distinct from empty rhetoric. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 19 October Senator Childs asked me a question concerning Soviet deployment of cruise missiles and remarks made by the Australian Ambassador for Disarmament on a recent interview by President Chernenko. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided me with the following answer: The Government agrees that recent announcements by the Soviet Union that it is about to commence deployment of new models of cruise missiles represents further escalation in the arms race and as such is to be deplored. The Government believes that these reports only underline the urgent need for the superpowers to resume their bilateral negotiations on reductions to their nuclear arsenals. It is essential that the US and the Soviet Union agree as to limitations on their strategic armaments and the related arrangements between them to be observed after 31 December 1985, the expiry date specified by the SALT II accord . In his recent address to the U.N. General Assembly on 2 October Mr Hayden emphasised that nuclear disarmament is the very highest priority amongst the Government's policies and Australia's wish to see an end to the nuclear arms race has been conveyed on several occasions to both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Finally, reports to which Senator Childs refers that the Australian Ambassador for Disarmament had supported President Chernenko's latest restatement of Soviet arms control proposals are incorrect. As the Ambassador said in reply to questions from a journalist, Australia is in favour of agreements to ban nuclear testing and an arms race in space. The Australian Government hopes that it will be possible for the superpowers to resume their negotiations on arms control and thereby bring about an improvement in East-West relations. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. I refer to reports in today's media attributing to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen an attack on the Labor Party in the course of which he said: We want people down there who honour God and not atheists who won't take their oath of office on the Bible. The assumption that those senators who make an affirmation are atheists is unfounded and insulting. It is offensive to me personally in that it is not for Sir Joh to put me in one category or another depending on public manifestation of religiosity or piety. Not all of us think constant display of outward trappings of religion is to be equated with living according to Christian precepts. Further, his theology is wrong and his understanding of the scriptures defective. It is quite clear from St Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, chapter 5, verses 33-37, which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has already quoted, that Christians should not invoke an oath to bolster their undertakings or truthfulness. A plain yes or no is all that is required of a Christian. I refuse to take the oath precisely because of my understanding of that injunction . I challenge Sir Joh to look at that passage and concede that my reading of it is open. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), when answering a question on the veterans' affairs policy of the opposition, implied that we were intending to extend the counselling service for Vietnam veterans. That is not exactly so. The coalition, when in government, established that counselling service and was in the process of extending it. Senator Childs —I take a point of order, Mr President. The honourable senator is not addressing himself to a misrepresentation of his own position. He is talking about the political program of his Party. Surely that is extending past the legitimate right to make a personal explanation. The PRESIDENT —As I understand Senator Scott, he is giving an explanation of his role when he was Minister for Veterans' Affairs and in that respect is within the bounds of a personal explanation. If he were explaining existing policy he would be out of order. I will hear Senator Scott further. Senator SCOTT —I merely want to make the point that the coalition, in its veterans' affairs policy, proposes to extend to all ex-service personnel the counselling service it established for Vietnam veterans. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). I announced the social security policy of the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia yesterday. Specifically, the Minister claimed that there was no provision in that policy for child care for the needy. To put that point at rest I will quote from the platform-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is now clearly out of order. He is not making a personal explanation; he is making an explanation in regard to policy. He was given leave to make a personal explanation and I must restrict him to making a personal explanation. Senator MESSNER —I simply make the following statement in this respect: The Minister's statement was clearly false as a reading of page 11 of the social security policy states-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is clearly out of order. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The Government's concealment of its real intentions on taxation. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.12) —The Opposition is bringing forward this matter of public importance for reasons that are readily apparent to anyone who has listened to the proceedings of Question Time in this place today. It is quite obvious that the tactic the Government has adopted is not only to conceal its own position in respect of taxation but also to misrepresent and obscure the Opposition's position. It is extraordinary that a government running for office is not, in the words of its Treasurer (Mr Keating), 'running on a reform agenda of new taxes'. Rather, according to the Treasurer, 'The Government has an agenda for discussion on tax reform'. That is the Treasurer who has described what we have put forward as unbelievably vague. I will first deal with some of the clear attempts made during Question Time to obscure and misrepresent the views of the Opposition. Senator Button, who was the primary person questioned, was the leader in this push. I quote his answer to one question: I will look briefly first at the question of income tax splitting. The full cost of that would be $2.2 billion. Even a limitation of incomes to be split at $18,000 would cost $1.5 billion. Mr Eric Risstrom of the Australian Taxpayers Association came on record this morning with his estimate of what an income splitting arrangement to a limit of $19,000-that is higher than the limit referred to by Senator Button-would cost. He put a figure of $650m on it. I chide the Leader of the Government for totally misrepresenting the position of the Opposition when he put that grossly exaggerated figure on it. The basic attitude of the Government was reflected by Senator Button's comment when he was asked by an Opposition senator whether the Parliament would be sitting to discuss the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), which has been promised for later this week, on the tax review. Senator Button said that the Senate would not be sitting 'if I have anything to do with it'. Quite clearly, the last thing the Government wants is any suggestion that the Parliament should be able properly to examine any proposal put forward by the Australian Labor Party. We are doubtful about having any proposition before the election. What it seems we are finally forcing out of the Prime Minister is not a clear commitment on the tax approach of the Government but rather a clear statement on how it intends to inquire into taxes, which is scarcely the same thing given the Government's total failure to indicate in what direction it wishes to take the tax system. We had today in Question Time-we have had it in Question Time day after day and on the public hustings day after day-an indication that the Government wants a blank cheque on tax and that it is not prepared to give any real indication of where it is taking the Australian people. A classic illustration of this was a question by Senator Zakharov who, as a left wing senator from Victoria, is no doubt against any broadening of the tax base. She put a question in those terms to Senator Button. He was unable to say that a Labor government would not follow precisely the same course of broadening the tax base. Minister after Minister has indulged in great inaccuracies. Senator Ryan was silly enough to repeat the gross misrepresentation of Mr Keating about the effect of income splitting. Mr Keating said that he would receive $60 a week from the Opposition's family tax reform package. Mr Keating, like Senator Button, totally ignored the fact that the policy makes it clear that there would be a limit on the amount of income on which income splitting would be permitted. If we adopted the limitation in the policy which, in the first instance, is $18,000 Mr Keating would get a tax cut of $7.58, yet he claims that we are offering a tax cut of $60 a week to people on his high income. That is not true. It is typical of the way the Government has set out to obscure and misrepresent the position which has been put forward by the Opposition. I return to the position of the Government. The Government very clearly is not prepared to tell the electorate what sort of tax system it will introduce. The basic proposition I put forward is that this Government is on the record as believing in new taxes. Clearly, on the face of its own accounts, it needs new taxes-indeed, it must have them. Tax propositions should be open and clear to the Australian people as they go to Mr Hawke's unnecessary early election. The question has to be asked: Why is Mr Hawke rushing to an election? We have answered for those who have been asking over the past weeks by adopting the argument which has been put forward by those respected independent commentators in Syntec. They said that the Government will need to have a supplementary Budget next autumn to cut the structural Budget deficit. In other words, the Government has got itself into all sorts of economic difficulties and it is using an early election to try to regain government before those difficulties catch up with it. It is quite clear that the Government will not tell the Australian people what the taxation position is before the election. We have had a panic- stricken statement from Mr Hawke in Western Australia. He said that if the Government introduced a capital gains tax it would exempt the family home and allow loss offsets. However, he contradicts himself. He said initially that he would give details of the taxation review in the course of the campaign and he now says that he will say something this week to establish the Government's intentions with respect to the review. I emphasise again that Mr Hawke is not saying: 'I will tell you what our tax package will be'. All he is saying is: 'I will tell you how we will go about reviewing the tax system and ultimately making decisions about it'. Somebody else commented over the last few days that if that is Mr Hawke's approach to government perhaps he should be offering the names of those who will review the tax system and allowing them to run for election instead of him, Senator Button and the rest of the Labor mob. Mr Keating said: . . . We are saying that you can't set down a program for substantial change just off the top of your head. It needs to be reviewed over time and it will take time . . . the fact is you can't make these decisions in a couple of months . The same Treasurer is chiding us for lack of precision in our policy on the basis that we have had 18 months to work on it. The Prime Minister and his Government in the same way have had 18 months to consider the demands of the taxation system and they are, at this stage, able to say no more than that they will have an inquiry and will make decisions in the light of that inquiry. They use nice general words like 'fair' to describe the outcome of that inquiry. What is fair in terms of what comes out of inquiries of that sort will vary widely from person to person. The Government this morning quoted Mr Morgan as having said to a Liberal Party meeting that he thought that in time we would have some form of capital gains tax. I can only say to the Government: People like Mr Morgan who are principally involved in managing other people's capital may well have a different viewpoint from those Australians who are managing their own capital, putting together their own assets and trying to build a better Australia through their own efforts. There will always be a difference between the managers of other people's capital and those people who have accrued capital for their own use and for the use of the community. I said that one of the essential elements of our debate is that this Government believes in new taxes. I do not believe I have to take very much of the time of the Senate in reminding honourable senators that Senator Button and his Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, have made it quite clear what their personal views are. We have the extraordinary situation where the personal views of Ministers are known , but the actual intentions of the Government are not. Senator Button has been stating his view repeatedly in this place and I will quote him but once from a specific extract in Hansard. On 21 September 1983 Senator Button said what he has repeated day after day in this place over recent weeks: It is my view that there should be a capital gains tax in Australia and I will continue to advocate it both publicly and within the Government. I am then asked when I will put that case to the Government. I will put it to the Government at every opportunity that I get, and I will continue to do so. Again, we all remember the Prime Minister saying in 1982 that they were not worth their salt and they should not be in politics if they could not sell the concept of a capital gains tax to the Australian people. All of this debate about tax, the Government's intentions and the prospect of new taxes takes place in the framework of a couple of simple realities. I suppose the most important reality is that this Government has committed itself to a very high rate of expenditure and it has committed itself, therefore, to very high rates of taxation. The Government is apparently considering going even further in terms of government expenditure. We had an honest Minister in the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) telling an audience that he had not been able to do everything that he wished to do because the Government could not raise taxes more before the elections and, as a result, it could not enter into new programs. We find that the Government has done pretty well in pushing up the level of government expenditure in Australia. In its two Budgets expenditure has gone up, in real terms, by just under 7 per cent per annum. In other words, the rate of increase in spending under Mr Hawke, under the Australian Labor Party Government, is three times as fast as the increase which occurred under the Fraser Government and it is not far short of the increases which occurred under Mr Whitlam and which caused Australia such damage. One of the simple realities that is so often forgotten in the tax debate is that it is all very well to talk about the shape of the taxation system and everybody's desire to have reduced taxes, but if the Government goes on spending more and more there is no escaping the fact that the Government must tax more and more. What we have in the Budget this year, as illustrated by the Government 's Budget Papers, is a government which is taxing at the highest level since the Second World War. It is taking more of what Australian produces in taxation as a proportion of that production than any government since the Second World War. We find the twin statistic that it is also spending more of Australia's gross domestic product than any government since the Second World War. They are simple , inescapable facts and they are the reason why this Government is desperate for additional revenue. It knows that it has the budgetary difficulties which were conceded by Senator Button in a public speech in Melbourne last week, it knows that it is not able to do anything which can reduce that burden in a significant way, it knows that it is committed to ever higher taxes and it knows, therefore, that it will have to look beyond the existing tax system. I think that in the early years of new, high expenditure by governments the negative effects of it are, in a sense, hidden from view. The benefits of the expenditure flow to the people, they feel it and they say that it is good. The fact that they have to pay for it is less readily apparent. People would be more concerned if they realised that in this year this Government has committed itself to an extra $724m in administration alone. That means that the cost of administering the Commonwealth Government has gone up by 16.7 per cent this year ; 16.7 per cent in a single year. That is a simple illustration of the attitude which the Labor Party has towards government. It has the attitude that one does not have to worry about who will pay the bills. In one year the Government has increased expenditure just on public servants and the Public Service-not on programs for the people directly but on the administration of those programs-by 16.7 per cent. I think that is something which is easily understood by the people. It is easily understood when one considers that this Government, in its first year in office, increased the number of public servants by just under 5 per cent and after two years in office is likely to have increased the Public Service by about 10 per cent. The fact of the matter is that those sorts of increases are the reasons why there is a pressing need for ever higher taxation in Australia and they are the reasons why this Government is inevitably a very high taxing government. There is no doubt that the Labor Government believes in having new taxes. Mr Hawke and Senator Button have made that clear. We have no doubt that the Government needs new taxes. Independent economic observers have made it clear that the Government will have budgetary difficulties next year and that has been confirmed by Senator Button. There is absolutely no doubt, as Mr Stone has said, that the lemon of income tax has been squeezed dry. It is not possible to go on taking ever larger shares of income tax and, therefore, there will be a need for these new taxes. I would like to spend what little time remains to me on the positive approach which has been developed by the Opposition. I would like to say that we have very carefully not promised what we cannot deliver. We have put forward a policy which has been cautious and which acknowledges the pressing budgetary situation that we will inherit from Labor. But it is important to note that there is a very significant difference between our performance in government and Labor's performance in government in terms of restraining additional Public Service and additional government expenditure. The Fraser Government left office with fewer Commonwealth public servants than there were when it started. During the period of the Fraser Government, government expenditure continued to grow. It grew, on average, by a little over 2 per cent and that is less than a third of the rate at which it has grown under Mr Hawke. So if we start from the fundamental point that the tax system depends upon the amount that we are going to spend, the reality is that we have a proven record of being more able to restrain expenditure than the Labor Party. We believe that there are important elements of unfairness in the tax system as it applies now. I know from the track record of the Minister for Social Security , Senator Grimes, that he will get up and carry on about the Fraser Government not doing enough to chase tax dodgers. All I can say is that the great legislative program which we undertook and which broke the back of the tax avoidance industry before Labor came to power speaks for itself. Later Opposition speakers can say more about that matter if they wish. The significant difference between us and the Labor Party is that we are going to the Australian people with a clear framework that they can judge and assess. We are seeking to put greater fairness and equity into the tax system-characteristics which Senator Button says should be there but which he says are notably absent. We intend to start by giving priority in this area of reform to families with children. We criticise the failure of the present Government to do anything about the spouse rebate, the failure of the present Government to do anything about the family allowance and the failure of the present Government to address the obvious unfairness that a single income pay as you earn taxpayer suffers a significant disadvantage compared with somebody with the same income who is self -employed and who can divide that income between himself or herself and a spouse . We intend to take the first steps towards giving a fair deal to those pay as you earn taxpayers with children. They will, for the first time, be given a chance to reduce their taxation if they wish by treating their income as having been divided between them. This is a measure which will be of most assistance to one income families, although two income families where the incomes are substantially unequal will also benefit. We also acknowledge the unfairness of another aspect of the tax system. Normally taxpayers may have as a deduction the costs of earning their income, yet we know that in Australia many families have to have two incomes or perhaps both spouses wish to have outside careers and there is a circumstance whereby they are required to undertake expenditure for the care of their children. To date that expenditure has never been given any relief under the tax system. We believe that, in common with other items of expenditure that are necessarily incurred in gaining income, that is a change that should be made and a measure which should be promoted. We have undertaken also to give additional assistance to single parent families to ensure that they get equivalent gains to those which will accrue to one income families and those families which are incurring child care costs. In addition to that, we have been prepared to be honest with the Australian people and say that there are specific taxes which we will not introduce. We have said that we will not have a new capital gains tax or a tax on assets, nor will we reintroduce Federal death duties. In addition, we have said that we will abolish Labor's 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation payments and we will move towards providing a differential company tax for small business. In a whole range of ways we have come to grips with some of the areas of unfairness and inequity in the Australian tax system. We have presented a policy which the Australian people can consider, yet we find ourselves faced by a government which is not prepared to tell the truth, a government which is not prepared to disclose its hand and a government which is asking for a blank cheque. I close by reminding the Senate that Mr Hawke promised a tax cut for six million Australians. In his first Budget he gave nothing and in his second Budget he handed back a small part of the additional taxation incurred under his Government. The present Labor Government is the highest taxing government since the Second World War. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(3.33) —The matter of public importance which has been raised by Senator Chaney today is: The Government's concealment of its real intention on taxation. Senator Chaney took up a fair bit of his time talking about the Opposition's proposals for taxation reform, as he put it, announced in its policy yesterday. In doing so he demonstrated one of the difficulties that the Government has, and indeed the whole electorate will have, in understanding just what the Opposition is about. He chided Senator Button and Mr Keating for suggesting that, under the Opposition's proposals, people on incomes as high as the incomes received by Mr Keating, me and other senior people on both sides of this Senate will receive $ 66 a week in relief in this matter. This problem that Senator Chaney has obviously arises because of the words spoken by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard. Yesterday Mr Keating pointed out that, if the $18,000 allowed for income splitting was $18,000 for everybody, that would be the result . All newspapers that asked Mr Howard questions about this matter this morning said the same thing. I will quote merely from the Australian Financial Review which states: But last night Mr Howard conceded the accuracy of Mr Keating's claim at his press conference that on an income of about $60,000, he would receive a net benefit of $3,270 a year under a coalition scheme which allowed $18,000 of income to be split while a person on $18,000 a year would get less than $400. Mr Howard said there was nothing new in persons on higher incomes gaining greater benefit under tax changes. Who is right; the shadow Treasurer-the former Treasurer-or Senator Chaney? Who can we believe? We have a clear statement by Mr Howard that Mr Keating's proposition was correct. He said it last night, he said it on radio and he is saying it again now. Yet Senator Chaney comes into this chamber and says that we have to believe the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, but not Mr Howard, whose policy it is. The second thing I suppose I should mention is that Senator Chaney said: 'The Fraser Government, of which I was a member, has a proven record'. It certainly has a proven record. That is why members of the Liberal Party are sitting on that side of the chamber and that is why we are sitting on this side of the chamber. This is its proven record: By the time it came to the end of its discredited term of government, inflation in this country had doubled. Unemployment had increased to the extent that 250,000 people had been added to the unemployment bill in this country in just over the 12 months before this Government was elected. Employment had decreased, interest charges were up and there was no equity in the tax system. The tax system contained the same sorts of inequities that existed before. Those had been compounded by tax cuts which had been given which benefited the higher income earners. That was the reason the former Government suffered such an appalling defeat at the last election. Because of that proven record the people of this country rejected the former Government. Because of that proven record the previous Government is now in opposition. A couple of things can be said about the wording of this matter of public importance. The first is that it demonstrates, I suppose in as few words as the Opposition could possibly put together, its desperation to raise this issue of taxation in such a way as to engender fear and suspicion in the minds of the electors about the Government's policy and intentions-the old use of the conspiracy theory, so beloved of conservative politicians in this country. This matter will be dealt with by me and others and I think it will be dealt with easily. The simple situation is that people in this country will not swallow that sort of proposition or that sort of debate any more than Mr Howard admitted they will not swallow the old story: 'We will give you a fistful of dollars'. The conservative governments in this country introduced the fistful of dollars concept; the television advertisements showed the fistful of dollars that everyone was going to get. As Mr Howard admitted on television and radio last night, that illusory fistful of dollars was taken away in a few months. The second thing that can be said about the wording of the Opposition's matter of public importance is that it demonstrates what can only be described as cheek or gall to a high degree. To come into this place complaining about concealment and imprecision in government policy just 24 hours after bringing down a taxation policy which must be one of the most vague and imprecise taxation statements ever made in this country, I believe demonstrates great cheek. As Senator Button has been saying week after week, I think the time has come for us to have a sensible debate on taxation in this country. It will be fruitful to compare the reality of the Opposition's document with the rhetorical statements of Opposition members in recent times. But first of all, let me state the Government's position. I think the Government's position is clear and I think it is understood by most people in this country. The first, simple fact is that almost everyone in this country, of whatever political persuasion-whether he or she represents labour or business, or whether he or she is an academic or a layman-agrees that there is a need for tax reform. The only people who do not want to see tax reform are those people who have been benefiting from the existing system. Opinions vary across and within those groups. In the case of the Opposition, opinions vary from time to time, as I will point out in a moment, about the best method of achieving the sort of taxation reform that I think we all want. The system lacks progressiveness in various ways. It falls unequally and, at times, unfairly on various groups in the community, it is prone to evasion and avoidance and it falls far too heavily on the pay as you earn taxpayers. We all agree with that. I think we all know that. What the Government has repeatedly said is that it will have a general review of the taxation policy with the aim of producing a system which is fair and equitable. We will look at all aspects of taxation with all groups in the community, with business representatives, farmers, union representatives, accountants and whoever else wants to have an input into this. They will be able to express their views and they will be able to put their cases. What is needed from this review is some determination of the directions in which the system should go and, as much as possible, I believe that these directions should be acceptable and agreed to by as many people and groups in the community as possible. Senator Chaney —What about the electorate? Senator GRIMES —I am talking about the electorate. Senator Chaney's interjection actually sums up the whole difference between the Government and Opposition. The electorate happens to be made up of working people, business people, people who have an academic interest in the tax system and people who are interested in the tax system from the point of view of reform. The electorate consists of all those people. If we aim our tax policies in this tax debate at the prejudices of a few people with the intention of engendering fear and division in the community, we will go the way we have gone in the last 50 years or so in this country. We will have a system which is unfair and inequitable and which is able to be exploited by all groups in the community. We will have a system, as Professor Mathews describes it, in which it is not only an effort to get the wealthy in this community to pay their fair share of taxes, but also an effort to get them to pay their taxes at all. That is the sort of system that we want to get away from, and we need reform to do that. The response of the Opposition to this suggestion that we, all of us, should have this comprehensive look at the system, is to come into this place and say that the Government intends to introduce a bevy of new capital taxes. Having said that this is what the Government intends to do, without any evidence at all for saying that, the Opposition then goes on to invent all sorts of situations involving family homes and other exemptions, as though the taxes were in place and the decisions had been taken. The Opposition wishes to create fuss and confusion but I believe that in fact it is causing more ripples in its own ranks than it is anywhere else. We have seen this tactic time and time again. As I said, it is designed to divide society, which is bad enough, but the worst thing that it does, as Senator Button and others have pointed out, is that it prevents sensible debate on taxation reform, which everyone agrees is necessary. We have a situation where Hugh Morgan is quoted as saying something about capital taxes. He and I, and most other people on this side of the place, would not agree on most things in this community, but he made what was a perfectly reasonable expression of opinion, and what do we hear? Directly and by interjection here this afternoon he is castigated for making that decision and he is castigated as being a representative of big industry and big capital in this country. While running from point to point in the last week, proclaiming on taxation, the Opposition Leader and the Deputy Opposition Leader promised daily, in fact as late as yesterday at the Metal Trades Industry Association Inc. meeting, a precise policy on tax reform as to what should be done. They promised a precise policy-not for them a review, not for them discussions in the community, not for them the consideration of the views of others. They were going to come up with a precise policy that they had carefully thought out over the last year. They had all the answers. When we look at that policy the question can validly be asked: Did they? What we have is a document which says, in precis: 'We will have a new policy on taxation for families. The essence of this is a modified form of income splitting, a child care rebate; all to be funded by a new broad-based indirect tax'. I have already pointed out that there is considerable confusion in the Opposition as to what the effect of that modified form of income splitting will be. Will it, as Senator Chaney says, provide for Mr Keating and his $60,000 a $7 a week rebate, or will it, as Mr Howard says, provide Mr Keating and those like him with a $60-plus a week concession? We do not know because there is great confusion about whether that $18,000 applies to the lower end of the scale or whether it applies across the scale. Quite clearly there is great confusion. That is one of the problems that Mr Risstrom has when he comes out and says that this will cost only $600m, because in 1981 generalised income splitting was in fact going to cost something like $3.5 billion. I am sure Mr Risstrom believed that the policy that was produced was the really modified form that Mr Peacock started to talk about, not the form that Mr Howard, who really is the one who is supposed to know about these things, was talking about last night. We are not only told that we will have this new, modified form of income splitting and the child care rebate, all funded by a new broad-based indirect tax, but we are also told that this policy will take priority over all previously announced policies. We are told that the Opposition will make a start on it in the first Budget when it comes in, but it cannot say how much of a start it will make as that depends on budgetary restrictions and budgetary considerations. In other words, we are told that those firm policies which have been announced by the Opposition up until now, and which are going to cost the revenue of this country about $2,000m to $2,500m, will take second priority to this one. In other words, if the Opposition cannot do it under the budgetary situation next year all those other firm policies, I assume, go by the board and only the fist step to this new taxation policy will come in. When we and when the media asked for some details on this policy, what did we get? A common question that was asked was: 'What sort of broad-based indirect tax will we get?' We were told: 'Well, it will be either a value added tax, a retail turnover tax or a wholesale tax. We are not too keen on value added taxes , but we are not too sure what sort of tax we want to introduce yet'. How will this tax be decided? The Opposition said: 'We will have an inquiry into what sort of tax we would introduce'. I suppose the only reason the Opposition did not say that it would have a proper review of the indirect taxation system is that that would have been a bit close to what the Government is suggesting, not only of indirect taxes but that we have a review of the whole taxation system and the whole tax mix in this country. Then the question was asked: 'But Mr Howard, you said in 1981 that such a broad-based indirect tax is regressive, administratively complex, taking up to about 3,500 public servants to administer , and would add to the consumer price index and therefore add to inflation'. The answer was: 'Oh yes, but this is not 1981. Inflation is down'-which is a great concession from the people opposite, having heard speeches from Senator Sir John Carrick and others in this place that inflation is not really down-'and the administrative costs should not prevent us from introducing reforms of this type '. That is the sort of answer we are getting about that crucial area of taxation reform suggested in this paper. I have already brought up the matter of the difference between Mr Peacock and Mr Howard on how income splitting will affect different groups in the community. It is quite clear that Mr Howard believes it will save the high income earners something like $60 a week and the low income earners something like $400 a year. He is not worried about that because, as he says, that often happens when tax changes are made in this country. I think he should have said that that always happens when we have tax reform under the Liberals in this country. If the income splitting is to cost what Mr Howard obviously thinks it will, $1. 5 billion, and if it is to be funded by indirect taxes, this means that there will be an increase in indirect taxes of something like $8 per household per week in this country. Who will be affected the most by this increase in indirect taxes, taxes on consumer goods in this community? The first group that will be affected will the the pensioners and beneficiaries of the Department of Social Security and people on fixed incomes who have no defence against such increases. The second group will be the single taxpayers without dependants who will get no benefit from the splitting and no benefit from the child care rebate. An incidental sideline to this little farce, I suppose we can call it, is that the Opposition, in this policy, seems to have reversed its so often stated policy in this place on de factos. We have been listening to highly moral statements and pseudo-moralistic nonsense in this country about the Government's intention to allow de factos the dependent spouse rebate. We were going to allow them that, and we have allowed them that because they suffer considerably under the existing system, to the extent of $800 to $1,200 a year in tax. But we are told: 'That is wrong. You should not do that. That is recognising de factos and that will bring down the family in this country'. Although the Opposition will not allow the dependent spouse rebate to go to de facto couples, it will let de facto couples split their income. We believe that if income splitting of any sort is allowed, it certainly should be allowed to de facto couples. But the Opposition, with its inconsistency, for moralistic reasons and what it saw as some short term political advantage, opposed the extension of the dependent spouse rebate to this group, and now finds, as it should, that if income splitting is allowed, it should be extended to de facto couples. What the document says, however, and what I would like to hear from Opposition members in this debate this afternoon, is that these changes will take priority over the other policies of the Government, that even in tight budgetary situations, as we have had in this country and certainly will have in the next budget, these policies will take priority. Not even these policies can be introduced in total. Does this mean that the promise to abolish the assets test, the promise to get rid of the superannuation tax changes, and the promise to get rid of the coal export levy will all be put on the back burner, or will we still have these promises? Will we still have $2.5 billion revenue forgone in these areas and will we still have to find, on top of the changes that are proposed in this document, more revenue from other sources? That is the sort of imprecision that is in the Opposition's document. That is why I say that the Opposition has a gall to come in here and talk about what it claims is concealment and lack of precision in our document. What this country needs is a sensible debate and sensible consultation in this area. What this country will get from the Government is that; Quite clearly, the country will not get that from the Opposition, if this document means anything at all. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.51) —This debate is symptomatic of the problems and the causes of Australia's whole tax system. All parties agree that we need tax reform. All parties agree that there are severe inequities, both legal inequities already written into the system and illegal inequities through which people can take advantage of the system. All parties agree that no one can understand the tax Acts as they are currently written, but no party can give a pre-election commitment to comprehensive reform because its political opponents would flay it in the run up to this election. It is time we agreed that there be no promises on specifics in this election campaign because, let us face it, nobody believes politicians on tax promises, least of all the politicians themselves. Instead of making promises on specifics I propose that all political parties agree that the next Parliament-of whatever political complexion-will form an all-party committee to implement the results of the inquiries that some of us have spent the last 10 years contemplating. Senator Messner —How can you bind another parliament? Senator JACK EVANS —Senator Messner may not have got even to the stage of contemplating them. Another parliament could be bound in exactly the same way as Senator Messner has endeavoured to bind his next government, if he should be re- elected. I am suggesting that we all bind our political parties to accept the need to review fully the tax system. We have got the background. We do not need to go through the whole exercise again. We are three parts of the way down the road, but there is not a political party which has the courage to pick up the results of all those inquiries, and to act on them and completely reform Australia's tax system. Let us look at what are the real intentions on taxation and that is what this matter of public importance is about. First of all let us look at the real intentions on taxation of the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. The National Party's taxation policies are different from those of the Liberal Party because it is still comprised of a majority of flat earthers who are undisguised tax reducers for the multinationals and do not have much interest in the rest of the tax regime. the Labor Party's real intention is to carry out the bidding of the unions and to stay in government. The Liberal's and National's real intention on taxation is to do the bidding of big business and to stay in government when it wins back government. The Australian Democrats have a real intention-I am not enunciating it for the first time today; I have been spelling it out from the day I was elected to this Parliament-to get agreement from all parties to a sensible tax strategy with long term benefits for all Australians, not just one vested interest group. Why are we having a big tax debate at this time? Why are we having our second MPI on taxation in a few days? It is because some people in this Parliament believe that it is possible to fool some of the people, particularly swinging voters, for some of the time, particularly for the next five and a half weeks until election day. There may be another ulterior motive, and I suspect that there is: We are having this big tax debate to keep the vital issues off the campaign agenda. Practically everybody outside this Parliament would agree that the biggest issue, which is receiving very little publicity, is unemployment, the tragedy of unemployment in this country, the tragedy of three million people living under the poverty line. Here we are contemplating whether or not we will have a capital gains tax. Over the next few weeks we should be considering whether we have an adequate defence system. It is a huge question mark that has recently been raised but it is getting no running from either of the major political parties in this country . We should be looking at Australia's inability to educate its youth but instead we are talking tax hypotheses. We should be looking at how to reduce our health costs and how to stop the declining health of the nation. There are many more important issues-far more important than these half-baked half promises that are coming up on taxation. Let us consider the issues on taxation that have been raised in this campaign so far. First of all we had capital gains raised as the big issue on this election. The Liberal Party and the National Party threatened that the Labor Party would introduce a capital gains tax. I said earlier in this speech that nobody really understands the tax laws in this country. It might be a remarkable revelation to the Liberal Party and the National Party to learn that we already have a capital gains tax. How can Labor introduce something that we already have ? It exists today. We do have a tax on capital gains. In fact-here is a surprise for the Liberal Party-it taxes the family home. For quite some years the Liberal Party lived with a capital gains tax on the family home. There was never a word, never a whisper that such a tax existed. Perhaps it did not know. Perhaps only the Commissioner of Taxation and the people he taxed knew and they did not tell the Liberal Party. However, it has been there all the time. It was aimed at taxing speculative gains and it is a quite useful tax in that regard. It could be extended under the existing laws. Right now the Tax Commissioner, without any support or guidance from any government, is looking at the potential for expanding the existing laws on capital gains taxes. The question is not if we are going to have a capital gains tax but how much further it will go and when it will be expanded. After the capital gains tax debate the next episode was the Liberal Party's policy, a policy which quite deliberately concealed a lot of important issues. It talked about a consumption tax. Again, that is a tax we already have, so to pretend that the Liberal Party will suddenly introduce a new tax that will solve the problems of the nation is a nonsense. The Liberal Party talked about three options: Firstly, a value added tax, which it downplayed because it has heard that it is unpopular in other parts of the world, where it has been very poorly and badly administered; secondly, a retail consumption tax; and, thirdly, a wholesale consumption tax, and again we already have such a tax. It concealed the amount of tax reductions there would be for those who would be able to split their incomes. Some very interesting things came out of the introduction of the Liberal Party's tax policy. The first was that it became quite obvious that this was an election ploy because it would benefit mostly middle and high income earners-those who are likely to swing their votes around from one side to the other. The contradictions that have come out of the policy are fascinating-for example, the rejection today of the claim by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that he would benefit by 60c in the dollar under the Opposition's proposals. According to Mr Howard, if Mr Keating split his income his benefit would be taken from the bottom $18,000. That is fascinating, because yesterday the same Mr Howard was talking about benefiting those who have moved from the 30c bracket to the 47c bracket. How is it that one section of the taxpaying community will have its benefit from the top or the high rate and the other will be able to take it only from the bottom or the low rate? That is an interesting question and I will be fascinated to hear the answer. Perhaps the Opposition has two answers, depending on the audience. Obviously it has two answers on another aspect of taxation policy, the consumption tax. The Liberal and National parties have talked about a consumption tax without revealing any rates. So we do not have the slightest idea what its effect is likely to be. Mr Risstrom told us exactly what its effect was likely to be and one suspects that there is a crystal ball in his office that only he can read. Senator Messner —He has a computer. Senator JACK EVANS —Yes indeed, into which he puts all the variables. The taxation items are unknown in relation to this consumption tax. For example, we do not know whether the coalition will try in some very skilful way to reintroduce a tax on the necessities of life, which the Australian Democrats and the Labor Party rejected when it was tried last time. We do not know whether this consumption tax would tax services. The coalition has indicated that it would, but how far will it go? Would a tax be added to our dentist's bill, to our doctor's bill, to milk deliveries and to lawyers' services? Would it tax preachers for marriages, funerals and christenings, because these are all services? Would the coalition really spread the services tax right across the board or would it be very selective in order to make sure that its friends are not taxed, because that has been the pattern of the Liberal and National parties in the past. They look after their friends when they are in government. I might add that it is also a pattern of the Labor Party to look after a different group of friends when it is in government. What would the effect be on the consumer price index? There would be no real impact, according to Mr Howard. He says that he would make a one-off adjustment. That is a fascinating solution for a tax that would be phased in. Whoever wrote page 5 of the Opposition's tax policy did not know what was typed on page 4. It is obvious that this is another policy which is being introduced to be discarded . Like all the coalition's past promises, like tax indexation, this is a promise to be broken if the coalition is ever elected. The Labor Party's policy is that there will be another inquiry after the election. This inquiry will embrace broadening the tax base. How? Will it include capital gains taxes, wealth taxes, death duties, consumption taxes, the cash economy, more taxes on petrol, resource rental taxes? There is a whole range of possibilities with no specific proposals. In the event, what will come out of this whole campaign and this debate on taxes will simply be some electioneering. It has nothing to do with reform of the tax system. It has nothing to do with genuine commitments to take this tax system, turn it upside down and inside out and make it into something that will really benefit Australians. No one has talked about some of the vital issues in the tax system that concern people at present. The reason for that is that everyone is afraid to raise these issues in a pre-election period. I suggest that rather than getting stuck into each other we should all accept that we need a new system and that if it is to mean anything to the people of Australia it will have to be a system that will outlive one government. It will have to be a system that is reformed, probably over a period of seven or eight years, and therefore it will need a bipartisan approach. To assist this, last week on behalf of the Australian Democrats I introduced a Bill to provide a timetable for a bipartisan tax reform for Australia to build on the wonderful work that was done by Asprey and Mathews and many others who have looked at our tax system and its complexities. Instead of letting all this lie on the back burner for eight years as the Liberals did, and for 18 months as this Government has done, I believe that we are now mature enough as a nation to accept that taxation has to be non-partisan. We need a strategy that will take us through at the very least to the turn of the century-a tax strategy that will be acceptable not just to the politicians but to all the people of Australia. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.06) —The Senate is debating a matter of public importance brought forward by the Opposition, namely: The Government's concealment of its real intentions on taxation. There can be no doubt about the importance of this issue at this time. One has to note only the rising level of hysteria on the part of the Government in disclaiming every project and policy item that has been put forward by the Opposition to realise what kind of state of mind the Government is working itself into. It realises how vulnerable it is, particularly on taxation matters. As a result, it is attempting to fool the Australian people that it really does not intend to introduce capital gains taxes or savings taxes or death duties after the election by saying: 'We will conduct a review of the taxation system'. In this debate the Liberal and National parties have clearly stated their intention to bring down a precise scheme for income splitting for families with children in order to provide substantial benefits, bringing with them substantial social benefits, for families with single incomes. That, of course, is to be provided in conjunction with a child care rebate, in order to provide people with a definite option of looking after themselves. Also there will be the choice for spouses in the family to decide the kind of career paths each might follow. Quite apart from those social effects which will be of substantial benefit to the Australian people, there is the very question of equity which is being addressed by the Liberal and National parties in their policy. That flies directly in the face of the Labor Government's approach, which is to hide its real intentions, bind them up in rhetoric and throw them away until after the election, if the Australian people can be fooled long enough to re-elect them on 1 December. For these reasons, this debate is particularly important. We need to bring forward the Government and expose its real intentions in these matters in order to make sure that the people understand what this Government intends if it is re-elected. We can judge the real level of hysteria in the Government about the obvious acceptance and success of the Liberal and National parties' income splitting proposals by examining the words of the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, here a few minutes ago in the course of the debate. He claimed that there would be a very substantial benefit accruing to very high income earners as a result of the institution of our new policies. He instanced the case of the Treasurer, Mr Keating, who earns something like $60,000 a year and he claimed that there would be a tax advantage to him of some $3,270. Of course that is absolutely wrong. I put that issue to rest straight away by referring to the tax policy of the Liberal and National parties, in which we say that one option to achieve an equitable system so that the relative benefit goes to lower income families is to limit the dollar benefit to any taxpayer to the benefit provided to a single income family on $18,000. That is our policy statement, so Mr Keating would get no greater benefit from his taxable income of $60,000, or whatever it might be, than a person who has a taxable income of no more than $18 ,000. That is the point that must be got across. But clearly this Government is becoming so nervous and so hysterical about the prospect of not succeeding at the election that it is inclined to and will deliberately misrepresent the Opposition's position on this matter time and again if it can get away with it. We have seen other examples again today. The Minister for Social Security has been trying to misrepresent the Liberal and National parties policy on social security in relation to child care, with completely wrong, fallacious statements which have nothing to do with the facts and which are total fabrications. We saw the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) doing the same thing in Tasmania yesterday about taxation policies. This hysteria, which is spreading amongst Labor members like wildfire, will bring them down in a fiery heap in the not too distant future. We know that the Government is committed to a capital gains tax. Why does it not tell the people what it really intends? Why will it not tell us before the election what it intends to do after the election, if it is re-elected? It is just hiding these facts. It is not proposing the full issues which should be exposed during this election campaign. It is leaving it to the Opposition to bring them forward. Why do I say that the Government is committed to this tax? Clearly, it has its foot in the door. Over the last 12 months, the Government has introduced an assets test on pensions. Why has it done that? It is the equivalent of a capital gains tax, not on the rich but on old age pensioners, the most vulnerable group in the community. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —And the widows. Senator MESSNER —That is the tax being imposed upon that group-the widows, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle points out, the unemployed, the sheltered workshop allowance recipients, you name them. These are the people who are being affected by the assets test. I turn to the rationale of the assets test. Senator Grimes, in Labor Essays of 1983, said quite clearly: Those who advocate an assets test for pensioners should, if they are consistent , introduce a capital gains tax at the same time. So there we have it. We have the foot in the door. We have the assets test. We have had the legislation passed by this Parliament, through this Senate with the support of the Australian Democrats, being opposed by the Liberal and National parties, and as a result we can now expect, directly, the second leg of the double-a capital gains tax. That was Senator Grimes speaking, the Minister for Social Security, number four in this Labor Government. He is clearly committed to that. But he is not the only one. Mr Keating, the Treasurer, said, according to the Canberra Times of 3 September 1983, that not only would we have indirect taxes introduced, on the tourist industry, the professions, and financial services, but we would also be having a capital gains tax. We have also seen the argument about indirect taxes. The Government has sought to say that indirect taxes would somehow be inflationary, that they would cause problems for the economy. But if there is any doubt about it, let us see to what extent the Government is committed to this. In its Budget last year it introduced the new concept of indexing excises on a whole range of goods, including tobacco, alcohol and petrol. Since then it has introduced a wine tax, and it has widened the sales tax net. So the Government has no compunction about introducing indirect taxes. That is obviously part and parcel of its agenda. To what extent can it argue that it is against this kind of taxation? Of course it cannot argue that. Senator Jack Evans would acknowledge straight away that this Government has sought to extend indirect taxes across the community. So there is no distinction between us in this matter. If the Liberal and National parties are seeking to extend the tax base of indirect taxes and at the same time cut direct taxes-a policy that we have sought to pursue for many years-we say that that is a good thing. But the Government is not thinking of that at all. It is just widening the tax net in order to pay for the deficit. It knows that if it is re-elected, it will have to do that as well. It will have to extend the tax net because, as Syntec and John Stone have pointed out, it will face terrible problems in coping with its Budget in the early part of the next financial year. Mr Keating, in an address to the National Press Club on 24 August 1983, said: The Government has never given an undertaking that increases in indirect taxes could be avoided. In considering how to finance the necessary growth in Budget outlays, the Government was conscious of the very sizable burden already imposed by direct taxation. Is that not what we on the Opposition benches are saying? Is that not what we have proposed in our policy-that we intend to cut direct taxes? Of course it is. Yet the Treasurer seems to have some ability to pervert that statement and to twist it around as though he has somehow a different point of view. In an interview with Russell Barton, published in the Age of 2 September 1983, the Treasurer went on to say that the regressiveness of indirect taxes had been ' oversimplified' and had 'limited this form of taxation'. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —We have been saying that for a long time. Senator MESSNER —Yes, we have. Indeed, Mr Howard dealt with that very effectively yesterday. But perhaps the most important point of all on this matter, and the reason why the Labor Government is showing such humbug on it, is the deletion from its platform, at the July 1984 ALP Conference, of the following phrase on the matter of taxes: Reduce the relative incidence of indirect taxation. There is the direct point. The Government knows that it is going that way. It should not try to fool the people. It should tell them what it is on about, so that we can debate these matters properly. The Government knows it, and everyone else knows it. The confirmation that we shall be having high taxes comes from the words of none other than Barry Jones, the Minister for Science and Technology. Earlier this year he quoted Senator Robert Ray as having often said: We've got a party policy that's got 195 pages on spending money and only about five pages on raising it. Clearly, Barry Jones was indicating that this Government has to move towards higher taxation to pay for his science and technology policies. Perhaps the real issue here can be read from the ALP accord with the trade union movement, because that demonstrates exactly the bind that the Government is in ahead of an election. It has put so much store on this great accord, as it describes it, which is, as the Government sees it, saving Australia from economic ruin. The accord contains this reference: The Government will endeavour to reduce the relative incidence of indirect taxation because of its regressive and inflationary nature. I have already mentioned that the Treasurer, in an interview published in the Age, has said that it has proven not to be regressive. Secondly, that reference, in almost exactly those words, was deleted from the ALP platform in July of this year. Yet we find that it is still very much a central part of the accord. That is why the Government cannot come clean on its taxation policies. That is why it cannot say what it really intends to do regarding indirect taxation. That is why it has to hide behind some kind of a review. That is why it cannot come out and tell the people that it will raise taxes after it gets back into government. This is contained in the ALP and union accord to which the Government is bound and to which, of course, the ALP is beholden by virtue of the pre-selection of its members here. That is the core of the Government's dilemma. It cannot tell the truth. It will not tell the truth. We on this side of the Senate will make sure that in the period leading up to the election that is exposed to the Australian people. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(4.21) —I rise to speak in the discussion of the matter of public importance which has been raised by the Opposition; that is , the so-called concealment by the Government of its real intentions on taxation . I wish to point out that our actions in government on taxation speak for themselves. They indicate our taxation policies and the future direction of taxation in this country. We have already changed the taxation system in Australia. The income tax structure which will apply from 1 November will be different from that which exists at the moment. The tax system will be fairer, more equitable and more progressive. We have removed taxation concessions for the wealthy. We have attacked tax avoidance and tax evasion. It would have been an all out war on tax avoidance and tax evasion had it not been for the obstruction of certain members of this chamber who have tied our hands on the matter of getting revenue back from tax avoiders and tax cheats. We have lost $ 570m as a result of those actions. We would have been able to give greater tax relief had it not been for the blocking of our legislation by Opposition members and three members of the Australian Democrats. Our new taxation system, our new system of income tax, will reduce the share of personal income tax in Australia's gross domestic product. I have cited figures on the share of income tax before in this chamber and I will do so again. Under the Fraser-Howard Government, in its last year in office, 1982-83, the share of gross pay as you earn income tax collections to gross domestic product was 12.7 per cent. Under this Government, in 1984-85 this share will be 11.9 per cent. That is a clear reduction in the share. Clearly this Government is not a high tax government as was claimed by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, earlier this afternoon. We have moved away from the high tax policies of the previous Fraser-Howard Government. As I have pointed out before, a key element of our reform of the income tax system is the move to a new lower 25c in the dollar tax bracket. It is the lowest tax bracket in Australia for years; in fact, since 1977-78. The best the Liberal Party could do in government was a bottom tax bracket of 30c in the dollar. As a result of those changes and as a result of the five-step system which we have introduced, most Australians will receive a tax reduction of $7.60 a week. Many will pay tax at that 25c in the dollar rate. In fact, as a result of that change 2 1/4 million taxpayers will move to a lower taxation bracket. We have heard claims about taxpayers moving into higher tax brackets. The Opposition has studiously ignored the fact that as a result of our reforms 2 1/4 million Australian taxpayers will move into a lower tax bracket after 1 November . That will have an effect in holding down the average rate of taxation which is the more important concept-not the marginal rate of tax, or rate of tax which is paid on the last dollars which people earn; the tax rate on all of their income. We have introduced new rebates for social security beneficiaries. We have relaxed the income limit for the Medicare scheme. Our total reduction in income tax this year will be $2,100m in a full year. Our policies have been clearly demonstrated by the fact that we have raised the tax threshold for a number of Australians. In a full financial year 85,000 Australians will no longer pay income tax as a result of the measures introduced by the Government in this year 's Budget. Eighty-five thousand Australians will no longer pay income tax because of the introduction of new rebates for social security beneficiaries and also the combined effect of the new 25c in the dollar tax rate and the existing taxation rebates-for example, the sole parent rebate and the dependent spouse rebate. As I have already pointed out, we could give more relief if the Opposition and three of the Democrat senators would support us in our efforts to crack down on tax cheats by passing the recoupment legislation. On four occasions that legislation has been blocked in this chamber. The cost to revenue has been $570m, which could have resulted in very significant tax cuts for the remainder of the community, the honest taxpayers of this country. Looking ahead, we see that our policy intentions are clear. I have referred to the income tax reductions which will apply from 1 November. I am sure that the Government's prices and income accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which was drawn up over 18 months ago, has been subjected to great scrutiny by honourable senators opposite. The accord clearly provides for a tax review. Over 18 months ago that accord clearly provided for a review of the Australian taxation system. The review at which we are looking is not something which has come out of the air in the last few weeks. It has been a matter of policy for over 18 months. That review of the taxation system will be conducted by the Economic Planning Advisory Council. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made it quite clear that there will be no examination of specific tax options or particular taxes, until after that review has been completed. I hope that that review of the taxation system will lead to a national taxation summit. I think that would be a very interesting exercise. It has also been made clear by the Prime Minister that as a result of that review of the tax system there will be no lift in the total taxation burden on the community. To spell it out in words of one syllable for the benefit of honourable senators opposite, if there are to be any extra tax collections on some account there will be reductions elsewhere in the taxation system, so there will be no overall increase in the burden. It has also been made clear by the Government that there will be allowance for full public consideration of any proposed changes in the taxation system. There will be maximum consultation with the community. The Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia are scaremongering on the matter of taxation. In this respect I simply quote from the editorial in the Australian Financial Review of Monday, 15 October: Taxation reform is, indeed, one of the real issues of this election campaign. The Opposition is determined to conduct a rather shabby course of instilling fear into whatever sections of the electorate have an interest in opposing rational tax reform . . . That is what the Australian Financial Review said last week. The Liberal Party is now specifically focussing its attention on a capital gains tax. Senator Messner did so this afternoon. Of course, honourable senators opposite find it very convenient to ignore the fact that Australia already has a capital gains tax. A capital gains tax existed under the Liberal-National Party Government. Anybody who buys and sells assets within a 12-month period is liable to pay a capital gains tax under the income tax system. That provision has existed for many years. Anybody who purchases assets with the intention of making a profit on the purchase of those assets is liable for a capital gains tax under the income tax system. That system has existed for many years. I do not recall on any occasion members of the Liberal and National Party Opposition proposing that those provisions be done away with. I put on the record the fact that Australia already has a significant capital gains tax in those two areas. I now turn to the Liberal Party policy which was supposedly released to the Australian electorate yesterday. On reading that policy I find that the intentions of the Opposition are well and truly concealed. I think that it will try to keep them concealed until after the election. Of course, after the election they will be very well concealed because the Opposition will lose the election and the policies will be buried forever. Last week we had a debate in this place on taxation. We on this side of the Senate asked the Opposition what it would do regarding taxation. The Opposition said that all would be revealed the following Monday. It said that it would tell us everything on Monday of this week, which was yesterday. Nothing of the sort happened. We simply need to read page one of the Melbourne Age this morning and an article written by Mr Russell Barton which stated: . . . the Liberal policy is deliberately short of detail. Last week various Opposition senators, including Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle , criticised the Government in the matter of tax indexation; that is, the adjustment of income tax brackets for inflation in the community. Is there to be tax indexation in the Liberal Party's tax policy? The Government has been castigated and chastised over this matter for weeks now. Will the Liberal Party index taxation brackets for inflation? We need answers to that question. The electorate needs answers to that question. Last week Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle told us that one million Australians had been pushed into higher tax brackets. Is the Liberal Party going to do anything about that situation if it is true? We have not had an answer on that. In this place and in the House of Representatives on a number of occasions motions have been moved and questions asked regarding the 46c in the dollar tax rate. Will something be done about the 46c in the dollar tax rate in the unlikely circumstances that the Liberal Party is elected to government? Will it reduce that tax rate? I looked through that Party's policy and I cannot find any suggestion that the 46c in the dollar tax rate would be reduced in the unlikely event that the Opposition won government. How is the Liberal Party to finance its program of income splitting? Mr Howard referred to a value added tax, a retail turnover tax and the extension of the existing wholesale or sales tax. Which of those taxes would be increased? Which sections of the community would pay a burden as a result? I suppose that an extension of the wholesale tax is the most likely, judging by Mr Howard's performance in his 1981 and 1982 Budgets in which we saw unprecedented inceases in that tax with its extension to a wide range of new products and very sharp increases in the rates charged for existing products. In just two Budgets collections from the wholesale tax rose from $2,100m to $3,490m, a very large increase of 66 per cent. The average effective rate on taxed goods rose from 13 per cent to 17 per cent in just two years. That is how the present Opposition when in government went about fighting inflation; it increased wholesale tax and raised the prices charged to consumers. In spite of Mr Howard's March 1981 taxation statement, he did the things to which I have already referred, such as increasing wholesale tax. It is very interesting to reread Mr Howard's 1981, tax statement. By indirect taxes I mean value added taxes, retail turnover taxes and the wholesale tax to which he referred yesterday. He said that they had effects on the consumer price index, that they increased inflation. He said they had further consequences as a result of any anti-inflationary measures which needed to be taken to hold down price rises. He said that those taxes could be regressive, that is, they would take more from lower incomes. What I found particularly interesting in Mr Howard's taxation statement of March 1981 was the very categorical statement that every additional $500m collected from indirect taxes added one per cent to the consumer price index. He said that on 12 March 1981. We turn to the centrepiece of the Liberal Party's taxation policy which was announced last night-income splitting. In Mr Howard's March 1981 taxation statement he is on record as saying that full income splitting would cost $1, 100m in a full year, that is, over a billion dollars, based on 1981 figures. The Liberal Party's taxation policy refers to $18,000 of income being available for splitting, but which $18,000 is it? Is it the first $18,000? It is not clear. Is it the last $18,000? Clearly there was great confusion last night between Mr Howard and Mr Peacock on which $18,000 it would be. Senator Peter Baume —It is the first $18,000. You know that. Senator MAGUIRE —The honourable senator should look at what the Financial Review said. Is the honourable senator saying that Mr Howard is wrong? Today's Australian Financial Review states: But last night Mr Howard conceded the accuracy of Mr Keating's claim at his press conference that on an income of about $60,000, he would receive a net benefit of $3,270 . . . while a person on $18,000 would get less than $400. Mr Howard said there was nothing new in persons on higher incomes gaining greater benefit under tax changes. That is what the Opposition's taxation spokesman, its Deputy Leader, said. There is so much confusion on the Liberal Party's tax policy that it does not know where it is going. The statement attributed to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition last night shows that he does not know what his tax policies mean. What is to happen in respect of people who do not have incomes high enough to get taxation rebates for child care? That is what we need to find out about. It seems to me that the Liberal Party's taxation policy is targeted at people in the work force but does nothing in respect of child care costs for people who do not have incomes high enough to receive taxation rebates. That point was made by the Asprey Taxation Review Committee a number of years ago. The Opposition's policies on taxation are incredibly vague. I have indicated that our policies can be demonstrated by our actions to date. Our policies include ensuring that there is more progressivity in the taxation system, making sure that income tax is no longer a voluntary tax for the wealthy and ensuring that the ability to pay principle is restored to the taxation system. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(4.35) —The Opposition brought forward this matter of public importance in the following terms: The government's concealment of its real intentions on taxation. It did so because it seems that while the Senate is sitting this is the only way we can drag the Government screaming into a debate on tax. The Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) recklessly called an election for 1 December, leaving unanswered many matters that ought to be before the people as legitimate concerns at the time of an election. One could refer to reports that are outstanding on crime and to Senate inquiries. One must also refer to the report the Prime Minister is vaunting on tax review. If ever a matter should be discussed at the time of an election it is the core of government responsibility as far as taxation policy is concerned. For the Government to have as an election policy the fact that it will be having a review of taxation, not even giving a commitment to the present levels or mix of tax but to have allowed itself to be dragged into discussions about exemptions on a capital gains tax, not ruling out such things as death duties, wealth taxes, further indirect taxes and further indexation of them or whatever, seems to me to be an absurdity. It also seems absurd that the Government does not want to discuss this matter with the Australian people. I was interested in what Senator Maguire said, although I may have misunderstood him. He spoke of the review of the prices and incomes accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I may not have understood him clearly but it seemed to me that he was saying that until that review was undertaken the Government could not be explicit about what its tax policy would be. I understood that what the Prime Minister was going to describe to us at the end of this week following the debate that has gone on now for a couple of weeks was to be the nature of the taxation review. Will the review be a review through the Economic Planning Advisory Council, as we understood it was to be? Is it to take place after some negotiations have been undertaken with the ACTU in relation to the restructuring of its accord for next year and into the future? Is it to be a review in the form of some kind of summit where we have big industry corporations and big unions, with a sole voice from a body such as the Australian Council of Social Service on behalf of those people who are in the welfare system, without any voice at all of individual Australians being heard? I will be very interested to hear exactly what the Prime Minister is to describe to us in the next few days about the nature of the taxation review and whether, as I understood Senator Maguire to say, ACTU negotiations must precede any format that can be given to us with regard to the review. We heard from Senator Maguire that the tax policies of the Government speak for themselves. That is a very accurate statement. They do speak for themselves. They speak for themselves in the assessments that people have received on their last year's income in which the effect of the removal of the rebates is felt, as a refund in tax that people had expected to receive but which did not occur. Indeed, many taxpayers have had to pay additional tax because of the removal of rebates and the changes that have been made in the tax system. The Government's taxation policies speak for themselves when we recognise that two years ago persons had to earn 10 per cent more than average weekly earnings to enter the 46c in the dollar tax bracket. By the end of this financial year people earning 8.5 per cent less than average weekly earnings will pay 46c in every extra dollar earned, plus the one per cent Medicare levy which they also must pay. When looking at tax policy we cannot ignore the imposition of the one per cent Medicare levy and we must add that to any assessment that is made of the tax position. I certainly agree that the Government's tax policies speak for themselves. I was rather interested to hear the speech from Senator Maguire with regard to retrospective legislation. In his summation of his speech this afternoon he mentioned that retrospective legislation is one of the commitments of the Government. Of course it is; it is in the prices and incomes accord that there will be retrospective legislation. However, I argue that at the time of an election that is one of the things that ought to be spelt out to the Australian people. What kind of retrospective legislation will it be? It has to be remembered that each time the Government brought a retrospective tax Bill into this place or the House of Representatives it was different from the one before. We have to ask what commitment the Government has to any of the retrospective tax legislation that it introduced into the Parliament. If it had a serious commitment and if it really wished to uphold the proposals that were put before the Parliament, why did the Prime Minister not have a double dissolution and ensure that he could make the argument that he was going to make about retrospective legislation, and ensure that that became the issue of the campaign , as some months ago he threatened it would be? Retrospective legislation changing the rules after something has occurred could also be applied to capital gains tax, wealth tax, death duties or anything. If, as Senator Maguire has explained to us, the Government has retrospective legislation as one of its aspects of legislation, again I would like to see that spelt out before this forthcoming election. We have had somewhat hysterical outbursts from the Prime Minister, Mr Keating and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, with regard to exemptions from capital gains tax, all of which simply add to the confusion that has arisen about the Government with its no public policy stance on any tax following the Budget measures which are before the Senate at the moment. If people were to look at tax policy when faced with the election they would see very clearly the philosophy of the party putting forward that policy. In a party 's tax policy one sees the priorities of government; one sees the objectives of government; one sees where assistance is regarded as necessary; one sees where relief can be given and where encouragement can be given. Through tax policy one can get a fair assessment of a government's or an opposition's philosophy with regard to government. If one looks at tax policy as an outline of a government's objective one has also to look at the other side of the ledger, at a government' s proposals with regard to expenditure. One can see from a government's tax policy whether it has any philosophical hang-up about people owning capital, however modest that may be. One can see where a government wishes to impose taxes. In this Government's short term in office we have seen that it has wasted no time in imposing taxes on the modest amounts of capital that people can gain from superannuation, to which they have contributed throughout their working lives. One can see the philosophy of this Government in the imposition of an assets test on our social security beneficiaries. One can see the philosophy of this Government with regard to probate, death duties, wealth taxes and all the other things that are quite obviously in the mix of the review that Senator Button has described to us day after day in the Senate and the things which cannot be excluded. A government could quite properly exclude any matters that it did not wish to be considered in a review. A government can have a philosophy whereby it puts forward its priorities. It can look at matters that it wishes to see included in a tax policy. Just as the Opposition has put forward its objection to a further capital gains tax because of the importance that that would have on capital accumulation or formation, the Government can have matters which it wishes to exclude. When I asked Senator Button across the Senate today whether the Government was set to accept the recommendations of the EPAC inquiry, he said: 'We do not know what they are yet'. Of course he does not know; that is the point of the question. For the Government to put forward a review as its tax policy at the time of an election means that it does not know exactly what the recommendations will be but, more importantly, the Australian people do not know what the recommendations of a body outside government will be or whether the Government will feel committed to use that as an excuse for a new tax mix, a new tax imposition, a new philosophy that can be imposed through tax policy. I suggest that the vague comments made by the Prime Minister about there being no increase in taxes overall show that it is very easy for a philosophy to come through in new directions, just as we saw it with regard to capital accumulation through superannuation payments and people owning assets and being affected by the social security system. One can very easily direct one's philosophical intentions through a tax policy, just as the Government has already done in the area of superannuation and social security policy. The Government is to meet this week with the ACTU on the prices and incomes accord. When at Question Time today I asked Senator Button what was to be the basis for discussion with regard to tax at that meeting with the ACTU on the prices and incomes accord, given that the Government has no public policy stance on any area of tax, he said that he did not really know what was on the agenda. Then we heard the statement from Senator Maguire. I think the Government should look at those two statements and see whether the agenda includes discussion of tax as part of the prices and incomes accord, or whether there is no agenda as Senator Button said at Question Time today. The Government needs new taxes. The Government has virtually left unchanged the structural deficit in the Budget Papers before us. It has cast a Budget which is over-optimistic about revenue that will be collected in the forthcoming year. The Government needs new taxes for its spending proposals. When a government does not speak of reducing expenditure or the share of the gross domestic product which it wishes to control or confiscate, we would accept that it needs new taxes and wants a broader mix of taxes, and taxes that can put forward its own philosophy. Of course, the ACTU has been known to say that it accepts and supports capital gains taxes. Those wishing to quote the Australian Financial Review today might also have seen the quote that the ACTU is unlikely to add to the Government's problems on this matter by making a public issue of its stand on capital gains tax in the lead-up to the election. That is one comment. We have comments also from Mr Dolan on another occasion to the effect that the ACTU would find acceptable some increases in indirect taxes. These are the discussions that will be held this week with regard to the prices and incomes accord. I just wonder what exactly the Government's proposals are and how much of them it will be prepared to put forward before the election. The Prime Minister's statement with regard to issuing something later in the week is in stark contrast to the position of the Opposition in releasing its tax objectives in its policy statement yesterday. Although there are people who like to criticise it, I think we get a fair example of reaction when we look at the comments of Mr Risstrom as the executive of the Australian Taxpayers Association . I quote from a report on Mr Risstrom's statement of today: Mr Risstrom said he was pleased that the policy recognised the dangers of indirect taxation in admitting that it caused price increases. That is something that is readily admitted by the Opposition. The policy was put forward very carefully by the Opposition in its document as one that would take into account the effect on inflation and prices of indirect taxation. The report continued: He calculated the savings to a couple which split its income for taxation purposes would range from $2.30 a week for a combined income of $240 a week to a maximum saving of $8.50 a week for a combined income of $365 a week or more. The report continued: The child care rebates would most likely be 30 cents in the dollar, with no more than $500 to be claimed, he said. Those are the figures which Mr Risstrom put on it. They are an indication of how such a thing can be managed in terms of cost. The report continued: . . . he based this on the fact that the policy document used the word rebate, rather than deduction, and the standard rebate rate is at present 30 cents in the dollar. He is also in agreement with the comment that I have been making over recent weeks. He is reported as saying: . . . the last Budget had moved one million people into a higher tax bracket. The Liberals had not said they would turn back those tax scales, which was a pity- The income splitting proposals before the people at this election will take into consideration those families which have one income and dependent children and which have entered a higher tax bracket. If such families could income split they would avoid reaching into those higher rates of tax in a way which I think is highly desirable. This Opposition has a commitment to control government spending and to reduce taxation as a proportion of the gross domestic product during its first term and to introduce its tax proposals. I feel sure those policies will be favourably received by the Australian people. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.52) —A peculiar lethargy has descended upon the Senate this afternoon as the Liberal Party of Australia has tried to stir the possum on taxation. What we have got is a repetition of accusations and claims from a Liberal Party that has the tired air of a loser which is going on to lose yet again at another election. It is merely going through the motions. It is peculiar, too, that the Opposition speakers in this debate-Senator Chaney, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Messner-were all Ministers in the Fraser era. They are all now Peacock front benchers and are the cream of what the Liberal Party can offer in terms of economic debate in this chamber. By any standard their performance today is that of people who do not expect to have the faith of the electorate of Australia placed in them on 1 December because they have demonstrated by the vacuity of their arguments that they have no arguments to put. The matter of public importance today alleges that the government is concealing its real intentions on taxation. It is interesting that the Liberal Party and those honourable senators who were part of the Fraser Ministry and who have spoken in this debate should even have the gall to come forward and propose that matter. On the front page of today's Age newspaper there is a box headed 'Tax: the bite and the offers' and two tables of which the people of Australia should be aware. One table shows the income tax bite starting in 1973-74 and ending in 1983-84. It shows that the bite has risen from 4.2 per cent to 19.7 per cent. During the period of office in which these former front benchers, now Peacock's people, came in here and argued that their Party offered a better deal for Australia the income tax take went up. As well we find if we look at the second table on the front page of today's Age that in 1973-74, 39 per cent of pay as you earn taxes constituted the share of revenue raised by taxation. By 1983-84 it had gone to 45 per cent. The Age commented: In 1975, an average income earner paid tax at a maximum rate of 30c in the dollar. In 1984, average earnings attract tax at a maximum rate of 46c in the dollar. Those changes have come about under a Liberal Government. They have come about under the stewardship of those former Ministers who now parade here as paragons of virtue on taxation. We do not have to explain our role. We do not have to answer the allegation in the matter of public importance that the Government is concealing its real intentions on income tax. This Government runs an open ship. It runs a clear, open and active government in which, in all areas concerning living standards, the expectations of the community and the realisation of the Government's performance are well known. I refer to taxes, wages, prices, the social wage, and interest rates. On all those things which go to make up living standards this Government has an enviable record. Any one of the speakers on the other side of this chamber would be pleased to claim that record as the Opposition's own. However, the galling thing for honourable senators opposite is that they cannot. They have asked us to try to justify something which we are not concealing. We do not have to justify what we are not concealing because the record speaks for itself. On 1 November, Australian wage and salary earners will receive a tax cut of $7.60 a week. After the election there will be a comprehensive review of taxation. Much has been made of this by Opposition speakers. It is interesting that they should pretend that there is something sinister about it. One casts one's mind back to April of last year when for the first time in this country we had a national economic summit following upon which we established the Economic Planning Advisory Council, a body which will have a key role in any review of taxation generally. EPAC represents all of the community. Clearly what galls the Opposition is that it cannot understand how consensus operates and how it is possible to take the views of all sectors, synthesise those views and come up with new taxing regimes that are approved of. Not for us the ad hoc bandaids the Liberal Party proposes in its $2.5 billion tax plan announced yesterday; a tax plan that will add, by the calculation of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), 5 per cent to inflation in this country. Since we do not have to explain, I will turn to what in fact will happen on 1 November when Australians across the board, wage and salary earners all, get a tax cut. The tax cut we propose to introduce will go beyond the level of tax indexation. In terms of gross value it will be worth $2.1 billion in a full year . Indexation would have been worth $1.2 billion in a full year. The biggest benefits resulting from our cuts will go to low and middle income earners. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, in examining the Government's Budget proposals, has declared that the tax cuts are genuine. On the strength of all the benefits contained in the Budget and knowing that living standards for Australian wage and salary earners have been maintained, no wage increases will be sought until 1985. The tax cuts help preserve the accord and therefore help preserve the recovery. The tax cuts strengthen purchasing power for consumers. Already the indicators show that we are in for a bumper Christmas as consumers with tax cuts in their pockets-real gains in living standards-are able to spend more and buy the country out of the recession. The tax cuts proposed by the Government guarantee greater equity and redistribute income properly across the board. What we will introduce will be of most benefit to low and middle income earners. Taxpayers with an income between $12,500 and $28,000 will receive a benefit of $7.60 a week. For those earning below the tax threshold-$4,595 and $12,500-the tax cut will be almost 17 per cent. Those earning more than $28,000 also will receive a tax cut but this will steadily reduce as incomes exceed $28,000 to a flat $2.79 a week for incomes above $35,000. The new tax scale, which takes effect on 1 November 1984, consists of five steps in place of the old three-step scale. The scale is more progressive and means that lower income earners pay relatively less tax than previously. The first tax step is now 25c in the dollar; previously it was 30c in the dollar. It reduces significantly the average and marginal tax rates for the lowest income earners in this country. The Opposition has sought to draw attention to an estimated increase in income tax collections in the Budget of 23 per cent. We have heard a lot about that today. That is the Peacock figure. Most of that is accounted for by two factors: Firstly, the surge in incomes from farms and businesses and, secondly, the full year revenue effects of the Medicare arrangements, which essentially replace the former private health costs. Ordinary pay as you earn taxes on wage and salary earners are increasing at about 10.7 per cent, which is accounted for by wage and employment growth. Pay as you earn taxes in 1984-85 will represent a smaller share of gross domestic product than in either of the last two years of the Fraser Government. What are the Opposition's policies on taxes? We heard its announcement yesterday but it should be remembered that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the discredited former Treasurer in the Fraser Government, Mr Howard, on 7 October last circulated proposals for a 30 per cent flat tax rate. The proposals were made in a paper released by the Centre for Policy Studies at Monash University and involve doing away completely with high income tax brackets and lowering the threshold at which no tax is payable from $4,595 to $4,000 per annum. This would effect a redistribution of income from the poor to the wealthy in line with Liberal Party philosophy. The paper that Mr Howard cited advocates coupling this flat rate of tax with a consumption tax, the effect of which would be to push up the consumer price index considerably-the estimate being by five to six points. In this debate some test ought to be objectively declared so that those who might be listening can judge for themselves which is the best way to go about making a choice about the policies of the two parties. I want to suggest three tests: The comparative test-which of the two proposals is better; the performance test-which of the two parties has done better; and the credibility test-which of the two parties can be believed. Senator Crichton-Browne —Tell us about land rights. Senator COOK —Someone rattles the honourable senator's cage and he raises the matter of land rights because he does not like hearing about the economy. He does not like hearing how his party, when in government, failed and how we are succeeding. I turn to the comparative test. Let us do a quick thumb nail comparison. On a document headed 'The Main Features of Coalition Tax Policy', released by the Opposition, point No. 1 states: The overall taxation burden can only be reduced by a combination of spending restraint and economic growth. It is interesting that the Opposition should say that; it is interesting that it should say that spending restraint and economic growth are the only ways we can reduce the tax burden, because it did nothing when in government. If we compare the performances of the parties, under our Government workers will get a $7.60 a week tax benefit, the accord will be adhered to, living standards will be maintained and will improve, and the fight against tax evasion and avoidance will continue. There will be a comprehensive review of taxation, generally and by the Economic Planning Advisory Council, possibly culminating in a tax summit, and the income tax burden will not increase. That is a firm commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We have heard a number of ifs and buts from the Liberal Party. We have had an indication that there will be a broadly based consumption tax. There has been no direct articulation of how that will apply, how regressively it will affect wage earners and how it will dampen economic growth. No costings are offered by the Liberal Party as to what it will cost and we are told their scheme will be phased in-'phased in' being a pseudonym for saying that they do not really know when or how it will apply. They are those vague terms in order to avoid direct costings and in order to escape argument. The Opposition has a proposal for income splitting, the effects of which are best summed up by the Nicholson cartoon in this morning's Age. That cartoon depicts an ordinary Australian, his wife and kids standing on one side and a typical Liberal, upper class society matron and her husband standing on the other side, before their portico. The ordinary Australian says-this is the comment on the equity of the Liberal Party's tax proposal-'My wife has to work to make ends meet'. The Liberal says: 'My wife will have to stay at home to make ends split'. The Liberal Party fails to recognise in terms of its proposal that increasingly women are joining the work force; increasingly there are two income families because that is an essential change in our society and the value-- Senator Crichton-Browne —It is an essential need. Senator COOK —Yes, an essential need brought about by the the economic malaise that his party led this Government into. Senator Crichton-Browne —What about the last 18 months? How many jobs have you created in the last 18 months in the private sector? Senator COOK —I will tell the honourable senator about jobs in a minute. He should restrain himself and try to relax for a few minutes; he will get the full story. Of course there is good reason why he would want to try to shout down what I am saying. It effectively gives the lie to how effective his proposals would be. The Opposition's commitment has to be seen against its original proposal for the introduction of flat taxes. Senator Peter Baume —We have never proposed that. Why do not you stick to what we have actually come out with. Senator COOK —Senator Baume should go back and read what the discredited former Treasurer of the Fraser Government said in October of last year, when he quoted a proposal to introduce a 30 per cent flat tax. If the honourable senator does not know what his own Opposition is proposing, I do not know why he sits on the front bench. I go back to the performance of the Government and the fact that apparently even the Opposition recognises that economic growth is essential. One does not have to be very bright to compare the economic performances of both governments and come to the firm conclusion that more Australians are in work and so more Australians are in fact paying taxes, unemployment is down, inflation has been halved, interest rates have fallen by at least 2 per cent, retail sales are booming, housing commencements are well up, private investment is increasing, real unit labour costs have fallen and industrial disputes are down. That is our performance-a performance that can be easily and favourably contrasted to that of the previous Government. Finally, on the matter of credibility, it was the Liberal Party, under the leadership of Malcolm Fraser, that in the 1977 campaign raised the ogre of a fistful of dollars. It offered the bribe but when it came to the pinch and it was returned, nothing was forthcoming. It was that party that presided over massive tax avoidance and evasion in this country and did little to curb it. It is that party that has ensured that all the efforts we as a government have made to try to bring in Bills to squash tax avoidance and round up back taxes have come to nothing, because honourable senators opposite have consistently voted against those Bills. It was their Deputy Leader, the former Fraser Treasurer, who presided over the fight inflation first policy which put Australians out of work. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria) —On behalf of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, Mr McIntosh, I present a report entitled ' Australia's Defence Co-operation with its Neighbours in the Asian-Pacific Region ', together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings and the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria)(5.07) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The Committee was asked by the Senate in 1981 to inquire into Australia's defence co-operation program with its neighbours in the Asian-Pacific region, but shortly afterwards the Committee also received a reference on East Timor. As a result the Committee deferred consideration on the defence co-operation program until the report on East Timor was completed. While the defence co-operation program was formerly established in 1972, Australia has been providing military assistance to a number of countries in South East Asia since 1963. However, despite 20 years of informal and then formal operation very little has been written about the defence co-operation program and no review has ever been undertaken. This financial year the program is worth over $46m. The Committee received evidence on a number of issues that were beyond its terms of reference. These included human rights in recipient countries, a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific and the possible provision of military assistance to small island states in the Indian Ocean. The Committee acknowledges the importance of these issues by making some preliminary remarks on them in the report. It became obvious during public hearings of the Committee that there is little information available for the public to gain an understanding of the workings of the program and as a result there is a large degree of misunderstanding or ignorance. The Committee hopes that this report will redress this imbalance and provide a basis for an educated debate to take place in the community. The report begins with a study of the purpose of the defence co-operation program. It became clear to the Committee that the purposes of Australia's participation in defence co-operation programs were given different emphases by the three Government departments that gave evidence-Defence, Foreign Affairs and Defence Support. The various policy objectives of the program are explored in the report . The Committee was informed that the purpose of the program is to provide defence assistance for those countries in South East Asia and the south-west Pacific that are within Australia's primary area of strategic concern. It was argued that by contributing to the security of the region we are also enhancing our own security. Overall, the Committee supports the general concept of a defence co-operation program. The bulk of the program is directed to the training of military personnel in Australia and the transfer of low level technology to recipient countries. Countries of the South Pacific receive assistance which is more of a civil nature involving, for example, the provision of such assistance as a search and rescue communication project and an exclusive economic zone base points survey. The report provides for the first time a detailed breakdown of all of the projects which Australia has with individual countries. It should be stressed that it was never the intention of the Committee to conduct a financial audit of the program, project by project. Nonetheless, it became obvious to the Committee, from the evidence received in hearings and submissions, that there are a number of contentious issues relating to the program. Briefly, the issues are: Inadequately defined purposes and objectives of the program; consequent difficulties in assessing whether individual projects are in fact achieving the objectives set out; human rights considerations as a factor in determining the provision of defence assistance; the conduct of civil projects under the program; the linkage of aid and trade, particularly in military equipment; the type of defence assistance provided; parliamentary scrutiny of the program; and the possible receipt of assistance by Indian Ocean Island states under the program. The Committee believes that the Department of Defence, as the Department responsible for co-ordinating the program, should address itself to these issues to ensure that the program is efficient in its operation and is publicly accountable. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the fourteenth report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I seek leave to table the report of the Australian delegation to the Seventy-second Conference of the Inter- Parliamentary Union held in Geneva in September 1984. Leave granted. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ELSTOB —by leave-The origins of the Inter-Parliamentary Union lie in the attempts by parliamentarians at the close of the nineteenth century to end the use of arms to resolve international differences and substitute international ' arbitration', as it was called, in place of war. It was as a direct result of these efforts that the Hague Convention establishing the International Court was agreed on. The resolution of international differences by peaceful means remains one of the principal aims of the Union. Far from resting on past achievements, however, the Union continues its attempt to operate efficiently and to be effective in the modern world. As is mentioned in the report, a feature of the Seventy-second Conference was the presence in one room of most of the nations that are currently involved in either open conflict or antagonistic situations. These included representatives from Iran, Iraq, Israel, Arab nations, North and South Korea, Ireland, Argentina , Kuwait, Cuba and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, together with major world powers including the United States of America, Russia and China. The fact that in this atmosphere meaningful dialogue could take place and positive resolution be agreed to, unanimously, on a range of contentious subjects, surely must give some hope of peaceful solutions to the bitter conflicts which dominate world politics today. Organisations are criticised when their efforts appear to be met by small results. But results depend on the nature of the problem. For example, it is unreasonable to expect the IPU to resolve the Middle East situation when the United Nations and the major world powers have failed to obtain significant results. Nevertheless, the IPU is able to point to some remarkable achievements in relation to the Middle East. For example, the IPU is the only organisation in the world which, since 1971, has been able to bring to the same discussion table representatives of Israel and three Arab countries to prepare a draft resolution on the Middle East situation. The Rome conference subsequently voted in favour with a two-thirds majority. The IPU has a long, deep and continuing involvement in the question of human rights, and liaises closely with Amnesty International on the resolution of particular cases involving parliamentarians. It may be of interest in this connection for the Australian Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International to ask Amnesty International Headquarters about the role and activity of the IPU, which in many cases acts on behalf of Amnesty International in conducting inquiries. During the consideration of the items debated at the Seventy-second Conference, the leader of the delegation, Mr Jacobi, concentrated on such policy issues as Australia's condemnation of apartheid policies in South Africa, concern at the Kuwait attempt to equate zionism with racism, and support for recent action taken to resolve the problems of the Central American region. Dr Andrew Theophanous and Senator Watson spoke in the general debate on the political, economic and social situation of the world. Dr Theophanous concentrated his speech mainly on the world debt situation and the need for a new international monetary system, based not on the dominance of the world order by a few countries but on what each country can provide to the needs of humanity, considered as a totality. Senator Watson spoke on the signs of a strong world economic recovery, and of the problems of the international debt and its repercussions, particularly in the Third World. I spoke on the subject of equal rights and responsibilities for men and women. The main theme of my remarks was the need to achieve a balance in the rights and responsibilities for men and women, with the ultimate aim of achieving a community where people are judged not by sex or group, but as equal individuals, with individual needs and strengths. Australia, because of its geographic isolation from world trouble spots, together with its ability, because of its own economic base, to identify with both developed and developing nations, is in a unique position to exercise a moderating influence at IPU conferences. In this role Australian delegates have served their country and the Union well over the years of our membership of IPU. I would like now to express my appreciation of the generous and always helpful assistance given to every member of the delegation by the members of the permanent mission to the Office of the United Nations in Geneva. The Charge d' Affaires, Mr Mike Curtin, generously gave his time and much appreciated advice throughout the Conference. He was fully supported by Mr Noel Campbell, the First Secretary, and all staff members. As was the case with the delegation to Geneva in April this year, the help given by the mission staff was appreciated by all delegates. Senator Watson, deputy leader of the Australian IPU delegation, has asked me to pay a tribute on his behalf to Mr Ralph Jacobi, the leader of the Australian delegation to IPU meetings during the current Parliament. Ralph has always expressed his opinions in a frank and forthright manner, and at the Conference, Council and Executive Committee level has played a positive and active role at all meetings. His term of office as a member of the Executive Committee came to an end this year, and, with the dissolution of Parliament, his term as leader of the Australian delegations will be completed. As a member of three of the delegations led by Mr Jacobi, I join Senator Watson in thanking Mr Jacobi for his leadership and friendship, and for his contribution to the work and success of the Australian contribution to Union conferences during his period of office. I also wish to record on behalf of the delegation our appreciation and thanks to Mr Nicholls, Deputy Clerk of the Senate, who acted as secretary and secretary -treasurer to the group. The help given by Mr Nicholls was greatly appreciated by the delegation. The same can be said of Mr Dyer, who was the assistant secretary to the delegation and who also works in the Department of the Senate. Mr Dyer gave all the assistance required by the delegation. The delegation also wishes to thank Mr Peppinck, Department of Foreign Affairs, who was an adviser to the delegation and whose help was invaluable. On behalf of the delegation, I express our thanks. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.22) —by leave-Mr President, I move: That the Senate take note of the paper and statement. I wish to say a few words on this report. This matter is being dealt with at a quixotic time. I have on the Notice Paper a report which I tabled in 1982 dealing with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and drawing attention to what was happening at that time. It appears that the same situation is true of the IPU today, but it is obvious that my motion will not be dealt with in this Parliament. Therefore, I shall seek to raise this matter again in the next Parliament. It is high time that the Parliament had a full debate on the monstrous waste of money and the great amount of misdirected energy dissipated by the IPU. It is all very well for Senator Elstob to say that it is carrying on activities that were begun in the late nineteenth century but, with respect to the honourable senator, I believe that is not the case. In recent years the IPU has greatly changed. It now numbers among its membership a great number of dictatorships whose parliaments masquerade under that name but which do not operate as parliaments in the real sense of the word. Many of our colleagues attend IPU conferences and return to this country saying: 'It is a marvellous body, because it brings about exchanges of information and gives opportunities for nations to talk to each other'. They instance the various debates that take place within the IPU. It is clear that the conference to which Senator Elstob referred was similar to the conference I attended two years ago. Once again, on this occasion the conference debated resolutions such as that put forward by Kuwait seeking to equate zionism with racism. A particularly offensive resolution on those lines was carried by overwhelming numbers in 1982 when I attended the conference. At each IPU conference the agenda is similar. The massive majority of dictatorships that dominate the IPU ensure that they always get their way. The result is that in the discussions and debates that take place there are negotiations among the delegations, and the Western powers behave in a highly deplorable way. Those nations try to compromise on impossible resolutions-matters of which they should not have a bar-so that they do not have to vote against them. Some of the Western powers think that by so doing they make friends with some of these countries and improve their own economic prospects. In a way the operations of the Inter-Parliamentary Union remind one of a mini- United Nations. The debates in the two forums are similar. As Senator Elstob said, such conferences cannot resolve the Middle East conflict but go through the forms and procedures in seeking to arrive at a solution. That sort of thing would not be so bad if the various countries of the world did not think that the IPU conference really promotes the interests of parliaments and parliamentary government. It would be a different matter if the IPU really sought to improve the opportunities of parliamentary government to enable it to spread more widely than to the 30 countries in the world that enjoy genuine democracy. The majority of members who belong to the IPU should have been thrown out years ago because they do not constitute democracies in any sense of the word. I favour a proposal, which I shall seek to pursue in the next Parliament, that Australia should get together with other democratic powers in order to get out of this worthless organisation. It is a very nice junket for members of parliament and they are pleasant conferences to attend. Large sums of money are spent on providing social occasions and functions, which are often to the great disadvantage of the economies of the host countries. Some countries go to great lengths, as I was aware when I was in Lagos in Nigeria. The pomp and ceremony performed by the Nigerian Government was most noticeable, and it was not long before that Government was overthrown and a dictatorship established there. The enjoyment of delegations at these functions is not a sufficient achievement to justify the wastage of money. The democratic powers in the world should get together and hold genuine democratic conferences at which the problems of parliamentary government are discussed and democratic ideals are able to be spread to other countries. Unfortunately, I cannot deal with this matter at any great length now. I have already said that I have every intention of debating this matter in the Parliament. However, there has been obstruction to that course, and the Senate is no longer dealing with General Business. Therefore, it is impossible for my report and resolution to be dealt with in this Parliament. I shall move the motion again in the next Parliament and I hope that the Senate will be able to debate the matter. To my mind, we are wasting time, money and energy in sending members of this Parliament away on these trips when they could be doing much better work back here. Senator Robert Ray —There is no evidence of your doing better work here at the moment. Senator MISSEN —Senator Robert Ray can speak for himself on that matter, but certainly people should be able to do better work. I am making the point that they will not do much of value by attending these tours round the world on this particular conference. I do not for a moment dispute the sincerity and integrity of Senator Elstob and I know he regards these conferences as desirable. However, I repeat that I regard these activities as an unconscionable waste of public money. It is also a waste of money for the countries who stage these conferences . I feel that we could be doing so much better in other ways in promoting democracy throughout the world. I mention this matter in protest against what continues to be one of the operations of this Parliament. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.27) —It is unfortunate that at the close of a parliamentary session, when the Senate is under pressure to complete its business, when there is a threat of guillotine on important items, when arrangements are made to present two significant reports and when further arrangements are made between the two major parties to provide for only one speaker on each report, honourable senators should be suddenly thrust into a major debate on the virtues of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The aspect that was dealt with by Senator Missen is the subject of a motion which I understand is yet to be dealt with. The forms of this Parliament have been abused today by efforts to bring this issue before the Senate. I wish to defend the role of the IPU, which is the oldest association of parliamentarians in the world. Despite what has been said, I claim that it is still the most respected parliamentary association in the world. If Parliamentarians on either side of the House choose to use that forum as a junket rather than to put forward constructive views on a wide range of issues aimed at bringing nations together and at improving relations, criticism must be directed at their heads. It is up to us all to try in our own way, humble though that may be, to improve the lot of others less fortunate than ourselves. It is also up to those of us who enjoy the privileges of democracy to emphasise those virtues in order to lead the way for others who are seeking a better and more democratic way of life . It is a travesty for honourable senators to suggest that we should develop our own little democratic club and ignore the emerging nations. I am appalled at some of the sentiments that have been expressed on this subject. I believe that in our own way we must assist multilateral organisations such as the United Nations and the IPU. Many member nations of those organisations, particularly in parts of Asia and Africa, are struggling to find their democratic freedom. The IPU is not perfect; we acknowledge that. In the struggle for human rights it has played a very significant role in the release of political prisoners. Those who have the courage to read the details of the report will find out about some significant work. It is unfortunate that a leading Australian newspaper chose to berate the IPU because of a motion that was put forward. All members have the right to put motions forward; Australia has put forward some pretty constructive motions over the years. That newspaper chose to highlight a particular Kuwaiti motion. To the credit of the IPU, it looked at that motion, debated it and decided in a total vote representing a consensus of views that on this occasion another issue-the problems of Central America-had a greater priority. This was a historic decision and it reflected great credit on the IPU on very sensitive matters of world opinion. I believe that the IPU is a great forum where people can come together. I shall give two examples. We witnessed the North and the South Koreans talking amicably at a table outside the general forum. Where else in the world could such a discussion take place? How can we know what could result from that, considering all the difficulties that would have ensued had formal diplomatic discussions taken place? Here in this forum they were able to meet-nobody was concerned about it-and discuss some of their problems. Where else could we find the British and the Argentinians sitting down to a meal and discussing some of their problems? One of the tragedies of this world is that we leave too much to the professionals. We are always concerned that our parliamentarians are not as effective as they could be, both in this place and in world affairs. The IPU gives the opportunity to show what can be done. Admittedly it must be humble, but let us never go back to our cosy little club of isolation, setting up our own little institution of selected democracies. Let us convert the world and bring it to our form of democracy. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the Thirty-sixth Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in October 1984. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator WATSON —At the beginning of this month I had the honour to be a member of a delegation led by Mr Ralph Jacobi, MP, to the thirty-sixth session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe following the deliberations of the International Parliamentary Union in Geneva. Australian participation in the deliberations of the Council is through an invitation by the President of the Council to the Australian Parliament. Involvement in these meeting gives a unique opportunity for Australian views to be heard by representatives of over 380 million people from the 21 nations represented at the Council. The delegation was also privileged to have the opportunity to take part in a meeting of the Council's Committee of Economic Affairs and Development. The thrust of my address was centred on the changed pattern of Australia's trade and the trading imbalance with Europe. The European common agricultural policy has dramatically changed the pattern of world trade, and expansion of subsidised exports has created enormous difficulties especially for the struggling developing economies. Such policies have also affected Australia as an exporter. Further, I explained that Australia 's markets had traditionally been in Britain and Europe but since the advent of the European Economic Community Australia had been forced to develop new markets , particularly in Asia. Australia is now in danger, however, of losing some of those new-found markets because of the competition from European producers, whose production is heavily subsidised by their respective governments. I also explained that much of the recent growth in economic affairs in the world had occurred in Asia and that European institutions could share in this development through institutions which are in Australia but which are European-oriented. This would give Europe an opportunity of strengthening its ties through Australia with the developing industrialised nations of Asia and the Pacific. This could prove increasingly valuable to both areas in the future. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the dedicated work of my colleague Senator Peter Rae, who has taken the deliberations of the Council of Europe particularly seriously. The work of people such as Senator Peter Rae over the years puts the lie to many of the statements that were made by Senator Missen when condemning some of these overseas trips as nothing short of junkets. We should also give consideration to attaching to Australian delegations going overseas an appropriate representative from a department in addition to the Department of Foreign Affairs. This would benefit not only parliamentarians but also officers from other departments of state. However, in making this suggestion I in no way wish to devalue the assistance offered by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I also thank Mr Ralph Jacobi for his friendship and commend him for his leadership on this and other IPU delegations during the past two years. I have enjoyed the opportunity of working with him immensely. I pay tribute to the two officers who accompanied the delegation, Mr Dyer and Mr Fred Peppinck. I believe Mr Peppinck has a bright future with the Department of Foreign Affairs. I wish him well in his work and I commend the report to the Senate. Assent to the following Bills reported: Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984 Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1984 Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill 1984 Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(5.38) —I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills: Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1984-85 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1984-85 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1984 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1984 Bass Strait Sea Passenger Service Agreement Bill 1984 Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 Passports Amendment Bill 1984 Registration of Deaths Abroad Bill 1984 Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1984 [No. 2] Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Income Equalization Deposits) Bill 1984 [No. 2 ] Income Equalization Deposits (Interest Adjustment) Bill 1984 Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984 I move: That the Bills be considered urgent Bills. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Button, J. N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. Jones, G. N. Coleman, R. N. McClelland, DouglasColston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Peter Jessop, D. S. Boswell, R. L. D. Kilgariff, B. F. Carrick, Sir John Lewis, A. W. R. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Walsh, P. A. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Bolkus, N. Martin, K. J. Foreman, D. J. Messner, A. J. Sibraa, K. W. Archer, B. R. McIntosh, G. D. Lajovic, M. E. Macklin, M. J. MacGibbon, D. J. Chipp, D. L. Teague, B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the time allotted for the consideration of the Bills be as follows: Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1984-85, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1984-85-all stages-till 12.30 p.m., Wednesday, 24 October 1984 Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984-all stages-2 hours Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1984-all stages-2 hours Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1984-all stages-15 minutes Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1984-all stages-15 minutes Bass Strait Sea Passenger Service Agreement Bill 1984-all stages-15 minutes Passports Amendment Bill 1984, Registration of Deaths Abroad Bill 1984-all stages-15 minutes Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1984 (No. 2), Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (Income Equalization Deposits) Bill 1984 (No. 2), Income Equalization Deposits (Interest Adjustment) Bill 1984-all stages-30 minutes Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.45) —I understand that the Australian Democrats will speak to indicate their support for this motion. I can only say that the reception which has been given to the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) is the clearest possible indication that we have all been here too long-I mean by that, for too many years. I guess every honourable senator here has heard a Leader of the Government or a Manager of Government Business move a motion in these terms. They have all heard the objections which the then Opposition has raised to such a motion. Mr President, I was reminded earlier this afternoon that if I could get out some of your old speeches and read them I would considerably lift my status as a gut wrenching fighter in this place because you, with great emotion, used to lay about when we would seek to bring the session to an end. There are a few unusual aspects to what is happening this afternoon. I do not wish to put on some sort of mock outrage. However, I remind the Senate that this is not quite the normal circumstance in which a guillotine has been laid down. The difference is that this Senate was scheduled to sit through until December. We have now sat for something like 10 days fewer than the number of days programmed by the Government for consideration of the legislation that it was going to put before this place. The fact is that there is no constitutional or legal reason why we should be lifting tomorrow. The view of the Opposition is that we need more time to consider the substantial legislation which is still before the Senate. The fact is there is no constitutional or legal reason for lifting the Senate tomorrow night. There is no more than a campaigning reason. Some honourable senators in particular the, Australian Democrats, wish to be on the road. I would like to make the point that if this motion is carried we will be going from this place with a whole lot of the Government's intentions still hidden. The Government's tax policy will not have been announced. We found this morning that Senator Button was, in his cheery way, prepared to be quite blunt and honest about that. When he was asked whether the Senate would be here to hear what Mr Hawke had to say about taxation he said: 'Not if I have anything to do with it'. The fact is that the Government is just not prepared to indicate here or anywhere else what its intentions are with respect to the taxation of the Australian people if it is fortunate enough to win the next election. Senator Gietzelt —Not again; do we have to hear this again? Senator CHANEY —I do not care how often Senator Gietzelt gets upset. He is one of the people who are taking the Parliament out before we have a chance to find out what the Government proposes with respect to its human rights legislation; before we have the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and when the release of the report may well place at risk those who wish to publicise what is in that report; and before we have the report of the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. They are very serious matters. I again remind the Senate that there is no constitutional or legal reason why we should go. We have a couple of hours tomorrow to deal with the Appropriation Bills which appropriate $19,000m. There is $19,000m at stake. We have sat through lengthy Senate Estimates committee hearings and there will be no real opportunity to debate the fact that this Government is trying to lift expenditure in a way which we believe is profligate. There is no way for us actually to deal with that legislation in a sensible way. This Parliament was supposed to sit for another two weeks. We know that the Government is panicking because every observer is saying that this Government has responded to the Opposition's tax policies with invective rather than reason. The Government is not prepared to join the Opposition in debate. The Leader of the Government in this place, who is the loudest caller for rational debate, is seeking to run away from that rational debate faster than anybody else. This Government is behaving in the way in which governments tend to act, which this Senate is supposed to prevent. I am not surprised at Senator Button's behaviour. He is behaving like a classic Labor leader. What I am surprised at is the Australian Democrats. We were told in 1980 that the Labor Party, the Liberals and the National Party share one thing: We do not play the game according to the parliamentary rules. The Australian Democrats said that the Parliament had to change. They said: 'We do not want any more of this business whereby debates are gagged'. In fact they said that that would not happen again and that there would be no more gags and guillotines when the Australian Democrats have the balance of power. I simply remind the Senate and the people of Australia that when the Democrats obtained the balance of power in this place they promised that they would not behave in the way in which the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties have behaved, which is to cut off debate in this place. The Australian Democrats said that things would be different, and no longer would the Government be able to gag debate or avoid sensitive issues; no longer would the Government be able to break its election promises with impunity and the days of honest government would be upon us-or else. It would sit ill in my mouth to say any more of the Government than that it is foreshortening the debate because, even though we are still six weeks from an election and there is no constitutional or legal reason why the Senate has to rise, it is frightened of continuing and prolonging debate in this place and is seeking to avoid it. There is absolutely no reason why the Senate cannot continue sitting through this week or why we should not come back next week. To do other than chide the Government for its political cowardice and its attempt to suppress debate and hide its position would be an exaggeration. But the case of the Australian Democrats is different. The Australian Democrats claimed that they were entitled to the support of the Australian people because they were not like other politicians. They were going to be different; they were going to be free from the defects which afflict members of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party. I just remind the Senate and those Australians who might be listening to the Senate that the Democrats have again broken the very clear promises they made to the Australian people. It is disgraceful that the Australian Democrats are prepared to gang up with the Government to prevent us from dealing with the Bills in the proper way. It is disgraceful that they are not prepared to allow the Senate to sit on to deal with this business properly and they should be condemned for that. Only shortage of time prevents me from moving a motion of censure on them. It might have been one of those very pleasant occasions when the Government could have joined the Opposition and left the Democrats sitting on their own, which on this occasion they deserve to be. This is a very simple illustration of how the Democrats' words have ceased to mean what they say. The first and simplest promise that the Hawke Government made was that it would not have early elections. The people who ran for election in 1983 and won promised that there would be no more early elections. It is as plain as the noses on their faces that they are having an early election because they are worried about the economy and about the fact that they cannot hold off their plans for much longer. The sad fact is that they have been permitted to override the Senate and to bring this session to an early end because the Democrats have broken their word and are permitting gags and guillotines in this place. This is a very sorry day for the Democrats and their behaviour will lessen the support they would otherwise have received in the community. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.55) —I am afraid that I had considerable difficulty in taking Senator Chaney's speech any more seriously than on occasions he appeared to be taking it. I cannot understand how any Bill on which there will be 19 speakers can be considered in any way to have been gagged or how democracy can be impugned in any way by closing that debate. Nineteen speakers on the second reading of Appropriation Bills is quite ample. As Senator Chaney pointed out, it is perfectly normal at the end of each session, regardless of whether or how it has been curtailed, for guillotine or gag motions to be moved, and Oppositions produce the sorts of howls of protest that this Opposition has produced. This sort of thing will happen until and unless the Australian Parliament operates a regular and set schedule or permanent guillotine similar to those which operate in some other Westminster-type parliaments where it is normal practice for Bills to have time limits applied to them. Senator Chaney raised the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. I suggest with respect to my friend Senator Chaney that that was something of a red herring, given the impassioned speeches yesterday, not least from Senator Durack, with regard to privilege attaching to that report and the Murphy report. There is no question that a number of these Bills have to be got through quickly. The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill, for a start, is urgent because, amongst other things, it establishes a Defence Force Tribunal which will give members of the Defence Force the right enjoyed by most other sections of the community of representation in their own industrial affairs, including pay fixing machinery. The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill and the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, which I would have thought the Opposition would have been as keen as we are to defeat, are a major feature of industrial relations and of considerable concern to a large number of people, not least small businessmen who deserve not to be kept in the sort of uncertainty that they are currently facing with regard to sections 45D and 45E. I do not think we or anybody else have to apologise for agreeing to the curtailment of tedious, lengthy and repetitive debate on some of those pieces of legislation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.58) — The motion before us strikes at the heart of the function of the Senate as a House of review. Senator Mason —Ha, ha! Senator HARRADINE —Senator Mason laughs at that. I repeat: The motion before us strikes at the heart of the function of the Senate as a House of review and as a States House. I intend to prove that. The motion has been greeted with a mixture of jocularity and cynicism. It is a matter of serious importance. Let me just prove how it strikes at the heart of the function of the Senate as a House of review. The matters before us are the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill and the Appropriation Bills (Nos 1 and 2). The debate on those Bills, which it has been said appropriate billions of dollars, is to be restricted to 12.30 tomorrow. There are nine speakers left on the list. That means that there will be no Committee stage on these Bills. There is no opportunity for those of us who know that at least one witness before an Estimates committee has misled the Parliament and has refused to supply information that he said he would supply. I refer, of course, to Estimates Committee A. Mr Whitehead, the Director-General of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, misled the Committee. He was castigated by the Committee and still he has refused to supply the information which he is reported at page 167 of the Hansard transcript as saying he would supply. Senator Peter Rae —But the Ombudsman's finding makes it even worse. Senator HARRADINE —Exactly. When the report of Estimates Committee A was tabled in the Parliament I attempted to talk about that matter. I was told that I could deal with it in the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bills. Senator Crowley —Hear, hear! Senator HARRADINE —Senator Crowley says 'hear, hear'. She will vote for the gag and ensure that there is no Committee stage on the Appropriation Bills. Senator Georges —Pull the speakers off. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Georges says: 'Pull the speakers off'. I agree with that. The Australian Democrats will vote for the gag. There are only three Democrats in the chamber. Senator Chipp and Senator Macklin are away somewhere, I do not know where. Senator Jack Evans —Senator Chipp is at the doctor's. Senator HARRADINE —Where is Senator Macklin? Is he out campaigning? Those senators have pairs, courtesy of the Opposition. Senator Mason, Senator Haines and Senator Evans are on the speakers list for these Bills yet they will vote to gag us in the Committee stage. Senator Haines —You have already spoken. Senator HARRADINE —I am not voting for the gag. I have matters to raise in the Committee stage pursuant to my audit and control functions regarding parliamentary departments. This opportunity is being denied to me and to other honourable senators by your action. You are saying: 'We will have our say and as soon as we have spoken we will allow the gag to come down.' If you had any decency you would come off the speakers list. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Harradine to address his remarks through the Chair. Senator HARRADINE —I was only responding to Senator Georges's invitation to take people off the speakers list. The invitation is really to the three Australian Democrats. If they had any decency at all, since they will vote for the gag, they should remove themselves from the list and enable those of us who have very important matters to raise in the Committee stage to do so. Part of our review function is the audit and control function. This has been taken away from us by this motion of the Government which will be supported by the Democrats. We are also being denied the opportunity of exercising our function as a States House. Another piece of legislation that has been declared urgent is the Bass Strait Sea Passenger Service Agreement Bill 1984. We have been given precisely 15 minutes by the Government and the Democrats to debate that matter. Senator Georges —Are you opposed to it? Senator HARRADINE —No. I want to say a number of things about that agreement, particularly about the need to have a cheap crossing over the Bass Strait. It is not possible for those of us from Tasmania to address that matter properly in 15 minutes. I now ask why the Government has proposed two hours for the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 and the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984. The legislation will be defeated by the combined votes of the Opposition and the Democrats. Why do we need two hours to debate it when we debated it last week? Senator Georges —You could always gag it. Senator HARRADINE —I do not want to gag debate on the Bills. I was going to support the legislation into the Committee stage and attempt to amend it so that it would appropriately deal with the major issue involved. Why do we need two hours to debate it since it will be defeated? Senator Jack Evans —So that you can move your amendments in Committee. Senator HARRADINE —I take it from the Democrats that they will support the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) to the Committee stage. Is that right? There is dead silence. All I want the Government to do-I ask this of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) through you, Mr President-is to think about the time allowed to debate the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) to see whether it can extend the time allowed to debate the Appropriation Bills so that at least we will get some Committee stage consideration of those Bills. Senator Button —We can limit that to half an hour if you want. Senator HARRADINE —Hopefully, the Democrats will now do the right thing and come off the speakers list for the Appropriation Bills. Motion (by Senator Grimes) put: That the question be now put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Button, J. N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. Jones, G. N. Coleman, R. N. McClelland, DouglasColston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Walsh, P. A. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Bolkus, N. Martin, K. J. Foreman, D. J. Messner, A. J. Sibraa, K. W. Archer, B. R. McIntosh, G. D. Teague, B. C. Chipp, D. L. Collard, S. J. Macklin, M. J. Lajovic, M. E. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (for the allotment of time) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Button, J. N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. Jones, G. N. Coleman, R. N. McClelland, DouglasColston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Walsh, P. A. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Bolkus, N. Martin, K. J. Foreman, D. J. Messner, A. J. Sibraa, K. W. Archer, B. R. McIntosh, G. D. Teague, B. C. Chipp, D. L. Collard, S. J. Macklin, M. J. Lajovic, M. E. Question so resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILLS: APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1984-85 APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1984-85 ADVANCE TO THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE 1983-84] Debate resumed. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.17) —The Australian Democrats, whilst agreeing to the appropriations that will be passed by this Senate, do have some reservations because we are concerned that this Government has turned towards the new conservatism which its predecessor Government had embraced so warmly. People of Australia must be wondering whether we have a Labor Government or a Liberal Government when they see the Budget that was presented to this Parliament. I indicated earlier that the Australian Democrats have a great deal of- (Quorum formed) A rather fascinating little game of tactics is taking place at the moment. It is fascinating because I had planned to abbreviate my speech to enable us to get into the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bills earlier. It is obvious that the Opposition Whip prefers to use up all of my time by calling quorums. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Just sit down. Senator JACK EVANS —I have some very important things to be said, just as the honourable senator and some of her colleagues have had very important things to say in the second reading debate on the Appropriation Bills. Senator Chaney —Just sit down and we will be happy. Stop talking rubbish; sit down. Come on. Senator JACK EVANS —If Senator Chaney has finished his interjections, I will continue. The Australian Democrats' concern needs to be expressed in this Parliament because the appropriations before us do not address the areas that a lot of Australians believe need to be addressed. These are the new values of the 1980s, the values which take into account an environment which is being rapidly destroyed, and the lack of understanding of the plight of people who cannot get jobs, people of all ages. (Quorum formed) Mr Deputy President, on a point of order, I draw your attention to the clock and to the fact that I now have only nine minutes in which to complete my speech. I indicate to you that I will now be taking up the full nine minutes to complete my speech. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a point of order but the honourable senator may draw the attention of the Senate to that fact. Senator JACK EVANS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I was making the point that a role is being taken by the conservative pressure groups in regard to this Parliament. In the case of the present Government it is being taken by the unions-dominating the Australian Labor Party in their conservative attempts to address the problems of their self-serving desire to get a bigger slice of the Australian cake. Big business, in its self-serving approach to get a bigger share of the profits out of this cake, is applying pressure to the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. Unfortunately, until recently the less powerful groups and individuals in the community have been ignored by this Parliament. An occasional bleat comes from political parties in the run-up to an election but, regrettably, for the balance of the term of each Parliament these people are kept out of the system. I am very proud that the Australian Democrats have become acknowledged throughout this country as the representatives of these less powerful groups and individuals in the community. I would like to specify just a few of these groups to illustrate how they suddenly become recognised in the few weeks before an election, and then are totally ignored for the other two or three years between elections. One group of people in particular who come into this category and who must feel that suddenly they have become very attractive to political parties is the aged in our community. They have been sacrificed to expediency by the Fraser Government and then by the Hawke Government. They were ignored and their plight was totally overlooked by the Parliament until suddenly the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party realised that that massive constituency could change its vote as a result of the way in which the group has been so shamefully treated in the last few years. The women in the community are still under-represented, not just because there are not enough women in this Parliament but also because the needs and views of Australian women are inadequately represented in this Parliament. Fortunately they now have a voice through all of the Australian Democrats, not just our female senator. The women in my State certainly know that they have a voice speaking on their behalf in the Senate. Senator Peter Baume —Many things, but not modesty. Senator JACK EVANS —No, I am not being immodest at all. I am very proud to say that I represent not only the men of Western Australia, but also the women and the aged of Western Australia. The other category I want to refer to encompasses the young people of Western Australia who have been ignored despite the desperate plight that many of them have been led into by Senator Peter Baume's Government in particular. They have also been ignored by this Government, the Hawke Government, simply because of its inaction and unwillingness to do anything about the increasing proportion of young people who are unemployed and destitute in the community. This Budget still does not address the problems of those young people. There are other constituencies, such as small business, that have not been addressed. It has been fascinating, since I have been elected to this Parliament to see that both the Liberal Party and Labor Party have discovered that small businesses are the backbone of the nation. If they are, why were they ignored by the Fraser Government year after year? Why were they deliberately disadvantaged by the Fraser Government in favour of big business, year after year, and why have they continued to be ignored and left powerless in the community by the Hawke Government? Even in this Budget, the Budget before the election, they are still being ignored. Small businesses and professional people have only one genuine voice in this Parliament, and that is the voice of the Australian Democrats. There is another group which probably should not be talked about in terms of the aspirations and the interests of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party. I refer to the Public Service. I am delighted that the Public Service has seen, through the Australian Democrats, an avenue to this Parliament , to have its needs addressed and to have the problems of people in the Public Service addressed. The members of the Public Service are a very easy target for politicians and lots of other people in the community, and the genuine needs of public servants are not adequately catered for. They need to have a voice in this Parliament, and I am proud to represent members of the Public Service in this Parliament as well. I wish to refer also to other groups-for example, the environmental groups around Australia that are concerned for our national heritage, those who are concerned that Australia is mining and exporting uranium to build the large nuclear arsenals in the world, and those who believe that Australia should be leading the fight for peace and disarmament but who see this Government doing exactly as its predecessor did, ignoring the potential that is there for Australia to lead in the fight for peace and disarmament. There are many ethnic groups which are studiously ignored by all parties in this Parliament, who regrettably are left off everybody's agenda because of the potential for political flak that might fly in a pre-election environment. The Australian Democrats are proud to put these people and their concerns on its political agenda. I believe that Her Majesty's Opposition is virtually redundant and ineffective in this Parliament. There is only one effective and constructive critic of the government of the day, and that is the Australian Democrats-not just in the way that we amend legislation and try to create consensus to get better legislation through here, but also in the way that we endeavour to lead this Parliament and the government of the day into new legislative fields. We do this not just for the sake of creating legislation but in an endeavour to have an Australia prepared for the 1990s, and not just constantly looking backwards. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.02) —I rise in the course of the appropriation debate simply to address some important issues relating to the performance of the Australian economy and particularly the Government's economic policy. I think it is important that the record be kept straight because the debate in the Senate in the last few days has been characterised by outrageous allegations of one kind or another. We should have a few things on the record regarding the Government's economic performance. I begin by making the point that the rise in gross domestic product over the year to June of 10 per cent is the fastest in the history of the quarterly national accounts in Australia. Indeed, it is the fastest in the world. Over a quarter of a million new jobs have been created by the present Government. I turn to the question of unemployment because it has been addressed by honourable senators, particularly in relation to youth unemployment. I will come back to that in a moment. The unemployment rate in Australia is now the lowest since November 1982. It is below 9 per cent for the third consecutive month. As I have said in the Senate on numerous occasions, that unemployment rate is not something which any government or any society can be satisfied about. When one looks at the unemployment rate when we came to government, ours is a very creditable performance in the 18 months we have been in office. The inflation rate, as measured by the consumer price index, is now down more than four percentage points, from 11 per cent under the previous Government. The Budget deficit has been reduced on two occasions and as I have said recently and as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said, the Government, of course, has a commitment to reduce the size of the deficit in next year's Budget. Interest rates are down. Again that is something which is very important to a wide section of the Australian community. There has been strong growth in sectors of the economy, particularly the housing sector, where there has been an increase of 30 per cent in commencements in 1983-84 over 1982-83. Business investment and consumer spending are beginning to pick up, and indeed the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research-Roy Morgan Survey of Consumer Sentiment recorded its highest September level ever in 1984. The latest retail sales figures show that the quarterly results ending in that month are also satisfactory in terms of retail sales, but they are not as high as the consumer sentiment figure recorded in the Roy Morgan poll. There has also been the best record in industrial relations in this country for 16 years and the figures have been given in the Senate. I again make the point I have already made on a number of occasions when talking about the competitiveness of Australian industry. At the time of the Liberal governments of Mr Fraser, the only issue which was really addressed by community forums or in political debate by that Government was the question of industrial unrest. That was seen as the scapegoat for all the failings of the industrial sector in this country. All sorts of important issues relating to the competitiveness of Australian industry were overlooked, particularly the issues relating to the sorts of things that are now being talked about somewhat belatedly by the Liberal Party. I refer to the question of deregulation of business and deregulation of the financial sector. These matters were overlooked by the Fraser Government and now that the Liberals are in Opposition they suddenly find that these things are important. It is very important to record the low figure of industrial unrest because it is an essential factor which goes to the heart of industrial competitiveness in this country and, of course, it is the result of the policies of this Government as reflected in the prices and incomes accord, and in our approach to community discussion and consultation on a wide range of issues. When we talk about the importance of consultation with a wide-ranging section of the community on tax reform, as we have done in the Senate in the last week or two, consultation is what we mean. This is an area in which we have a record of performance which is demonstrated by our record on industrial disputation. In the Liberal tax policy which was brought down yesterday, the Opposition said that it will introduce certain things when it is in government and later it said that it will have an inquiry into the preferred form of indirect tax. All this is very confusing to people who have grown used to this Government's capacity and willingness to consult with all sections of the community on these important issues during the past 18 months. These matters of economic record and performance are not matters of mere chance . They are matters of policy and they relate to sensible and careful economic management by this Government. In response to that sort of allegation, Opposition spokesmen in the Senate ask what will happen if A, B or C occurs in the future. I make this response to that question: If unfortunate things occur in the Australian economy in the future, as they undoubtedly will and as they have in the past, the question for the Australian people is: Who is best capable and best suited, on the basis of performance and record, to manage those difficulties? Who are the best managers? That question is fundamental for the people of Australia because we have a record of performance, as against a record of disaster in the seven years of the coalition Government, culminating in the disastrous years of 1981-82. In 1981-82 the Fraser Government presided over rising unemployment, rising inflation and rising interest rates-all at once. This Government, in October 1984, now presides over an economy in which inflation is falling, unemployment is falling and interest rates are falling-all at once. That is a simple and graphic illustration of the reverse side of the coin. It will also be said that all sorts of things have contributed to the economic policy success of this Government which were dreamed up in the dying years of the Liberal-National Party Government. 'Dreamed up' is the right term to apply to them. Remember how the wage freeze was dreamed up not as a piece of serious forward-looking policy making but as the means of getting the previous Government off the hook over the shocking record of unemployment over which it presided. It had to dream up something about that. There are all sorts of excuses for why those policies were dreamed up-and I am not prepared even to deny that they were, perhaps, of some benefit. This society needs continuity and the capacity to look forward to where it is going with the economy. That is something which this Government has given. It is a question of management, and that is what it is all about. I cannot but draw a contrast with the Opposition's period in government. There was record unemployment when we came into government; high inflation, above 11 per cent; high interest rates; no growth in the economy; economic stagnation; no wages policy at all; and the year 1981-82 represented the most serious outbreak in wages for years because of a total absence of a wages policy-and still Opposition spokesmen, by implication, are saying that those matters are not important. They are suggesting that tax policy and other matters are not relevant to wages policy, in total contradistinction to the views of their spokesman on industrial relations, Mr Macphee, who wrote a chapter on wages policy in the book called Liberals Face the Future. One thing that can be said about the line of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) on these issues is that he does not face the future. That is clearly understandable; he has not got one. There is a smorgasbord of different views floating around amongst Liberal spokesmen on all these issues. As I said, there was economic stagnation, no wages policy and industrial confrontation which was very divisive of this community and which resulted in very bad effects on Australian industry. There was also community division on a wide range of issues. The prices and incomes accord has proven itself as a means of bringing about moderation in wage growth and industrial harmony at the same time. The two things are very important. Industrial disputes are at their second lowest annual level since 1969. In June they were the lowest since 1969. The accord has brought moderation in wage growth. I do not think that there are many years which can be pointed to in which wage growth has been lower than it will be between the beginning of 1984 and April or May 1985. On overall labour costs, the position has been much improved and the figures are comparable with those of 1969. The important point is that Australia now enjoys predictability and moderation in wages growth. We have the basis of a prices and incomes policy which will take this country into the future and ensure a steady recovery. All this has been achieved within the first 18 months of this Government's term of office. The Opposition had seven years. It squandered its opportunities. It ran away from a review of the taxation system. It floated ideas and then abandoned them-no one more frequently than Mr Howard, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition now and the putative head of the Opposition after the coming election . This Government has been responsible and restrained in its fiscal and monetary approach. It came to office with a prospective very large deficit. It cut that deficit in its first Budget in spite of implementing some high priority programs to improve equity and create jobs. It has budgeted for a further cut to $6.7 billion in the deficit in the year 1984-85. The money supply target was achieved in 1983-84, the first time that target has been met in five years. As I said, employment growth has been substantial. Since April 1983, 264,000 new jobs have been created in Australia. This Government is well on the track to the 500,000 new jobs it said it would create in its first three years in office. Since April 1983 unemployment has dropped by 83,600. I said earlier that I would make some comments about the question of youth unemployment. We are not satisfied with the situation of youth unemployment in this country. As I said earlier, no government, no political party, no community leader and no member of this society could be satisfied about that issue, but unemployment among 15 to 19-year-olds looking for their first full time job dropped by 8,300, or 11 per cent, in September 1984. Full time unemployment of teenagers fell by 25,200, or 17 per cent, to 122,000 over the year to September 1984. It is nonsense to say that all of this employment growth was concentrated in the public sector. Senator Crichton-Browne —What percentage was it? Senator BUTTON —The figures just do not add up to that. I am happy enough to give Senator Crichton-Browne the figures. I do not intend to interrupt what I am saying at the moment to do so. I will also be happy to give him Mr Macphee's misinterpretation of some of the figures in a public statement. I do not in any sense suggest that it was a deliberate misinterpretation. I just say that it was a misunderstanding of the figures which we released. It is nonsense to say that all of this employment growth was concentrated in the public sector. The majority of it was in the private sector. I think that factor is very important because that is the area in which real employment growth opportunities lie. The Government has also moved on a number of important policies in relation to improving the engines of growth in the Australian economy. We have moved to improve the business climate. Recently we announced a tripartite review in relation to business deregulation. As I have said on previous occasions in the Senate, we have a good track record on deregulation compared with that of the previous Government. We have taken substantial deregulation initiatives in the financial sector. We have floated the dollar. That is something which the previous Government considered but was not finally prepared to do. We have introduced a new regime in respect of business taxation. We have extended the business allowance. We have introduced the 5:3 depreciation allowance. I fully concede that that was promised by the previous Government, but we went ahead and introduced it and retained the investment allowance at the same time. We have also introduced group taxation which will enable companies to write off losses in a conglomerate as against the total tax of that conglomerate or group of companies. Senator Chaney —Also promised by us. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney said that it was also promised by the former Government. With respect, it was flagged by the former Government but that Government rejected it. Senator Chaney —In the Budget in 1982. Senator BUTTON —No, with respect, the former Government rejected it. An estimate of $200m was given at that time and I believe the proposal was rejected. I stand to be corrected about that. I do not make any particular claim about it. In any event, we did it in terms of the company taxation regime. We have also revised the depreciation allowance regime in respect of industrial buildings, extending the rate to 4 per cent, that depreciation being allowed over 25 years instead of 40 years. I have addressed particular matters relating to business and industry. I have done that simply because, as I said in my opening remarks a minute ago, those are the engines of growth for the Australian economy. It is growth in the Australian economy which is needed if we are to solve the unemployment situation . That is, of course, a prime task of this Government. We have had very substantial and ongoing growth in this economy. The effects have been seen in the reduction in unemployment. We need to sustain that growth into the future if there is to be a continuation of that reduction in unemployment. I make the point that in respect of unemployment generally, and more particularly in respect of youth unemployment, the figures have been significantly reduced in the period of this Government. As I said, I do not claim satisfaction about that . I simply claim that we are entitled to be pleased that that has occurred at a very difficult time for the Australian economy as a whole. In respect of industry policy, which is again a key arm of economic growth, we have gone a long way towards changing the debate in this country away from the mindless debate which went on about barrier or tariff protection. We have made considerable steps in making Australian industry more outward looking and export oriented. We have raised the level of the debate about important questions concerning the competitiveness for Australian industry. We have introduced a number of specific industry plans. The key element in all those plans is that for the first time industry has been told that there will not be government assistance unless there are equal contributions from those involved in the industries themselves; that is to say, government assistance is not to be seen by this Government as a sort of everlasting alms. Governments will assist in circumstances in which industry is asked to assist and the unions are asked to co-operate in ensuring the sound future of the industries concerned. This Government, as I said, has had evident economic success. We believe that the Opposition has still not faced up to many of the problems, as has been revealed in its dribble-out of policy releases on various issues in the last few weeks. Yesterday the Opposition's taxation policy was produced. Yesterday Mr Peacock said at a forum which I too addressed that the Opposition had been 12 months in preparing its taxation policy, in getting it together. Look what happened when it came out. It is vague and uncertain. Sections of that policy are to be financed by other sections of the policy relating to indirect taxes. It is an extraordinary document and, even in the debate on taxation policy this afternoon launched by the Opposition in the Senate, the Opposition did not make clear the precise costs and effects of its proposals. For example, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, was challenged, as we were challenged, for giving the figures which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) gave last night on the program with Mr Howard. Senator Chaney —They are wrong. Senator BUTTON —They are not wrong. Mr Howard said they were not wrong last night. Senator Chaney —It is a misquote and he has put out a statement this afternoon. Senator BUTTON —For goodness sake! When will Mr Peacock put out a statement about his misquotes? He said again yesterday afternoon at a Press conference that if the Hawke Government were re-elected it would introduce capital taxes. When is he going to put out a statement rectifying that canard? That is the sort of performance we have had in the last few weeks. The point I am simply making is that the Opposition is still not prepared to face up to the problems. The policies which have been announced on all issues will mean more of the same. They include a whole range of promises which promise the world and will build enormous sums into the structural deficit. These are the policies which have been announced. They will create an enormous structural deficit for the future. These are the things which cause a lot of concern for the Government. Senator Chaney —What does your policy amount to? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney interjects and asks what our tax policy amounts to. Senator Chaney —An inquiry. Senator BUTTON —An inquiry? Yes, that is what I have said. There will be a comprehensive inquiry into the Australian tax system which the Opposition did not do in seven years of government in spite of all sorts of moans about it. It tried a few things; it floated a few things. Then that doughty little fighter, Johnny Howard, the discredited former Treasurer, backed away from them, backed away when the retail traders or somebody else said booh, backed right away from all the policies which he floated. We have a recipe in these Opposition policies for a return to the past. Big deficits, high inflation, all those things, are implicit in the sorts of policies which have been enunciated by the Opposition in the past week or so. I make the point that this Government's policies on taxation mean simply that as from 1 November the majority of taxpayers will get a $7.60 cut in their tax. Of course, that was opposed by the Opposition. Senator Peter Baume —Not at all. Senator BUTTON —Oh yes it was. It was opposed by the Opposition. Some references have been made to tax indexation. No taxpayer in the low income groups would have got that sort of tax cut under indexation. This is an attempt by this Government to rectify some of the inequities that have been heaped on pay as you earn taxpayers in the period of the Fraser Government. That is what it is. In addition, we have guaranteed to undertake a comprehensive review of the taxation system, in consultation with a wide range of community groups, which will provide a system which will be fairer and equitable and will be a further contribution by this Government-we have made a number in the 18 months in which we have been in office-towards continuity in the development of policy and in getting this country on the road to a long term path of economic growth. The task before any government is clear. Australia needs sound economic management. As I have said before, there will be significant pressures on governments to the end of this decade to provide sound economic management. We will do that. We have the capacity to do that. We have the runs on the board. We have the record of sound economic management compared with our opponents. We believe the deficit has to be brought down and economic growth encouraged and maintained. The Government has shown that it is up to the task; the Opposition has not. The Opposition has rescrambled the old mess of 1975 to 1982. It has turned back the hands of time, bringing back the dream divine to let us hear it all over again. That is what the Opposition policies which have been enunciated in the last few weeks amount to. This country desperately needs serious economic management, economic management which is devoted to steadiness into the future and to restoring and maintaining economic growth. Those things will not be achieved by the Opposition. It will not have the opportunity to do them but, if it did, it would present again to the people of Australia a grab-bag of promises and half-truths which are not the remedy for the sort of success which we have had in this country in the past 18 months. That success has not been based on the exclusive wisdom of this Government; it has been based on that plus wide ranging consultations with important sectors of the Australian community. We will continue to do that and those groups in the community understand that we will continue to do that. In government as in anything else trust and confidence is based on reputation and performance. This Government has those things and we will use that reputation of trust, based on our record and performance, to take this country into the future . Senator Peter Rae —You didn't hear the comments made last night at the MTIA. Senator BUTTON —Senator Rae interjects that I did not hear what somebody said at the Metal Trades Industry Association dinner. With the greatest respect, of course, there will be differences of view about these things. But we have never heard from the Opposition how it will satisfy members of the MTIA with their particular problems, or with anything else. That is one of the unfortunate things. There has been great silence from the Opposition. Senator Peter Rae —They came out with a very complimentary statement about our policy. Senator BUTTON —They ought to be complimentary about much of the Opposition's policy because much of it was stolen from us. They ought to be complimentary about it. As I have said, this Government has the runs on the board in terms of economic management and performance. It is recognised by the Australian people. As somebody said, I think to Senator Rae, the other day, the Opposition is full of rhetoric but bad on performance. That is the choice that the people have to make. Those factors are all relevant to the Appropriation Bills which the Senate is now debating. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.30) —I always enjoy listening to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). I believe that he has a very great contribution to make both to this place and to Australia. However, this is the first time I have heard him make a speech that sounded desperate. I find it strange in circumstances in which the Government is ahead in the polls and the Government has chosen to close the Parliament down to hear him making a speech in the spirit in which he just has done. I think it is worth remembering that the Government, in conjunction with the Australian Democrats, has just chosen to close down the Parliament by preventing any further prolonged debate on matters before us, including the appropriation Bills. I pose a very simple question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate: If things are as good as he is saying, why is it that we are having an early election? If everything is going as perfectly as this Government indicates, if all of the indicators show that we are on a path to sustained recovery, why is it that even though the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised us there would be no early elections under a government led by him we find that about 18 months after the Prime Minister and Senator Button were elected to government we are rushing to an election? If the Government is as optimistic as Senator Button would have us believe-I certainly detected a hint of desperation in his words-why is it that we are having this early election? He asked us to take on trust. He said that what this country needs is trust. I think it is a great shame that the Government does not trust itself to allow its policies to be tested, to allow its policies to run through and for the Australian people to have a chance to judge the Government on the results of those policies. Instead we have a rush to an election after a year and a half. I think that is a question mark hanging over this Government. In most of the things the Leader of the Government in the Senate has had to say in this place there has been a very strong streak of responsibility. I believe, for example, that in his answers to questions on unemployment he has generally been extremely careful not to gild the lily. I think he has always shown caution about a situation which I believe requires caution. He has shown concern about a situation which requires concern. However, he seems to have thrown those characteristics away in the last couple of weeks. I do not know whether it is the absence of Senator Walsh which has led Senator Button to don Senator Walsh's mantle. However, I would like to go through some of the points Senator Button raised in the debate this evening. I say first that his Opposition is delighted that there is less unemployment now than there was 18 months ago. Senator Cook —That is the first time you have said it. Senator CHANEY —Every Australian is pleased there has been a degree of economic growth and recovery and a lessening of unemployment. I do not listen to the babbling of Senator Cook. Senator Cook, as the Trades and Labour Council agent in Western Australia, did as much as anyone I know to damage economic activities in Australia. I will ignore the babbling of Senator Cook and get back to the more serious points made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. A series of optimistic points were made by Senator Button. I put the general question over all of them: If things are so good why this early election? The first statistics that Senator Button chose to mention was that employment has grown and unemployment has been below 9 per cent for three months. It is true that unemployment has been below 9 per cent, but I would have thought it was worth noting that the most recently published Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that full time employment in Australia has declined by, I think, 18,900 jobs in the last three months. If we look at those statistics it can be seen that full time employment in Australia has not improved over the last three months, it has declined. It is true that that is partially cancelled out by an increase in part time employment over the same period. Senator Button says that was a creditable performance. I suggest to Senator Button that it is a cause for concern that we have reached the sort of wavering position we have. We have been told by Senator Button that inflation is down 4 per cent. Of course, we welcome the fact that inflation is lower. However, Senator Button might have conceded a little more honestly that the fall in inflation was substantially contributed to by the Fraser wage pause. Senator Button immediately went on to say: 'And look at the reduction in interest rates'. I say very simply to Senator Button: The fact of the matter is that under his Government real interest rates have not declined, they have increased. I would have thought that a Minister concerned with investment and with economic recovery would be a little more concerned in talking about nominal interest rates in the way he has, about reminding the Senate that we have a continuing and serious problem in the fact that real interest rates have increased under his Government. That is a significant factor which will affect both his portfolio responsibilities and the whole prospect of economic recovery. Senator Button also said that the deficit has been reduced. He spoke the factual truth-the deficit has been reduced by $1.3 billion, in a year when the Government got a one-off wave of new revenue. The Government had a 10 per cent real increase in revenue available to it, totalling $9,000m, and a reduction in the deficit of $1.3 billion followed. What does that tell us? It tells us that this Government has locked itself into continuing high expenditure. It has given away the opportunity to reduce the deficit in a substantial way to buy itself votes in the early election it has called. We sit here and listen to the moralising Leader of the Government in the Senate telling us half truths. He is using statistics in a way which is obviously misleading. The Leader of the Government has told us that we can see the economic recovery by looking at the recovery in the housing sector. What sector has had more public money pumped into it? Of course it is a good thing that houses are being built, but those houses are being built because this Government has pumped very large amounts of taxpayers' money into the housing sector. Senator Button —That is right. Senator CHANEY —The Leader of the Government says: 'Yes, that is right'. I can only say to him that when we look at the decline in activity in so many other sectors and the decline in employment in agriculture and services to agriculture , in fishing and hunting and in mining and manufacturing, and when we look at the decline shown in the statistics produced by the Parliamentary Library, we have to be concerned that the signs of recovery are to be found only in those areas where we have a substantial public subsidy. The Leader of the Government talked also about retail sales being satisfactory. I can only say to him that senior retail industry spokesmen have been far less benign in their comments over recent weeks. The increases referred to are not real increases. The very calling of this election has caused alarm in the retail sector. There is no reason for the Leader of the Government to be as complacent as he was in the speech he made just a few minutes ago. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has often made much of the improvements in industrial relations. Of course he pooh-poohs our references to the last Labor Administration, but he refers to our Administration. He and people such as Senator Cook love to refer to the Fraser Administration but they become very upset when we remind the Australian people that six million man-days were lost in 1974 under the brilliant industrial relations management of a Labor government. I agree with Senator Button that it is a very good thing that there has been a reduction in industrial disputation in this country. I welcome it and let me say that I believe that the Government has kept the trade unions to the accord better than I predicted and better than I expected. I agree with that but I say to him: Do not be too smug about it. We have a very worrying statistic for July and I suggest that the Minister should resume his caution-the caution he has customarily shown when talking about unemployment and the long term problems we have with respect to it. We had the Minister placing great weight on the fact that we have had community discussion and consultation on a wide range of issues. The fact of the matter is that the general Australian public has never been more locked out of the processes of consultation. What we have is this Government establishing a selective consultation process which involves large business and large unions. The Australian Council of Social Service is the wild card in that pack and it made clear what it thought of the processes. The fact of the matter is that the previous Government sat down and over a lengthy period each year saw interest group after interest group, organisation after organisation, and those interest groups and organisations have been closed out by a government that wants to make cosy deals with the trade union movement and cosy deals with big business. Quite frankly, the results of which the Minister is so proud in fact flowed from the recovery which came from the breaking of the drought, from the Fraser wage pause and from the continuing growth in the United States economy. These factors have gone away and this has brought on the early election which this Government has so unnecessarily called. We then had the most extraordinary part of Senator Button's speech. He dealt with the taxation policies which have been introduced by the Liberal and National Parties as a prelude to this election. We have declared our hand on taxation. We have conceded that the offering of tax cuts is a matter which has to be approached with enormous caution, given the lock-in of expenditure which the Government is handing to us. That is a matter which cannot be escaped or avoided; we have not sought to escape or avoid it. We have given a very clear indication of the way that we will shape the taxation system. The Government has told us and the Australian people absolutely nothing. Senator Cook —A very vague indication. Senator CHANEY —Columnist after columnist and observer after observer have put the lie to people like Senator Cook. Senator Cook has a big mouth. He is very good at bullying people through the trade union movement. His record is well known in Western Australia. He has no contribution to make to this debate. Senator Cook —It is a record I am proud of. It is one you will never have. Senator CHANEY —If Senator Cook reads the economic commentators around Australia today he will find them saying time and time again that the Opposition has come out with a policy which is far more specific and definite that the policy put out by the Government. Senator Button tonight claimed that the economic improvement in Australia was because of his Government's economic management. Senator Peter Baume —Senator Cook's record has no standing around here. Senator Cook —Shut up, Baume. Senator Lajovic —You are a parasite. Senator Cook —You are an old fascist. Senator Lajovic —You are a young fascist. Senator Townley —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Cook was just heard to say the word 'fascist' in relation to one of my colleagues. I take exception to that- Senator Grimes —And Senator Lajovic also. Senator Townley —and I would like the word withdrawn. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I did not hear the remark. If Senator Cook made it he should withdraw. Senator Cook —I withdraw, Mr Deputy President. Senator Grimes —Mr Deputy President, if we are to carry on with this nonsense, I ask Senator Lajovic to withdraw the same comment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If Senator Lajovic made it, he should withdraw it. Senator Lajovic —I withdraw. Senator CHANEY —The Leader of the Government talked about unemployment, inflation and interest rates. I have already commented sufficiently on those points. He made the comment that the wage pause had been dreamed up by the Fraser Government to get off the hook of shocking unemployment. It is clearly understood in the Australian community that we did face a very severe economic recession in 1982. It is a fact that the international recession caught up with Australia, that the growth which we had had with respect to our industries cut out because there was no longer a market for the products of those industries. The fact is that we handed the Hawke Government a great benefit in the wage pause which was introduced by the Fraser Government. Senator Grimes —Rubbish! Senator CHANEY —All of the scoffing that might come from the Government benches does not deny that fact. At least some Ministers, including the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, have been honest enough to admit that the Government took office at the most fortuitous time in terms of the economic cycle. That is a matter which now ought to be beyond debate. Senator Peter Rae —Sir John Moore also made that point. Senator CHANEY —My colleague Senator Rae said that Sir John Moore also made that point. But the fact is that again we have had this desperate attempt by the Leader of the Government to suggest that the improvements which have occurred are improvements which will continue. I again put the question: If the Government is so certain that that is so, why does it not run its full term so that the people of Australia can judge not on the Government's rhetoric but on the basis of the actual results it attains? Senator Button again placed great weight on moderation in wage growth when Australian Bureau of Statistics figures clearly show that whilst there may have been a moderation in the growth of award wage rates there certainly has not been a moderation in the wages actually being paid. The fact of the matter is that, while Mr Keating tries to explain that in terms of the growth of overtime, anyone who is in business will say that there has been a wage growth which outstrips the indexed wage increases which were permitted by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Senator Cook —Are you getting some help? Senator CHANEY —Yes, I am getting some help. I would be very happy to have help from Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and none from Senator Cook. She was simply drawing my attention to one of the inaccuracies in the speech made by Senator Button. He was claiming as an initiative of the present Government the fact that companies were to be allowed to deal with their taxation arrangements on the basis of the group profits. I made the point, by way of interjection, that that was an initiative of the Fraser Government, not of the Labor Government. It was an initiative that in fact was postponed for a full Budget period by the Hawke Government and introduced in this Budget. Senator Grimes —When did you introduce it? Senator CHANEY —It was announced as part of the 1982 Budget and the Labor Government chose not to continue it after the election. Senator Grimes —This is deplorable. Senator CHANEY —We have all learned that no credence can be placed on anything that is said by the senator from Launceston. I would simply say to him that that was a matter that was introduced by the Fraser Government, announced as part of the 1982 Budget, discontinued by the Hawke Government in 1983, and resurrected as part of its Budget in 1984. The fact is that that, like the new depreciation provisions, which Senator Button acknowledged as a Fraser Government initiative, was brought forward by us. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, towards the end of his speech, talked about our vague and uncertain tax policy. I can only say how sad and sorry it is that a Leader of the Government who, day after day, comes into this place and refuses to acknowledge that this Government has no policy on taxation except to say that it will have a public inquiry, can accuse us of vagueness. The Opposition has been quite clear about its tax policy. There is to be no capital gains tax. We are to repeal the tax on lump sum superannuation. We are to introduce measures that will do away with some of the injustices and inequities in the present tax system. We will give to pay as you earn taxpayers who have children the same benefits with respect to splitting their incomes as are available to people who are self-employed. We will hand out a totally new concession to those in two-income families who are forced to go to the expense of having their children in paid-for child care. These changes will improve the equity of the tax system. No equivalent policy is available from the Government. The only policy put forward by the Government is that it will have an inquiry. I reject with contempt the views put forward by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and by other Government spokesmen that in some way we are being more vague than they. Senator Button finished with a plea for serious economic management for Australia. I think that is a proper plea for a Minister to make. I think Australia has significant and continuing difficulties, not least in employment. But for Senator Button to suggest that the course which has been set by this Government is a guarantee of good economic management and continued improvement is to ignore the facts and reality. On a number of occasions in this place I have quoted the views of Syntec, a magazine which is said to be close to Treasury, an economic commentator which is widely respected and which in the early days of this Government had many good things to say about it. I have referred to the fact that in both the September and October editions of that magazine Syntec made it clear that it believes the Government is not on a sustainable course; that if it is returned to government it will need to take action early in the New Year if it is to avoid the great difficulties which it has set for itself with the recent Budget. I reject what has been said by the Leader of the Government. The fact is that honest, professional economic management of this country would never have permitted that additional $9,000m to be dissipated on additional expenditure. It would have required a substantial and responsible reduction of the deficit. In the time that remains to me in this debate, I would like to turn to some other points that go to the future of this country. We have a very interesting few months ahead of us. The big question for Australia is: Are we at the peak of the post-drought recovery or are we at the bottom of a long period of economic growth? That is the significant question that must be asked. Senator Button's speech really assumed that we could take it for granted that we were at the bottom of an economic slope that would stretch away and rise in front of us. I think there are enough worries about now for us all to be concerned that we may in fact be at the peak of the post-drought recovery. If we are to take seriously the point that was made by Senator Button about the problems of youth unemployment and the long term problems of unemployment for Australia generally, and I believe we must take it seriously, we have to be anxious to ensure that we are at the bottom of a long period of economic growth and not at the peak of a post-drought recovery. The fact of the matter is that if we look at what has been said by Syntec, if we look at what has been said recently by Citicorp Australia Ltd, and if we look at what has been said by the Westpac Banking Corporation about the accord-all these authorities have been quoted in this place-we find that serious questions have been raised about the current policies of the Government. We have a situation in which full time employment is declining, retail trade is just bumping along, and very serious question marks are being raised about our exports. Senator Sir John Carrick in a very good speech in this place just a few days ago pointed out the enormous difficulties we face in our export industry. The wrong decisions made now, including many of the decisions already taken by this Government, will damage Australia's recovery by forcing up interest rates, by making labour too expensive to employ, by further increasing the tax burden and, in summary, by making us uncompetitive internationally. There is a very high degree of satisfaction about. Many people have felt the benefit of the post-drought recovery. I ask again: Why is it that we are having this early election? I can only say that I believe it is because some wrong decisions have already been made and because some wrong decisions are in the pipeline. The simplest demonstration of the way in which this Government has gone fundamentally wrong is the record level of government spending that has been achieved. We have a Government which in a period of recovery has pushed government expenditure to record limits. I put the very simple question: If we need record government expenditure in a period of recovery, what will this Government have to do when the economic cycle turns? If the Government has to spend at record levels now, if it has to break new records of expenditure when things are so good, what will happen when the 29 per cent decline in rural incomes, which is predicted by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, occurs? What will happen when our exporters face the declining prices outlined by Senator Sir John Carrick in his excellent speech the other day, quoting the Department of Trade, not some political source? The simple fact is that this Government will be forced to push up government expenditure more and more. That is what gives piquancy to this debate about tax. How can this Government claim to be one that will relieve the tax burden on the Australian people when in good times it has to push up government expenditure to record levels? As I said a few minutes ago, the Government got $9,000m extra cash from the taxpayers. Provisional tax went up by, I think, 47 per cent in one year, and the Government could use only $1.3 billion of that $9 billion to reduce the deficit. The Government is simply in the position where it will have to raise extra revenue next year, so it will have to go for new and/or higher taxes. The Opposition wants a continued recovery for Australia. I have sufficient respect for Senator Button-indeed, I have a great deal of respect for him-to know that he would want the same positive results for Australia as are wanted by the Opposition. However, a continued recovery is dependent upon a series of interrelated policies. We will have to have some government restraint with respect to expenditure. I have already said that this Government has pushed up expenditure to record levels, and I said in an earlier debate in this place today that government administration will cost over 16 per cent more under this Labor Government than it cost last year. That will be $724m extra going not into benefits for people but into employing people to administer the benefits that are flowing. The cost of government administration under Labor is growing far faster than the cost of government generally. We have to achieve restraint. This is not a popular cry but it is absolutely necessary. Can we really afford to spend $740m extra on the administration this year when the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, has to impose an assets test on pensioners to save perhaps $15m this year and $50m in a full year? Can we afford over two years of Labor to have something like a 10 per cent increase in the size of the Public Service? Can we afford the sorts of promises which are held out by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) that we will have new programs and new taxes if the Labor Government is returned after this election? If we are to have economic recovery we will have to have an end to unnecessary government obstruction. We will have to have an end to the picking as to which investments will be allowed to go ahead. We will have to have an end to the situation in which Senator Cook, a Western Australian, can sit here and allow his Government to say that Roxby Downs can proceed to mine its uranium but uranium at Yeelirrie in Western Australia cannot be touched. We will have to have an end to the situation in which people who have invested in the mines at Honeymoon and Beverley are told that their investments have been quarantined because the Government is going to pick which people are going to be allowed to proceed with their investments. If we are going to have a growth in employment which is sustainable, if we are going to have a reduction in unemployment among the young, quite clearly there is going to have to be an easing of the rigid wage fixing policies which would rather see workers dismissed than have them agree to terms and conditions which would permit their survival. Everybody in this place knows that during the recession employers were simply prevented by the rigidity of our wage fixing system from entering into arrangements which would have allowed employment to continue. If they had done so they would have been in breach of some award. I have only a few minutes left in which to speak in this debate. In a sense I have not been able to touch on what I think matters most about what is going wrong with this country under Labor. I have touched mainly on economic matters because they were the matters on which the Leader of the Government chose to concentrate. But, in fact, I think one can see the more important deficiencies in what is happening to Australia when one looks at the approach which is being adopted by the Government in the fields of health, education and welfare. It is my view that if we are to maintain the sorts of standards which Australia needs in those areas we have to maintain the personal and individual standards of excellence that can be achieved in his country but which can be killed by unnecessary bureaucratic interference and overbearing of private effort. The Government has stepped back from its obvious desire to put greater pressure on the private school system, the system which I believe has contributed to the whole educational system by providing parents with freedom of choice and a competitive element. The Government backed off from the decisions that were taken at the Australian Labour Party biannual conference. But the Government has left remnants of that anti-pluralist attitude in place in its restrictions on the opening up of new private schools. In the health field I suppose the most significant long term damaging thing that this Government is doing is its attempt to destroy the doctor-patient relationship and to turn doctors, through bulk billing, into public servants. As far as I am concerned an important element in maintaining excellence in health services is the continuation of the private contractual relationship between doctor and patient. Senator Grimes —The gypsy principle-that is what it is. Senator CHANEY —The fact of the matter is that the Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, disparages his own profession which, unlike my profession of the law, has in the past traditionally made services readily available for all Australian people. He disparages his profession by suggesting that the profession needs to be socialised to achieve the appropriate results. In all of these areas this Government has encouraged the Australian people to turn away from self-reliance, self-respect and self-help. It believes that one can, simply by raising more and more taxes and turning more and more people into government employees, improve the quality of our society. On behalf of the Opposition, I reject that concept absolutely. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.00) —In speaking to the Appropriation Bills tonight I will support what has been said by Senator Chaney and deal with other matters which perhaps he did not have time to cover in this debate which has been shortened because we are near the end of this Parliament. Today the Government has decided to cut and run. It has had the support of the Australian Democrats to pass guillotine motions so that our session will come to an end tomorrow. Therefore, we will never get to the Committee stage of these Appropriation Bills or further analyse in detail the problems the Government is leaving behind it as it goes to an election hoping that, with the media success of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), its long range problems will be overlooked or glossed over. Tonight we heard a speech from the Leader of the Government in the Senate ( Senator Button). He gave late notice of his entry into the debate and endeavoured to follow that rosy path which suggests that everything in the garden is lovely and the Government is going ahead well. But one has to realise only two things about that. The first is that Senator Button entered this debate because he is under attack. The good intentions that Senator Button has in many areas are not to be ignored, but he is under attack. Even today we read that people in his own Party, in his own unions, are repudiating him and wanting him to go. They are the people who hold the purse strings as far as the Government is concerned. They are the ones who must be consulted. They are the ones who join in a determination of policy in this country. Yesterday we heard that Mr Joe Thompson, State Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Union in New South W ales, President of the New South Wales Labor Council and a member of the Legislative Council-an important figure who has just been re-elected to his post-has already had private discussions with Mr Hawke and will be formally requesting the removal of Senator Button from his post as Minister for Industry and Commerce later this week. Mr Thompson said publicly yesterday that Senator Button must go ; he is demanding his removal from the portfolio. He said: He must take the blame for the disastrous state of Australia's manufacturing industry and for what we believe to be a crisis in the vehicle industry. That comes from a supporter of the Labor Government. He talks of the disastrous state of manufacturing industry. That is true, and it is not a new thing. After 20 months of government, this Government must accept a great deal of responsibility for not tackling the long-standing problems involved. One must also realise that many problems are only just coming to the fore. That is why the Government is seeking such an early election-so that it can be re- elected before the clouds gather. The amendment which Senator Peter Rae has foreshadowed on behalf of the Opposition to the motion for the second reading of Appropriation Bills (No. 1) 1984-85 records certain things which I hope the Democrats will support and which I hope will be carried by the Senate. The matters involved in the serious state of the economy as described in this amendment include the following: Public debt in 1984-85 is estimated to be $90 billion which involves an average interest bill of $34 per week for each taxpayer; overseas investment is at its lowest level for the past three years; and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has forecast an expected decline of 29 per cent in rural production in 1984-85. Since the end of the drought the Government has claimed with pleasure credit for increases in production, but according to all estimates they will go into serious decline next year. Private fixed capital investment for 1983-84 was 10 per cent lower than in the previous year. Manufacturing production and retail sales have fallen in the last few months. Inflationary pressures are growing because of the indexed increases in government charges and because average weekly earnings in the 12 months to June 1984 increased by 12.3 per cent. In addition, whilst the Government lays claim to responsibility for the increase in employment, it ignores the fact that most of it is public sector employment. This funded employment has increased drastically while employment in the productive sectors of the economy such as agriculture, mining, manufacturing and the associated area of transport has actually fallen by 50,000 people during the term of the Government. One could go on. The Government has been getting away with murder. It has been persuading people that everything in the garden is lovely. Unfortunately, it has not taken steps to overcome the ingrown and longstanding problems in the economy which need attention. I mention only one other thing that Senator Button talked about tonight. He claimed that industry competitiveness was important and was reflected in the policy of the Government. He said that, in fact, the Government had a good record in the deregulation area. That is an absurd claim. It is true that the Government completed the financial deregulation which the Fraser Government commenced. That is a good and necessary development, but in the other areas where both deregulation and improvement in our regulatory processes are a screaming urgency in this country-the burdens on the community and small business in particular are demanding and they are growing every day-the Government did nothing. Three weeks ago, as I pointed out in a question to Senator Button today, when the Business Council of Australia raised this matter the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, called a meeting. He said he would create a tripartite agreement, a little committee between the Government, the trade unions and business. Of course, he has big business in mind. We all know which of the three will be the loser. We will not know until after the election, some time next year, whether the Government will do anything about that matter, whether it will do anything to reduce the burden on business in the community or whether it will obey its own conference decisions in July last year which made it clear that it should not do anything in that area but concentrate on continued regulation and control of the economy. Tonight I propose to deal with only one area in which the long range efforts which this country should be making have been neglected by this Government. It is indicative of many other areas. I refer to science and technology. We all recognise that it is an area which is important for the future of Australia. If we, as a country in this part of the world, do not concentrate on the development of the technique, ability, training and skills of our people we will never get anywhere by mere numbers. We must develop ourselves as a highly trained, highly skilled country. At the moment we rank twenty-first out of 24 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in the money we spend on science, technology and research. A Minister whom I think we admire for his concern, knowledge and general honesty, the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), realises this but he has been turned down entirely by the Hawke Government in his efforts to develop this area. We recall the headlines in the Press at the time the Budget came down. I have some before me. One stated: 'Angry Jones may quit over Budget cuts.' It was suggested that he may resign because of what happened to the science area in the Budget. At the time he was also, apparently, considering not standing for Cabinet if the Government is returned. He blamed the coming election for the poor showing of his portfolio in the Budget, saying that there were no votes in science. He and his Department suffered very considerably from the Budget cuts. The Department which we ought to think of as having the future of this country very much in its hands was savagely dealt with in the Budget which we are talking about today. Not only did Mr Barry Jones complain bitterly about the Budget cuts but also he was reprimanded by Mr Hawke for his actions and comments, particularly his comments that he hoped more money would be provided for his Department after the election. That was not a very pleasant suggestion to the Prime Minister because it implied, as we think is very likely, that a mini-Budget will be brought down which may provide more money. However, I doubt whether science will win the battle. The Government has not recognised the importance of developing this area . In the course of the consideration of the Budget we have had Estimates committee meetings. The record of those meetings and the questioning of public servants is recorded in Hansard. I pay tribute to my colleague Senator Peter Baume for his very skilful and detailed questioning particularly of the officers of the Department of Science and Technology and the officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation which is a particular sufferer in this regard. I want to draw attention to some of the things that were pointed out and brought forward in the course of that examination. In the Department of Science and Technology there was an increase in actual figures of 1.6 per cent in money terms. Honourable senators should take into account that inflation has been raging during that period. That is a net real loss to the Department of Science and Technology and to CSIRO. This has meant that a number of people have to be released, programs have to be removed and these departments will not be in a position to continue with some of the scientific investigations which they have been doing. When Senator Peter Baume questioned the officers of the Department they said: ' Senator, that includes the last year's figures and includes some non-recurring costs that have been taken into account. They will not crop up this year'. Senator Baume then asked: 'What about the non-recurring items contained in the 1984-85 Budget'? The officers did not have those figures. They could not say what were the non-recurring items. One can take it that what is happening is that there is a real loss from the point of view of money spent on science this year. Senator Peter Baume also pointed out that over the last five years the average real growth-that is not just in monetary terms-in government research and development funding has been about 3 per cent per annum continuing, one might say, with a very modest increase but not what we got this year. This year we are going down, we are going backwards. I think that is a very serious development for this country. It was brought out during questioning that there were some increases in expenditure in the Department of Science and Technology. For example, administrative items such as travel and subsistence had an increase of 18.5 per cent and office requisites had an increase of 12.5 per cent. Honourable senators should compare that with the money that has actually been spent on scientific investigation on the programs which had dropped away. The Australian industrial research and development incentive scheme is a very useful idea and is providing money for scientific programs. We found that in the last year the appropriation was not entirely spent and was treated as savings. What we have as a result is that whereas in the previous year $43m was spent, this year the appropriation is only $38m. In other words, there is a decline of 11.5 per cent, an actual substantial decline on a very useful program. To give honourable senators another example, which I think is graphic, the only provision made for technology and innovation programs was in respect of the fifth generation computer project. In scientific terms an amount to $250,000 was provided. Senator Baume again pointed out that in the United Kingdom the Alvey program was $540m over five years and Japan will be spending $1.56 billion by 1991. Just compare that with the $250,000 which is to keep Australia in the game . So honourable senators get some idea of the myopic nature of this Government and its inability to recognise that it is not keeping up in any way with the type of scientific development which is happening elsewhere. The CSIRO is our great scientific organisation in this country. It is not the only one, there are other important institutions, but it is the important one for which this Government has prime responsibility. It is a particular example of the shameful disgrace which this Government must face when there is something like an 8.8 per cent shortfall in moneys for this organisation this year. In the examination which took place in Senate Estimates Committee D on 26 September Dr Boardman, who I think is the No. 2 man in the CSIRO, in giving evidence, pointed out quite a number of salient factors that have developed. He was asked by the Chairman questions about the Institute of Biological Resources. Dr Boardman said that there had been a decrease in real terms for all divisions in CSIRO but that division was taking a decrease in real terms of 3 1/2 to 4 per cent. The Chairman asked: What will be the consequences of that for this area of research? I take this as just one example. Dr Boardman said: The consequences will be that in order that we should concentrate our effort on the most important aspects of the program, some of the projects and programs will have to be wound down. The Chairman asked: Will it mean a decrease in staff in that area? Dr Boardman replied: Yes, because we cannot cope with that sort of decrease in real terms only by taking it from operating expenses; we must take a cut in staff as well. The Committee went on to examine the extent to which staff numbers would be cut. It was pointed out also that staff numbers would have to be cut by attrition- that people would leave their jobs, places would not be filled by someone else and, in this rather haphazard way, there would be a staff reduction. The Chairman asked Dr Boardman: I take it that this decrease did not occur because the Organisation wished it to occur? Dr Boardman pointed out in very clear terms: It certainly did not decrease on the basis of the Organisation's submission. Other officers of the CSIRO pointed out in evidence that, in the last two years, there have been inescapable salary increases. An officer of the CSIRO was asked: How were they treated in previous years? The officer stated: In previous years we have received the amounts that we have sought for inescapable salary increases. In the last two years, the CSIRO has not received these increases and, therefore , it must remove organisational members, it must reduce its staff and take them away so that work that should be done in this community cannot be done. It was pointed out: So this is the second year in a row that we have had no allowance for inflation . The strategy employed by the Organisation last year was to shift 3 per cent of its money from salaries to operating to redress that imbalance. That is the penny-pinching, foolish attitude of this Government as far as its dealings with this important Organisation are concerned. Members of staff are got rid of by way of attrition. They are not sacked, but as people retire they are not replaced. Dr Boardman stated also: I hope we can achieve it by attrition, but that has very serious consequences because of the way in which vacancies occur. We feel it will have to pay much more attention to the redeployment of people to the areas that we want to concentrate on and diminish. So it goes on, outlining the sorry record which this Government has in dealing with this important and fine Organisation which has a great history in this country. Not only the questioning that went on in the Estimates Committee raises matters of great concern; I and other honourable senators have received correspondence from many persons from inside and outside the scientific community complaining bitterly about this situation. I mention in particular an interesting report which I, and no doubt other honourable senators, received from Professor Lewis Chadderton, one of the leading members of the CSIRO. That report is headed 'Research in the CSIRO-Death by a Thousand Budget Cuts'. In that report Professor Chadderton points out the horrendous implications of the cutbacks and the extent to which these are being rejected by the Australian people who recognise that their future is being brought into question in this way. I intend, with no apology, to read a few extracts from Professor Chadderton 's report which deal with cuts in the science and technology area because I think they put the point very clearly. He said: Can it truly be a cause for wonder that Australian scientists should so vehemently vilify Mr Keating's budget? It is unprecedented, and uncharacteristic , that with one voice, scientists from both CSIRO and the universities should howl with fury at such mean myopia. A leading newspaper columnist has alluded to some well orchestrated and most successful publicity campaigns on the part of the CSIRO. It's simply not true! The spontaneous outrage expressed revulsion at the sacrifice of a brightening Australia on the altar of short term political gains. I emphasise 'short term political gains'. By cutting funding on the eve of an election and ignoring a department which does not seem to have very much political pull the Government is helping to destroy a great effort. Professor Chadderton referred to the particular case, in his knowledge, of the Division of Chemical Physics at Clayton, Victoria. He said: The number of permanent employees of all kinds has shrunk by 18, to a total of 81, in four years. None may be replaced. The workshop is at one-third strength. There is no electrician! What price safety, then? There is no stenographic secretary. An automatic telephone answering machine has been installed. Hardly the most supportive environment for a high technological breakthrough! He goes on to refer to the fact that some critics of CSIRO have frequently proposed the transfer of all fundamental research from CSIRO to the universities . He says: That proposal is about as sensible as suggesting the opposite, namely that all university applied research should be removed to the CSIRO. Really! The ignorance of research methods revealed in such proposals is profound indeed. Pure research leads to applied research, which leads to innovation and invention , which leads to high technology, industry, export markets and job creation. This line of flow is clean, continuous, and incontestable! It was a recommendation of the Birch Report that CSIRO's Divisions should more and more employ young scientists on a short term basis. That recommendation has been implemented, and some of the most brilliant brains have been at work-on a three-year basis-for Australian science. Now, the prospect of no possibility of permanent employment is frustrating them beyond all measure. They are joining their university colleagues. And so it goes on. The Minister, of course, knew full well the situation and what was offered so far as high technology is concerned in the salvation of this country. But he has proved to be quite unable to exercise any influence in stopping this, so we remain twenty-first out of the 24 OECD countries. Let me quote one other statement from the report, a remark by Professor Don Aitkin from the Australian National University who, in this case, is a political scientist. He writes: Governments are elected to make wise decisions, not necessarily popular ones, and they have a special responsibility for thinking about the nation's future. It is time the present Government took its eyes off the polls and focused them on the last decade of the 20th Century. Is that not a thorough indictment of this Government? It has concentrated all this year on the polls, on the fact that it wants to get re-elected. It wants to be loved, it wants its Prime Minister to be popular and it is therefore not concerned with the major issues but with the short term issues. After the Budget , in addition to what Professor Chadderton wrote, some 44 of the major officers of CSIRO sent a telex to the Prime Minister and expressed their complaints and their horror at what was happening. They said: We express our grave concern about the adverse effect which the 1984/85 Budget will have on the effectiveness of CSIRO. Over the past 5 years extensive reviews of the Organisation's research programs have been conducted and low-priority areas of research eliminated. They go on to say: At the National Technology Conference last year you- that is the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke- spoke of the central role that science and technology must play in Australia's economy by revitalising industry and encouraging the growth of new ones. Continued cut-backs in funding for science and technology make it extremely difficult to maintain such a role. News of the Budget cut for 1984/85 is also jeopardising our attempts to maintain the high morale which is so necessary in a research and development organization. Low morale will invariably reflect the development of creative and innovative ideas which are so crucial to the effective functioning of scientific and technological research. We are extremely concerned that the R and D- the research and development- capability of CSIRO, a unique national resource that is held in the highest esteem by the Australian community, is being eroded by the current constraints. Those are the words of scientists who are not politicians and who have not engaged in campaigning and who have not proceeded in this way before, but who because of their intense concern have been forced to do so. Let me give just one other example of what these cuts have done, this time in the area of CSIRO's research in regard to forests. The Daintree area is one that I mention in particular. Under this Government it has been shockingly neglected. The Government will not even negotiate with the Queensland Government to try to preserve that rain forest. In addition, the cuts in the CSIRO budget probably have had the effect of bringing some of the research in this area, particularly at Atherton, to an end. There has been a cut in funds of nearly 10 per cent in real terms to this project. It was pointed out in an article in the Bulletin on 9 October that this research group, which is probably the best in the world, cannot do much now because of these cuts. The article states: . . . Landsberg says, but simply because there is nowhere else with wet tropical rainforest, decent laboratory facilities and a stable political situation which allows continuous work by experienced staff. This is in regard to the Australian experience. The article continues: As rainforests are becoming a major international concern, the CSIRO has encouraged a flow of overseas visitors to admire the Atherton project. Now, of course, there must be change: The first thing to go post-budget has been trips to distant research plots, in areas such as the Daintree wilderness. Next will be staff: If a position becomes vacant, it will not be filled. Plans to expand the laboratory have been postponed indefinitely. This is the third consecutive year the Division has been cut back and Landsberg says that he will have to consider closing Atherton if it happens once more. The CSIRO forest division and the Queensland department more or less agree that representative areas of all remaining types of rainforest must be preserved undisturbed. The Cape Tribulation to Bloomfield stretch where the road has been built was the largest single patch of undisturbed rainforest in the wet tropic region. Of course, CSIRO will not now have the information nor will this research continue. I give that one example of the way in which budgetary cuts are affecting research work which is of enormous value throughout Australia. If one looks at the whole area of science and technology generally and CSIRO in particular, one can see the destructive effect of governments which play for popularity and do not recognise the long term and important aspects of programs such as this, despite the integrity and ability of a Minister such as the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones. He was brushed aside and in the rush others got their demands which had more immediate electoral appeal. One of the vices of this community is that we have so many elections. We rush to an election, as we are towards this one, way ahead of time. The Government in sheer hypocrisy and humbug in the last two years has abandoned any attempt to change the Constitution in a way which would fix the term of parliaments and take away from Prime Ministers their right to call early elections for cheap political advantage. The Government has insisted on retaining that right and destabilising this community. I refer again to the amendment which Senator Peter Rae has proposed in regard to the Appropriation Bills. There are serious long term difficulties in this community which the Budget does not pick up and which the Government will not accept. The Government wants a new lease of power but nobody knows what it will do when it gets it. There is no reason why the hood should not fall from the eyes of the Australian people before it is too late and they realise that a return of the Hawke Government will be a great mistake for which this country may pay for many years. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.29) — I address two very practical matters-tax and defence. However, before doing so I will follow up briefly what Senator Missen has just said because a year or two ago I had the opportunity to visit the tropical forest research station of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation on the Atherton Tableland. I was deeply impressed by what I saw. I wish to make a point about this matter which Senator Missen has not made. He certainly made the point that the Government is derelict in its duty towards the rain forests by allowing this facility to be run down. What struck me on a visit to the establishment is that it is possible to grow Australian rain forest timbers in a plantation situation. That is what this station has done. It has taken not particularly good land-quite poor land in fact-and it has shown very quickly that the valuable Australian rain forest trees-(Quorum formed) I was making the point of the gross dereliction of the Government towards the rain forests of this country. The Government has expended many words on this issue and many conferences have been held but of course these have not saved a single tree. I predict that that will go on because as is typical of the Government's performance and most of its attitudes towards any of the crises or difficulties in this country, it calls a conference, it talks about the matter and then it behaves as Nero did when Rome was burning. That is the case here. In allowing the CSIRO budget to run down, the Government is allowing the tropical forest research station on the Atherton Tableland in Queensland also to run down and is creating a situation in which that most valuable work, which indicates clearly that Australian rain forest trees can be grown in plantation form, will not continue. The key to that, of course, is that if we have Australian rain forest timbers, such as cedar and so on which are required for veneers growing in a plantation form, we will not need to cut down the rain forests in their present form. When I returned from Atherton I spoke to the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, about this very matter and he was quite interested. It came as a deep surprise to me, even in view of the nature of some of the priorities of the Government, to find that in this Budget there had been this cutback on that most valuable and useful piece of Australian research and that the Government was persisting, in spite of its actions, in saying that it was interested in rainforests and that it had an actual commitment to preserving them. It is difficult to understand the duplicity involved here and the idea, which is basically a Hitler-type idea, that if you tell something to someone over and over again, if you repeat it often enough, you will be believed. That, of course, will be a key to the campaign of both the Labor and Liberal parties in this election, having very carefully last week arranged, against the wishes and the vote of the Australian Democrats, that there will not be any sanctions against false and misleading advertising in this campaign. It should be said more often to the Australian people that the politicians of the so- called older parties-the Labor, Liberal and National Parties-have connived to ensure that they can cheat and lie in this election campaign. I give fair warning to anyone who is listening to this broadcast that he or she has no guarantee that any piece of political advertising has any truth in it whatsoever . Probably it will not. (Quorum formed) That slight delay has given me cause to recapitulate the two points that I was making before the quorum was called. The first is the Government's duplicity in reducing the funding for rain forest growth research in north Queensland whilst, at the same time, saying that it has a commitment to preserving the fast-diminishing rain forests of this country. It is a commitment which amounts to nothing but talk and calling conferences, and one which, I repeat, has not saved a single tree and which does not show any signs of saving a single tree over the next indefinite period. The second point I was making was that we can expect this sort of duplicity right through the coming election campaign, because the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party connived here last week to remove from the Commonwealth Electoral Act that very proper provision that Australians might have considered reasonable: That it is wrong and culpable to have false and misleading advertising calculated to influence voters in the casting of their votes. Senator Jack Evans —They gave themselves a licence to lie. Senator MASON —It is necessary to point out that, against the vote of the Australian Democrats-the only people to vote against it-those three older political parties have given themselves a licence to lie. They have said that they are allowed to have false and misleading political advertising, that they are allowed falsely to influence the voters in the exercise of their votes. They have done that quite cynically and culpably. The more often that is said to the Australian people, the better. The people must understand that when they see large, full page advertising by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or the National Party, and when they see something on television with Mr Peacock or Mr Hawke speaking, there is no way in which they can guarantee the truth of a single word that is being said. That is one of the grossest and worst things and one of the worst attacks on our democratic system in many a long year. Virtually every honourable senator stands indicted- Senator Peter Baume —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. The normal cut and thrust of debate is fine, and I do not object to that, but at what stage is an honourable senator reflecting upon a vote of the Senate, which, of course, is specifically not allowed? I raise the question in the interests of the Senate: At what stage would Senator Mason be reflecting on a vote of the Senate? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The honourable senator cannot directly reflect on the vote. Senator MASON —I see your point, Mr Acting Deputy President. I shall merely, then, report the vote of the Senate. The vote of the Senate was that the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party combined in a vote-Hansard will confirm this-to remove from the law of this country the provisions prohibiting false, misleading advertising which would influence the voter in casting his vote. The Democrats voted against that removal. I think that that is precisely what happened. It is not necessary for me to reflect on the vote of the Senate. It is necessary only to chronicle the facts. They are damning enough in themselves. I go on from that point, which I think I have made sufficiently, to talk about the other two practical matters I mentioned before-taxation and defence. I should have thought that it would be important enough, perhaps basically important, to the Australian people to know what the Government and the pretending government-they call themselves the alternative government-feel about these matters. I should have thought that we would have got from them some common sense, some actual accurate information about this. Yet what have we had in the last 10 days? Thousands of words have been spoken in this place, the House of Representatives and the media on this question and they have not elucidated anything. They have not told the Australian public a thing. The Government has been coy about a capital gains tax-maybe it will introduce such a tax; maybe it will not. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has stated in the media: ' Maybe we will; maybe we will not, but if we do it will not include the family home'. That is great so far as it goes. The Australian Democrats would agree with that. I find it a cause of great uneasiness that the Prime Minister and people in the Labor Party have not said that if a capital gains tax is introduced it will be indexed to the inflation rate. The impression that has been given so far on the guidelines which have been brought forward is that it is perfectly okay to penalise the Australian people for the erosion of their taxes through inflation. Senator Georges —We haven't got one. Senator MASON —Let the Prime Minister say something about it. We believe that if such a tax is introduced it should be satisfactory to the Australian people. It should catch the tall poppies. It should catch those very wealthy people who speculate in land and in shares and who get away without paying a single cent in tax. The Australian Democrats believe a capital gains tax should catch those people. But we do not believe it should hurt the farmer, the small businessman or the individual family. I am greatly worried that the Labor Party has some trick such as that in mind. Anyway, time will show that to be the event or otherwise. Meanwhile I will say only that the Australian Democrats are deeply suspicious, as we have learned to be in the interests of the Australian people over the last six years, and we will be keeping an eye on the situation as it develops. The Opposition has had its say over the last few days about new taxes. The Opposition wants to bring in new indirect taxes. It has not told us what those taxes will be. There has been no costing and there are no figures. it has been very much a pig in a poke situation. When we look at the record we see that the Opposition, the Liberal-National coalition, has a strong predilection to indirect taxation. It likes introducing new indirect taxes. I remind the Senate that in 1980-(Quorum formed) Australians will not take much reminding when the Liberal-National parties talk about indirect taxes that when in government in 1980 they brought forward a brilliant new idea on indirect taxation! That was, of course, the now notorious sales tax on the necessities of life. At that time the Liberal Party thought it would be a great idea in the interests of the rich to sock the poor and the ordinary battlers of this nation. Those people were to be taxed, regardless of their ability to pay, by way of a flat tax imposed on their children's shoes and clothing-on the basic necessities which they needed to live. We in the Democrats had not struck a more iniquitous and cynical situation. We delayed that tax in the interests of the Australian people. Eventually we obstructed it completely. I look back on that as being one of the best things we have ever done for this community. It was interesting that in succeeding years the Liberal Party did not bring that tax forward again in its Budgets. It did not dare do so because it knew that the Australian people were opposed to it. The Opposition may well feel now that memories are short and that such a tax would be all right this time. Mr Howard, in his statements so far, has not excluded that possibility. Do we know that if the Liberal Party were in government it would not want to bring that tax forward again? All the indications are that it probably would. It has left itself a very broad option in indirect taxation. Behind all this vagueness is a strong inference-(Quorum formed) I was raising a point concerning the Liberal Party's history in government, that is, the notorious sales tax on the necessities of life which it introduced the last time it was in power and it said it was going to broaden the tax base into the indirect tax area. That was an iniquitous tax, a deliberate attempt to tax the poor and the battlers of this country for the benefit of the rich because it is a fact that if a flat tax is put on the necessities of life-which everybody must pay regardless of ability to pay-it is discriminating consciously and deliberately in favour of the wealthy. There is a great uneasiness in my mind about the debate that has surrounded this woolly, vague, tax debate from all three of the old parties, although the National Party has not said a great deal about tax. Be it Labor or Liberal, there is a general sort of inference or view lying around behind there which is said as throwaway lines by various members of those parties that the income tax lemon has been squeezed dry and therefore a new means of tax must be sought to get money out of the unfortunate taxpayers. I am not so silly as to say that there should be no tax in this country. Of course there has to be taxation in this country. There has to be a reasonable tax revenue to keep things moving. But let me make it quite plain that the Australian Democrats will not permit an unfettered or unlimited growth in tax by either of the major parties in this Parliament. Senator Townley —What a pathetic thing to say. Senator MASON —Senator Townley bleats away somewhere behind me. I cannot quite hear what he is saying, but I think he was saying that the previous Government did not really mean to put a tax on the necessities of life; that was not quite what the previous Government meant. Senator Jessop —He said it was pathetic, because you are reading your speech. Senator MASON —I have notes, as Senator Jessop can see. Everybody talks from notes here, that is the idea. I need notes to recall to my mind the fact that government revenue this year is up by 17 per cent. Income tax receipts are up by 23 per cent. So let us not have any idea that there is a reduction of taxation. Taxation is rising. The Australian Democrats want to be sure that it does not keep on rising because it is not only the income tax lemon that has been squeezed virtually dry but also the Australian community. I give clear warning to the Liberal-National Party coalition that if by some strange twist of fate it becomes the Government and it tries to bring in again a sales tax on the necessities of life we will block it absolutely and such a government will not get it in. If the present Government wants to bring in anything that looks like a capital gains tax, that will not be passed by us. We will oppose it. If it does not exclude the family home, furnishings and personal effects and is not indexed for inflation we will oppose it. Those are the criteria we would look for in the future. We do not know what a government would bring in. We suspect that probably it would be another slug on the Australian community, one way or another. There is talk behind the scenes from both sides that they will need more money in the next Budget or perhaps in a mini-Budget or things of that kind . If a government of either political persuasion, be it Liberal-National or Labor , wants to do anything, we will urge it towards a reduction in taxation or a tendency in that direction rather than continually increasing taxation. That will not be achieved easily; it will be achieved only if whoever is in government does some definite things. I have a few suggestions that we will make to the future government. The Government has failed dismally, and I must say the Opposition has made no statements on this matter, in giving a lead to the business centre of the community and getting this country into a reasonable high technology situation whereby new industries are coming forward. There has been failure by the Liberal and National parties and failure by the Labor Party in this regard. They have said: 'We have to leave it to business'. The Minister for Science and Technology, Barry Jones, held a technology summit and at the end of it he and the Prime Minister said: 'It is necessary for business to do something-to put its feet in the water and commit itself'. Other countries such as Japan and the United States of America realise that it is a duty and responsibility of government to give some sort of a lead; that high technology is dangerous and difficult but that somehow governments must assist industry in getting these things together. I suggest that honourable senators who want to know about this go to Japan and look at what is going on there in the new technopolises. (Quorum formed) I was making the point when that interruption came that the Japanese Government has introduced a brilliant new scheme, with 19 new urban centres which will be technopolises-a Japanese term. The Japanese Government is assisting industry to organise completely new centres outside Tokyo and Osaka, the main heavy industry areas, which will be new areas of high technology and large areas of employment. The Japanese Government intends that those should be pre-eminent in the world in those areas of high technology. It is amazing to me that, if the Government and the National and Liberal parties know about this, they have not taken it into account and do not take the Australian people into their confidence and suggest that maybe we should do something like that. It is useless training people for occupations which are already overcrowded. I would have thought that was self-evident. But the Liberal Party in government encouraged that over and again and the Labor Party does that now. The Labor Party's only gesture towards unemployment this year is the community employment program which will give young people work for three to six months and then throw them back on to the scrapheap. If the Government thinks it is doing anything for the young and unemployed in this country it has another think coming. It has failed dismally in its duty to this country. Senator Missen made the point earlier that the cutback in scientific research that could lead this country into new high technology industries has been across the board-an 8 per cent cut in the CSIRO budget. The Government has the gall to go to the people and say that it has created economic improvement. It has the gall to say that it has a bright future for this country. The bright future will come only when we can remove that millstone-the huge burden of unemployment-from around our neck. We will do that only when we have new industries which are job producing and wealth creating for this country. Senator Peter Rae —When are we going to read some of your policies? Senator MASON —That is one of our policies; that indeed we should emulate that sensible thing done by another successful society. If the Australian Democrats were in government in this country for two years we would certainly halve unemployment. We are not too good or too vain to get an example from other countries, but those major parties are. Having covered that point briefly, I turn now to defence because it is a serious topic which has also somehow been transported into the realm of fantasy by the Liberal and National parties' extraordinary policy statement about the purchase of four nuclear submarines for Australia. One must ask what kind of nuclear submarines. If they are the large sophisticated ships now deployed by the major powers, we will certainly be up for an expenditure of many billions- not millions but billions-of dollars. If they are not, is the coalition proposing a kind of second rate or mini nuclear submarine which would very quickly be destroyed by its bigger and faster opponents if it roamed the cold and unfriendly waters of the world in a time of conflict? We are assuming that Mr Sinclair, in speaking for the Liberal-National Party, is indeed talking about the cheaper and more vulnerable model since he projected a cost of about 30 per cent more than a conventional submarine. Our research, which I do not pretend is exhaustive but which I think is along the right lines, suggests an experimental, linear tack type submarine now being developed in France. (Quorum formed) Firstly, these submarines are at the experimental stage of development and they would not be suitable for Australian conditions without modifications. While Mr Sinclair is correct in saying that the submarines are about 30 per cent more expensive than conventionally powered submarines we understand this is merely for the ship, not for the equipment or fittings. As to the reactors to power them, these are an extra too. This is classified information which I assume Mr Sinclair cannot himself properly reveal. However, the figure would be high as would the cost of support and weapon systems to say the least. A nuclear industry infrastructure would be required and a civilian industry would be needed to have a nuclear power industry. If the ships are still experimental how is it likely that they can be built in Australia as Mr Sinclair suggested? Originally under a Liberal Government Australia was going to build three submarines and buy one. Now Mr Sinclair has decided that perhaps we might or might not have nuclear powered ships here again. We have a general fuzz of policy. One day we are going to have them and the next day we are not. The whole tone of this phoney election campaign so far is that neither party has been prepared to ante up and give the Australian people any real idea of what they want to do. Of course, the whole idea of nuclear submarines here is outrageous, leaving aside the question of cost. The whole point of these high speed long distance submarines is that they are designed to tie in with an interventionist foreign policy and presumably to play a small part in an interzonal conflict. We do not want that here. We need here the means to defend our country. The concept is bizarre that we should have just four nuclear powered submarines as part of a peripheral defence strategy. Of course, these ships are used in conjunction with conventional submarines as they serve different purposes. However, the Government itself has been unusually vague on Mr Sinclair's suggestion. Many of us expected a categorical, unequivocal statement from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that under no circumstances would the Australian Government consider acquiring these ships. Why has this not been forthcoming? Is it that a French company in conjunction with the French navy is finalising a tender for the Australian Government for just such a nuclear powered submarine with a redesigned hull for Australian conditions? I would like an answer to that at some time. This information was confirmed by people involved in Paris yesterday. The Australian Democrats demand to know whether the tender was invited by the Government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.59) —The Senate is operating under a guillotine brought down today which will limit the time allowed for debate on the appropriation Bills. There is a fair amount of goodwill around the Senate because the fact is that each of the major parties at some time or other has moved motions to declare Bills urgent and each of the major groups over the last 10 years has been on the receiving end of such a motion. (Quorum formed) Mr Acting Deputy President, I was observing that the Senate is operating under a guillotine. Most honourable senators can accept the operation of the guillotine on the basis of give and take, but it is necessary to draw to the attention of the Senate that one political grouping in this place that voted for the guillotine tonight, that voted for the gag motion associated with that guillotine, is on record as having in the past condemned the use of the guillotine and committing its party to not going down that track. It is worth reminding the Senate of these events. In fact, the Australian Democrats proclaimed several things. They proclaimed that they wished to be elected as the keepers; to keep the bastards honest, if I can recall the term they used. ( Quorum formed) Mr Acting Deputy President, I was drawing attention to some of the promises made by the Australian Democrats. The first was that they would break no election promises. On the Willesee at Seven show on 11 November 1980 Senator Chipp said: The other thing is that we won't allow him to break a promise. The 'him' referred to was the Prime Minister at the time, Mr Fraser. It continued: Promises to students, to pensioners, to the unemployed, to farmers, to small business people . . . So it went on. In the Age newspaper two days later, on 13 November 1980, there appeared an article entitled 'The day of honest government is upon us-or else, says Chipp'. I must acknowledge that at the moment Senator Chipp cannot speak in the Senate because of an indisposition. I am not attacking him as much as I am attacking the promises made by him on behalf of the Australian Democrats and the way in which his colleagues have dishonoured those promises. They have dishonoured them not once but again and again. The Australian people are entitled to know that this particular political grouping has no credit at all when it tries to present itself as the keeper, when it tries to present itself as any kind of honourable or honest grouping. The article in the Age of 13 November began with the following words: Things will be different in Federal Parliament when the Australian Democrats hold the balance of power from next July. No longer will the Government be able to gag the debate or avoid sensitive issues. No longer will the Government be able to break its election promises with impunity. This is what Senator Don Chipp said in an interview, speaking on behalf of the Democrats about to arrive. I quote a specific comment by Senator Chipp in that article: They won't be able to gag a debate, guillotine a bill or use a favourite device of theirs . . . The gag and the guillotine were explicitly and specifically put aside by Senator Chipp as tools which the Democrats would not use. Those of us who have been here for the last couple of years will recall that six or seven times the Democrats voted for the gag on the Sex Discrimination Bill, and they have voted for the guillotine today. If we want to see what Senator Mason has had to say on this kind of matter we need look only to the Senate Hansard of 21 August this year when in the debate on the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, Senator Mason said: I think the point has to be got through to governments constantly that we cannot have a democratic system under circumstances in which a dozen Bills can be forced through late at night by the use of the gag and the guillotine. Senator Boswell —Who said that? Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Colin Mason, who not only voted for the gag and the guillotine but also then made sure that he used the maximum amount of time available to him, thus cutting down what is available to other honourable senators at the end of the session in a difficult time. Whatever else the Australian people may fall for this time, they will not fall for the fact that the Democrats can be trusted, because they cannot. They will not fall for the fact that the Democrats keep their election promises, because they break them. They will realise that the Democrats are populists who on their record have voted for every expenditure measure and against revenue measures because that is the popular thing to do. While they are here, from the safety of the cross benches where they will never have to exercise any kind of responsibility to the Australian people, they will continue to support all expenditure, every popular issue and vote against revenue because they are essentially in constitutional terms an irresponsible party and a party furthermore-I say this to their Deputy Leader-which does not keep the promises it made solemnly to the Australian people as regards gags and guillotines. That is worth putting on the record, as are some of the interesting things that were contained in Senator Mason's speech , filled as it was with class hatred. Senator Jack Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President. I raise a point of order. Just a few minutes ago Senator Baume rose on a point of order, accusing Senator Mason of reflecting on a vote of this Senate. For the last 10 minutes we have heard Senator Baume reflecting on a vote of this Senate. I ask you to draw his attention to that point of order. Senator Peter Baume —On that point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I point out that I took some trouble at the beginning to indicate that I was not reflecting on a vote of the Senate. I accepted the vote of the Senate. I was merely observing the way in which the Australian Democrats have conducted themselves in the light of their promises. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! There is no point of order, but Senator Baume has been very close in his remarks to such a reflection. Senator PETER BAUME —We know from the events of the last week that the Australian Labor Party will consider a review of the taxation system and that that will include a capital gains tax. We have learned tonight from Senator Mason that the Australian Democrats favour a capital gains tax, albeit a tax with some conditions attached. The Australian people are entitled to remember that when they consider how they will judge the Australian Democrats in the election. I want to say a few words about the very excellent taxation policy announced by the coalition parties in the last 24 hours. This policy will help Australian families to prosper, will reward enterprise and will give Australian families a fair go. It is based upon several features. First, it recognises that the overall taxation burden in Australia must be reduced and that this requires spending restraint and economic growth. Can anyone argue with that? Could even Senator Colin Mason argue with that? The policy states that it is our aim in the first term of government to achieve reductions in expenditure and taxation as a share of the gross domestic product. That will help Australian families and it has been welcomed in the Press because it will do so. The policy observes quite correctly that in Australia we rely far too heavily on personal income tax as a source of revenue. The policy seeks ways of lightening the burden of personal income tax, especially for families in Australia. The coalition will progressively lighten the personal income tax burden by a combination of spending restraints, economic growth, and broadening the indirect tax base. Further, we have offered certain initiatives which have been the subject of much favourable Press and editorial comment. We will give priority to helping families with children. Is this not what is needed in Australia today to help families succeed? We are a Party that supports the family. We want to see families prosper and able to have the resources to control and live their own lives. We will give this help to families by introducing progressively a system of income splitting which will allow married couples with children to divide their aggregate income for tax purposes. This will assist one income families, particularly those families in which there is one breadwinner. It will also help those two income families where the incomes are substantially unequal. In addition, we will introduce progressively tax rebates on child care expenses for two income families and for sole parents. We will, of course, also give single income families equivalent assistance. We will ensure that any changes to indirect tax will be gradual. We recognise the difficulties of introducing an indirect tax, but if there is a trade off in respect of reductions in personal income tax, relief for families and the introduction of indirect tax, Australians will be better off. This is recognised by newspapers and by commentators and this policy, because it will help families, is attracting considerable support, even in the single day since it has been released. The coalition will not introduce a new capital gains tax, death duties or a tax on assets. The coalition government will maintain its strong line against tax avoidance practices generally. We will abolish Labor's 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation and we will move towards providing a differential company tax for small business. I observe that there are differences between the policies of the Liberal and National parties and the policy of the Labor Party. We aim to reduce taxation as a proportion of gross domestic product. Labor has made taxation a higher proportion of the gross domestic product than ever before. We aim to see a similar commitment on government spending. We want it to come down because without such a fall there can be no real reduction in taxes. On the other hand, Labor is increasing government spending. In just a year and a half it has increased from just under 30 per cent of GDP to more than 31 per cent. We are moving immediately to reduce the personal tax burden on families with children through the measures I outlined earlier. Labor, after almost two years in office, has neglected the family, with no increase in family allowances and no increase in dependent spouse rebates. The coalition parties have been moving towards a steady reduction in the share of personal income tax in the total tax mix, with an increased move to indirect tax. The Labor Party is moving to impose an ever increasing burden of personal income tax on Australian taxpayers. We have a complete and unqualified opposition to capital gains tax, new capital taxes and death duties. Labor has no such total opposition. We are committed to abolishing the assets test and abolishing Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation . The Labor Party has no such commitment. We are committed to maintaining vigorous anti-tax evasion and avoidance action. Labor, on the other hand, is moving to do this by retrospective law. We are moving to reduce the cost of government administration by limiting the role of government. That is certainly in contrast to Labor which is a big government, big spending party. The comparison between the parties and their tax policies is stark. Families will be better off under our government than under a Labor government. I wish to say a few words in this Budget speech about some education issues. I draw attention to a letter which has been written by His Grace the Archbishop of Melbourne, Sir Frank Little, in which he criticises the Government trenchantly for one of its moves to reduce a benefit payable to students in halls of residence in tertiary institutions-an unnecessary and a vindictive measure. This letter from His Grace sets out the arguments as we have been trying to set them out, appealing to the Government to do something about it. But in education we see institutions at the tertiary level being asked to do more with less money. Although the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, can say that she has allocated more in total, if we look at the number of dollars that will be available for the teaching of each student in Australian universities and colleges we find that over the next triennium there are fewer dollars per head for almost all institutions year after year. They will be asked to do more and they will receive less money per head to do their jobs-more functions, less money per head. I have already incorporated in Hansard on a previous occasion tables which show just how great this reduction is. The staff-student ratio will worsen under Labor funding and the institutions are wondering how they are to do their jobs. The staff who make up our institutions are still wondering where they stand after their betrayal this year in relation to the determination of the Academic Salaries Tribunal. The students who attend tertiary institutions wonder where they stand with the dishonouring of the promise to bring the tertiary education assistance scheme benefit and the unemployment benefit together. The Australian Labor Party says that it has done that for students aged 16 and 17. How many tertiary students do honourable senators know aged 16 and 17? Almost all of them are 18 years of age or more. For them the gap has widened, the disability in relation to the unemployment benefit has got worse, and Labor has done nothing about it. I said I would mention something about the halls of residence. Honourable senators will be aware of the fact that the Australian Labor Party has unnecessarily, out of the blue, vindictively and irrationally determined to remove the subsidy which has applied to students in halls of residence. I am attracted to this letter of 8 October written, as I said, by the Archbishop of Melbourne, His Grace Sir Frank Little to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). A copy of this letter has come into my possession. It is a three and a quarter page letter. I want to read just a few paragraphs. I have not shown it to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) but I can assure him that the Archbishop has written nothing that is either unparliamentary or inappropriate. I seek leave to have the letter incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- St Patrick's Cathedral, Melbourne, Vic. 3002 8th October 1984 Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, Prime Minister, House of Representatives, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. My Dear Prime Minister, I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman of the Councils of Newman College and St. Mary's College at the University of Melbourne and Mannix College at Monash University about a matter of considerable concern to each college, namely, the decision announced by the Minister for Education, Senator Susan Ryan , contrary to advice from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, to phase out the recurrent funding to the residential colleges and halls affiliated with the Australian universities. I seek your personal support to review this decision and to restore the Grant to the colleges. In particular, I am concerned that the important role of the colleges in the transition of students from secondary to tertiary studies has been overlooked by the Minister. Moreover, the invaluable support given by the colleges to country students who form the overwhelming proportion of their residents has been amply demonstrated in recent studies but again overlooked by the Minister. I am surprised that a government avowedly dedicated to helping disadvantaged sectors of the community should totally withdraw funding from institutions which mostly serve country students. The recurrent grants have been made to the residential colleges of the Australian universities since 1957. The Tertiary Education Commission has continued to critically review the provision of these funds and has supported their payment each triennium. Until now that support has been accepted by each succeeding Federal Government. The purpose of these grants has always been clearly stated-by both Government and Commission-as a means of partially compensating the residences for the provision of the academic, educational, pastoral, social and administrative services which they provide to their residents. The grants have never been a subsidy on accommodation or housing. Audited statements have been issued to prove that the grants received have been used for the purposes for which they were given: they have never ''sunk without trace''. Almost as a corollary, the grants have provided assistance to country students and others disadvantaged by distance or home environment by making a small contribution to those institutions which cater particularly for their needs. In its Report for the 1982-84 triennium the Commission drew a clear distinction between collegiate and non-collegiate forms of residence and recommended that funding continue at existing levels to those residences which qualified as '' collegiate'' in character. Without any warning, without any consultation and certainly without any regard for consensus, Senator Ryan responded by announcing that the recurrent grant for 1984 would be cut by 25%. The Minister, when announcing these arbitrary cuts, asked the Tertiary Education Commission to review the whole question of funding for the colleges (which, in the meantime, had to raise their fees for 1984 to recover the lost income). The Commission's report for the triennium 1985-87 recommended that an amount equal to the existing recurrent grant be made available to residences to be distributed on a needs basis through a bursary scheme administered by the principal of the residence. Thus did the Commission accept the challenge of meeting the government's broad principle of directing assistance to students in need, while confidently expecting that the appropriate caring environment which distinguishes collegiate residences from other student accommodation would continue to be provided. Senator Ryan's guidelines for the triennium 1985-87 have announced the Minister 's decision, contrary to the Commission's recommendation, to phase out the grant to the Colleges altogether. This decision disturbs me. It is the end of an annual grant which has been supported by Liberal and Labor Governments since 1957. It is the end of any direct connection between the Colleges and (through the Commission) the Government and its Department of Education. It is a blunt refusal by the Government to subsidise (or even to acknowledge) the educational role of these colleges. It forces the colleges either to reduce drastically their tutorial and pastoral services-their distinctive caring environment, without which they are no more than hostels-or else to increase their fees by a further $7 a week, thereby making themselves the preserve of wealthier students and thereby depriving disadvantaged country students of these tertiary education opportunities. I am concerned that the concept of ''disadvantaged'' carries its own meaning within the present policy framework of the government and is not open to objective assessment. Two years ago, the Heads of Colleges Association commissioned a survey into the financial profile of residential college students by Professor David Beswick of the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at Melbourne University. This study, which surveyed residential college students throughout Australia, revealed that: the vast majority of students were from the country 80 per cent of students in residence must live away from home more than half come from government schools a quarter of students come from homes where the combined parents income before taxation is less than $300 per week. Instead of being populated by privileged, financially elite students, Professor Beswick found the colleges in fact to be transitional homes for country students whose backgrounds are not especially privileged. This, I would emphasise, is particularly true of the three colleges with which I am associated. Although I write to you as Chairman of the Councils of the three Catholic Colleges in Victoria, I am far from alone in my disquiet which is shared by my brother Bishops in this State. I am further confident that my concern is also shared by my brother Bishops in Townsville, Brisbane, Armidale, Sydney, Canberra , Hobart, Adelaide and Perth where there are Catholic university colleges meeting the needs of hundreds of students. Sincerely yours in Christ, Archbishop of Melbourne Senator PETER BAUME —I am grateful to the Minister. Sir Frank Little says in one paragraph: In particular, I am concerned that the important role of the colleges in the transition of students from secondary to tertiary studies has been overlooked by the Minister. Moreover, the invaluable support given by the colleges to country students who form the overwhelming proportion of their residents has been amply demonstrated in recent studies but again overlooked by the Minister. I am surprised that a government avowedly dedicated to helping disadvantaged sectors of the community should totally withdraw funding from institutions which mostly serve country students. The letter states at a later stage: In its Report for the 1982-84 triennium the Commission- that is, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission- drew a clear distinction between collegiate and non-collegiate forms of residence and recommended that funding continue at existing levels to those residences which qualified as 'collegiate' in character. Without any warning, without any consultation and certainly without any regard for consensus, Senator Ryan responded by announcing that the recurrent grant for 1984 would be cut by 25 per cent. I am quoting the Archbishop of Melbourne talking about Senator Ryan's actions and her response to submissions made by this eminent churchman and by people like him. He goes on to say: The Minister, when announcing these arbitrary cuts, asked the Tertiary Education Commission to review the whole question of funding for the colleges ( which, in the meantime, had to raise their fees for 1984 to recover the lost income). He goes on then to talk about the rest of the decision. He says: This decision disturbes me. It is the end of an annual grant which has been supported by Liberal and Labour Governments since 1957. It is the end of any direct connection between the Colleges and (through the Commission) the Government and its Department of Education. It is a blunt refusal by the Government to subsidise (or even to acknowledge) the educational role of these colleges. It forces the colleges either to reduce drastically their tutorial and pastoral services-their distinctive caring environment, without which they are no more than hostels-or else to increase their fees by a further $7 a week, thereby making themselves the preserve of wealthier students and thereby depriving disadvantaged country students of these tertiary education opportunities. We have tried to tell the Government that it has been wrong on this matter. In a Budget of $2,200m why would it choose to take away a piffling $5m? Why would it do that? It has been done unadvisedly and vindictively. It has been done because of some strange class hatred, some sense of elitism which the Minister perceives in these colleges, and it has been condemned from all over Australia. I ask the Senate to recognise that there is no more distinguished critic than His Grace Archbishop Sir Frank Little, whose letter I have just read to the Senate. I hope the Government will look again at the recommendations which its own Commission, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, made on this matter and will seek ways to acknowledge that it has made a mistake and that it wants to do something about it. The education sector is in confusion in other areas. The non-government schools have been told that they are to be allocated into 12 funding groups. We were asked to approve, and we did, the allocation of a certain amount of money for distribution to non-government schools in 1985. We were told that there were to be 12 funding groups. The Government, when it came to the Senate, had not worked out which schools would be in which groups. After a global amount of money was given to it, it went off to the Commonwealth Schools Commission and said: 'Now, you work out where the categories lie, where the boundaries lie, so that the schools fit into categories and the right amount of money is used'. It will not surprise my colleagues who have done this kind of exercise before that the Commonwealth Schools Commission is finding it quite impossible to allocate schools into groups and to use up the money which has been allocated, no more and no less. I challenge the Government on this point: Is it not a fact that now, in late October, the boundaries in respect of these groups are not ready? Is it not a fact that non-government schools in Australia cannot yet be told to which groups they belong; that they cannot yet be told how much money they will have for 1985 and succeeding years? Is it not a fact that the schools were to be notified of the groups to which they belonged in the first week of November, that is, only a couple of weeks from today? Is it not a fact that they will not be able to be so informed because the Commonwealth Schools Commission, having been given a quite impossible job, cannot come up with a formula? If that is the case, what is to be done? Is it a possibility that non-government schools, which are trying to make their plans for 1985 and subsequent years, may not get their groupings until the latter part of December? Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —How will they enrol? Senator PETER BAUME —My colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asks how they will enrol in the next year? How will they plan for the next year? How will they budget for the next year? They do not know because each of the groups to which they may be allotted will attract a different level of subsidy. The only other matter I wish to raise for consideration is the enormous policy difference which still exists between the determinations made in respect of education at the ALP Conference and the actions of the Government. The ALP Conference, which lays down the policy of the Australian Labor Party, has made it clear that it has adopted an anti-State aid policy which requires the phasing out of government support for some children at some schools. Whether this is done over time or not, it is a policy which was adopted unanimously by that Conference following minimum debate. The decision is still binding upon members of the Labor Party and upon all Labor parliamentarians. There is uncertainty in the non-government school sector. There is uncertainty among government schools as to which direction this Government is going. The Government has not honoured its promises to public education, a series of specific promises. It has chosen not to honour those promises. We had the spectacle last week of members of the Teachers Federation in Canberra trying to get this Government to cough up what it promised explicitly in 1982. Of course it will not. The non-government sector is uncertain still whether or not the Labor Party policy passed at the conference is the policy that will be put into effect if Labor has the chance over the next few years. Is there going to be a policy consistent with the conference decision or is there going to be a policy consistent with a more pragmatic and opportunistic approach? Or is there going to be a move, as some of us fear, towards more control, towards changed arrangements and towards making it difficult for new schools to develop and to be established? Is there going to be an attempt to limit and to contain the sector even if parents across Australia want alternative arrangements for their children? The Government's arrangements are unsatisfactory to those who represent the interests of public education. They are unsatisfactory because the Government has not delivered on promises. The arrangements are unsatisfactory for those who are interested in the other side of schooling, in non-government education, because the Government still has an official policy which spells great danger. I have drawn attention tonight to certain issues of education, but I have been most proud to try to say something about the taxation policy introduced by my colleague Mr John Howard in the last 24 hours. This is a policy which offers enormous benefits to Australian families and, through those families, to the community. It is a policy which should commend itself to the wide Australian community and it is a policy which we on this side are proud to take into next month's election. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.27) — This morning during Question Time Senator Ryan made much of a cartoon which had appeared in one of this morning's newspapers apparently ridiculing the Opposition's taxation policies. She argued that this indicated that the only beneficiaries of the Liberal Party's taxation policy were going to be upper and middle income earners. I suggest that what she overlooked was that the Australian Labor Party Government has very little to be proud of in regard to families in the 18 months in which it has been in government. In particular, this Budget has done very little to assist the new poor in Australia; that is, low to low-middle income earners who have dependent children. This applies whether those families are dual income earners-(Quorum formed) The Labor Government made a perfectly conscious, very deliberate and, I suggest, cynical decision in July this year just prior to the Budget to trade off votes for assistance to families with dependent children. In making that decision it chose to distribute $1 billion of general revenue to people who have jobs by way of across the board tax cuts. Admittedly those were skewed, so the Government said, to people on low incomes. Nevertheless, the decision to distribute that $1 billion in general tax cuts meant that more direct assistance to families with dependent children could not be made in this year's Budget. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(10.30) —I will delay the Senate for only a few minutes tonight. Honourable senators may recall that on 10 May this year I brought to the attention of this chamber the letter that had been forwarded to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) which had been received from a number of women's organisations in Chile speaking about the violence and the lack of civil and human rights in that country. At that time I said that it was my intention to forward a copy of the speeches made to the Ambassador to Chile, Mr Flanagan, and ask him to forward them to the organisations concerned. This he did and last week I received through the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra a letter from them. I intend reading the letter into the public record because I believe it is important that as many people as possible be made aware of what is happening not only in Chile but also in other countries in that region. One thing I ask honourable senators to be tolerant of is that it is not my intention to name either the organisation or the person who wrote the letter to me. I think it may be dangerous until such time as I have confirmation from them that it is quite okay to do so. The letter was written on 4 September. That disturbs me a little because in the meantime we have seen through television film the violence that took place at some of the September demonstrations in Chile. The letter states: Dear Mrs Coleman, It was with deep satisfaction and great happiness that we received Mr Flanagan' s letter-your Ambassador to Chile-in which he sent us copies of your declaration at the Senate on May 10 of this year. We are extremely grateful for your personal interest and solidarity with the cause of women and in particular with our people, who are undergoing tragical circumstances. In these last months, the Government has initiated a new stage in the violation of human rights as far as institutional order, economy and repression are concerned. New repressive laws appear with appalling frequency. One of them is the 'Anti- Terrorist Law', only an excuse for all sorts of violations against so-called terrorists, for the most part innocent. An added law is 'Abuses of the Press' which actually tightens the already severe censorship. We also have the judicial legitimation of Martial Courts and reinforcement of greater power conferred to the CNI. In short, we are confronted with deeper and wider violations of human rights as a result of the Government's effort in taking over the political initiative it had been losing. On the other hand, our people has acquired a greater conscience of the cause of Human Rights and therefore it has increased its power of popular mobilisation. They are also aware of its unifying effect. Our task as . . . has been basically the investigation and denunciation of victims and cases, their defense and solidarity with them. We also instruct women about their rights, based on the declaration Against Discrimination of Women (UN, 1967s). Within the principles and methodology of Human Rights, some of our activities have been: (a) A public meeting in front of the Court of Justice against the Anti- Terrorist Law. Six women were arrested. (b) We took part in the celebration of Women's International Day. Two women were arrested. (c) We had an interview with the President of the Supreme Court of Justice to request an urgent legislation in favour of women, based on the Declaration against discrimination. (d) We held courses on Human Rights for women, in order to train competent leaders and monitors in different districts of Santiago. (e) We organised a big mobilisation-including all the feminine organisations. It took place in front of Santiago's Cathedral in adherence to the 'Chile Defends Life' national campaign. Although it only consisted in showing its motto and singing Violeta Parra's song 'Gracias a la Vida', some women were severely beaten and 20 of them arrested. (f) We have also been working on investigation projects in order to base, ascertain and guide our future action. Needless to say, it has been four years of a most difficult task. Even more so this last August, because repression has been tightening and getting harder and harder. We expect September to be even worse. Starting with this letter, we would sincerely like to keeping in permanent contact with you, so as to keep you informed and up to date concerning our reality. We hope it will be useful and will stimulate your strife for the liberation of our oppressed people. We enclose some documents which might be useful to you, and thank you again for your interest and solidarity, so badly needed! Most gratefully yours, Once again, I will exclude the name of the person and the organisation to which she belongs. I have responded to that letter because I believe it is important that this Parliament have direct information from organisations, whether they be women's organisations, men's organisations or whatever, particularly in those countries where they suffer an oppression which we are fortunate here in Australia not to have against us. But I believe it is also necessary for us occasionally to use the forum of this Parliament to bring to the attention and to raise the consciousness of people not only in this chamber but also outside this chamber as to what is happening in other countries in the world. Whether it be Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina or wherever, it does not matter. If there is oppression, if there is a violation of human and civil rights, we have a right and a responsibility towards not only those people but also the people of Australia to make it as widely known as possible. I thank the Senate for its time and attention. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.36) —I am glad that Senator Coleman showed me the letter she had received earlier because I had expressed some interest in this matter when she spoke last time. I warmly support her concern about the effect of the extremes of the Left or the Right, the extremes of any extremists in taking away the liberty of the citizen. I join with her in expressing a concern about what is happening in the circumstances which she has described in the letter that she has read and what she said previously. Again, I mention the plight of the Baha'is in Iran and so many people in various parts of the world who do not enjoy the liberties which we enjoy in this country. One of the important things is the right which we have to get up and speak in the way that Senator Coleman has tonight. I do not wish to take up any more time of the Senate, but I join with Senator Coleman simply to show that there is a bipartisan attitude in this country in relation to the problems of people who are oppressed by extremist regimes in whatever country they may exist. I wish to pass to another matter. I ask Senator Button whether he is in a position to answer the matters that I raised in relation to the Customs problem which has existed in Melbourne for some time. I addressed this matter on the adjournment debate on two previous occasions. I indicate that in no way do I suggest that Senator Button was recreant to his undertaking that he would provide an answer although it was by arrangement that that did not happen last night. I look forward to receiving it tonight. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.38) —I think it is gilding the lily to say that there was an arrangement that it would not be last night; to describe it as an arrangement is charitable in the extreme. Senator Peter Rae did not expect me to speak last night and I knew that he did not expect me to speak on this matter. When Senator Peter Rae raised this matter I was not unfamiliar with the history of it. I did undertake essentially to refresh my memory about the course of events which has, in a sense, been described to some degree by Senator Rae in comments he has made in the Senate. Essentially those events were that a Mr Sinclair, trading under the name of Sintex International Pty Ltd, purported to have held himself out as having a quota for certain items of apparel and then arranged for the sale of a range of products to various importers and in the course of so doing charged them, as it were, the effective rate of duty which he should have paid if the goods had been properly entered for duty and the duty had been paid by him. This matter has been drawn to my attention on previous occasions. I have had correspondence with the solicitors, Messrs Abbott, Stillman and Wilson in Melbourne for the aggrieved parties. My Assistant Private Secretary has had discussions with the solicitor for the parties Senator Peter Rae purports to represent-I do not put that in any pejorative sense-in the course of the comments which he has made in the Senate. The solicitors have been informed that , as the matter is in the hands of the Crown Solicitor and in fact in some cases writs have been issued out of the Supreme Court of Victoria, I believe it is inappropriate for me to intervene at this stage as requested by Senator Rae. Rather I would say that it is my belief that the matter, being in the courts, and the issues being in contention, it should properly be addressed by the courts. I would just like to say that when this matter arose the Collector of Customs for Victoria instructed the Deputy Crown Solicitor to refer departmental briefs of evidence to counsel for assessment and opinion. Mr Ron Merkel, QC, was engaged for this purpose and was assisted by Mr R. Finklestein of the Victorian Bar. Counsel in joint advice expressed the opinion that civil proceedings should be issued against Sinclair-I know that Senator Rae would not quarrel with that- and each of his clients which were party to the scheme for, firstly, the recovery of duty evaded and, secondly, for damages for conversions. It was suggested that Sinclair should be prosecuted for offences against the Customs Act and a number of offences are set out. I do not think it is to the point to read them out but they are offences which amount to fraud. Senator Peter Rae —It is relevant only to the question of extradition. Do they amount to extraditable offences? Senator BUTTON —I will come to that. Two of the client companies of Sinclair should also be prosecuted as evidence uncovered reveals their direct knowledge of the fraud. On the basis of that, in February of this year, the Comptroller- General of Customs authorised the institution of proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against these parties nominated by counsel in their joint advice. I should add, in answer to Senator Rae's question that, although advice has been sought on the question of extradition of Sinclair and inquiries made by the Australian Federal Police, the advice has been that it is not an extraditable offence and it may be very difficult to get Sinclair back to Australia. Insofar as the importers are concerned, it is the view of the Australian Customs Service that such are the close relationships between the various companies operating in this industry and a particular part of the city of Melbourne that they knew or should have known that Sinclair did not have the quota which he claimed. I just add to that that it is on the basis of counsel's advice that proceedings have been instituted. We accepted that advice earlier in the year. In my view it would not be appropriate for me to intervene over and above the intervention which I took at an earlier stage this year when the matter was considered, correspondence was entered into and discussions were held with the solicitors for the defendants. I do not think I can usefully add anything to that. While I am on my feet I would like to mention another matter. I record for the Senate record the passing of Frank or, as he was better known, Joe Chamberlain, a former Federal President and Federal Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Chamberlain held those positions for some years together with other positions in the Western Australian branch of the Labor Party. He was a controversial figure in Australian politics who held views very strongly and articulated them very strongly in public. One of the views Mr Chamberlain held, which became a source of constant advocacy by him, was that the Australian Government should have recognised the Government of China long before the Whitlam Government in fact recognised it in late 1972 or early 1973. As I have said, a lot of these views, held strongly as they were in the 1960s, were quite controversial. Mr Chamberlain was a very articulate and, I think, a courageous man in some of the views he held. I think he was a very disciplined person in terms of what he believed in. He was not without a degree of controversy about him within the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps I might mention one anecdote. One of the fascinating things about some Prime Ministers of this country-Mr Whitlam and Mr Fraser I think both fell into this category-is their almost tireless energy. I very much recall meeting Mr Whitlam in Melbourne one day. He looked reasonably fresh but he said he had not slept for long. I asked why not and he said: 'I was in Darwin last night but I got up at 3 o'clock in the morning and wrote a long letter to Joe Chamberlain'. The letter was about an incident which very nearly led to Mr Whitlam's expulsion from the Labor Party. It was one of those very difficult factional fights which occur in political parties from time to time. I have never forgotten that, the idea of getting up at 3 o'clock in the morning in Darwin and spending two hours writing to somebody such as Mr Chamberlain. That reflects the vigour with which debates were conducted by people such as Mr Whitlam and Mr Chamberlain in those days. I think it would be wrong for me, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, to let the death of Mr Chamberlain pass unnoticed. I did not agree with Mr Chamberlain on many issues, and a lot of other members of the Labor Party did not either, but there is no doubt about the dedication and intellectual honesty of the positions he held. They are admirable characteristics in any individual, and I just draw those matters to the Senate's attention and pass on the sympathy of the ALP to his relatives. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-On behalf of the Opposition I associate the Opposition with what has been said by Senator Button. Certainly Joe Chamberlain was a controversial character. Certainly he held views very strongly . Certainly he played a very significant part in Australian politics. His passing should not go unnoticed by this chamber. I join Senator Button in taking this opportunity to pay tribute to the strength and depth of the feelings and attitudes which were expressed by Joe Chamberlain, irrespective of the degree of agreement or disagreement with those views. I wish to join the Opposition in the expression of regret of this chamber at the passing of a man who made Australia all the more outstanding for his having participated in the political debate which took place here. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.48) — I apologise for taking a few minutes of the Senate's time tonight. I think this is only the second time in my life that I have spoken on the adjournment. It would not have been necessary to do so now if my democratic rights had not been abridged in such a terrible way by the Government today in denying us adequate time to debate issues. I guess there is some rough justice in the fact that the Minister responsible, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), is forced to sit here at this late hour and endure our presence. Senator Button —I don't feel like that about you at all, Senator. Senator MacGIBBON —Don't feel sad about that. Very well; instead of talking for two minutes I will talk for 20 minutes, if the Minister enjoys my company that much. I want to talk briefly about the recovery of sales tax and funding for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The matter was raised with me by one of the large sales organisations of aircraft in Australia- an ethical and reputable company. It told me that it had had many complaints from purchasers of new light aircraft. I was shown a letter dated 5 October 1984 which related to the purchase of a new aircraft from the importers on 12 May 1982, roughly two and a half years earlier. Sales tax exclusion was claimed on the sale of that aircraft because it was purchased for business or industrial purposes. The letter, which was from the Australian Taxation Office, outlined the date of sale and restated section 119(A) of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. Following that the Australian Taxation Office suggested how that section should be interpreted. It then defined what in its view were the exempt uses for the aircraft and what were not. The final three paragraphs of the letter read: If you now consider that exemption from sales tax correctly applies, please answer the enclosed questionnaire and return it to this office. (It may be noted that Section 29B of the Commonwealth Crimes Act provides penalties for persons who seek to obtain benefit by making untrue statements to the Commonwealth). If, however, you now find that exemption has been incorrectly claimed, the matter may be adjusted by forwarding the amount of $10,422 together with the enclosed remittance form duly completed. The information to support exemption for your aircraft, or your remittance for the sales tax involved, should be furnished to this office within 14 days of the date of this letter. Any further information you may require on this matter, can be obtained by contacting . . . Two points arise out of that letter. The first is just a simple matter of courtesy. The letter is, to put it mildly, rather rude in the way in which it makes its request. Taxpayers are very much customers of the Australian Taxation Office, although it is probable that public servants do not think that way. Taxpayers are entitled to courtesy and civility in their dealings with the Taxation Office. Courtesy, after all, costs nothing and there is no reason at all why the Public Service cannot be as courteous as someone in private industry . The second point deals with the legality of what the Australian Taxation Office is doing. This matter has arisen two and a half years after the sale of the aircraft and I am advised by the company that some of these actions have been made retrospective for a period of three years. It is arguable that the Australian Taxation Office does not have legislative backing to seek sales tax from persons other than registered sales tax payers; that is, companies which hold a sales tax number and lodge monthly sales tax returns. Furthermore, it can be argued that if it is proved that a false exemption certificate was provided, the Australian Taxation Office does not have the statutory backing to recover the tax. Without taking sides on this matter, there are clearly grounds for legal dispute and argument about who is right and who is wrong. The Taxation Office is saying one thing and the purchasers are saying another. I do not know who is right, but I am left with a suspicion that the Australian Taxation Office is exceeding its powers here. I do not like the way a threat relating to a section of the Crimes Act is in the letter. Clearly the intention is to intimidate the purchaser and make him conform to the belief that he is in the wrong. I do not believe that that is a proper way for the Taxation Office to conduct its business as an agent of the Government. If it has a case, I think the correct course for it to follow is to resort to proper legal proceedings rather than to use an authority which seems to be rather dubious. The second matter I raise is the serious lack of funding for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. It is primarily a matter of the failure of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who has talked up science and technology to a degree that we have never seen before from any Minister in any Government. He has really reached absurd levels in the expectations he has created with respect to the funding that he will devote to it. He has failed abjectly to honour those expectations that he has raised. I think the outcry from the CSIRO and other members of the scientific community throughout Australia after this Budget was brought down in August provoked a response from the Minister that is unique in politics. Instead of taking the criticism that was due to him, the Minister abused the scientists for being poor politicians. That transference of failure from one person to another is quite extraordinary. As one who has associations with the scientific world, I would much rather have Australian scientists as scientists and not as politicians. They are pretty good scientists and that is a full time job. In the 1984-85 Budget we have a cut of 3.2 per cent in real terms in the salaries and operating funds of the CSIRO. I am concerned about the effect that that cut is having on Australia's rural industries, particularly those in Queensland. In Queensland we only have 8.4 per cent of the CSIRO's staff and on a raw population basis we should have at least 16 per cent of that staff. If we look at the figures in terms of the economic benefits that come to Australia from the exports of primary industries, we should have considerably more than 16 per cent of the staff devoted to us. One of the most important divisions in Queensland is the Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures. Its work is very relevant not just to Queensland but the whole of the northern half of Australia. The beef industry has benefited enormously from the pasture improvements from this Division, but in the last 10 years its operating expenses have been reduced by 45 per cent and its staff has been reduced by 25 per cent. The present situation is that there is little or no room at all for any new research to be initiated into pastoral matters in the north of Australia. This Division does have a proven history of achievement. Since its establishment, it has released 29 grasses and legumes for northern Australian conditions. It has done continuing research on the management of seed harvesting , disease and insect problems and fertiliser requirements for these new pasture species. It is developing detoxification for the bacteria for animals grazing on leuvcaena which in time will provide big benefits for the dry pastoral areas in northern Australia. Much more needs to be done in respect of pasture development . We need new grasses and new pasture management techniques because we are now facing very real problems of overgrazing in many of the northern Australian pasture areas. Because of the cost squeeze on rural production it is becoming more and more imperative if we are to stay in business to improve the efficiency of production. As the Government is well aware, the sugar industry is very depressed at present and it needs help in a whole variety of ways. The CSIRO simply does not have the funds to help it. There are the problems of northern poor root growth, the yellowing of sugar from the production of amino acids as a consequence of nitrogenous fertilisers, the number of ratoons obtained from cane stock which is a matter of applied plant physiology. These are all pressing problems on which CSIRO could help and to which it could profitably turn its attention if it had the resources. But this year the Budget of the Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures is being reduced by 5 per cent. I accept that the rundown is not purely the consequence of this year's Budget. The previous Government must accept some blame because of the reduction of 45 per cent that I talked about earlier. The point is that we have just about reached the end of the line. We are in a critical situation and something needs to be done. While I am attributing blame, I must say something about the objectives and management goals of the CSIRO because clearly in the last 10 years it has moved away from a primary concern with agricultural pursuits and into other, no doubt rewarding, fields. But as a consequence, some of its objectives in primary production research have fallen by the wayside. I finish on the note that we have almost reached the end of the line with respect to northern Australia tropical crops and pasture research. This is a very valuable avenue of research for Australia and, as is popularly said, money spent here comes back tenfold to the Australian community. I bring this matter to the Minister's notice so that he can raise it with his colleagues in the hope that some remedial action can be taken in the near future. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(11.00) —I take this opportunity to discuss two matters. The first relates to the present situation within the university engineering faculties. I have been advised that a meeting of deans of university engineering faculties was held on 15 and 16 August 1984 at which considerable alarm was expressed about the funding of faculties of engineering in Australian universities. This is an issue about which we should be very concerned, because it will greatly affect the industrial well-being of Australia in the future. It will affect it in both the short term and the long term. Therefore, it should be of concern to all political parties. Senator Jessop —The development of Australia depends on engineering. Senator TOWNLEY —It certainly does. The development of Australia depends upon the number and quality of universities. One of the things that must be remembered with regard to engineering is that it involves an internationally accepted level of training, so that any engineers who are trained in Australia must be trained to a level that is acceptable on an international basis. Therefore, if a university's funds are not sufficient to train enough people, the number of people taken into that university's engineering course must be reduced. At present we are accepting many students from overseas, particularly, I believe, at the University of New South Wales. It was a dean from that university who, by way of a letter, once again brought this matter to my attention. Attached to his letter was a two-page document headed 'Crisis in Funding of Engineering Education'. I have shown it to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), Mr President, and I seek leave to have that document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- CRISIS IN FUNDING OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 1. The National Problem Deans of Engineering Faculties in Australian Universities met in Adelaide recently to discuss their serious concern for the future survival of Australia's technological enterprises. The growth of these enterprises is fundamental to the commercial development of the nation in a world of increasing economic competition based on technology. Our national security and standard of living cannot be maintained unless we regain a higher level of technological achievement. Technological development follows directly from the quality of Engineering Education. The Deans are concerned that the future is at risk because of the reduced investment in Engineering Education in their Universities. 2. The Quality of Engineering Education Engineering Education is concerned with the development of problem solving skills which involve the integration of several disciplines; Science, Technological Sciences, Economics, Human Behaviour, Management. It is essential that clinical-style teaching be maintained even though it is a more expensive procedure. It is also vitally important that active technological research and industrial consultancy be continued to maintain the development thrust. The quality of Engineering Education has been put at risk in recent years due to severe funding cuts. Australian Engineering Schools are expected to achieve more and more with reduced resources. Some faculties are being forced to reduce enrolments in order to maintain high standards of education. Such reductions are obviously contrary to the national interest. 3. Problem of Technological Change The rate of technological change is creating an even greater demand for resources essential for the effective education of Australia's future engineers. Students now in universities will make their major professional contributions to the nation in the 1990s and beyond. Engineers play a leading role in the design and development of our technological enterprises and consequently help to create new industries and provide employment opportunities throughout the community. The rapid rate of technological change has exacerbated the consequences of funding deficiencies in recent years. There is a serious need for substantial upgrading in the resources available for Engineering Education. 4. Needs Engineering is an international profession and Australian engineers must be trained to a level comparable with the best by world standards. Achievement of these standards is dependent upon the employment of high calibre and experienced staff, and the provision of up-to-date laboratories and equipment. Sustained periods of inadequate funding have seriously eroded the achievement of the high standards which the nation has achieved in the past. In order to restore Engineering Education to the minimum level necessary by international standards, the Deans see an imperative need for additional amounts of both recurrent and equipment funds. Specific equipment needs will be advised in the near future. It has been estimated by the Deans that, in order to restore funding to an acceptable level, the recurrent funds available to Faculties of Engineering should be increased by 15 per cent per annum for the next three years. This would then raise funding to a level which would be adequate, if maintained, taking CPI changes into account. 17 October 1984 N. L. Svensson (Professor), Dean, Faculty of Engineering, University of New South Wales, PO Box 1, Kensington 2033 Senator TOWNLEY —That is not a very long document, but it brings to the attention of anyone who may find this matter of interest the present situation within our universities. It is getting critical. I have spoken about it on many occasions over the past few years. During that time I have been trying to get the people who decide what money will be spent where to realise that engineering needs more money, and it needs it straight away. It will be seen from the last paragraph of the document that the deans estimate that in order to restore funding to an acceptable level, the recurrent funds available to faculties of engineering should be increased by 15 per cent per annum for the next three years. That shows that they feel that the funding level is very much below what it should be in order to be satisfactory. Senator Peter Rae —They are also concerned about the role of engineering in bringing Australia up to world standard in technological change and what have you, as I understand it. Senator TOWNLEY —Senator Rae is right. That very need is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the document-that without enough engineers and scientists, Australia will be left behind. This matter is worthy of consideration by both major political parties. I do not agree with what Senator MacGibbon said a moment ago. Maybe it is time that some of the scientists and engineers around this country became involved more heavily in the country's politics. They are certainly being neglected. We have many farmers and, with due respect to those in the chamber now, we have many lawyers, and people who, in many ways, have to make a special study of sciences if they are to realise just how important they are for Australia. The other matter upon which I shall dwell quite briefly relates to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I believe a very serious situation exists in ASIO at the moment in that ASIO is not being allowed to cover the activities of people within certain organisations in the way that it should. For that reason the information ASIO is able to forward to certain people, particularly about Ministers-I am not saying for a minute that it examines Ministers; perhaps I should say that it is for the protection of Ministers-during an election campaign and for the protection of those people who are very much in the public eye, is limited. It is almost as if ASIO were on strike. It is not able to supply the people who should be supplied with the information that is necessary, particularly at this time when so many Ministers are travelling around Australia and when tempers and thoughts are more political than they are at other times. It is always a little more dangerous in Australia during an election campaign. Not for one minute would I want Australia to reach the situation that applies in other countries, but certainly unless we have- Senator Button —You have been trying to knock me off for ages. Senator TOWNLEY —I think Senator Button recognises what I am trying to say. I am not trying to cause any difficulty but just to draw the attention of the Senate to this matter. Senator Kilgariff —Are its surveillance activities being curtailed? Senator TOWNLEY —The information I have received, following a couple of telephone calls today, indicates that ASIO is not allowed entirely to look at people within certain organisations that it believes are front organisations and at people who could well be terrorists. That is a very serious situation. It is a matter I have brought up tonight because I was not sure whether we would have an adjournment debate tomorrow or whether I would have time to speak during the sitting of the Senate tomorrow. Senator Peter Rae —Are you worried about the way the Australian Democrats gag us ? Senator TOWNLEY —I am trying to be non-controversial at the moment. I feel the matter should be answered by way of statement to the Senate either now or tomorrow, while the Parliament is sitting. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.08) — I rise to support the seriousness of the matter Senator Townley has raised with respect to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I have also heard that the attitude of ASIO to surveillance and security has been somewhat affected because of the attitudes of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in certain respects. I think it behoves us to examine the matter carefully in the light of what Senator Townley has said, particularly leading up to an election when Ministers of the Government and the leaders of the Opposition will be engaged, as will all members of Parliament, in the campaign. I believe the matter that was raised ought to be given some consideration and inquiries made through the Attorney- General to discover whether ASIO is on strike, in effect, in certain areas, affecting the security and safety of Ministers of the Government and members of the Parliament in the time leading up to the election. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.09) —Senator Townley has implied certain things. One has to guess what he was actually referring to, but it sounded as if he was questioning the ability of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to do certain things. If that is the case, the matter is extremely serious. One matter that concerns me on the issue of security is a matter that has never been cleared up satisfactorily, despite questions and statements in the Senate. Senator Messner particularly asked questions about what happened to various Commonwealth property that was taken by demonstrators last year from the gates of the joint defence facility at Pine Gap, west of Alice Springs. There was a report in a Melbourne newspaper that the signs and Commonwealth property were taken to Melbourne and were raffled or auctioned one night by an organisation to raise funds to pay for fines and various other expenses that were incurred by the demonstrators at Pine Gap because of their various activities. On the night in question-and I believe it has not been refuted-one, two or perhaps more Government Ministers were at the house where these sales of Commonwealth property took place. Senator MacGibbon —Stolen property. Senator KILGARIFF —It was stolen property. The question which has never been answered-it is too difficult-is why action was not taken by the Australian Federal Police, who had full knowledge that the signs and other property were stolen from Pine Gap. It was reported and the Australian Federal Police knew that the property was raffled or auctioned at that house. It has been implied that because one or two people from the Government were present at the house-- Senator MacGibbon —Who was there? Senator KILGARIFF —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said some months ago when I asked him a question in this chamber and when debating the situation that he was there. The issue of security which Senator Townley raised has recalled this situation. What is happening and why has action not been taken on this matter? I have asked-and there has been correspondence with the Australian Federal Police-what the Federal Police are doing about that matter. One wonders why the Australian Federal Police have not taken some action. Have they been instructed not to take action? This issue, like that raised by Senator Townley, is also a matter of security. It is a matter that concerns me, as the matter of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation concerns him. If there is a link between such matters, if certain things are not allowed to be done by those responsible for surveillance, there is something very radically wrong in the system. I too would like the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, to look into the situation and give us some assurance that things are all right. I would like to know why this left wing organisation in Melbourne has not been charged with stealing Commonwealth property from Pine Gap and using it to raise funds. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-A number of honourable senators have raised important issues. I shall refer the matters raised by Senator MacGibbon to the appropriate Minister. Senator Townley spoke on two issues, the second one regarding engineering faculties. I must say that I agree very much with Senator Townley in the basic thrust of the remarks he made. Of course, governments would like to do many things which cannot always be done at the time they would like to do them. However, Senator Townley's proposal is a matter for serious consideration. With regard to the matter raised by Senator Kilgariff, regrettably I cannot investigate it further because I have no idea what he is talking about and, with the greatest respect, I suspect nor does he. Senator MacGibbon —I will explain it if you like. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator invited him and he would not accept the invitation. There was nothing in what Senator Kilgariff said that I could have investigated, but that is a difficulty, I suppose, with which we are all confronted from time to time. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) — by leave-I am not endeavouring to talk in riddles. All I am doing is saying that in the Senate now there are questions and answers on record. Statements have been made. I thought I was being quite clear about the whole matter. I am referring to stolen property from the Pine Gap joint defence facility west of Alice Springs. The property was taken by the demonstrators to a house in Melbourne where it was sold to raise funds. I have indicated before that in the answers, the reports and the correspondence that has been received, the name of a person called Coxsedge has been mentioned. I understand that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) was at the house. What more can I say? I have not received satisfactory answers. Senator Messner certainly has not received satisfactory answers. He has been endeavouring to pursue the matter. All I am asking is that the matter be cleared up. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I am very puzzled by the response of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) to Senator Kilgariff. On a number of occasions Senator Kilgariff has made a series of quite clear complaints. They involve alleged thefts of Commonwealth property and the auction of that property for fund raising purposes , as I understand it, for either the Australian Labor Party or some associated organisation. I do not think that Senator Button is an obtuse person and I therefore find it very puzzling that he is unable to understand the drift of Senator Kilgariff's complaints. On a number of occasions in this place I have said that I regard the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) as not understanding the nature of his task. I have said to his face-I am sorry that he is not here-that I have seen no signs that he understands that the role of the Attorney-General is to protect the public interest. I have said to his face that I believe that he has shown himself far too ready to be concerned about the interests of his friends. The Attorney-General should be prepared to give a full , frank and proper response to the sorts of points raised by Senator Kilgariff. I do not think it is good enough that there be one rule for the friends of the Australian Labor Party and another rule for others. The failure of the Leader of the Government to understand the drift of Senator Kilgariff's comments is extraordinary but perhaps less extraordinary than the failure of the Attorney- General to respond in a dutiful way. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —by leave-Senator Townley raised a very important issue about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and its inability or unwillingness to exercise surveillance, which will affect the security of Ministers, members of parliament and leaders of the Opposition with respect to their personal security in the very sensitive time leading up to the election. I simply ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) whether he will make inquiries about this matter. I understand that ASIO is in effect on strike with respect to security matters relating to the points that were raised by Senator Townley. I request that, if the Minister cannot make a statement now, he make a statement tomorrow on this matter. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —by leave- It is quite serious that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) will not give some undertaking about this matter. The Minister could quite easily say that he will have investigations undertaken and, if suitable, make a statement to the Senate tomorrow. I think the fact he will not do that is even more serious than the allegations made against the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. In my estimation it gives the situation a lot of credence. In any case, I knew it was right. However, I do not think it is good enough to let the Senate rise tomorrow without something being said about this matter of national security. I ask: Is the Government not interested in national security any more? That is the Government's first responsibility; the first responsibility of any government is the security of the country. Senator Button is sitting silently and making no statement in regard to this matter. I have always regarded Senator Button as a person of integrity and also as a fairly knowledgeable politician. He knows very well that unless something is said about this matter and some offer made to look into it, it will have to be brought up again and again until something is said. As I see it, it is a very serious matter made more serious by the fact that the Leader of the Government in the Senate will not make one word of comment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.22 p.m. The following papers were presented: Archives Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 290. Epidemiological Studies (Confidentiality) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 289. Interim Forces Benefits Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 293. Inter-State Commission Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 291. Remuneration and Allowances Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 295. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal- Determinations 1984- No. 25- Remuneration and allowances payable to holders of certain public offices- Chairman, Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Financing and others, dated 26 September 1984. Repatriation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 292. Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 294. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1984- No. 55-Legal Aid ( Amendment) (No. 2). No. 56-Long Services Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) (No . 2). Superannuation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 288. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 945) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) Is the Treasurer considering introducing taxation deductions in the next Budget for transport costs, maintenance of wheelchairs and parking costs for employed disabled persons. (2) Do employed disabled persons have to pay much higher transport costs than able-bodied employed persons and well in advance of the $10 per week mobility allowance. (3) Do employed disabled persons have less disposable income because of disproportionate transport costs compared with able-bodied employed persons, and that this disparity is not recognised under the current provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The 1984-85 Budget did not include a proposal to allow income tax deductions in respect of transport costs, maintenance of wheelchairs and parking costs to employed disabled persons. The Government's view is that allowing such deductions is not necessarily the best way of providing assistance to the disabled. In this regard, it should be noted that persons on higher incomes in higher tax brackets stand to benefit the most for each dollar expended, while persons on lower incomes would receive little or no tax benefit. Concessions are, however, available to disabled persons. The cost of buying and maintaining a wheelchair, and the remuneration paid to the attendant of a person who is permanently confined to a wheelchair, are 'medical expenses' in terms of the income tax law, and can be claimed as part of concessional expenditure in respect of which a taxpayer is entitled to a rebate of tax when the total of such expenditure exceeds $2,000. In addition, sales tax exemptions apply to wheelchairs and goods designed and manufactured expressly for use by disabled persons, while in certain circumstances sales tax exemption is available on motor vehicles used by disabled persons. (2) From available information, it is known that some employed disabled persons incur additional transport costs because the effects of their disabilities may preclude the use of public transport. The mobility allowance, which was introduced in April 1983, was never intended to meet all transport costs faced by eligible persons but rather to assist in off-setting some of the additional expenses involved. I understand that the mobility allowance is currently under review by my colleague Senator the honourable Don Grimes, the Minister for Social Security, and also by the Disability Advisory Council of Australia (DACA). (3) Relevant details of disposable incomes are not available from taxation statistics. (Question No. 1041) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) When will the Network 0/28 programs begin transmission in Brisbane. (2) What will be the broadcast range of the service. (3) What areas of greater metropolitan Brisbane will not be able to receive a UHF 0/28 transmission. (4) Are any other areas of Queensland to receive the Network 0/28 service; if so, where and when. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Special Broadcasting Service is currently scheduled to commence operations in Brisbane in June 1985. (2) and (3) The coverage will be similar to the present television coverage of greater Brisbane. (Channels 0, 2, 7, 9,) (4) A translator located at Mt Tamborine to serve the Gold Coast is scheduled to commence operations in June 1985. Planning is proceeding for translators at Tugun and Razorback (near Tweed Heads) to provide coverage to areas of the Gold Coast that may experience inadequate reception from the Mt Tamborine translator. (Question No. 1116) Senator Watson asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 7 September 1984: Does the Government intend, following the recently announced retrenchment of approximately 600 coal miners in New South Wales by CRA Ltd, to heed the call of Mr Bob Kelly, General President of the Miners' Federation, for the Commonwealth Government to nationalise the coal mine in question, given the Government's commitment to unions, the prices and incomes accord and industrial democracy. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: No. (Question No. 1153) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 October 1984: (1) Is the Australian Dairy Corporation (ADC) allowing a Hong Kong subsidiary, Asia Dairy Industries Ltd, and also the Thai Dairy Industry Co. Ltd, whom the ADC supervises, to promote in those countries sweetened condensed milk as suitable for infants from birth to 6 months of age. (2) Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that such feeding practices are a definite health hazard. (3) Will the Government take action to ensure that the Australian Dairy Corporation intervenes in the current promotion of Champion brand sweetened condensed milk in Hong Kong and the Cock brand in Thailand. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. I am advised by the Australian Dairy Corporation (ADC) that its subsidiary Asia Dairy Industries (H.K.) Ltd (ADI) does not promote the use of sweetened condensed milk as being suitable for infants from birth to six months of age. In May 1983 I wrote to the ADC asking that ADI comply with the World Health Organisation (WHO) Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes which specifically nominates sweetened condensed milk as being unsuitable for infants. I am advised by ADI that Cock brand product was manufactured by Thai Dairy Industry Co. Ltd six years ago for sale in Burma. The original labels conformed to Burmese Government requirements and contained infant feeding tables. However this brand is no longer produced. Champion brand products are currently manufactured by Thai Dairy Industry Co. Ltd under ADI supervision for sale in Hong Kong. I am advised that the product is not promoted as suitable for infant feeding and the label does not contain information or pictorial suggestion to that end. (2) Yes. In May 1981 Australia accepted the WHO Code and is implementing its provisions. (3) No action is required in the light of (1) and (2) above. (Question No. 1197) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: In respect of the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister: (a) how many motor vehicles did they own before 2 March 1983; (b) how many vehicles do they now own; (c) how many vehicles have they purchased since 2 March 1983; (d) what type, size and make of motor vehicles have they purchased; (e) what was the individual and total cost of these vehicles; and (f) for what purpose where the vehicles purchased. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question: ANGLO AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE BOARD (a) 8. (b) 8. (c) 5. (d) 2 x 4 cylinder Nissan Bluebird manual sedans; 2 x 6 cylinder Ford Falcon manual sedans; 1 x 6 cylinder Ford Falcon automatic station wagon. (e) respectively: 2 x $6,001.19, $7,670, $7,645.45, $8,697.15. Total $36,023.98 . (f) routine day to day business of the Observatory. AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE (a) 36. (b) 39. (c) 23. (d) 15 Ford GL sedans; 2 Ford GL station sedans; 2 Fairmont station sedans; 2 Ford Courier 1 ton utilities; 1 Ford Trader 3.5 ton truck; 1 Toyota Landcruiser utility (second hand). (e) Ford GL sedans 2 at $8,716.55, 2 at $9,408.17, 3 at $9,423.53, 3 at $9,622. 84, 4 at 9,925.50, 1 at $9,200.00. Ford GL station sedans 1 at $9,955.18, 1 at $ 10,850.51. Fairmont station sedans 1 at $12,156.00, 1 at $13,705.84. Ford utilities 2 at $5,894.30. Ford truck 1 at $11,458.00. Toyota Landcruiser 1 at $4 ,775.00. Total cost $216,979.68. (f) 2 Ford sedans were purchased from CCEP funding to provide transport for 10 experimental officers under that program. 1 Ford sedan was purchased to increase the commuter fleet. The Ford Trader replaced the original 3 ton truck purchased in 1975. The Toyota Landcruiser replaced a similar vehicle, and is used primarily for launching vessels. All other vehicles were replacements under the Institute policy to replace at 60,000 km or 2 years to ensure best trade-ins and adequate standards of safety. NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMISSION (a) one. (b) one. (c) nil. (d) n.a. (e) n.a. (f) Commission transport. DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 1. Antarctic Division (a) 35. (b) 39. (c) 5. (d) 2 x Toyota Hilux RN46 utility-4 WD; 3 x Mercedes Benz Unimog U1700L truck-4 WD. (e) Toyota utility $8,746; Unimog truck $99,215. Total cost $315,656. (f) Toyota utilities were purchased as station support and rebuilding program support for Davis and Casey Stations. Unimog trucks were purchased as station suport for Davis, Casey and Mawson stations. 2. Bureau of Meteorology (a) 46. (b) 42. (c) 8. (d) 1 x Holden utility; 1 x Mazda B2000 utility; 1 x Toyota Hi-Ace minibus; 1 x Falcon utility; Case Tractor combination; 1 x Ford Falcon sedan; 1 x Ford Falcon utility; 1 x Toyota Landcruiser. (e) Holden utility $8,627; Mazda B2000 utility $4,756; Toyota Hi-Ace Minibus $7 ,248; Ford Falcon utility $7,202; Case Tractor combination $19,824; Ford Falcon sedan $7,950; Ford Falcon utility $6,080; Toyota Landcruiser $9,594. Total cost $72,009. (f) Holden utility for Ceduna Met Office, Mazda B2000 utility for NSW Regional Office (maintenance facilities), Minibus for training school (transport students ), XE Falcon utility for Adelaide Met Office, Tractor Combination for Giles Met Office, Falcon sedan for Townsville Met Office, Ford utility for Port Hedland Met Office and the Toyota Landcruiser for Forrest Met Office. CSIRO (a) 1,013. (b) 984. (c) 218. (d) see attached schedule. (e) Total $1,517,981-see attached schedule. (f) see attached schedule. Key LT: Local Transportation. FSS: Field Surveys and Studies. CSIRO Size Make Type 4 or 6 cyl. Cost Purpose Sigma sedan 4 cyl 7,560 LT Sigma sedan 4 cyl 7,560 LT Toyota Hi-Ace 4 cyl 8,300 FSS Nissan station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 7,163 FSS Nissan station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 7,163 FSS Nissan station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 7,163 FSS Sigma station wagon 4 cyl 7,385 LT Sigma station wagon 4 cyl 7,385 LT Holden utility 6 cyl 8,010 FSS Ford truck 1 tonne 10,809 FSS Nissan station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 7,100 FSS Nissan station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 7,000 FSS Ford utility 6 cyl 8,400 FSS Ford utility 6 cyl 8,400 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 8,664 FSS Nissan sedan 4 cyl 7,792 LT Nissan sedan 4 cyl 7,792 LT Ford station wagon 6 cyl 10,144 FSS Sigma station wagon 4 cyl 7,909 LT Sigma station wagon 4 cyl 7,909 LT Sigma sedan 4 cyl 7,600 LT Sigma station wagon 4 cyl 8,175 LT Sigma station wagon 4 cyl 7,538 LT Toyota sedan 4 cyl 6,307 LT Toyota sedan 4 cyl 6,307 LT Datsun sedan 4 cyl 6,707 LT Ford utility 6 cyl 7,904 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 8,912 FSS Isuzu truck 6 tonne 22,749 FSS Subaru station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 7,100 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,568 FSS Holden utility 4 cyl 5,292 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 8,742 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,235 FSS Nissan station wagon 4 cyl 8,095 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 9,217 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 9,368 FSS Ford sedan 6 cyl 11,827 FSS Holden utility 6 cyl 8,433 FSS Mazda truck 1 tonne 6,365 FSS Sigma sedan 4 cyl 7,300 LT Datsun sedan 4 cyl 6,484 LT Sigma sedan 4 cyl 7,194 LT Sigma station wagon 4 cyl 7,626 LT Holden utility 6 cyl 8,155 FSS Sigma station wagon 4 cyl 7,425 LT Sigma sedan 4 cyl 7,260 LT Ford panel van 6 cyl 9,919 FSS Toyota station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 14,254 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 10,794 FSS Ford truck 1 tonne 12,019 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 8,697 FSS Toyota station wagon 4 cyl 7,060 LT Toyota station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 10,763 FSS Holden utility 6 cyl 7,210 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 8,644 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,645 FSS Nissan sedan 4 cyl 6,501 LT Holden truck 1 tonne 9,003 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,491 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 9,732 FSS Sigma station wagon 4 cyl 7,785 LT Holden utility 6 cyl 7,088 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,522 FSS Ford sedan 6 cyl 9,845 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 10,629 FSS Holden station wagon 4 cyl 8,057 LT Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,288 FSS Datsun station wagon 4 cyl 7,199 LT Holden utility 6 cyl 7,56b FSS Sigma station wagon 4 cyl 7,447 LT Holden sedan 6 cyl 7,431 FSS Toyota sedan 4 cyl 7,554 LT Toyota sedan 4 cyl 7,704 LT Holden station wagon 4 cyl 7,311 FSS Toyota 4wd utility 4 cyl 9,356 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 9,087 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 7,709 LT Nissan station wagon 4wd 4 cyl 10,485 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 9,050 FSS Subaru station wagon 4wd 4 cyl 6,559 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 5,278 FSS Toyota station wagon 4wd 4 cyl 6,250 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,145 FSS Holden station wagon 4wd 4 cyl 11,390 FSS Holden sedan 4 cyl 5,414 LT Holden panel van 4 cyl 5,455 LT Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,145 FSS Holden station wagon 4wd 4 cyl 12,363 FSS Holden sedan 4 cyl 5,414 LT Ford station wagon 6 cyl 9,696 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 10,023 FSS Holden shuttle van 4 cyl 6,564 LT Holden station wagon 4 cyl 7,580 LT Subaru station wagon 4wd 4 cyl 6,788 FSS Mitsubishi sedan 4 cyl 7,791 LT Toyota Hi-Ace van 4 cyl 5,902 LT Mitsubishi station wagon 4 cyl 8,141 LT Toyota station wagon 4wd 4 cyl 7,661 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 9,957 FSS Subaru station wagon 4wd 4 cyl 7,648 FSS Subaru station wagon 4wd 4 cyl 6,788 FSS Nissan sedan 4 cyl 6,486 LT Toyota station wagon 4wd 4 cyl 7,271 FSS Toyota station wagon 4wd 4 cyl 7,271 FSS Subaru station wagon 4wd 4 cyl 6,789 FSS Holden utility 4wd 4 cyl 5,004 FSS Nissan sedan 4 cyl 6,976 LT Nissan station wagon 4 cyl 7,277 LT Holden station wagon 6 cyl 9,150 LT Nissan sedan 4 cyl 5,764 LT Ford station wagon 6 cyl 9,665 FSS Holden utility 6 cyl 8,700 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,365 FSS Holden station wagon 4 cyl 7,222 LT Holden station wagon 4 cyl 7,225 LT Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,735 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 9,869 FSS Daihatsu panel van 4 cyl 4,461 LT Holden utility 4WD 4 cyl 6,000 FSS Toyota station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 12,470 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 10,000 FSS Nissan station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 12,442 FSS Ford sedan 6 cyl 11,503 FSS Toyota 1.5 tonne, 4WD 4 cyl 7,154 FSS Ford sedan 6 cyl 9,490 FSS Ford panel van 4 cyl 6,138 FSS Holden station wagon 4 cyl 6,787 LT Holden sedan 6 cyl 5,868 FSS Holden station wagon 4 cyl 7,345 LT Ford station wagon 6 cyl 9,169 FSS Ford utility 6 cyl 8,244 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 7,724 FSS Nissan utility 4 cyl 7,385 FSS Holden utility 6 cyl 7,106 FSS Holden utility 6 cyl 7,231 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 7,348 FSS Mitsubishi station wagon 4 cyl 8,462 LT Ford sedan 6 cyl 8,003 FSS Daihatsu truck 4 cyl 9,308 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 7,853 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 8,312 FSS Ford sedan 6 cyl 9,391 FSS Ford utility 6 cyl 7,920 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 7,940 FSS Holden utility 6 cyl 7,497 FSS Ford utility 4 cyl 6,137 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 9,525 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 9,525 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 8,546 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,600 FSS Nissan panel van 4 cyl 6,545 FSS Holden utility 4 cyl 6,382 FSS Holden station wagon 4 cyl 6,053 LT Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,752 FSS Holden station wagon 4 cyl 7,673 LT Holden sedan 6 cyl 8,948 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,868 FSS Toyota Hi-Lux truck 4 cyl 5,602 FSS Toyota Hi-Lux truck 4 cyl 7,698 FSS Toyota utility 4WD 4 cyl 8,494 FSS Toyota utility 4WD 4 cyl 8,635 FSS Toyota utility 4WD 4 cyl 8,235 FSS Toyota utility 4 cyl 8,635 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,743 FSS Holden utility 6 cyl 8,667 FSS Toyota truck 4 cyl 8,235 FSS Toyota utility 4 cyl 8,635 FSS Holden utility 6 cyl 8,667 FSS International truck 5 tonne 9,858 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 8,779 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 8,553 FSS Toyota station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 11,306 FSS Toyota station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 10,024 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 9,121 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 6,473 FSS Toyota bus 4 cyl 9,360 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 8,700 FSS Ford panel van 6 cyl 8,705 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 9,079 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 9,070 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 9,070 FSS Holden sedan 6 cyl 9,525 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,867 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 10,819 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 9,352 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 6,951 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 7,351 FSS Nissan station wagon 4 cyl 7,163 LT Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,821 FSS Datsun utility 4WD 4 cyl 8,396 FSS Toyota station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 5,982 FSS Mitsubishi station wagon 4 cyl 8,459 LT Holden utility, 1 tonne 6 cyl 7,978 FSS Holden utility 6 cyl 7,314 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 8,611 FSS Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,506 FSS Nissan utility 4WD 4 cyl 7,135 LT Holden station wagon 6 cyl 8,523 FSS Holden utility, 1 tonne 6 cyl 7,928 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 9,858 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 9,399 FSS International truck with drill rig 6 tonne 11,724 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 8,924 FSS Toyota station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 7,599 FSS Daihatsu van 4 cyl 4,172 FSS Holden utility 6 cyl 7,212 FSS Holden station wagon 8 cyl 10,674 FSS Toyota station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 7,707 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 9,643 FSS Toyota station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 11,357 FSS Holden utility 8 cyl 9,712 FSS Toyota station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 9,848 FSS Toyota station wagon 4WD 6 cyl 12,276 FSS Toyota station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 10,481 FSS Toyota station wagon 4WD 4 cyl 12,185 FSS Ford station wagon 6 cyl 9,001 FSS Toyota station wagon 4 cyl 6,026 LT (Question No. 1204) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: (1) Was Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) allocated $11m out of the Australian Government's overseas aid program; if so, how was this possible and what has this allocation to do with helping the poor and giving aid to underdeveloped countries. (2) Why does Egypt get a disproportionate amount of our overseas food aid, ( some $7.5m per annum). (3) Is this disproportionate sum to ensure the sale of more Australian wheat to that country, given the fact that some needy African countries are having Australian Government aid withheld or cut back. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. Aid funds under the Development Import Finance Facility are being provided to the Government of the People's Republic of China to assist it in the purchase of Australian sourced goods and services for the construction of a cement plant. BHP is a member of the Australian consortium which is undertaking the project. The cement plant will make a valuable contribution to infrastructure development in Fujian Province. (2) Egypt this financial year has been allocated 40,000 tonnes of Australian wheat as food aid out of the 450,000 tonnes to be provided to meet our international food aid commitments. This is the same amount and proportion as provided in the last two financial years. (3) Egypt has established food aid needs which Australia, along with other donors, is attempting to meet. Egypt also happens to be a regular and major purchaser of Australian wheat. (Question No. 1205) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 5 October 1984: Has the Department of Resources and Energy carried out a survey on the cost per kilowatt hour (kWh) of diesel-electric power generation to Australian towns; if so: (a) What were the highest costs revealed by this survey, including fuel maintenance and all associated costs; (b) what is the generating capacity and where are these installations located; (c) what is the lowest cost on the same basis, and where are these installations located; (d) what is the median cost; (e) what is the total generating capacity; (f) how many locations were studied; and (g) what is the average cost per kWh. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: No. (Question No. 1209) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry , upon notice, on 8 October 1984: (1) Is the value of rural production in New South Wales expected to fall by almost one-third this year in circumstances where most farmers have not yet recovered from the financial drain of the drought. (2) What steps is the Government taking to alleviate this problem, whereby falling commodity prices throughout the world and increasing government charges and taxation are creating a situation where farmers can barely meet immediate costs, much less pay back drought loans, and to what extent does the Government propose to assist these industries, especially wheat growers, rice growers, dairy farmers and poultry farmers. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The situation in New South Wales reflects movements in the value of rural production for the nation as a whole. The latest estimates by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics indicated that nationally for 1984-85, the Gross Value of Rural Production is forecast to be $14,780 million, down 3 per cent on 1983-84. After the deduction of costs, the Net Value of Rural Production is forecast to be $3,680 million, down 25 per cent on 1983-84. After adjustment for inflation this latter forecast represents a 29 per cent decline in the real net value of rural production in 1984-85. The estimated net value of rural production over this period was as follows: 1981-82-$3,718m; 1982-83-$1,718m (Drought year); 1983-84-$4,898m; 1984-85-$3,680m. Placed in context, this year should be viewed as a return to trend from a high point rather than a year of decline. While detailed figures are not available on a State-by-State basis at this time , New South Wales Department of Agriculture officials have indicated that the movements in the value of production in their State are generally in line with the national estimates. (2) The Government is working on several fronts to alleviate the problems facing our rural industries. We are seeking to improve access for agricultural products in world trade both through multilateral organisations such as the GATT and the OECD and directly by negotiations and discussions with individual trading nations. Agricultural Attaches are located in key countries for these purposes. Any reduction of protection levels in world trade will be of significant benefit to Australian rural exporters. Another important aspect in increasing productivity, which derives in large measure from the application of research results. In the Budget this year an additional $5m was allocated for rural research administered through the Rural Industry Research Funds and the CSRG within my portfolio. While variations in seasonal conditions and markets are a normal part of the rural scene, the Government has provided underwriting arrangements for a number of rural industries to protect them from sudden short term downturns in returns. For example, new marketing arrangements effective from 1 October 1984 have been introduced for the wheat industry. In addition, wheat farmers will benefit from a refund of capital and interest from the Wheat Finance Fund. Over $100m should be in growers' hands soon after the end of this financial year. In a number of industries, the Government in conjunction with the States has introduced orderly marketing arrangements to support producers' incomes. I have been working with State Governments and the industry, since the release of the IAC Report on the dairy industry in November 1983, to devise new marketing arrangements. With regard to the rice and chicken meat industries, the Commonwealth Government has little specific input and is winding down its involvement in equalisation arrangements in the egg industry. In all cases, however, producers in difficulties may be eligible for assistance under the rural adjustment scheme. This assistance may be made for purposes of debt reconstruction, farm build-up, farm improvement and in some cases, carry-on finance. Where farms are no longer viable in the face of market forces, assistance is given with household support and rehabilitation assistance to help the farm family relocate away from farming. The Government is mindful of the position of producers following recent droughts and the difficult world trading climate. Government economic policy has contributed to reductions in inflation and interest rates which have been of considerable benefit to farmers. (Question No. 1227) Senator Chaney asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 October 1984: (1) Is Mr Terry Pilavachi involved in a business called Terry's Export Produce from H Shed, Store 29, at the Flemington Markets, Sydney. (2) Has Mr Pilavachi been appointed by the Government as special adviser to the Minister for Trade and the Department of Trade on the export of agricultural produce; if so, (a) is Mr Pilavachi entitled to travel to overseas destinations at the Government's expense to promote the export of agricultural produce; (b) does Mr Pilavachi have any pecuniary interest in the execution of his duties as an adviser to the Minister; (c) does Mr Pilavachi involve himself in his own business activities while travelling at the Government's expense; (d) is the Minister concerned that Mr Pilavachi may be placed in a beneficial position amongst competitors in produce export activities as a result of his appointment. (3) Is Mr Pilavachi not only a constituent of the Minister's but also a close friend. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. Mr Pilavachi was also involved in a business, New Zealand Fruit Distributing Co. Pty Ltd, which he sold to a Mr Ross Lagudi last year before he took up a consultancy with the Department of Trade. (2) Mr Pilavachi was appointed in November 1983 for twelve months as a part- time consultant to the Department of Trade to provide advice in relation to the expansion of fruit and vegetables trade to selected countries. (a) Yes. Under the terms of his agreement with the Commonwealth, all costs incurred in respect of travel by Mr Pilavachi, at departmental convenience, are met by the Department; (b) Yes. Under the terms of his agreement, Mr Pilavachi is paid a consultancy fee of $16,200; (c) I am advised that he does not. Under the terms of his agreement, Mr Pilavachi was required to warrant that at the date of signature there was no conflict of interest in existence which might affect his ability to meet his obligations; he is required to advise the Department of any situation which arises during the term of the agreement affecting his ability to meet his obligations. A complaint about Mr Pilavachi's activities by a Mr Rocky Lagudi was recently brought to my attention. Mr Pilavachi denies the allegations involved. Mr Lagudi was invited to contact me to discuss the complaint but that invitation has not been accepted. I am aware that Mr Lagudi has also made written representations to Mr Kerin, Mr Wran and Mr Greiner. I would be very pleased to arrange for a meeting between Mr Pilavachi and Senator Chaney so that the senator can satisfy himself as to the true position in this matter. Mr Pilavachi has assisted me and the Department of Trade in a series of projects designed to expand Australia's exports of fruit and vegetables to South East Asia, the Middle East and Canada: (i) Accompanied me on a visit to Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Cyprus and Saudi Arabia during December 1983, when I led a large delegation of Australian business leaders, and industry representatives drawn from a broad cross-section of Australia's commercial interests to lay the groundwork for a substantial expansion of our interests in the area. During this visit, Mr Pilavachi discussed the availability of Australian fresh fruit and vegetables with major importers in the countries visited. (ii) Visited Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates during February/March 1984 to examine the scope for increased Australian exports of fruit and vegetables to those markets and the most effective methods of promoting those products in the area. Mr Pilavachi attended the Al Khobar Trade Display where he provided technical advice on the Australian fruit and vegetable displayed (which were provided by a number of suppliers in several States) and canvassed potential customers for Australian fruit and vegetables. Mr Pilavachi was accompanied on this visit by an officer of the Department of Trade and by Australian trade commissioners located in the areas. (iii) Visited Singapore during April 1984 to participate in a trade commissioner show room display and seminars arranged by the Department of Trade to promote the export of Australian fruit and vegetables. (iv) During May/June 1984, led a departmental trade survey mission to Hong Kong , Singapore and Malaysia. The mission's task was to examine the export prospects for tropical fruits and vegetables. The mission party included horticultural growers from North Queensland and the Northern Territory, exporters of fruit and vegetables, representatives of the Queensland Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing and Qantas Airways Ltd, as well as officials from the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and the Commonwealth Department of Trade. The report of the mission is being printed and is likely to be released early in November 1984. (v) During September 1984 participated with other members of the survey mission (referred to in (iv) above) in a series of seminars in Queensland and the Northern Territory to report on the Mission's findings. He was accompanied by officials of the Department of Trade. (vi) Has examined freight and transportation arrangements for servicing Australia's export trade in fresh fruit and vegetables to the Middle East, South East Asis and North America. Mr Pilavachi is currently examining the scope and possible means for increasing exports to Canada. (d) I refer to the answer to Question (2) (c) above. It is clear from the terms of his agreement that Mr Pilavachi was not to be placed in a beneficial position vis-a-vis competitors. The concept behind his appointment was to use his experience to promote the export of Australian fruit and vegetables for the benefit of the industry. I believe this has been achieved. (3) Mr Pilavachi is not a constituent of mine but is a friend of many years standing. Senator Walsh —On 9 October (Hansard, page 1445) Senator Jack Evans asked the Minister representing the Treasurer the following question, without notice: Following the ruling of the Federal Court of Australia last Friday week which overturned an interpretation by the Commissioner of Taxation that retread tyres should be taxed at the new tyres rate, will this decision be appealed to a higher court? As the Government has consistently refused to legislate to clarify this anomaly, which puts all repaired items in jeopardy of having a sales tax imposed on them, will it now end this farce and legislate this week to distinguish between new goods and repaired items such as tyre retreads? Finally, will the Government guarantee that at the very least it will immediately refund the sales taxes imposed on tyre retreaders and alleviate the unfair disadvantage imposed by a tax commissioner's wrong interpretation of the law on this group of small businesses? The Commissioner of Taxation has subsequently issued a ruling, No. S.T. 2087, which directs his officers to continue to impose this tax. I put it to the Minister: If the Commissioner's appeal to the High Court of Australia also fails , will this necessitate the Government legislating retrospectively to ensure that the Commissioner's high handed action is made legal? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There is no anomaly in the decision of the Commissioner of Taxation to rule that the retreading of tyres is manufacture for sales tax purposes. Nor does the decision reached in relation to the retreading of tyres place genuine repair activities in jeopardy of having a sales tax imposed on them. Whether the repair or renovation of an article involves manufacture has always been, and remains, a question of fact. If the degree of repair or renovation work has the effect of producing a new article, then manufacture is involved but if the work done merely restores the article to its original condition and does not change its identity, a repair only will be involved and sales tax will be payable only on any taxable parts used in the repair process. The guidelines used to distinguish between repair and manufacture have operated successfully for many years. The decision on the retreading of tyres was reached on the particular facts of the operations involved and does not affect other repair operations. There is no necessity for the Government to legislate to distinguish between the activities of repair and manufacture. The Commissioner has confirmed that on 28 September 1984 the Federal Court of Australia, in an action brought by Jax Tyres Pty Ltd, decided that the operation of retreading tyres does not involve manufacture and that the retreaded tyres in question are not liable to sales tax in the manner contended for by the Commissioner. On 5 October 1984 the Court delivered a final order to this effect . The Commissioner has also confirmed that he intends to appeal against the decision and that he has published a Taxation Ruling to this effect. The ruling also advises that taxpayers will continue to be liable for payment of sales tax pending the outcome of the appeal. In this matter, the Commissioner has done no more than carry out his statutory obligations to administer the sales tax law and, in so doing, he has reached a decision which has been contested by persons affected by it. Those persons have elected to contest the decision in court, which is the normal procedure followed by taxpayers who do not agree with the Commissioner's interpretation of the law. There is nothing unusual about this and the fact that a taxpayer disagrees with a ruling of the Commissioner is not, of itself, a reason for the Government to intervene in the matter. At this point of time, the appeal will need to run its course. The Government will, as necessary, review its position when the result of the appeal is known. In the event that the Commissioner's appeal is unsuccessful and the ruling of the Federal Court is to stand, the Commissioner has advised that claims for refunds of tax paid on retreaded tyres will be considered in the context of the provisions in the sales tax law relating to refunds. Senator Grimes —On 16 October 1984 (Hansard, pages 1738-9) Senator Harradine asked me a question, without notice, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate. His question concerned the issue of Japanese fishing for southern bluefin tuna (SBT) in the Australian fishing zone (AFZ). The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied me with the following additional information: The question of excluding Japanese longliners from those parts of the AFZ where they take SBT has only come to a head in recent weeks following the introduction of a comprehensive and very restrictive program for our own fishermen and the continued reluctance of Japan to take complementary action. Until the second round of access negotiations commenced late in September we were hopeful that Japan would adopt a more co-operative attitude and that it would be possible to retain the existing arrangements with little real modification. The Japanese reaction was unexpected given their earlier positive attitude to the development of a co-ordinated international approach to the SBT problem and the fact that we were not asking them to cut back their catch. Instead Australia was merely seeking a firm assurance that the Japanese catch would not increase over the next season. Given the fact that we had already taken strong action to substantially cut back out SBT catch, their reaction was extremely disappointing . At this stage it is by no means certain what impact exclusion of Japanese vessels from waters adjacent to Tasmania will have on the frequency of port calls or on local businesses. While the Japanese tuna industry is predicting that the impact will be severe, the fact remains that access to Hobart is, and is likely to remain, an important part of Japanese operations throughout the southern oceans. For this reason it is expected that port calls will continue. It is however noteworthy that Japanese port calls at Hobart have already halved since 1980 as a consequence of adverse economic conditions and the poor state of SBT stocks. Without effective and responsible management this trend will continue and probably accelerate to a stage where there are few, if any, calls. It is correct that there are currently no major Australian fishing vessels operating south of 40* S in the SBT fishery. The issue however is not one of direct competition between Australian and Japanese fishermen. The key element is instead the aggregate impact of fishing on a high migratory resource and for this reason the question of where the tuna is caught is largely incidental to the main concern about the quantity of SBT taken. This is the reason why we are so concerned about Japan's reluctance to impose an overall quota on its SBT fishermen. There are already extensive consultative mechanisms established to consider and develop fisheries management programs. In the case of the SBT fishery these include the Tuna Task Force, Standing Committee on Fisheries and the Australian Fisheries Council. The Tasmanian Government is represented on each of these bodies and I trust that their representatives will continue to both advise those bodies of the implications of any changes to Tasmanian industry and advise their Tasmanian colleagues of any proposed changes which may have wider economic implications.