Mr BRAITHWAITE(3.27) —Those who have listened to the 15-minute address by the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Holding) would have noted that 14 of those minutes contained a lot of rhetoric, hyperbole and, as a result, rubbish. For the one minute in which he addressed himself to the subject of the matter of public importance, he got it wrong. I will pay particular attention to the figures which he fudged and which have been fudged in the Budget. It has been noted this week that the Budget contains a deficit of $27m. The Budget has been presented to the people as a balanced Budget-as well it might be, because there is only a small amount to make up. However, it has the opportunity, or the alternative, of going bad the other way. When we talk in terms of a balanced Budget, we must consider the figures. If it does not balance in one respect, it could be out of balance elsewhere.

In addition, the Government has embarked on an exercise in accounting which would be rejected by every graduate of commerce and economics in Australia. The Government has used a revenue figure of $1 billion from the sale of assets. That figure is not to be included as revenue, as any honourable member would include it, for instance, if he were selling a house. No, the Government has taken it off the expenditure. As a result, the Minister gloriously declared real decreases in tax gathering and spending whereas in actual fact those are not substantiated by proper accounting. If one looks at the fudges-the Minister used that term-and the dishonesty in the presentation, one wonders why the great media barons and the journalists of this country have not picked up the fudging of the figures-it is not a question of double counting-to make sure that a proper presentation is made to Australians.

There is no doubt that the 1987-88 Budget, as the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) indicated, places a burden on business people and individuals. In addition, the cost of the sacrifice in balancing the Budget-a concept which I applaud-is borne not by the Government but by many people who may be present in this chamber today or listening to this broadcast-the small earner; a person earning under $19,500 a year. It could well be made by a business person paying additional company tax. The Minister said that there was no increase in tax rates. That is not true. There is an increase in the company tax rate, the prescribed payments tax and the fringe benefits tax. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer ought to get his facts a little more accurate.

Today's discussion gives us an opportunity to consider not just where the burden falls now but where the burden of taxation has fallen over the last four years of the Labor Government. Of course, that is not hard to detect. If we compare the Budget Estimates for the last five years we will find that since 1982-83-the last Budget of the conservatives-Commonwealth collections of revenue have increased from $44 billion to $79 billion-the corrected figure after I add back the $1 billion from the sale of assets. There has been a 76 per cent increase in revenue in that time and most of that has been taken from the taxpayer. An interesting comparison is that over those Budgets the consumer price index, including the estimate for this year, increased by 37.3 per cent. There has been a 76 per cent increase in revenue collections and a 37.3 per cent increase in the consumer price index. That is a real increase in revenue collections of 38.7 per cent. Of course, this is matched on the expenditure side which this Government has allowed to blow out in its time in office.

It is interesting to look at a schedule in the Australian Financial Review of Wednesday 16 September which shows the effect of the five Budgets of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on customs, excise, sales tax, income tax and company tax. I will go through each of them quickly. In the customs area the Treasurer has increased collections from $2.4 billion to $3.3 billion. Who pays customs duty? The consumers, the residents, the citizens of Australia pay it. The excise on goods such as tobacco and spirits is automatically indexed. Excise income has increased from $7.7 billion to $9.7 billion over the period of the Keating Budgets. Sales tax has increased from $4.1 billion to $7.1 billion-not a bad increase! The Treasurer says that he has not imposed a consumption tax. If that is not an increase in consumption tax, I would like to know what is. Income tax revenue has increased from $24.7 billion to $41.2 billion. Company tax collections have increased from $4.4 billion to $7.7 billion. We know who has been bearing those costs.

As I said, we have heard the Minister with the hyperbole he added, talking of fear and emotion. The one thing he did not mention was the cost to this economy of negative gearing. Twelve months ago negative gearing was a rort perpetrated on the honest Australian taxpayer who was being seen off by business.

Mr Lloyd —He has certainly moved into a negative gear on this.

Mr BRAITHWAITE —He has moved into a negative gear. It looks as though he is moving out of the chamber altogether. This Budget replaces something that should not have been removed in the first place. To what extent has the Minister tried to explain that? He has not explained the increase in company tax, the decrease in the depreciation allowance to 2 1/2 per cent and the increase of 3 per cent in the fringe benefits tax. These figures indicate that this is a taxing Budget.

The honourable member for Ryan has cited figures to show where the revenue increases between 1986-87 and 1987-88 have taken place. I mention again that the business people of Australia will face a 10.2 per cent increase; people who pay the Medicare levy face a 20.4 per cent increase; there will be a 9.1 per cent increase in prescribed payments and a 14.3 per cent increase in company tax. However, the fringe benefits tax-the tax which above all others has retarded business in Australia-is increasing by 40.1 per cent. The Treasurer in his last Budget could not get it right because the remarkable decrease in the deficit which he mentioned was afforded by a $210m increase in fringe benefits. From the estimate of $325m last year it eventually increased to $535m. The Treasurer could not get the Budget figures right last year and one wonders whether the figures will be right this year.

We have to ask who carries the burden? It is the small business person and the small wage earner-the family man who cannot get beyond that $19,000 to $20,000 income bracket and who, if he does, will be caught by income creep. While everybody in the community has had to make sacrifices and carry the burden of this increase in taxation, the one group that has been left out is the trade unions. Late in the life of the last Parliament I asked a question of the Treasurer-a question to which he had no answer. I was able to indicate that 10 unions out of the 360 unions in Australia had been documented as having $120m of investment, the interest from which is entirely tax free. If, as some suggest, business people are rorting this country and if they are to be asked to substantiate their taxation claims why, in the interests of income revenue and fairness to the system, should the unions continue to go untouched? The Treasurer seems to tolerate those union activities but not the activities of honest people within Australia.

In connection with the increased burden on taxpayers in Australia I mention the substantiation rules and the cost of compliance. I suggest to those who are thinking of attacking their tax returns-if they have not done so they should address their prayers to the Almighty to give them the courage to do so-that it will cost them 50 per cent more to have their income tax returns prepared this year or, if they are doing it themselves, it will take them twice the time to substantiate them. The rules and regulations applying this year impose a burden on the people of Australia not only in terms of tax but also in terms of compliance costs. In this connection we have to ask once again: who is making the sacrifice? I suggest that it is not the Government. It is that small person; it is the company that last year, because of high interest rates and massive deficits, faced liquidation or stagnation. It is borne by the people who cannot get jobs. Other people will be put out of jobs because of the burdens imposed by the Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired.