House of Representatives
2 November 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2801

PETITIONS

Aid for Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned respectively showeth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That the Government grant income tax deductions for donations over two dollars made towards the relief of overseas disaster areas.

That this be effected with haste to ensure the maximum possible aid to those at present in refugee camps and those in danger of famine in East Pakistan.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Regugees

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1, It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some nine million East Pakistan refugees that have crossed the border into India. Also they are equally concerned about the desperate plight of millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, many of whom are worse off than the refugees, as they are not even receiving relief supplies. The involvement of the Australian is evidenced by their willingness to contribute substantial funds to voluntary agencies, to assist their work in these countries. 2, As some twenty million refugees and displaced persons are today facing acute problems of hunger and privation - nutrition and child family problems - ultimate famine and death on an unprecedented scale - the Commonwealth Government must plan to come to their assistance in a more sacrificial way.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that in tackling these great human problems in Bengal, by far the greatest this century, the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will request that a special meeting of Cabinet be called to provide $10m for relief purposes in India and East Pakistan, and a further $50m over three years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr REID:

– I present the following petition:

To The Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some nine million East Pakistan refugees that have crossed the border into India. Also they are equally concerned about the desperate plight of millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, many of whom are worse off than the refugees, as they are not even receiving relief supplies. The involvement of the Australian is evidenced by their willingness to contribute substantial funds to voluntary agencies, to assist their work in these countries.

As some twenty million refugees and displaced persons are today facing acute problems of hunger and privation - nutrition and child family problems - ultimate famine and death on an unprecedented scale - the Commonwealth Government must plan to come to their assistance in a more sacrificial way.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that in tackling these great human problems in Bengal, by far the greatest this century, the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will request that a special meeting of Cabinet be called to provide $10m for relief purposes in India and East Pakistan, and a further $50m over three years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray

  1. Increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least 10 million dollars immediately even if this entails reducing spending in other areas.
  2. Encourage and sponsor teams of volunteers with needed skills and medical supplies.
  3. Maintain all this aid for as long as the crisis persists.

Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

  1. That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.
  2. That as part of the world community, the

Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray

  1. Increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least 10 million dollars immediately even if this entails reducing spending in other areas.
  2. Encourage and sponsor teams of volunteers with needed skills and medical supplies.
  3. Maintain all this aid for as long as the crisis persists.

Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some nine million East Pakistan refugees that have crossed the border into India. Also they are equally concerned about the desperate plight of millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, many of whom are worse off than the refugees, as they are not even receiving relief supplies. The involvement of the Australian is evidenced by their willingness to contribute substantial funds to voluntary agencies, to assist their work in these countries.
  2. As some twenty million refugees and displaced persons are today facing acute problems of hunger and privation - nutrition and child family problems - ultimate famine and death on an unprecedented scale - the Commonwealth Government must plan to come to their assistance in a more sacrificial way.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that in tackling these great human problems in Bengal, by far the greatest this century, the House of Representatives in Parliament asembled, will request that a special meeting of Cabinet be called to provide $10m for relief purposes in India and East Pakistan, and a further $50m over three years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

And your petitioners as in duty found, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Parliament in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action on behalf of those suffering and left without home or work through their effective expulsion as refugees from East Pakistan.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should

Urge that the Australian Government take steps to offer employment at least on a temporary basis, and in order to effect some relief, to academic and qualified persons among the refugees from Bangla Desh.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Trial of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Mr PETTITT:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully sheweth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as a part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That, the Government go beyond the plea of the Prime Minister for magnanimity and compassion in the trial of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on charges of treason, and insist on the liberty of this openly and democratically elected leader.

Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petition received.

Social Services

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That a migrant who has been a member of the Australian workforce for many years, has paid taxes and acquired Australian citizenship, and seeks to live the last years of his life in his native land or, if an invalid, wishes to see his relatives, is denied pension transferability. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray -

That the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, seek to have Australia adopt the principle followed by Britain, Italy, Greece, Malta, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Turkey, Canada and the United States of America, who already transfer the social entitlement of their citizens wherever they may choose to live. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, wilt ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

-! present the following petition:

To (he Honourable (he Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of (he Commonwealth respectfully sheweth: Whereas - - (a) the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.

a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

200,000 students from universities, colleges of advanced education and other tertiary institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for -

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I present the following petition:

To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully sheweth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history;

That as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action;

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10,000,000 immediately and mak: provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan;

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem;

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which yould be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Dr CASS:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable (he Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 271 per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 471 per cent on some contraceptive devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duty be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the national health scheme pharmaceutical benefits list.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.

That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.

That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next five years by the States for these needs.

That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

National Service Act

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of the Division of Angas respectfully sheweth:

That the determination as to which young men are required to undergo compulsory military service under the National Service Act 1951-1968 is arrived at by a ballot system, based upon arbitrary grounds as to their date of birth.

And that this procedure providing for selection by a method of chance is an unfair and arbitrary imposition on the human rights of a minority and discriminates against certain young male persons in the community in favour of others solely by reason of their respective dates of birth.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that section twenty-six of the National Service Act 195 1-1968 be repealed.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Censorship

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

That they are not gravely concerned that moral standards in the Australian community may be changing, particularly in regard to the community’s willingness to treat adults within it as reasonable and responsible people who are capable of making up their own minds as to what may be perfectly acceptable or unacceptable material in books, magazines, plays, films and television and radio programmes, and particularly when this material depicts life in human society, including language habits and sex habits and gives warning of the dangers of the use of violence and narcotic drugs.

That they in fact welcome this change, having regard for the fact that it demonstrates an increasing tolerance of and respect for the rights of individuals to think their own way through their own lives, free from information - withholding restrictions which people of one religion or one standard of morals may seek to impose on either the majority or minority who do not hold the same views.

That they question the simplistic view that nations ‘perish’ because of a so-called internal moral decay’ unless such ‘decay’ is taken to include an increasing unwillingness to face the facts of life in open discussion and freedom of thought.

That they welcome the statement by the Honourable the Minister for Customs and Excise, Mi Chipp, that the concept of censorship is abhorrent to all men and women who believe in the basic freedoms and that, as a philosophy, it is evil and ought to be condemned.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that. Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to give the maximum freedom to adults to choose what they will watch, read and listen to, even in the face of pressure from those who seek to impose their ideas and morals on others who do not share them.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Lake Pedder

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– 1 present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area are of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. All present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 2805

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr ANTHONY:
Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry · Richmond · CP

– I wish to inform the House that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) left Australia on 30th October to lead the Australian delegation to the 16th session of the Conference in Rome of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. He is expected to return to Australia at the end of November. During his absence the Minister for Shipping and Transport is Acting Minister for Primary Industry.

Also, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) left Australia on 29th October to represent the Australian Government at the inauguration of President Thieu in Saigon. The Minister is expected to return to Australia tomorrow. During his absence the Minister for National Development is Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 2805

QUESTION

TRAINING OF CAMBODIAN AND LAOTIAN TROOPS

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. Has the Government received a request for Australian advisers to train Cambodian and Laotian troops? If so, from which Government did this request come? Will the honourable gentleman immediately table the text of this request? Bearing in mind that the provision of this type of assistance led to our long and protracted involvement in the Vietnam war, will the Government refuse this request?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament on 18th August on the future of Australian forces in Vietnam indicated that consideration would be given to the retention of some military training and advisory elements in Vietnam. The size of these elements and their task are under consideration. We are now examining also the possibility of making arrangements to include the training of Cambodians in Vietnam.

There are no Australian military advisers or instructors in Cambodia and there is no intention of sending any. Discussions have been going on for some time with the American authorities and our allies in Viet’ nam and the New Zealand Government on the possibility of training Cambodians in Vietnam, lt is expected that the Prime Minister could have this subject raised when he is having discussions with the American authorities and because of this I am not in a position to state any more in relation to the position. If there is to be an announcement no doubt the Prime Minister will make it.

page 2805

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry. What is the situation regarding wool being sold to manufacturers in Australia at 30c per lb which is apparently being imported from New Zealand? Is the Australian taxpayer expected to continue supporting the Australian Wool Commission while this set of conditions prevails?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– I read somewhere in the Press, I think at the weekend, something about this allegation. I have made inquiries of the Department of Primary Industry concerning it and, when I am in a position to do so, I will inform the honourable member of the results of my inquiries.

page 2806

QUESTION

TRAINING OF CAMBODIAN AND LAOTIAN TROOPS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. Is it a fact that the request for additional assistance for training Cambodian and Laotian troops in Vietnam has been under consideration since August or was received since or in August? Is it a fact that the Prime Minister said at a Press conference last Wednesday that he had no knowledge of such a request? Is it a fact that the Prime Minister learnt of such a request on his arrival last week in the United States of America? Finally, will the right honourable gentleman answer the specific question by my Deputy: From whom did the request come?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– As I am led to believe, the situation is that there has been a request to the Minister for Defence for some time that Australia participate in the training of Cambodian personnel in Vietnam.

Mr Morrison:

– From whom?

Mr ANTHONY:

– There has been a request from the Americans, but also there have been discussions involving the New Zealanders. This matter has been before the Minister for Defence and he wrote to the Prime Minister but, unfortunately, the Prime Minister had not seen this correspondence before he left for America. The correspondence drawing this matter to the Prime Minister’s attention was, I am led to believe, sent only a day or two before he left Australia, so it is understandable that he may not have seen it and when he was asked a question in New York he said he had not seen it. That is the fact of the situation. But it is true that here have been discussions about the training of Cambodian troops. I do not know what the position is as regards official communiques but I will certainly look at the matter to see whether anything can be tabled or presented to the Leader of the Opposition.

page 2806

QUESTION

TRAINING OF FOREIGN TROOPS

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Acting Prime Minister give the plainest possible assurances to this House that before any Australians are involved in the training of any persons or people outside this country the most complete statement will be made to this House?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I think there are 2 points that need to be realised. We have already made a statement that we will be training a limited number of Cambodian personnel in Australia.

Mr Armitage:

– In Australia.

Mr ANTHONY:

– That statement has already been made. We have also said that we are discussing the possibility of training and advising on the training of certain Vietnamese personnel in Vietnam. The consideration that is now being given is to training a limited number of Cambodian personnel in Vietnam. I would say that if a statement is to be made, this is a matter for the Prime Minister after he has had discussions with American authorities. No doubt when he returns to Australia he will be making a statement to this House and I would think that this would be one of the matters to which he would be referring. This would give all honourable members an opportunity to debate it.

page 2806

QUESTION

TRAINING OF CAMBODIAN AND LAOTIAN TROOPS

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Defence a question. When did the honourable gentleman first learn of the request for Australian assistance to train Cambodian and Laotian troops in Vietnam? From whom did the request come? With what governments or with what representatives of what countries has this request been discussed?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– A request was received from the American Ambasador by the Department of Defence on 1st October. The Department proceeded to look into this request. In other words, it discussed it with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of the Army to see to what extent the request could be met. By this time we were getting close to the time when the Prime Minister was to leave Australia, and I sent a letter urgently to him before he left. Unfortunately, owing to the difficulty that he had in the last day or two before his departure, it was not possible for the Prime Minister to consider this matter. His officials were informed and he took the letter with him. The one point I make is that the Prime Minister should have been informed immediately the request was received, and I have taken steps to see that on every future occasion, even if a request is being worked on by a department, the Prime Minister is informed immediately that request is received.

page 2807

QUESTION

PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry and refers to statements by him that United Kingdom entry into the European Common Market means a drastic revision of the preferential rate of tariff applied to British goods entering Australia. I ask: In the interests of damping down inflationary pressure in the economy and as a measure of relief to the hard-pressed export industries, particularly primary industry, will he explain why the revision of the British preferential rate cannot take the form of applying this rate to all imports? Why is it that it must necessarily mean further increasing the price of British goods in Australia and almost certainly increasing the price of goods from other countries once these commodities are not compelled to meet the competition of the presently less costly imports from the United Kingdom? Finally, does the Minister recognise that talking about the drastic effects of the United Kingdom decision is not of any material assistance to exporting industries; that what they need is relief from the merciless cost pressures they are endeavouring to absorb?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– It will be necessary to have discussions with the British authorities on the future of the United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement. But the grounds for any such discussions will not become effective until Britain actually joins the Common Market, which membership takes effect from the beginning of 1973. In the course of those discussions what we will be looking at is the phasing out of the British preferences but we will be negotiating for the maximum benefit of Australian exports to that market. Whether the duty on British exports to this country will go up considerably or whether all other duties will come down correspondingly is not a matter that I want to prejudge at this time. The matter will need to be examined to see how we can get the best value out of adjusting our tariff levels. In the course of doing this it might be advantageous to adjust the levels of tariff so that not only will we benefit from trade with those countries but there will be mutual advantage from our entry to their markets.

page 2807

QUESTION

TRAINING OF CAMBODIAN AND LAOTIAN TROOPS

Mr BARNARD:

– I ask the Minister for Defence a question. The Minister, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, referred to the special request that had been made for Australian Army advisers to train Cambodian troops. I ask the Minister whether the special request was made to the Australian Government by the Cambodian authorities or whether it came to the Australian Government through the United States authorities. Secondly, I ask the Minister: How many additional advisers will be required in Vietnam to train Cambodian troops, and where will the training facilities be made available in Vietnam?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
LP

– The request came to the Australian Government through the United States Government, but after it had been in consultation in Vietnam with both the Vietnamese and the Cambodians. It is not at the present moment proper for me to disclose further details whilst all that is proposed at present is for discussions between the Prime Minister and the President. These discussions, if agreed to, would then lead to discussions on the military level in Vietnam.

page 2807

QUESTION

UNITED KINGDOM ENTRY INTO EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the disastrous condition of a number of primary industries and the Australian economy I ask the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity of Minister for Trade and Industry to tell the House what action the Government is taking to deal with the trade problems which will follow the United Kingdom’s decision to join the European Economic Community. If a policy has been formulated will the Minister treat this question as a most urgent matter? Will the Minister afford honourable members an opportunity of discussing the policy when it is determined?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– Over the weekend when being questioned by various interviewers I said that it would be necessary for the Australian Government to have discussions with the British Government on a commodity to commodity basis to see how the arrangements are going to affect the marketing of different commodities in Britain. We can clearly see how certain items will be phased out of the British market but in the case of other commodities the position is quite indefinite. We have not reached any conclusion on the phasing out arrangements in respect of many items now enjoying preference on the British market, and this is one of the matters that will have to be discussed more fully. We will also need to have discussions on how the safeguard clause is going to apply to those goods which will be affected by levies under the common agricultural policy.

The principal items that come to mind are butter, cheese and sugar. These 3 commodities could be abruptly affected if the market situation within Europe became one of self-sufficiency. In such circumstances the levy would make it virtually impossible for our goods to enter the enlarged community. It is these sorts of questions, although some of them might be hypothetical at this point of time, that we will have to discuss to see how they can be resolved. However, the Government has not been inactive in terms of trying to divert trade away from the British market. Indeed SO per cent of our trade has moved away from that market to Asia and North America over the course of the 10-year period in which there has been warning that Britain might enter the Common Market. All I can say is that we are conscious of the difficulties; in some cases it is not clear just what the effects will be but we are trying to prepare for them.

page 2808

QUESTION

AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS: USE OF SEAT BELTS

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Does the Minister have available statistically reliable figures - and I emphasise the words ‘statistically reliable’ - showing the proportion of lives saved in automobile accidents by the use of seat belts relative to the proportion of lives spared by belts not being used? I have in mind the growing propensity of the States to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory, although the honourable member for

Macquarie would not have rejoined us today or, indeed, at any time, had he been subject to that compulsion; neither would my friend, the honourable member for Griffith be here.

Mr NIXON:
CP

– There is today a strongly held view within the States that seat belts do aid in time of road accidents and I think they have taken as a basis for that the compilation of figures by the Snowy Mountains Authority on the accident rate within the Snowy Mountains. Personally, I am delighted that action has been taken by the States to legislate for the wearing of seat belts. Whilst there are as yet no clear proven statistics on the improvement in the road accident scene generally in Australia by the introduction of seat belt legislation, nevertheless I am satisfied that there is a greater consciousness psychologically among drivers, without taking into account the accident itself. For example, in Victoria there can now be seen a reduction in road deaths. The Victorian Government firmly believes that the introduction of seat belt legislation has had a little to do with those statistics. The Australian Transport Advisory Council has introduced a safety design rule for seat belts and seat belt fixtures. My Department is making a study of the accident rate since seat belt legislation was introduced in Victoria and I am hopeful that, by about June 1972, a paper will be prepared which will be the basis for a complete study and understanding of the use of seat belts in the future.

page 2808

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHTS

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– Will the Acting Minister for Shipping and Transport have inquiries made into the reason for the recently announced 3 per cent surcharge imposed by Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd on steel shipped to non-capital ports such as Devonport, Burnie and Launceston? Can the Minister advise the House why it costs $2.70 a ton more to ship steel from Port Kembla the relatively short distance to Devonport, Burnie and Launceston than to ship it the longer distance to Hobart? Finally, will the Minister have inquiries made to ascertain whether Australian National Line vessels can carry steel to the 3 northern ports of Tasmania to overcome the disparity in freight rates and price cutting which will inevitably follow among steel fabricators in various parts of Tasmania?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– The answer to the first part of the question is yes; the answer to the second part is yes; and the answer to the third part is yes.

page 2809

QUESTION

WOOL: TRANSPORT COSTS

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Acting Prime Minister seen reports of the creation of a new wool action group to study economies in the cost of moving wool from farm to overseas mill? Will the Minister assure the fullest government assistance and cooperation in these studies, which could be most beneficial in alleviating an important cost element in the depressed wool industry?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– It is true that the Australia to Europe shipping group has initiated this wool action group, consisting of the shippers and wool industry personnel. People such as Sir William Gunn, Mr Vines and Mr Coombe are wool industry representatives and the idea is to study the scope for efficiencies and economies in the handling of wool from the farm gate to the mill. They have written to the Government asking for assistance in providing information and we have agreed to give them whatever help we can because if there are efficiencies to be introduced in this area, we believe the matter is extremely important.

page 2809

QUESTION

AMERICANA CO-OPERATIVE CLUB

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister representing the Attorney-General any knowledge of a company in Sydney called Americana Interstate operating what is known as the Americana Co-Operative Club? Is he aware that this company is offering to provide for $289.09, repayable at $9 monthly, various articles at discounts of 15 per cent to 60 per cent? Is he aware that this company was publicly declared bogus and as a result people who were induced to join the company are being threatened with legal proceedings for failure to meet their payments as a result of this disclosure? Will the Minister institute investigations under the Trade Practices Act to ascertain the credibility or otherwise of the organisation? Failing this, will the Minister refer the matter to the State Government authorities for action under consumer protection legislation?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I should explain that my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, represents the Attorney-General in this House but he will not be back until tomorrow. I will see that this interesting question is referred to him for consultation with his colleague in another place so that a suitable answer may be provided.

page 2809

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr WHITTORN:

– My question is directed to the Treasurer and I ask: Why does not the Government reduce interest rates on Commonwealth bonds which are at an all time high? Does the Treasurer know that private enterprise and inter-company borrowing rates are the lowest for 2 years and that these transactions are taking place at 5i per cent compared with 6.34 per cent, the current bond rate?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that the inter-company market is very short term and I would not expect to find that the relationship between the 2 interest rates quoted is quite what it appears to be at first sight. As to the substantive question whether the Government will consider a reduction in the long term bond rate, this is a matter of policy, and when the appropriate time comes to make an announcement an announcement will be made.

page 2809

QUESTION

CURRENCY MOVEMENTS

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister who no doubt is aware of a report that the Prime Minister has implied in the United States of America that he believes the Australian currency should appreciate against sterling and the United States dollar - a so-called good neighbour policy - and a conflicting report that the Acting Prime Minister yesterday told the National Press Club that the Australian Country Party favoured devaluation of the Australian dollar. I therefore ask the right honourable gentleman: Will not such conflicting statements cause undue speculation in Australian currency and a tendency to dislocate Australian trade? Secondly, what is the extent of the difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and him on this vital issue? Thirdly, will he get together with the Prime Minister on a hot line in an endeavour to bring about a much needed unity in their views.

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I believe there has been some misunderstanding in the reporting or in the honourable member’s reading of the report of my Press conference yesterday, because when asked this question

Mr Armitage:

– I have the report here.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has asked his question.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I hope the honourable member has not based his question on a newspaper report otherwise I will not be able to reply to it. When asked this question I said that naturally there were interests, particularly the farming interests, which would like to see a depreciation of the Australian dollar in relation to the United States dollar because they would get an advantage out of it. But the Australian Government has kept its options open. It has not had to declare itself. The monetary problem seems to be unravelling itself, with major adjustments taking place; but the most important thing for Australia and all other countries, particularly those countries which depend heavily on international trade, is that this monetary crisis should resolve itself. It will resolve itself only by the United States economy becoming stable again.

page 2810

QUESTION

BUTTER

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Acting Minister for Primary Industry whether he will give the House details of the quota system proposed by the Australian Dairy Industry Council to rationalise the production of butterfat for manufacturing purposes. Will the proposal lead to the concentration of production into the low cost areas to the benefit of the economy as a whole?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– The Australian Dairy Industry Council has been considering for some time the problems associated with the possibility of Britain entering the European Common Market and, rightly so, has been making a study of the effects it would have on the dairy industry. I, the Minister for Primary Industry and also my colleague the Acting Prime Minister have warned the industry that it ought to be making studies of the effect on the dairy industry of Britain’s entry under adverse circumstances. The Australian Dairy Industry Council has now proposed for consideration by the industry a plan, which is termed a 2-price quota plan. In effect, at the commencement of a butter fat year an estimate is to be made of the total market available - ‘total market’ meaning the home market and the export market - and this is to be brought back to the States, on a production basis to achieve a State quota, and then through the factories to the farms. That is the basis of the proposal which was submitted to the Minister for Primary Industry and myself last Friday and which I discussed with representatives of the Australian dairy industry in Melbourne yesterday.

I think that the burden of the honourable member’s question is whether or not this proposal will lead to the development of the industry in low cost areas. I think that the proposal presently before the industry envisages State quotas based on production levels. So I do not think there will be any massive transference of production from ons State to another. It may well be that the authorities set up by a State can transfer a quota from farm to farm within that State. This is the proposal as it is presently being discussed by the industry. I think that when one studies it it can be seen to be a fair, equitable and reasonable proposal for all those engaged in the dairy industry.

page 2810

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I have the greatest confidence in the House, so there is no need to take it into my confidence. But this forecasting committee is a committee drawn up from different departments. It can only make judgments. It formulates a base of judgment upon which more senior officers can make recommendations and give advice to the Government, and it is arising out of that advice to the Government that the Government will take decisions. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to provide to the House, or indeed to make public, a document which is a base working document.

page 2811

QUESTION

TRADE

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister for Trade and Industry. As there is an increasingly urgent heed to sell more of our primary and secondary products overseas, I ask the right honourable gentleman whether he will give consideration to the appointment of at least 3 efficient and accredited salesmen of high integrity, not necessarily with academic degrees, to travel overseas and continually engage in establishing markets throughout the world for our products - working, of course, in close co-operation with all those who represent Australia.

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The duty of the Australian Trade Commissioner Service is to provide information and to bring the seller and the buyer closer together. I believe that our Trade Commissioners do an excellent job. Indeed, they have a very high reputation for providing an excellent Trade Commissioner Service. Personnel are not selected on academic qualifications alone. Other factors, particularly their experience in commerce and their general understanding of trade, are taken into account. Eight of the ten people who have been chosen this year have come from the field of commerce and have a great deal of experience in that field. We have not relied on academic qualifications for their appointment. I do not see great merit in having 3 travelling salesmen going around the world looking for markets. It is a job for business itself to go out and try to sell, given all the support, help and advice that can be given from the Trade Commissioner Service.

page 2811

QUESTION

TRAINING OF CAMBODIAN AND LAOTIAN TROOPS

Mr WHITLAM:

– My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. As the Minister for Defence has said that the request for Australian assistance to train Cambodian and Laotian troops in Vietnam is now a matter for discussion between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States of America, I ask: How much information will the Prime Minister have to aid his discussion and decision in view of the fact that he was unaware of the proposal when he left Australia or, indeed, when he reached New York?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The main point that the Prime Minister will need to make in discussions with American authorities is whether Australia agrees to have discussions with the governments of the United States, Cambodia, Vietnam and New Zealand on the possibility of training Cambodians in Vietnam. This matter has been looked at by the Government, and it has conveyed a message to the Prime Minister. He will know the position of the Government in relation to that issue. If a decision is reached to participate in negotiations he will no doubt convey that decision to the Parliament.

page 2811

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES: DEPENDENT CHILDREN

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Minister for Social Services to the non-recognition as dependants of student children over 16 years of age of recipients of unemployment and sickness benefits, which the Minister confirms has been the case since the original Act was passed in 1942. I ask the Minister: Has the school leaving age in any of the Australian States been raised since 1942? Does he agree that there are now many more children over 16 years of age who are full time students as compared with 1942?

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to both the honourable member’s questions is yes.

page 2811

QUESTION

TRAINING OF CAMBODIAN AND LAOTIAN TROOPS

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Acting Prime Minister confirm to the House in clear terms the implication conveyed earlier this afternoon by the Minister for Defence that no written request for military advisers has been received from the Cambodian Government either directly by Australia or through the American Government? In addition will he illustrate to the House whether he sees any similarity between the commitment of Australian military advisers to train Cambodian forces and the original commitment of Australian military advisers to Vietnam to train their forces in the war in which we are now actively engaged? In other words, it started with military advisers

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– There is one slight difference between this case and the original decision to send Australian advisers to Vietnam, and that is that we have no intention of sending Australian personnel in Cambodia to be involved in any of the operations there. I made that clear in my answer to the first question of the Leader of the Opposition. I said that we have no personnel there now and we do not intend to send any personnel to Cambodia. But the fact is that we have announced that we are prepared to give military aid to Cambodia and to train Cambodians in Australia. The decision which is now under consideration is whether we will assist in the training of Cambodians alongside Vietnamese in Vietnam. This is a question that has been discussed by a number of governments which want to know whether Australia is prepared to discuss the matter.

page 2812

QUESTION

IBIS ROOKERIES

Mr TURNBULL:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. Is the Minister aware that ibis play an important role in keeping down pests that endanger primary production and that it is necessary to take urgent action to preserve ibis breeding rookeries so that the number of ibis may be maintained and even increased? Will the Minister visit Australia’s most extensive ibis rookeries located near Kerang, Victoria, so that he may at first hand gain information that will aid him in co-operating with the State authorities to preserve these ibis breeding grounds?

Mr HOWSON:
Minister for Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · CASEY, VICTORIA · LP

– I am not as familiar with the breeding habits of ibis as is the honourable member for Mallee who knows his electorate so well, but I am sure this is important. I think he would also appreciate that I will have to consult my colleague the Minister for Conservation in Victoria who also would like to take an interest in this matter. I shall have a word with him and together we might see if we could find an appropriate time to visit such a pleastant part of Victoria.

page 2812

QUESTION

TRADE WITH COMMUNIST COUNTRIES

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister for Trade and Industry whether he has noted the evidence that there is a possibility of vastly increased markets for Australia in China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other Communist countries with which trade has been prevented in the past very largely by the narrow cold war political stance that has been taken by his Government. Will he now, as part of the reaction to the proposed British entry into the European Common Market, undertake realistic examination and discussion with these countries I have mentioned to ensure that the full possibilities of trade with them are carried into effect and that no local political considerations will be allowed to prevent this from happening?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I do not accept that we have not had the advantage of considerable trade with Communist countries. Indeed, until this year we have been one of the major trading partners of the People’s Republic of China.

Mr Keogh:

– Have been.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Well, we have been for a period of some 9 or 10 years when there was a large market there for the sale of wheat. This year we have not been able to negotiate a contract for the sale of wheat but we have been very successful in selling other commodities to China. Indeed, at the last Canton fair we were one of the most successful sellers of various metal goods. Our trade is growing with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, as 1 said to this House only a week or so ago, the Soviet Union is now our second largest market for beef. It is a large buyer of wool and we hope to see more trade develop with this country. At the moment we have a trade mission in Poland and Czechoslovakia. We are hoping to continue our trade agreement with Poland and to negotiate further sales of Australian goods - this is reciprocal trade, mind you - to these countries. There is no closed attitude towards trading with Communist countries, but we will not determine our political approach to the problems of these countries because of trade. We keep trade and politics entirely separate and do not intend to allow one to influence the other.

page 2812

QUESTION

MINING INDUSTRY: EMPLOYMENT

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. Is he aware that the significant weakening of the nickel market has caused both potential and active nickel producers to substantially delay and reduce their labour requirements? Does he realise that this situation has definitely destroyed any possibility of the nickel industry absorbing the displaced work force of the gold mining industry? Has the discussion regarding additional financial assistance to keep the gold mining industry active taken place between the appropriate Ministers as promised by the Prime Minister on the 24th day of August last and if so what is the Government’s intention in that respect? Finally, if no decision has been reached, will the Acting Prime Minister treat the matter with the urgency and take the action it demands so as to avoid the serious economic and population disruption which must occur when some 1 , 500 men are thrown out of work?

Mr Anthony:

– I ask the Treasurer to answer the honourable member’s question.

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– The question of extra assistance to the gold mining industry specifically in relation to Kalgoorlie and the environs has been considered on a number of occasions. Recently, our attention was drawn to changed facts and a request was made for reconsideration. This reconsideration will be given.

page 2813

AUSTRALIAN WINE BOARD

Mr NIXON:
Acting Minis ter for Shipping and Transport · Gippsland · CP

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929-66 I present the 43rd annual report of the Australian Wine Board for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 2813

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VETERANS’ RESIDENCES TRUST

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · Indi · CP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Act 1953-65 I presentthe annual report of the Royal Australian AirForce Veterans’ Residences Trust for theyear ended 30th June 1971 together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 2813

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Whitlam) agreed to:

That leave of absence for one month be given to the honourable member for Blaxland owing to his absence overseas.

page 2813

PRIMARY AND PRE-SCHOOLS, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Primary and Pre-schools at Bradshaw (Alice Springs) and Nakara (Darwin),. Northern Territory.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2813

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

- Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I bring up the Committee’s report on item No. 1 of the 48th series of proposed variations to the plan of the lay-out of the City of Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory as gazetted in 1925 - Diversion of Pialligo Avenue. I ask for leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted.

Mr DALY:

– I have sought leave to make a short statement at the time of tabling this report from the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on an apparently simple recommendation arrived at by the Committee. Honourable members will note that this report complements one tabled on 30th September 1971, and together these reports set out the Committee’s recommendations regarding proposals to vary the plan of the lay-out of the City of Canberra, as referred by the Minister for the Interior in the 48th series of variations. At the time of tabling the first part of this report I said that the Committee was seeking further information regarding a proposal to relocate the perimeter road known as Pialligo Avenue, on the southern end of Canberra Airport. This is the matter considered in the report now tabled. We have simply recommended implementationof that proposal, but not withoutacomprehensive consideration and inspection of the implications of the proposal.

Matters such as the ultimate site for Canberra Airport and the impact on the town planning arrangements for the city, have been ones on which the Committee deliberated. We wanted to be sure that in recommending the proposal we were not allowing arrangements to be made of such a permanent character as to jeopardise any future possible considerations for relocating the airport when that becomes desirable. We took account of the very convenient location of the present site but at the same time recognised that its proximity to the residential and other noise sensitive areas in Canberra may expose people to aircraft noise nuisance of undue intensity.

We would not want it to be thought that we have simply endorsed a proposal of town planners and our recommendation on this subject should not be taken to imply that all the relevant factors were not carefully considered by the Committee. Even at this stage, Mr Speaker, there are some reservations about the proposal by members of the Committee, but in the light of all the evidence and the best advice we could secure from town planners, the most senior officers of the Department of Civil Aviation, and the 2 major airline companies, we have concluded that in all the circumstances we should recommend the implementation of the proposal. I commend the report to the House.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2814

PRESERVATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF SOUTH HEAD

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to co-operate with the Government of New South Wales in preserving the environment of South Head and in establishing a Sydney Harbour National Park.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places).

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– All Australians have been shocked to learn of the disfigurement of the gateway to Sydney Harbour by the dumping of rubbish and spoil over the cliffs and into the sea. It is true that this involves several authorities, local government and otherwise, but it is a national disgrace that the Commonwealth Government is among the offenders and, indeed, is the major offender. Also of great concern is the Commonwealth Government’s apparent unwillingness to co-operate with the Government of New South Wales in its attempt to establish a Sydney Harbour national park. Accordingly I have proposed that the House discuss, as a matter of public importance:

The Government’s failure to co-operate with the Government of New South Wales in preserving the environment of South Head and in establishing a Sydney Harbour national park.

For some years the Government of New South Wales has been endeavouring to secure the co-operation of the Commonwealth Government in establishing a Sydney Harbour national park by bringing suitable foreshore land back into public ownership. I am sure that all honourable members would commend it for that objectivity.

Sydney Harbour, already acknowledged as one of the most beautiful harbours in the world, would be greatly enhanced by the provision of more land for public purposes. If there is anything wrong with the harbour at all, it is the alienation of land which has taken place over the years. One would have thought that the Commonwealth Government would be enthusiastic about assisting towards the achievement of this objective. Already the State Government, without much assistance from the Commonwealth Government, has acquired some 80 acres of land and only the stubborn occupation by the Department of the Navy of South Head now prevents fulfilment of the major part of this scheme. There has been generous cooperation by many authorities, by private enterprise, by private owners and by government departments, including the Department of the Army, but the Department of the Navy is dragging the chain, or dragging the anchor, badly in this matter.

Hopes that the area might become available for public purposes have been dashed by the Navy’s insistence that South Head should be the site for the naval tactical trainer base. No strategic necessity has yet been demonstrated for the utilisation of this site for the tactical trainer base, and in fact evidence is available to indicate that other sites around Sydney would be suitable. I might say as an aside that honourable members are able to have their own interest and anxiety about this matter fortified by even a cursory look at the recent report on this project by the Public Works Committee. Yet this project is to proceed and the public will be denied forever the benefit of this amenity. South Head, the centrepiece for this great concept, with its sweeping views of the sea and the harbour, is to be substantially withheld from the proposal to establish this Sydney Harbour Royal national park.

Some of us had hoped that the appointment of a new Minister for the Navy who comes from Sydney would see a mellowing of the old hard line which characterised the attitude of some of his predecessors from Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, none of whom could be expected to have the indigenous interest in Sydney’s welfare of the present Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay). But alas our hopes have been destroyed. 1 believe the Minister for the Navy should be called to answer for this unnecessary denial of public interest. In my view this land grabbing mentality and this insensitive reaction to the need to preserve and improve the Sydney environment should be the subject of a royal commission before this fine scenic area is lost to the people and indeed to posterity for ever.

Adding insult to injury, construction of the naval installation has commenced and the Minister has approved the dumping of a massive tonnage of excavation spoil - some 35,000 cubic yards - into the sea at South Head. This dumping is to take place at the rate of 150 trucks a day 5 days a week over a 10-week period. That is to say, thousands of tons of soil and rock will be dumped to pollute the waterways, to despoil the landscape and generally to desecrate this place of national pride. Indeed the Minister’s shame is the violation of our national heritage. Only the fierce indignation of the public, the Press and the Government of New South Wales has influenced the Minister for the Navy in calling a temporary halt, in giving a brief respite, to this blatant act of governmental vandalism. How long will this respite last? The Minister prophesied that at the best the dumping could be held off for some 2 or 3 days. Maybe it has recommenced already without sufficient time having been allowed for a proper investigation into all the ecological and other questions involved.

The dumping of this material is associated with the construction of the tactical trainer building at HMAS ‘Watson’ at South Head. As ministerial head of the Commonwealth Department, the Minister for the Navy has been fully aware of the complete and unequivocal opposition of the State Government to the proposal to dump this material into the sea. In disregarding the ecological consequence and the possibility of contaminating Sydney beaches and Sydney Harbour the Minister in my view has shown contempt for both expert opinion and the views of a sovereign State. Clearly it is the Minister for the Navy who must for all time bear responsibility for this blatant and irretrievable act of governmental vandalism.

It was he who on Tuesday last assured his own colleague, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury), who expressed concern about this matter - and properly so - on behalf of the constituents he represents, that dumping the material into the sea would cause no hazards or residual adverse effects. He went on to say that contaminating the sea was a better alternative to damaging the roadway; that this was a way of saving $50,000. A paltry $50,000 was the alternative to sacrificing the sea and the environs of Sydney Harbour and Sydney’s beaches. He went on to make light of the matter by saying that discolouration of the sea could not compare with the pollution by night soil and other damage from flooding in the Parramatta River. He not only made the mistake of going on with this dumping, he also brazenly in this Parliament sought to justify it, and, worse still, wanting the best of both worlds he sought to absolve himself from responsibility by then attempting to shift the blame on to the contractor. In my view this is inexcusable and is a breach of all the ministerial principles which we have come to uphold in this House in terms of tradition. In reply to a question asked last Tuesday by his own colleague the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury), the Minister said:

The contractor has decided that the best method of getting rid of the spoil from the area is by talcing it to the other side of South Head. . . .

If that be the fact and if the Minister felt that the attitude of the contractor was undesirable I would say that it was the responsibility of the Minister to ensure that in developing this naval project damage to Sydney’s gateway and waterways would not take place and that the dumping would be prevented. No contractor runs the Government of Australia. The fact is that the Minister was officially asked by the State Government to refrain from dumping the spoil into the sea and he flatly refused that request by his inaction. Can the Minister deny that this matter was the subject of considerable interrogation of sworn witnesses at the inquiry conducted by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works? The minutes of evidence have this very day been circulated to all honourable members and contain the proof of what I have contended. These are some of the salient points. At page 19, for example Mr Fraser the Acting Assistant Director (Design) Department of Works, in reply to the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Whittorn), a Liberal member who was as concerned about this matter as I was, said:

The estimate allows tor carting it through Woollahra to a dumping area at Maroubra.’

He said the estimate allows for it. He went on:

We have asked the Premier’s Department whether they can have any objections to dumping it over the cliff into the ocean. . . . We have received advice from the Premier’s Department that they have some objection to this.*

Mr Fraser then went on to read a letter from the Under-Secretary to the Premier’s Department of New South Wales. It reads:

I refer to your letter of 3rd May and previous correspondence concerning the proposed erection of a technical training building for the Department of the Navy at HMAS ‘Watson’ al South Head and proposing that sandstone removed from the site be disposed of by dumping over the cli’fT face into the ocean.

In reply I would like to say that objections are held to the dumping of the sandstone over the cliff face as proposed.

That is a letter on behalf of the Premier of New South Wales indicating in unambiguous terms and in an unequivocal way that the State Government of New South Wales is opposed to this dumping and that it would rather spend S50,000 than spoil Sydney Harbour and possibly damage Sydney’s beaches. The letter went on to advise that the State Planning Authority of New South Wales and the Woollahra Municipal Council are opposed to both the erection of the building on South Head and the proposal to dump the material over the cliff. At the Public Works Committee hearing I asked questions, one of which was in these terms:

Now that the Commonwealth is getting its own involvement in environmental matters through the setting up of a Department, does your Department feel obliged to look at the possible effects on the ecology of dumping this material into the sea? With the Commonwealth’s obligations about off-shore matters and for that matter, interconnected relationship with estuaries and so on, do you feel that you should have had some regard to these matters and have you in fact?’

On page 21 there is an admission that the Commonwealth had not had any technological advice about the effects of dumping the material into the sea. Did the Minister or any of his colleagues seek to obtain any such expert advice before this dumping commenced? What alternatives have been investigated? Page 25 of the minutes of the inquiry shows the question I asked and the negative answer I received:

Surely, when one is thinking of disposing of so much soil, a very early part of the concern would be directed at where it is to go. What is being done in this regard?

To which instrumentalities have you directed inquiries? In particular, have you thought of the possibility thai there may be a site requiring this soil that could obviate the need for traffic congestion and inconvenience to residents and business people by carting it in barges across the harbour to some other part, or even by sea maybe to a place like the new runway to Botany Bay?’

In addition to these expressions of concern, the Chairman of the State Planning Authority, Mr N. A. W. Ashton, and the Director of National Parks and Wildlife of New South Wales joined in vigorously opposing the dumping of soil over the cliff. In doing so, they made it clear that their opposition was on behalf of the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Lands, the Minister for the Environment and, indeed, the Premier of New South Wales.

I have sought my own expert advice and 1 have a statement by Dr Keith A. W. Crook, the reader in sedimentology at the Australian National University. This statement was made in the light of the matter which is now before this House. I have mentioned it to the Minister and, for the purpose of informing honourable members, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

page 2817

ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF DUMPING SPOIL

These effects may be considered under the following heads:

For some time after cessation of dumping, organisms which enter the affected area are unlikely to survive long, due to instability of the materials, limited food supply, and exposure to predators.

Gradually as the area becomes more stable physically, organisms, probably seaweeds in the first instance, will become established. The area will then proceed through a sequence of phases in which the total number of individuals of first one, then another, organism will reach a maximum and then decline. Some organisms will show frequent large fluctuations in population size before equilibrium is established.

At certain stages in this process of re-establishing ecological equilibrium, the population size and density (numbers per unit area) of certain organisms will be abnormally high. Such situations are regarded as particularly favourable for the appearance of mutant forms of an organism, and for the appearance and establishment of epidemic diseases that may spread to other areas and be difficult to control.

Biological effects will arise as a result of breakdown in food chains, due to ecosystem destruction in the primary area, and will be further complicated by me arrival from that area of the more mobile predators - fish, crabs etc., that will put pressure on the food supplies in the adjacent area. Precise effects cannot be predicted, but there will be considerable ecological imbalance in these adjacent areas for some time, with the numbers of some organisms drastically declining due to over-predation, and increase of others due to utilisation of food supplies that become available when certain predators low on food chains ara themselves depleted in numbers by activity of higher predators. Effects are not, however, likely to be catastrophic because the interactions between organisms in an ecosystem are complex, and there is considerable cushioning of perturbations.

General Remarks: The preceeding general statement would have to be modified in the event of extraneous factors becoming important. The state of our knowldge of the area is such, however, that the very existence of any extraneous factor. is likely to be unknown. Examples of extraneous factors are:

In most general terms - Man has already put very severe pressure on the ecosystems of this planet. Much of it has been an almost inevitable consequence of the development of man as a civilized organism, largely in ignorance of the consequences of his actions. We are no longer ignorant, although there is much that we do not know. But sufficient is known for us not to wish to put further pressure on natural ecosystems without sufficient justification. Mere convenience for dumping, coupled with a view that the sea is vast, and what cannot be seen does not matter, are insufficient justifications for permitting ecosystem damage.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– To summarise the statement, I simply indicate that Dr Crook, who is an acknowledged expert, strongly condemns the developments to which I have referred. The Minister for the Navy is the person who led the defence for the now completely discredited Clutha project, who upholds the desecration of Cockburn Sound and who has shown an insensitive attitude to the need to preserve Sydney’s beaches. I believe that he has provoked the public and agitated conservationists and all those people throughout Australia who believe that these matters involve an important and significant part of Australia’s heritage. I believe that he stands censured and that a full and thorough inquiry should be conducted into all the circumstances which have resulted in the Government’s engaging in its desecration of the gateway to Sydney Harbour.

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · Evans · LP

– In answer to the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) I think the most appropriate comment would be that which appeared in the ‘Sun Herald’ on Sunday when, summing up a week’s frenetic journalistic attention to this problem, the report stated that it could see little harm in the exercise of the rock filling being dumped in this particular locality and that surely conservationists ought to have a sense of proportion. It is precisely this to which I wish to refer because I believe that I am here not only as Minister for the Navy but also as one of the principal conservationists in this nation. We are conserving or attempting to conserve this nation for the Australian people. This nation was born around Sydney because it has a magnificent harbour. This magnificent harbour has attracted shipping and industry to its shores. It has been developed and it has been defended through direct attempts of an enemy to enter it. Indeed, young men have lost their lives because of enemy attacks in Sydney Harbour. One of the areas which is of prime importance to the defence of Sydney Harbour and to its security not only now but also as far as we can see into the future is the South Head installation. This is an area which, during the last war, was the focal point of the harbour defences of Sydney. We all know what might have happened had the Japanese midget submarines been successful in torpedoing the USS ‘Chicago’ or the other large ships that were in the Harbour and causing an explosion that might have wrecked the whole of the foreshores.

The first point that must be taken in establishing a sense of proportion is the necessity to defend the port and to enable the ships which will carry out our maritime defence to be efficiently maintained and equipped. This is what the naval installations in this area are about. It has been charged that the Navy is insensitive, that it is stubborn and that it is refusing to co-operate with the New South Wales Government in a project to establish a Sydney Harbour national park or reserve. This is absolutely untrue. I have had many conversations with the New South Wales Ministers involved in this project. I have attended their planning sessions. I have spoken with the Minister for Lands and frequently with the Minister for Conservation. The Services - both the Army and the Navy - have previously held something in excess of 70 acres on South Head. As a result of our co-operation with the State Government the Commonwealth has decided to return to the State 33 acres which will enable a large amount of the proposed national park to be established.

Mr Uren:

– This is Army land, not Navy land.

Dr MACKAY:

– The honourable member will have a chance to speak in a moment, and if he looks at the facts he will find there is Navy land involved.’ I return to the point. When this particular building was being discussed the Navy bad intended putting it much nearer the point of South Head than is at present the case. As a result of discussions with the State Government it was decided to move it to its present site and in addition to sink it some 2 storeys into the rock of that area so that it would not obtrude above the skyline. In addition, a most careful study has been made of the way in which the whole environment of this area can be landscaped and improved and a very comprehensive programme of plantings of indigenous trees and shrubs, such as eucalypts, casuarinas, banksias, acacias and gre.villeas, will be undertaken. So I have no hesitation in saying that the final state of this area will be infinitely better than its original state. There will be a definite improvement of the scenic and environmental aspects of South Head.

As for the particular question that has been raised concerning the dumping of rock and soil into the sea on the ocean side of South Head, if ever there has been a tremendous storm in a teacup over any incident it is this. Here is an area where throughout geological time there have been continual massive falls into the sea of rock and top soil identical in character to this same rock and top soil. It is this erosive activity which has created the environment and ecostructure of that area. This rock and top soil through the centuries have built up the very environment we are discussing, and nothing more than this is being done now. At the moment the total amount of material being dumped is something less than 50,000 cubic yards, which is not a vast amount. During my inspection of this area on Friday with the State Minister for Conservation, Mr Beale, we talked with a Navy diver who had been down to see the effects of the dumping thus far. The top of the cliff is guarded and strengthened by a wooden apron so that there will be no disfigurement of the top. The material being dumped over the side will be eventually scraped entirely below low-water level; and the contract even provides that if there is sand or other material adhering to the cliff face and if the Department of Works so desires, it shall be hosed down by the contractor. In the water this rocky material seems to offer much attraction to fish life. The diver reported unusual activity and interest on the part of fish. The water was sufficiently clear within 30 feet of the pile of material for good photography, and I have seen photographs of the curious fish sporting in the vicinity.

There will be no long term disfigurement of any kind after the expiration of the reasonably short period of the contract. When the contract is completed there will be, if anything, a strengthening of this cliff area by the natural rock which will be placed in the sea at this point. I am informed, and indeed the paper tabled today by the Opposition states, that upon the cessation of dumping there will be a gradual return to the original state. No accurate timetable can be applied but I have been informed by scientific experts that it will probably be only about 12 months before sea weeds and other sea grasses will be re-established in this locality which is, I remind you, a very tiny area compared with the vast length of the coastline. It has been stated that the Navy, or the Commonwealth, has refused to adhere to the requirement of the State that there be no dumping in this area. This is very far from the truth. Since the time when this project was first mooted - well over a year ago - the Commonwealth has gone out of its way to delay the beginning of the work for over a year to try to reach unanimity with the State. This has been a most expensive business in terms of naval procurements and penalty payments relating to the time that will be required now, even with an accelerated rate of work, to meet our requirements. This has been a long period of negotiation and constructive discussion with the State. Mr Beale, the State Minister for Conservation with whom I was speaking a few moments just before I came into the House, said that he could not wish for a closer and more definite relationship in terms of mutual interest, discussion and activity. This shows how inaccurate were the remarks made by the honourable member for Hughes. He also said that the Commonwealth is the major offender.

If what we are doing is an offence I would think that a short visit to this area by the honourable member will set him straight. We are far from being the major offender. On Friday I travelled by helicopter with the State Minister along this coastline - easily the smallest operation of this nature being conducted in the area is that being conducted by the Commonwealth. The State has a vast project on North Head which involves excavation. There is still twice as much rock to be dumped over the cliff edge from the State project before that project is completed than the entire amount that will have come from the Commonwealth project. But it is not just this type of work which is causing the trouble. The real pollution is not being caused by the top soil being shot into the sea at this point but by night soil, and as one travels along the coast one sees the great areas of ugly brown discolouration of the water because of the untreated sewage being discharged into the sea. Again we all know how local councils have used the coastline for the dumping of suburban garbage over the cliffs, and there are 2 or 3 places which are utter eyesores and disgraces. Surely in viewing this matter a sense of proportion is required. Here is an area being excavated. The only alternative that has been proposed for the removal of the excavated material is that the Commonwealth should send the spoil by truck, involving up to 180 trucks a day travelling return journeys of 26 miles, to Maroubra, and over a period of twelve weeks. The eastern suburbs would be in an uproar. Incidentally, we have made the most painstaking inquiries to determine whether there were requirements for filling within a reasonable distance of the project to which this spoil could be taken to obviate some of the trouble. This has been done continuously, and I have had 3 discussions with the authorities on this point, the last being only last Thursday. (Quorum formed)

I want to conclude by making 2 points. Firstly, with regard to the Commonwealth’s stewardship of its land holdings around Sydney Harbour, I challenge anyone to take a topographical map of Sydney Harbour and its environs and to look at the way in which the land has been utilised during the last century and longer. I would say without fear of contradiction that by far the largest areas which have been maintained free of encroachment by buildings close to the water line and which have preserved something of the original character of Sydney Harbour have been lands held by the Commonwealth. These areas today are the very basis of future planning for national park areas. I refer to quarantine areas, such as those in my own electorate, areas held by the Army and the Navy on Middle Head, North Head and indeed South Head itself, and areas further afield. The Navy, together with the other Commonwealth authorities, has indeed done well in maintaining the original kind of environment so that the original scrub and much of the original scenic beauty of Sydney Harbour has been retained.

I conclude by saying that the kind of statement which says that the only thing wrong with the Harbour is the alienation of land that has occurred over the years would seem to imply that the only time when the Harbour was right was before Captain Cook arrived. As I said at the commencement of my speech, this is an illustration of the necessity for adopting a sense of proportion. Sydney has a harbour. It is a vast city and it requires defence. (Extension of time granted.) The Harbour is the site of a tremendous city and port which require defence. The only way in which we can really do service to the concept of a national park which will be for the people of Sydney to enjoy is, I believe, to maintain a sense of proportion. It is necessary to provide a way for every aspect of national life which is trying to co-operate to be able to have a place in the plan for this area.

With regard to co-operation, I completely repudiate the suggestion in the words of the proposal for discussion of this matter of public importance which state that the Government has failed to co-operate with the Government of New South Wales. Of course, we have our differing points to make. We in the Commonwealth are responsible for defence and also for the health of the people in terms of such essentials as quarantine. We are in charge of many areas where it is essential for us to demonstrate our need to the State. In this regard I believe that we have been correct in doing what we have done at South Head. But as regards the overall matter of proportion, I personally as a Sydneysider, and I am sure all those members of my Department with whom I have discussed this matter are eager to see that to the greatest possible degree the objective of the New South Wales Government is realised in preserving the environment not only of South Head but also of many other areas around Sydney Harbour which today are in the stages of preservation in which we now find them because of the long term occupation of these areas by the Commonwealth.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– There are 2 points I want to make in reply to the speech made by the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay). Firstly, he said that the 33 acres of land in question are part of Navy land. I refer him to page 27 of the minutes of evidence of the Public Works Committee which inquired into the proposal to construct this building at South Head. Mr Nigel Ashton, the Chairman of the State Planning Authority of New South Wales, stated before the Committee:

It is noted that the Army intends to vacate South Head entirely and that an area of some 33 acres will become available for public use.

He said that this is Army land, not Navy land. Secondly, the Minister referred to the matter of night soil. It seems that the Minister is elated that he can divert attention from the question as to whether this soil should be tipped over the cliff at South Head to the question of night soil deposited by other authorities. Let us examine this matter. The disposal of night soil is the direct responsibility of the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board in Sydney, which is a State semigovernment authority. Under this Federal Government the debt of this authority has increased twelvefold. Over the last 2 decades during which this Government has been in power, the interest burden of this authority has increased by 2,000 per cent. It is in debt to such an extent that it cannot meet its commitments. Now a Minister of the Commonwealth Government seems to be elated that the beaches of Sydney are polluted by sewage because the responsibility for the disposal of this sewage lies with a semi-government authority; it is not his direct responsibility.

This Commonwealth Government seems to want to pass the buck. I am not here for one moment examining only the guilt of the Commonwealth Government, this Liberal, Tory Government. I am also examining the guilt of a State Labor government which for many years made many mistakes around the foreshores of Sydney Harbour. So let us not just level criticism at one administration. We have to look at the stupidity of past actions. In this year of 1971 we are supposed to be in a period of enlightenment, yet permission is given for this building to be constructed on the foreshores of Sydney Harbour. That is the question with which we have to deal today. What is the position of Sydney? The metropolis of Sydney will have a population of 51 million within the next 30 years. We want to see more open spaces, more open parklands in Sydney. I join the New South Wales Liberal Government in calling for the establishment of a Sydney Harbour national park. This building at South Head should not be constructed.

It is strange that the Minister for the Navy referred to the great co-operation which he is receiving from the Minister for Conservation in New South Wales, Mr Beale. He did not mention the Minister for Local Government, Mr Morton, or the Minister for Lands, Mr Lewis, in the New South Wales Administration. Again referring to the minutes of evidence of the Public Works Committee it is the opinion of the State Planning Authority and the Minister for Lands that this building should not be constructed. Meeting after meeting was held in an effort to try to prevent this building from being constructed but, because of the stubborness and shortsightedness of the naval authorities, it is to be constructed. It is plain downright selfishness. The facts are that in this day and age there is no reason at all why we should retain military and naval establishments at South Head, North Head, Middle Head or George’s Heights. The whole of this area progressively should be restored to become part of a Sydney Harbour national park.

Mr Mackellar:

– Who said that?

Mr UREN:

– Tom U-en says that, and I say it with some authority from this side of the House. When a Labor government comes into power after 1972 - and there is no doubt it will - it will set up a national resources fund which, with the co-operation of State and local authorities, will be used to assist in converting to a national park not only the foreshores of Sydney Harbour but also many other places of great beauty throughout this nation. We will protect our heritage. This national resources fund will be administered by people representing the Commonwealth, the States and also conservation groups and the National Trust. We will be concerned to protect our heritage of beauty. Only the other day it was pointed out that Australia is the most urbanised nation in the world, with 88 per cent of its people living in urban areas. This percentage is growing. Yet we find that our parklands are being restricted.

It was the desire of a great Labor Socialist by the name of Nielsen, after whom Nielsen’s Park on Sydney Harbour is named, to keep a green belt around Sydney Harbour. At that time, nearly 100 years ago, it was said to be uneconomic. It is about time we started to move progressively forward to that position. That is why I commend the motion moved by members of the New South Wales Parliament of opposite political thought to my own. The Minister for Lands in particular wants to have a national park around Sydney Harbour. The House should read the report of the Standing Committee on Public Works. Every structure at present on South Head can be moved, with the exception of a few historic buildings which should be retained. Dr McMichael, the Director of National Parks and Wildlife of New South Wales, when giving evidence before the Committee on the tactical trainer building at HMAS Watson’ at South Head, said:

  1. . the argument we present is based on the fact that the Navy should not be here at all.
Dr Mackay:

– Do you agree with that?

Mr UREN:

-I do. I believe that the Navy should not be on South Head at all. Progressively over a period of years - not now - it should be removed. Dr McMichael said: . . in order to provide adequate open space for the people in Sydney, the entire Naval establishment should bc removed. We therefore argue that the construction of this building is completely contrary to any possibility of the ultimate removal of the Naval establishment from South Head.

Later in bis evidence Dr McMichael said: . . it does not follow that South Head is the only place on which such a naval establishment could be located.

My colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) moved a motion, which was seconded by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), as follows:

That while conceding the necessity for a Tactical Trainer building, the Committee is of the opinion that the public interest would be better served by securing an alternate site for the building so as to enable the South Head site to be incorporated in the proposed Sydney Harbour National Park.

That motion was defeated by only one vote. In his evidence Dr McMichael went on to say: the land would, presumably, become part of Sydney Harbour National Park. He was referring to South Head without the construction of the tactical trainer building. He said: the negotiation for the transfer of land from the Commonwealth to the State is still taking place at a Prime Minister-Premier level and has not yet been fully resolved, and there are many quite important issues yet to be resolved but, assuming that this transfer does take place and the land becomes part of Sydney Harbour National Park, then it would be managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, in conformity with an overall plan for the harbour front lands which we are currently developing. Our aim would be to eliminate all buildings from the headland other than those which will serve a visitor-use purpose . . and some which have historic significance. Here I refer to the Hornby light, and the buildings which are associated with it, which could be allowed to remain because of the- very historic nature of them. We would otherwise develop the area as a landscaped park with natural vegetation essentially for pedestrian traffic. . . .

That was evidence from Dr McMichael, a representative of the New South Wales Government, yet this Government has brushed it aside and said that the building must go there. We know that every building is capable of being demolished. But this building, which will cost more than $3m to construct and with equipment worth over $5m, will never be removed from South Head, and the Government knows it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

– The first thing to be noted about this subject is that the lands in question have been under the custody of the Commonwealth at least since Federation. The difference between land which has been under the custody of the Commonwealth government and land which has been under the charge of the State government is that the latter, under successive State governments, has been built upon, built over, suburbanised and reduced to its present condition. Suddenly it has become the public will that lands which have been conserved all this time by the Commonwealth should be proscribed and that the arrangements should be dictated by those very authorities who elsewhere have desecrated the landscape. Unlike some honourable members, I happen to live within a mile of where this has been going on. So for some considerable number of years I have taken the closest interest in what has been done there.

This whole case must really rest on whether it is necessary to have the naval trainer and to have it there in Watson’s Bay. If it is necessary, ways and means must be found to provide it there, whether or not it is vital for the defence of Sydney Harbour or the defence of Australia. This is what the case must rest on. The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) quoted from various reports, but the basic assumption of these reports is that it is not necessary to have it there. The case must rest on this. Certainly I would agree with him that if it were not necessary to have the naval base at Watson’s Bay the installation there could easily and reasonably be moved elsewhere or this new installation could be constructed elsewhere. I would go along with that and support it completely. Obviously it would be more pleasant for me than for anyone else in this House to have within a mile of my home a nice bit of park on which to walk and conduct my recreation. The same applies to the rest of the district. This would be an ideal solution.

If the tactical trainer were not necessary I would support the proposal of the Opposition. I have been following this matter with the very closest interest. 1 have watched its development under the guidance of about S successive Ministers for the Navy, one of whom, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), sits behind me. I have also discussed it in great depth with the naval authorities which have been concerned from time to time. They change every 2 years. I have been over every inch of it with the present Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee who was the Chief of Naval Staff, and others. I am reluctantly convinced that this installation has got to be there. I can understand - I do not want to make this a personal matter - why the honourable members for Hughes-

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Why do you say that?

Mr BURY:

– 1 will tell the honourable member in a minute. I can understand why the honourable member for Hughes and the honourable member for Reid are opposed to this project. I agree with them that if it were not necessary, their proposals and the ones initiated by the New South Wales Government should be accepted. The fact is that this is a wartime necessity. The honourable member for Reid and the honourable member for Hughes do not recognise this. They are not interested in the defence of Australia. They are prominent in anti-war and peace movements. This is their viewpoint.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, [ rise to order. The honourable member has said that the honourable member for Reid and I are not interested in the defence of Australia. I regard that remark as offensive and ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

Order! If the honourable member for Wentworth used the expression in that context he should withdraw it.

Mr BURY:

– I certainly withdraw it. If the honourable member for Hughes takes offence at that remark I withdraw it. He is interested in the defence of Australia.

Mr Uren:

– Who is?

Mr BURY:

– The honourable member for Reid and the honourable member for Hughes. The House is well aware of their interest in these matters and this undoubtedly colours their views. They are entitled to their views. This matter is arguable and we listen to their arguments. This is understandable. But this building is now under construction. Is the Government taking reasonable steps to minimise the nuisance which it does cause and the effects on the environment? I think the Minister for the Navy made out a good case and it is a question, with the spill of this stuff which has to be removed, whether there should for month after month be a long stream of big trucks running right through Watsons Bay, Dover Heights, Rose Bay and other parts of my electorate. I have come to the conclusion that this is the better of the 2 solutions.

I would, of course, agree with the honourable member for Reid about night soil but I would also point out to him when he is talking about night soil being ejected into this area, that the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board has made arrangements whereby the raw sewage from his area is transported through pipes to my area and discharged at sea. 1 agree with him that this is a very unfortunate arrangement, particularly as the water rates are levied much more heavily on my area than they are on his. So this is a bad deal from every point of view. But I believe that the Government is cooperating with the New South Wales Government. I have been on a number of tours of this area with State and Federal Ministers and the naval authorities present - and earlier the Army authorities - and there is no doubt that because of consultation different arrangements have been made to meet the wishes of State Ministers in this respect. But as has already been pointed out, the cost to the Commonwealth - that is the taxpayers of Australia - is a good deal more than other arrangements would have cost. The very fact that the trainer has been put underground so as not to disturb the outline of the landscape has been very costly indeed.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Do you approve of dumping into the sea?

Mr BURY:

– 1 approve of what the State Government wants to do and where it wants to put it because where it was initially proposed to be put was in a much more objectionable area. The nuisance to the whole environment has in fact been minimised. The Navy is very conscious of this. Good arrangements have been made to improve the landscape and generally a better job could not have been done with the resources available. But the whole thing must swing on whether we need it there and I am convinced that this trainer has to be built there, not for the sake of my electorate - which would well wish it elsewhere - but for the good of the defence of Australia. (Quorum formed.)

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to make the point quite forcibly that in the opinion of the Opposition and, I would say, in the opinion of all the people of Sydney, this building should never have been built. The location is wrong and the methods of construction and removal of soil are only adding to the original mistake. Let us deal quickly with the turn-about of the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury), who today has said there is nothing wrong with the proposal but last week was raising the matter in this House on the basis that there could well be damage to the ecology. It is recognised that there will be damage to the ecology and the question is: Should that have been tolerated? In regard to the question of defence the honourable member gave gratuitous insults to two of my colleagues, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), who both fought for this country. That should be recognised and placed on record. I wish to quote several things in answer to the argument that this building is a defence necessity. Mr Ashton, the Chairman of the State Planning Authority, when giving evidence to the Public Works Committee, is reported to have said at page 31 of the minutes of evidence:

The siting has nothing to do with the defence purpose. They could be sited elsewhere and the defence of the Commonwealth be done just as effectively.

That is the point I am making. Dr McMichael, who is the Director of National Parks and Wildlife in New South Wales said:

May I add that I also was not at any meeting between the Ministers. No evidence has been placed before us that is convincing that there is a need to stay here for defence purposes, lt has been vaguely suggested. . . .

Let me place on record that he went on to say that if the Commonwealth required for defence any lands which are under State control at any time the Commonwealth would be able to acquire them immediately. He said that in that sense there is no irrevocable removal of defence establishments. So let us decry that suggestion. What are we left with? We are left with the proposition that it is essential and the fact that no evidence was given that it was essential. But more importantly, let us have a look at it from the State Government point of view. Despite the politics of the present New South Wales Government some of the decisions it makes are sometimes right, and on this occasion, as honourable members will see at page 27 of the evidence, none other than the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Lands are saying that in their view the Commonwealth should site this structure elsewhere and that it was not acceptable to suggest that it must remain there. But if it was the only site the Commonwealth could use, let it use one of the vacated buildings and not erect this monstrosity of a structure which has 3 floors and contains 40,000 square feet of building per floor and which, because of its size, has required excavation to some 80 feet. It is because of the excavation that this secondary problem develops. So we see Ministers of the Crown saying that they do not welcome it and asking whether the Commonwealth would please put it elsewhere. Never at any stage did they agree with the Commonwealth. That is the first point.

Secondly, let us place on record also that there was never any application for approval to the Woollahra Council, which happens to be the local government authority in that area. It was merely advised of the situation. There was never any formal application, and if it had been made it would not have been approved. One is a little disappointed to think that the Council did not take a more active interest in the evidence that was given before the Committee, or to lead evidence. It came in in an indirect fashion in the letter from the Under-Secretary of the Premier’s Department to the effect that it was objecting, in a fashion, to both the building and the dumping. I come now to this question of the dumping of the soil. It has been said by my colleague, the honourable member for Hughes, that there is some evidence as to the danger it will do to the ecology. This is on record from Dr Crook. He said:

The immediate effects are that all the organisms living on the sea floor will immediately suffocate.

This is obvious with 70,000 tons of soil to be excavated from this site - a quite substantial quantity - and dumped into the harbour on these living organisms. They must perish. On what basis is that justified - the basis of saving $50,000, when as Dr Crook says, they will never be replaced. Perhaps they might come back in 100 years, but 100 years is more than the lifetime of this structure we are putting up.

Let us come to the fundamental issue of what we are arguing here. Firstly, the Commonwealth should set an example. We have established that it is not essential for defence purposes. Secondly, we have established that there has been no local government approval. Thirdly, we see when we look at it that there could have been alternatives for the removal of this soil to some other more suitable area. I am not necessarily saying that it should be Maroubra - which is part of my electorate - but I would say that many parts of my area would welcome the 70,000 tons of soil. We could make a playing field out of it. Randwick council has never been consulted. Of course, the problem is that it will go through the streets of Rose Bay and Vaucluse. The honourable member for Wentworth lives a mile away from this route and he does not want the trucks to be run ning past his home. The people in my electorate who are perhaps a bit more mundane are used to trucks running past their homes day and night They would welcome and in fact they want playing fields. Perhaps that should have been given consideration because it appears in evidence that it is a tragedy to dump this soil in the ocean. Yet this is what was decided. Why was something not done about investigating alternative proposals in line with what was suggested by Mr Ashton? It is futile to get up here and say that this is the only site and this is the only thing we could have done. The evidence is clear-cut.

I am a little disappointed that the New South Wales Minister for Conservation, Mr Beale, now appears to consider that nothing else could have been done. Originally he was opposed to the construction on South Head. Mr Beale was quoted in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of Friday last saying so. I thought that he would be more or less on side with his Cabinet colleagues. As I told honourable members, the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Lands in the State Parliament are opposed to this construction. Secondly, the Minister for Conservation was opposed to the dumping of the soil in the harbour because of the damage that it will do. That is a good, sound principle. But now the Minister for Conservation says that perhaps nothing else can be done. Perhaps the only reason that nothing else has been done is attributable to the unsightly factor - that some trucks will run by for some JO weeks.

I would think that this matter was never given the appropriate consideration except the silent political tip-off of ‘do not have me embarrassed for some of my constituents will be complaining about the noise and the dust’. I suggest that it was nothing more than that. We recognise that the carriage of this material does present a problem but surely to goodness this would be a temporary expedient compared with the fact that we will have a monstrosity of a structure and an excavation which will destroy the local ecology that cannot be replaced.

There was the alternative evidence that the soil could have been used. There is the fact that the Government never asked for local government approval, and that cannot be denied. Although the Council gave the impression that it did not want to upset the Navy and to get off-side to the extent of saying that it disapproved of the Government’s action, no formal action was ever made by the Council. The Eastern Suburbs councils, which incorporate Woollahra Council and others, were advised of this problem. The councils were prepared to back Woollahra Council if something had been done on a tangible basis but a request for assistance was silently withdrawn on the precept I have just mentioned - that it was better not to upset the Government on this issue. The position is that the people of the area are upset, and so they should be.

But let us put the clear principle on the line. There is a State Planning Authority which controls the development of the State, and that includes the preservation of parks and reserves and the ecology. The Authority is entitled to give evidence, as it did. No evidence has been given by the Government to contradict evidence given by the Authority. More importantly, I was advised today that Sir Robert Menzies put on record an undertaking from the National Parliament that it would abide by all decisions of the State Planning Authority so far as it was able to do so. The Authority has in its files a letter from the then Prime Minister saying that he accepted the principles of town planning as they applied in Sydney and elsewhere and as far as practicable the Commonwealth would abide by them. Why has this not been done?

Dr Mackay:

– We still will.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government will not. It has given no evidence to support that statement. The evidence is against the Government. The Minister for the Navy gets up here and talks about defence. However, 2 persons who are not politicians and who are experts in the field have said that no evidence to support the Government’s case was given. They suggested that the Department might use one of the derelict buildings on the site. We are well aware that in Sydney we all face the problem that the Army and the Navy must have every headland and that we have to assume that every invader will come through every headland. This is a ridiculous argument from the standpoint of defence.

Let us have a look at the ecology. Look at what happened recently to Botany Bay - there was oil everywhere. Botany Bay, which has the greatest number of oil tanks in the Sydney area, would be a prize defence target and overnight would become a fire furnace if anyone wanted to-

Dr Mackay:

– Can you quote one defence expert to back you up?

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I say that, as a responsible Minister, the Minister for the Navy should have got a defence expert to back him up. The Minister should have been able to give evidence. He should not come here and make off the cuff accusations. The fact is that the Minister is on the defensive at the moment and he has put forward nothing to support his case. As I have said, 2 State experts have stated that there was no defence evidence in support of this proposal and also Ministers in the New South Wales Government were opposed to it. Who is in favour of this proposal? Apparently a Mr Fraser, or someone in the Department who thinks it is all right, is in favour of it. Is that good enough? Why would the Government not consult with the 2 State experts?

Let us have a select committee now - a quick one - to test the evidence and to see whether the Department is right and what it did not do. Let us see why the Department did not conform to the requirements for development applications, as did everyone else, and why it ducked away from the problem of having its proposal rejected by a council? I believe that the council would have rejected the proposal and the Department, if it had proceeded, would not have been able to sustain public opinion in that area. The Department is negligent in that sense. It has not obeyed the law in that sense and to that extent it must deserve castigation. (Quorum formed).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! A quorum is present. I call the honourable member for Warringah.

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Foster:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I observe that the quorum bells have been rung a number of times this afternoon and that Government supporters in particular are very slow in responding to the call. It is their responsibility to form a quorum-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Sturt will read the Standing Orders so that he might know when he should take a point of order.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– Thank you again, Mr Deputy Speaker. This debate has been quite an interesting one in many respects because members of the Opposition, in citing the opinions of experts to back up their contention that there should not be a tactical trainer at South Head, have quoted at length 2 men, one from the State Planning Authority and another who is an expert on parks and wildlife. As the Minister for the Navy, (Dr McKay), who is at the table, and also the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) have already pointed out, the overriding consideration in questions of this sort involves the defence and security of the country. We have heard that considerations of defence were closely taken into account when this decision was made and I believe that this was the right decision to make.

Like a number of honourable members in this House, I am tremendously concerned about the future of the environment, particularly that surrounding Sydney Harbour because, like the honourable member for Wentworth, I live in a very pleasant area of Sydney and the proposed Sydney Harbour national park is of tremendous interest not only to me and the people in my electorate but also to all the other people of Sydney. I have already had one meeting with the Mosman Municipal Council with respect to the tactical trainer and I am due to have another meeting with the Manly Municipal Council. I will not enter into the arguments because I think the necessity for this installation has already been dealt with by the Minister for the Navy and the honourable member for Wentworth. As I have said, my overriding consideration must be the defence and security of this country and I believe that this requirement is satisfied.

But I was concerned, as were a number of other people, about the possible damaging effect that the installation of this building could have on the local environment - this tremendously worthwhile and pretty environment of Sydney Harbour. To this end the Council and I discussed this matter at quite some length and I undertook to write to the Minister for the Navy and also to the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) to put forward some suggestions as to how this tactical trainer building could be made less obtrusive. I must say that the response from both Ministers was very quick and gratifying. They undertook to consider ways and means in which the external facings of this building plus the treatment of the surrounding land could be undertaken in such a fashion that the obtrusion of the building would be minimised. I should like to ask the Minister for the Navy whether he would consider making the proposed plan available to the Parliament so that all honourable members, and the people of Australia, could see what has been done by the Minister in seeking to make this building as unobtrusive as possible.

Dr Mackay:

– I would be delighted.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– 1 turn now to the issue of the Sydney Harbour national park. This has been a matter of great interest to me both before and since my election to this Parliament. As I said, I live close to some of the areas involved and 1 represent people who have an extremely close interest in the future of the foreshores of Sydney Harbour.

Mr Uren:

– But you are helping to sabotage it now. Why are you sabotaging it?

Mr MacKELLAR:

– If the honourable member will restrain himself he will realise that I am not sabotaging it. The honourable member for Reid said: ‘We will protect our heritage when we come to power’. It may be some time before the honourable member for Reid comes to power. However, he said: ‘We will protect our heritage’. Surely the initial consideration before any thought is given to the future use to which land should be put must be whether the country is secure. One cannot talk about what one will do unless the aspect of national security is covered. In any deliberations concerning the future of the foreshores of Sydney Harbour involving the changing of defence facilities, prime consideration must be given to whether or not the security of the country will be threatened by their removal or diminution. Having said this, however, I believe that we can go a long way towards a spirit of co-operation between defence requirements and other obvious requirements of the people of Sydney and of Australia.

How often do people who come into Sydney Harbour look around and say: Look at that marvellous Sydney Harbour foreshore. Look at that land. Look at those trees growing there. Is it not a marvellous thing that these are still there?’ They do not look at the crowded building-covered foreshores which are not occupied by the Commonwealth; they look at those areas of land which are occupied by the Commonwealth. I make the point strongly that if it had not been for the Commonwealth occupation of Harbour foreshores there would not be any talk now about a Sydney Harbour national park because that land would all be covered by buildings. I should like honourable members to remember this point. Because the Commonwealth has occupied the land there is now the opportunity and, I believe, the urgent necessity to establish a Sydney Harbour national park.

I have spoken about defence requirements. This is paramount in my mind. Having said that,I think the use to which the land is then put - if it is not used for defence requirements - must be closely assessed. It cannot be released for unbridled development. The Commonwealth, quite rightly, has deliberated and made it clear that the land which will be released must be used for recreational purposes. I support that decision because I believe that people who live in places like Sydney, which has a high population density, must have the opportunity to get away from the box-like structures which various developers put up and get into areas of recreation where they can commune with nature, fish or do whatever they like to do. I am pleased that the Commonwealth Government has stipulated the use to which the land can be put and I support that decision.

This matter of public importance refers to the lack of co-operation between the Commonwealth Government and the State Government of New South Wales. I have been pursuing this matter for 2 years - ever since I became a member of this Parliament - and I refer honourable members to a question I asked on 30th October 1970 about reports in various newspapers concerning an agreement with the New South Wales State Government for transferring Sydney Harbour foreshore land to that Government. In his reply the then Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, said:

The Commonwealth has been negotiating with the Government of New South Wales for some considerable time on the matter of the foreshore land around Sydney. It has been our objective to return to the people of Sydney as much of the foreshore land held by the Commonwealth as could be done provided the defence requirements and the other responsibilities of the Commonwealth Government were not impeded.

On 14th September this year I asked the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) what was happening with these negotiations and he said:

Recently a decision was made by the Commonwealth that 550 acres of land on the foreshores of Sydney Harbour would be released to the State Government for recreational purposes.

As other honourable members have mentioned during this debate, one of the reasons for the hold up in finalising these arrangements has been negotiations with respect to land at Holsworthy and Lucas Heights. Criticism cannot be levelled at the Commonwealth Government nor can it be suggested that there is a lack of cooperation because there has been continuous dialogue between the Commonwealth Government and the State Government concerning the release of these foreshore lands. I am extremely pleased with what is happening. I have been trying to stimulate interest in the release of such lands. I believe the Commonwealth Government’s approach has been responsible. It has said that initially we must safeguard the defence security of Australia but within that requirement we will release land around Sydney Harbour. However, it will be released for recreation purposes only. The Commonwealth Government has negotiated with the State Government on that basis, and I think it is a fair and reasonable basis on which to negotiate. Like other honourable members, I support the establishment of a Sydney Harbour national park and I will continue to work for it just as hard as I have done in the past - and that has been pretty hard too.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The discussion is now concluded.

page 2829

INCOME TAX BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 September (vide page 1162), on motion by Mr Peacock:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · Indi · CP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I should like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3) as they are associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 2 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– On behalf of the Opposition I wish to move, in respect of the Income Tax Bill, which is the Bill dealing with the rates of tax, the following amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: the Bill be withdrawn and re-drafted because it (a) does not comprehensively restructure the rate schedule and (b) increases the tax payable by certain individuals on a flat percentage basis’.

The tax that we are contemplating is the income tax as it is levied on individuals and companies. According to the estimates contained in the Budget Speech for 1971-72 it is anticipated that the income tax will yield from those who are called payasyouearn taxpayers a net sum of $2,859m in rounded figures, and from those who are called provisional taxpayers, for the most part, will be collected a sum of $803m, making in all a total of something like

S3,661m. From companies there will be collected over $ 1,500m. So at least these taxes are a significant part of the Commonwealth total collections, which now are in the region of $8,000m.

Income tax is often regarded as the crown of the tax structure. It is supposed to be progressive in its application, to be levied according to people’s capacity to pay and takes into account certain circumstancial differences between taxpayers by reason of family commitments and other sorts of allowances that have from time to time been introduced. I have asked tht Treasurer (Mr Snedden) whether I may incorporate in Hansard a number of tables compiled from information contained in the document entitled ‘Taxation Statistics in 1969-70’, which is a supplement to the forty-ninth report from the Commissioner of Taxation. The statistics show that taxpayers are divided broadly into 2 groups. The first group is the non-provisional group, which for the most part consists of people whose major source of income is salaries and wages. The other division is the provisional taxpayers, that is, people whose main source of income is other than wages and salaries. There were in aggregate about 5,200,000 taxpayers as at June 1969. These are the latest statistics that have been compiled. Those taxpayers had a total income before deductions had been allowed of $ 16,593m in rounded figures. That income was reduced to the sum on which tax is finally levied, which is described as taxable income. The $ 16,593m was reduced to $ 13,433m by reason of certain deductions that in aggregate were worth at their face value to the taxpayers - that is in the amount actually deductible from original income in determining taxable income - a sum of S3,095m.

The latest figures on this matter which are contained in Hansard were in response to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) which appears on page 1155 of Hansard of 15th September. The Leader of the Opposition has a similar question on notice this year which has not yet been answered, but the figures in Hansard show that the estimated cost of revenue of allowing certain deductions for the year 1967-68 was $895m or near enough to $900m. I would estimate - I think my calculation is reasonably accurate - that the deductions that were allowed for the year ended 30th June 1969 would have aggregated a figure for tax lest of over $ 1,000m as against the amount of $2,3 16m that was collected in that year. So the deductions that are allowed are a significant proportion of the tax that is finally collected. If no deductions have been allowed, $ 1,000m more could have been collected in tax. Instead of collecting $2,300m we could have collected $3,300m.

This raises the question of the equity of the deductions that are allowed. After all, when one is trying to evaluate the impact of income tax, these questions of equity are of considerable significance. Allowing deductions reduces the tax base by about one-fifth and reduces the potential yield of taxation by over 40 per cent. So it is worth while to consider where these deductions fall. I ask leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard this table which divides taxpayers into non-provisional and provisional.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Is leave granted. There being no objection leave is granted. (The document read as follows):

Mr CREAN:

– I have had this table incorporated mainly to show that almost all the income of 4 out of 5 taxpayers is derived from wages and salaries and that the provisional taxpayer, that is those who are not predonderantly dependent upon salaries and wages, number 1,139.000. However the average income for a nonprovisional taxpayer is much less than the average income by a person who pays provisional tax. So it seems that a taxpayer is better off if he is deriving income from other than wages and salaries. These figures highlight the fairly significant difference between incomes earned from wages and salaries on the one hand and the income earned in other forms on the other hand.

The other rather interesting thing is that there is a far higher proportion of females to total taxpayers in the provisional group than there is in the non-provisional group. This would indicate that what is being pursued within the tax structure is a deliberate splitting of incomes. An income that in some other case would be the income of one person becomes the income of two. with a consequent reduction in the liability to total tax that the 2 people pay derived from one source. I say nothing separately rather than if the income were about the legitimacy of this. Lord Mansfield in a case in the British courts many years ago suggested that it was the right of individuals to so order their affairs as to pay the minimum tax or to minimise their liabilities. Equally it is the right of the authorities collecting the revenue to take what precautions they can to close loopholes where in fact they exist. I merely point out that there seems to be a certain amount of income splitting by the forming of partnerships and other arrangements to split what in other circumstances would be one income into 2 or more incomes. That is revealed to some extent in the table that has been incorporated.

Primarily what I want to go on now to examine is the inequity that exists in relation to the deductions that are allowable. Again I seek leave of the House to incorporate a table.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– income rises, let us say, as high ,s

Is leave granted? There being no objection $20,000 or falls as low as $1,000 on the leave is granted. same bands from the bottom upwards the (The document read as follows): same amount of tax will be paid on that {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -- This table also is drawn from the forty-ninth report of the Commissioner of Taxation at page 32. It shows the division of these allowable deductions, which I repeat aggregate over $3,000m, as between grades of actual income. I have divided the grades of actual income into 3 broad bands, namely, those whose actual income was between the minimum of $417 and $2,000, those whose income was between $2,000 and $4,000 and those whose income exceeded $4,000. This is clearly shown in this table, as also are the types of deductions that are allowable and how they fell as between those income groups. As honourable members know, a taxpayer is entitled to a deduction if his wife is not in receipt of an income in excess of a certain amount. A taxpayer may claim deductions for his children, the allowable deduction for the first child being higher than for subsequent children. He may claim deductions for his student children, medical expenses, payments to a hospital benefits fund, educational expenses, payments for life assurance and a number of other deducations. In aggregate these allowable deductions were worth $3,000m on face value and involved a loss of $ 1,000m in revenue to the Commonwealth. The interesting point is that these deductions are not allowed on a flat basis. They are allowed according to the marginal rate of tax that a particular person pays. In looking at the Schedule, which in essence we are sanctioning in this legislation, it will be seen from its structure that it is built from the bottom upwards in a series of layers, and no matter whether a person's income. In other words, the first band of income that is shown in the tax schedule falls between $417 and $499 and everybody in receipt of income within that range pays $4.50 plus 4.1c for each $1 in excess of the $417 and so on in the series of layers from the bottom upwards. But as far as the deductions to which the taxpayers are entitled are concerned, they come off the top layers of the income and therefore the higher the income the greater the value of the deduction. For instance, if a person happens to be in a range of taxable income between $16,000 and $20,000 the marginal rate of tax is 62.4c in the $1. If a person happens to be in a range of taxable income between $2,000 and $2,400 the marginal rate of tax is only 19.5c in the $1. But if the taxpayer is given an allowance for his wife nominally at $312 the tax value of it is $312 multiplied by 62.4c in the one case and $312 multiplied by 19.5c in the other, so that the higher the income the more significant is the real reduction of taxation. The statistics show, I think, that only something like one-third of all allowable concessions are allowed in respect of direct dependants - wives and children - and that the other amounts are a miscellany of items such as medical expenses, education expenses, life assurance and so on. But in total these aggregate more than do the claims for dependants. They have the effect, of course, of meaning more in tax terms the higher the income is. I want to use one example to illustrate this sort of thing by pointing to a particular item that has been amended in this Schedule, education expenses. I have been glad to see in recent times that the honourable member for Berowra **(Mr Hughes)** and, I think, the honourable member for Isaacs **(Mr Hamer)** have drawn attention to the anomalies that exist in this matter. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a tabic which has also been drawn from a table in the report of the Commissioner of Taxation on Taxation Statistics. One deals with education expenses claimed by grade of actual income and the other deals with the number of children for whom deductions for education expenses were allowed by grade of taxable income. {: .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett: -- Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows): {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -- I ask the House to observe the difference between the actual income and the taxable income. The actual income derived by a person is income before any deductions have been taken off. Taxable income is, of course, income after the various concessions have been allowed. Those tables show that over half of the children claimed for are those of parents with actual incomes of less than $4,000 annually. I will simply take a range of marginal rate of tax as far as they are concerned. If they happen to be at the end of $4,000 the marginal rate of tax on the additional $1 is 31.9c. If they happen to have an income less than that the rate is less; on an income of $3,000, for instance the marginal rate is 24.4c. If they get down to the point where their taxable income is somewhere around $1,000 the marginal rate of tax is 11.3c in the $1. In other words a concession for the education allowance is worth 3 times as much, if you like, if the marginal tax is at the $4,000 level as it is at the" $1,000 level. A similar situation applies if you go higher up the scale, and so on. In making a calculation from the figures contained in those tables I will deal with those taxpayers who have actual incomes between $417 and $2,000. There were 135,000 children involved in claims by taxpayers whose incomes were within that range. The average claim was $60 a child. In the actual range of income from *$2,000* to $4,000 the education expenses claimed had a face value of $95m. This covered 1,174,000 children. The average claim was $80 a child. For those taxpayers whose income exceeded $4,000 the nominal value of education expenses claimed was $132m and the number of children covered was 1,265,000. The average claim was $100 a child. We simply ask at this point: Who is it that benefits when this Government increases, as it does *'.n* this Bill, the concessional claim from $300 to $400 for each child for education expenses, which broadly cover fees, fares, books, uniforms, when by far the greatest number of claims now made for children barely average more than $100 a child? Who is it that gains the advantage from this provision which, according to the estimates for the full year, will cost the Commonwealth something like $6m in extra revenue forgone? lt is a very, very select group indeed. lt is estimated that the loss to revenue by allowing the education expenses is somewhere of the order of S80m and that this will now be increased by a further $6m, but this concession will be regressive as far as the real benefit is concerned. By contrast to the $ 1, 000m to which I have referred and which is distributed in this rather regressive way - 1 repeat, this is for the year ended 30th June 1969 - is an item which appears in the Budget for the same year described as cash benefits to persons, namely, amounts paid by reason of social services, child endowment, medical and pharmaceutical benefits and so on. This item aggregated $1,600m compared to $ 1,000m which was lost to revenue in this way. 1 simply point out once more, as I have pointed out in this House for about 10 years, that the logic of the taxation system of deductions runs counter to the logic of social welfare. Child endowment is paid irrespective of the income of the parents, but the higher the income of the taxpayer, the more the taxation concession is worth. I have made the suggestion before as a sort of rough improvement in equity that if the concessions for dependants - that is, wives and children - were doubled for everybody - I accept the fact that they would be doubled for the wealthy as well as for the poor - and if all other deductions were eliminated the saving to revenue would be about $200m as a consequence and the majority of taxpayers were dependants, particularly those families where there there is only one breadwinner, would be advantaged if that were the case. I cannot conceive of anything more absurd in a democratic system than what happens to what are described as medical payments. First of all, the taxpayer is allowed a concessional deduction for the contribution he pays to a medical benefits association. Again, the higher his income, the higher the level of benefit to which he will be entitled and the higher his real tax advantage when he claims the item as an expense. If a person is unfortunate enough to be ill - there are some rather interesting figures in a separate table of the Commissioner's report, which I do not have time to analyse but which are worthy of consideration - he incurs a medical bill, pays it and then applies to the medical benefits fund for a refund, and any difference between what was paid and what is reimbursed can be claimed as a taxation deduction. There is no doubt that, under that system, the higher one's income, the less is the real cost of an operation. How anybody can justify this sort of thing in a system of social welfare is, to my mind, the height of absurdity, yet the same sort of thing is repeated in some of the other deductions that are currently allowed. 1 maintain that the greatest barrier to the development of an adequate social welfare system in this country is the loss of revenue that is built into the income tax structure by reason of this higgledy-piggledy array of deductions that have been built up applied originally in the main to dependants but only one-third of which now cover dependants while the rest are a ragbag of assortments. There is not much logic as to what is included and what is not included but what is included tends to favour the person with the highest income. If a person is fortunate enough to be able to save about $25 a week out of his income and contributes that amount to a life assurance scheme or a superannuation scheme, why should he be blessed by the Taxation Branch for so doing? Again, this is implicit in the present structure. Honourable members should ponder this report and look at the levels of income and at where the majority of these expenses fall. They should look at those people who were unfortunate enough last year to incure medical expenses in excess of $1,000 - there are quite a number of them listed in the table - and look at the incidence of those people who earn higher incomes as compared with those in the low income bracket. There is no doubt that a person can afford to get sick if his income is high enough but if a person is unfortunate enough to become ill and he has a low income, he will not get the sort of financial benefit to which his illness would suggest he is entitled. The thing that determines his benefit is the level of his income. This kind of approach exists throughout the income tax. structure. This tax is supposed to be progressive and equitable. I think for the last 4 budgets we have heard Government supporters say 'We will restructure the tax system'. The Government is not restructuring it at all. What it 'S doing is perpetuating this system of deductions; taxation increases are imposed on a flat percentage basis, over and above what is already a regressive pattern and somehow that is regarded as serving the needs of the nation. The Government should start again in its consideration of taxation; it may be that the present system should be tossed aside. Personally, the system I favour is that which would allow a minimum deduction of, say, $500 to everybody, irrespective of his income. A further deduction of $500 should be allowed for his wife, so that a married man would pay no income tax unless his income exceeded $1,000. There would be additional deductions for children. If there were a proper medical benefits scheme and a proper child endowment scheme there would be no need to worry about whether a taxpayer is allowed concessions for children or for medical items and so on. It may be that a higher rate of taxation might apply on the residue of what was then taxable income, but at least this system would more equitably spread the total tax burden. I hope, as was indicated in a reply to a question asked recently by the honourable member for Ryan **(Mr Drury),** that the Treasurer is looking into this matter. The present Treasurer said recently that this examination is not yet completed but I hope that this will be done fairly quickly so that equity may be restored to the system. Available revenue would be increased which could well lead to the establishment of a better pattern of social welfare that would be according to need and not according to income. The principle of the higher the income, the greater the benefit seems to me to be the reverse of any kind of democratic standard. {: .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett: -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? {: .speaker-K0O} ##### Mr Connor: -- I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. (Quorum formed.) {: #subdebate-32-0-s4 .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr BURY:
Wentworth -- I rise to support the Bill and to oppose the amendment, but in doing so I would like to agree very much with a number of things that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr Crean)** has just said regarding the impact and influences of granting tax deductions and concessions instead of using other means. However, what I want to stress is not what he has stressed. He mentioned, but I want to stress, the unfortunate effects that these have on incentive. The fact that the potential revenue is so much reduced by these tax allowances means, as he said, that in order to collect the total revenue required the general rate of tax has to be kept higher. What I intend to do is lay a little stress in my remarks on the subject of incentive. I believe that incentive is at the very root of economic progress and if an economy is to be ebullient, progressive and successful the work of the individuals contributing to it has to be imbued with a very strong incentive. Most people are moved by a variety of incentives, but the most powerful in almost all walks of life is undoubtedly that of personal monetary gain. From a public finance point of view, if incentive is to be encouraged then individuals must be able to benefit progressively from their personal efforts without the tax gatherer taking too much of the fruits of their efforts. It also means that when a man does increase his earnings by individual effort he is able to keep for himself and his family a fairly big proportion of this increase without the state taking an undue proportion of it away from him. If the state bears down too harshly upon him his incentive to earn is progressively weakened. Early last year this had become fairly evident to many people, lt became generally realised that one of the many frustrating effects of inflation was that as soon as wage and salary earners obtained greater rewards they were automatically carried into a higher tax bracket and thus a large proportion of their personal gains was swallowed up by the tax gatherer. They were deprived of the fruits of their efforts. This affected professional people and middle income earners particularly harshly. It became very apparent, not least notably to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and in 1970 when the ACTU made its submissions to the Government the main point in them was the necessity to reduce the burden of taxation on low and middle incomes. It is true that there was not any particular agreement as to which were low and which were middle incomes and so forth, but the principle was there all right, and those views were reinforced by many others. It is quite certain that what is happening now in the industrial process with increased awards and rises in wages, when so much of this is absorbed by the tax gatherer, is that as the individuals concerned move into higher tax brackets this will lead to further industrial unrest and generate fresh income demands. Governments have to realise sometime that they can take a more reasonable proportion of personal income by taxation without weakening incentive only if they recognise some reasonable ceiling on the process; otherwise if they continue to press taxation increases they will in various ways come up against a silent but sullen and very effective rebellion against the process. By now both personal and company taxation have certainly risen to, if not pressed beyond, the maximum practical point without running into this reverse factor and fresh measures to carry the burden of personal and company taxation still further will be fatally weakened by this process and the economy will gradually lose its mainspring and its zest. For incentives to flourish reductions must be made mainly in the general rate. Tax concessions, as the honourable member for Melbourne Ports pointed out, however welcome to those immediately affected, do not promote incentive. In fact, to make up for the revenue they cost the genera] rate has to be kep higher than otherwise would be the case and, moreover, they are inequitable in their impact. Take the new education concession, which in this Budget has gone from $300 to $400 per child: For a man on a taxable income of $20,000 this is worth to him $266 in rough terms. To a man with an income of $3,500 it means about $107. As the honourable member for Berowra **(Mr Hughes)** pointed out last week or the week before, this is progressive taxation in reverse, lt follows the old principle of 'to him that hath shall be given'. It makes the rich purr and the poor pay. It does nothing for incentive or equity and very little for education. To be effective in assisting families this concession should be given in the form of a fixed rebate of total taxation for all family people and not be specifically designed to give a concession which increases with the wealth of the individual recipient. There are other aspects of this particular tax concession. There are other ways of the state's granting direct to the individuals concerned some allowance for education without it going through the machine.ery. By giving a rebate of so much per child the money can in effect be paid straight to the parent from the Commonwealth Government and not through the other mechanism. It has to be recognised that in order to pay by our present system we do erect a large bureaucracy, with huge paraphernalia, to conduct negotiations with the States, to make inquiries as to how much money is wanted, to look at individual schools. The bureaucrats, those employed and their dependants, and the others ancillary to the process consist very largely of highly educated people who could be using their qualifications to teach and thus help in easing the current shortage of teachers instead of being used in the bureaucratic management of these funds. This is well worth the thought of the Government. It would provide help for education by paying direct to the parents through tax concessions instead of through the Commonwealth to the States and then to the parents and handing out in small driblets to different schools and developing a good many arguments in the process. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. {: .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr BURY: -- Before the suspension of the sitting I was stressing the importance of incentive in a tax structure and saying that the extension indefinitely of allowances and deductions from personal income tax did in fact reduce the revenue and force up the income tax rates which had to be imposed, and that in forcing up the rates incentive was undermined. Allowances, whatever else they do - and they have many purposes - do not contribute anything to incentive. In fact, their net effect is to reduce it. I also deplored the fact that although last year an attack was made on the rates of personal income tax and the rate of tax payable was reduced by about 10 per cent on incomes up to $20,000 a year, thus enabling the taxation scale to be modified, this process has not only been abandoned but has actually been thrown into reverse. The overall levy of 2i per cent on the total amount of tax payable preferably should have been eliminated last year, but because of the exigencies of that time this was not possible. But it should have remained the objective to get rid of this *2i* per cent imposition; instead, it has been doubled. It is easy to understand how governments drift into this trap. Difficulty tends to be experienced in raising the necessary revenue to meet the expenditure which has been approved. But incentive is at the very basis of the economy. It is a Budget right in itself which ought to be given proper weight. In an arithmetical exercise, which is what the Budget is, the question of incentive ought rightly to be considered, and incentive must be pursued with vigour and consistency. If incentive does not become a prime objective, it gets lost in the rush and is adjusted to fit in with the other exigencies of the Budget. I do not subscribe to the idea, which is now current, that all one has to do when there is a big down-turn is to squirt a little credit in here or there and the whole process is thereby reversed. I personally believe that we are at the end of an 8-year cycle of expansion which began in 1962. There has been a steady expansion since 1962. This process of expansion has run its course. Many other complicated factors, such as huge increases in salaries and wages, have disturbed the cost element. They have thrown the profitability of many industries and undertakings into some considerable doubt. These factors have to be absorbed by the economy, and it will be quite a long time before this is achieved. But if, in fact, the Government feels that it is desirable to go in again for expansion I would not at this stage advocate monetary expansion or an increase in government expenditure to achieve the same result; instead, I would advocate that the Government should look very carefully at the tax scales and take advantage of this situation. It should not make a quick expansion in government expenditure or bank credit, but should seriously consider making a sizable reduction in personal and company income tax. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- Now you are talking sense. {: .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr BURY: -- This practice has been followed in some other countries, particularly in the United States of America, which have found themselves in similar circumstances. This, to my mind, would be a preferable approach to expansion, rather than adopting some short term idea that we should indulge in a bit of expenditure or expansion of the money supply and by adopting such short term measures reverse the entire trade cycle. I believe that whatever is done we have exaggerated the success and completeness of short term monetary management and fiscal management by governments, and at the end of a trade cycle, quite apart from what has happened in other fields, this does very severely limit the potential of governments to bring about a quick revival. {: #subdebate-32-0-s5 .speaker-K0O} ##### Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham -- To hear the comments of the honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr Bury),** who is a former Treasurer, reminds me of the old saying in the Bible: >Joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. Whilst we will not lay all the sins of the Government, of commission and omission, on the honourable member's broad shoulders, by the same token, we can attribute a good deal of the trouble in relation to the gross inequity of the present income tax scales to the former Treasurer and the honourable member's current master, the Artful Dodger, alias the Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon),** because throughout the years the people have been progressively inflated from the lower income groups into the higher tax brackets. Unskilled workers are now paying the rates of tax which operated for middle class tradesmen and professional men 15 years ago, and in turn middle class income earners are paying rates of tax which were considered appropriate to those in the highest income groups some 15 years ago. As the honourable member for Wentworth has correctly stated, the whole system of taxation today is one of calculated disincentive. I can do no better than to quote in support of his argument and mine a comparison between a scale given to the economics committee of my Party today by Professor Hancock and table 1 from the papers accompanying the Budget Speech delivered in this House on 17th August last. Professor Hancock shows that the increase in real earnings over the period from 1965 to 1971 - that is taking a comparison in the respective June quarters - was 4.5 per cent. In the first year 1965-66, the increase in real earnings was 1.4 per cent and the increase in payasyouearn taxation - and this applies to the people who are most grievously hit - was 14 per cent. In the second year, 1966-67, the increase in real earnings was 5.2 per cent and the increase in pay-as-you-earn taxation was 13 per cent. In the next year 1967-68, the increase in real earnings was 2.7 per cent, and the increase in payasyouearn taxation was 14 per cent. In the year 1969-70, the increase in real earnings was 5 per cent, and the increase in payasyouearn taxation was 20 per cent. We come to a special period. With a great flourish of trumpets the former Prime Minister announced a reduction of 10 per cent in personal income tax. For that year real earnings rose by 7.6 per cent but, nevertheless, pay-as-you-earn taxation increased by 17 per cent. For the current year, 1970-71, the increase in taxation is estimated again at 17 per cent. The total increase over the period from 1965 to 1971 is 102 per cent, an average of 17 per cent, as against Professor Hancock's average increase of 4.5 per cent in real earnings for the same period. If we take off 2 per cent for the increase in population and a corresponding entry into the labour force we still have an average increase in taxation of 15 per cent. The Budget and the Income Tax Assessment Act are nothing more than swindle sheets. The Government ought to be well and truly ashamed of them. Of course, this Government does not specialise in skinning the lower income groups merely in direct taxation but also in indirect taxation, or what is known amongst economists as regressive taxation. In that regard it is notable that last year the revenue from company tax was $l,383m. If we add the income from excise duty and sales tax the figure is about $ 1,700m. The impact of that falls on people irrespective of their ability to pay. That again is the technique of the present Government. If we take the impact of the celebrated 10 per cent reduction in income tax last year, which resulted in a 17 per cent increase in pay-as-you-earn tax, we find that for the 'others' covered by the provisions - that is, doctors, dentists, lawyers and persons carrying on busi ness but not incorporated - the yield dropped by 4 per cent and the increase proposed for the current year is only 7 per cent. For the current year the proposed increase in company tax is only 8 per cent. How does the Government equate this in terms of financial honesty and decency with an impact of 17 per cent on the lowest income groups? As the honourable member for Wentworth rightly said, the 21 per cent increase ought to be abolished. But there is another and more sinister purpose for that increase. Already, after seasonal correction, we have an increase in unemployment of H per cent. The Government proposes that that should go up to 21 per cent to create a pool of unemployed by which it will club the trade unionists into submission. For the very good reason that the Government is not going to lose anything in the process, up is to go pay-as-you-earn taxation by another *2i* per cent. That is the real figure of unemployment in the pool at which the Government is aiming. The Government is toying with the idea of precipitating an industrial crisis. It matters little to it that what will be lost in production will far outweight what it is wringing its withers about - the odd loss of production in the strikes which occur from time to time. But what is that compared with the survival of this Government on a specious issue? This time the issue must be an internal one because the Government has extracted the ultimate in political mileage from foreign affairs and any other synthetic and spurious issue which its perverted imagination can devise. Let us have a look at the domestic surplus of $630m for which the Government has budgeted, which completes the swindle. At a time when the States are screwing the very utmost out of the taxpayers and when local government is forced to impose rates at a record level the Government coolly and calmly budgets for a surplus of $630m. In so doing it is following a systematic pattern, and a most interesting one. Since July 1969, when it had pumped into the loan consolidation and investment reserve $ 1,345m, it has gone on steadily from year to year pumping its domestic surplus into this long titled, euphonious account which is merely a gate valve by which money is passed into Commonwealth loans. The Commonwealth is lending back to the States surplus taxation that ought to be given to them to meet their legitimate needs. In the process, by 1970 the loan consolidation and investment reserve had grown by $6 15m in one year. By 1971 it was up to $2,246m. I will venture that, with the exception of what is. paid out in the way of the bribe to the wealthy wool growers this year, the whole of the balance of that $630m domestic surplus will be pumped into Commonwealth loans. Things are being done by this Government which, if they were done in orthodox accountancy, would have a man on trial for falsification of accounts. But it is considered by this Government to be good orthodox finance. At the same time we find that the big people are getting by very nicely. The fiddles are on, and whilst the Government is quite prepared to pursue the little man - perhaps it might have justification in odd cases for doing so - it is letting the big fish get through the net. The big fish are the people who are being pampered in the field of mining. Let us take as a crowning example the Esso-BHP group which will be paying no income tax on its profits from the Bass Strait enterprise until it has recouped itself for the whole of its capital outlay. Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd is doing very nicely, too. Time will not permit me to go into the others. The overseas or transnational corporations which operate today can do their own special fiddle. It is a very easy one. It takes the form that, in respect of component parts, the corporations can charge their Australian subsidiary exactly what the traffic will bear in respect of cars or machinery manufactured in this country. In addition they can charge, according to their whim and caprice, whatever they want in the way of royalties in respect of the use of their patents and processes. It is high time the Government had a look into both these fields. As the honourable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr Crean)** mentioned, at the same time as the Government is skinning the little man we find miserable deficiencies in respect of concessions for dependants and medical expenses. Let us take the case of a professional man with a net taxable income of $9,500 a year. He claims a concessional deduction of $312 a year for his wife. It is worth more than $150 to him in a reduction in income tax. An unskilled steel worker in my own area with a take home pay of $54 a week might be receiving $25 at the most in respect of the same concession after maintaining his wife and his average *2i* to 3 children. The same applies in the case of medical expenses, educational expenses, municipal rates and the whole category of taxation. This Government poses as the friend of the worker. A complete overhaul of the system of taxation is long overdue. This Act is so patched and clouded that its original sponsors would scarcely recognise it. If I might change the metaphor, it is a jungle in which the average lawyer may venture at his peril. But studded here and there like little nuggets of gold are the special concessions for the special friends of this Government. They are very lucrative concessions for those who put them there and for those who are capable of using them. In the time that remains to me 1 want to raise one other matter that for many years has been the source of. festering and justifiable discontent amongst trade unionists. I am referring to the question of a permissible deduction for fares in respect of travel to and from a man's place of employment. This matter is a long standing scandal. I would like to quote from the text of the judgment in the case Lunney v. The Commissioner of Taxation which was heard in the High Court of Australia in 1958 and in which there was an observation by the then Chief Justice, **Sir Owen** Dixon. He said: >Times have changed; the incidence of income tax greatly differs now in scope and weight from its incidence in the days when the law was more settled; possibly, the justice of the traditional legal view is a little more open to question and certainly its financial significance supplies a motive for questioning it. In another section of his judgment, in referring to section 51 of the Act, he said: >In my opinion it is an unduly narrow construction of the initial part of S.S1 (1), in the case of an employment, to confine its operation to expenditure made by the taxpayer within the bare physical or temporal limits within which he performs his work or labour and to disregard any expenditure made outside those limits even though it has a necessary relation to the purpose of earning income for which the taxpayer carries on the employment It has been shown by the stated case that the taxpayer could not in the circumstances under which he was situated earn any assessable) income by his employment without incurring the cost of travelling which he claims to be an allowable deduction. 1 cannot see the difference in principle between an expense incurred in gaining income and one incurred necessarily for the purpose of gaining it He went on, and I want this to be on record, to say: >To escape from the course of reasoning on which the decisions proceed- in justification of the Government's parsimony - requires the taking of refined and rather insubstantial distinctions. I confess for myself, however, that if the matter were to be worked out all over again on bare reason, I should have misgivings about the conclusion. But this is just what I think the court ought not to do. . . . If the whole subject is to be ripped up now it is for the legislature and not the court to do it. The whole rationale of the decision stems almost from feudal days. In a case in England it was pointed out that in those days the average professional man or the average tradesman lived at or near the place of his employment, but today with the urban sprawl- this applies to the major capital cities and it applies with even more force within my own constituency because it is a long narrow-gutted area on a coastal plain - the low wags earner is driven out to the low cost land which is on the outermost extremities, on the periphery, of every metropolis. The man least able to pay is forced to travel the longest distance and to pay the highest fares. Today fares are a downright imposition and these high fares are due in their turn to the parsimony of this Government because if it disgorged any reasonable part of its domestic surplus the various State governments would not have been forced into the various positions into which they have been forced. They deserve sympathy and their difficulties are due to the actions of this Government. Let us take the case of. the average shift worker in the steel industry. He works on a 3-shift basis. He has no choice as to where he is to live. Thank God there is a Housing Commission which is able to provide him with a house because he would never be able to provide one from his own earnings and savings. But he has to go wherever the Commission has acquired an estate and subdivided it. Yet we had way back in 1898 a judge in one of the New South Wales jurisdictions saying this: >If a man chose lo live at a distance from his place of business because it was more convenient, pleasant or healthy for himself, that was a matter entirely within his own discretion, and was not in any respect connected with the earning of his income. There is no alternative to it today with the centres of cities being depopulated because of fantastically high land valuations which in their turn force the most intensive use of land on a commercial and industrial basis. Conditions have changed and it is a standing disgrace that this Government is denying justice to the people who need it most in respect of concessions for travel to and from their place of employment. (Quorum formed.) {: #subdebate-32-0-s6 .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell -- We have just heard from the honourable member for Cunningham **(Mr Connor).** He traversed many fields but did not speak particularly to the Bill which has some good points despite his forebodings. The first, of course, is the concession for the deduction for the education of children. This has been increased from $300 to $400 a year. This is desirable but, in my opinion, it should have gone further especially for the student up to 21 years of age. There is another concession created by allowing a deduction for a student up to 25 years of age. I suggest that this should also apply to students over 25 years of age in special circumstances where the student has not obtained his diploma or degree because he has been away on other duties. In some cases I think this could be extending the position a little too far, but if the person concerned had been sick or on service with the Army or one of the other Services, I think the concession would be most desirable. Then we have a concession being allowed for the fairly substantial legal expenses paid by people who adopt children. These people are doing a service to the community by adopting children. But again, one needs to think of what happens when these sorts of things occur. We find that the legal profession will increase its fees still further and the benefit that should accrue does not actually come about. Another amendment proposed by the Bill will give effect to certain income tax exemptions provided for in the agreement between the Australian and United States Governments relating to the Joint Defence Space Communications Station at Woomera. I also think that most people in this House agree with the wisdom of raising the upper limits of the age allowance which is provided for in the Income Tax Bill 1971. Further concessions have been granted in this respect and I think they will receive the endorsement of this House. But over and above the allowance made for aged persons I believe that they should be given a deductible allowance to cover the cost of people who come into their homes to assist them. This would mean that some aged persons would not have to seek refuge in nursing homes or hospitals. In turn this would be a great saving to the nation and would be of great benefit to us socially as well as being in the interests of the welfare of aged people. I would like to see a deduction granted in respect of nursing sisters or persons who come into the homes of aged people to do those duties which those people have difficulty in performing. I now want to speak about the Income Tax Act as it stands. I am partly in favour of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr Crean).** However, I believe it is not specific and definite enough. The Act does require review. It has been amended so often that it is difficult to understand. Many of the deductions that are allowed reduce the aggregate revenue to which the Commonwealth is entitled. Of course, many of the deductions are an aid to the avoidance of taxation, which is not desirable because this loss of revenue necessitates increases of the general rate paid by people who have not been involved in this practice. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- **Mr Speaker,** could I just take a point of order. Could you tell the honourable gentleman that he is waffling away and that no-one can hear him? Could the honourable gentleman lift his voice a little? {: #subdebate-32-0-s7 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. I would suggest to the House that if there was not so much audible conversation in the chamber and people were listening to the honourable member for Mitchell, they would be able to hear him. {: .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr IRWIN: -- The honourable member may think he is funny, but to be funny one has to be clever. I do not think that anyone would think that the honourable member for Hindmarsh has any brains at all, or he would not have been- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member will continue with the subject matter of his speech. {: .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr IRWIN: -- There is a necessity for an incentive to be granted here. As 1 have pointed out, many deductions are granted from time to time that decrease the aggregate revenue and in turn lead to increases in the general rate, which destroy the incentive for the person who by personal exertion wants to earn more money. For this reason 1 think it would be a very good idea if the Government examined all phases of the taxation law with an object of recasting the Act completely and giving the people this incentive to earn more money. It would be a great thing for Australia if more money could be earned in this way. Some remarks were made about the domestic surplus. This is desirable. In a way this relates to the Keynes theory that in times of prosperity we should keep governmental expenditure to a minimum and that we should have a storehouse from which, at the first sign of a recession, we could draw resources and put people back into employment. If we followed the Keynes theory in this regard I believe that we in Australia should have no fears whatsoever about a recession. The domestic surplus has been retained for this purpose. After all, recessions are due in the main to a lack of confidence. If we can buoy up confidence by using this domestic surplus at the first sign of a recession and help industries such as the transport industries and the building industry which are the indicators of the prosperity of Australia, no-one will have any apprehension in that regard. I support the Government in respect of the concessions that it proposes to make. I would have liked the concessions to go much further but in the circumstances I congratulate the Government on introducing this legislation to give effect to them. {: #subdebate-32-0-s8 .speaker-KN9} ##### Mr MARTIN:
Banks -- 1 oppose the Income Tax Bill and support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr Crean).** The Australian taxpayers' most common complaint is that he is one of the most highly taxed middle income earners in the world. This is true despite the fact that statistics show that a smaller proportion of our gross national product is collected in taxation revenue in Australia than in any other comparable countries. The United Nations Year Book of National Account Statistics published in 1969 shows the following figures which represent the percentage of personal income tax to gross national product of which Australia is the lowest: Australia 8.9 per cent; New Zealand 12.9 per cent; United States of America 16.3 per cent; Canada 12 per cent; United Kingdom 15.9 per cent; West Germany 18.8 per cent; France 19.3 per cent; and Belgium 17.8 per cent. One of the greatest faults of the present Australian system of taxation is the rating because it creates the thought in the minds of people that there is no incentive to work harder, that there is no purpose to be served by working harder and striving for a promotion and making more money, that there is no purpose served by taking a second job or working overtime or that there is no purpose served by increasing production and making more money. The reason for these thoughts being in the minds of people is a direct result of the present taxation system which causes a disproportionate amount of each additional dollar earned going directly to the tax man. 1 would like to quote the rates from the existing Act to illustrate this point: For every dollar earned in excess of $4,000 but not exceeding $4,800 additional tax is levied at the rale of 31.9c; for $4,800 but not exceeding $5,600 the rate is 34.5c and so on until we get to a figure of $10,000 but not exceeding $12,000 where the rate is 50.6c in the dollar, in addition to which one has to add an additional 5 per cent which is levied under this Bill. The tax scale has the direct effect of acting as either an incentive or a disincentive to increase production, lt means, in fact, that a person may decide that it is not worth while working harder merely to further fill the Treasury's coffers, and this is an unworthy climate to cultivate, particularly at a time when economically we are being told that production must increase if we are to prevent undue rises in the cost structure. This is a problem which is not common to Australia and it is worth while to look at the situation as it applies to other countries and compare it with the Australian situation. On an income of $10,000 a year an Australian is paying 29 per cent in income tax compared to 27 per cent in the United Kingdom, 15 per cent in the United States of America, 11 per cent in South Africa, 19 per cent in Canada and only 11 per cent in France. At the level of $25,000 per annum the Australian taxpayer is paying more than 50 per cent of his total income in tax whereas his American counterpart is paying only 30 per cent and, in France, only 22 per cent. The effect of this high level of taxation is the destruction of the incentive to work harder. Whilst most taxpayers grumble or groan as their tax rates go up, they reach a point of no return when their share of each dollar earned is less than that which the Government receives. On the current rates this point is reached at the $10,000 taxable income level. For each dollar earned in excess of $10,000 taxable income the Government receives more than half. What greater disincentive could there be to increased productivity? lt is the responsibility of the Government to undertake a comprehensive study, taking into account all factors, in order to arrive at a more equitable system of taxation rates. The Federal Government is the only body with the necessary resources to undertake such a task. I suggest that the only reason why this type of study has either not been undertaken or, if it has been undertaken, has not been publicised, is that the results would be an embarrassment to those who are presently responsible for the present iniquitous system of taxation rates. Let me make the position quite clear: This Government is still slugging the middle income earner despite the attempt made in the 1970 Budget to alter the Australian taxation structure. The middle income earner is still getting a raw deal and will continue to do so whilst this Government remains in power. It is practical common sense to maintain an incentive for the middle income earners. The Government would be better advised to have a long look at the whole taxation structure rather than doing what it has done in this Bill presently being debated. All that the Government has done in this Bill is to maintain the present regressive tax rate and to increase the levy from *2i* per cent to 5 per cent. That is a straight out increase in personal income tax of *2i* per cent right across the board. The Government possibly could be forgiven for maintaining, and even increasing, its present tax rates if the people were receiving a reasonable return by way of social services benefits. Could anyone in all honesty say that the pensioners of this country are receiving an adequate pension? What about the pockets of poverty amongst the aged, the sick, the widows and the deserted wives? There was a stage in this country when we could be satisfied with our social services, but that situation does not apply today. If we look at our international counterparts we find that we fare rather badly by comparison. In 1968, according to the United Nations 'Yearbook of National Accounts and Statistics', for each $1 of taxation revenue collected in Australia the net return in cash social service benefits was only 22.5c. This compared with 45.4c in France, 40.4c in West Germany, 33.76c in Canada, 24.9c in the United Kingdom and 24.7c in New Zealand. These figures represent cash social service benefits and do not take into account non cash benefits including the free health scheme in the United Kingdom and the near free health scheme and the free dental care scheme for children under 16 years of age in New Zealand. In Australia we have neither of these benefits, apart from a poorly subsidised and inefficient health scheme which operates with rising contribution rates. All in all the Australian taxpayer receives a very disproportionate social services benefit from the present regressive and inequitable taxation system. Our sister country, New Zealand, was faced with a similar problem but its Government had the courage and foresight to do something about it. In April this year New Zealand's taxation rates were revised comprehensibly to obtain a more realistic and equitable structure. This Government should do something positive about the Australian tax structure. The time for doing it is now, not some time in the non foreseeable future. This call for action is not confined to members of the Opposition only. In February 1971 a national taxation con ference was held in Canberra to consider the problems and the inequities of Australia's existing taxation laws. Organisations represented at that conference included the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Australia, the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, the Australian Council of Employers Federations, the Australian Farmers Federation, the Australian Society of Accountants, the Chartered Institute of Secretaries, the Federated Taxpayers Associations of Australia, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, the Law Council of Australia and the Taxation Institute of Australia. This conference called for urgent action to restructure the existing taxation laws. Individual unions and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have done the same thing. Here we have a united call for action by all sections of the community, yet the Government has done nothing other than keep the same tax rating system and increase the rates in this Bill by a further *2i* per cent. Once again 1 make the call for a royal commission into the Australian tax system and for effective action to be taken to block tax loopholes. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost to government revenue by the lack of action by this Government. Earlier this year the Government indicated that it proposed to close up 2 of the tax loopholes. These were in respect of the status of public companies and the technique known as dividend stripping. But so far this legislation has not been brought before the Parliament. 1 hope that the Government still intends to proceed with the legislation. But there are other loopholes still crying out to be closed. To name but a few, there are still tax lurks in regard to the acquisition of loss companies, and tax havens for companies are still being availed of in the Bahamas, Liechtenstein, Norfolk Island and in other areas. I am certain that the Taxation office administration wants these loopholes closed. The second Commissioner of Taxation, **Mr P.** J. Lanigan, in a paper he delivered at the conference of the Taxation Institute of Australia in Canberra in May 1969 described these tax lurks as what they are - 'a social evil'. How right he is. This social evil has been allowed to thrive under this Government. The only answer of the Government so far is to increase the tax rates by a further 21 per cent. In my maiden speech in this House on 18th March 1970 I spoke of the need for a capital gains tax. Government supporters and the then Treasurer and present Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** threw up their hands in horror at this socialistic thought. How times have changed. The former Attorney-General, the honourable member for Berowra **(Mr Hughes),** now advocates it. The President of the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges, **Sir Cecil** Looker, now wants a capital gains tax. He said that a capital gains tax would end the uncertainty and ambiguity of certain sections of Australian tax law. He said there was a real and pressing need to put share transactions on a sensible and realistic basis and that at present the vagaries of the Income Tax Act do not encourage and may well discourage genuine investment. He said that the whole area of taxation in Australia urgently needed Government attention and that certain aspects of the income tax law demanded clarification. He also said there was need for a thorough and complete review of Australia's tax structure, and it is urgently needed. I echo his sentiments. Here we have diverse sections of the community all advocating the same thing. We have the representatives of big business on the one hand; we have representatives of the trade union movement on the other hand. I agree on this occasion with both. I fully support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr Crean)** that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted because it does not comprehensively restructure the rate schedule and increases the tax payable by certain individuals on a fiat percentage basis. I commend the amendment to the House. {: #subdebate-32-0-s9 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie -- Under the Income Tax Assessment Act as it operates at the present time the maximum deduction allowed to a taxpayer in relation to education expenses is $300 for each dependent full time student under 21 years of age. The amendments now proposed to that Act would increase the maximum permissible amount to $400 and would also extend the age limit to those dependent children of a taxpayer who are students of less than 25 years of age. Neither amendment will be the means of offering any real assistance in meeting the actual high cost of education, and even where there may be some simple or slight benefit it will be directed towards the more wealthy taxpayers while the very people who do require some significant assistance towards the education of their children will gain very little if any help or relief. The amount of $300 as a maximum deduction from actual income was set down in 1963 and, as everyone knows - and many of them to their sorrow and to the depletion of their savings - during the years since 1963 there have been very substantial increases in the cost of education itself and also in the cost of transport and accommodation, etc., for those children who are obliged to travel to and remain in either capital cities or large country towns to obtain an education. Those latter costs are very substantial indeed, and it is quite unjust and shows a complete lack of sympathy and understanding, or perhaps lack of concern by the Government, that a taxpayer in the far north, for instance, is allowed no more for education expenses as a taxation deduction that is a taxpayer living in a capital city who is not subject in any way to costs of fares and whose children are able to live at home during the whole time they are gaining their education. The fact is that while education expenses under the Act include those for uniforms, fares, fees, books, etc., the fares alone with regard to children travelling long distances and who go home during the year - surely they are entitled to do that - would be very close to the allowable maximum deduction. Therefore it could correctly be said that the taxpayer in those circumstances exhausts his entire entitlement on fares and is unable to claim on the several other items which a taxpayer in the city successfully can include. For instance, the air fare from Perth to Kununurra or Wyndham is approximately $240 return and from Perth to Derby is approximately $200 return and so it goes on down the coast. So even if the child went home only once during the school year it would mean that at least half the maximum amount would be used up on fares. In giving consideration to these amendments it must be borne in mind also that like every other form of concessional deduction such as for spouse, medical costs, children, etc., the amount of deduction is not a direct deduction from taxation itself but simply a reduction in actual income for the purpose of arriving at the income upon which tax will be imposed. As a result of such a method a taxpayer on a low income obtains very little benefit and in some cases none at all, while on the other hand a taxpayer on a very high income may obtain a very considerable benefit, reaching as much as two-thirds of the amount of his actual expenditure. In other words, this means that the taxpayer who needs the greatest relief or assistance receives little if anything, while the taxpayer in exceptionally good circumstances and who could really well afford to forgo any tax concession is the only one who reaps any real benefit. For those reasons I am not at all happy with the present method of offering family assistance or concession and am of the opinion that a straight forward allowance of direct taxation deduction irrespective of income would be a much more equitable and acceptable system, but even this would not help those people who, because of their circumstances, pay next to nothing in tax in any case and yet who at the same time are the very people who require assistance for the education of their children or to ensure their good health. Because of these inequities and discriminations within the present system there is an urgent need for a review of the whole taxation set-up to ensure that those in the greatest need receive the greatest assistance or relief. But if the Government intends to retain this present system, and there is no indication that it does not, surely with regard to education expenses alone it would be a much fairer and proper method to have at least 2 areas of allowance or even perhaps 3 areas to meet the different items of costs involved. The first allowance could take care of the normal expenses which every parent is obliged to meet. I refer to the cost of books, uniforms and that sort of thing. The second area, if only 2 areas are to be adopted, would be for fares and accommodation, or if there were 3 areas fares and accommodation could be separated. I imagine that having just 2 areas would be sufficient to meet the situation and would certainly at the least remove much of the unequal application and effects which we have under the present system, where fares and accommodation, as I said earlier, can well and truly exhaust the maximum deductions permissible at present. Admittedly the proposed increase of $100 for education expenses can mean a slight reduction in tax for some parents in distant places who can afford to send their children south or elsewhere to school and who will be able to claim that $100 against air fares, but it will not be such as to mean the difference between a parent being able to afford to send his children away for that better education. This brings me to the point that if the system is to be retained and if $400 is now considered to be a fair and appropriate figure to meet education costs in areas where the bulk of taxpayers reside - I refer of course to the capital cities - certainly an amount much higher than $400 should be allowed to taxpayers who live in remote and distant areas and who can do nothing other than pay very large amounts for both fares and accommodation costs if they wish to give their children the opportunity of gaining a good schooling. It is for that reason that I suggest the necessity of a second area or section of education expenses being struck. This would not in any way prevent city dwellers lodging their claims against bus fares, nor would it prevent those living not so far distant from claiming for train fares. They would still have that right even though it would mean a separate claim item. But in addition people in far away places, who are a very important section of our community, would have a right not only to claim on the high cost of fares and accommodation but also to claim in relation to costs of uniforms, books, fees and so on in a like manner to those who have no need to consider fares, etc., and who therefore, if their circumstances permit it, are able to expend the maximum permissible amount on books and fees and so on in the knowledge that the whole of that amount can be reflected in their taxation returns. As I said earlier, I do not like this present system but if it is to be retained then the least we can do is to make such alterations as are necessary to give all taxpayers an equal claim measured against necessary expenses which include fares and accommodation. The same corrective measures should be taken in relation to medical and hospital expenses which at present exclude the cost of transport which is often necessary to allow a sick person to obtain medical or hospital treatment. A completely ridiculous situation applies and is retained by this Government at the present time, whereby a taxpayer may claim as a deduction against his income the actual cost of any doctor or hospitalisation for a dependant but is denied entirely any claim against the costs he incurs, which are quite often very substantial, to bring or send that dependant to a place where the treatment is available. The situation is similar to that which applies with regard to education expenses. The taxpayer who is resident close by a doctor or hospital has a very distinct advantage over the taxpayer who, because of distance and lack of medical facilities, is obliged to travel or to meet travel costs to allow his dependent wife or children to consult a doctor or to enter a hospital. Referring again to my opposition to this present method of determining tax allowances in respect of dependants and certain expenses incurred by a taxpayer, I want to explore that situation just a little more to illustrate how inequitable the system is and to show how it operates to favour the rich and do nothing at all for those in less fortunate circumstances. The fact that deductions apply to actual incomes and not to the tax itself means, for instance, that this proposed SI CO addition to the education allowance will give to a taxpayer with one child attending school and on an otherwise taxable income of $1,500 - that is, of course, if he can afford to spend $400 on the education of his child - an actual tax reduction of approximately $16 while another taxpayer with a taxable income of $15,000 and with one child at school could gain a tax saving of approximately $58 - $16 in one case and $58 in the other. This could be a fact even though both taxpayers live in the same street and meet exactly the same education expenses for children attending the same school. This is a completely ridiculous situation, particularly when it is quite obvious that the taxpayer with the taxable income of 31,500 is finding the education expenses are a much greater burden than does the taxpayer on the income of $15,000. Of course when there are 2 children in each family, or 3 or 4, then the man with a higher income gets an even greater advantage. As a matter of fact it is obvious from taxation statistics that the great bulk of the taxpayers obtain very little real help from the existing allowance of $300, and those same taxpayers will receive no benefit at all from any increase whether it be $100 or $1,000, for the very simple reason that the low income earner cannot afford to pay out $6 or $8 a week for the education of a child, or twice or three times that amount if he has 2 or 3 children. This is a very big problem in distant areas, this cost of giving the children a good education. This is why one so very often hears parents say that they will not be able to stay much longer in the far away places as much as they would like to do so. Certainly the very small amount of tax relief which comes from the existing system of education allowance will do exactly nothing to overcome the problem, and this proposal of an additional $100 will make very little difference even to those taxpayers on incomes of $6,000. There are some 4! million to *4i* million taxpayers with incomes of less than that amount, while taxpayers with incomes above $6,000 total only approximately 660,000, which proves, as I said earlier, that the great bulk of the taxpayers will gain very little from the additional $100 and that where any benefit is gained it will go largely to those who actually do not require it and in fact are well situated to meet the cost of their children's education. Actually it does not matter whether the taxpayer be a low income earner or a high income earner, because the effect of the Government's somersault decision to increase income tax this year by *2i* per cent will very largely deplete any benefit or tax relief which may have otherwise flowed from the $100 added to the existing amount of allowable deduction for education expenses. Honourable members will recall, and the taxpayers outside are not likely to forget, that just prior to the last election at the end of 1969 the then Prime Minister promised the people that if his Government was re-elected it would bring about reductions in income tax, but now we have this Bill before us which will have an opposite effect and will increase the amount of individual tax paid last year by *2i* per cent. This will mean, of course, that those taxpayers with school age children and who cannot afford to pay even $300 - the existing allowable deduction for education expenses - will be even worse off this year than they were last year because of the additional direct tax they will be obliged to pay. We on this side of the House intend to oppose that proposition. Taxation statistics show some rather interesting figures in relation to the average amounts which taxpayers with different incomes claim as education expenses. For instance, that group of taxpayers whose incomes ranged from $417 to $1,599 in 1968-69 claimed an average amount of approximately $57 a child for some 64,500 children of over one million taxpayers. It is quite clear from those figures that those taxpayers and those children will derive no benefit at all from this increase of $100, and they would in most instances be stretching the purse even to reach the $57. Also, of course, it is most unlikely that any taxpayer in that group could afford to keep at school a lad or girl of 21 years of age, let alone 25, and so no benefit can flow to that group by the extension of the age limit. Then we have the group whose incomes range from $2,400 to $2,599, a group comprising approximately 252,000 taxpayers and 89,000-odd children with an average claim of $75. So here again is a group which is unlikely to gain any benefit. Let us go to the group whose incomes range from $5,000 to $5,999. This group comprises 282,500 taxpayers and 293,000 children with an average claim of $96 for each child. Very few in that group would be likely to exceed the existing $300 and so are unlikely to gain any relief from the extra amount. As I pointed out earlier, by the time you reach the group whose incomes become as high as $6,000 something like 80 per cent of the total number of taxpayers have been included and only a small percentage of that number would reach the existing maximum claim for $300 for education expenses. This is where the system or method is so wrong. There are something like 320,000 taxpayers in the income group up to $6,000 who have 3 or more children and it is quite obvious that those taxpayers, except in a few instances, would find it very difficult and in fact impossible to pay out more than perhaps $50 or $60 towards each of their children's education. Therefore the children's education suffers and the best this Government can do is to increase the concessional deduction which does absolutely nothing for these taxpayers. This system which the Government follows so slavishly can give one taxpayer a tax reduction of $205 for a spouse while another taxpayer will receive only $30 or even less. The first taxpayer can receive $137 tax relief for a child and the second taxpayer only $15. Surely there can be no justification for such different treatment. In fact if there should be a difference it should be in the reverse direction because there can be no doubt that the second taxpayer, the one on a fairly low income, requires a much greater relief than a person whose taxable income is over $30,000 a year. But this Government is either concerned only with the rich or too lazy to have a proper review of the Taxation Act, and the only way that those people other than the wealthy can win is to ensure that they elect a Labor government at the next election. {: #subdebate-32-0-s10 .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr FOSTER:
Sturt -- Nobody on the Government side intends to rise, I take it. First of all I support the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition. In addition to that I want to draw the attention of the House to what I consider to be one or two anomalies insofar as income tax is concerned. The whole structure of taxation should, of course, be completely overhauled. There is a great need for this in our society today. There is a great need perhaps to examine Government expenditure on the basis of getting full value for the taxpayer's dollar. As I have said in this chamber before, I abhor the reference to taxpayers' money as Government money. After all, the Government is only the custodian of that money in the interests of the public generally and it is in this particular area that I want to be somewhat critical. In view of the tremendous expenditure that this Government has forced upon the taxpayers for the defence of Australia over the last decade, is it not corrtct that, in this day and age, the people of Australia should be informed as to who is threatening us? When one realises that this figure averages about SI, 200m a year and when one considers Australia's position in regard to military hardware, measured in terms of the defence potential which this finance could provide, I think most reasonable minded people who are not concerned with pressure politics would arrive at the conclusion that the general public has been had on the matter of defence expenditure. Many of our economic ills could well be placed at the door of such bungling. If Australia is a nation that is threatened, the public has every entitlement to know why such a tremendous amount of income tax is being levied. The public is not being adequately or properly informed as to what it is being defended from and, if we are being threatened, we do not know whether we are being given adequate and proper protection. Huge sums have been expended in the field of education and there is a desire for even greater expenditure but here again, the Government should look closely at the manner in which the taxpayers' money is being spent. Since State aid and other forms of aid raised their heads back in the early fifties, the poor schools have become poorer and the better equipped schools have continued to attract subsidies. Quite large sums of money are being expended on scholarships and, again, there ought to be some form of reassessment in this field. Scholarships should be awarded on the basis of need. Many scholarships are given to student children whose parents really do not require financial assistance. If the Minister for Education and Science **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** is interested, I could show him correspondence I have received from parents who felt that their children should not have received scholarships but that, in fact, the scholarships should have been awarded to the less privileged people in our society. I turn now to the question of tax dodgers - the lurkmen and the white collar crime area. The field that is open to these people to avoid taxation bears no comparison to that open to the normal wage and salary earner who must reveal everything and who has very little opportunity of covering up any evasion of tax. The Federal Government has been quite lax in pursuing any sort of investigation into tax dodgers. We have not had proper reports to the House on matters which have been raised in reference to the tax dodges which are available by registering companies on Norfolk Island, about 1,000 miles off the eastern coast of the continent. Although the Minister has been asked questions from time to time in this House about this matter and has said that the Government is certainly most concerned about it, no report has been presented to the House as to whether there has been any real work done in this area. In regard to taxation as it affects wage and salary earners, there is a real need for the Government to have a look at and make comparisons with what is available to an employer group as against a group of employees or individual employees. In the case of industrial clothing supplied by an employer, my understanding is that some taxation rebates are available in this field not only with regard to the supply of industrial clothing but also with regard to its replacement, maintenance, dry cleaning and laundering. However, groups of employees are required to dress in a manner which bestows a vast business benefit to the employer. I refer to those who are engaged as shop assistants in large city and suburban departmental stores. In the main, the stores do not provide a uniform but insist upon a uniform or a type of dress being worn that imposes considerable costs upon employees and, in many cases, no taxation allowance is granted for that clothing. Not only do they incur considerable initial cost for this clothing but also they have everincreasing costs for maintenance, dry cleaning and laundering. Again, I think the Government has been quite discriminatory in regard to this matter and should give it every consideration. The matter of taxation allowances for the cost of travelling to and from work has been raised from time to time by constituents of honourable members. I do not know whether, in the short term, the Government should not examine this matter, having in mind that the executive or the board member can put it over in 101 ways and get away with it. He can claim depreciation on a vehicle that he does not own. The executive has a car supplied; he probably has all his maintenance done for him; the running and other costs that he incurs in driving this vehicle probably do nol come from his own pocket, and he finds at the end of the year - perhaps this is offered as an inducement by an employer in some fields - that he is able to write his expenses off as a tax deduction. But the poor old battler is not able to use public transport as it is so restricted in some parts of Australia particularly for shift workers. He simply must provide himself with a vehicle to get himself to and from his place of employment and he gets no taxation consideration whatever except in limited fields. I said when I introduced this subject that the Government should be prepared to examine in the short term the possibility of providing taxation deductions for travelling expenses. However, I bear in mind and I recognise that there could be some anomalies here with respect to how far a person must travel in comparison with his fellows as well as with respect to a number of other matters and perhaps this would be better tackled on an overall wage structure basis rather than just by providing reductions. In addition, there is the question of the whole structure of Government expenditure and the manner in which expenditure is carried out. There is wasteful expenditure; 1 have already discussed defence. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should turn our backs on the crisis in the rural industry but at the same time I am not suggesting that the Government is without blame for the present crisis in that industry. Subsidies have reached a staggering figure and probably amount to several thousand dollars for each primary producer. We ought to have a much closer look at this field. We cannot continue to spend taxpayers' money on the wool industry. While this expenditure must be regarded as essential in the short term, sooner or later, as responsible elected members of this Parliament, we must sit down in a proper manner and assess whether there is any need for the wool industry, measured in the long term, having regard to the availability of synthetics. If we realise this - there is sufficient evidence in the form of comparison that one just cannot compete on a cost basis with the other - I do not think that the Government should continue spoon feeding people for electoral popularity in order to ensure its return to this place from time to time. We are inflicting a tremendous burden on the taxpayers in the non-primary field of this country. This should be looked at, for it is vital to taxation. The measure before us is based upon an ever-increasing taxation scale which will take more and more of the wage and salary earners' wage packets. This is bad enough, but perhaps the wage and salary earners throughout the Commonwealth would be prepared to accept it if they were getting real value for their money. When we on this side of the House are looking for some form of reform, some form of readjustment to put real value in the $1 and perhaps some form of additional expenditure in some field or other, we hear the old cry from our political opponents: Where is the money coming from?' The percentage of income paid in taxation today, while perhaps not as high as in some other countries, is higher than in many others and we should be asking the question: 'Where has the money gone?' We have to end this concept of bashing out the Budget of the country in a concrete vault. The Government has to realise that in this day and age it has to take the community into its confidence during these winter recesses. There should be some form of appraisal whereby the man in the street is able to deduce - at least have sufficient information given to him to allow him to think for himself - whether he should make an assessment as to where his money is going. There should bc some form of public exposure of some of the departments. What is wrong with this concept? The Government should stop continually feeding me with the answer that it cannot do it because unscrupulous members of the community will take unfair advantage of it. I say quite bluntly that if the information were freely and readily available to all in the community, honourable members opposite would agree that individuals would find it extremely difficult to take any unfair advantage. {: #subdebate-32-0-s11 .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley -- I will not take up too much of the time of the House but there are a couple of points upon which I wish to touch. I refer in particular to the evasion of taxation through a system used by a number of companies under which sham organisations are set up on Norfolk Island to avoid taxation on the mainland. I refer also to a report of proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court earlier this year which indicated that Australian residents had used a sham company setup on Norfolk Island to avoid Australian taxation. On 11th March 1970 I asked the then Treasurer a question, pointing out to him that taxation was being avoided in this way. In reply he agreed that this was the case and said: >The Commissioner of Taxation himself has been inquiring closely into these matters and an investigation is being made. That was in March 1970; it is now November 1971. It would be very interesting indeed to know how much taxation has been avoided in this way since that date and how much this has cost the Australian taxpayer. It is well and truly time that this investigation which was in train in March 1970 was completed and amending legislation brought before this Parliament to close this loophole. There is another matter which I wish to deal with very quickly, and in dealing with it quickly I do not wish to detract from its importance. It concerns the treating of education expenses incurred by employed students as taxation deductions. This is a very important issue. People who are receiving tertiary education, particularly on a part time basis, should be given these taxation concessions. A person obtaining tertiary education in this manner is doing so under very difficult conditions, and any student who has any experience of these conditions knows it is one thing to receive full time tertiary education and a very different thing to take a degree course part time. For some reason or other, whilst it is recognised that I can receive the benefit of taxation deductions for educational expenses incurred through my child being at university, the student who is bearing his own costs of education cannot receive that necessary taxation deduction. I ask the Treasurer **(Mr Snedden)** to look at this issue closely because a great deal of hardship is being created. The present system is certainly not an encouragement to students or young people to undertake part time tertiary education. I must also mention very briefly a question that has arisen many times in my mind. Why is it that deductions for dependants, the education of children, insurance, superannuation, medical expenses and so on are of far greater benefit to the person on a high income than they are to a person on a low income? Sooner or later in this Parliament we must come to the conclusion that there should be a fixed amount for these items which can be claimed as a deduction. There should be a fixed amount of deduction for a wife and a family, for education, for medical expenses and the like, because it is not fair that the person on a low income should not receive the same benefit as a person on a higher income. Is it that his wife and his children are not of the same value as the wife and children of a person on a much higher income? These are issues which should be faced. In conclusion, I revert to the matter I first raised and draw the attention of the Treasurer to the fact that one of his predecessors did say in this Parliament in March 1970 that an investigation was being made into the practice of avoiding taxation by setting up companies on Norfolk Island. That was in March 1970, and that investigation should have been finished long before now. There would have been a great deal of taxation avoided in the meantime and this is a burden on the rest of the Australian community. A report should be brought forward as soon as possible and amending legislation introduced into this House. Question put: >That the words proposed to be omitted **(Mr Crean's amendment)** stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr P. Ayes Lucock) 52 44 AYES: 0 NOES: 0 Majority AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. {:#subdebate-32-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr Swartz)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2850 {:#debate-33} ### INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 3) 1971 {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 13th September (vide page 1162), on motion by **Mr Peacock:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. ( Bill read a second time. {:#subdebate-33-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr Swartz)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2850 {:#debate-34} ### PERSONAL EXPLANATION {: #debate-34-s0 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · Farrer · LP -- I wish to make a personal explanation to correct a reply I gave at question time today to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam).** Honourable members will recall that I said: >A request was received from the American Ambassador by the Department of Defence on 1st October. What I should have said was: >A request was received from the American Embassy in Canberra by the Department of Foreign Affairs on 30th September and was sent to the Department of Defence on 1st October. {: .page-start } page 2850 {:#debate-35} ### APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72 In Committee Consideration resumed from 28th October (vide page 2785). Second Schedule. {: #debate-35-s0 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP -- I suggest that the order for consideration of the proposed expenditures agreed to by the Committee on 16th September be varied by postponing consideration of proposed expenditure for the Department of the Interior until after consideration of proposed expenditure for the Department of Labour and National Service. The **DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)** - ls the suggestion of the Minister agreed to? There being no objection, that course will be followed. Department of Labour and National Service Proposed expenditure, $20,500,000. {: #debate-35-s1 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr WEBB:
Stirling -- I should like to speak to the estimates for the Department of Labour and National Service. I want to refer to wages and unemployment which of course should be the concern of the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch).** For the first time the Minister has sheeted home to where it belongs some of the blame for inflation - on to the shoulders of the employers. I refer to his statement of 6th September 1971 in which he said, inter alia: >The problem of cost-push inflation and industrial unrest would be less acute if employers . . . pursued fair pricing policies and made real attempts to justify their price increases to the general public. This is the first time I can remember that the Government has laid any of the blame for inflation on employers. The Minister still lays most of the blame for inflation on the workers' wage claims and on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for granting such claims. Bearing in mind the increased prices that have been generated by the recent Budget, it is most unreasonable to expect the workers to sit back and bear the brunt of them. It is estimated that the Budget has added more than $2 weekly to the average family man's cost of living. It has reduced the value of the take home pay of the workers and it has added a further impetus to inflation. The Government has appealed to employers to pursue fair pricing policies but it has failed to take action to control prices. It has failed miserably to measure up to its responsibilitits to control the economy. How different is the Government's attitude to the workers. It goes much further than calling on the workers to practise wage restraint. It not only brow beats them and threatens them but also has the audacity to bring pressure to bear upon the Arbitration Commission. A few months ago we witnessed Ministers of the Crown blatantly using their positions to influence the Arbitration Commission against the workers and in the interests of the employers. The then Prime Minister, speaking as guest of honour at the annual dinner of die New South Wales Chamber of Manufactures and in the presence of the President of the Arbitration Commission, tried to influence the decision of the Commission in the oil industry case. The present Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** at the annual dinner of the Metal Trades Employers Federation, in front of the President of the Arbitration Commission, used that occasion to tell the Commission what its attitude should be in regard to the application of the unions for increased wages. So blatant were these attempts to influence the Commission that the President stated that outside attempts to influence it were foolish, stupid and futile; they served only to distract the Commission from the job in hand. Other Ministers who have abused their positions in this way have been similarly rebuked. The former Treasurer, the honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr Bury),** made a most vicious attack on the Commission when it awarded increases in the 1967 wage case. He fired another barb when he said that it was not the job of the Commission to dream up economic theories or to seek to determine the Government's economic policy. On 27th December 1967 **Mr Justice** Gallagher and Commissioner Winter in a joint statement from the bench rebuked the then Treasurer for his attack upon the Commissioner's decision in granting pay rises in the 1967 metal trades case. They said that they would not be influenced or 'intimidated' by any party including Ministers. All extraneous utterances, whatever their source or nature, would be ignored. How one sided it all is. The Government believes that the price of labour should be controlled, and all the force of the legal machinery is used for that purpose. On the other hand, employers and the Government refuse to exert any control over prices. The important point is that wage increases of themselves do not and cannot increase prices. Prices rise only when employers and commercial interests, including Government undertakings such as the PostmasterGeneral's Department - we have had some debate in this chamber recently about the increasts in the estimates for that Department - make firm decisions to increase prices without any restriction or without having to justify such increases. Decisions are arrived at in the privacy of the board room without any evidence. There is no question of the public interest being represented. Management does not have to justify in any way by argument or evidence before a public tribunal its decisions to increase the price of what it has to sell. Management decisions are based on the fundamental rule that if their costs increase then prices - which, in the simplest terms, determine the employer's income - must be allowed to rise by at least as much as that required to cover the increase in costs. But this right is denied the unions. Until 1953 automatic adjustments of the basic wage protected the worker against an increase in prices. This protection was abolished by the then arbitration court at the request of the employers. It was supported by the then Government in office which is now represented by this Government. If ever a Government has shown its prejudice against the workers this Government has done so in its frequent interventions in wage hearings. The Prime Minister made a statement in this Parliament only the other day that the Government intended to oppose any increase in the national wage in the forthcoming national wage case. Through its counsel it has repeatedly supported the submissions of the employers. lt did this in the recent carpenters' case, but the Commission still granted them a $6 increase. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has registered its strong objection to the partisan submissions of the Government directed to denying workers justifiable increases in wages. The increases granted in the carpenters' case must have been justified, otherwise the Commission would not have granted them. The counsel for the Government asserts that he is appearing in the public interest, whereas in fact he supports the claims of the employers. What the Government has been successful in doing is to shift the responsibility for economic control and unpopular measures from itself to the Commission. Then it blames the Commission if it gives wage increases to catch up with increased prices. In its 1964 judgment the Arbitration Commission emphasised that there was no control over incomes other than of those whose employment was covered by awards. The Commission said that there was no authoritative control over prices while there was a tight control over wages. I refer to the statement of **Mr Justice** Moore on page 66 of his reasons for judgment when he said: >The previous statement of the Commission that increases in prices are determined by those who fix prices' is a truth that cannot be emphasised enough. The Minister uses the velvet glove when he calls on the employers to pursue fair pricing policies, but he uses the mailed fist when it comes to trying to control the wages of the workers. One would think that the workers were living in the lap of luxury. For a family nowadays to have a reasonable standard of living the husband has either to have 2 jobs or to work considerable overtime. In addition his wife has to work. The Government has failed miserably to live up to its responsibilities. It has allowed inflation to run riot. It ignored the report of the Vernon Committee on the economy. lt has failed to act on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review of 1959 which advocated the widening of the economic powers of the Commonwealth. The Government wants the workers to carry the responsibility for its mistakes. There is no doubt that the policy of full employment in Australia is about to be abolished, if it has not already been abolished. The Government is about to follow the United States of America and the Tory government in the United Kingdom in abandoning the goal of full employment. The Treasurer **(Mr Snedden)** in his Budget Speech stated that it had been decided to limit the growth in numbers employed full time in the Public Service. This must gravely affect the job opportunities of school leavers. The Prime Minister admits that by next January there could be 100,000 unemployed. Later estimates are causing greater concern. The Financial Review' of 10th September suggested that the figure could rise to 150,000 unemployed. The more conservative estimates are 124,000. I understand that that figure comes from the Minister's own Department. The August review of the unemployment situation- The **DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)** - Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-35-s2 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton -- 1 hope that the honourable member for Stirling **(Mr Webb)** in his charity will forgive me if 1 do not advert to his arguments. In the few minutes which are available to me 1 want to refer to what I regard as being the central or focal point of the Commonwealth's power with respect to industrial matters. That is to be found in section 51 placitum (xxxv) of the Constitution. I want to say at once that I regard this power available to the Commonwealth to be completely and utterly inadequate for contemporary society. Having said that, may I very briefly place the background against which placitum (xxxv) of section 51 of the Constitution was written in. It was written in in 1898 at a time in which there were 6 colonies. I emphasise the word 'colonies' because they were colonies. There was little if any industrial activity. The great bulk of colonial activity in those days hinged upon agricultural and pastoral activity. It was rural activity personified and nothing else. lt was an age in which the aeroplane had not arrived. Transport and communications between and among the colonies virtually was non-existent. To go from Brisbane, say, to Melbourne in those days was a task almost of Herculean propensity, lt was a day in which people were subjected to working conditions which I would have found completely abhorrent, a day of which 1 vouchsafe the view that if I had lived then 1 would have been swept from this world into another via the gallows, not even with the benefit of clergy in attendance upon me to wish me good luck. Now I am assured of a state funeral. That was an age in which children were subjected to working conditions which no person today would be prepared to accept. These were the 6 colonies. 1 have a lurking suspicion that there are those who want to revert to colonial status. I excuse myself from that exercise. In 1898 and 1901 there was barely an inchoate sense of nationhood. But now today there is a sense of nationhood. 1 believe this is to be found everywhere, but I am dealing with the power given to the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate, subject to the Constitution, with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State. 1 say that neither inflation nor industrial difficulty shows the slightest inclination to heed the existence of Coolangatta or Albury. We are living today in a country - and this seems to me to be the dominant fact of our existence - that is one nation. We have one economy and one nation with the fears, the problems and the aspirations of one people. This is the dominant fact of our existence and there are those who are roused to a sense of indignation by trying to find comfort in what I would call the pristine sense of federalism in looking upon this country as 6 colonies. I will have none of it. Nothing seems to me to be more absurd than the propounding of quite inadequate policies in the fond belief that we are adding lustre to a constitutional arrangement that began to subside into irrelevance more than a generation ago. The power that this Parliament has with respect to industrial relations is couched in excessive legalism. It is a very complex power. It is a power which is incredibly limited in the sense that there must be a dispute in being before the machinery set up by this Parliament can intervene. It is a power which is limited in the sense that a dispute must extend beyond the limits of one State. It is a power that denies to any apparatus set up by this Parliament the power to make a common rule with respect to an industry. 1 must perforce hurry on. I will deal with these 3 points. May I deal with the matter of a dispute. Respectfully I disagree with the view reached by the joint committee of the Parliament dealing with constitutional reform where the committee took the view that: >It is possible to exaggerate the adverse effects of making disputes a prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction by Federal industrial authorities. Again with respect, I would disagree with the view reached by His Honour, **Mr Justice** Kirby, in his Chartered Secretaries Research Lecture for 1967 when he said: >These paper disputes . . . need have no tinge or taint of violence or acrimony about them. I believe it is wrong psychologically that before 2 people can reach an area of agreement they must be in dispute and I think that Kingston was right in the 1898 Convention debate when he said: >I am a strong believer in the propriety of assisting the parties to a dispute to establish courts of conciliation in times of peace. Such courts are much more likely to be productive of good results if the trouble can be nipped in the bud than if you allow it to develop, and you have no means ready in initial stages to prevent its extension. It seems to me that you might just as well attempt to organise a fire brigade satisfactorily in the midst of a conflagration as attempt to establish a court of conciliation when the parties to a dispute are practically at each other's throats and determined to do all they possibly can to use to the utmost the strength with which they are possessed. That was Kingston's view 70 years ago. The power that this Parliament possesses today is utterly inadequate for the responsibilities which are cast upon it and it seems to me to be in the nature of a massive charade that the Parliament is asked to deal with disputes in this sector of 'he economy or in this part of the continent when in essence and in truth the Parliament has no power. May I turn to the difficulty which is aroused by the failure of the Parliament to confer on its bodies the power to pass a common rule. This is an absurdity surely in this day and age. In 1948 the Amalgamated Engineering Union lodged a log of claims relating to its employees. It bad to serve that log of claims on 13,000 employers. Think of the absurdity, **Mr Deputy Chairman.** I hope I do not offend any of my honourable friends. There is a massive amount of good sense in this place. If you want to have an argument with a man you do not go out and say: 'I want to argue with 13,000 men'. In the Graphic Arts Award in 1957 the printing industry had to go out and serve a log of claims on 2,492 individual employers as respondents. It is absurd, it is time consuming and it is expensive and I do not think that this country is in the position where it can afford any longer to put up with it. I do not want to offend any lurking sense of federalism that may exist on my side of the Parliament, but I have had enough of this and I believe that this Parliament and the people of this country should, in all conscience and in good sense, turn to the recommendation made by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review and ask that the power should be conferred on this Parliament to deal, as the Committee put it, with: . . peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to terms and conditions of industrial employment. That may upset some people, but they can get on the list as far as I am concerned. I join with the views passed by that most illustrious Australian, the late **Sir John** Latham, when he said in 1953 that the fear with respect to this power is illusory. He wrote: There is reluctance fn many quarters to approve any increase of federal power over industrial matters. . . . The prospect of an election is a great steadying influence. That was the view of a great judge. It was the view of a great Australian and I support it. The **DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)** - Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-35-s3 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I compliment the honourable member for Moreton **(Mr Killen)** on the contribution he has made. What he has said is of vital importance to this nation, and unless we heed the words of men like the honourable member for Moreton this country will get further and further into the morass that is now threatening to engulf the whole of our industrial relations. However, I do not agree with his view that the findings of the Constitutional Review Committee provide the answer. The Committee made the mistake of not really understanding the true High Court interpretation of the word 'industrial'. So we have to avoid, in any question put to the people by way of a referendum, any reference to limiting the powers that we seek in relation to industrial disputes. I suggest that what we must do is to alter the Constitution in order to enable the Parliament of the Commonwealth to establish industrial machinery for the resolution of all questions relating to, and the determination of, the terms and conditions of employment and the terms and conditions of contractual relationships with independent contractors; to extend Federal jurisdiction to State-employed teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters and the like; to give to the Commission power to grant applications for a common rule for all employers in a particular industry; to abolish the present system under which judicial and arbitral powers in industrial matters must be exercised by different bodies; to enable the Federal jurisdiction in industrial matters to be exercised by State industrial tribunals and wage boards; and to limit the High Court's power of intervention to cases where a question of law is referred to it. Under the present Constitution we are in the ridiculous position that we have powers as a parliament to make laws with respect to and concerning conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State. We have a whole host of High Court cases - 162 since Federation - trying to determine what the words 'conciliation' and 'arbitration' mean, and what is meant when we say 'prevention or settlement of disputes'. The word settlement' was thought to be an easily understood term. It was easily understood, I have no doubt, at the time the Constitution was written. No-one then had any doubt as to what was meant by an industrial dispute. But look at the decisions of the High Court since then. We find that industrial disputes' did not mean what the founders of this Federation thought the expression meant and intended it to mean but means something entirely different. We have to move and we have to move quickly. I hope that the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** will do something about this. It has been suggested by the Industrial Registrar that there ought to be a royal commission, on which commission there should be represented parties from the employers, the unions and other interested parties to work out exactly what powers we need so that when the question is framed and put to the people by way of referendum the powers that we eventually get from it will bc sufficient to do what we have to do. The honourable member for Moreton was quite right, too, when he took us back to the kind of Australia that existed at the time of Federation when these laws were first hammered out. At that time we were faced with only one kind of industrial dispute of any magnitude that we thought we would need to deal with. That was the great maritime strike which, because it was interstate in character, could not be dealt with by any parliaments of any of the individual sovereign States. The States had in mind more particularly perhaps the numerous shearers' strikes which preceded and followed the maritime strike. In fact, the maritime strike flared up, ended and did not recur. However, the shearers' strikes went on. They occurred in 1891, 1892, 1893 and 1894. There was the great shearers' strike of 1902 in the dispute between the Australian Workers Union and the Machine Shearers Union when, as a consequence of the alteration in 1901 to the New South Wales Industrial Arbitration Act which came into force in February of 1902, the 2 unions sought registration to cover the one field. The Australian Workers Union wanted to prove to the shearers that it was more militant than the Machine Shearers Union, which was correctly dubbed by the Australian Worker Union a bosses' organisation. So there was an outbreak of strikes all over the colonies. The States were not precisely colonies then but they had not realised it. There is a ridiculous situation now, as I shall show. We go to a theatre to see a play and a fire breaks out. We read in the newspapers next day a report about the fire and how someone came and put it out. However, the following situation emerges: The person who sold the insurance policy to the person who owns the theatre is covered by the industrial powers of the Commonwealth. The High Court has said so. The actors who were on the stage when the fire broke out also were carrying on industrial pursuits, according to the High Court. The journalists who have written about the fire and whose reports are published next day in the newspapers are carrying on industrial pursuits. However, the person who has come along and put the fire out is not covered by the industrial powers of the Commonwealth because he is not, according to learned judges of the High Court engaged in an industrial pursuit. **Mr Justice** Walsh alone of all of the High Court judges could see that the test that ought to be applied is not what the employer's industry is but what is the calling of the employee. If that test were applied fire fighters would be within the scope of the Commonwealth's power to deal with industrial matters concerning that industry. .School teachers cannot ba covered by the industrial powers of the Commonwealth, if they are employed by a State government but they can be covered if they are employed by a private school. Nurses cannot be covered if they are employed in a government hospital; they can be covered if they are working in a first aid room of an ordinary factory. A policeman cannot be covered presumably for the same reasons but a person who is doing policeman's work in the Metropolitan Security Service can be covered. The whole thing is quite ridiculous. The honourable member for Moreton has correctly drawn attention to the position of the common rule and the difficulty of establishing that a dispute exists. What a person has to do now is to show that he served a log of claims on the other side and that he has until the end of the dispute kept within the original log. Unless the log of claims is wide enough to take care of any eventuality that might arise from the serving of the original log to when one decides to serve another 18,000 logs on the pastoralists of Australia, then one is out of court. So what he has to do in order to keep within ambit is to make a claim for $200 a week in wages, a 25-hour week and triple time for overtime, and other exaggerated claims. Then we have the position as enunciated by the High Court which said that there is no power within the Commonwealth Constitution to deal with managerial policy. Yet, more than 50 per cent of the industrial disputes and man-days lost are as a consequence of managerial policy or disputes arising therefrom. We cannot settle a demarcation dispute unless we can show that the original log of claims related to the demarcation dispute. As **Mr Justice** Dixon said, a man would need remarkable foresight, when he lodged his original log of claims, to be able to see in 10 years time that there was going to be a demarcation dispute in one of the factories in one of the States and unless one can do that then one is out of court. In 1930 the Scullin Government believed that the establishment of conciliation committees would answer a very urgent need for conciliation in the pastoral industry and other industries like it. The High Court said that this could not be done, conciliation committees consisting as they did of laymen could not exercise judicial powers of the Commonwealth. Since the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration at that time was still a judicial body, all of its powers were treated as judicial and there was not any way of determining or producing a dichotomy of power that then existed. So these conciliation committees were tilled invalid. I believe that the greatest mistake ever made was when the boilermakers won the 1956 challenge to the arbitral powers being exercised by a judicial body. It is absolutely ridiculous that judges who make awards are not the ones given the responsibility of interpreting them. One presidential member makes the award and he sends the interpretation of it to a foreign body to tell the parties what the motives were, what the spirit was of the settlement of a particular dispute. This is an urgent thing. This transcends in importance all other aspects of industrial relations. Unless this Government and the government that follows it next year moves, and moves rapidly- The **DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)** - Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-35-s4 .speaker-L0N} ##### Mr WHITTORN:
Balaclava -- As has been said, this section of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1971-72 deals with the Department of Labour and National Service and is covered by Division 370, 372 and 374. The main problems associated with the Department of Labour and National Service are connected with conciliation and arbitration. The 3 speakers who have preceded me have talked about conciliation and arbitration and the problems connected with it from 3 different points of view. All of them, in some way, have made a contribution to this debate. From an idealistic point of view I agree with the honourable member for Moreton **(Mr Killen)** when he spoke of the need for conciliation and arbitration to be Commonwealthwide. Most of us realise that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, for which the Commonwealth is blamed by the Press and by members from both sides of this chamber, has a responsibility for only 40 per cent of the workers in Australia. In all there are 7 wage tribunals, if we like to call them that, each approaching the problem from a different point of view, so the Commonwealth responsibility is for only 40 per cent of the work force. Whilst the honourable member for Stirling **(Mr Webb)** talked about the carpenters' award and seemed to blame the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** and the Government for that award recently proclaimed, it is my understanding that this was a State award and the State tribunal made a decision which does cause flow-ons with other tribunals throughout the Commonwealth and so the Commonwealth Government is involved. It is my personal belief that union leaders, particularly militant union leaders, take advantage of the lack of cohesion from the point of view of this Government and the State governments. Their job, of course, is to get the best deal for the workers. (Quorum formed) The militant union leaders, the socialists in Australia, take advantage of the system and endeavour to get for union members the best deal that is possible. No doubt this is what they are employed to do. I believe, however, that they are, because of our processess of democracy, debauching the democratic system as we know it. I believe that ultimately, if they keep on with these pressures, they will debauch the economy of Australia, they will impose then their own tyranny on the workers of Australia and the end result will be that the workers will be losers, not management as we know it today. Even the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** has said that 80 per cent of the people of Australia are workers. I have no doubt he meant, as I mean, that workers are included in management as well as on the floor of factories and on the farms. The interests of workers can best be served by militant union leaders by calling for increasing productivity. With the bigger cake that we might have as a result of increased productivity more and more might be given to those who are responsible for it. This has not been the recipe in the past and I cannot see any variation in future by the Minister exhorting union leaders and other people to do more and more whilst the present system permeates our society. We have heard the Government talk about amending the Conciliation and Arbitration Act but I believe that all the Minister will do is repaint various sections of the Act and refurnish other parts of it and the union leaders will take advantage of the new sections just as in the past they have taken advantage of the old sections. Frankly, I believe that a confrontation must take place between union leaders, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government itself to bring home not only to the Government but also to the workers and their leaders the real need for workers to produce this larger cake - a larger gross national product - rather than to continue as they are doing and price Australia out of international affairs. If the honourable member for Robertson **(Mr Cohen)** wants to price us out of international commerce and exchange, that is his business, but I believe that the Australian workers are as good as any in the world. I believe, too. having been in many factories throughout the world that we have management that can compare with managements throughout the world. I believe we have the wherewithal, ability and people to do the job that should be done. The real problem is this constant holding up of production - the strikes that are engineered by union leaders against the good will and good thought of most Australians. The Minister's problem is to endeavour to convey to the unionists - I know he has been having meetings with the ACTU - the need to make a bigger cake. The honourable member for Stirling spoke of the fact that prices increase and therefore wages have to increase. It was the old story. I wonder whether he has looked at the figures submitted by the Bureau of Census and Statistics. Those figures detail rises in the consumer price index in each of the years from 1964 to 1971, the average increase being 3 per cent. In the same period the average weekly earnings increased by something over 7 per cent. In 1970-71 the increase in average weekly earnings was 10.1 per cent and I have been told that the average weekly earnings for the current year will be an even higher percentage. Productivity is the cake that is shared or should be shared by workers and management. In 1964-65 productivity increased by 3.6 per cent. In 1965-66 there was no increase; there was a negative quantity, minus 1.4 per cent. In 1969-70 productivity increased by 2.1 per cent. The need for increased productivity is the problem that tyrannises Australia and the work force will be the losers in the long run. Recently the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesman on industrial matters went before the people of Australia and told them what a good party the Australian Labor Party would be in government. It would fine the workers S20 each if they did not behave themselves and the industrialists $200. However we saw an instant industrial relations change. Within 48 hours of a caucus meeting being held the whole line-up of Opposition members capitulated to the trade union movement. The people of Australia who were looking, with some trepidation perhaps, to what the Opposition might do if it gained government went back to their homes in relief. They realised that the Opposition was soft-hearted and that it could not carry through with its theoretical proposals. The Leader of the Opposition and his spokesman on industrial matters recanted within 48 hours. I invite members opposite to tell the Committee what happened at the caucus meeting which was held on Wednesday 2 weeks ago. I should like to hear the honourable member for Sturt **(Mr Foster)** tell us about it, because we know what we read in the newspapers. We saw the headline: 'A New Life Coming From the Leader of the Opposition'. The **DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)** - Order! The honourable member's time has expired. **Mr FitzPATRICK** (Darling) (10.20) - The standard of living of all sections of our community depends to a large degree on the smooth operation of the Department of Labour and National Service and *thi* smooth operation of the various functions that are its responsibility. The appropriation of $12,500,000, a large sum of money in my opinion, could be justified only when it is used for the compilation of industrial statistics coupled with unbiased interpretation of those statistics, when it is used to build industrial harmony between employer and employee and when it is used to remove artificial or imaginary barriers that exist between one section of our community and another. f believe there is some evidence to show tha; the Department has no intention of making an unbiased interpretation and evidence to show that it cares little for industrial harmony or rising prices. On the contrary it has been used at least some of the time to divide our community and to turn one section against another. It is being used to cover up for the many weaknesses of this Government and to place the blame on the trade unions. At a time when pensioners, mothers of school age children and others are forced to pay more and more for goods and services due to legislation brought down by the State and Federal governments, all we hear in this Parliament is that the workers' wages are causing inflation. Yet everyone knows that the worker is forced to fight for higher wages in order to survive. The Treasury publication 'The Australian Economy 1971' gives some indication of what is happening to the man forced to rely on wage rates alone. This may not be the best example but it does give a fair indication of what is happening to the man forced to work at wage rates. At page 7 it states: >The consumer price index for the last December and March quarters showed the price escalation had effectively reached a rate of 6 per cent. On page 14 it shows that wage rates rose by 5.7 per cent in 1970 and that average weekly earnings had risen by 8.2 per cent. The publication admits that a large part of the increase in average weekly earnings was due to an increase in the overtime worked. It states: >According to the Survey of Larger Factories, the amount of overtime worked increased by 7.S per cent in 1969. It goes on to state: >It is seen that over this period weekly wage rates have consistently risen at a slower rate than average earnings. In 1969, however, the discrepancy between the respective growth rates widened markedly. Average earnings grew SO per cent faster than in the previous year while weekly wage rates grew only 3 per cent faster. I repeat: Average earnings grew 50 per cent faster than in the previous year while weekly wage rates grew only 3 per cent faster. In other words, if a person is depending on the wage rate for a particular classification and he is not strong enough or healthy enough or is unable for other reasons to work overtime or to work at contract rates, or to hold down 2 jobs, he is like the pensioner. Average earnings and prices are leaving him for dead. Is it any wonder that the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** and the honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr Bury)** are trying to find work for married women while single girls walk the streets looking for jobs? Everyone has a lot of sympathy for a mother of 2 or 3 school age children if the husband does not work overtime and the family depends only on his wage rate for the family income. She must be finding it very hard to make ends meet in the face of all the rising costs, but I do not think the solution should be that she should have to go out to work while the children get themselves off to school and return home to an empty house. In a country that has so many natural resources surely families can expect something better than this. Everyone knows that at the present time there are too many industrial disputes in this country. But all the Government does is to place the blame on Bob Hawke and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Yet we would have half as many industrial disputes in this country if the Department of Labour and National Service spent half as much time trying to settle the industrial disputes as it spends in trying to destroy the trade unions. The Minister and the honourable member for Wentworth show little inclination to grapple with areas of industrial unrest but instead they have made a concentrated and unwarranted attack on an area that has the best industrial record in New South Wales if not in the whole of Australia. In answer to a couple of pre-arranged questions the Minister made a degrading remark about where a trade unionist wore his badge on badge show day and said that Broken Hill was an example of excessive union power, or words to that effect. If the Minister wanted to tell the truth about this great city that has contributed so much to the development of Australia he would not have to search far to find it. I draw the attention of the chamber to the 'Journal of Industrial Relations' Volume 7, No. 2, of July 1965. **Mr S.** C. Taylor, speaking of Broken Hill industrial affairs, at page 101 stated: >The city is reasonably free from industrial trouble as we understand it in other parts of the State. Quite a lot of bargaining and what would appear to the uninformed observer 'messing about' goes on before an agreement is entered into. Once entered into it is observed. This is not to mean that there is no industrial friction. There is. But there is not the pattern of strike action which persists in other parts of New South Wales, particularly, in the cities where the industries are. Again I quote from page 102 where he states: >It is necessary to refer briefly to the position of the Barrier Industrial Council in these matters. This body is a grouping of delegates from all unions and its functioning is the ultimate authority in industrial relations in Broken Hill. The Council has a long history and has been officered by some sincere and intelligent men. I want to point out to the Parliament that the S. C. Taylor referred to was **Mr Justice** Taylor, past-President of the New South Wales Industrial Commission. He was largely responsible for the industrial relations on the Snowy Mountains project, which broke world records for tunnelling and associated works. With all due respect to the Minister and the honourable member for Wentworth, I do not think that there would be very many people in Australia who would seek their opinion on industrial relations before that of this great man. If further evidence is required, I ask the Parliament to examine the 'Industrial Labour Review', Volume 103 of May 1971. At page 443 Dianne Yerbury and J. E. Isaac state: >All the agreements are made - and strictly observed - for a 3-year period, with the result that Broken Hill has enjoyed a quite exceptional record of industrial peace and stability. 1 will table these documents and advise the Minister that if he wants industrial peace in the nation he should examine them, but if he wants to use the trade union movement only as a smoke screen for a discredited government and wants to breed disruption and hatred in industrial relations, an examination of the statement made by the Barrier Industrial Council in the 'Barrier Daily Truth* on 20th August will give him some idea of the progress he is making. I would like to have seen this incorporated in Hansard but the Minister tells me he is not prepared to agree to that. Part of the statement reads: > >The ranting and raving that has been going on in Federal Parliament since the unfortunate death of Harold Holt sickens the average Australian, who realises we have no statesmen, only a pack of coalition politicians apparently hellbent on fostering another depression worse than that of the 30s. This statement is available to anyone who wants to see it. In the short time remaining to me I will read a letter which the General Manager of the Silverton Tramway Co. wrote when he left Broken Hill. His letter to me states: >Dear John, > >Herewith copy of my letter to the B.I.C. at the time of my leaving Broken Hill, which you requested I make available for you for your Parliamentary use. Enclosed is another letter as follows: > **Mr J.** P. Keenan > >President, > >Barrier Industrial Council, > >Trades Hall, BROKEN HILL 2880. > >Dear **Mr Keenan** > >After 22 years in Broken Hill I am as you are aware shortly to leave this city and take up residence in Melbourne in employment with the parent company of Silverton. > >Of my 22 years in Broken Hill, 19 years have been as the General Manager of the Silverton Tramway Company. . . . {: #debate-35-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:
Mr Drury -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-35-s6 .speaker-KU8} ##### Dr SOLOMON:
Denison (Quorum formed) I suppose there are few things in the Australian society that are more basic than the relationship between labour and management. It is a great misfortune that the situation in the Australian industrial area now is what I would regard as outdated by some decades. The situation has been exemplified, I believe, most recently by the inability of the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** and his shadow Minister for Labour and National Service, at least in their policy, to bring into being an operation which could be seen to be reasonably enlightened and to show some reasonable sense of responsibility in relation to agreements entered into between employers and employees. The fact that they were not able for more than a few days to sustain that particular introduction and amendment to policy is, I think, a terrible reflection on the inability of Labor mentality in this country to move in the direction which 1 believe, and which I believe the general public believes, is right. Perhaps the motivating mentality is the same kind of mentality which calls vexatious quorums in this House throughout the day, even to the point of interrupting a speech of a colleague. We know very well that nobody, no area, no group is singly responsible for industrial unrest in this or in any other country. It would be stupid to pretend that management here or anywhere else is perfect. Nevertheless the attempts made with and without the assistance of the Department of Labour and National Service, whose estimates we are now considering, as by the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia - although it still has a long way to go in the direction of getting smaller operators into the area of its operations - are the sort of attempts that are certainly working in the direction of improving productivity and industrial relations and all the things associated with those 2 subjects in this country. It is in the light of these trends and these efforts that it is a great misfortune, as I said earlier, that we should have a growing situation of strikes and unrest in industry in this country. It is nothing less than deplorable that the acclimatisation programme which has gone on since the earlier 1960s in the area of the white collar workers has been as effective as we have seen it become. The fact that this follows world trends in the direction of increasing strikes is little comfort for those who are affected by it. I mean in particular the public who have no part in these strikes. Perhaps the degree of operation in this direction into the area of semi-professional labour, and the seriousness with which the campaign is waged are indicated by the sorts of things that are produced against those who have genuine labour interests at heart but who do not share the decided left wing views of some of those who are responsible for the strikes from which we get adverse benefit. 1 have particularly in mind the sort of brochure, a copy of which I have with mc now, produced to denigrate the person of **Mr Harradine** at a recent conference which involved unions throughout the country. The things which are levelled against a person who works long and hard, as is generally known, in the direction of improving labour relations or the lot of tha working man, as he is sometimes called, are a great pity. The fact that he can be spoken of and written about as one who, by his own admission 'is a drop-out from the priesthood and a former executive member of the DLP' seems to have little place in genuine attempts to operate constructively in the area of labour relations and to the good of labour. These things are generally accepted by members of the community these days. Perhaps holding executive membership of the Australian Democratic Labor Party would not be common, but certainly dropping out from the priesthood and other institutions is very small peas as an allegation about somebody who is fully employed in the interests of his fellow working men. I could have a great deal to say about this brochure in the 5 minutes remaining to me, but I do not intend to do that. I just draw attention to those points to show how small minded this operation can become. Whether or not one spends time in a trade union movement or in the labour relations area in smearing the Harradines of this world because they are not sufficiently to the Left, the fact is that wages lost in Australian industry in 1970 were of the order of $30m. Shipping companies were down $20m or $30m in the space of a few weeks. (Quorum formed) {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I rise to order. I ask that the honourable member for Angas **(Mr Giles),** who is out of his place and who interjected with an offensive remark when the quorum was called, be required to withdraw that remark. The **DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)** - I did not hear any offensive remark, but if there was one- r {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- We heard it on this side of the chamber, so I think it should have been heard on the other side of the chamber. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- If any offensive remark was made I ask that it be withdrawn. {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr Giles: -- May I reply? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The honourable member has been asked to withdraw a remark. {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr Giles: -- I made no offensive remark whatsoever. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- Honourable members could hear it from this side of the House. {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr Giles: -- Would the honourable member mind repeating it? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! No offensive remark was heard at the table. I call the honourable member for Denison. {: .speaker-KU8} ##### Dr SOLOMON: -- The state of puerility of honourable members opposite who continue to call vexatious quorums has deprived me of the better half of the time for my 10 minute speech. It proves the point I was making. This is what we are contending with. When people reach the stage of maturity when they can talk sensibly about issues with other people instead of making stupid and unnecessary interventions, perhaps industrial relations in this country will approach something near sanity. To attain the productivity which has often been spoken of in this House in recent times requires the co-operation of both sides of the industrial scene. I have made small mention of how the employeremployee area is trying to work in this direction with the assistance of the Department of Labour and National Service whose estimates we are discussing. It is not good enough that there is general disinterest in Australia, by general acknowledgement, compared with overseas interests, in productivity in the union area - the area of the workers. I sympathise with the workers who are so poorly led. I do not believe that the average Australian workman is as disinterested in his job as his leader tends to make him. But in fact this is a critical area and if Australia grows at something like *2i* per cent per annum of gross national product per worker as compared with the growth of 4 per cent or 5 per cent or more of countries like Italy, Japan and Scandinavia, that is not going to get us very far along the direction of greater prosperity for the Australian populace. Finally, because my time has been greatly taken, I should like to say that while the industrial relations area in the form of the trade unions contents itself with forcing compulsory unionism on people, with striking unnecessarily and with isolating States like Tasmania from the point of view of shipping and all that that implies in Tasmania, the situation will not improve in the direction in which I believe the Department of Labour and National Service is trying, in difficult circumstances, to make it improve. {: #debate-35-s7 .speaker-JOU} ##### Mr BENNETT:
Swan -- I regret the tone of Government speakers in the debate on the estimates for the Department of Labour and National Service not only at this time but also on previous occasions. It has been one of direct criticism and direct provocation of the working man - the family man. Government speakers have constantly attacked loyal citizens, many of whom have adopted this country as their new home and many of whom who have defended this country as loyal servicemen, and housewives who, because of inflation, have had to go to work and, because they arc workers, have joined the appropriate organisations which represent them in advocating improved working conditions and which are more commonly known as trade unions. Once members or office bearers of trade unions these people become targets of constant attack by Government supporters who, regardless of the true feelings of those they are attacking, say things under the privilege of Parliament against which ' the trade unionists cannot defend themselves. It is incredible that these self-same people who offer this criticism are not prepared to confer or to act to prevent further problems. I instance the unemployment situation which exists in Australia, and I refer in particular to the Western Australian building industry and its dependent industries. As late as last Friday the group of building unions in Western Australia sent a telegram to the Acting Prime Minister **(Mr Anthony)** requesting that he send the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** to Western Australia to inspect the unemployment situation at first hand so that he would be in a position to act properly in this matter and would be able to gauge personally the distress of the people affected. To date, nothing has been acknowledged nor, for that matter, has there been any glimmer of hope for these people, who have an official registered figure of 364 unemployed. However, this is not a true figure, for it does not take into account the worker who is receiving part-time employment for one, 2 or 3 days a week. The union estimates that the true figure is actually closer to 675 unemployed. This does not take into consideration the contractor in the building profession without union affiliation who is likewise affected and who is receiving only part time employment and is fast approaching bankruptcy with the additional burden of the normal Christmas recession in this industry. Building approvals at the normal ratio at this time of the year are approximately 1,400 a month. But approvals are down to an all time low of approximately 950 a month. Money is available from a few building societies at fairly high interest rates, but the public confidence has been shattered. There is no immediate demand. With this Government's constant rattling of the war drums in its determination to confront the trade union movement, to force strikes upon the family man who can ill afford them, it is in an atmosphere of extreme despair that some of the building workers in Western Australia are considering a strike meeting next week in an attempt to determine what action they can take, such as the banning of overtime or voluntary short time. This is a disastrous situation - a depression situation - brought on by the policies of this Government. But it is not only the worker who is suffering. The building companies themselves are also in difficulties. So far, 18 companies have folded this year owing some $2m and, according to reputable company liquidators in Perth, the position is fast becoming worse. Still the Minister fails to act, even though allied industries - groups involved in hardware, sheetmetal and roofing - are closing down. One group of 4 companies in roofing and sheetmetal went into liquidation owing $112,000. No doubt further reaction will be felt in due course as the deficiencies are passed on to smaller businessmen and contractors in the so called deflationary spiral. I wish to quote in this respect the remarks of **Mr Mitchell,** the President of the Master Builders Association of Western Australia, who said that the industry was gravely concerned over the downfall of building companies in 1971. He stated: >I have recently held meetings with the Allied Trades Association and the Chamber of Commerce to discuss this problem. We all agree that things are going to get worse before they get better. Unless the Federal Government changes its stop go policy towards the industry, many more people are going to be caught. **Mr Mitchell** said further that the MBA had warned the Federal Government 2 years ago that a number of builders would be ruined unless something was done to help the industy, but no-one took any notice. This Government was warned as far back as 2 years ago; yet it has followed still this deliberate unemployment policy which is wrecking even its own supporters because *of* its callous disregard for the final outcome. For the Government to foreshadow to this Parliament a Bill relating to industrial relations and to present the estimates of the Department of Labour and National Service for consideration without offering a solution to these problems is beyond the comprehension of the ordinary man in the street, lt is to be hoped that the Minister will offer some assurances to the people concerned, will indicate his intention to offer some answer to the employment situation and will commence to offer some solutions in the area of the administration of conciliation of which honourable members opposite speak so much. One must realise that no Commonwealth conciliator is based in Western Australia to deal immediately with Federal disputes. All conciliators must come from the eastern States. It is about time that consideration was given to an increase in the size of the staff to deal with disputes which result from the industrial climate provoked by insecurity and unemployment. Employees are even less able to bear the cost of extended disputes because the advantage of conciliators being immediately available to consider those disputes does not exist. How much of the time lost in disputes is attributable to this lack? It would be better to give over-attention than lack of attention to these people. These administrators of industrial peace should have sufficient time available not only to know the industry in Perth but also to know the people involved in employer administration and union administration in all States. In this way not only might they solve problems but also might foresee them and advise the Minister and his Department in time to ensure action before a dispute arises and not after a dispute occurs as is now the case. This might reduce some of the political advantage that enables the ruling party of the time to gain votes, but it would ensure smoother industrial relations. It is imperative that some action be taken in this area of prevention. This is preferable to threats from distant Canberra or wherever the Government may be making its latest threatening noises. Action in the area of preventive conciliation is needed urgently. We do not need the creation of artificial disputes between workers and employers to benefit the outside interests of governments. This has been suggested by the Acting Prime Minister as an election issue to save a government. The offer of assistance to employer and worker organisations to assist in solving their differences is what the Australian public seeks, and not a constant stirring of these problems with the added burden of unemployment being encouraged or not prevented in certain industries. With national unemployment in excess of 61,848, the Building Workers Union in Western Australia has requested the Federal Government to make a special grant of $5m out of the estimated Budget surplus of $630m to assist the Western Australian building industry. I hope that the Minister will endeavour to go to Western Australia to survey the situation and for once to sit down to talk rather than to threaten. He should find out just what is needed to bolster the confidence not only of the workers but also of the employers and the general public. Action, not talk, is the challenge. Let us have industrial peace. Let us not use the trade unions as a whipping boy. Let the Government realise that it is industry generally which suffers from outside attack. {: #debate-35-s8 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr LLOYD:
Murray **- Mr Deputy Chairman,** I wish to devote the time available to me to the question of appren tice training. In particular I refer to the country apprenticeship scheme which is the responsibility of the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** and his Department. The costs of this scheme form part of the total estimated Budget expenditure of $20. 5m for this Department for this year. In Australia and overseas some recent comment has been made on the possible oversupply of the products of tertiary education. Reference has been made to the continuing shortage of skilled tradesmen and technicians, the products of apprentice training and related training schemes. In addition to the general problem of apprentice training there is the special problem of country apprentices. The recent and continuing decline in farm income has resulted in an increasing number of farmers' sons and farm-minded country town boys seeking an alternative to farm employment. Unfortunately, this farm recession also has reduced the ability of the majority of employers in provincial cities to provide apprentice training for these people. Figures provided by the manager of the United Bearing Corporation Pty Ltd in Echuca and obtained from the Victorian Apprenticeship Commission show that the number of apprentices in country areas in Victoria declined by more than 8 per cent between June 1968 and July 1971. In Echuca only 10 per cent of students doing trade courses at the Echuca Technical College will be able to enter apprentice training in the area. This year the United Bearing Corporation - the major engineering works at Echuca - had 30 applications for the 10 positions provided by it. The official quota for the factory is 5 apprentices. I acknowledge the predominant responsibility of the States and individual employers for apprentice training, and I congratulate the present Government on its foresight in introducing the country apprentice scheme in 1963. Since its inception, I am told by the Department of Labour and National Service, the scheme has cost more than $3m and, in 1970-71, 970 employers were paid more than $400,000 in incentive payments and 738 apprentices received more than $150,000 in living away from home allowances. However, the scheme and its financial incentives have not been altered since 1963 and now is an opportune time to revalue the incentives and amend some of the provisions. The scope should be widened from the present 5 industries to include all proclaimed trades or at least those trades in which there is considerable country employment, such as that of textile mechanics, and those which provide greater scope for the employment of girls as apprentices. A reduction of the averaging period from 5 to 4 years, in line with the reduction of the length of apprenticeship generally, also would be a step in the right direction. The living away from home allowance, of $5.25 a week for a first year apprentice and $2 a week for a second year apprentice doing a 5-year course, has remained unchanged since the Act was introduced. Because of the erosion of monetary values, this should be upgraded or revalued. The Minister mentioned that this aspect was under review, and I would welcome an early announcement of his decision. Similarly, the amount paid to employers as an incentive, of $26 a month for each apprentice employed above the average intake of apprentices for the previous 5 years, also should be increased and we should alter the basis of the incentive provided by the scheme. At present, once an employer has taken advantage of the incentive for 5 years he is no longer entitled to any incentive assistance. With the problems presently being encountered in provincial cities, employers are having sufficient trouble employing their ratio of apprentices without adding to that trouble. I suggest that it would be to the advantage of the scheme for the basis of the incentive to be altered so that the incentive would be paid in respect of every extra apprentice above the recommended tradesman/ apprentice ratio, forgetting about the number of apprentices above the average for the previous 4 or 5 years, and/or paid to those who employ the maximum number provided by this ratio. This is a valuable scheme, but I believe that it could be improved to the general advantage of the nation, with its requirement for skilled tradesmen, country industry, employment in country areas and young rural people requiring a new skill because of the rural recession. {: #debate-35-s9 .speaker-K9J} ##### Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP -- Rural issues aside, I suppose that wages and industrial unrest probably are the most mentioned matters in this House. Whenever another Government inspired crisis looms the blame is placed on demands for wage increases, the high wages now being paid and/or industrial unrest. The fault is laid always at the door of that curse of the non-working class, the trade union movement. The spirit of the Conservatives who schemed, legislated, bullied and bludgeoned in an endeavour to prevent men from organising themselves for their mutual benefit is embodied in those honourable members sitting opposite on the Government side of the House tonight. They have never forgiven the workers for having the temerity to suggest that they should conduct their own affairs without the benevolent but firm hand to guide them. Generations later the Conservatives are still scheming, legislating, bullying and even bludgeoning workers in an endeavour to prevent them organising. Members of our society clearly stand in 2 camps, those who seek and those who deny. Over the years workers have fought for and gained many benefits, including the 8-hour day, the right to form unions, the right to vote, workers' compensation, paid leave for recreation and illness, the abolition of child labour and many other things. During the course of those campaigns the calamity howlers wailed that the country would not be able to afford those things and that the nation would become bankrupt. There were also angry cries of: Who the hell do they think they are?' We can still hear the cries of the Conservatives at the time of the introduction of paid leave, the £10 basic wage and especially the 40-hour week. There were forecasts of doom by the prophets who sit opposite. The same forecasts are made today about the 35-hour week and the claim for an extra week's leave. A little more consistency on the part of the Government would help to clarify the cloudy position. It is not good enough for shabby arguments to be presented simply for party political gain. We have often heard members of the Government tell us how prosperous the community is and how healthy the economy is - and of course credit is claimed by the members of this LiberalCountry Party coalition Government. Yet they still insist that working hours should be lengthened, recreation leave reduced and wages lowered. Surely, when speaking of prosperity it should follow, to be consistent, that that prosperity be shared by the community and that no section should be excluded. History has shown that the knockers were wrong and future historians will record that present day knockers also were wrong. One thing that seems to preoccupy honourable members on the Government side is adding up the number of man-days lost through industrial stoppages. There was quite a fad some weeks ago for Government supporters to speak of 2 million man-days being lost last year through industrial action. There was a vague attempt somehow to associate members of the Australian Labor Party, through unions and strikes, with members of the Communist Party. However, even the most assiduous can-kicking rabid anti-Communist opposite could not quite find the association he hoped existed. This disappointment was coupled with a realisation that 4.5 million man-days are worked each day and the fact that 2 million man-days were lost each year seemed somewhat insignificant by comparison. Perhaps we should take note of what the honourable **Sir Richard** Kirby said in the fourteenth annual report of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. He said: >The present Australian industrial context compares well when one reads of the frequency and intensity of overseas industrial problems, some leading to violent actions. We of course have our fair share of strikes and so on but these on the whole are high in frequency but short in duration. This is a tribute to a system which allows for quick resolution of contentious matters where things other than money are involved. We should also look closely at the statistics relating to industrial stoppages. The 'Commonwealth Year Book' for 1970 contains tables of the latest statistics available on industrial disputes and causes as at 1969. Stoppages of only 10 man days or more are listed, and they are listed under 4 headings: Wages, hours and leave'; 'Physical working conditions and managerial policy'; 'Trade unionism'; and 'Other'. They are worth investigating singly. Wages, hours and leave, which accounted for 34 per cent of the stoppages in 1969, arc obvious causes, and in this area employers can be as culpable as employees. The adoption of arrogant attitudes, stonewalling and frustrating and delaying tactics can test the patience of the most stoic worker. In times of over production the employer has a vested interest in a stoppage of work, and he can generally bring one about if he so desires. Physical working conditions and managerial policy accounted for 51 per cent of all stoppages, and in this area workers would be far less to blame than employers. Men cannot be expected to work under unsafe or unhealthy or even uncomfortable conditions, lt should be remembered that it is estimated that 14,000 industrial accidents occur each working day. Managerial policy, seems to carry a sinister connotation and can hardly be associated with workers. Trade unionism was the cause of 9 per cent of stoppages and the category 'Other' 6 per cent. 1 assume that the latter category includes those so-called terrible political strikes about which we hear from honourable members opposite. It is beyond my comprehension why the Government wants to aggravate the situation by imposing penal provisions on workers who withdraw their labour. Many books have been written on the question of industrial relations, not the least of which was one prepared in 1970 on the advice of the Department of Labour and National Service, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the National Employers Policy Committee. At that time **Mr Snedden** was Minister for Labour and National Service. One of the guidelines suggested for settling disputes - which are very informative - is the first one, which states: >There shall be effective means of consultation between employers and their employees and unions on all matters of mutual interest and concern. . . . The imposition of penal clauses on workers can lead only to an aggravation of any situation. To draw an analogy, the representatives and executives of big business who sit on the Government side of the chamber, would scream the roof off this building if the selling price of a product were fixed, as are the wages of a worker, and it became uneconomic to manufacture a product, as it sometimes becomes uneconomic for a worker to sell his labour, and the manufacturer were forced by legislation to continue to manufacture. If the manufacturer withdrew his product, in the same way as a worker withdraws his labour when he finds himself in an uneconomic position, and if the manufacturers were then fined for withdrawing it, I am sure that not one honourable member opposite would say that that was a fair, reasonable and equitable situation. But that is exactly the position in which a worker finds himself.- If it becomes uneconomical for him to sell his labour or if the price he receives for his labour is unsatisfactory and he withdraws it he is driven back to work with whips, he is fined, his organisation is fined and penalties are imposed upon him. If our society or our community is as fair and equitable as supporters of the Government believe it to be they would be looking for improvements to all sections of the community rather than only to the workers, those who produce. (Quorum formed.) {: #debate-35-s10 .speaker-KGA} ##### Mr HALLETT:
Canning -- The estimates which are before the Committee at the moment are for the Department of Labour and National Service. The appropriation amounts to some $20. 5m, which represents a considerable increase -on last year's figure of $16,275,978. It is interesting to note the areas in which some of these increases have in fact taken place. I shall mention only one or two of them at this stage. The appropriation for financial assistance to .. apprenticeship - training amounts to $700,000 in this year's estimates whereas the expenditure last year was $569,708. If one moves down the list a little one will find that the appropriation for the employment training scheme for Aborigines amounts -to $154,000 as against the expenditure of $94,932 last year. There has also been a considerable increase in the provision for the employment training school for women from the expenditure last year of $138,784 to the appropriation of $225,000 this financial year. Having said that I would like to say one or two words about the industrial situation in Australia at the moment. The honourable member for Burke **(Mr Keith Johnson),** who was the previous speaker, said that the wages and salaries of employees are fixed but the prices received for goods sold are not. That is true in many cases. But let me remind the honourable member that the price of a tremendous amount of the prodution in this country which finds its way overseas is in fact fixed. If he were to study the situation very closely the honourable member would find that not only are the prices of these products fixed but also that they have been moving downwards considerably in the last few years. It is also a fact that the industries which produce these goods - the primary industries - have to meet the increases in costs brought about by the various increases in wages and salaries and also to meet the general increases in costs in this country. Those industries are at an extreme disadvantage in that situation. In view of the fact that from an export point of view we rely on our primary industries to keep the economy healthy, it is time all Australia sat up and took notice of what is in fact going on. The industrial relations situation is a very important area indeed of the total scene in Australia today. As I said in this chamber a few days ago, it is necessary for not only the employer and the employee but also each and every government and each and every individual in this country to sit up and take notice of what is happening. We have a rapidly growing work force. I believe that it is the wish of everybody in this Parliament and everybody in Australia that this work force shall continue to be employed. If it is going to be gainfully employed it must be working on a sound economic -basis. We cannot allow wages, salaries and prices to continue to soar as they have been soaring iri recent times if we want to capture markets not only here in Australia but also overseas. At this time we are desperately looking for markets. It has been interesting to note that our sales of manufactured goods have increased over the last few years. From memory, I think they amount to something like 20 per cent of our total exports. But we cannot expect this to continue, when we look at the figures which have been produced in recent times for the increase in costs in this country. This must damage our situation. It must retard our opportunities to take advantage of the markets overseas. All the disruption that has been going on in industry over the last year or two has certainly aggravated conditions in the total scene. Australia cannot afford that situation. Over the last few years we have seen a tremendous development - in the main, in my own State - in the mining industries. For instance, we have been able to capture certain markets overseas for our minerals. We would like to go on and develop those minerals. I hope that this trend will continue. But if we do not watch our production lines and if we do not watch our costs in this country we will be in trouble. As I said before, we are many miles from markets in the northern hemisphere. With increased costs in this country coupled with the excessive freights which are operating throughout the world we will be in trouble in developing these industries. It behoves everybody to look at industrial relations in this country. I am not going to blame any particular section of industry - whether it be employers or employees - at this stage. We have a Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which has been working in this country for a long time. Having exhausted that one area of arbitration, we cannot endeavour to force the employers to pay even more money, upon threat of strikes. (Quorum formed) One of the many reasons why a lot of industry came to this country in the last few years was that people in other countries had confidence in the atmosphere here and in our cost structure. If we destroy that confidence with the continual disruption of industry we will lose a lot of the expected industry that might have come to this country. The workers whom we would like to see employed would certainly not be employed. That is a fact of life, and it can be shown right around the world. As I said, at this time I do not attempt to blame either the employers or the employees. We do need good leadership in industry today. This applies not only to employees but also to the employers. I had something to do with this type of operation before I came into this Parliament, and I have known many occasions when agreements should have been reached between the employers and the employees but could not be reached on a satisfactory basis. With good sound leadership which does not cause political strikes but which is intent upon getting better conditions for the employees and which does not achieve these ends in the political sphere, I believe that we will resolve many of these points that have been raised here tonight. It is imperative to see that the cost price spiral does not continue in the way in which it has been proceeding in the last 2 years. It is beyond this country to stand that sort of thing It is to be hoped that both the employers and the employees and all those involved in these matters in this country will settle down, get on with the job and continue to build this country in the manner in which we would like to see it built. {: #debate-35-s11 .speaker-KGN} ##### Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest -- I think in the last couple of days we hate seen the nadir of government administration and policy approach reached with the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister **(Mr Anthony)** that he expected that there would be an early election next year fought on issues of industrial relations because the Government intends to bring in such industrial legislation as will create trouble and cause strikes. Having done that the Government will go to the people and hope that it will be returned because of the trouble which it apparently set out to cause. Having set out to create this situation, since it anticipates that that is what will occur, the Government will then be returned to office. I think in the circumstances those are good tactics because we have seen over the last couple of years that this Government is completely devoid of any constructive and worthwhile policies, and its only ability is that of reaction. No positive steps have been taken to come to grips with the unemployment situation, which is worsening. The Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** said that by Christmas or early in the New Year there could be 120,000 out of work, and others have estimated that the figure could be even higher. Yet we are given no indication of what the Government intends to do to reverse this trend. It is a trend which is showing its effect in every area of our society. It is seen in the metropolitan areas. It is seen in the country areas.- It is something that is common' to the whole of the country. Yet nothing seems to be done on the part of the Government. The Australian Labor Party has asked at election times where it is to obtain funds to implement its policies. We can see areas for economies in this one Department alone in the Department of Labour and National Service. For instance, in the last 12 months there has been a 20 per cent increase in unemployment benefit payments. In 1970-71 the figure was $10,795,135. It must be remembered that this money is being paid to people from whom we are getting no work at all - people who are receiving no income and who therefore contribute nothing in income tax. So we ar; losing on both counts. By returning these people to the work force we not only cease to have to pay this $10m but also we gain an increase in income lax and an increase in the country's production. Of course, under a Labor government the 'National Service' part of the Department of Labour and National Service would be eliminated. This would cease the ineffective and inefficient system of maintaining the numbers in the Services. Labor would retain within, the work force the people who have been trained for trades and professions and thereby have the benefit of their production and their income tax injected into the economy. This would provide a saving to the Treasury which could be directed into other constructive avenues. In my electorate alone the situation is revealed by the official figures of the Department of Labour and National Service. The figure in Albany has increased from 55 males and 71 females in 1969 to 226 males and 78 females in 1971. In Bunbury the figure has increased from 198 males and 249 females in 1969 to 287 males and 179 females in 1971. We had in the Press only last week a report that the timber mills in the area are likely to have to retrench because the demand for timber is decreasing rapidly as the building industry goes through a period pf recession and as there is a lessening in demand for sleepers and scantling. This can only mean further unemployment in my electorate where most of the timber is milled. Of course, this is being reflected in other areas. The railways also are taking men off as steam is phased out completely and dieselisation is brought in. There is a good deal of uncertainty and anxiety in my electorate - in common with other electorates - and yet we see no Government action being implemented to try to avoid the terrible social distress that is caused by unemployment. I would say that 95 per cent of the people who are unemployed do not desire to be unemployed because there can be no more demoralising experience than that of being unemployed, and especially is this so when unemployment benefits arc so poor and so degrading. An indication of the weakness of the Government's approach, when it does take steps to meet situations that it is largely responsible for creating, is seen in the rural retraining scheme. I was looking forward to the introduction of the legislation establishing this scheme. I believed we might have had a scheme along the lines of the rehabilitation scheme for ex-servicemen introduced by the Labor Government after the last war under which people were trained for trades and professions and were able to complete university courses. But instead we have a scheme that is to train people for a period of 12 months, or 2 years part time, and according to a professor at the University of New England recently who examined what it would achieve in that area, although they bad some of the best .technical training facilities outside the metropolitan area of Sydney there were available in the institutions in the district only about 3 courses that could be completed in that time. One was a secretarial course, another was a welding course and another was a general mechanics course. He said that having completed 12 months in those courses on an income of about $2,400 a year, or whatever it is, a person would then encounter great difficulty in finding employment because. he would be a welder without any experience or a secretary-clerk without any experience and there would be very few avenues open to him even though he had done the training provided under the scheme. The Government's scheme does not meet the situation and I venture to say that if the Labor Government in the circumstances that existed immediately after the last war could introduce the imaginative scheme which it did to service a greater number of people and to give them the opportunity of being trained for trades and professions this Government, if it had exercised a little imagination, could have done the same thing and to good effect, because these people would have earned higher incomes and would have contributed a greater amount in income tax later on. I believe that this Government has become completely synical. The cynicism of this Government was exposed by the Acting Prime Minister when he referred to the possibility of an early election next year in the wake of trouble which the Government will create by the introduction of industrial legislation. When this Government comes to grips with a problem it does so in an inadequate way, as is illustrated by the rural retraining scheme. I believe that this Government is completely discredited. It should resign, go to the electors under the present circumstances and see how it fares. {: #debate-35-s12 .speaker-DRW} ##### Dr JENKINS:
Scullin -- So far my colleagues in this debate have spoken about industrial conditions in relation to employment figures and the way in which this section of Government functioning could be used to stimulate the economy. I wish to make a plea for a different group - the handicapped persons in the community. I believe that the Department of Labour and National Service must do more for these people if we are to give them the fullest opportunity for the fullest lives. I am stimulated to speak of this matter because of the recent handicapped persons employment policy campaign which is mentioned by the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** in a news release of 20th October 1971. In this release the Minister calls for further cooperation of employers in obtaining work for handicapped persons. I believe that this underlines one of the weaknesses in the attitude of the Government towards the employment of handicapped persons. I know that the Minister and his Department have an active interest in this matter. They have kept me informed of some of the steps which have been taken and they have been of great assistance with cases. But they are acting within very restricted bounds. Too much is left to voluntary bodies to school and to rehabilitate these handicapped persons under various categories. I shall illustrate with some examples that many people are not being brought effectively into the work force because their functioning is not well defined. For example, the Minister-' in his news release said that the Commonwealth Employment Service during last year helped 16,340 handicapped persons to obtain effective work. This is an excellent record. But how many of these handicapped persons exist? How many require assistance? Of course we do not know the answers. There is no requirement that they be reported or notified in any way. I hesitate to ask the Minister to go as far as the Demark Government has gone. In Denmark it is compulsory for persons with a mental or physical handicap to be actively reported by doctors, parents or relatives so that they may be offered the opportunity to undertake rehabilitatory work. I think these sorts of people should have a choice whether they accept social services benefits or rehabilitation. To obtain accurate figures we might need well spelt out legislation to determine the numbers with which we are dealing. Subsequent upon this news release employers were asked to adopt a policy. I have consulted the Minister and I seek the leave of the House to incorporate a statement of that policy in Hansard. The **DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)** - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows): >Policy which employers are asked to adopt (This policy was drafted by the Institute of Personnel Management (Australia) in association with the Australian Council for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled.) > >EMPLOYMENT OF HANDICAPPED PEOPLE > >It is our policy to include handicapped people in our work force. > >Each handicapped applicant will be assessed in terms of work ability. > >Advice will be sought from an industrial medical officer, a consultant in physical medicine and rehabilitation, or other authority if there is doubt as to the work capacity of a handicapped applicant. > >Modifications to equipment and facilities will be undertaken where practicable to suit handicapped applicants with due regard to the maintenance of safe working conditions. > >Handicapped people will be paid full wages foi the jobs they perform, in accordance with the appropriate award, determination or agreement. > >Handicapped people will be given the same consideration as other employees for continuity and security of work and .for advancement opportunities. > >Management will constantly strive to achieve an understanding and genuine application of this policy by all who participate in the engagement, placement and supervision of employees. {: .speaker-DRW} ##### Dr JENKINS: -- A number of points arise from this statement because while it spells out a policy for handicapped persons it does so only as to a voluntary basis. If we examine what has happened elsewhere, we find that much more legislative action is needed from the Government. It is my understanding that in the United States there is a requirement that corporations of a certain size employ up to 5 per cent of handicapped persons in their work force. In this way handicapped persons are given the opportunity to earn a reasonable wage and to live reasonably. The policy which I hive just mentioned sets out that there should be an assessment of a worker's suitability to carry out a job. I believe that there is also a need for an assessment of the jobs that are available. I have moved around quite a deal in industry. I have worked in industry from being a storeman to being an industrial medical officer. I have seen how little analysis of job requirements is done and how little is done for handicapped persons, except in the case of the really large corporations. I think that the Department could take up the question of job analysis, the various procedures carried out and whether those jobs are suitable for persons with certain disabilities, on a much wider range than just the obvious. ones that the larger corporations will cater for. There is a need for the provision of aids and prostheses for handicapped ' persons. We do not even envisage going as far as Denmark, for example. I mention Denmark only as one of a group of countries in which efforts are made to provide an effective help to persons who cannot by themselves find a place in the working community so as to enable them to earn a living insofar as their mental and physical capabilities permit. This assistance goes as far as the testing of a disabled person's working capacity with a view to assessing bis capacity for education, vocational training and retraining and the purchase of tools, machines and other aids for vocational re-establishment. It is not only that countries such as Denmark supply this assistance; they will supply any machines and physical aids needed to get people on their feet. I would like to give one example of this. There are 2 groups of persons who make up chronic kidney disease sufferers who need severe treatment. One group of sufferers require kidney grafts and dialysis units to keep them alive. The second group of sufferers is made up of people who are not suitable for grafts at all. But, by using home dialysis units, these people can get themselves to a state of health in which they have 75 per cent to 80 per cent of their normal work capacity. I believe it is very important that they should be able to do this. I mention this example because 1 believe that often we forget about these 2 groups of people. The medical profession has calculated that there are 150 such persons in Victoria, and that' of these only 4 each year can receive a home dialysis machine which allows them to go back to their vocation and to make their contribution to society, as they wish to do. The reason why machines are given to only 4 of the 150 sufferers of kidney disease each year is that the Commonwealth, and State governments will not take up their responsibility in this matter. The only help these people have received from the Commonwealth Government is that it has placed renal dialysis fluid on the free list. As I have said, dialysis units can return these people to work. A central unit is needed. Yet, at the moment, the only work being done on the. provision of these units is being done by individual hospitals without special assistance and without special guides from the Government. The supply of these machines has been left to a voluntary organisation which has now accepted this as an Australia-wide project. I refer to the Lions organisation, which also aims to increase the. number of sufferers trained to use dialysis machines. The shocking thing is that even with the work that is being done by voluntary organisations, if another 10 machines were added to the 4 units already available in my State of Victoria there would still be 150 persons not able to be helped. I regret that in the short time available to me I am unable to speak of the other groups - the amputees, the epileptics, the multiple sclerotics, the diabetics, those suffering severely after industrial accidents - all of whom need much more help through legislative means than they are at present gaining through the well-meaning voluntary attempts of the Minister and his Department. (Quorum formed.) {: #debate-35-s13 .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr FOSTER:
Sturt -- I am glad that the former Minister for Labour and National Service is in the chamber tonight because I propose to refer to some correspondence that he addressed to me in regard to the rights of people to obtain a deferment of their military service on compassionate grounds. If time permitted I could quote from a letter from the present Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** to confirm that there is no such provision for a deferment. I refer to an incident involving a serviceman who was killed on active service in Vietnam after being sent there by this Government when he should not have gone there because he was literally blind. As a result of some further correspondence in regard to other matters concerning this most unfortunate and sad occasion, the Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** sent to the parents of this person a letter which they received within the last 2 days. Only today I received a telephone call, in the course of which I was informed that the Prime Minister, who is not with us at the moment, had had the temerity to inform the father of this boy that his son would not have been sent to Vietnam if he had applied to his commanding officer to remain in Australia, and that he could have remained in Australia on compassionate grounds. This statement by the Prime Minister was absolutely misleading. . He should be cognisant of the fact that Ministers of his Cabinet are giving certain information to honourable members of this house which he, in writing to a servicemen's father, repudiates. He told the father that the serviceman could have remained in Australia. The matter in respect of which the parents of this soldier wrote to the Prime Minister represents a shocking indictment of a member of the Government who. with you **Mr Deputy Chairman,** from time to time in this place has said that the Government is prepared to do all that it possibly can do for those who have gone to Vietnam and for those who have returned. As a result of a previous debate in this chamber when I mentioned this matter, the Minister for Labour and National Service directed a letter to me in which he requested specific instances where there may have been grounds for justifiable complaint. Let me wrap this one around his ears. He knows that soldiers who have been killed in Vietnam have taken out policies with insurance companies in Australia. He, the Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister have had correspondence directed to them on this subject. They have written letters of sympathy in a hypocritical fashion to constituents of mine who have lost sons overseas bat they have done nothing about compelling the companies to pay out on those insurance policies. If these lads had returned to Australia and died of wounds the insurance companies would have had to pay out. If the lads had been killed in a road accident or in an industrial accident the insurance companies would have had to pay out. Seme of the boys who went to Vietnam and who have returned to Australia in military caskets took out insurance policies to cover hire purchase commitments on motor vehicles so that if anything happened to them their parents would not have the burden of making repayments on the hire purchase agreements. Because these men were killed in Vietnam the . insurance policies have not been honoured. The Government has not honoured its promises in this regard to the men it sent to Vietnam. I do not intend to say any more at this stage about the particular case I have mentioned because I intend to raise it in this chamber when the little fellow comes back from overseas and I will wrap it around his neck then. If, **Mr Deputy Chairman,** you want to pull me up for using unparliamentary language, well and good. The present Prime Minister wrote a letter to the bereaved parents. He has no feelings whatsoever about this matter and when the first opportunity presents itself on a future occasion not only will I raise this aspect but also I will reveal other aspects of the case. I hope that the Minister for the Army **(Mr Peacock)** will be present on that occasion because he admitted that in this case the soldier was unfit and should never have gone to Vietnam. That soldier did not make it back to Australia. However, so much for that. I should like those Ministers and those Government supporters who are in the chamber to do something *on* behalf of the widow of this soldier. They should not complain if this matter is raised on another occasion. I serve notice on them that my information is factual. They should do something about it. Where in these estimates, can one put his finger on the tremendous cost to the Australian taxpayer of the Departments involvement in the calling up of people, having them medically examined and conscripting them into the Services? I cannot find such information in the documents relating to the Department- Do not tell me that the Department has not incurred costs as a result of the ballots and everything else that it has undertaken over a number of years. Should not this information be itemised? Should it not be set out and presented *h* such a manner that members of the Opposition and some of those lesser members en the other side, if they wanted to know, would be adequately and properly informed is to the costs? During this debate many aspects of the work of the Department of Labour and National Service have been mentioned. In view of the role that the Department has played for almost 20 years I . can only regard its expenditure as wasteful. The main aim of the Department, of course, should be to provide a service in the industrial field and it should have for its purpose industrial peace, but it has not been able to achieve this objective. The Department has spent millions over the years. Whilst it has been able to create industrial confusion, disunity and industrial disputation it has been playing its proper role so far as the Government is concerned, because the Government is concerned only with creating false issues on which to get returned to office. At this point of time the Acting Prime Minister **(Mr Anthony)** is making repeated statements to the Press that there could be an election next year, fought on industrial issues. If there is an early election it will be because the Government intends to engineer some industrial disturbances. Recently the Minister for Labour and National Service, who is sitting at the table, was in my electorate boasting about what will happen in the industrial field. At one public meeting he said that he was returning to Canberra the following week and that he intended to ride the unions and to put the spurs in. He was to attend a conference at Melbourne the following day and he intended to tell the unions, in no uncertain terms, where they stood. He said that he would be recommending to Cabinet, during the course of that week in which Parliament was not in session, what it should do about the industrial sector. The Government is not reading the signs. Many big employer organisations which employ quite a large percentage of the work force are not happy with the old cry of the Government about the need to impose sanctions on the workers - the attitude of: We must collect the fines and at all costs ensure a maximum of industrial discipline.' Those days are gone so far as a number of employer organisations is concerned. It is time that the Government recognised this. Its claptrap about the 35- hour week is almost sickening. Has the Minister ever taken time to look at the percentage of the overall work force in Australia, particularly the percentage of employees in the Public Service sector, in the industrial field and what have you, which works a 35-hour week or less? The Minister should think about that. He should get his Department to give him the figures. 1 am quite certain that they are available to him. He should work out the percentage working less than a 35-hour week and, while he is about that, he should ask how long they have been working a 35-hour week. He might come to his senses. In addition he needs to pay closer attention to what the Labor Party says about a 35-hour week. The Labor Party does not say that the 35-hour week should be introduced right across the board. What it says and what the Minister should realise and get through his head is that the Labor Party is demanding a 35-hour week in those industries that are in a redundant situation. Because of mechanisation - automation almost - a 35-hour week is absolutely necessary. The way the Government runs tb.is place, it does not work a 35-hour week. The **DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett)** - Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-35-s14 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP -- The debate on the estimates of the Department of Labour and National Service takes place on the eve of the resumption of tripartite discussions which the Government is having with the National Employers Policy Committee, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations and the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations. I mention this at the outset because this does impose a constraint on the indications which I am able to give at this stage about the directions to be taken by the Government on basic matters of industrial relations policy. I believe that the debate tonight has been a useful one in some respects. It certainly covered a tremendous area of ground. I believe that a number of members, including the honourable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr Clyde Cameron),** the honourable member for Balaclava **(Mr Whittorn)** and also the honourable member for Moreton **(Mr Killen),** drew to the attention of the Committee the fact that there is a number of quite serious limitations on the Commonwealth Government in providing an effective industrial relations system. Firstly, there are 7 industrial jurisdictions, of which the conciliation and arbitration system is one, although of course a primary one. Secondly, 60 per cent of employees are not covered by Federal awards. Workers who are not covered by Federal awards or who are not engaged in interstate industrial disputes fall outside the Federal jurisdiction. Thirdly, the Constitution imposes obvious limitations in regard to industrial matters. Fourthly, industrial relations are not confined to watertight compartments insulated from the community as a whole. Indeed, industrial relations to some extent tend to reflect general community behaviour, and if this be as I believe it to be a period of rapidly changing attitudes and of growing indiscipline in various sectors of our national life, it would not be surprising if there were not some rub-off of this malaise of our times in the industrial relations area. I believe it is useful to mention these facts at the outset to set to one side the expectation of the extent to which the Commonwealth can itself directly go in seeking to provide a more effective industrial relations climate for this country. A number of members of the Opposition have referred to the question of the acceleration of inflation in recent years and in particular to the causes of that inflation. Whatever the prime causes, there is no doubt that these have manifested themselves initially in a widening of the gap between the growth of money wages and the growth of productivity, that is, in a stepping-up in the rate of increase in unit labour costs. Recently published statistics of gross national product at constant and current prices certainly confirm this observation. Over the 3 years 1966-67 to 1968- 69, unit labour costs and unit private profits in the non-farm sector both increased at an annual average rate of about 4 per cent. In the same period, non- farm prices, using the implicit gross national product price deflator rather than the more conventional but restrictive consumer price index, also increased at an annual rate of 4 per cent. In 1969-70, the year which saw the start of the acceleration in inflation, the rate of increase in unit labour costs accelerated to 5 per cent while that for private profits slowed down to a rate below 4 per cent. The figures for the year ended June 1971 show the divergence at its most dramatic. The rate of increase of unit labour costs in that year was 10 per cent, while unit private profits showed a 3.3 per cent decrease. Not surprisingly, non-faim prices increased by 4.9 per cent in 1969-70 and by 6.7 per cent in 1970-71. Of course, the observation to be made in this context is that clearly wage costs have played a pivotal role in the acceleration of inflation over the last 2 years. The honourable member for Stirling **(Mr Webb)** referred in some detail to the present employment situation. I believe that with some 63,000 persons registered' asunemployed with the Commonwealth Employment Service at the end of September, the situation can be seen in proper perspective when it is appreciated that this figure represents 1.15 per cent of the estimated labour force of about *5i* million. I believe this level is still low by our own post-war standards and certainly is very low by general world standards. This of course is not to say that the Government is not concerned with those persons who are unemployed, having particular regard to the human factor and the lack of personal fulfilment by which any person unable to seek employment is certainly directly affected. The level of employment also needs to be measured against the related problems besetting the general economy. I am referring here to the growing contagion of industrial lawlessness, the continuing surge of inflation partly brought about by excessive wage demands, the nagging difficulties of the rural sector of the economy and the clouded international economic scene. The honourable member for Canning **(Mr Hallett)** referred in some detail to the state of industrial lawlessness in this country which is clearly reflected in the Commonwealth Statistician's industrial disputes statistics. Over the paSt 5 years or so there has been a steeply rising trend in time lost through industrial disputes. Whereas in 1966, 732,000 working days were lost through industrial disputes, in 1970 some 2,400,000 days were lost through this cause. This represents an increase of some 227 per cent. On present indications there will be a further significant increase this year. For the first 7 months of 1971 the number of working days lost was 1,845,000, which represents a 38 per cent increase on the 1.330.000 working days lost during the corresponding period of last year. The Government is doing all that it can through the forum of the tripartite discussions to which I have referred and - certainly beyond that to the formulation of policy in the short term ahead to improve the industrial relations climate. Last *year* the Government had extended discussions on disputes settling procedures with representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the National Employers Policy Committee, and that agreement was reached on principles or guidelines and procedures which could be adapted by individual employers and unions to suit the needs of particular industries. This was a matter which was' referred to in some detail by the honourable member for Bourke **(Mr Keith Johnson).** While some progress has been made in this direction, it is disappointing that there has not to date been widespread adoption of the procedures. The high level of industrial disputes that occur over managerial policies, also referred to by the honourable member for Burke, must surely indicate the need for formal disputes settling procedures at the plant level. In the years 1966 to 1969 inclusive more strikes occurred over this cause than over any other cause listed by the Commonwealth Statistician. Last year the number of strikes over managerial policy was second only to the number of strikes over wages. Even allowing for the intrinsic limitations of the statistics, this is a disquieting state of affairs, It is evident to the Government that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act is in need of a comprehensive review if it is to deal effectively with .industrial problems now and in the future. With the ACTU, the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations, the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations and the National Employers Policy Committee the Government, as I have mentioned, is examining ways and means of improving the operation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Those discussions are scheduled for completion this week. The Government, of course, accepts that at that time it has the responsibility to formulate its policy and to bring down proposals for consideration by the Parliament. However, I make it perfectly clear that the Government's aim is to improve the effectiveness of our present system, not to create some new system. Honourable members opposite have referred to the general question of employment. To some extent the question of the level of employment can be adversely affected by the growing industrial lawlessness of organised labour in this country in ways which are not always immediately obvious. Firstly, by cutting output and disrupting the flow of supplies, strikes cause employees in no way concerned with the original disputes to suffer idle time and even to be stood down. Secondly, the additional cost burden of strikes and' wage inflation can cause the close down of some enterprises, at times reducing employment opportunities in locations and occupations where employment is already limited. Thirdly, strikes particularly affect employment in export oriented industries. Quite apart from their effect on cost competitiveness, the failure to meet contracts and the uncertainty created about future reliability threatens the growth prospects and so employment in these industries. Most important of all are the indirect effects of trade union irresponsibility on employment opportunities. Excessive wage rises through strikes and industrial aggressiveness have in fact underpinned the present level of inflation and conventional measures to combat inflation are not conducive to growth in employment opportunities. Thus industrial aggressiveness has placed the Government, as indeed it would place any responsible government, in the difficult position of finding ways of containing inflation consistent with adhering firmly to its committed policy of full employment. For constitutional reasons, as has been pointed out in this debate, there are limits to the extent to which the Commonwealth can take action to stem the rising trend in wages and prices. As to the latter, the Government is seeking to restrain price increases by creating a greater degree of competitiveness. It is doing this by such measures as a review of tariffs and by trade practices and resale price maintenance legislation. (Quorum formed.) As to wages, the Commonwealth has continued its long established practice of intervening in cases of major economic significance that come before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and, despite what the honourable member for Stirling **(Mr Webb)** has said in relation to this aspect, certainly that policy of the Commonwealth will be continued. Because of the question of time I will not take the opportunity to refer in detail to all of the comments that have been made in the debate. Before concluding, however, I certainly want to thank the honourable member for Scullin **(Dr Jenkins)** for the comments which he has made in relation to the responsibility of the Department of Labour and National Service in seeking greater employment for handicapped people. Honourable members will be well aware of what action has been taken by my Department. During the year 1970-71 it assisted about 16,000 handicapped persons in Australia into suitable selected employment. But the honourable member has raised a number of useful areas of inquiry. I can assure him that they will certainly be the subject of follow-up action by my Department. I also thank the honourable member for Murray **(Mr Lloyd)** for the constructive comments which he has made in relation to the country apprenticeship scheme which is administered by my Department. The objectives of this scheme are to encourage apprenticeships in country areas and to provide more employment opportunities there thus retarding the drift to the cities and helping to meet the demand for skilled tradesmen in country areas. The honourable member has very usefully put his finger on a number of quite pertinent areas which will be the subject of further examination by me and my Department. I thank him for the comments which be has so constructively put forward. Finally, let me conclude by emphasising that the cornerstone of the Government's manpower policy is its firm adherence to the policy of full employment. This policy, first promulgated in the 1945 White Paper as a major national objective, has been followed with great practical success by the series of Liberal-Country Party governments that have been in office since 1949. The Government has managed its success by developing a range of comprehensive manpower programmes, as I have already outlined today. I want to emphasise that it is these programmes, together with the fiscal and monetary policies of the Government, which have maintained unemployment at such a low rate in this, country. I commend the estimates of my Department to the House. Wednesday, 3 November 1971 {: #debate-35-s15 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT:
Wills **- Mr Deputy Chairman-** Motion (by **Mr Giles)** .put: >That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr J. Corbett) AYES: 46 NOES: 0 Majority . . ..11 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Progress reported. House adjourned at 12.12 a.m. (Wednesday). ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated: Australian Minerals Council (Question No. 3704) >Where and when have there been meetings of the Australian Minerals Council since its fourth meeting on 9th June, 1970. > >What were the names and portfolios of the Ministers who attended the meetings. > >What requests or suggestions were made at each meeting for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States. > >Has the Council yet received a report on the study of Australian mining legislation which it initiated at its second meeting on 3rd March, 1969 (Hansard, 16th February, 1971, page 98). > >When have there been meetings of the Advisory Committee to the Council since February, 1971 (Hansard, 24lh February, 1971, page 556). >The Fifth Meeting of the Australian Minerals Council was held in Sydney on 7th May, 1971. > >The Ministers who attended were: Hon. R. W. C. Swartz, M.B.E., E.D., M.P., Minister for National Development (President) Hon. C. E. Barnes, M.P., Minister for External Territories Hon. W. C. Fife, M.L.A., Minister for Mines and Conservation, New South Wales Hon. J. C. M. Balfour, M.L.A., Minister for Fuel and Power and Minister of Mines, Victoria Hon. R. E. Camm, M.L.A., Minister for Mines and Main Roads, Queensland Hon. G. R. Broomhill, M.H.A., Minister for Conservation and Minister assisting the Premier and Minister of Development and Mines, South Australia Hon. D. G. May, M.L.A., Minister for Mines and the North-west, Western Australia Hon. L. H. Bessell, M.H.A., Minister for Transport and Mines, Tasmania. Matters of mutual interest considered by the Council at today's meeting included mining legislation, safety of persons engaged in the mining industry, shortage of geoscientists and mining engineers, conservation of minerals, and mining and the environment.' Oil Exploration Incentive Scheme (Question No. 4261) **Mr Whitlam** asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice: >Will he confirm, as reported in the Financial Review of 21st September 1971, that the review of the oil exploration incentive scheme (Hansard, 9th September 1971, page 997) will be made by an interdepartmental committee comprising the Treasury, the Department of Customs and Excise and the Department of Trade and Industry. Postal Department: Mail Deliveries at Exmouth (Question No. 4391) >When can the residents of Exmouth in Western Australia expect to receive house to house deliveries of letters. > >Why are these deliveries not made at this stage. >and (2) A house to house delivery of mail was introduced at Exmouth on the 1st February 1967. However, most Australian residents preferred to rent a Private Box at the Post Office and most United States personnel receive their mail through U.S. Navy channels. The number of residents actually served by a postman, therefore was much lower than expected and because of difficulties in getting staff at this remote centre, it was necessary at times to suspend the service for short periods. When the last postman left and a local replacement could not be obtained, the service was suspended indefinitely from the 9th July 1971. In view of the staff difficulties and as the number of householders involved is well below the level at which a house to house delivery would be established, it is not expected that the service will be resumed. Cirrus Juice: Imports (Question No. 4290) >What was the (a) amount, (b) value and (c) source, of citrus juice imported into Australia this year to date. > >Is it a fact that major retail stores in Sydney have been featuring imported orange juice. > >If so, will he take steps to confer urgently with the citrus industry to develop more effective promotion of the Australian product. > >Will he also review the volume and cost of imports with a view to their active discouragement. Commonwealth Railways: Transport of Commercial Vehicles (Question No. 4279) **Mr Bennett** asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: >How many commercial vehicles' 'were carried by the Commonwealth Railways between Western Australia and the eastern States in each of the last 5 years. > >What was the return in revenue to the Commonwealth Railways for this transport in each of those years. > >What is the estimated return in revenue to the Commonwealth Railways for this type of transport in each of the years 1971 to 1975 inclusive. > >Will the sealing of the Eyre Highway between Western Australia and South Australia reduce '.his revenue. >The number of commercial vehicles conveyed Pick-a-back' in both directions over the Trans Australian Railway in each of the last 5 financial years was: >Total imports of citrus juice into Australia for the six months period ending 30th June 1971 amounted to 491,821 gallons valued at $406,134 f.o.b. The table shows statistics of import clearances for different varieties of citrus fruit juices, together with principal countries of origin. > >and (3) Inquiries made of a number of major retail stores in Sydney have not revealed any evidence of sales of imported orange juice. > >Any industry can seek protection against market disruption from imports. In the event of imported citrus juice causing or threatening damage to the Australian citrus juice industry, the Government would give consideration to a request by the industry for a review of the protective duties. Conciliation and Arbitration Wage Rates (Question No. 2640) **Mr Clyde** Cameron asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >Will he again examine my question No. .1958 (Hansard, 16th February 1971, page 86) and state whether the Conciliation and Arbitration Act permits the Arbitration Commission to compel an employer to retain the services of employees at wage rates which the employer considers to be uneconomical. >The information the honourable member is seeking is somewhat different from that which he sought in question 1958. I would draw the honourable member's attention to Section 4 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which provides inter alia that ' " industrial matters " means all matters pertaining to the relations of employers and employees'. . . . 'and includes all questions of what is right and fair in relation to an industrial matter having regard to the interests of the persons immediately concerned and of society as a whole'. > >This indicates the wide variety of industrial matters which may be the subject of an industrial dispute and thus the extent of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to make an award in respect of any such dispute. > >I am advised that in order to give a more precise answer to the honourable member's question it would be necessary to obtain a legal opinion in relation to a specific case. Australian Capital Territory Education: Nation-wide Survey (Question No. 3220) >When will he table the sections relating to the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory in the Nation-wide Survey of Educational Needs. >During the course of my statement to the House on 5th October 1971 on the Commonwealth Education Programme for 1971-72, I tabled a statement on the survey conducted by the Department of Education and Science of the educational needs of the Australian Capital Territory. Commonwealth Teaching Service (Question No. 3811) >What ls the estimated number of teachers required for service over the next five years in the Commonwealth Teaching Service. > >Has consideration been given to the proposal forwarded to him by the Sutherland Shire District Council of Parents and Citizens Associations that a special teachers' college should be established for the training of Commonwealth teaching personnel; if so, with what results. - >The legislation to give effect to the Government's decision to establish a Commonwealth Teaching Service has not yet been enacted. I am not in a position, therefore, to speak in relation to the requirements of the Commonwealth Teaching Service; but the information being provided relates to the responsibilities of my Department in relation to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. > >It is estimated that by 1976 the Commonwealth will be employing directly on a full-time basis in the Northern Territory approximately 890 teachers in community primary and secondary schools and 60 pre-school teachers. It is estimated that by. the same year the Commonwealth will be employing directly in the A.C.T. approximately 75 preschool teachers and approximately 25 teachers in other educational institutions. > >The Government has given considerable attention to the requirements for trained teachers, not only within its own Territories but throughout Australia. As a result, during the period 1st July 1967 to 30th June 1973 the Commonwealth is proriding $54 million to the States for the construction of teachers colleges. It is estimated that this amount will provide nearly 12,000 new and replacement places at these colleges. In addition, it has provided an amount of $2,500,000 for kindergarten teacher training colleges, and it is estimated that this amount will double the capacity of those colleges. Funds are also being made available for capital and recurrent expenditure associated with the education of teachers through academic and professional courses in other universities .and colleges of advanced education'. The introduction of teacher education into colleges of advanced education will provide an estimated 1,700 additional places. > >In the Australan Capital Territory the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education make substantial contributions to the' education of teachers. ' > >Having regard to the programmes it has adopted, the Government has no plans at present for extending the range of institutions to provide a teachers' college specifically for the training of Commonwealth teaching personnel as suggested by the Sutherland Shire District Council of Parents and Citizens Associations. Education: Handicapped Children (Question No. 3819) Will he give consideration to the proposal thai his Department take financial responsibility for the education of all physically, mentally and emotionally handicapped children. In areas such as the education of handicapped children, where the States have considerable responsibility, it is Commonwealth policy to assist the States in meeting their responsibilities rather than to assume full responsibility. A major form of Commonwealth assistance to the States is the general purpose grants which, as I pointed out during the Budget debate, have been increased substantially especially over the last two years and may be used for any purpose at the discretion of the States. In addition, special schools for handicapped children may receive assistance under a number of Commonwealth education programmes, such- as the programme of per capita grants for independent Schools, and the Commonwealth Secondary Science Facilities Programme. Commonwealth capital assistance of $2 for SI to eligible Voluntary organisations under the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act ' 1970, administered by my colleague the Minister for Social Services, may be used towards the building and equipping of premises to be used for the training of handicapped children and towards the provision of residential accommodation for handicapped children receiving such training.. In the period 17th June 1970 to 31st August 1971 subsidies amounting to more than $2m have been approved under this Act. When the Government's education policies are being reviewed, further consideration will be given to the problems of the education of handicapped children. Australian Capital Territory: Social Workers (Question No. 4120) During each of last- five years the following number, of claims for .Social Welfare Benefits received and the total amounts paid were as follows: The amounts provided varied from quite small amounts for fares or immediate food needs to cash sustenance in respect of a deserted wife with eight children ($98 per fortnight). Australian Capital Territory Law Reform Commission (Question No. 425S) **Mr Whitlam** asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice: Has the Australian Capital Territory law reform commission consulted with its counterpart in any of the States. No, but it proposes to do so as the need arises. Canberra:- Housing (Question No. 4317) (21- Both lessors and lessees are entitled to make applications for determinations of fair rents. The cases listed cover both forms of applications and include applications for variations to earlier determinations based on alterations and extensions to premises or the provision of . additional furnishings and services. *Vh-* Crime: Statistics (Question No. 4369) >How many persons were arrested in (a) the Australian Capital Territory and (b) the Northern Territory in each of the last 5 years. > >What was the average period of time spent in custody before an arrested person was first brought before a judge or magistrate. > >What percentage of cases resulted in the person concerned (a) being acquitted, (b) having no conviction recorded and (c) having no penalty imposed. > >-- Of the total number of persons arrested, how many were arrested because of a charge of (a) drunkenness, (b) offensive behaviour, (c) indecent language, (d) carnal knowledge, (el resisting a constable in the performance of his duty, (f) an offence associated with gambling, (g) an offence arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, (h) being a vagrant and (i) an offence relating to pornography or obscenity. > >How many persons were (a) charged with driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence and (b) convicted of driving whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor and of these what was the percentage of cases where the charge arose out of circumstances where there was no accident and no personal injury or no damage to property. > >Are any estimates available of the number of man-hours spent by (a) officers of the Canberra Courts of Petty Sessions and (b) police constables in the Australian Capital Territory Police Force in dealing with each of the cases referred to in part (4) of the question. > >If so, what percentage of the total number of man-hours worked by the officers of the Courts of Petty Sessions and the Police Force does it involve. No statistical breakdown is available relating to the circumstances of arrest, injury or damage. >Does the Australian Capital Territory Police Force keep records of every vehicle accident it is called upon to investigate. > >If so, do these records indicate (a) the charge or offence a motorist is considered to have committed and (b) the opinion of the investigating constable as to which motorist was principally at fault in causing the accident. > >In what percentage of accidents are motorists charged or summonsed with having committed an offence when the opinion of the investigating constable is that another motorist, who may or may not have been charged or summonsed with committing an offence, was primarily responsible for causing the accident. > >In what percentage of accidents where a motorist has been charged or summonsed with driving under the influence has the opinion of the investigating constable been that another motorist was primarily responsible for causing the accident. >Yes. > >(a) Yes. > >Except in the case of an apprehension made at the scene of an accident by an investigating constable, any action which may be taken against a motorist involved in an accident is based on the recommendation of independent adjudicators in the Police Prosecution Branch. In reports prepared for consideration by the adjudicators, investigating constables are not expected to express an opinion as to which motorist was principally at fault in causing an accident; their role is to obtain the facts. > >and (4) Information about the small number of occasions when reports considered by the adjudicators contain opinions by investigating constables and the number of occasions when those opinions differ from those of the adjudicators is not readily available. Public Service Departments: Transfer to Canberra (Question No. 4389) >On what date is each Department, or branch of a Department, now located in (a) Melbourne or (b) Sydney scheduled to be transferred to Canberra. > >ls it a fact that one hostel in Canberra is to be closed permanently for lack of patronage and other reasons, and at least one other hostel is to be closed temporarily for lack of patronage. > >If so, will be take early action to transfer as many single public servants and married public servants without children to Canberra as soon as possible for employment in the National Capital. > >Will he consult with the Prime Minister with a view to completing all transfers of Departments and branches of Departments to Canberra at a much earlier date than is at present proposed. >On 17th February 1971 I announced that the Government had decided to defer the programme of transfers to Canberra of Commonwealth departments. Consequently there are at the present time no transfers of departments or branches of departments scheduled for definite dates. > >Due to a decline in the rate of recruitment to the public service and the deferment of the transfer programme there has been a reduction in the number of persons requiring hostel places. Havelock House is therefore to be closed temporarily. Reid House which is regarded as providing unsuitable accommodation is to be closed permanently. > >and (4) The transfer programme involves the transfer of staff performing functions which the Government considers should be transferred to Canberra. Marital status is not, therefore, the criterion on which transfers are made. The question of the resumption of transfers to Canberra ia currently under consideration. Canberra: Bus Services (Question No. 4390) >Can he supply details of (a) the number of buses and (b) the number and size of bus routes operated in Canberra that would indicate the extent of the public transport services that are available to satisfy the need of the people of Canberra as compared with those available in each of the other Australian capital cities. >There are 156 buses in the Canberra public transport fleet. The total mileage of the 33 bus routes is 97. Routes pass within half a mile of residences and half hourly services operate during business hours Monday to Saturday morning. Peak hour services are selected to meet the majority demand and special school bus services are provided. > >In other cities trains, trams and private buses as well as public authority bus services make up the public transport systems. Even if the number of units and the number and size of routes were known, other variables would include the capacity of units, geographical configurations and population densities and it is doubtful whether there is any basis on which meaningful comparisons could be made. Simpson Desert (Question No. 4393) >What is the estimated cost to the Australian taxpayer of servicing applications from members of the public to purchase land in the Simpson Desert. > >How many applications have been received. > >What is the required procedure to enable the money to be returned. Canberra: Distress Housing (Question No. 4408) >What principles and circumstances does the Commissioner for Housing take into account when considering applications for distress housing in Canberra. > >How many applications for distress housing were (a) made, (b) successful and (c) rejected in each of the last 5 years. > >Is is a fact that many of the applications for distress housing were rejected, despite considerable hardship being suffered by the families concerned, because the Commissioner considered that the applications could not be brought within the policy which determines eligibility for assistance. > >Is it also a fact that some of these refusals are likely to force the persons concerned into an insolvent situation because they are unable to meet financial obligations, and in particular the high rent of private accommodation that they have been forced to occupy. > >If so, will be take steps to have the policy changed so that fewer applications have to be rejected. > >When was the policy (a) first declared and (b) last reviewed. > >When were the last changes made to the policy and what were those changes. > >How many persons were involved in the total number of applications that were refused over the last 5 years. > >What was the average size of families whose applications were refused. > >What were the ten most common reasons given by persons applying for distress housing over the last 5 years. >The principles and circumstances taken into account when considering applications for distress housing in Canberra are the needs of a particular family for immediate accommodation having regard to the family's financial resources compared with the financial resources of other families on the waiting list for Government accommodation. > >-- > >AH applications for distress housing are investigated by officers of the Department of the Interior. Before a decision is made any hardshipsclaimed are compared with the housing conditions of other families on the waiting list who are not claiming preferential treatment even though they may be undergoing some hardship until their turn is reached for the allocation of Government accommodation. It is not considered that in the cases where distress applications are not approved there is hardship of a nature beyond that applying' to numerous other persons on the waiting list. > >The Department of the Interior is not aware of any specific case in which a person has become insolvent solely as a result of an application for distress housing not being approved. Any person who considers that the rent paid for private accommodation is excessive may apply to the Rent Controller for determination of the fair rent. > >It is not proposed at the present time to change the policy applied to the allocation of distress housing in Canberra. > >and (7) The policy has remained constant since Government accommodation was first provided in Canberra. > >and (9) This information is not readily available. Sample surveys, however, indicate that on average four persons per family are involved in applications for distress housing and 2,068 persons are estimated to have been involved in applications refused over the last 5 years. > >Financial hardship. Present rent too high. Overcrowding in present accommodation. Inability to find suitable housing. Incompatibility with other members of the present household. Disputes with landlords. Disputes with neighbours. Unmarried mothers seeking private accommodation. Inability to keep up with hire purchase payments. Inability to maintain payments on motor car. Canberra: Bus Routes (Question No. 4436) >Has his Department refused to release a map of bus routes in the Australian Capital Territory. > >If so, was the refusal due to the map being classified or for some other reason. >and (2) No. Maps of Canberra bus routes are included in the pocket timetables on sale at newsagents for 5c a copy. Censorship: Ministerial Conference (Question No. 4514) **Mr Whitlam** asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice: >What were the names and portfolios of the Ministers who met on 15th October 1971 to discuss uniform censorship. > >What requests or suggestions were made by the Ministers for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth; (b) the Territories and (c) the States. >At a conference in Sydney on 15th October, State Ministers responsible for matters of censorship met under the chairmanship of the Minister for Customs and Excise. The State Ministers attending were: New South Wales- The Hon. E. A. Willis, M.L.A., Minister for Labour and Industry, Chief Secretary and Minister for Tourism. Victoria- The Hon. R. J. Hamer, E.D., M.L.A., Chief Secretary. Queensland- The Hon. P. R. Delamothe, O.B.E., M.L.A., Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. South Australia- The Hon. L. J. King, Q.C., M.H.A., Attorney-General, Minister of Social Welfare and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Western Australia- The Hon. R. H. C. Stubbs, M.L.C., Minister for Local Government and Chief Secretary. Tasmania- The Hon. E. M. Bingham, M.H.A., Attorney-General. The Minister for the Interior was represented by an officer of the Department of the Interior. The meeting resolved that the PostmasterGeneral be requested to take action to curb the the transmission of unsolicited offensive material through the post. State Ministers expressed great concern at the widespread unsolicited dissemination of offensive advertising material through the mails to persons who did not wish to receive it, including in some cases children. The Postmaster-General will be urged to take all possible action under the Posts and Telegraph Act and if need be to introduce new and effective legislation to stop the practice. Each State Minister agreed to consider similar legislation. The Ministers agreed that the " R " classification for films will begin to take effect on 15th November 1971. Under this system, persons between the age of 6 and 18 will be legally excluded from cinemas exhibiting " R " certificate Alms. There will also be three advisory classifications for films: G - (General Exhibition). NRC- (Not Recommended for Children). M - (for Mature Audiences). The meeting discussed the problem of suggestive, misleading and exaggerated film advertising both outside cinemas and in newspapers. Upon introduction of the " R " certificate, strong action will be taken by the Chief Film Censor and State Authorities to restrain offensive film advertising. "Turning to literature censorship, Ministers agreed that a study be made of the feasibility and operation of a restricted classification for books of merit'

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 November 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711102_reps_27_hor74/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant