House of Representatives
22 February 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1972

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

page 3

DEATH OF MR DAVID OLIVER WATKINS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I inform the House of the death on 17th December 1971 of David Oliver Watkins who was a member of this House for the Division of Newcastle from 1935 to 1958. On behalf of the House I have forwarded a message of sympathy to the relatives of the deceased. As a remark of respect to the memory of the deceased I invite honourable members to rise in their places. (Honourable members having stood in their places.)

Mr SPEAKER:

– Thank you, gentlemen.

page 3

PETITIONS

Education

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

– 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 government education services has established serious defic iencies in education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.

That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.

That while the needs of the government school are being neglected, large amounts of public money is being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is truly responsible.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 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 government education services has established serious deficiencies in education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.

That extraFederal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.

That while the needs of the government school are being neglected, large amounts of public money is being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is truly responsible.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr DOBIE:
Assistant Minister assisting the Prime Minister · COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-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 government education services has established serious deficiencies in education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a. result, oversized classes.

That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.

That while the needs of the government schools are being neglected, large amounts of public money is being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is truly responsible.

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Scholarships

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, 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 citizens of the community of the University of Western Australia respectfully sheweth:

That the increase in tertiary education fees for 1972 will cause increased hardship for a significant proportion of tertiary students.

That tertiary fees and concomitant living costs’ are a formidable barrier preventing significant numbers of students entering tertiary education who nevertheless have the ability to do so.

That the increase in tertiary fees for 1972 is immoral, in that Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education are being further restricted to that minimal section of the Australian population who can afford to send their sons and daughters onto higher education.

That all education should be free including tertiary education.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate action to introduce in order of priority:

Universal Commonwealth Scholarships. 2.. Commonwealth Scholarships on the basis of need rather than academic ability.

Abolition of tertiary fees.

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

Petition received.

Pakistani Refugees

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, 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 citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

That we express our deepest concern for our fellow men suffering in the refugee camps in India. While we recognise India’s outstanding contribution in providing as far as possible, for their immediate needs, we consider that this is a problem for all mankind to solve, as there are nine million people, many of them helpless children, affected.

Now we ask the Government to:

Give immediate aid of at least $10,000,000 to help relieve the suffering.

Make concerted diplomatic efforts in seeking a peaceful solution to the present conflict.

Urge the United Nations to exert a stronger effort on behalf of these stricken people’.

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

Petition received.

Pakistani Refugees

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I present the following peti tion:

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

That we express our deepest concern for our fellow men suffering in the refugee camps in India. While we recognise India’s outstanding contribution in providing as far as possible, for their immediate needs, we consider that this is a problem for all mankind to solve, as there are nine million people, many of them helpless children, affected.

Now we ask the Government to:

Give immediate aid of at least $10,000,000 to help relieve the suffering.

Make concerted diplomatic efforts in seeking a peaceful solution to the present conflict.

Urge the United Nations to exert a stronger effort on behalf of these stricken people.

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

Petition received.

Pakistani Refugees

Mr FOX:

– 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 showeth:

That suffering has occurred among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

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

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

Grant humanitarian aid in every possible way to the state of Bangla Desh.

Recognise the state of Bangla Desh officially, as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, 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 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 Com monwealth 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 and read.

page 5

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe Prime Minister · LP

– I wish to inform the House that, following the retirement of Mr Barnes from the Ministry, Mr Peacock has been appointed Minister for External Territories and Mr Katter has been appointed Minister for the Army. I take this opportunity to place on record my very real appreciation of the service to the Ministry by Mr Barnes during his years in office.

I also wish to inform the House that the Minister for the’ Navy, Dr Mackay, left Australia on 12th February as leader of an official parliamentary delegation to Japan and Korea, and to attend the opening of a South East Asia Treaty Organisation exercise in the Philippines. He is expected to return to Australia on 6th March. During his absence the Minister for Customs and Excise, Mr Chipp, is Acting Minister for the Navy.

page 5

OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE

Mr SPEAKER:

– I desire to inform the House that, consequent upon the retirement of the former Clerk of the House, the following promotions of officers in attendance in the Chamber have been made: Clerk of the House, Mr N. J. Parkes; Deputy Clerk, Mr J. A. Pettifer: Clerk Assistant, Mr A. R. Browning; and Senior Parliamentary Officer, Mr P. Allmond. Other Chamber officers will continue in their present positions.

page 5

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Was the Minister for Social Services speaking for the Government on 11th February when he called for a prices and wages freeze? Did his call echo the views of the right honourable member for Higgins and was it endorsed by the Premier of New South Wales? If the Prime Minister will not heed the entreaties of these distinguished Liberal colleagues, will he at least establish the prices justification tribunal which has been advocated by the Treasurer?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– So far as my colleague the Minister for Social Services is concerned, I have already answered this question publicly and I have nothing further to add to that answer.

page 6

QUESTION

STEEL PRICES

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the widespread criticism of the decision by Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd to raise the price of steel, could the Prime Minister inform the House of the effect on the cost of BHP products of the Government’s decision to reinstate the investment allowance as a taxation deduction?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Naturally enough, I cannot give the honourable gentleman an answer about the effect of the decision on the cost structure of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, but I can say that there has been a lot of discussion about whether or not, if Broken Hill Pty Co. had known of the fact that we intended to cancel the suspension of the investment allowance, it would have made any difference at all to the company’s increase in prices. It depends upon not only the taxation law but also the dates on which Broken Hill Pty Co. submits its returns as to entitlement to a deduction and the decision made by the Commissioner of Taxation. The fact is that no company submits its additional return or returns in respect of any particular year until after the relevant taxation year has ended. In the case of BHP it also means that it has to put in its tax return, which usually takes place in the early part of the year, and it does not receive its deductions until about April or May in the year. That means that in the case of BHP there could be no additional benefit to it as a result of the withdrawal of the suspension of the investment allowance this year, that is, this calendar year. The earliest stage at which it could get any benefit whatsover probably would be in April or May of next year, and the amount would be of the order of $700,000. So I think it is mythical for anyone to think that this could have had any impact upon BHP’s decision with regard to prices, and I think that the facts will establish quite clearly (hat this was out of the question.

page 6

QUESTION

PRICES

Mr WHITLAM:

– 1 ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that asked him by my deputy who, the Prime Minister will remember, asked him not only about the views expressed by the present Minister for Social Services but also about the views expressed by the immediate past Prime Minister and also by the Treasurer. In particular, I ask the right honourable gentleman, as my deputy did: Will he establish the prices justification tribunal which has been advocated by the Treasurer? I press him for an answer because I believe that he has not made any comment on this proposition by the Treasurer outside the House or in it.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– We on this side of the House have for long cherished the principle - and in practice we have applied it. too - that any attempt at price fixation creates bottlenecks and leads to the misallocation of resources and rather than cure inflationary pressures will probably increase them. I noticed in a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that he said he did not believe we had the powers to do this. He went further and said that he did not like arbitrary powers being handed over to a price fixing authority. So he has jumped on the Liberal-Country Party bandwagon. But we can take this argument a little further, if we wish, because last night the de facto leader of the Labor Party almost simultaneously - I imagine that the Leader of the Opposition would have seen him on television - said that we did have the powers and (hat we should use them. Here we see that the de facto leader of the Labor Party - not the Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party but the man who can make his opinions known - believes differently from the Leader of the Opposition.

As to our position, I have stated it but I will also take it a stage further. The honourable gentleman believes that this matter should be referred to a Senate committee. I do not believe that it should be made a political football. This is a matter that concerns the welfare of the Australian people and is fundamental to our growth and employment prospects.

Mr Harford ; What is politics about?

Mr McMAHON:

– Politics is trying to get into office and you are using-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind honourable members on my left that the Prime Minister is answering a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Many people inside and outside this House will be very interested in the reply. As all honourable members know, interjections are out of order and I suggest that they refrain from interjecting.

Mr McMAHON:

– I have discussed this matter in detail with the Deputy Prime Minister and my senior officers. I have come to the conclusion, with which the Deputy Prime Minister agrees, that the wisest course to follow - and this has already been done - is for me to give instructions to the relevant departments that they should prepare a White Paper relating to the case histories of price fixation schemes and where they have failed, and the pros and cons associated with them. They are doing this as a matter of great urgency. The White Paper when prepared will be available for discussion in the House and the Leader of the Opposition will then have abundant opportunity to say whether he has a view of his own or whether he has to follow the dictates of Mr Hawke.

page 7

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– The Prime Minister, to whom I address my question, will remember that at the end of the last parliamentary session the House was given an assurance that Cabinet would give urgent consideration to the introduction of a home finance scheme for Regular servicemen not eligible for war service homes. Can the Prime Minister advise me of the result of any such submissions?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I did give the honourable gentleman an assurance that I would have the matter considered by Cabinet. I have had that done. I think the best thing that could be done now, therefore, would be to have the Minister for Housing, who is the relevant Minister, give any supplemental answer he wishes to give.

page 7

QUESTION

SMALL ARMS FACTORY, LITHGOW

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Supply. In view of the acknowledged need to provide adequate defence for Australia and to maintain full employment, will the Minister give preference to government defence establishments in the procurement of defence supplies? Having regard to the splendid production record and the excellent precision standards of the Commonwealth Small Arms Factory at Lithgow, will the Minister review the policy of purchasing from overseas light machine guns which could and should be made here? Finally, I ask the Minister to maintain the skilled defence workforce in employment and, where necessary, to engage in peace time production for government departments and industry.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– As the honourable gentleman will know, I recently had an opportunity to visit the Lithgow Small Arms Factory.

Mr Luchetti:

– It prompts my question.

Mr GARLAND:

– I am sure that it does, and I thank the honourable member for it. I had an opportunity in particular to look at the factory there, to acknowledge to the men the high quality of the work they do and to examine their particular problems. I do not believe that it is in the public interest that in every case, irrespective of price and cost, material should be made in Australia or at Supply factories including the Small Arms Factory. However, I do believe that it is highly desirable that all that can be done ought to be done in order that the price can be competitive and the maximum work load can be put into that factory and into others. I and the officers of my Department are doing everything possible in order to remain competitive and to maintain as great a work load as possible.

page 7

QUESTION

SINGLETON ARMY CAMP

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for the Army whether it is the intention of the Australian Army to change the role of the Singleton Army camp. Has this camp housed the 3rd Australian Training Battalion and been one of Australia’s most important training camps? Can the Minister inform the House of the role this important military establishment will play under the Australian Army’s rearrangement programme?

Mr KATTER:
Minister for the Army · KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · CP

– Might I first of all say that I appreciate the concern of the honourable member for Paterson about this matter, as I have spent some time in rural areas. However, I can appreciate even more the feelings of the people of Singleton. I would like to assure the honourable member, the House and the people of Singleton that there is no question whatsoever of closing down the Army installation at Singleton it is something more than a camp. It is a very significant Army installation. We will in all probability see a change in its role in the future, but there will be no change in the importance of Singleton and no question of the significance of this Army installation waning.

page 8

QUESTION

STEEL

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– Is the Treasurer aware that the net profit of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has risen in 4 years from $46m to $68m and now represents an earning rate of 24.1 per cent? Does this mean that capital invested could be recovered in 4 years? Does he consider that such a substantial rate of profit justifies a 5.3 per cent increase in the price of steel? Would it not be fair and proper for the Government to urge this nationally protected company, which has made huge profits over the past 25 years, to exercise restraint at a time when the Government has been applying pressure on average wage and salary earners to exercise restraint? If the BHP company was not asked to set an example, why not?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I will not comment at the moment on all the matters to which the honourable gentleman referred in prefacing this question.

Mr Charles Jones:

– They are factual.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Factual or not, I will not comment on them at question time. What I will do is read one question and answer given at a recent National Press Club luncheon.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Read it all.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The lot will be available for the honourable gentleman to read. Mr Fred Brenchley of the ‘Financial Review’ asked:

Did you argue with BHP for moderation in their prices?

I replied:

With BHP I made it clear what our policies were. I made it clear that price increases were something that we wished to see avoided or moderated.

page 8

QUESTION

COLOUR TELEVISION

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the PostmasterGeneral and concerns colour television. Can the PostmasterGeneral give an estimate of the cost to the government of its introduction? Does he believe that it will in any significant way enhance the quality of life in Australia? Does he not find it strange that those in our society who consistently complain of inadequate government expenditure in social welfare areas have found this unessential expenditure unworthy of protest?

Sir ALAN HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The information which was given to me by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board following an inquiry which the Board conducted into the introduction of colour television was that in relation to the national service, the total cost over the first 6 years would be approximately $46m. In relation to the commercial services over the same 6year period I am speaking in terms of capital and recurrent expenses the expenditure would be approximately $70m. I believe that colour television is desired by the vast majority of the Australian people, many of whom have seen it overseas. Representations have been made to me for the introduction of colour television. These have come from private individuals within the community rather than from commercial interests or the media. They have suggested that the Government should indicate, as it has now done, a date on which colour television will commence. I believe that colour television can be of great value to the Australian people in terms of culture, but that depends to some degree upon the quantum and the quality of the colour television films becoming available around the world. Today most television films are produced in colour rather than in black and white, although when seen on a black and white set they come out as black and white pictures.

page 8

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr BIRRELL:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: Was his Liberal colleague, the Queensland Treasurer, correct in saying that Brisbane, with 50 per cent of his State’s unemployment, was the only local government area in Queensland whose local government authorities missed out on

Commonwealth unemployment grants? Was Sir Gordon Chalk correct in saying that this exclusion was a shabby, unfair deal? Will the Prime Minister, in the light of his colleague’s comments, make available Commonwealth grants for the relief of unemployment not only in Brisbane but also in other urban areas which are at present missing out?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Every Premier went away from the Premiers Conference more happy and contented with what had been done by the Commonwealth than I can remember in my 22 years in the Commonwealth Parliament and my 20-odd years in government. Not one of them expressed discontent when he left here. As to the position of Queensland it has to be remembered - if a complex problem like this can be explained at question time; - that we made specific grants to relieve rural unemployment. We did that so that the ratio between rural and metropolitan unemployment could be maintained. Large numbers of unemployed people are being taken back into the work force. As well as this a large grant of $30m was made for works and housing and $1Om for semigovernmental works. I pointed out in explicit and clear terms in the statement I made to the Premiers that the bulk of this money should go to urban areas, and therefore it should be appropriated to the kind of work that the Queensland Treasurer wants to do. In addition, we made $15m available as general revenue grants which may be used for a multiplicity of purposes and for meeting the objectives that my colleague and friend, the Queensland Treasurer, wants to meet. If the honourable gentleman had read, understood and thoroughly appreciated what I said at the Premiers Conference he would not have asked his question.

page 9

QUESTION

PRICES RESTRAINT

Mr STALEY:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it also concerns the national need for restraint in price fixation. Did the right honourable gentleman himself take any steps to encourage Broked Hill Pty Co. Ltd to exercise restraint in fixing prices?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Naturally I would like this question to have come from the Opposition, but honourable members opposite have not taken the opportunity.

On or about 6th December I telephoned Sir Ian McLennan, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, and suggested that he might come to Canberra to talk to me about the problem of retrenchments by BHP. At the time this was a source of very great worry to me. I interviewed him on 7th December in association with my colleagues, the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister. A lot of facts were given to us. We had a very thorough-going discussion, and it was conducted with a maximum of good will and I am sure anxiety on the part of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd to assist. We considered all the facts that were submitted, and on 23rd December 1971 I wrote to Sir Ian McLennan. Amongst other things, I said:

It would certainly be a matter of grave con cern to the Government if in this climate of rising costs your board decided to implement a further increase in the price of steel. Such a step would I believe, strike a severe blow at the prospects which may now be emerging of some restraint in the growth of costs and of prices.

That was approved of by my colleague, the Treasurer. In fact I believe he had a hand in actually drafting the letter I wrote. There is not one bit of difference between us as to the attitude I should have taken. But I do not think that this puts the matter in perspective at all. I think it is fair to Broken Hill Pty Co. that I should do this. Firstly, let me identify the causes of inflationary pressures as they exist today and why we are making efforts before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commision and the Public Service Arbitrator to isolate the recent decisions taken in Victoria.

The truth of the matter is that the primary cause of inflation without any doubt is that wage increases are exceeding productivity. I do not think there is any sensible or wise member of the House who will doubt this proposition. It applies in exactly the same way to the Broken Hill Pty Co. as it applies to any other corporation. Secondly, 1 think I should state this, because if there is to be some kind of a discussion in the House later these facts should be known, not as justification but at least as facts that can be presented. Since the relevant date, that is the date that can be regarded as relevant, the costs of BHP have risen by about $49m. This is a great company. It is essential to our development and growth programmes, and consequently it is critically important in providing increased opportunities for employment in this country. In the opinion of the officers who spoke to me and to my colleagues, this increase in cost would have justified a price rise of about 8.5 per cent. In fact the rise was 5.3 per cent. I said that I do not say this in justification because my attitude to BHP is that I believe that the timing of its announcement was unfortunate and that its public relations are nowhere near as good as I believe they should be. I have explained also as effectively as I can what the policy of the Government is. We do not believe in creating bottlenecks. We do not believe in the misapropriation of resources. Nonetheless we will do our best to see that on this issue there is a thorough-going debate, and I hope the debate is not delayed for too long.

page 10

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question concerning dismissals by General MotorsHolden’s Pty Ltd. Was the honourable gentleman correctly reported on 1st February in the Melbourne ‘Sun’, the Canberra Times’ and the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ as saying that he had not been advised in advance of the decision of General Motors to dismiss 1,297 workers on the previous Friday? Was he correctly reported in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ on 7th February, after General Motors had advised journalists that he had been informed, as having said he had been informed in advance of these dismissals? Which of the reports is true?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition is that the second report was true and, as he is well aware, a Press statement was issued to that effect.

page 10

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. In view of the existing economic situation will the Treasurer give consideration to removing the 2i per cent levy which was added in the last Budget to personal income tax?

Ms SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I have said very frequently, and the Prime Minister has said, that we will keep the state of the economy under constant review and pursuant to that review we will take action as seems necessary. This is a matter of policy on which I will not give an indication one way or the other.

page 10

QUESTION

STEEL

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Will he tell the House whether the letter which he sent to Sir Ian McLennan dated 23rd December 1971, which had the approval of the Treasurer and was partly drafted by the Treasurer, was shown to the Leader of the Country Party at the time? If it was shown to the Leader of the Country Party at the time did the Leader of the Country Party approve of its contents? If it was not shown to him at the time, when was it shown to him, if at all? If it was eventually shown to him did he approve of its contents?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– In the discussions I had with Sir Ian McLennan I requested that in future he should keep both of my colleagues, the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister, in touch with what was happening with Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and keep them fully informed. Sir Ian agreed to do so. It was appropriate that I should do this because they were the Ministers - primarily the Deputy Prime Minister - who were responsible for the carriage of this matter. I believe that they were fully informed. As to the letter itself, I had no responsibility whatsoever for its distribution. I asked that it be given the widest distribution. I have reason to believe that it was not shown to the Deputy Prime Minister until a later date.

page 10

QUESTION

BANGLA DESH

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Minister aware that it will be many months before rail and road services are operating normally in Bangla Desh and that less than 25 per cent of goods arriving at the port of Chittagong are moved without considerable delay? Can the Minister inform the House where the $700,000 worth of aid to Bangla Desh in the form of food, medical and building supplies, etc. is earmarked? Is the Minister aware of the importance of getting the land back into production as quickly as possible and that cash is needed immediately to buy small tillers and irrigation equipment which can be bought in Calcutta and Singapore? If so, will the Government give consideration to making available a cash grant which can be immediately utilised?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I am aware of the difficulties of transport at this time in Bangla Desh. Although it is difficult to operate quickly to change this, I might mention to the honourable member that one of the approvals which I have given is for 46 4-wheel drive trucks to be sent over there as part of our aid, but this takes time. We have flown some aid over there and the honourable member will have seen the recent announcement that a very large mixed cargo is being sent as a special shipment and will be arriving in Bangla Desh next month. I will have my Department make inquiries into the availability and appropriateness of the items to which the honourable member has suggested we should look at. I stress that we rely very much upon the advice of our representative on the spot who is an extremely able man and who acts in concert with the authorities. They know where the need is and, particularly, what is most required and how it can best be got directly on to the ground. As I explained to the House before, that is the principle we followed earlier and we will continue to follow it. However, I will refer the new matters the honourable member has raised to the Department for consideration.

page 11

QUESTION

FLIES

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Environment and the Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities. Did he notice the Minister for Supply when answering a question today give what has become known as the Western Australian and Canberra salute? As the bush fly menace is detrimental to our tourist industry, will he ascertain from the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation whether any advance has been made to combat the fly menace and report his findings to the House?

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

– I will have pleasure in talking to the Minister for Education and Science about this matter. There are a number of flies in the House. Possibly we can deal with them straight away - the others may take longer because there are even more flies in Western Australia than there are in Canberra.

page 11

QUESTION

DARTMOUTH DAM

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– Although I am aware that some statements have been made on this subject, I ask the Minister for National Development: What is the current official position in regard to the commencement of the building of the proposed Dartmouth Dam?

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

– This matter was raised by the honourable member only recently when I had the opportunity and great pleasure of visiting his electorate in response to an invitation he extended to me in the House. Letters have been sent by the Prime Minister to the Premiers of the 3 States concerned indicating that the Commonwealth is prepared to proceed in accordance with the original agreement which was approved by the House. At the moment we are awaiting a response from the Premiers to those letters. The Prime Minister has indicated to me that some replies have been received by him. When they have been processed by him they will be sent on to me for attention. I give an assurance to the honourable member that after that action has been taken the matter will be proceeded with as quickly as possible. I also mention that in the River Murray Commission which has a responsibility for organising and planning, much work has been done already and at the present time we in the Commission must wait for the governments concerned to make proclamations under the various Acts. As soon as that has been done, we will be able to proceed with the calling and examination of tenders and the subsequent letting of a contract.

page 11

QUESTION

DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENTS

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– Has the Prime Minister any knowledge of a report called the Stoner report? Is he aware that recommendations contained in that report relating to the grading and classification of inspectors employed in Defence departments are causing concern and discontent among these officers? Will he make available to all honourable members a copy of the Stoner report in order that we may be informed of the implications of this report, which was brought down some years ago and which is considered to be outmoded and obsolete for the purpose for which it is being used?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have no knowledge of the report. I will obtain a copy of it if it exists, and as soon as I have read it I will communicate with the honourable member.

page 12

QUESTION

FREQUENCY MODULATION BROADCASTING

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Postmaster-General, is related to the question asked a few minutes ago by the honourable member for Denison. Firstly, has the Minister received, or when does he hope to receive, the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board on frequency modulation broadcasting? Secondly, I ask him whether the evidence given before that Board already clearly indicates that this, if instituted, would cost far less than colour television, would provide much greater fidelity in reception for all listeners and in particular would result in, among other things, an alternative Australian Broadcasting Commission service for my friends who live in country areas.

Sir ALAN HULME:
LP

– Honourable members will be aware that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board held an inquiry into colour television some 2 or 3 years ago and more recently an inquiry in relation to frequency modulation broadcasting. I think the honourable member did not mention the word ‘sound’ when he spoke about fidelity. I emphasise this because television will give a picture but frequency modulation broadcasting will only give sound. I think therefore it is fairly obvious to most honourable members who have read the details of the evidence that it would be cheaper to install a system of frequency modulation broadcasting than it would be to introduce colour television.

There are problems associated with frequency modulation broadcasting. There are 3 particular areas - the AM or amplitude modulation area which is used in broadcasting and the VHF or very high frequency area which is used for television. When television was introduced in approximately 1956-57 there was on the VHF band a reservation for use of frequency modulation at a later point of time. The demand for television in Australia was such that the Huxtable Committee, I think it was, offered advice to the Government that in fact that section should be used for additional television stations. Therefore there is not room at present in the VHF band for frequency modulation because this band is taken up with television.

Throughout the world there has been very little, if any, use made in the UHF or ultra high frequency band for frequency modulation broadcasting, although I believe there is some use being made of this band in relation to television. I understand that very little evidence was given to the Board in its inquiry as to the use of either television or FM in these 2 bands. So the Board has been forced to seek technical advice through its own officers overseas and use its personal knowledge before it is able to issue the report. I believe that the matters I have mentioned are quite important in terms of the introduction of FM.

page 12

QUESTION

BROKEN HILL PTY CO. LTD

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister: Does he ever contrast the method and practice of the Government, when workers make an application for a wage increase, of briefing senior counsel to go into court to try to disprove the evidence they give in their application and of resisting publicly and privately in every way what the workers and salary earners try to do in order to get an increased wage or salary with the method of having a private discussion in his office with representatives of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd when they propose to increase the cost of steel by over $50m, and making no protest or taking action effectively-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member must ask his question. He cannot give a recital of what are his thoughts.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Does the Prime Minister ever contrast his method and consider whether this does not disqualify him, because of its injustice and inequity, from claiming the right to lead this country?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The honourable gentleman clearly misunderstood what I had said. At no time during the discussion that I had with Sir Ian did he mention to me that BHP intended to increase prices.

Dr Klugman:

– What did he mention?

Mr McMAHON:

– Please be silent.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Prospect will cease interjecting.

Mr McMAHON:

- Mr Speaker, honourable members opposite will have to make up their minds whether they want to listen. At no time was this question raised, although the question of the increase in costs was raised and naturally, as the company gave a great deal of information, the implication-

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Is that all?

Mr McMAHON:

– The honourable member does not want an answer.

page 13

QUESTION

TARIFFS

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. As Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is proud of the fact- (Opposition members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. This afternoon there have been far too many interjections. When important questions are asked - many questions this afternoon have been of national interest - in common decency it behoves honourable members, having asked their questions and been heard in silence, to listen in silence to the Ministers’ replies to those questions.

Mr Hayden:

– The answer would have been of interest.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 warn the honourable member for Oxley. If he interjects again J will deal with him. The honourable member for Wakefield will ask his question of the Minister for Trade and Industry.

Mr KELLY:

– As the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is proud of the fact that it produces iron and steel products as cheap as any in the world, will the Minister consider withdrawing the tariff protection for iron and steel products so as to inject into Australia a badly needed element of competition for these products?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– It is true that Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd. is one of Australia’s great companies and one of its most efficient and that it can compete with most other iron and steel making companies around the world. The great bulk of the prices that the company charges would be cheaper than those prevailing in most of the major industrial nations, although not in all of them. There are many specialty lines for which, because of a small volume throughput, BHP’s costs are a little higher than those in, say, Japan or the United States of America and for this reason the company needs an element of protection. However, to talk about using the tariff as a device for controlling prices is to show a lack of understanding of our tariff protection mechanism. Tariffs are determined after careful examination, and mature judgment is given to the recommendations of the Tariff Board. I would hate to depart from that system to a system under which members of Parliament determine what the rate of protection should be.

page 13

QUESTION

FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Mr GRASSBY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Prime Minister by reminding him of his refusal of an Opposition request for a joint House committee to inquire into foreign investment in Australia. Will the Prime Minister reconsider his attitude in view of the Senate’s defiance of his veto by the establishment of a Senate committee for this purpose and in view of the widespread desire of Australians generally to halt the sale of our remaining national assets?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– In order to do the maximum that we can to have the maximum of Australian ownership of assets I have taken 2 courses of action. First, 1 have instructed the Reserve Bank and the Treasury jointly to submit to me a paper showing the degree of capital inflow and the way in which it can be controlled in Australia’s interests and not in the interests of other people or other countries. And I already have had presented to me by the Treasurer a draft outline of the kind of statement that is being prepared. It is a massive job. It requires in-depth studies and I believe it will be some weeks before it is completed. However, I believe that when it is completed it will be a proper vehicle by which we in the House can debate this issue and come to sensible conclusions. May I now finish the answer to the last question that was asked of mc? (Opposition members interjecting) -

Mr McMahon:

– If honourable members opposite do not want to hear the answer they had better tell me.

Mr Calwell:

– I want to hear the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think a great number of other honourable members do too.

Mr McMAHON:

– If I can answer the first part of the question asked by the honourable member for Lalor it is this: In the case of wage claims it is the Government’s policy that they be adjudicated on by conciliation and arbitration processes, and this applies whether it happens to be by the Public Service Board, the Public Service Arbitrator, private industry and the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In the case of prices I have given a clear indication of where we stand, and I think that if the Leader of the Opposition can be taken as meaning what he said, he agrees with us explicitly, too. So far as the part of the relevant discussions that we had with Sir Ian McLennan is concerned, that part of the letter that I sent to him has been made public and clearly indicates our point of view: We felt it preferable not to increase prices but to attempt to absorb them. I have also made clear what the position of BHP was. I believe that it is a matter for the public itself to make up its mind whether the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd acted with restraint. It certainly had an opportunity to increase prices much more substantially than it in fact did.

page 14

QUESTION

MARIHUANA

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. In certain quarters it is thought that recent statements or speeches by the Minister may indicate that he is perhaps a shade more favourably inclined towards marihuana. I therefore ask: Is he still adamant in his opposition to the legalising of this drug?

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · HOTHAM, VICTORIA · LP

– I do not know what newspapers the honourable member has read, but I am mystified as to the premise of his question. Speaking for myself and I am sure for the Government and for every honourable member on this side of the House we are totally opposed to the legalisation of marihuana.

page 14

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr GORTON:
Higgins

- Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of misrepresentation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GORTON:

– Yes, I claim to have been misrepresented by a statement made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) which, as I understood it, claimed that I had been advocating a ‘wageprice freeze’. I have not. I have said that the major cause of our inflation is that remuneration I do not use the word ‘wages’ though ‘remuneration’ includes wages is rising faster than productivity. I have said that that rate of rise must be diminished and must be reduced if we are to get at the root cause of inflation, and I have said that that can scarcely be accepted unless it is also seen that endeavours are made to ensure that price rises of basic commodities must be justified before they occur. That is not calling for a wageprice freeze.

page 14

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate:

Without amendment -

Judicial Appointment (Fiji) Bill 1971.

Papua New Guinea Bill 1971.

Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Bill 1971.

Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1971.

States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill 1971.

South Australia Grant (Fruit Canneries) Bill 1971.

New South Wales Grant (Leeton Co-operative Cannery Limited) Bill 1971.

Tariff Board Bill 1971.

Customs Bill (No. 2) 1971.

Without requests -

Dried Vine Fruits Levy Bill 1971.

page 14

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1971-72.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1971-72.

War Service Homes Bill 1971.

Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1971.

States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill 1971.

Papua New Guinea Bill 1971.

Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1971.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1971-72.

Tariff Board Bill 1971.

South Australia Grant (Fruit Canneries) Bill 1971.

New South Wales Grant (Leeton Cooperative Cannery Limited) Bill 1971.

States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1971.

States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill 1971.

Dried Vine Fruits Levy Bil] 1971.

Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1971.

Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Bill 1971.

Customs Bill (No. 2) 1971.

States Grants Bill (No. 2) 1971.

Salaries (Statutory Offices) Adjustment Bill 1971.

Judicial Appointment (Fiji) Bill 1971.

Restrictive Trade Practices Bill 1971.

page 15

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received letters from both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. I have selected the matter proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, namely:

The Government’s inconsistency, in exercising its powers to restrain wages and salaries but refusing to institute a national prices policy to restrain prices. 1 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 WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– At 5 o’clock last Tuesday afternoon Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, Australia’s largest and richest company, issued a statement to all the stock exchanges announcing a 5.3 per cent rise in the price of steel. The rise followed upon an 8 per cent increase last June, making an increase of nearly 14 per cent in just over 7 months. At 6.15 p.m. I issued a statement protesting at the increase. I said that the decision of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd bad been made without consultation. I said that BHP had treated the McMahon Government with contempt. The half of it was not told unto me. I had no idea of the humiliating revelations that the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) was to make the following day. I could not have known or believed that the Government had known for 3 weeks of this impending rise and had not made the slightest effort to modify it or delay it. Nobody knew it. The previous day - on the Monday - at a meeting of the 7 Treasurers of this country, the heads of the 7 governments in our Federation, there was a lengthy discussion of the economic situation. The Prime Minister (Mr

McMahon) made a long speech mentioning a great deal about wages and salaries, or remuneration; nothing about prices. In fact, some of the Premiers raised the subject of prices. Two of them - my colleagues Mr Dunstan and Mr Tonkin - sought a national prices policy and offered the full co-operation of their governments in implementing it.

As always happens when questions are put to the Prime Minister, he made some set speeches in reply and gave no information. He did not tell the Premiers - the State Treasurers - that this price rise by BHP was about to take place. The Federal Government, the McMahon Government, treated all the other governments in Australia with contempt. How valid are these discussions on the economy when information on prices is denied to the partners in the Federation? If I had known, I would not have said that BHP had treated the McMahon Government with contempt; I would have said that BHP had treated the McMahon Government with the contempt it deserved.

What followed BHP’s announcement was in its own way as extraordinary as the announcement itself. But it was wonderfully illuminating about the way this Government works, particularly the Prime Minister. All that Tuesday evening, from 5 o’clock in the afternoon onwards, the Press sought the Prime Minister’s reaction. Of course, he was shocked, stunned, bewildered, dumb and dumbfounded. After all, he had had only 3 weeks to steel himself. At 11.10 p.m. a statement was issued on the Prime Minister’s behalf. He said that the price rise was deplorable, particularly its timing. He said that BHP should publicly justify the increases. At 11.20 there was an amendment. What the Prime Minister meant to say, it was stated on his behalf, was that BHP should publicly justify the bases for its decision. But more was to come. At midnight there came the suggestion that BHP should not forget the possibility of a second steel industry at Jervis Bay. Whom did the Prime Minister think he was fooling? Not the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). Not the Treasurer. Not BHP. They all knew. They all took a different attitude. He was trying to fool the people of Australia.

The grandstanding of the Prime Minister depended for its success upon a conspiracy of silence, but the Deputy Prime Minister spoke out. The Treasurer spoke out. BHP spoke out. So the Prime Minister’s record in this matter was revealed to the public. I am told that the Prime Minister is not to speak in this debate, but at question time this afternoon in a set piece he said that he had written 8 weeks before to BHP. However, barely 12 hours after the Prime Minister’s eleventhhour statement the Treasurer let the cat out of the bag. The Treasurer had known about this deplorable increase for 3 weeks. I will quote what he said at the National Press Club. He had all too much exposure on this occasion. The honourable gentleman did not quote this passage during question time. In addressing the National Press Club the Treasurer said:

I saw Mr McNeill, the director of BHP. He came to see me for the purpose of telling me in depth what they saw as their problems. He told them to me. I then told him my problems. I told him of the anxiety of the Government to restrain wage increases and the anxiety of the Government to be successful in our attack on inflation so there was a mutual disclosure of problems.

It was a mutual therapy session, as one of the newspapers said. I will quote further from this National Press Club address.

Mr Snedden:

– From what page?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I am quoting from what you gave me.

Mr Snedden:

– From what page?

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Treasurer said:

I did not oppose the BHP steel increases. I told BHP that it was a matter of their commercial judgment, that we were not a price fixing body.

The Treasurer revealed only part of the Government’s attitude; its suppleness, and its double standards; the contrast in its attitude to wages and salaries on the one hand and prices and profits on the other hand. This is what he had to say about wages and salaries. This was the positive aspect. There was no mincing about, no mutual discussion of problems here. He said:

We will oppose wage increases before the arbitration tribunal. We will put forward in argument the economic consequences which flow from those wage increases.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Country Party, the spokesman for the man on the land, gave the rest of the picture. He not merely accepts the price rise; he applauds it. No nonsense for him about deplorable timing. Yet every tractor, every piece of farm machinery, every piece of fencing wire, bailing wire and corrugated iron will cost more because of this decision, the third such decision in 2 years and the second in less than 8 months. I ask honourable members to contrast the statements of the Deputy Prime Minister with those which the Prime Minister has made in the House and outside it. The Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Country Party had this to say:

They have no alternative but to pass the costs on, as other industries do and as State and local governments have done. It is wrong to attack BHP for their actions when they have had a good record in war and peace and have sold most of their steel at prices below those of other steel producing countries. It is wrong to single out and viciously attack BHP.

The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) made equally revealing comments, because he demonstrated the Government’s obsession with wages as the source of all our economic ills.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest to honourable members on my left that the Leader of the Opposition needs no assistance and they should cease interjecting.

Mr Cope:

– What about the Deputy Prime Minister?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest that the honourable member for Sydney contain himself.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Minister for Primary Industry, who is Deputy Leader of the Country Party, said:

This price rise follows an 8 per cent increase in average wages paid by BHP from the end of November 1970 to the end of November 1971. In other words, the BHP decision is not equal to the increase in wages alone which are an essentia] component of the costs of production of iron and steel.

He not only ignored the previous June’s 8 per cent price increase so that prices have risen at a much greater rate than wages but also proved the economic fallacy on which the Government’s policy is based. If wages are never to rise faster than prices, wage and salary earners are never to improve their lot. That is the real meaning of the Government’s policies. The wage and salary earners are always to be kept in their place. The national wealth is never to be distributed in their favour.

Ninety per cent of the people who now work for their living in Australia do so on wages and salaries. Whereas when this Government came into power in 1949 wage and salary earners, then a much smaller percentage of the work force, were sharing 68 per cent of the national income, now they are sharing 62 per cent of it. And how, according to the Government, are wages to be kept down? Again we are indebted to the Treasurer. In his comment on the 9.2 per cent increase in the consumer price index for the December quarter he admitted the real purpose of the Budget - to produce unemployment to keep wages down. He said:

For the first time for some years, labour turnover is falling off in many areas. . . . Employers seeking labour can now more readily obtain it. . . . Yet one does not hear of these desirable developments. Good news, it seems, is no news.

Is it desirable that 130,000 should be seeking work? Is it good news that the number on the dole should double in one month? Yet with all its needless loss in production, with all its blighting of young careers and with all its avoidable hardship, unemployment will not reduce inflation. When prices were rising at the rate of 7 per cent 12 months before, the former Prime Minister put on the brakes. But with prices rising at the rate of 9.2 per cent, his supplanter has been forced not only to reverse his policies but also to reverse his own Budget. In other words, to reduce unemployment, which would never have occurred except for the Budget, the Prime Minister has unleashed new inflationary pressures on top of rising inflation which would never have occurred except for the Budget. Unemployment the worst for 10 years; inflation the worst for 15 years. This is the achievement of the McMahon Government’s Budget. The Government has a wages policy but no prices policy. We are the only developed industrial trading country these days which has no national prices policy.

There is not only the objection of the total unfairness of this; there is just no chance of it working. It will not achieve even its narrow, limited, unjust objective of keeping wages down. Wage demand will not be moderated in either the short or the long term il employees remain convinced that they are being denied a fair share of the nation’s wealth and that they alone must bear the burden of the fight against inflation. Cannot even a Liberal Government see that if bank employees, who helped to put it into power 23 years ago, are now taking industrial action, the great majority of the Australian work force - the 90 per cent who depend on wages and salaries determined by arbitration and negotiation, constantly frustrated in the tribunals of this country by the present Government - are unconvinced? There is the immediate task of reducing unemployment. There is the enduring task of reducing inflation. My Party’s policies are totally committed to full employment and reducing inflation; to government expenditure and planning always bearing in mind that one must curb inflation. The quickest way, of course, to bring about employment is to make capital grants to, for instance, social service beneficiaries - the worst hit victims of inflation and the people who spend their money immediately. There is no built-in inflationary component in such a proposition.

On prices, any national government is not impotent, however much Liberal Ministers may claim to be. For instance, there is the immediate action which we are taking in the Senate today to set up a Senate committee to look into this matter immediately. The Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, set up as a result of a Labor motion but not containing a Labor majority, has brought about by sheer exposure a correction of some of the practices which have been damaging Australia at home and abroad. It is true that the Government objected to the Senate setting up a committee to look into overseas control of our resources. It has been set up. And Government senators will similarly oppose the setting up of a committee for which my colleague, Senator Murphy, is moving a motion in the Senate. This is something which can be done immediately. Furthermore, there are, as the Commissioner of Trade Practices reported to us last July, steps which can be taken to improve his charter, and the concrete pipes case shows how much can be done to augment that tribunal and the full Barwick proposals. In conclusion, quite apart from any legislative or administrative matters there is the sheer leadership which can be given by a national leader such as President Kennedy. In 3 days he brought the biggest companies of the world to heel by exposure and by leadership.

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

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce Treasurer · LP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has brought into this House a matter of public importance claiming that it is of great urgency. It is interesting to remember that two or three weeks ago and for a period prior to that, the big issue that he was talking about was recession. Whatever did happen to the recession that he was talking about? Today he comes into the House not with a censure motion or a no confidence motion, for they are insupportable in his own judgment. What he comes in with is a matter of public importance and then he does not even talk to the subject. He ignored it completely, as well he might ignore it for he has no policy himself. He dare not have a policy because any policy that he speaks of is totally in contradiction to the official policy of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party’s policy is price control with the co-operation of the States. The Leader of the Opposition went to great lengths last night to say that he was not talking about control; he was talking about some other more fuzzy thing such as restraint. I will come to that in a moment. But he has not given his attention to the terms of the matter before the House. Instead, what has he done? He has built up an entire case which must be struck to the ground for it has no basis except in distortion and unsupported allegation. The Leader of the Opposition should listen to my exposure of his distortion. It will do him good to listen to it and to know that it is becoming apparent to everybody that the whole basis of every argument that is put is distortion. The purpose of the speech was an attempt to draw a division between the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and me. The Leader of the Opposition has been in the Labor Party long enough to know the divisive tactics of that Party, but they will not work when used against this side of the House. I assure him of that. He would do better putting his efforts into policy matters instead of personalities.

His first distortion was when he said that the Treasurer knew for 3 weeks before the rise in the price of steel was announced. Where is his support for that statement? It is distortion and unfounded allegation. I come to the next distortion. He said that the Prime Minister failed to tell the Premiers of the rise, well knowing it was about to occur.

Mr Whitlam:

– Did he tell them?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– No, he did not tell them. The distortion is the allegation that the Prime Minister did not tell them although he knew it was about to occur. What is the justification for that statement by the Leader of the Opposition? He should justify it.

Mr Whitlam:

– Did you not tell him?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Justify it. As for the assertion that 1 knew, I saw Mr McNeill on 26th January and on that occasion made my position clear to him. I will read part of an answer I gave to a question the day after the price rise was announced. I said:

I made it clear to him that our problems were difficult, very difficult, but we as a Government are not a wage fixing authority, nor for that matter can we take commercial judgments. But I was anxious that any, commercial judgment taken would be taken against the background of full knowledge of the Government’s intentions and policy and full knowledge of the difficulties of economic management as we saw them.

The decision had not been taken on that clay. I put all these factors to Mr McNeill so that they could be taken into account. Let me put the record straight. I was asked a question as follows:

  1. . you may think it appropriate to answer this question with a yes orno. Did you oppose the BHP steel increase?

I replied:

I thought I had answered that.

Having said what I have just read out, one might well have thought that 1 had answered it, but as I was asked to make a yes or no statement I said:

I did not oppose the BHP steel increases.

I thought 1 had made clear what I bad done. In that very same answer I went on:

I told BHP that it was a matter of their commercial judgment, that we were not a price fixing body. I told them what our attitudes were to inflation and economic management so that they would take their decisions against the Government’s attitude.

As I mentioned at question time, Mr Brenchley of the ‘Australian Financial Review’ asked me:

Did you argue with BHP for moderation in their prices?

I replied:

With BHP I made it clear what our policies were. I made it clear that price increases were something that we wished to see avoided or moderated.

If my recollection is right, I have not seen Mr McNeill again since 26th January. So the basis of the allegations is a distortion.

Let us come to the subject of the matter before the House. It refers to the Government’s inconsistency. Let us have some consistency from the Leader of the Opposition. He says that he has a prices policy. I will come to that in a moment. Let him tell us what his wages policy is. He has no wages policy. He talks about leadership. What leadership did he give in Victoria during the State Electricity Commission workers’ strike when hundreds of thousands of men were out of work? What leadership did the Leader of the Opposition give on that occasion? We have identified the main cause of the inflationary pressures in Australia today. The main blame lies at the feet of excess wage increases. It is a matter of cause and effect. Price increases are only the measurement of the excess when it has passed through from excess wage increases to increased costs. The increased costs are passed on in prices. How can it be said that prices are chasing wages when, for the quarter from September to December, average wages rose by over 11 per cent whereas for the calendar year 1971. according to the figures I can obtain from the statistics for comparison, prices went up by 7 per cent?

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But the workers have to pay tax on their wage increase.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honourable member says that they have to pay tax. The Opposition will say anything to try to modify the reality, and that is that excess wages are the root cause of the problem. What policy has the Opposition in relation to the root cause? The Opposition does not have a single policy on this matter. Wages, salaries and supplements constitute 57.5 per cent of the gross national product on the average over the last 8 years. In the aggre gate one can see what an important effect the increase in wages, incomes and supplements has had on costs. If they go up, the costs should be absorbed to the greatest extent possible; but it is simply not possible to absorb all the costs if the costs advance beyond productivity.

We as a Government are concerned for everybody in an inflationary situation, for who are the sufferers? The sufferers are the weaker members of the workforce, the less highly organised, those with less industrial muscle, those on fixed incomes, workers whose savings are now their source of income, the exporters of rural and secondary products. They are the sufferers. From inflation the speculator or the industrially powerful is the beneficiary. In accordance with our duty to the whole of the Australian people we shall pursue the course of identifying wages as the main, root cause of the inflationary pressures. The next part of the matter under discussion refers to the Government’s exercising its powers. What power does it have? It has the power to intervene in general wage cases to put logical arguments and economic realities to arbitration tribunals so that when they give their decisions - for it is the tribunals that give the decisions - they can have in mind all these factors which are so important to the economic welfare of this country and therefore to the social wellbeing of the Australian people. If that is what the Government is charged with doing, I do not deny it, for do it we must.

In relation to the Commonwealth Public Service the Government has indicated that, within the arbitral system, it will resist wage claims to the extent it can. That point has been pressed upon the Government by the whole of the general sector. A national prices policy is the next matter for discussion. What is a national prices policy according to the Australian Labor Party or its spokesman, the Leader of the Opposition? He does not say what it means. He does say what it does not mean. What an extraordinarily convoluted way for a national leader to explain a national policy. He says that it does not mean arbitrary powers being handed over to a price fixing body. What does it mean? The Australian Labor Party’s policy, on the other hand, refers to price controls with the cooperation of the States. The Leader of the

Opposition does not use the word ‘control’. Mr Hawke does. Mr Hawke does not back away from it. The Leader of the Opposition made it clear in his briefing last night that he did not really want controls; that might be politically dangerous. But Mr Hawke, whom the Prime Minister said today was the true leader of the Labor Party, does want controls. Honourable members opposite should be careful not to deny it or they may lose their endorsements. The word used in the matter for discussion is ‘restrain’, not ‘control’. We are not going to have a body with arbitrary power. We are going to have the carrot and stick approach. We have not heard very much about the carrot but we have heard about the stick. The stick, as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, is a selective disqualification of individuals. On the basis of that selective disqualification there will be a withdrawal of the investment allowance. To companies in this country trying to diversify production and trying to improve their productivity it will mean that they will sit there not knowing whether what they have planned on is likely to be withdrawn by an inchoate body not yet defined.

The other stick is tariff protection. That is to be withdrawn selectively. Men’s jobs depend upon tariff policy. If the Opposition is going to play with the security of men employed by companies, by the potential selective withdrawal of tariffs, and if it is going to change tariff policy and tell the Tariff Board what to do, it should expose this in detail. Perhaps the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) will explain how it works. If they are not arbitrary matters I would hate to have some knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition when he is in a dictatorial mood. God knows what would happen. When stripped down to its essentials the matter before the House discloses that there is a price policy of the kind 1 have spelt out. It is true that there is an arbitrary method of selective disqualification, but there is no wages policy involved in it at all, for the Parliamentary Labor Party has no wages policy. It dares not have a wage policy. If it had a wages policy it would find itself in conflict with the trade unions of Australia, particularly the powerful trade unions, and more particularly with the powerful trade union leaders of this country. For that reason the Leader of the Opposition has fuzzed up this matter as best he could. That is why he built his whole case upon the distortion I have disclosed. That is also why the people of Australia still have not been told by the Leader of the Opposition- what his policy is. He has attempted to hide it by saying what it might not be and he has attempted to create a division between the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and myself, and it will not work.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– There is no need for anybody on this side of the House to try to divide the people on the other side. We have seen a record of division over there in the last 2 years that has never been equalled before in the history of this Parliament. Half of the other side of the House consists of back benchers who were former Ministers and half consists of back benchers who are now Ministers. One never knows who are the Ministers in this Parliament or who will be the Ministers next week. We need not do anything to divide the Government. It is rapidly dividing itself. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) began his speech by alleging distortion against the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). He gave no proof whatever and he was left with the allegations.

The Treasurer is now trying to tell us that Mr McNeill did not tell him on 26th January that there was to be a price increase in steel. Is he trying to tell us that, or is it not obvious that Mr McNeill told him that there was to be a price increase and he did a little to show that the Government might be embarrassed if there was an increase? Is he trying to distort that? Of course he was told on 26th January, and of course the Leader of the Opposition was right in saying that the Treasurer had known for 3 weeks. If he did not tell the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) about it before he went to the Premiers Conference, that makes it even worse. He accuses the Leader of the Opposition of distortion by saying that the Prime Minister did not inform the Premiers. He admits here now that the Prime Minister did not inform the Premiers. Is he telling us that he did not tell the Prime Minister about the coming increase in the price of steel before he went to the Premiers Conference? Every step he takes to try to explain this shambles in the conduct of policy over the past 2 or 3 weeks makes it worse and worse.

Of course we are dealing here not only with the shambles that the Government has created in its attitude to the big corporations that dominate and rule this country; we are concerned with a very important question of national policy. Inflation is now the most serious problem in Australia. Inflation eats away all fixed and relatively fixed incomes by its constant increase of living costs. Unemployment is an evil without parallel, but inflation is the main cause of unemployment and unemployment cannot be prevented unless inflation is prevented. Inflation continuously weakens a country’s position in the outside world. It makes a country mendicant and dependent. Inflation is the most divisive and conflict-producing factor in industrial relations.

The McMahon Government has. convicted itself of the most unbalanced and biased policy ever practised since World War II. It recognises the seriousness of inflation. It knows of the fantastic profits of a company like Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd - an increase from $42m to $68m in 4 years, over 60 per cent in 4 years. Whose wages and salaries have increased at that rate? This represents an earning rate on ordinary capital of 24 per cent - the equivalent of a gilt edged investment giving 4 times the gilt edged return. Who gets money at that rate but BHP and the other big corporations? The McMahon Government has not proved its thesis that it is wage increases that cause inflation. The Leader of the Opposition showed that 4 years ago 68 per cent of the national income was wages and salaries and that they have now fallen to 62 per cent. Inflation has been caused by the increase at the other end of the income scale. It has been caused by the people who have power to determine their own incomes. Yet the McMahon Government offers no objection whatever to a 5.3 per cent increase in steel prices at the same time as it uses all its powers to keep wages and salaries frozen and attacks and vilifies trade union leaders and the unions themselves. It sows dissent and division in the community; it favours the rich and suppresses the poor and the average citizen.

Inflation cannot be dealt with or any level of social justice established unless the big corporations are made subject to effective control. Price control is essential. Unions can sometimes win wage increases and that may have the effect of increasing prices, but they cannot do so without control and restraint. They have to prove their case to an arbitration authority or to powerful employers, but the big corporations are free to do what they like whenever they like. As long as the big corporations are free to get in for their cut in hundreds of millions whenever they choose to do so, without any real Government objection or restraint, no government can expect any restraint from wage and salary earners or from any union. If inflation is ever to be dealt with there must be a balanced and equitable policy in the nation. To establish such a policy the national Government must be aware of the power and responsibility of the giant corporations. The national Government must subject the big corporations to full scrutiny and establish the means to bring them under effective control. Wage control without price control is contrary to common sense, a distortion of justice and an inevitable cause of conflict and a deep sense of grievance. Such a policy will inevitably fail, as it has continuously failed over the last 20 years. How long does it take us to learn?

An Australian Labor Party government will end this irresponsibility, distortion and injustice. It will bring an end to national policies which have built-in forces which condemn them to failure. An Australian Labor Party government will bring the big corporations under effective scrutiny and will not permit price increases unless they are- proved to be justifiable and unavoidable. Does the national Government in Australia have power to do this? It cannot ever be a national government unless it has this power. The McMahon Government and its predecessors have always been pleased to say that the Australian Government has no such powers. This is not because the power is not there; it is because the Government has no desire or intention to use it. Hence the easiest course is to lead people to believe that there are no powers. But there is in fact ample power.

There is now a strong probability that there is full and adequate power, even in the Constitution itself. In the concrete pipes case the High Court of Australia recently appears to have reversed and invalidated the doctrine established in 1909 in the Huddart Parker case which has prevented the national Government from exercising this kind of power. It is the first responsibility of the national Parliament fully to test and apply these powers. We challenge the present Government to do so. A Labor Party government will do this. We will not allow government of this nation to go by default as honourable members opposite have done. But even if this constitutional power was not there, the national Government has full and adequate powers of other kinds. Even the present Treasurer himself, when Minister for Labour and National Service, pointed to where these powers were. On 8th October 1970 he said:

I have also argued that there are means availablethe Trades Practices Act, the Tariff Board, moral suasion-

Imagine this Government talking about anything moral - to sharpen competitive pressures in our economy.

No corporations in Australia, however big they are, can operate without government assistance. This vital assistance takes the form of tariffs, research and export assistance, subsidies, investment allowances and so on. But the McMahon Government merely hands out all this assistance to the big corporations and expects nothing whatever from them in return. They are given all this assistance and asked to do nothing. We have gone far enough down this street. No Labor government will accept this position. A Labor government, for instance, will grant tariff protection only if it is satisfied that the price charged is proved by facts to be fair and reasonable. The Tariff Board or some similar body will be required to satisfy itself about this vital matter before it recommends any protection to this national Parliament, and it is the responsibility of this Parliament to see that the Tariff Board does so. The Commonwealth arbitration authority has the responsibility to establish that industry can afford a wage increase before it makes an award granting one. Once it has done that the arbitration authority has the responsibility, and it must have the power, to ensure that industry does not make a farce of its award by immediately passing on into prices «he wage increase which it has already found industry to be able ro afford. The Commonwealth arbitration authority must pay attention to prices as well as to wages if its objective of preventing industrial disputes is to be more than a pretence.

In conclusion, inflation is a great economic and social problem. It must be dealt with. The national Government alone in Australia can deal with it. It has power to do so. An Australian Labor Party government will never permit inflation or unemployment to become established in Australia. We have the power to prevent these things. We will use that power. It is time that economic and social balance was established in this country. For 20 years the pendulum has swung the wrong way. An Australian Labor Party government can establish economic and social balance in Australia as Labor did under Fisher 60 years ago and under Curtin and Chifley 25 years ago. It is now time for a new deal in Australia. It is time for a Labor government. Common sense and progress demand it.

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

– First of all I want to clear up something that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said in reference to a statement of mine. It was not a misrepresentation of a statement of mine that he made but a deliberate untruth when he said I applauded the increase in steel prices by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd.

Mr Whitlam:

– I quoted your words.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I do not care what the words were but if you quote what was in the newspapers you will see that I said it was unfortunate and regrettable that BHP had to increase its prices but I could understand why, because of the extravagant wage increases and the industrial unrest which had occurred in this country during the past 12 months. If the Leader of the Opposition is going to put into the ears of the Australian public something which is completely untrue then he does not deserve the respect or the dignity of anybody.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I demand that the words be withdrawn. I quoted the Minister’s precise words, words in which he justified this increase. If he-

Mr ANTHONY:

– Did I use the word applaud*? No.

Mr Whitlam:

– I then went on to quote your very words.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr Whitlam:

– If I have misquoted the words I will correct them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. In the particular circumstances the Leader of the Opposition has not been misrepresented. The word ‘untrue’ has been used in this House instead of another word. There is no substance in the point of order. There is no need for a withdrawal.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I have made my point and if he does it again he will get the same treatment. I think we need to understand what this debate is all about.

Mr Whitlam:

– I quoted your very words.

Mr ANTHONY:

– You can salvage your own dignity if you like but make sure that when you quote me you quote the right words.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition come to order.

Mr Kirwan:

– On a point of order. The word ‘untruth’ cannot be taken exception to but the words ‘deliberate untruth’ attributes a motive and we are not allowed to do that when Country Party members are speaking. 1 believe that the word ‘deliberate’ ought to be withdrawn. The phrase deliberate untruth’ is, I believe, unparliamentary and you, Sir, have so ruled when Country Party members have been accused of it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If the Minister for Trade and Industry used the words deliberate untruth’ I suggest that he withdraw the word ‘deliberate’.

Mr ANTHONY:

– 1 will leave out the word ‘deliberate’, if it is your wish, and just use the word ‘untruth’, and that stands. I think we need to understand what this debate is all about. It is not just a debate about the price rise by. BHP. . It is not just about the present level of unemployment, about wage demands or about industrial trouble. The fundamental thing we are talking about here is the thing that holds more potential than probably any other factor for bringing this nation to disaster, and that is inflation. Inflation, more than anything else, carries the seeds of destruction for any nation which allows inflation to get out of hand, to take charge of people’s thinking - as it can - or to undermine the foundations of the national economy and eat away the living standard? of our people. Today we seem to have a new policy coming from the Australian Labor Party, one of concern about inflation, and this fascinates me. The Labor Party has been prepared to stand back, to be mute and condone the actions of militant trade unions, of organised labour, to push exorbitant demands for higher wages and to condone a 35-hour working week, bans and threats made by unions and strikes. What does the Labor Party do about this? It says nothing as if this does not have any effect at all on inflation in this country.

I suppose we ought to understand that the Labor Party is tied chain and ball to the trade unions of this country and therefore it is impotent to make any comments in this direction. However, the Labor Party is not reticent about making exorbitant promises at election time, promises to help in this section of the community or in something else which would ultimately mean crashing taxation or runaway deficit financing. If the Labor Party is concerned about inflation it had better think a second time about these wild promises it makes at election time. To turn to the Australian Labor Party to seek help in the fight against inflation is like calling for petrol to put out a bush fire.

The Labor Party claims in this debate that we have a policy of wage freeze, of wage fixation. There is a wage policy in this country which determines a minimum wage, not a maximum wage. There are opportunities for over-award payments and for bonuses, but what the Labor Party is suggesting is a minimum wage policy and a maximum price fixation policy, which is quite different. Unfortunately there is a widespread view in the community that the answer to all our economic problems lies in the simple solution of wage and price controls, lt is easy to say that we should have such controls, lt is easy to say that they would work and that they would have the desired effect but the evidence of experience in other countries suggests a different result. Of course, the socialists will flog this approach of wage and price controls with all the zeal that they have. Here is their chance to insert controls on the economy in the directions which they desire; and regrettably there are prejudiced people in the community who think that this form of controlling inflation has appeal. Their judgment is superficial because experience and an examination of what has happened in other countries that have done this provide evidence that this is an unsatisfactory solution.

Take the Canadian Government, for example, which set up a Prices and Incomes Commission in 1969. This approach broke down because the leaders of 2 major unions rejected the proposals on wages and salaries. In 1970 Canada tried a new approach with a conference on price stability. This conference reached agreement that business firms generally would reduce the number and size of price increases. The Government would do the same and the provincial and federal governments would use sanctions to enforce these agreements if necessary. The Prices and Incomes Commission proposed a guideline for a maximum salary and wage increase of 6 per cent a year. Labor rejected this and refused to co-operate. So Canada’s attempt to control wages and prices broke down. The activities in other nations provide not much better examples. But we hear the Leader of the Opposition say that we ought to use selective tariff adjustments for controlling prices and for disciplining companies. What a ridiculous statement. This is a deliberate attack on our whole tariff making apparatus. It is an attack on the independence and integrity of the Tariff Board. It is an attack on those firms which will have to depend for their survival on the grace and favour of a Labor government. Tariff levels can be fixed only after mature and careful consideration by an expert body. To do otherwise would be to create a lack of stability in business and cause unemployment. To use tariffs to control prices, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, is patently absurd.

My time in this debate is limited. The underlying pressure of inflation today is quite clear, lt is the exorbitant wage demands that are being made and the effect that this is having not just on business, not just on the great, grabbing, monopolistic companies to which the Opposition refer but also on all governments in Australia. As a result they have had to put up their charges and this is affecting the standard of living of all Australian people.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– If anyone had doubts about the integrated nature of an industrial society, those doubts would have been removed after the electric power hold-up in Victoria. It began in an atmosphere of bad industrial relations between the State, as the public employer, and its employees. After a week, it threatened to spill over into other States and to bring all industrial activity in Victoria to a standstill. On the other hand, if anything demonstrated a lack of integrated economic policy in Australia, it was the events of last week. The Commonwealth Government portentously meets with the Premiers of all the States to announce to them steps it could and should have taken months before and to brag about sums of money of the magnitude of $50m to $100m being injected into the economy. The next day, one gigantic firm announced a decision made behind closed doors which would take at least $30m out of the economy in the form of higher prices. It was a confrontation of political impotence and naked economic power. It contrasted the iniquitous ease with which prices can be raised with the rigours that apply to the fixing of wages.

One of the measures announced by the Government - the restoration of the investment allowance - was a golden handshake to the owners of industry. It contrasted with the Government shaking an iron fist at the wage earners in the same industries. Yet, we hear talk of integrity. Was there not a threat to the integrity of the socalled independent wage fixing tribunals in this country by the suggestion from the Government that they ought to be cautious in awarding increases? To hold wages down and to allow prices to rise is social injustice. While that injustice continues, the tempo of the economy will decline - I want to explain that in a moment - and it will continue to do so until we do something along the lines that the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, as far back as 1959, suggested was needed in Australia. It suggested that there should be an integrated economic policy. I have not time to quote all the recommendations of this all party Committee which are contained in paragraphs 979 to 982. However, it stated:

The Committee considered that the Commonwealth now had to discharge a responsibility of government which did no; exist when the Constitution was originally framed, namely, to safeguard and promote the economic welfare of the community of Australia.

That is what is in jeopardy at the moment. What has been shown is that Government policy, taken for supposedly good reasons, can be negated by unchecked acts by what is called private enterprise industry. This is only another example of the negation of what is pursued as Government policy.

I refer io the observations in the latest report of the Reserve Bank of Australia. They show that the monetary policy which rightly or wrongly this Government is trying to implement in Australia is frustrated because of the flow into this country of capital from overseas. Much has been said about the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. The case of BHP is only an example of the difficulties with which we contend. Last year, while company profits for most groups declined in aggregate, one group - financial companies - actually increased their profits by about 20 per cent. I am becoming a little tired of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) saying that because wages rise 1 1 per cent and prices only 8 per cent it is wages only that have to be looked at. Let us take the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd as an example. Its annual report - a curious document - gives everything except its turnover. However, it shows that the company paid $253,070,000 in salaries and wages. Another item which is as significant is the item ‘profit before fixed asset utilisation and income tax $248,490,000’. That part of the company’s operation is just as significant in the total price structure as are wages. It is an element that can be looked after. I estimate - it is time the Treasury obtained some accurate figures on this - that if prices rose by 8 per cent, approximately 3 per cent of that increase would be due to wages and salaries. A further 3 per cent of the increase would be due to the profit item components, including provision for capital plough back and the other 2 to 3 per cent of the increase would be due to Government taxation policy. The Government should at least look at all these elements and not simply blame the wage earner.

The great dilemma in which the Government finds itself in this industrialised society to which 1 have referred is that not only is the wage earner the greatest single cost, but ako he is the greatest single source of consumer expenditure. If Government members studied the figures properly they would find that last year the increase in total employment in Australia was 92,000. Twelve months before that, the increase in total employment was 170,000. That is the genesis of the unemployment position at the moment. It is the rundown in the tempo of the economy. Who are the victims of this rundown at the moment in yet another piece of Government policy which is being negated? The greatest single group of unemployed workers at the moment are adult males in the group described as semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers. The greater part of this group comprises adult males who were brought to Australia from other parts of the world.

Last Saturday 1 attended one ot the most tragic meetings I have ever attended. It was a meeting of unemployed migrant workers in St Kilda - just one municipality. About 50 people attended the meeting. There were people from Mauritius, India, Egypt and even one person from Chile. Full employment and immigration go together. Migration is part of the full employment programme. It is criminal to bring people into Australia from overseas when there is unemployment among those already here. I believe - the Australian Labor Party supports this view - that our problem in Australia should not be one of people seeking jobs. The problem ought to be that more jobs are available than there are people to fill them. Some people do not like that because it becomes too difficult to regulate the economy. But it is time that some attention was paid to the economy as a whole and not just to bash unions because they seek wage increases. Wages must continue to rise while prices rise, not only in order to use the goods and services at the higher prices but also to give the workers a share of the productivity which everybody talks about and which cannot come about without cooperation. There must be trustful cooperation between the employers and the employees, with the Government keeping the ring and not taking the side of the employer against the employee. It must not give the golden handshake to the boss and hit the worker in the face with the iron fist. That is not a solution for a humanitarian democratic society in 1972.

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa - Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been misrepresented and this might be a convenient time for me to correct the misrepresentation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– The Leader of the Opposition claims to have been misrepresented.

Mr WHITLAM:

– First of all I was misrepresented by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden), who challenged me to establish that he had known of impending BHP price rises for 3 weeks. Sir, I was relying firstly on admissions that he had made that his conversations with Mr McNeill were on Wednesday 26th January, and as is known everywhere, the announcements of the price increases were made on Tuesday 15th February. That is the basis of my saying, as far as the Treasurer is concerned, that he knew for 3 weeks. Perhaps I should have said 2 weeks and 6 days. There ls also the transcript of a Press conference held by Mr R. Rich, the Financial Director of BHP on the following day, Wednesday 16th February, in which he was asked the following questions and gave the following answers:

  1. Is it not true the Government knew beforehand about this?
  2. Oh, yes, the Government knew. We told the government.
  3. How long ago?
  4. Well, they have known for some weeks that we intended to increase prices. So have our customers and it has been speculated in the newspapers for same weeks. I don’t think you can say that anyone is surprised . . . Our approach was to advise the government of our intention. This (the decision) is regarded by us and by the government as a normal commercial decision.
  5. Mr McMahon has made no representations to BHP to defer the rises or stop them?
  6. No.
  7. Did the. government know prior to your announcement the exact timing as to when you would be making that announcement?
  8. They knew shortly before, yes. Q. Was it yesterday or say a couple of days ago or how long?
  9. Don’t try and pin me down on this. It was a couple of days before the actual announcement was made. The actual announcement was made at five o’clock yesterday (Feb. 15). They knew on Monday of the timing.

Secondly, I was misrepresented by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), who is the Minister for Trade and Industry. My authority for this is an article which appeared, I think, on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald’ of 18th February. I shall quote the introduction, and the words of the Minister for Trade and Industry which are in quotation marks. The article stated:

The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, came to the defence of BHP yesterday in the national controversy over the 5.3 per cent rise in steel prices.

The Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, through a spokesman has deplored the rise, particularly the timing of it.

But Mr Anthony said in a speech in Maitland yesterday:

The iron and steel sections of BHP are in real trouble profitwise “They have no alternative but to pass the costs on, as other industries do and as State and local Governments have done.

It is wrong to attack BHP for their actions when they have had a good record in war and peace, and have sold most of their steel at prices below those of other steel-producing countries.’

I can understand the difficulties they have had in absorbing enormous wage increases over the past 12 months,’ he said.

Mr SNEDDEN (Treasurer- Bruce) - May I have the indulgence of the House for a moment. I apologise that I was not here at the outset of the remarks that were made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). Therefore I did not hear the early part of what he had to say. I will look at the Hansard report of the part which I did not hear.

Mr Reynolds:

– Is the honourable member seeking leave to make a statement?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I have asked for the indulgence of the House and I think I have it. From the part I heard, the honourable gentleman was relying on a transcript of a Press conference which was held by Mr Rich.

Mr Whitlam:

– By way of confirmation.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– As I understood, what he quoted was Mr Rich saying that we knew shortly before. In reply to a question T think he said something like a day or two but that he did not want to be pinned on the point. The allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition was that I knew 3 weeks before. However, as 1 say-

Mr Whitlam:

– I said that you saw Mr McNeill on Wednesday 26th January.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I said that but I shall look at Hansard to see what the honourable gentleman had to say. The facts remain that the honourable gentleman has alleged that I knew 3 weeks before. Does he maintain that?

Mr Whitlam:

– Two weeks and 6 days.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honourable gentleman still maintains that?

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes, 2 weeks and 6 days.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– The House is indebted to the Opposition for bringing this matter forward because what it does demonstrate to the Australian people is that the Opposition is totally lacking in its appreciation of the root cause of inflation in this country. The Opposition’s only panacea for the problem facing Australia at this time is a confused form of price restraint or national prices policy, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), or price control as has been mentioned by other speakers from the Opposition in this debate. The Opposition has failed to expound these proposals coherently. In refuting what has been put forward I intend to cover 3 basic propositions. In the first place I will indicate that excessive wage increases and salary increases in Australia are the mainspring of the recent acceleration in inflation and that any thrust on prices from the side of excessive profits or excessive demand has been comparatively negligible. Secondly, I will again remind the House that direct price control or a national prices policy, apart from failing to direct itself at the true source of the problem, and apart from constitutional difficulties, is an ineffective and inefficient way of curbing prices. Thirdly, I will charge that it is the Opposition which is in fact being inconsistent - by professing on the one band to deplore inflation and yet on the other hand doing nothing to discourage some of the most important causes of this inflation such as union militancy, industrial unrest and unreasonable demands on employers.

Until 1969 Australia had an enviable international record on inflation. During most of the decade of the 1960s average weekly earnings tended to rise by 6 to 6i per cent per annum and consumer prices by 2i to 3 per cent per annum. This was a more favourable experience than in most other countries. The situation basically changed in 1969-70. From then on inflation rapidly accelerated and in the current financial year 1971-72 the rate of inflation has reached an intolerable 7 per cent - the highest rate of inflation since 1952.

How has the present situation of rapidly accelerating inflation arisen? To put it in its simplest terms, it has arisen because money incomes, especially wages and salaries, have increased at a faster rate than the national output of goods and services, and the gap between money incomes and real output has tended to widen alarmingly. Wages and salaries constitute nearly twothirds of total incomes. Therefore, what happens to wages and salaries has a vital bearing on costs and prices. The facts are that in the last year - 1971 - total wages and salaries increased by an estimated 15 per cent. This is an intolerable increase when set against a maximum sustainable growth of about 5 per cent to 6 per cent per annum in our national output of goods and services. Not only have wages and salaries risen considerably faster than the volume of goods and services being produced but they have also risen faster than all other incomes, including profits, in the community.

In the September quarter of 1971 - The last quarter for which national accounts statistics are available - wages and salaries accounted for 61 per cent of our national income at factor cost. In the September quarter of 1970 the figure was 591- per cent and in the September quarter of 1969 it was 58 per cent. Even allowing for structural changes in the economy affecting the farm sector, the figures I have just given honourable members leave no doubt that wages and salaries have been the mainspring of the recent acceleration in inflation. Generally speaking, the rises in prices we have witnessed have been reactions to previous rises in costs. This is not to say that there are not some instances of abuse by price fixers. Of course there are; but the problem basically is one of escalating wage inflation. Unit labour costs rose by 5 per cent in 1969, 7.3 per cent in 1970 and, using information for the first three quarters, by 11.4 per cent in 1971. On the other hand, implicit gross national prices rose by 4 per cent in 1969, 4.7 per cent in 1970 and 6.9 per cent in 1971.

It is evidence therefore that during the last 3 years the acceleration in labour costs has been greater than, and has preceded, the acceleration in prices. Equally, it is evident that profits have tended to lag. For example, over the last 3 years total wages and salaries increased by 42.4 per cent whereas private business income net of depreciation and interest increased by 19.7 per cent. This does not support the proposition, often put forward by the Opposition and the trade unions, that wage increases are a response to preceding price increases.

I refer now in brief to the question of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd price increases, a matter which was dealt with in some detail by my colleagues at an earlier stage of this debate. I emphasise that I believe that the Opposition is seeking to use the recent rise in BHP’s steel prices as an excuse for diverting attention from the real cause of the present inflation, namely, excessive wage and salary increases. The fact remains that price increases have been, by and large, a consequence of past wage cost increases. When wage costs are rising, prices must also rise if business enterprises are to preserve their profits at a satisfactory rate and therefore maintain their incentive to invest, which, of course, is so essential to our economic prosperity. This does not mean that I expect trade unions and workers to bear the full brunt of our anti-inflationary drive. Wage and salary restraint of course must be coupled with price restraint. Since, however, the problem is basically one of excessive wage and salary increases, the need for restraint in that area is particularly pressing and urgent.

I have demonstrated during the course of this debate that the main problem therefore in the present inflation is that of excessive wage inflation. The contribution of profit push, if I may use that term, in the present circumstances, is minor. Yet the Opposition advocates in this debate and in its platform a system of price control. It was very interesting indeed to watch the changes and the shifts of policy which took place during the course of this debate. The Leader of the Opposition spoke in some detail, although he was insufficiently precise, of what he loosely called a national prices policy. Later Opposition speakers referred directly to the Labor Party platform which calls for price control. Indeed, the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) specifically made it clear that he stood for a policy of price control. Are we to understand that there is some variance in emphasis between the concept of a national prices policy and the concept of price control? If this is not the case, why did the Opposition not suggest this matter of public importance which is before the House precisely that which is in the Labor Party platform - a policy of price control?

I believe that this House and the Australian community are indebted to the Opposition for making it clear that it stands for a system of price control in this country, a system which honourable members on this side of the House know to be a discredited system which is an ineffective and inefficient way of curbing prices. There are many other comments which one might have wished to have made in this debate but honourable members on this side of the House have no doubt whatsoever that the Opposition has failed to comprehend the root cause of inflation in Australia. Honourable members on this side categorically reject the suggestion which is contained in this matter of public importance.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Leader of the Country Party, the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), began his speech by saying that the Parliament needed to understand what the debate was all about and he then went on to say that it was about inflation. I am glad that he knew that because, of course, it is about inflation. Members of the Opposition are concerned about inflation and it is because we are concerned about inflation that this matter of public importance has been raised. Inflation must be condemned and so must the Government, which has now ruled this nation for the past 22 years without a break. In that time it has proven

Itself incapable of managing the economy of the country in such a way as to prevent inflation and to maintain the rate of economic expansion needed to absorb over 70,000 migrant workers, over 200,000 school leavers and thousands of married women between the ages of 35 and 44 who are desirous of entering the work force. If the present trend continues, the total number of employees who will be needed will begin to fall in absolute terms instead of rising at the rate of 170,000 a year as was the case a couple of years ago.

The Government must take full blame for the present galloping inflation. Whom else can it blame? It is the Government - the coalition in power that has access to Treasury papers and control of the legislative machinery of the country - which solely is responsible for what has gone wrong. The Government cannot blame the Labor Party. The Labor Party has not had the control of the law-making processes of this country for more than 22 years. So, is it not time that the Liberal and Country Party Government was made to stand up and take the full share of the blame that rightly is placed upon its shoulders? The Government cannot claim any longer that it is the kind of government that can handle inflation. The present galloping inflation proves that it is not a government which is capable of handling the situation. Therefore, it cannot blame the electorate at the end of this year when the electorate decides to elect a new government to replace the present tired, inept and lazy men who now purport to be the government of this rich young country.

We were asked by the Leader of the Country Party to say what is Labor’s wage policy. I do not have time to spell it out in detail, but let me try to state it briefly. Our policy is to narrow the gap that now separates the remuneration received by the 64 per cent of employees in the work force who receive less than the average weekly earnings and the 36 per cent of the employees in the work force who receive more than the average weekly earnings. Wage increases do not cause inflation, as the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), tried to insinuate. Wage increases merely reflect inflationary trends that already have occurred. If anyone cares to look at the structure of any average and well-capitalised company he will see at a glance that the cost of running a company - that is. the turnover of a company’s output - is accounted for roughly as one-third for wages, one-third for profit and one-third for taxes and other costs. The Government has done more than any person responsible for those 3 factors in production to increase the amount that it costs companies to produce. It has been the Government, more than any other factor, which has increased taxation and has increased the need for increased wages by increasing indirect taxation upon everything that the working man must buy. It is not true to say, as some Government speakers have said, that profits are starting to fall because, in spite of the fact that companies are allowed to wipe off enormous sums of money in depreciation and obsolescence and, now. in investment allowance, companies still are making higher profits this year than they did last year - and they made more last year than they did the year before. With the approval of the House I tender for incorporation in Hansard a list of the 9 or 10 largest companies in Australia showing how all have increased their profits in the last financial year compared with the previous financial year.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The cause of our trouble today, the reason that people are being put out of work, is that there is such stiff buyer resistance. Those who are receiving more than the average weekly earnings are too afraid to spend their money and are keeping it in the bank. A record amount of $8,000m now stands in savings banks. This belongs to people who have the money, more than they need, but who are too afraid to spend it on things which they can do without as a final resort. But the 64 per cent of the employees in the work force who are not receiving the average weekly earnings and who need more money and would spend it on the very day on which it was received by them in buying the everyday things which they need cannot get the income needed to buy the absolute essentials of life. If these people had additional money to spend they would inject it into the economy immediately they received it, and as their demand for more commodities grew, so the need for greater production would grow and the need for greater employment automatically would follow.

This Government has absolutely no conception of what it is like to try to keep a family on $70 a week. I challenge the Minister for Labour and National Service and the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to demonstrate how any employee who receives $70 a week can budget for food, clothing, rent, education, fares, entertainment and everything else that goes with maintaining a wife and family. If the Government cannot demonstrate how it can be done then it has no moral right to be sending senior counsel into the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to oppose the claim by the Australian Council of Trade Unions for a national minimum wage of $70 a week. If the Government cannot show how people can live on $70 a week it has no right to be using taxpayers’ money and the money of the 64 per cent of the work force who receive less than the average weekly earnings to oppose something which these people urgently need. The fancy figures which were put forward by the Minister for Labour and National Service will deceive nobody; they will not put food into the mouths of the people who are going without. Fancy figures will not make it easier to live. It is futile for the Government to call upon wage and salary earners to exercise restraint while inflation is sending prices up at the rate of $2 a week each quarter. That is the reason why there is a demand for increased wages. People just cannot live and meet their everyday needs on $70 a week.

Now I want to take action to ensure that every member of the Parliament is made to stand up and be counted on this question of the Government’s decision to sit idly by and allow Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd to increase its prices. BHP has increased the price of mild plate steel 16 times in 21 years and the Government has done absolutely nothing about it. But at the same time it has called for wage restraint by people who are trying to live on $70 a week. It is a disgrace, and every member of this Parliament should now be made to stand up and be counted, to declare where he stands on the issue of BHP price increases, because price increases more than wage increases are the cause of the inflationary trend. Therefore, I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent my moving a motion That this House believes that the Government should have acted to restrain BHP’s latest increase in steel prices’.

When the Prime Minister wrote to Sir Ian McLennan about the question of these latest price increases by BHP the Treasurer approved of the letter that was sent. The Leader of the Australian Country Party was not consulted. Later he repudiated what the Prime Minister said; so did the Treasurer subsequently repudiate it. The Prime Minister now says that he refuses to comment on whether he still deplores the recent price increases by BHP. The Australian Labor Party deplores the increases even if the Prime Minister is not game to say now that he deplores them. The Prime Minister did not tell the Premiers about these price increases by BHP before they were announced publicly, and he should have done so. The Treasurer did not oppose the increases. He said that it was a matter for BHP’s commercial judgment. If companies like BHP are to be allowed to make some commercial judgment which in company jargon means ‘How much more increase in profits can we get from the hapless public who have to pay the prices that we arbitrarily fix?’, what sort of a Government is this? For the Government to say: ‘We can do nothing about it’, or for it to pretend that the Opposition is acting wrongly in saying that we ought to resort to the use of the tariff policies shows, in another way, how demonstrably unreliable the Government is and how it continues to talk with a double voice. The prices and policies of companies which benefit from Commonwealth tariffs, subsidies and contracts ought to be placed under the scrutiny of the government of the day. Companies which benefit considerably by increased tariffs and sometimes very high tariffs have no right to increase the price of the goods they sell without having to justify the price to the Tariff Board. A government which continues to give higher and higher tariffs to a company that extracts higher and higher profits from the community is a government that is not fit to govern any longer.

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, the honourable member for Hindmarsh is not speaking to the motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– The honourable member for Hindmarsh said that he was going to move a motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders. Has he moved that motion?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, 1 have.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr Daly:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I now want to give the reasons why my motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders should be carried. I am sick and tired of this Parliament being forced to carry on the kind of debate that we have been having this afternoon, where the Opposition raises matters of urgent, public concern but is not in a position to make honourable members opposite stand up and be counted on these vital issues. It is no use having a parliament that is run in the way in which this Parliament has been run for the last 20- odd years. We need some procedure whereby every honourable member opposite who goes to the electorate this year has to stand up and say where be stands on the issue of price increases by BHP so that it can be recorded in Hansard. In this way the Opposition can reproduce those pages of Hansard in the electorates of every honourable member opposite to show what they are - people who, whilst urging restraint upon the poor devil who is trying to maintain his wife and family on 370 a week, will sit idly by and do nothing to urge restraint upon BHP when it increases the price of the commodity that it has to sell.

The Government pretends that it has no power. The Treasurer said that the Government had no power to exercise restraint upon BHP. He ridiculed the idea that we ought to use the tariff structure in order to exercise restraint upon BHP. But then he seemed to forget that he made a speech entitled ‘The Place of Economic Theory in the Arbitration System (Talk by the Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C., M.P. Minister for Labour and National Service, to CEDA, October 8 1970)’. This is what he said in that speech: 1 have also argued that there are means available (the Trade Practices Act, the Tariff Board, moral suasion, etc.) to sharpen competitive pressures in our economy.

It is no wonder that the Minister for Labour and National Service is smiling. Until these facts began to see the light of day the Treasurer seemed to be the logical Leader of the Opposition after the next election. But now the Minister for Labour and National Service believes that he has a chance to become Leader of the Opposition, and in many years to come, when he is old, grey and stooped, if he is still a member of this Parliament he may be fortunate enough to sit on the Government side of the House again. But what is the use of the present Treasurer saying that he can use these means to sharpen competitive pressures? He has admitted publicly that he did absolutely nothing at all to use moral suasion. He did absolutely nothing at all to use the Trade Practices Act against BHP and he criticised the Opposition for suggesting that his own proposition of use of the Tariff Board should be adopted or could be adopted. I want you to bear with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, while I refer to the fact that Mr J. C. McNeill, the Managing Director of BHP-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– Order! The honourable member has moved that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the moving of a motion. I have extended a fair amount of leniency to the honourable member and he is getting fairly wide of the mark, as far as moving a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is concerned. I ask him to confine his remarks to the subject matter of the motion.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– All right. I have moved for suspension of the Standing Orders in order to test honourable members opposite and the sincerity of the Government, and to allow each honourable member opposite to stand up individually and to say whether he is of the opinion that this Government did all that it could to deal with the proposed increase in the price of steel that BHP put forward. I will prove that the Government could have done more. That is why I want a vote on this matter, so that the people will be able to pass judgment. According to the Press, and it has not been denied, BHP has now at long last given the Government certain assurances on future price increases. If the Government is able to get certain assurances from BHP as to future price increases, why did it not get those assurances 22 years ago when it came to office instead of allowing a total of 16 price increases without any of the assurances that apparently now have been given?

I am seeking to show - and a vote on my motion to suspend Standing Orders is the only way to do it - that the Government acted wrongly when it sat idly by and allowed BHP to increase the price of steel by 5.3 per cent at a time when the Government was proposing to reintroduce the investment allowance, the value of which would have been enough to reduce by at least 1 per cent, or one-fifth, the increase of 5.3 per cent, even if that increase of 5.3 per cent could have been justified. But it could not have been justified once the company knew of the lifting of the suspension of the investment allowance.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– I think the honourable member is now debating the subject for the purpose of debating which he has moved the suspension of Standing Orders. I ask the honourable member to keep to the subject of the suspension of Standing Orders. He is going too wide of the mark.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I will give another reason for wanting this vote. I would like the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who is now at the table, to have an opportunity of putting his vote where his mouth is in respect of the price control issues that he talked about.

Mr Irwin:

– I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have given the honourable member for Hindmarsh every opportunity. Now he is passing insulting remarks and I move:

That the honourable member tor Hindmarsh be not further heard.

Mr Daly:

– Is there a seconder?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I wish to speak to a point of order. I think the honourable member for Mitchell now realises that the expression ‘put your vote where your mouth is’ does not mean what he thought it meant. It merely means that the Minister should vote the way he speaks.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no substance to the point of order. In reply to the honourable member for Grayndler I point out that a motion of this kind does not require a seconder and the question must now be put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. Corbett) Ayes . . . . . . 59

AYES: 0

NOES: 54

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– In view of the action of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) in terminating the speech of the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) who was in the course of bringing to the public gaze the discomfiture of every Government supporter on this important issue, I second with great pleasure the motion that is before the Parliament. No one can say that Standing Orders should not be suspended in order to discuss the great increase in steel prices by that huge monopoly, Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. No one can deny that this is an important subject. It has a national effect. It affects the living standards, the savings and the welfare of Australians everywhere and the fact that the Government will not allow a vote on this issue is something about which the people should be enlightened. I do not wonder that honourable members opposite do not want to discuss this matter or let us suspend Standing Orders. Even without this great issue Government supporters are quivering in their seats knowing that they are on the way to political doom. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) is a tragic figure in the Parliament. We saw him today almost breaking down with emotion, unable to answer the charges levelled on this great issue of the national increase in the price of steel. 10157/71- .im- J

The Government seeks to evade the public gaze by avoiding a vote on why it is applying double standards to society in Australia and why wage earners who comprise 90 per cent of the people have to prove their case in the courts against Government opposition when investors, represented by BHP and Government supporters, get unlimited patronage from honourable members opposite. That is the issue that Government members seek to evade today. Members of the Country Party also seek to evade a vote on it because they know that their leader has publicly supported the increase in the price of steel although it will mean that the cost of every fowl house and pig sty will go up. We know that every form of equipment used in the country will increase in price and honourable members in the Country Party know that they cannot afford to vote with their leader on this issue. What I have to say is of vital importance, particularly to members of the Country Party. Every item of machinery used in shearing will increase in cost as will every form of farm equipment under these proposals. Yet the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) has said that the increase in the price of steel is justified and that he is in favour of it. No wonder the newly knighted honourable member for Mallee (Sir Winton Turnbull) does not want a vote on this issue to show that he supports the steel price increase.

What we are seeking to show by moving for the suspension of Standing Orders is that every member on the Government side is afraid to vote on the issue because he knows the public will condemn his actions and he will go to his political doom. Why should we not vote on this steel price issue? It reeks of injustice and discrimination. It shows how wage earners are being blamed for the inflation that exists when such is not the case because it is due to the excessive profits made by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and others under the patronage of this Government. The Government seeks to evade a vote on the suspension of Standing Orders because it does not want the public to know how it is protecting its great and wealthy interests in the community irrespective of the effect on the living standards of Australians everywhere. And honourable members opposite who want to avoid this issue by not supporting this motion are sponsoring proposals which give another 5i per cent increase in the price of steel to those who own this great monopoly in addition to the 8 per cent or 9 per cent increase earlier in the year. At the same time they give out $8m in concessions-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– Order! The honourable member for Grayndler is now debating the question which is to be debated if the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is carried and I ask him to confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair. The honourable member has gone wide of the mark.

Mr DALY:

– Far be it for me to endeavour to evade a ruling of the Chair, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I was giving under headings the reasons why Standing Orders should be suspended in order that a vote on the motion under discussion can be taken. I mentioned earlier the importance of this subject and no one can deny it. I mentioned, that it is a question of double standards applying to wage earners and others and also that it affects every section of society, particularly those people whom you represent with great distinction in the country districts of Queensland. I mentioned that these factors are such that Standing Orders should be suspended in order that we in this Parliament can know where every honourable member stands on the question of whether we support the giving of favours to this great company at the expense of the Australian people. Surely these are matters which merit the suspension of Standing Orders; surely the issues involved in these questions I have raised are ones from which no honourable member can scurry away and hide. And surely honourable members like the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) would be prepared to rise and say whether they support this monstrous act by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) and others. Surely we are entitled to know whether the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) and other members of the Government who have expressed views on this subject, such as the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr

Gorton) and others, intend to back their statements on the question of prices and inflation by supporting this motion before the Chair for the suspension of Standing Orders. The reason why we should have a vote on a measure like this is plain.

On this side of the Parliament we are sick and tired of the Government evading its responsibilities and not voting on issues which are of paramount importance to the Australian people. I believe the Australian people are entitled to know the views of those on this side, whether or not votes are taken, who represent about SO per cent of the people, or are we to be cast aside when the issues are to be presented. We would not under any circumstances move for the suspension of Standing Orders if the Government would have a fair vote on these questions but when it dodges its responsibilities, refuses to answer the’ charges and flippantly and arrogantly treats the Opposition with contempt, why should we not move for the suspension of Standing Orders to discuss this issue? You can take it from me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if I were on the Government side I would not want to vote on this issue either. I know full well the feelings of those on the other side of the House. They know that their supporters would not support the giving of a concession this year to a company which made §68m last year. Over the past few years this company has made profits in the vicinity of $50m or $60m per annum and it is now receiving additional assistance from the Government, with the Australian Country Party sponsoring the move. If I were a member on the Government side I would not want a vote on that either. That is why honourable members opposite have stopped the honourable member for Hindmarsh from continuing his brilliant speech. The Government has endeavoured to silence him in his criticism and his fight for justice for the people throughout this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett)Order! That has nothing to do with the motion before the Chair. I ask the honourable member for Grayndler to return to the motion before the Chair.

Mr DALY:

– I will not mention the honourable member for Hindmarsh. I know that his arguments are too telling and that even you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with due deference, get upset when his name is mentioned, so great is the terror he puts into those opposite. But I think that some honourable member on the Government side should tell the Opposition why they will not allow the suspension of Standing Orders so that we can have a vote on this issue. Governments are put in and out of office on votes. We will become a no-vote Parliament if this motion is not carried. The motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is an indication by the Opposition that it wants to know where everybody in the Parliament stands. Why should the Government not support a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders if its policy is right, if it has made a just move? If the Government could not prevent the increase in steel prices and did everything possible, what is wrong with a vote on an issue like this? The only reason why a vote will not be taken and why the Government will not support the measure is that honourable members opposite have guilty consciences. I do not blame the Government. 1 know the reasons for its actions. But if everything is above board on the question of BHP, why should this motion not be carried and why should the Standing Orders not be suspended to give everybody the opportunity to say what they would do on this issue?

I think that the case for the suspension of Standing Orders is unanswerable. I cannot visualise any honourable member opposite being prepared to come into the Parliament and speak against it. As I said earlier, I would like to hear what several members on the Government side have to say in respect of the suspension of Standing Orders. It would be desirable to hear what the right honourable member for Higgins has to say. The Minister for Social Services, so vehement at the Apia Club on the question of the economy, has once again been silenced by his master. 1 suppose the Prime Minister thinks that he personally makes enough silly statements without the Minister for Social Services doing the same. But the matters are these: As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker - I do not want to transgress your ruling - and as everybody knows, the Government is a disunited rabble today. It has policies for every day of the week. Every Minister has a different policy -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Corbett) Order! I have asked the honourable member for Grayndler to keep to the subject before the Chair, which is the suspension of Standing Orders. He is ranging far too wide of the scope of the debate.

Mr DALY:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I defer to your ruling, knowing the embarrassment you must feel on such occasions when you are unfortunate enough to be in the Chair when the Government you support is under attack. Naturally, I will not continue along that line. I repeat what the motion is. All Australians should know it. I know that countless millions of them will be listening to me on this occasion. Honourable members opposite may sneer, but I know that the people listen to me and I know that they listen to honourable members on this side of the Parliament, particularly on issues like this. I say to the Australian people that the motion moved by the honourable member for Hindmarsh is that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Hindmarsh from moving that the House believes that the Government should have acted to restrain the latest increase in steel prices by BHP. That is a fundamental and a national issue. From the attitude taken by the Government, let me tell the Australian people that it is ashamed of its policy and will not allow a vote to be taken on it in the Parliament. The Government is ashamed to let this be taken to a vote in this assembly. The Australian people should realise that there is patronage unlimited for BHP; there is suppression for the workers of this country; there is unlimited unemployment under the policy being sponsored by this Government which refuses, on a great national issue affecting every wage earner in the community and every person in the country districts, to allow a vote to be taken. The Government sits silently by, refuses to defend its policy and refuses to allow a vote to be taken on it. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I gaze for these last few months on this departing Government let me say that never has a government deserved more to be beaten, never has a government shirked its responsibility so much, never has a government avoided its obligations more and never has a government deserved more to be cast out.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett)Order!

Mr SWARTZ:
Darling Downs Minister for National Development · LP

– We have just listened to an extraordinary example of what can happen by the misuse of Standing Orders. This debate is on a motion moved by the Opposition. Two speakers on the Opposition side have risen with the expressed intention under the Standing Orders they can do it of preventing Government members from having the opportunity, within the limited time available, to express their views. As there are only a few moments left and we would like our remaining Government speaker to have the opportunity of speaking, I ask the Opposition whether it would allow the remaining Government speaker to proceed.

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Clyde Cameron’s) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr J. Corbett)

AYES: 54

NOES: 59

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 6.2 p.m. to 8 p.m.

page 36

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1972

Bill - by leave - presented by Mr Wentworth, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar Minister for Social Services · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill gives effect to the increases in the rates of unemployment, sickness and special benefits announced by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in opening the Conference of State Premiers on 14th February. The increases proposed in unemployment benefits and the associated short term sickness and special benefits, which are estimated to cost about $4m, are as follows: The adult rate will rise by $7, from $10 to $17 a week; the rate for unmarried persons aged 18 to 20 years will rise by $5, from $6 to $11 a week; and the rate for unmarried persons aged 16 to 17 years will rise by S3, from $4.50 to $7.50 a week. As honourable members know, minors who are married, or who have no parent living in Australia, qualify for the same rate of benefit as adults. It will be recalled that, in the last Budget, the wife’s allowance was increased from S7 per week to $8 per week; allowance for the first child was increased from S2.50 per week to $4.50 per week; and the allowance for each child after the first was increased from $3.50 per week to $4.50 per week. The rates of unemployment and associated benefits are now higher than ever before, both in money terms and in terms of real purchasing power. The measure of the improvement during the time since the last Labor administration lost office is dramatic. The figures are as follows:

Comparison of those figures which I have set out in this table in the last 2 columns will show the increase which has taken place under our Government in the real value of the benefit. The increase is particularly striking where children are concerned, and this illustrates our special concern for the family unit, which was so scandalously neglected under the Labor Government. I remind honourable members that the increases proposed under this Bill apply also to short term sickness benefits and to special benefits. The short term sickness benefit is payable to persons who are temporarily incapacitated for work and who have been in receipt of benefit for less than 6 weeks, after which the higher rate of long term sickness benefit generally applies. This too is an improvement brought in by our Government, because before 1970 all sickness benefit was at the lower short term rate.

Those who qualify for special benefits, and will receive the increased rate as soon as this Bill is passed, include some women caring for invalid parents or near relatives, some migrants not residentially qualified for normal pensions, and certain unmarried mothers. Unemployment benefit is meant to help those who are temporarily out of work. The number thus unemployed is at present abnormally high for Australia, although it would still be considered abnormally low in most other countries. It is, in fact, 2.3 per cent of our work force, which might be compared with the latest figure of 5.4 per cent in the United States of America - over twice as much - and 4 per cent in the United Kingdom, where, owing to the coal strike, the rate is temporarily far above 4 per cent. Our Australian average unemployment over the past 6 years has been about 1.2 per cent, which must be considered as a most excellent performance by international standards. Indeed, it would be a most excellent performance by the standards which the Australian Labor Party has set for itself. I recall to honourable members opposite that one of their prominent spokesmen, Mr Leslie Haylen, then Labor member for Parkes, declared the ALP long term policy in this House when he said: 1 realise that there cannot be total employment, but if we can get down to S per cent of unemployment, for all practical purposes that can be regarded as total employment.

I am glad to say that this Government rejects Labor’s poor standard in this regard. Over the past 20 years only a few people in Australia have been unemployed for any lengthy period, and I do not anticipate that many of those at present unemployed will be out of work for very long. The present increased rates of benefit will help all those who are unemployed, but the great majority of these, as 1 have said, are only temporarily out of a job. Nevertheless the Government regards the present volume of unemployment in Australia as too high, however moderate it might seem to those whose standards are lower than ours. Not only do we regard it as too high; we have set policies in motion which, when they have had time to take effect, will reduce that volume. These policies include the measures which the Prime Minister announced at the Premiers Conference, to which I made reference a few moments ago.

While the Government is taking measures to increase employment there are certain elements in the community which are deliberately working to create unemployment. I refer to the so called left wing leaders of certain militant trade unions.

These left-wingers are engaged in doublecrossing their own members, pretending to them they are calling on them to strike in order to improve their conditions-

Mr Cope:

– I raise a point of order. Is the honourable gentleman allowed to reflect on the private bank officers in this way?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– These left-wingers, as I have said, are engaged in doublecrossing their own members, pretending to them that they arc calling on them to strike in order to improve their conditions, whereas in reality these left wing leaders are aiming to create unemployment in the hope of producing hardship for workers, leading to what they call a revolutionary situation. Many of these left wing leaders ase communists, and the worst term of abuse in the communist’s lexicon is the word ‘revisionist’-

Mr Daly:

– I take a point of order. What the Minister is speaking about is the text of a speech that he delivered a few days ago in Sydney and which the Prime Minister said he had no right to make. I suggest that he has no right to make it tonight.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I realise the motives of the honourable member. Many of these left wing leaders are communists, and the worst term of abuse in the communist’s lexicon is the word ‘revisionist’, that is, a man who aims at improvement in the conditions of the workers in a democracy rather than at making the workers miserable so as to cause the chaos and revolution which the true communist should try to bring about. A perfect example of what has happened has been the recent power strike in Victoria. Most of the strikers were ignorant of the way in which they were being manipulated and genuinely believed-

Mr Keogh:

– I raise a point of order. It might be appropriate to remind the Minister that the Bill before the House to which he is supposed to be speaking relates to an increase in the rate of unemployment and sickness benefits referred to in section 112 of the Social Services Act. He is referring to the Communist Party of which, as has been disclosed by speakers in this House on previous occasions, he himself was once a member.

Mr Hayden:

– He was expelled wilh reasonable honour.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-In regard to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Bowman I point out that the Bill before the House is to increase unemployment and sickness benefits and the Minister is making a relevant point in regard to some of the factors relating to unemployment. I suggest that the Minister should not devote too much of his speech to this particular point.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am speaking of the things which cause unemployment, something which the Government is very much opposed to. In passing, may I say that a persona] reflection made on me by an honourable member is entirely and completely untrue. A perfect example of what has happened has been the recent power strike in Victoria. Most of the strikers were ignorant of the way in which they were being manipulated and genuinely believed that they were striking to improve their conditions. But their leaders were using them for quite other purposes. The Victorian power strike was designed to cause unemployment, and in fact it did cause unemployment on a massive scale. At one stage more than 250,000 were out of work. Even now, after power has been restored, there are eddies of unemployment which will persist for weeks or even for months as a direct consequence of that irresponsible stoppage. Communists were among the leaders in this electricity episode. For long they have boasted that if they’ could control the State Electricity Commission they would have Victoria by the throat. This month’s events show how far they have advanced towards that objective.

What part did Mr Hawke play in this plan for unemployment? Mr Hawke does not want too much trouble just now, because he is playing a waiting game for bigger stakes. His scheme is to get an ALP government into power and then take over. The Leader of the Opposition’s room in Parliament House can already be referred to as Hawke’s nest.

Mr Hayden:

– 1 rise to order. This is par for the course for the Minister but I feel that some observation ought to go into the record. It is a contemptible speech in view of the need of many people who are dependent on unemployment benefits.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Oxley that he make his point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– It is the total irrelevance of what the Minister is saying to the present situation in relation to either an increase in unemployment benefits or the numbers of unemployed, because these numbers could not be included in any statistics which have been released by any official sources.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That is not a point of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am referring, of course, to the cost of the benefits which will be dependent upon the degree to which the communists, perhaps by some alliance with the Labor Party, succeed in creating unemployment.

Mr Cope:

– 1 raise a point of order. In all seriousness, this could actually reflect gravely on the meeting between Mr Nixon and the leaders of the . Communist Party in China.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. I suggest to the honourable member for Sydney that he bear in mind the provisions of the Standing Orders in regard to points of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Referring to this matter, I was saying-

Mr Hayden:

– 1 think the Minister might take-

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I can understand that the Labor Party has some links with the Communist Party and does not want the truth known.

Mr Sherry:

– I take a point of order. The Minister is supposed to be dealing with a Bill in regard to the rates of unemployment and sickness benefits. With all due respect, his continual excursion into the philosophy of the Communist Party is totally irrelevant to the business before the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! In regard to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Franklin I repeat that the Minister has been relating his remarks to certain factors contributing to the unemployment situation and the need for this legislation. I have already suggested to the Minister that he should not direct too much of his speech along those lines.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise the query that the Minister might have ingested too much of the influence of a mild dry red.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Oxley that if he wants to take a point of order he do so. I have twice suggested that the honourable member state his points of order and I will not suggest it again.

Mr Martin:

– I raise a point of order. The Minister has suggested that the Labor Party has connections with the Communist Party. I treat this as a reflection on me as a member of this Parliament. I would ask for a ruling that the Minister withdraw it. I have no such connections, have never had and never will have.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The point of order raised by the honourable member for Banks has been raised before. There was no individual reflection and there is no substance in the point of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– May I be allowed to say that I sympathise with the honourable member for Banks.

Mr Scholes:

– I wish to take a point of order which is quite serious. The Minister referred to Mr Hawke’s relationship to the organisation and conduct of this strike. This matter is the subject of a Supreme Court writ in Victoria because of remarks made outside Parliament by someone who had a little more guts than the Minister - the Premier of Victoria. Mr Hawke has sued him for making remarks of this nature and I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order for the Minister to canvass in this Parliament the issues of that writ at a time when it is before the court.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am not canvassing the writ.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! In the circumstances this aspect of the matter is not yet sub judice but T suggest that the Minister be careful in the comments he makes.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes indeed, and may I say that I sympathise entirely with the honourable member for Banks if he has no connection with the Communist Party-

Mr Martin:

– I have none.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– He says he has none and I accept that. I sympathise with him. It is a disgraceful thing-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the Minister for Social Services continue his second reading speech.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– It is a disgraceful thing to have connections with the Communist Party. So Mr Hawke had his own private reasons for wanting the SEC strike settled before it had gone too far, but he was afraid to act decisively to stop it. He had won his position in the Australian Council of Trade Unions by only a narrow majority over the anti-Communist candidate, Mr Sourer. He had won it by getting all the various Communist factions to vote for him.

Mr Keogh:

– I rise to- a point of order. I, and in turn the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Sherry), have endeavoured to point out that the Minister is continually straying from the subject matter of the Bill. I suggest that it would not be very nice if he goaded Opposition members to the stage where we had to move that he be no longer heard. He must be approaching that stage. You, Sir, with all due respect to your rulings and your advice to him, are allowing him to continue with these irrelevancies.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It has been the practice in this House to allow a Minister a degree of latitude when presenting a Bill and making a second reading speech. 1 must point out now that at a later stage the Opposition will reply to the second reading speech of the Minister. As I have suggested to the Minister for Social Services, too great a portion of his speech should not be devoted to this subject because it would then bc extremely difficult for the Chair to rule against such a course during a speech made in reply to this second reading speech.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– 1 quite agree with you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Only a small portion of my speech is devoted to this subject, lt seems long because the Opposition is endeavouring to stop me from speaking by raising points of order. It has taken me nearly IS minutes to read a few paragraphs. I am speaking of the part played by Mr Hawke in creating unemployment. That is relevant to the Bill. I said that Mr Hawke had only won his position in the ACTU by getting all the various Communist factions to vote for him. Now he has to placate them all, and with the Peking Communists and the Moscow Communists going in slightly different directions, and calling each other ‘revisionist’ and adventurist’, life is not easy for the unhappy Mr Hawke.

Mr Foster:

– I rise to order. There are half a million people living in poverty. Why can the Minister not confine his remarks to the Bill before the House and tell us- of some of its provisions. That is my point of order. I ask. you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to force the Minister to tell us what the Bill contains.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt will resume his scat. There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The honourable member for Sturt should bear his share of the responsibility.

Dr jenkins:

– 1 take a point of order quite seriously. You have been appealed to on the matter of the ambit of the Bill. I understand that the short title is the usual guide to the ambit of the Bill. We have asked you to rule on the flexibility that the Minister has been exercising for some time. Although there is a chance for members of the Opposition to reply, I wonder whether they will have the same flexibility in being able to introduce matters of inefficient management and outdated technology in their contribution to unemployment. I ask you, on the point of order, to give us greater guidance on the ambit of the Rill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– One comment made bv the Minister for Social Services was that a number of points of order have been taken. The Minister has repeated what he said previously every time a point of order has been taken. I suggest to the Minister thai he proceed with his second reading speech.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– 1 take up the interjection made by the honourable member for Sturt. Of course the Government’s concern is with the people unemployed. We are talking about the causes that made such people unemployed. We are talking about the conspiracy to increase the number of unemployed and we hope that the Communist Party will not find allies in that conspiracy. The Government believes in full employment. The increased rates provided in this Bill are designed to help those who are temporarily unemployed. As I have said, they are the highest rates ever paid in Australia, not only in money terms but also in terms of real purchasing power.

In accordance with established practice, it is proposed that the increases in rates provided under the Bill will operate without delay, that is, in respect of the benefit week ending on the date on which the Royal Assent is obtained, and to each benefit week thereafter. If we want to avoid heavy unemployment in Australia, it is essential to avoid the position where men like Mr Hawke, who is under such a heavy obligation to his Communist sponsors, without whose votes he could never have been elected as President of the ACTU, could control an Australian government. Since Mr Hawke already controls the Labor movement, this underlines the national necessity of keeping Labor out of office for the benefit of those who might otherwise be unemployed.

What did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) do in this last unemployment crisis? The answer is: Nothing. 1 do not believe that he was ignorant of what was going on. Perhaps his colleagues do not always trust him, but at least they could scarcely have concealed the truth from him in this instance. Did he at any time condemn the power strike or publicly urge the strikers to dump their left wing misleaders and return to arbitration? Did he appeal to them to cease causing unemployment to their fellow workers? I can find nothing like that on the record. His silence was shameful and cowardly, and exposes his unfitness for any office of real responsibility. I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it be given a speedy passage.

Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– The speech of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) was characteristic. It was a travesty of what this House ought to be. He treated honourable members and the institution of Parliament with contempt. It is his usual form when he is short on facts and weak on substance to resort to the Communist smear tactic and endeavour to raise the ire of members of the Opposition. 1 think it is significant to note that of the 8 pages in his prepared document, which he did not read particularly well, about 4 of those pages were devoted exclusively to developing some sort of meaningless association between trade unions, Communism and strikes. We never heard any discussion about the real human suffering which arises because of the wilfully applied policies of the Government, consciously aimed at increasing unemployment as part of its economic programmes and of the concurrent inadequacy of unemployment benefits. As the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) pointed out, people are living in poverty in the community today. They have lived in poverty because, inter alia, of the inadequacy of the unemployment benefit and they will continue to do so in spite of the increases proposed by the Minister. Nowhere did he discuss this at al).

The. honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) drew my attention to the fact that the national average of people in receipt of unemployment benefit who are unemployed for 6 months or more is a little over 8 per cent of the unemployment beneficiaries. But in Melbourne, this figure is 16 per cent of the work force. These are fairly recent figures and have no relationship to any strikes. Why did the Minister not discuss these sorts of areas? This is an area of real human problem for which we should have some sort of compassion and understanding of the needs of substantially a large bulk of people who receive unemployment benefits and who are least able to bear the shocking effects of being cast on to a totally inadequate income. They are people who are living with mortgages because of the shocking inflation for which this Government is responsible. The cost of living rose by 5 per cent last financial year with an underlying trend of 6 per cent at the end of the financial year, lt was 7 per cent for 12 months to the end of December last and there have been no constructive proposals to ameliorate the lot of so many people who are suffering because of inflation and especially those poor wretches - and this is a national scandal - who are living on the inadequate unemployment benefits. Those people will live on a slightly improved rate of benefit but it will be still appreciably below the updated poverty line austerely drawn by the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research of the University of Melbourne.

I would have thought that the Minister or any spokesman for the Government would be the last to speak about double crossing of anyone or any organisation anywhere. After all, we saw Mr Packer, the baron of the Press, deliver a right cross, a left cross and a deadly double cross to the former Prime Minister. Now we have all the intrigue, infighting and sinister guerilla warfare that go on in little back room meetings as a result of which special pleaders for the former Prime Minister come forward and try to undermine the economic policies and the principles being enunciated by the Prime Minister. This man here - the Minister for Social Services - who is a minion of the former Prime Minister, comes out in direct conflict with the Prime Minister’s statement and says he wants some sort of restraint on wages and policies in a way which draws a public rebuke from the Prime Minister. That man should be the last to be critical of anyone or any organisation outside. If we measure side by side the contribution of the Minister for Social Services on the electricity dispute in Victoria and the contribution made by Mr Hawke who worked exceedingly hard and who was responsible in the ultimate for settling that dispute-

Dr Forbes:

– Why did Hawke not stop the strike?

Mr HAYDEN:

– If we measure the contribution we find that Hawke was responsible for achievement while the Minister was hoping to aggravate the situation as part of the plot of the Government to try to create industrial affairs as a major election issue. The Government has tried everything else. The Minister for Immigration who interjects, but who, without any conscience or without any sense of moral responsibility, has tried to inject crude racism into the impending election campaign centred about immigration policy. Neither be nor the Minister for Social Services contributed anything of any benefit during the course of these industrial disputes.

Let me move on to the issues before us - the proposals to increase moderately the unemployment benefits. This is meanness disguising itself as generosity. This offer is a delusion, a mockery and a snare set for the unfortunate unemployed. Largely those people who are unemployed today are unemployed because of the purpose and intent behind the Government’s economic policy. The Government has set about creating a pool of unemployed. I think it is significant that the whole strategy of the Government’s economic policy was so disastrous and so obviously wrong to anyone with any fundamental economic expertise that the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation in their annual reports discreetly dissociated themselves from the proposed strategy, indicating that an attack on consumption was not the way to overcome the problems of the economy as they then stood.

I point out that there are 130,200 people unemployed, an increase of 46 per cent on the January figure last year, which is the comparable month. There has been no discussion by the Minister except some sort of vague rushing over of the seriousness of the situation and the statement that the Government regards the level as being too high. But the Government created this unemployment. The unemployment is directly the derivative of the economic policies of the Government. By and large, two-thirds of the unemployed are blue collar workers. These are people, by and large, who are least able to bear the brunt of this sort of economic disaster of living on the dole. Every second unemployed person is a junior. Many of them - probably the majority - are school leavers who have been introduced to the great Australian way of life with the depressing aspect of unemployment and the humiliation of the dole. That is the sort of philosophy behind what this Government does in handling the affairs of this country.

I spoke of the delusion - the delusion of generosity. It must be seen in the light of Government economic policy aimed at increasing unemployment for the purpose of reducing any wage bartering within the community. There has been no attack on profits, no attack on the speculators on the stock exchange. The Government has been craven and servile before the power of BHP. It has been mute and supine before the pressure of socially significant groups like the Australian Medical Association. But the Government has attacked the wage and salary earners of the community. As I have said, its purpose was to reduce wage bartering demands which might come forward and which are perfectly reasonable given this accelerating rate of inflation of which I speak. This rate was 5 per cent to the end of the financial year; it was at a 6 per cent underlying rate at the end of the financial year, rising to 7 per cent at the end of the financial year to last December and is still climbing.

Of course, it is perfectly reasonable that people on low and moderate incomes will want an increase in their income. How else will they ever combat the spiralling cost of living? The other purpose of Government economic policy which absolutely bemuses me is to force people, after putting them on the dole, to use up their personal savings because these are regarded as being too high by the Government. So much for the great puritan values which were the main drive behind the development of the Industrial Revolution and capitalism which is no longer a virtue.

The Government is going to force the people least able to combat this sort of situation of personal distress and economic want to bear the greatest part of the burden imposed by its economic policy. The Government has created a dole system with the indignity of unemployment. That is what this Government stands for. The Minister for Social Services, who never once tried to defend the inequity of the present system of unemployment benefits, nor what he is putting forward, has not appreciated the tremendously disabling effects on human personalities of being cast into unemployment. These are the real issues, the protein issues, which should have been discussed today by the Minister for Social Services. He should have discussed the loss of self respect, especially for a male head of a family when he is thrown into unemployment. Such circumstances are directly and inevitably the derivative of Government economic policy.

Let me make this point strongly: Just how serious are the disorganising and shattering effects on human personalities as a result of losing income standard? J quote from The Family in a Money World’ by Feldman, a well known social welfare worker, on the subject of money. He said:

It has come to have value not only for what it will buy, but for itself - for it represents the power to buy or possess. Money simultaneously represents ‘dependence’ and ‘independence’: dependence to the extent that one can rely on it for obtaining the commodities one needs, and independence because its ownership implies competence and self-reliance. To many individuals, the possession of money connotes more than the realistic, practical use that the rational man ascribes to it; it symbolises not only economic, but social and emotional, security.

Blackburn and Lobsenz in the work ‘The First Ten Years of Marriage: A Guide to Successful Family Living’ made the following relevant point: .

Money fills needs or wants and therefore involves the dependency aspects of personality. In terms of ownership (or the ability to own) possessions, it involves feelings of competence and selfreliance. Money can be used to extend one’s personality: for instance, men pour money into such virility symbols as costly and powerful cars, and women buy such symbols of sexuality as lavish clothes.’

Within our society the position of economic independence in the light of what I am putting to the House from sources regarded as fairly powerful authorities in the field of welfare work emphasises that reasonable money resources play a dominant role and is essential to the mental welfare of people in our community. So the question arises in ones mind: What are the indirect, the intangible costs which we ought to try to calculate in the economic sense; the inevitable cost of this mass of unemployment in society, of the neurotic behaviour which is undoubtedly fostered because of the feelings of inadequacy and of loss of respect; the feelings of inferiority and loss of orientation in role playing? All of these important things arise when a person’s economic security is attacked in this vicious and unjustified way for which this Government is responsible.

Let me take another point. 1 refer to the sneering mockery of the position of the unemployed. The Minister takes a saunter into ancient history, into something that happened nearly a quarter of a century ago. We are talking about the present. 1 can scarcely remember the Chifley Government, l regret that and I am near middle age. However, I and younger people from both sides of the House did not know the Chifley Government. We are talking about what is happening today; the position as it is as against what it ought to be. After the increases which the Minister is proposing, a man with a wife and 2 children will be receiving an unemployment benefit rate which is 30 per cent or more than $14.50 a week below the poverty line. This amount includes child endowment allowances. The poverty line is a line which defines infamous deprivation in one of the wealthiest societies in the world. There are no proposals to allow for the rate of inflation which is accelerating in the community and which will erode the purchasing power of this money. There is no supplementary assistance for rent in the case of a single man who goes on to unemployment benefit nor is there any increase in the wife’s allowance or the children’s allowance.

When one considers that according to the annua] report of the Department of Social Services a survey conducted in selected areas in February 1971 shows that 60 per cent of the unemployed then had been unemployed for more than one month and if one allows for the worsening of the situation today, one gets some appreciation of just how disastrous the situation is for many unfortunate people. It is a snare set for the unemployed by mean-hearted men. The National Health and Medical Research Council in July 1968 prepared a sort of minimum budget for the food intake - the protein and calorie intake - of a man, his wife and 2 children where the male head of the family was involved in fairly demanding physical work, such as a skilled labourer. If we update these figures according to the food index of the consumer price index for the Canberra district, we find that the budget would be about $18.50 to $19 a week now. It is not a particularly exciting sort of budget. It would not provide the sort of meal that the Minister would have had tonight when he was influenced by that medium rare red with which he came in contact and as a result of which he spoke in such a peculiar style. A food budget of $18.50 to $19 a week would leave about $16 to $16.50 a week from the proposed unemployment benefits for a family of husband, wife and 2 children. After paying rent - very few people would be able to obtain accommodation for anything under $1.5 a week - a man would have about $1 a week on which to live and to pay for education, transport, chasing jobs and meeting mortgages which people inevitably have in the modern society in which we live.

This is the measure of the generosity of the Minister for Social Services. If the unfortunate wretch who is dependent on unemployment, benefits lives some distance from the employment office, the $1 a week that he has surplus after he pays for food and rent will be eaten up with the cost of transportation to and from the employment office. The deplorable aspect of al] this is that workers are sacrificed to patch up the defects of the Government’s economic policy, and with them go to the wall many small businessmen. The Government, savages, in its economic policies, those least able to defend themselves and least able to retaliate, but it is servile and craven before the economic might of conglomerates like the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, as I mentioned earlier, and before the socially significant groups such as the Australian Medical Association. This afternoon there was no attack by the Government on BHP, only excuses. No effort has been made to contain increases in the gross incomes of medical practitioners. The increases in gross incomes for doctors under the health insurance scheme operated by the Government for the 4 successive financial years to the end of last financial year were 7 per cent, 9 per cent. 17 per cent and 42 per cent. If a figure is taken for the 12 months to the end of September last year, it will be found that the increase was 46 per cent. So. there has been an accelerating push forward and no attempt has been made by the Government to combat these real causes of inflation within the community. Rather, the Government has found it easier to attack those least able to defend themselves. This is a coward’s programme.

It is the work of an overbearing bully and it adequately and competently is put forward by the Minister Tor Social Services.

What lousy tactics the economic policy has been. It was timed to coincide with the pastoral collapse and there has been a drift of unskilled people to the cities, including quite a number of Aborigines. These people are moving into a totally different milieu in which they fit often only with difficulty. Hard core and long standing unemployment has been gnawing away at and shattering the rural economy. Forty-four per cent of the unemployed are residing in rural areas. On a population distribution basis, unemployment in the rural areas is 26 per cent higher than is justified. How good is the relief being proposed by the Government? The ‘Australian Economic Review’, volume 4 of 1971 said:

The Federal Government’s decision to spend $2.25m per month over the next 18 months on public works in rural local government areas is a rate of $5 19,000 a week. At the present minimum award wage rate this would provide direct employment for about 7,500 men after allowing for 33 per cent of this sum to be spent on materials, etc. At the current male average earnings rate it would provide direct employment for less than 4,000. Although there are multiplier effects of such expenditure, the adequacy of such limited action in the face of an expected rise in registered unemployment of 30,000 males and 15,000 females must be questioned.

Of course, at the February Premiers’ Conference further allocations were made for rural unemployment relief. The allocation, on a monthly basis, doubles the amount of money being made available. However, what this effectively means, even allowing for this doubling and applying the figures used in the ‘Economic Review’ from which I have just quoted, is that 5 out of every 6 unemployed in the rural industry will not be mobilised into the work force through this money. The complete inadequacy of the Government’s programme is obvious. In regard to the cities, there has been an open or a vigorous attack by the Queensland Treasurer, Sir Gordon Chalk - a Liberal. An article in the ‘Courier Mail’ about the Brisbane metropolitan area - if it is true of Brisbane it is true of all metropolitan areas - stated:

Brisbane had been given a shabby, unfair deal by an inflexible Prime Minister, the State Treasurer (Sir Cordon Chalk) said last night.

According to the article he said:

I fought across the table for nearly half an hour, but got an inflexible ‘No’.

The article continued: he was ‘staggered’ when Mr McMahon refused to listen to his pleas for aid to relieve unemployment in the metropolitan area.

Even key Liberals are disenchanted with their Federal colleagues. It is obvious that there is no adequate programme to overcome unemployment within the community and, least of all, in the metropolitan areas where the greatest number of unemployed reside - more than 56 per cent of the total number of unemployed. On top of this there are problems which are not even confronted by either the Minister for Social Services and his Department or the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) and his Department. There is the disguised unemployment which exists because of the repeatedly worsening problems each January for young school leavers in obtaining employment. One feels that part of the explanation for the significantly increasing retention, rate in the higher grades at secondary schools will be found in the fear of so many parents that they must keep their children at school to obtain higher qualifications to enable them to gain employment. With the concurrence of the Minister I should like to incorporate in Hansard a table showing enrolments as a percentage of first year enrolments in secondary schools in Queensland.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

Mr HAYDEN:

– I thank the House. This table from ‘Economics’ - a publication on that subject - shows that there has been quite a sharp upsurge in the retention rate of young people in higher grades. Probably by about 1973-74 onwards we will find these people spilling out on to the employment market looking for employment. We are likely to run into a serious employment problem every January which will persist not for just a couple of months but for several months as these young people struggle for employment. It will be no answer for them to go on to university to obtain qualifications.

An article in the ‘Financial Review’ of 29th December pointed out that according to SO per cent or more employers, the following occupations are in a glut: Administrative work (women); agricultural economics; agricultural science; articled clerks (law); biometry, data processing (without computer training in course); economic research; editorial work: geography; journalism; market research; marketing (general); psychology; stockbroking and security analyses. This problem is worsening. Even in the field of natural sciences, there are serious problems in obtaining sufficient employment opportunities for young people graduating from universities. So one sees facing this country a serious, disguised unemployment problem which will suddenly burst into the economy and within society in the next couple of years, and there is no plan or programme to tackle it at all. Fiddling about, avoiding referring to the real question by some sort of emotive fishing about, as the Minister does repeatedly, for some sort of response from this side of the House by talking about Communists and the affiliation of left wing unions is utter nonsense when one is confronted with these enormous human problems with which we must grapple in the very near future. This reduces the great national public debates to trivia, to crude parody.

Another problem which has not been mentioned arises from the market situation in periods of boom when employers keep on employees whom in different circumstances they might retrench. For example, in periods of more competitive pressure or perhaps when there is the situation in which the motor car industry has made a serious error in the quality and acceptability of its product and the manufacturer does not want to admit this fact; hence he retains his employees rather than confess that he has made a mistake. A situation of disguised unemployment arises because of these factors. But when there is a retrenchment situation, as there is at the present time, employers have the opportunity to come out and to claim, seemingly candidly and fairly, that they are forced by Government policy to retrench their employees. Again retrenchments may occur where in boom times the employers have been keeping the employees on beyond the point where the rate of marginal return was not justified by the margin of cost of those additional employees. Many of these people who are retrenched will find it difficult to obtain re-employment especially if they are at or beyond middle age.

In this regard let me take the motor vehicle industry in Detroit in North America as a guideline. In a retrenchment period employers take the opportunity to increase their productivity and so when normal conditions resume they have achieved a greater output without replacing the employees who have been laid off. No purpose is served by making a micro-study of an industry or of a selected number of industries, as the Department of Labour and National Service periodically undertakes. We must adopt a macro-approach. We must look at the total economy and see how each unit within the economy integrates and interacts as a total economic setting if we are going to appreciate fully the significance of these sorts of factors. These are human problems which are within our society today. One sees no evidence of planning to combat them in the interest of people’s social and economic rights; one sees only a sort of smug calmness on the part of the Government - no doubt the product of total ignorance.

I should like to move to another aspect of the matter which we are discussing - the reliability of figures for unemployment. This is relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker, given the latitude or was it laxity with which you treated the Minister for Social Services. Just how reliable are the figures released by the Department of Labour and National Service? Mr Morris and his assistants in the statistical branch of the Legislative Research Section of the Parliamentary

Library in their usual efficient way have compiled for me a comparison of the unemployment figures supplied by the Department of Labour and National Service and the unemployment’ figures released by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. One finds a wide range of variation - it is not a consistent pattern - ranging from 17 per cent higher up to 33 J per cent higher for unemployment figures released by the Bureau of Census and Statistics over the figures released by the Department of Labour and National Service.

Given the fact that the figures released by the Bureau of Census and Statistics are always issued some months after those released by the Department of Labour and National Service, we generally accept the figures released by the Department of Labour and National Service. But the Bureau’s statistics are more reliable. But what this means is that the unemployment figures can be understating the level of unemployment today by anything from 26,000 to 43,000. If we include the number of housewives who have become unemployed and have not bothered to register, the situation is considerably worse. The employment record and policy of this Government is a sad one indeed. In the 12 months to November last year there was an increase of 2.1 per cent in civilian employment - the worst record in the last 10 years. It does not even faintly compare with the rate of increase of 4 per cent in the preceding 12 months. This is significant when we consider not only the cost involved and the human personalities which have been damaged by dislocations, tensions and even neurotic problems caused in households but also the real material things which can be measured; the tangibles, such as the lost economic growth which can never be regained once it has gone. This is happening in spite of the fact that we have one of the highest investment rates in the world, and investment is the thrusting force that gives us our dynamic for economic growth; the higher the investment rate, with proper economic management the higher the per capita growth rate should be. In spite of the fact of our high investment rate to which I have referred, we have one of the lowest per capita economic growth rates among advanced economies in the world. Even in good times, times of relatively full employment, we have one of the lowest per capita growth rates. The rate of growth in the work force is only one-half of what it normally is. One can appreciate then how seriously cut back our rate of economic growth will be in the next 12 months.

What sort of things ought we to do immediately? We ought to have a high level of benefits to discourage the using of humans - men, women and youngsters - as sacrificial offerings to mollify the economic gods of the Government when they express their wrath. That is, we must make it too expensive for the Government to treat wage and salary earners so cruelly and unfairly. We must pay unemployment benefits at the end of the first week of unemployment at an agency, and we must pay the fares of people who have to make any required trips to and from the employment agency. We must develop immediately a national personal and family emergency assistance scheme so that people will not be crippled and thrown into personal bankruptcy, a scheme to keep them in times of persona] financial crisis of the nature caused by relative poverty and unemployment. There must be automatic registration of the unemployed for the subsidised health insurance scheme. From previous figures released, only 2 out of every 5 people who are unemployed are entitled to draw on this assistance. There must be a rehabilitation training scheme for the broader category of people who are the problem unemployment people - not the sort of people who have been thrown into unemployment through the illconceptions of the Government’s current economic policy. They will, in many cases, respond successfully to such programmes. We must eliminate anomalies, such as a dependent student child being excluded from any benefit once he is 16 years of age no matter how great the needs of his parents. These children are excluded from receiving assistance, but the Minister does nothing to ameliorate the serious economic stress of these families.

We must eliminate the incredible anomaly where a 17-year-old lad living away from home can receive only $7.50 a week in unemployment benefits, yet would receive an invalid pension of $19.50 a week if he was living at home. We must stop the illegality of misinterpreting section 107 of the Social Services Act to deprive and penalise workers who have been thrown in:o unemployment through no fault of their own, but because of an industrial strike, by denying them unemployment benefits. We ought to treat unmarried mothers, so far as social service benefits are concerned, not as unemployed or sick persons but as persons entitled to the pension for deserted wives. Finally, I will have to move my amendment. Will the Minister for Social Services grant me an extension of time?

Mr Wentworth:

– No.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Then 1 will get somebody else to move the amendment; it does not matter. Will the Minister allow me to move it?

Mr Wentworth:

– Very well.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, this House is of opinion that the vast majority of those currently unemployed have become unemployed as a direct result of Government economic policies and accordingly directs the Government to prepare a Bill for presentation to this House within 14 days which provides for unemployment benefits not below the updated poverty level established by the 1966 survey of the University of Melbourne’s Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.’

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– J support the Bill, the purpose of which is to increase the rates of unemployment benefit and sickness benefit referred to in section 112 of the Social Services Act. This Government is pledged to full employment and to give assistance to persons who are unemployed. As at 30 th January last 130,233 people were unemployed in Australia, being 89,849 males and 40,384 females. Included in that total are 23,417 school leavers. Whilst those figures do not give concern to the Governnment it is interesting to compare them with the unemployment figures of overseas countries. A comparison shows that Australia has the lowest unemployment as a percentage of the work force. Whilst unemployment in Australia does give cause for concern

I am sure that in the months ahead it will be reduced, for reasons that 1 will give during the course of this speech.

I direct the attention of honourable members to a comparison of unemployment in Australia with unemployment in Canada. The latest unemployment figure for Canada is about 503,000, which represents about 5.8 per cent of the work force. At the end of November last about 4,815,000 were unemployed in the United States of America, or about 5.7 per cent of the work force. The latest unemployment figure available for France shows that about 376,000 were out of work. The percentage of the work force represented by that number is not known. The latest available figure for the United Kingdom shows that in October last about 930,000 people or 4 per cent of the work force were then unemployed there. In Australia the unemployment figure represents about 2.3 per cent of our work force and compares more than favourably with any overseas country. 1 was very interested to hear the remarks of the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who accused the Government of vicious manipulation to create unemployment. A statement like that is sheer and utter nonsense. If statements like that are made throughout the country they will do no good for the honourable member, his Party or the nation. On today’s notice paper at page 11.785 appears a question asked by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). The honourable member has asked:

  1. Is it a fact that the plan which he announced in early December 1971 to remove 14.000 woolgrowers from the countryside involves families exceeding 40,000 people?
  2. Is it also a fact that the established ratio of producers to other rural residents is one to four so that the evacuation of about 100.000 people is involved in the plan?
  3. Is it the intention of the Government to establish refugee camps for the dispossessed within the capital cities?
  4. Will steps be taken to provide transport for these people, preferably not in sheep trucks, as the S 1,000 loan to be provided by the Government to those dispossessed will hardly cover the costs of moving?
Mr Lloyd:

– What despicable nonsense.

Mr O’KEEFE:

– Absolutely. If statements such as that are publicised throughout the length and breadth of this country they will cause problems through loss of confidence of the people. It ill behoves the honourable member for Riverina to make statements of that nature, containing distortions of fact. It is not true that 100,000 people are to be transferred to the cities where tents will have to be provided. It is sheer humbug and absolute nonsense. In my opinion unemployment in this country has been caused by quite a number of factors, one of the most important factors being agricultural conditions which have existed right across the board in the past 3 or 4 seasons. We have experienced drought, floods, and a considerable fall in wool prices, including the lowest price for this bread and butter commodity for many a long day. Over-production of wheat brought about the introduction of quotas. These factors have causedunemployment on properties in country areas with a consequent effect on businesses in country towns. The unemployment situation in those areas has been greatly affected.

The servicing industries in the country towns have also been affected. There has been a lack of demand for farm machinery which has been transmitted to other secondary industries. Manufacturers like International Harvester Co. of Australia Pty Ltd, H. V. Mackay, John Shearer and Sons Ltd, Chamberlain Industries Pty Ltd, J. I. Case (Australia) Pty Ltd, John Deere Ltd and others have had to restrict their activities and put off men because of agricultural conditions. These conditions have had a very big effect on the automobile industry, particularly on General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd, Chrysler Australia Ltd and Ford Motor Company of Australia.

When conditions in the agricultural industry improve in Australia - and prices for grains and wool are picking up now - there will be an increased demand for farm machinery and motor vehicles. This will help to alleviate the unemployment which has been created. The coal industry has been adversely affected and a number of mines have closed down because of the shrinkage of export markets. This again has resulted in unemployment. Exports of many commodities manufactured in Australia have slowed down and this has caused unemployment because the overseas demand for those products has ceased. Manufacturers have had to put off staff but there is every indication that the export markets are also improving. However, we must be very concerned about the effect of industrial unrest on the labour market. Recently the great power industry located in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria was thrown into jeopardy. In turn certain manufacturers in New South Wales and South Australia were affected. Whilst industrial action of that type is taken the employment situation will certainly not be improved. Direct industrial action by sections of the trade union movement could jeopardise the jobs of thousands of workers and make it difficult for those people already out of work to find suitable employment.

This is a very important matter which concerns all decent thinking Australians. People listening to the honourable member for Oxley may be led to believe that Australia is suffering a dire depression, that our economic situation is absolutely chaotic and that we are in real trouble. We certainly have problems, but at the same time we have the greatest overseas balances we have ever had. Our export trade has never been better. Our monthly sales of export commodities are first rate and are running at an all time high. Our savings bank balances are also at an all time high. Fixed deposits in our trading banks are sound, but while people make statements that there is a depression there will be a lack of confidence throughout the land. There should not be this type of talk. If we can instil confidence in our people our unemployment problems will be considerably relieved.

I support this Bill which provides for a payment of $17 per week adult unemployment benefit, an increase of $7 a week. For the 16 to 17 years age group it has been increased from $4.50 to $7.50; for the 18 years to 20 years age group it has been increased from $6 to $11. The allowance for the wife remains at $8 and $4.50 for each child. The unemployed, of course, must register and the benefits commence 7 days after registration. Apart from the assistance which the Minister for Social Services has brought down in this Bill, this Government a fortnight ago in Canberra when the Premiers met here doubled the amount of money made available to the States to be channelled out to unemployed people through local government, so nobody can say that this Federal Government is not doing its best to aleviate the unemployment problem.

When we compare these figures which the Minister has included in the Bill with unemployment benefits in other countries, our figures compare more than favourably. In the United Kingdom it is $12 a week; here it is $17 a week, la Canada it is from $13 to $42 a week depending on the number of dependants, and in France it is $12 a week. So this Bill is a very fair one and it will assist those people who are unemployed. I feel we can look to the future with confidence. One honourable member tonight during this debate by way of interjection said that there will be half a million unemployed in this country. I deplore statements of this nature. Men who make such statements are doing a disservice to this great country and it is a shame that such statements are ever made. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– I support the amendment which has been moved by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). Before I make my. remarks on the Bill I would like to comment on some points made by the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe). He made the point that Australia had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. That may be so, but there would be a lot of people who would ask: How can a young country such as ours with all the resources available to it and with all the needs that have to be satisfied be so mismanaged as to cause the sort of unemployment we have? Just think of the things we have to do, of the hospitals which are so urgently needed in the community, the schools and sewerage reticulation. Something like three-quarters of a million people are in need of sewerage services. Think of all the road and rail services that need to be provided, the desperate shortage of houses for so many people in our community. These things are mainly in the public sphere but there are many things to be catered for in private enterprise. There are so many things to be done for the nearly 13 million people in this country that it can only be regarded as gross mismanagement that we can so organise our resources to have this kind of unemployment at the moment.

The honourable member also went on to talk about the cause of unemployment and alluded to other causes of which we are all very conscious at the present time, lt is true, and it is accepted in the community, that a good deal of unemployment is a deliberate result of Government policy. I know it seems harsh to say this and that Government members would have to reject it for political reasons. But look at the last Budget strategy. What was it aimed to do? It was aimed at preventing what the Government expected to be over spending in the community. The Government believed that the public had stored up so much savings that it was just about to descend on the community with a spending splurge which would give greater impetus to inflation in the country. Is this not correct? Of course it is. What happened? We had these various aspects of Government policy such as a credit restraint policy for 2 years in succession. We had steep increases in both direct and indirect taxation in order to take away some of the community’s spending power - in other words, to contract employment and business and economic activity in the community.

There are very strong restrictions on Government employment at all levels - Commonwealth, state and local government. These restrictions had their effect and were sorely felt by all those youngsters who left school recently or those tertiary students who sought vacation jobs only to find that there were so many fewer jobs available than there were 12 months before. Is this not a direct result of the Government’s Budget strategy? Then there was what I would call a psychological depression of business, a warning to private enterprise that it ought to steady up. As a result the effects were felt on the stock exchange and in business circles. Those who go around our electorates are hearing complaints frequently from business people who say that there has been a loss of confidence in business circles in the community and that there has been this contraction of economic” activity. The Government gave point to this by the withdrawal, temporary though it was, of the investment allowance. So let there be no humbug about it. We have unemployment because the Government strategy produced it and now we will have the old notorious cycle with stop go policies we thought had left us - the measures we had about 10 years ago.

Here is the Government trying to stop the economy, trying to halt spending and trying to contract business activity and all of a sudden now with about 6 or 8 months to a Federal election it has to press the go’ burton. It hopes that, when the ‘go* button is pressed the economic stimulus will be good enough to produce full employment again and get some life back into business activity. The Government will not care very much if its stop go policies result in another splurge of inflation in 6 or 12 months time after the elections are conveniently out of the way. All we have been saying tonight about unemployment is not just a matter of those unfortunate people who are out of jobs. It has its widespread dislocating effects on the economy at large. There is a lack of confidence, an undermining of confidence in business circles and the demoralising effects on all those who undertook long term study and who at the end of 5 or 6 years of tertia’ry education find that they cannot get the kind of jobs they had planned for when they began studying that long time ago. Unemployment not only affects the unemployed and their dependants but also people in business circles. There is this Curbed demand, this incidence of what is called ‘stagflation’ in the community today with restraint on investment. It does not have its effect only at the moment. The restriction that there will be on investment will have an effect in 3 or 4 years to come. A little later in my speech I hope to get around to speaking about the effects it has had on apprenticeship intake in our community - a very vital part of our economic life.

There is just no faith in this Government which proceeds by these fits and starts. Therefore, the Government has only itself to blame for the position we are in at the present time. What it really amounts to is that the unemployed, who are immediately affected by it, are the ones who are bearing the brunt of the Government’s economic policies, of its so-called corrective policies, and as a result we have the measure which is before us tonight. What a miserable thing it is. They are not my words but words in the Sydney ‘Sun’ editorial a week or two ago. A miserable hand out. Somebody referred to it as a fleabite Government policy in respect of unemployment. Here we are, at a time when the poverty line, which was recently set by the Melbourne University Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, is $50 a week, and even with the increase provided under this Bill, confronting a man, wife and 2 children with the task of living on $34 a week plus the little extra they get in child endowment. The benefit should have been doubled. There should have been an increase for the dependent wife as well as for the breadwinner. There should have been a substantial increase for the dependent children of the family. How can we expect people to be able to cater for their current needs and contractual obligations which they have? How will they cater for their hire purchase arrangements? How will they be able to pay off their homes? How will they be able to pay their municipal and water board rates and all of those other things that cannot be put aside?

Yet a man and a wife are asked to do this on $25 a week, and a man with a wife and 2 children is asked to do it on $34 a week. The Government’s approach is a niggardly one. If the Government had increased substantially the amount of money it gives to these people who are bearing the brunt of our economic policies that would not have led to inflation. It would not have given the stimulus to further price rises. These people would have been buying ordinary necessities in our shops. Many would have been only too glad to sell those goods to them.

The problem is not just the number of people who are totally unemployed. One of the other aspects of it is the number of people who are under employed. They are rauch more numerous. They are the people who are not working full time, the people who formerly had overtime and have now lost it, the people whose wives were working. The unemployed wives cannot register for unemployment benefits if the breadwinner is working. So we have not only loss of individuals but also loss of the economy, which has all those needs that I described before to be satisfied. The cost of unemployment is the loss of productive opportunities that are forgone such as the homes, schools and sewerage services that could have been provided if these people were back in full time employment. This is the cost to all of us. This is the cost to the whole community. That is why unemployment is a most unfortunate thing in our society.

Apart from what is contained in this measure, the Government is doing little, piffling sorts of things to try to relieve some of the unemployment. Under the rural unemployment scheme the Commonwealth is handing out $4im a month to local government bodies wilh which to employ people in rural areas. They are being employed to chip weeds, to mend fences and to carry out other menial tasks in a bits and pieces programme. This assistance is spread thinly around the whole country instead of there being some concerted programme to use the $4im a month for some worthwhile national purpose. Spread as it is over the whole of the nation it can amount only to this little bits and pieces, piffling kind of approach that we have. No wonder the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ editorial of 18th February, under the heading ‘Rural palliative’, bad this to say: . . the likelihood is that by spreading the funds thinly throughout the States’s municipalities and shires they will be frittered away on minor, and often unnecessary projects of little lasting benefit to country towns.

The editorial adds: lt is pointless encouraging the uneconomic primary producer to leave the land on the one hand and helping him to remain a little longer with relief handouts on the other.

The programme in which the Government is engaged in relieving rural unemployment is no substitute for a genuine policy of decentralisation of population and industry. Decentralisation would be the much more fundamental approach that we would expect from an efficient government, but we do not get it from the present government. One might well ask - I think the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) tried to answer the question himself today: Why is it that the unemployment assistance is giving jobs to the unemployed only in rural areas? Why is it not for the many other people equally sorely tried in many of our metropolitan areas? The Prime Minister tried to say today that some other aspect of the Government’s recent policy, as announced at the Premiers Conference, is helping to cater for them. I refuse to be convinced of that.

Many people in metropolitan areas, including many thousands of our immigrants, are much worse off and are in much more dire trouble than even some of the unfortunate people in the countryside. Only some of the rural unemployed are receiving assistance. At the end of January about 5,000 of these people were getting jobs under the programme. So we have the spectacle that, on the one hand, some people are receiving this assistance and getting jobs - even if it is chipping weeds at $60 a week - but right alongside them in the same street are other adults receiving $17 a week in unemployment benefit. This is a most inequitable and unjust provision.

I have already alluded to the disappointed school leavers who left school last year at the end of 4th form or 6th form and who were hoping to go into jobs. They found that jobs were not available for them, so they are going back to school to repeat 6th form or to go on to 5th form. That was not their intention. They were hoping to go into jobs. They are going back to repeat a year, or go into a higher form, which they never intended to do, simply because jobs are not available. They hope to get higher qualifications so that they may find employment at the end of another 12 months. The provision of schools and teachers is very costly. Parents are involved in great expense in sending such children back to school.

I referred a little while ago to the tertiary students who sought jobs during the Christmas vacation. These days scholarships are not nearly adequate to keep a young man or a young lass, so students have to get vacation employment to keep them going during the 12 months ahead or the part of it during which they are carrying out their academic studies. The statistics provided to me show that only 20 per cent of the normal number of vacation jobs were available during the last Christmas vacation. Many students who are not on scholarships depend upon earning money during the 3 months vacation to pay their way through university, a college of advanced education or some other institute during the rest of the year. Many of them have been bitterly disappointed and thoroughly demoralised by the inflictions made upon them by the Government.

In December 1971 in New South Wales alone there were 742 applicants seeking apprenticeships in carpentry and joinery through the Commonwealth Employment Service. There were only 94 vacancies in the building trades for those 742 applicants. I have already alluded to the dire necessity for housing. In New South Wales alone, for all the crafts in the building industry there were 1.344 apprenticeship applicants but only 304 vacancies, more than 4 applicants for every vacancy. In three or four years time this community will pay the penalty in the lack of skilled manpower to do the jobs that would be done by those apprentices had they had the opportunity. This year, 1972, will be a write-off as regards the training of many necessary skilled personnel. In the time available to me I want to speak very briefly about what 1 consider to be a concerted plan - it could come from as high as the Minister - administratively to depress the number of people becoming entitled to unemployment benefits. I have had sent to me anonymously through the mail a circular which was sent to all district officers in the Employment Branch of the Department of Labour and National Service. It reads:

Advice has been received from the Department of Social Services that the provisions for granting Unemployment Benefit to minors have been changed.

In relation to the administering of the Works Test it has been decided that it is not unreasonable to require a person 18 years of age or more to leave home to seek employment. A claim for Unemployment Benefit lodged by a claimant 18 years old or more who refuses to leave home to seek employment, subject to the other conditions of the Works Test, is to be rejected on the ground that he/she is not qualified under the Act.

That circular is dated 2nd February 1972. It means that young girls, 18 years of age, who are unemployed and perhaps seeking their first job will be compelled to leave home, if the Department so requires it, to take up a job in some other locality. What are the limits to this? How far might they be expected to go? Might they be expected to go to Woop Woop in the country or to go interstate somewhere and pay exorbitant board, rent or some other accommodation charge to get employment? If they refuse to do that they are to be denied unemployment benefits. I reiterate that this circular states that benefit conditions ‘have been changed’. In other words the Government has tightened up; it is trying to work people out of their entitlement. It is a piffling entitlement that they get, but here is a measure that is intended to deprive people of unemployment benefits.

Another situation arose about a month and a half before Christmas when lots of youngsters who had sat for their Higher School Certificate were leaving school and applying for jobs, but no job was available for many of them. This was in about midNovember and late November. They were confronted with the question: Do you intend to return to education of some kind or another next year? If the person could not say definitely: T do not’ he did not get any unemployment benefits. If a person said, for instance: ‘I do not know; I have to wait for my examination results in midJanuary’ no unemployment benefits were paid. In other words these people were expected to live on fresh air or under their parent’s protection during another 2 or 3 months. If subsequently they did not go back to some kind of education, the Department promised it would consider retrospectively paying them unemployment benefits. I had experience of the sad case of a young man who had finished a course at an agricultural college, applied for a job but could not get it. He said he had to co into national service on 26th January. He was told: ‘Sorry, you are out. You are going into some form of training.’ Could you find a more shocking situation than that? This Government has created this unemployment position. I have tried to indicate the woeful costs to the community at large, but in my view they are nothing compared with the sadness and demoralisation of many of our young people and not so young people. I strongly support the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Oxley.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
Bennelong

– We are discussing an urgent Bill here tonight and one which I suggest should not call for some of the emotional and irrelevant things that have been said by members of the Opposition in relation to it. The quicker we get the Bill through and we get the money for the people who are unemployed, the better. I think there has been a great deal of unnecessary talk and that a lot of unnecessary political propaganda has been used. There is no doubt that an emergent position has arisen which has meant that we have had to revise the assistance being given to people who are unemployed. So that it will be clear in the mind of anybody who might be listening, we are discussing a Bill which will increase unemployment and sickness benefits. It will raise the present adult unemployment assistance from $10 to $17 a week, the benefit for juniors 16 years of age to 17 years of age from $4.50 to $7.50, and the benefit for those aged from 18 to 20 years from $6 to $11 a week. These are not big sums of money and may well be said to be not enough. I am not canvassing that aspect at the moment. But they are the biggest increases in unemployment relief ever given in the history of this country.

The increases are of a material nature too, because not only are the new benefits greater in their amount but they are greater from the point of view of their purchasing power for the people who are unemployed. Therefore I think it is to the credit of the Government that it has got quickly onto this job and increased the unemployment relief payments. I know that members of the Australian Labor Party will say that the new benefits are not enough. It is very easy to say this when they are in Opposition. They are not in government and they do not have to find the money or bear the responsibility. But I remind them that when they were in government the same sort of legislation was on the statute book and they did not then take the action that they have suggested in their speeches tonight. I suggest that if they had the responsibility of government they would not be talking as they are talking now.

I do not say that there is not a case for a bigger increase in these benefits, but I think the Government is facing up to realities and that it is giving a good increase in an emergent situation. Unemployment is a tragedy in any circumstances, particularly for the man who is out of work and more particularly, I suggest, for the family man who has a wife and little kiddies. He gets some benefit, but circumstances become tragic when a man falls out of work. There are all sorts of emotional matters associated with unemployment, as was mentioned by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). This is true. In a sense a man can lose his self respect.

Unemployment is a great tragedy and a tragedy that this Government deplores. The policy of this Government, which has been enunciated many times in this House since the Government has been in power for the last 23 years, has been a policy of full employment, and the Government has maintained that policy. Never has there been a greater degree of employment thanthere has been in the 23 years that this Government has been in power.

The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) expressed the view of a man who was a very prominent member of the Labor Party only a very few years ago. I heard him speak in this House in relation to what was an acceptable percentage of unemployed. There always will be some unemployed, not because there are not jobs for them in many cases but because unfortunately they are not able to do some of the work or accept positions or retain jobs that are available. There are those who are virtually unemployable. But today there are people who are genuinely unemployed, who cannot find jobs which they are capable of doing, so it is a different proposition today. In the 23 years that this Government has been in office it has maintained a position of full employment. Yet we have heard people on the other side of the House say tonight that this Government is to blame for the unemployment which exists in this country today and that our policy is to create unemployment. The honourable member for Oxley said that the Government created this unemployment, and the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) said that we have unemployment because of this Government’s policy. What ridiculous nonsense this is.

Is it suggested by members of the Opposition that we on this side of the House are heartless creatures who aTe trying to create unemployment? This is so absurd when we have a record of 23 years of full employment and when all our policies that have been enunciated are for the purpose of maintaining full employment. How in fairness can members of the Opposition say what they have said? AH they are doing is using the unfortunate unemployed people to bring about a political advantage for themselves. What a shameful thing to do. To my way of thinking it is disgraceful that they should take that approach and accuse the Government in that way when nobody in this country would believe such allegations.

This Government not only believes in full employment but will be doing its best - the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has said this - to see that this temporary unemployment in Australia is very quickly overcome, and I have no doubt that it will succeed in doing that. The Government has already moved in this direction. We all know what it has done in the last week or so. When unemployment occurred in rural districts the Government during the last session took immediate action to make grants to the States to assist local government bodies to reduce unemployment. This action was taken in December when ‘here was some degree of unemployment in rural areas. We all know what the Prime Minister has done since then. He called the State Premiers to Canberra only last week and big handouts were given to the State governments. There is no doubt that this money in the hands of the State governments will have an immense effect upon the temporary unemployment which exists today. This is a major step forward in rectifying the existing unemployment situation.

The Government has, as we all know, taken action to reduce interest rates on loans. This is calculated to promote employment. The Government has also restored the investment allowance. The Prime Minister made this announcement last week. There are many other matters which are now under consideration by this Government for the relief of unemployment. Tt is very easy to criticise. Politics, of course, is a dirty business. It is the open season to attack the Government because this is an election year. So the Opposition - from the point of view of politics one cannot blame it - is attacking the Government and we cannot blame the Opposition for this. But from the point of view of truth and the benefit of the country we can blame the Opposition. It is open season for the Opposition to blame the Government for everything. The Australian Labor Party has been saying things and making promises to try to destroy this Government. What is the reason for this? Is.it to make things better for the people and for this country? No Sir, that is not the. reason. The reason is to enable the

Opposition to become the Government. The Opposition’s objective is to occupy the Treasury bench and to enable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) to become the Prime Minister. A Labor government would mean that some honourable members on the other side of this House would become Ministers. This is the aim of the Opposition. Its aim is not to help the unemployed. It is not to help the people of Australia. Members of the Opposition are prepared to play on the suffering of the people in order to deceive them as to what is best for them. The mass media - newspapers, television and radio - are publishing sensational and emotional news, sometimes completely unscrupulously, to attack the Government on the question of unemployment. Every day we hear commentators who are not very particular about the facts. They have no qualms about the damage that they do in destroying the confidence of the people of Australia. This does not concern them. They have a listening audience and this is a time when anything can be said or promised. As the Minister properly said today the communist controlled unions are also in the picture with demands for higher wages and salaries and the promotion of strikes. I do not want to dwell on the subject of Mr Hawke whom I consider to be one of the most dangerous men in Australia. On the one hand he instigates. encourages and promotes strikes - this has been proven - and on the other he tries to be the big fellow who comes along to cure them.

Mr Giles:

– He is Mr Fixit.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– Yes, he is Mr Fixit. This is pretty good psychology if he can get away with it but I do not believe that the people of Australia will fall for this kind of thing. I believe that the people are awake to Mr Hawke, the big man who is going to fix it. Why are the people not facing up to the facts in relation to this matter? Why does not the Opposition do anything about this unfortunate matter of unemployment? Why does not the Opposition do something to guide the people in understanding the situation properly? Let us get together on a level of national unity to deal with a problem when it becomes a national problem. The truth is, although nobody says so, that the whole world is in a confused state at the present time. There is not one country thai is not in a confused economic condition at the present time, although the world has just experienced the most prosperous period in the history of man. We are entering another phase. Inflation is a menace in every country. There is a currency instability which has not yet been settled. This will pers,4 in every country until confidence is restored in the people and we get back onto an even keel.

There is a high rate of unemployment in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and even in Japan. Do those countries blame this Government for their unemployment situation? Does the United Kingdom blame this Government for the unemployment in England? What is the cause of unemployment? There must be a general reason. Why are the members of the Opposition so parochial as to want to use this unfortunate situation of unemployment to say the things that have been said tonight instead of looking at the problem in a broad, national way and making an effort to cure the problem of unemployment in the interests of this nation? We all bear the responsibility for curing unemployment. All of us, including members of the Opposition, love this country. We want to see it progress. Why must we confine ourselves to narrow political attitudes in relation to this matter?

Not only do we have this high rate of unemployment but also there is a great trade upset throughout the world. Australia is now facing a very important trade upset at the present time with the United Kingdom about to enter the European Economic Community. Britain’s entry to this market will mean a dislocation of Australia’s trade which has gone on throughout our history. We will now have to align ourselves more with America and Japan in trade. This is an upsetting influence. It will have an effect upon all these matters about which we are talking tonight. There will be a loss of markets for Australia and a drop in the prices for our rural products. It is amazing that we are as well off as we are. We have also had to contend with the collapse of the mining industry. It was just building up to its peak but because of world conditions it collapsed to a very large extent. Evidence of this can be seen in t’:e stock markets every day. There is real danger from inflation. The present

Prime Minister has a sense of responsibility, he knows what economics are and he will not be panicked about these things because in a panic it would be possible to destroy the future of Australia. If we did not carry out proper and effective government with a regard for the future stability and growth of this country we could destroy Australia’s future. Therefore we need stable government and stable leadership. That is what we need, not these petty political things that we hear in this House. We will never have full employment until we restore confidence in the community as my friend the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) so rightly said. We still have plenty of money. As he said, savings have reached an all time high. But confidence has depreciated. We have a loss of confidence. I say, regardless of politics or which party is in government or not in government, that it is the duly of every member of the Parliament to see that he takes action in a national spirit in the best interests of Australia and in this way cure the unemployment problem. Do not let us be so petty and politically biased that we become small town politicians who are prepared to come into this place and charge the Government with being responsible for a condition which is world wide, a condition which this Government will not tolerate. This Government can be relied upon to cure it in the interests of this country and the development of this great nation.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Tonight the House has been treated to a disappointing and, I believe, disgusting diatribe from the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) who is obviously not only disillusioned with the great responsibilities entrusted to him, but who is also out of step with the Government and has lost the confidence of the Government and the people of Australia. It has been incredible to hear from him, and the little Sir Echo who followed him, the pious platitudes in trying to defend this Government’s disappointing record in the field of social services. He asked about the cause of the economic recession around the world. He seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact that his Government has been party to a matter of great significance, the war in Vietnam, which had a very great impact not only on the economy of Australia but also on the economy of the United States of America. It undermined the confidence of world currency.

Then, dealing with matters closer to home, he seemed to lose sight of the fact that the people who are out of employment in Australia today have not been assisted in any measure by the fact that this Government has allowed the repatriation of profits lo increase from 25 per cent to 33 per cent over 6 years. That is to say, entrepreneurs and others come into our country, do not even bring capital with them - they use the capital of the Australian people - and take out profits to that astounding extent. 1 repeat that the percentage of our profits repatriated has risen from 25 per cent to 33 per cent over 6 years with all the trends indicating that before the end of the 1970s, 50 per cent of our profits will be going overseas. The honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) is one of the guilty mcn. He says that this Government is doing all it can about unemployment and about giving the people who are unemployed the opportunity *o live at a decent standard. We have heard all sorts of bleating alibis. We have heard all sorts of belligerent accusations. The honourable member for Bennelong did not want to say too much. Of course he did not because he had nothing to say. The honourable member continued to make a case that he intended to curtail his remarks so that we could get this legislation through. He knows full well that the Opposition has relinquished its traditional right of waiting for a week before the debate on the Bill is resumed so that it does not become a party to holding up the payment of unemployment benefits to these very needy beneficiaries. Normally the procedure with a Bill which is introduced on a Tuesday is that during the party meeting on the Wednesday it is debated and the debate in the Parliament is brought on a week later. The Opposition has co-operated in this regard. The honourable member for Bennelong failed to give this proper impression.

Over a long period, large numbers of Australians have been thrown out of work on to the demoralising job queue. There are many who have not received a regular income for months. We have the spectacle of young matriculants of the high schools lining up at the unemployment office. In my own case I have a considerable number of these young men and women come to me looking for jobs. They have been turned out in their new shoes and suits like new pins, ready to take on whatever confronts them in their approach to adulthood. But it is sad and depressing to see them on the threshold of their employment opportunities deprived of a start in their first job and forced to line up for a handout in j 972. This Government has to bear the responsibility for that.

Tonight we are discussing these pathetic pittances provided under the Social Services Bill 1972. I believe that this Bill will disturb every Australian who cares about the victims of the economic crisis. It is a sad thing that we are talking about giving people these miserably inadequate amounts of money. It is regrettable that someone such as the honourable member for Bennelong should stand and shed crocodile tears. This is the man who is perhaps one of the wealthiest men in the Parliament, if not in Australia, with his great chain of real estate agencies and enormous business ramifications. This wealthy man talks with such gratification about the proposal that we should give an adult male person, a dignified Australian, a paltry amount of $17 a week. Does this not ring of hypocrisy and humbug? Does it not cause every listener, every proud family man and worker in this country to wince at the fact that there are people who prevail at the level of Government in Australia today who dare to countenance the idea that this is uplifting or dignifying to Australian manhood? We on this side of the House are disgusted. We believe that those who are responsible for this measure on the other side of the House stand condemned. We feel very strongly about the whole matter. There have been high unemployment figures for many years. In 1961 there were 150,000 registered unemployed in this country. During that period, male unemployed were receiving $10 a week and $8 a week for a dependent wife.

Mr Cope:

– A single person who was unemployed received $8.25.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am informed by the honourable member for Sydney that a single person who was unemployed received $8.25 in 1961. Yet, at this time the unemployment benefit for a male person stands at $10 a week. If he has a dependent wife, he receives $8 a week for her. These inadequate increases will be made as a result of the legislation we are discussing this evening. There has been continual pressure from members of the Opposition. Over many years we have moved amendments seeking higher amounts to be paid. There is no need for the Government to give the impression that it has suddenly discovered the need for higher benefits to be made available. It voted against the Opposition’s proposals to increase benefits time after time. In addition, it has arrogantly, indifferently and inhumanly rejected the overtures of all the compassionate organisations. The Australian Council of Social Service has written to the Minister and talked to him in private interview time after time about this matter. Also, the Australian Council of Churches and hosts of other welfare organisations have drawn the attention of the Government to the inadequacies of these amounts. More contemporaneously, the Brotherhood of St Laurence produced a well informed and documented paper on this subject. But tonight we were treated to a slurry of scurrilous insults and red baiting from the Minister as a substitute for logic and genuine concern about the unemployed. He even had to reach to the bottom of the barrel in an attack on a former member of this House, the former member for Parkes, Mr Haylen, who has not been in the Parliament since 1963. He had to go back 9 years. It is amazing that the Government has to lean on such a flimsy reed as a remark, made in 1947 and taken out of context, in order to justify whatever case the Minister for Social Services has. No wonder the Minister has his hand on his head and is hanging his head in shame. He is looking miserable and ashamed of himself and his Government. Here is a man who made all the promises about what he was going to do to lift the standard of social service* and to eliminate the means test. He criticised the Government. Goodness me, here he is tonight, near the end of his career, tattered and torn, bruised and battered and with hardly a feather to fly. One wonders whether there is anyone in sight in the ranks of the Government who is going to look like emerging as a possible successor to the once strong advocate for decent social services.

The Minister for Social Services, like all the others, has been more interested in introducing an investment allowance of 20 per cent as a means of stimulating the economy. The Minister advocates great hand-outs to big business as an alternative to stimulating the economy by giving deprived and underprivileged people a bit more purchasing power. Would it not have been a good idea to give the unemployed a decent living wage - this is done in other parts of the world - or to give pensioners maybe an increase of $10 a week which would make their pension a substantial proportion of the average male earnings? Why has not the Minister advocated this? That is his responsibility. Action should have been taken in this direction and the Government should not so warmly and enthusiastically have embraced the idea of a 20 per cent investment allowance to BHP and to other great business concerns, including those which have come from overseas to take away our birthright and our profits. It is obvious that there has been a great failure so far as the Minister’s responsibilities are concerned.

When we have a look at the measure that is before the House tonight, we see that the effect of it is to lift the adult rate of unemployment benefit to $17 a week, the rate for unmarried persons between 18 and 20 years to $11 a week and the rate of those people between 16 and 17 years to $7.50 a week. There are many things which obviously needed overhauling but which have not been provided for at all in the Bill before us. For example, there is no increase in the wife’s allowance. If a husband and wife, who normally are in employment, are both out of work - and this is not an unprecedented example that I am giving - the wife will not receive the unemployment benefit. She will end up with a wife’s allowance of $8 a week. Of course, there are many other deficiencies. Even the integration of the proposed increase in unemployment payments into the existing social services structure adds to the hotch potch of varying rates paid to people with the same basic needs and commitments and in the same governmental area of dependency.

This Government has not faced up to the fact that unemployment is the business of the Government and that governments have a responsibility to keep people in employment. The only real cure for unemployment is employment, and that is a matter to which the Government has to turn its attention. A premium should be placed on unemployment in the form of unemployment benefits of such proportion that governments could not allow unemployment to occur. We should be challenging the right of large scale employers to engage in large scale retrenchments. What right has an overseas concern to sack thousands of Australian workers? What right has an overseas concern to come here and use Australian resources, Australian money and Australian manpower and when there is some shift in the economic breeze decide that it might suit their short term purposes to have large scale unemployment? That is not the philosophy of employers in every part of the world. This is not permitted by governments in other parts of the world. If a man takes a job with a firm iri Japan, for example, he knows he has a job for life. Similarly his employer knows that he is a faithful and conscientious employee. But in Australia employers can do what they like and this Government could not care less.

It would be reasonable for the Government to bring down a measure categorising large scale employers and requiring them, in respect of their intention to engage in large scale retrenchments, to show cause why they wanted to sack hundreds or thousands of Australians, and then to lay down a programme to prevent this from happening. There are many occasions on which people lose employment because of the mismanagement of big industry. Sometimes they lose their jobs because of the greed of big industry which outprices the commodity in the international market. I am not sure that this has not been happening in the steel industry, for example. When one reads year after year of the enormous bonanzas, the hand-outs and the bonus shares which are given to BHP shareholders, is it any wonder that in the last financial year there was an imbalance of $40m in trade with steel?

Australia took steel technology to Japan not so many years ago. It taught the Japanese how to make steel. Australia still supplies Japan with our iron ore and with our hard coking coal. Yet Australia is in the incredible position where it is buying extensively from Japan. I think there is some justification to say that a study of the situation will show that BHP might have outpriced Australia from the international market. Why is it that BHP is allowed to sack people whenever it wants to in a case like that? The Government should say: ‘You are required to show cause why you want to retrench people because if you do retrench them it is our obligation to keep them at a decent living level. They are Australians and it is going to cost us a lot if they are out of work because we will ensure that the unemployment benefit will be at a high level. The Government should then say that the obligation is on BHP, as an employer, to show cause why people should be put out of work. Otherwise, if the company cannot do this, the Government should say: ‘We will impose some sanctions against you; maybe we will deprive you of the 20 per cent investment allowance. The Government is going on with child’s play. It is not caring about unemployment, it is not accepting unemployment or employment as its responsibility and it is not facing up to its obligation to provide a decent living wage for the people so affected which at the moment is a disgrace by Australian standards.

As a result of the numbers registered for work at the end of 1971 the unemployment level rose to 120,553 people. In a month that figure went up by 2.000. Of course, these arc only superficial figures. There are thousands of unemployed people who do not register but hope to find a job on their own initiative. When one talks about 122,000 unemployed in Australia one is not talking about the people who are affected by unemployment because in addition to those who are unemployed there are wives and dependent children. I believe that the annual report indicates that dependent children average three to a family. Therefore, a large number of people are affected by unemployment in this country at present.

It is a sad commentary that half of the registered unemployed - close to 70,000 people - are school leavers and other juniors, which is the way in which they are described in official documents. At the end of June last year there were 683,586 persons in Australia aged between 18 and 20 years. Australia has 6.7 million voters, so the 18 to 20 year age group represents a little more than 10 per cent of the existing enrolment. An extension of the electoral franchise to include this group would cause the Government to he more sensitised to its needs. It is amazing that this Government is prepared to give young men and women between 18 and 20 years of age only $11 a week after depriving them of employment. This group I believe is among the hardest hit in Australia today. These young people are subjected to many injustices and hardships and the reduction of the voting age probably would cause the Government to be more sensitive to many of the problems which these people are experiencing. Although there are many things that I should like to say on this occasion, I conclude by drawing attention to the fact that no longer at Commonwealth employment offices are people told when they seek a joh that employments benefits are available to them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I have just listened to quite a long talk by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) on this Bill. I strongly support the Bill, the purpose of which is to increase the rate of unemployment and sickness benefits. I want to make some comments on the remarks of the honourable member for Hughes. He mentioned the repatriation of profits and he gave figures concerning them. I have heard many figures about the amount of money which leaves Australia, particularly as a result of mining ventures. In the first instance overseas capital has been used to establish our mining ventures, because, in some cases at any rate, capital was not available in Australia. The expertise that overseas companies brought with them has helped to develop Australia’s great mineral deposits. Of course, we all know that it would have been better if all these projects could have been developed with Australian capital. Referring to the amount of money leaving

Australia, I quote from the DecemberJanuary bulletin of the Institute of Public Affairs. The question was asked.

What proportion of the total export proceeds from mining goes in dividends to overseas shareholders?

The answer was:

About 5 per cent. This figure is far lower than figures which are often quoted as being the amount of money that goes to overseas shareholders as dividends from mining ventures.

Mr Foster:

– lt is about 30 per cent.

Mr CORBETT:

– The honourable member for Sturt is interjecting. If he is right, the Institute of Public Affairs is wrong. I would rather accept the figure of the Institute of Public Affairs than that of the honourable member for Sturt, who is not quoting his source but is just naming a figure. I have quoted the figure from this booklet and if it is wrong, let honourable members opposite take it up with the Institute. I do not believe that it is wrong. Many quotations and figures are not substantiated. Often they are used simply for political propaganda.

The honourable member for Hughes said that the real cure for unemployment is employment. I could not agree more. The Government has endeavoured to create an atmosphere in which employment will be generated. We heard something about a stop-go policy. If the Government’s preparedness to try to do something when there is unemployment is called a ‘go’ policy, it is a good thing that Australia has a government that is prepared to have a go policy when one is needed to reduce the unemployment level. It is all very well to say that there is a stop-go policy. What does that mean? It means that when there is a necessity for an injection of money into the economy, it is given in the interests of the nation and in the interests of the people who need help at the time. In this case the Bill provides for relief of unemployment. Surely no-one would argue about the necessity to do this at this time.

The Opposition may feel that there is no need to have a policy which will create employment or assist in the present situation. Members opposite can call the Government’s policy a go policy or anything else but the policy which is being adopted and which is incorporated in this Bill is designed to help those who are suffering from the effects of unemployment. We must try to create employment so thai people will not have to take advantage of the benefits which are prescribed in this Bill. There is no question in my mind - 1 do not question that perhaps this feeling is not in the minds of many others - thai one of the great human tragedies occurs when people who are willing to work in their chosen occupations are unable ;o find employment, in its train this situation brings to individuals serious consequences which would not have occurred had it not been for the fact that they had not been able to find employment or that employment was not available to them. This does lead to a great deal of tragedy and consequently it is necessary that the Government should in every possible way try to provide the employment which will lessen the requirements of a Bill such as the one we are debating.

The aim of the Bill is to sustain in the best possible way in relation to the economy those people who face the tragedy of unemployment. I do not suggest for a moment that what is prescribed in the Bill is sufficient. We would all like to see greater benefits given but one must take into consideration the whole economy. The Bill provides for a good step up in benefits. The adult rate will rise by $7 a week from $10 to $17 a week. This is a substantial rise and one which I feel will be of great benefit. It will be appreciated by those unfortunate enough to have to take advantage of it. In the case of unmarried persons aged 18 years to 20 years, the benefits will rise by $5 a week from $6 to $11 a week. It is not as much as we would like them to have nor is it as much as would be needed for them to live at a standard at which we like to sec all Australians living. Nevertheless, it is an improvement which will enable them to enjoy a better standard than previously and therefore it is something for which the Government is to be commended. Finally, the rate for unmarried persons aged 16 years to 17 years will rise by $3 a week. Again, I repeat, because it is worth repeating, that I am not suggesting that this is the ultimate in what is required but it is a big improvement and therefore I welcome it. lt would not have mattered how much the rates were increased; members of the Opposition still would have said it was not enough. It was said that the Government has opposed some Opposition proposals, but it is traditional for the Opposition to suggest raising unemployment benefits while it is the Opposition because the Opposition does not have to pay those benefits.

Tonight I heard an Opposition member say that he scarcely remembered the Chifley Government. I feel sorry for members of the Opposition because they will not see another Labor government while the policies of this Government remain as good as they are. I commend the Minister for Social Services-

Mr Foster:

– Tell us about your policies. You do not have any.

Mr CORBETT:

– I just told the honourable member what a member of his own party said. Surely I can refer to something that was said from the other side of the House in this debate. This is what the spokesman for the Opposition in this debate said, so surely I can make some reference to it. If it is good enough for him, it is good enough for mc. In fact, I should like to do better than he does. I think he said that he barely remembered the Chifley Government. One should look at the Minister’s .second reading speech to see the value, at present rates, of the benefits provided by the Chifley Government, lt is easy to say that the Chifley Government was a long lime in the past but we have not seen much to indicate that a Labor government of the future would do any better. We must wait to see though, as I mentioned, many honourable members sitting on the other side of the House will not see another Labor government provided this Government continues with its present policies.

The problems that have caused unemployment have been mentioned by other speakers in this debate. I now refer particularly to the serious problems of rural industry with which 1 am very conversant. Surely those problems must be recognised, and if honourable members opposite do not know anything about them it is time that they learned something about them. During this debate honourable members opposite have not commented on these problems at all, so they either do not know anything about them or they have not the fairness to say that these problems are a factor in the present unemployment situation. I want to assure the House that they are a factor. I have seen them in the travelling I have done throughout my own electorate and in other electorates.

Mr England:

– This is the beginning.

Mr CORBETT:

– As the honourable member for Calare has said, this is the beginning. The fact, is that a government has no control over seasonal conditions, and in the last 10 years seasonal conditions in my State of Queensland; anyway, have been such that they have restricted the development which normally takes place in those areas. There have been great losses of stock. Consequently, people, such as shearers and even businessmen who have been the victims of a falling off in business, have had to leave the towns in which they have lived for many years. That is something over which the Government has no control, but what reference was made to it by honourable members opposite? None at all.

Mr Foster:

– You are the cause of the present situation.

Mr CORBETT:

– It is suggested that we have caused the present situation; we have not. The present situation has been caused by low world prices of commodities. Drought conditions also have caused a lot of the problems in rural areas. Honourable members opposite are trying to interject. Some of the interjections are not worth listening to, and I will ignore them. The point is that if honourable members opposite were to take the trouble to travel around - and I think that very few of them have done so - they would see that in a very short time-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! There are too many interjections. Under the Standing Orders the honourable member for Maranoa is entitled to be heard without interruption. I believe that the previous speaker on the Opposition side was beard without interruption. The same courtesy should be extended to the honourable member for Maranoa.

Mr CORBETT:

– The interjections are puerile, anyway. If they had some merit in them J perhaps would welcome them. When one looks around the rural areas at the present time one sees already that there is returning confidence. There is an increase in employment in those areas. Country newspapers contain advertisements calling for applicants for positions, and if ever any evidence was needed, this is clear evidence of the effect of the influence which the Government’s policy has had on unemployment in the rural areas of Australia, particularly in my own State which, naturally, I know better than most other parts of Australia.

I am not one who wants to see a low wage rate, but unless wage rises are kept within the scope of the increase in the gross national product any wage rises will not be beneficial to the working man. Wage rises above the rate of increase in gross national product are absorbed very quickly by increased costs, and that in turn results in a greater degree of inflation. So such wage rises do not benefit the working people, those on wages, and they certainly do not benefit the Australian economy upon which, in the final analysis, the welfare and prosperity of every Australian must depend. I believe that provided common sense approaches are made in 2 major areas of our national economy - provided that wages are kept within the rate of increase in the gross national product, and provided that the profits of those people conducting businesses and manufacturing enterprises throughout Australia are kept within reasonable limits, and I do not mind saying that - we can keep unemployment down at least to a tolerable level, if there is such a thing, or to the level at which we have been able to hold it in Australia over many years.

I want to refer to the great effort that has been made by Australia, particularly until very recent times, to maintain our level of employment. The Minister in his second reading speech stated that the 2.3 per cent of the work force who are unemployed in Australia could be compared with the latest figures of 5.4 per cent in the United States of America and 4 per cent in the United Kingdom. The unemployment problem is not facing only these countries; it is worldwide. Unemployment would have become a serious problem in any event, but it has been aggravated considerably by the disturbance in international currency which caused a great deal of uncertainty throughout the world and no doubt contributed - and I must be fair in this regard - to the unemployment figures in the United States and the United Kingdom. But if unemployment and inflation are to be used as a yardstick, the efforts made in Australia to overcome the problems caused by these 2 factors compare very favourably with the efforts made by other major countries.

If no cognisance is taken of the problems that are confronting this country, if the trade union movement is prepared to continue to demand wage rises which are beyond the increase in gross national production, if in support of those demands the trade union movement is prepared to continue to advocate and assist in conducting long strikes which affect the national economy, and if the people on the other side - and I want to balance this - are not prepared to keep their profits within reasonable limits and pass benefits on to the consumers thereby keeping the prices of goods at a level which allows for a reasonable margin of profit, we will not be able to overcome the problems which unemployment and inflation create. But if these circumstances do not arise, then we will be able to get this country into a much better position than it appears to be in at the present time. The measures which are being taken in this legislation will help to overcome the problems presently facing Australia. The Government is doing all that it can, but it cannot do everything. It has to have the co-operation of those sections of the community which are so vitally affected and whose actions have such a bearing on the unemployment and inflationary problems facing Australia.

So it boils down to the fact that there must be an effort by the Australian community as a whole. If all sections are prepared to make an effort, we will see results. I am sure that the Government is very conscious of the difficulties which face Australia. It is striving very hard to create a set of conditions which will control the unemployment problems in Australia, but at the same time the Government has to watch the inflationary trend because the 2 things are fairly closely allied. As has been demonstrated in the past, there is a fairly delicate balance between these 2 things, but the balance can be maintained with the goodwill and co-operation of all concerned. We have to maintain a delicate balance between full employment and conditions which will enable a reasonable margin of profit to be obtained. If the resources available in Australia are exploited reasonably and well - and it does not matter whether some of this is done with overseas capital - we can maintain a steady growth of development, prosperity and our standard of living.

I only hope that this responsibility will remain with this Government and that the control of this country will not pass to the Opposition which appears to take no notice of the conditions which are existing, which has a horror of profits, and whose idea of trying to stabilise the economy is to introduce a 35-hour working week. I cannot imagine anything which would contribute more to the inflationary trends in Australia and which would be more detrimental to the Australian work force at the present time than the introduction of a 35-hour working week, but that is the answer to the problem which the Opposition advances. I support the Bill before the House and I trust that arising from the Government’s policy we will see the Australian work force not having to take advantage of the increased benefits which were announced tonight by the Minister for Social Services.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I rise to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). In doing so a number of things should be said, the first of which is that it is a serious reflection on this House that a Minister of the Crown in dealing with a measure of this nature should in his second reading speech make such irrelevant and irresponsible statements as we have heard tonight. This is the second time that this has happened. Supporters of the Government repeatedly claim that it is a responsible government. It should ensure that the people charged with the responsibility of bringing legislation into this Parliament act in a manner befitting Ministers of the Crown. I do not believe that we saw such behaviour tonight. Some people would do well at times to examine both sides of the coin. I do not think any responsible person would welcome the situation which existed in Victoria a couple of weeks ago when many thousands of people were out of work. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), in typical humanitarian style, said that no members of the 23 unions involved in the dispute would be eligible for the unemployment benefit. One of the unions concerned had about 12 members involved in the dispute and about 3,000 members out of work in other States. The Minister, with a magnificent humanitarian gesture, in effect said: ‘They can all starve to death as far as I am concerned. They will not get a penny because they are members of the unions’. Their crime was membership of a union. All honourable members know of the hatred the Minister has displayed for unions over many years in this Parliament.

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the unemployment benefit by $7 a week. What does that mean? The Minister cited a series of figures in comparing the unemployment benefit paid 20 or 25 years ago. The Minister did not state an exact period but 1 assumed that he was referring to 1949. He did not seem to be sure of the basis of the comparison he was making. I would like to make a comparison similar to that made by supporters of the Government when complaining about increases in wages, that is, a comparison with the average male wage. The Minister might be interested to hear a comparison of the present unemployment benefit with that of 1946. In 1946 the unemployment benefit paid to a man and his wife was 35.3 per cent of the average male wage. Taking into account the increase of $7 a week proposed by this Bil] the unemployment benefit will represent 30.7 per cent of the average male wage. If the proposed increase of $7 a week is not taken into account the unemployment benefit represents 19.6 per cent of the average male wage, a drop of nearly 80 per cent on the proportion it represented in 1946. That is not a bad yardstick to use.

When the Minister is citing figures he might like to use the same basis of comparison for pension scales as he uses when dealing with increased wages. It is interesting that the Government uses different sets of figures for different purposes. The honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) said that we must rush this Bill through the Parliament so that people unemployed will benefit. I agree, and that is why we are debating the second reading of this Bill tonight. However, it would not have been very difficult for the Government to have section 2 of the Bill drafted differently so that its provisions could take effect from 14th February, the date on which the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) announced that the unemployment benefit was to be increased, instead of having it drafted to operate from the date on which the Bill receives royal assent which may be tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. The Government could very easily have ensured that the people who are to benefit would do so from the date of the announcement, as is the case with manufacturers for whom the investment allowance has been reintroduced. It is purely a matter of words. Even at this stage the Minister for Social Services could amend the legislation in order to make it operative from 14th February. Unfortunately, the Opposition cannot do so. Most of the argument in this debate has centred on who is responsible for the present unemployment. Quite clearly the economic policy of the Government at the time of the last Budget was to put people out of work. Every responsible body in Australia, but not Ministers of the Government, acknowledged that that would be the result of last year’s Budget. Those predictions, which were also made by the Opposition, have been proved to be correct.

If the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) is to be believed, the object of last year’s Budget has been achieved. Only a few weeks ago the Treasurer said that the Budget had achieved the Government’s aim of providing more flexibility for employers in their selection of labour. He might more appropriately have said ‘creating a pool of unemployment’. Some people prefer nicer language, but that is what the Treasurer could have said. We will never know what he really meant. I am surprised that members of the Country Party are not demanding more than they are demanding. Apparently they are satisfied with the situation in country areas. I most certainly am not. I would much prefer a policy of productive effort towards the growth of the nation to a simple policy of expenditure. It is humiliating that men in order to feed their families are directed to dig weeds out of gutters in the streets. I do not think such a policy befits a nation such as Australia. A little more money should have been expended in developing employment opportunities in country areas, particularly permanent employment, so that people there could be employed in jobs to which their qualifications entitle them.

The Minister for Social Services made what I thought were paranoic remarks in dealing with the situation in Victoria a couple of weeks ago. I think it is fair to point out some of the problems confronting the people involved. The Latrobe Valley in Victoria is an area where employment is last disappearing. This situation is becoming fairly general in our country areas. The Latrobe Valley was rapidly developed and was promoted by the Victorian Government as an area of rapid growth. Many people, especially migrants, went into the area with rosy hopes for the future. They paid high prices for land, built houses and settled their families. Most of those workers are now between 40 and 50 years of age. Their future means getting out of those houses which have cost them their life savings and receiving almost nothing for them. They will have to go to the Melbourne metropolitan area and pay about $25,000 for comparable housing. They are hoping to God that they can get u job in the metropolitan area, if the Government’s policies change in time. Such a situation will cause unrest in any area, lt will promote the growth of communism, which is so abhorred by the Minister. When a man puts his life savings into an area he does not want to leave that area.

What are the farmers saying about such a situation? They are not happy about it. The Government has introduced schemes in an attempt to assist the farmers. They are rather poor schemes, but they are something. Nothing is done for the working man who is thrown out of work in a country area and has to spend thousands of dollars to get a home in a capital city. The difference in cost between comparable homes in country and city areas is between $9,000 and $10,000. How can a man on about $60 a week find $9,000 or $10,000? I am sure that the Minister has never lived on S60 a week. I would be very surprised if any working man could find an extra $10,000.

10157/72- [KJ- 3

What is the situation which confronts a person who suddenly becomes unemployed? The first thing is that he has a drop in income of possibly from $70 a week to $29.50 if he has one child, and that is at the amended rate. His commitments do not drop. The amount he owes the hire purchase companies does not drop and the amount be has to pay in rent or on house repayments does not drop. The regular commitments of sending his children to school and the other amounts he has to pay do not drop. He has to clothe his children and pay their fares to school and pay his fares to the unemployment bureau in order to get a job. But his income has dropped by $40 a week. How many weeks can a man expect to live decently with a drop in income of $40 a week? The Minister’s Department in its statistics pointed out just how serious this is for some people.

The annual report of the Department of Social Services shows that 8.2 per cent of those persons who receive the unemployment benefit receive it for 6 months or more. However, in Geelong, which happens to be a substantial part of my electorate, 27 per cent of those who receive a benefit do so for 6 months or more. In Bendigo it is 21 per cent and in Hobart it is 18 per cent who spend 6 months or more living on a pittance, lt could not be described as anything more. It is humility to human dignity to ask anyone to live on this amount of money. In the Melbourne employment district the number who receive the unemployment benefit for 6 months or more is 17 per cent. This is not just a matter of a temporary relief for people. I know the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) laid great stress on the number of people who are unemployable. There are people who are unemployable but they are unemployable for a number of reasons. There are obviously some people who do not want to work but that is a very small percentage. There are people who have various types of injuries and do not qualify for sick or invalid pensions but who cannot get work because the work for which they are medically fitted is not available in the area in which they live or not available at all. People with cardiac conditions and back injuries find it extremely difficult to get employment. People in the 50 to 65 years age groups, even if they are skilled, fmd it very difficult to get employment.

For these people unemployment benefits are their livelihood because the Commonwealth Employment Bureau cannot offer them opportunities for employment. They must live on this amount. There is io long term unemployment benefit and for the 27 per cent in the Geelong district and the 17 per cent in the Melbourne district who receive unemployment benefits it is practically a permanent income. Any person who suggests that a man with 2 children can live for a long period on $34 a week without that family suffering severe hardship and deprivation and without destruction of a man’s confidence in himself and his will is a fool. This level of benefit is only a very minor contribution towards the serious hardship which people who become unemployed must suffer. It is not only the person who becomes unemployed; it is the person’s family - his children. If the children happen to be of high school age there is no way in the world that the breadwinner can continue to pay for their schooling. They are forced out to work. There is no provision in the social service structure for people to be assisted with their education where that education totally depends on a pension. It is just impossible. I suggest that the Government should give serious consideration to the proposals in the amendment. I believe it is one of the most damaging things to a human being to say to a person: ‘You will not be employed because no-one wants to employ you. You must use up your savings and when they have gone you must adjust your standards of living to live on an amount of about $30 a week’. In this day and age it is an impossibility,

I want to make one other point. During this debate wage rises have been mentioned repeatedly. People who work for wages with no other form of income have only one method of protecting themselves against the future, against sickness and unemployment and all the other things which persons with a more substantia] income and with more substantial assets do not need to worry about. If unemployment becomes, as it is at the moment, a great risk in the community, people will want higher wages and greater savings. The greater savings will mean that money is taken out of the economy and it will mean that the economy slows down. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) and the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) have been complaining about this. It will mean that more people will become unemployed. But who can blame a person who, knowing that if be becomes unemployed his income will drop by $40 a week, puts money in the bank and insures against the hardship that that drop will cause.

A substantial increase in unemployment benefits would be an insurance against a slowing down of the economy as people are frightened to spend their money because of the ramifications of possible unemployment. Do honourable members think that people in the motor car industry at the moment will buy a new car or a television set? They do not know whether they will have a job on Friday. They are looking for the pink slip. They will put their money in the bank and hope to God that they do not have to draw it out to subsidise their unemployment benefit. It would be responsible and good economic management if the Government made the unemployment benefit higher so that people had greater confidence in their capacity to survive if they became unemployed.

Finally, I want to say that there are far more serious and deep-seated problems in the economy than the Government seems to think. Unemployment in country areas is not a temporary thing. Look at the statistics obtained in the last census. In Victoria in areas outside the metropolitan area the total growth was half of 1 per cent in 5 years. This means that young people are being forced out of the country areas and the provincial towns into the Melbourne metropolitan area in order to find employment. It would be a responsible action if this Government tried to do something about that situation. As long as I have been in the Parliament and for as long as it has been the Government, this Government has never once attempted to do anything to promote and maintain employment opportunities in non-metropolitan areas. I support the amendment because it proposes something like a humanitarian standard for those persons who are out of work as a result of the deliberate policies of this Government. I support the amendment because it is in the economic interests of this country and would provide good economic planning for the future. I sincerely hope that the Government will do more in the future for those people who are out of work than to provide temporary dole relief without any effort towards long term planning and the putting forward of concrete proposals for permanent productive employment of these people.

Mr REID:
Holt

– I am sure that many electors within Holt will welcome the announcement of an increase in the unemployment benefit from SIO to SI 7 a week. Unfortunately many people in my electorate found themselves out of work as a result of the State-wide power strike. In addition to those affected as a result of the strike there is high unemployment in the electorate and J am genuinely sympathetic with anyone who, through no fault of his own, is unable to obtain a position. This is particularly hard on parents with young families attending school. These increased benefits will be of some help!

In emergency situations, such as the power strike, there seems to be an unbridgeable gap between the employer and the employee. Suddenly, without knowing what it is all about, people find themselves out of work. There seems to be no compromise on either side, no tapering off as one would expect in big industries and big unions. Big business and big unions have great power, as was so ably highlighted in a sermon titled ‘Power’ by the Most Reverend Dr Frank Woods. Primate of Australia and Archbishop of Melbourne, when he was guest preacher at the ecumenical service in St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church this morning to mark the opening of our parliamentary year. I strongly recommend that all directors of big business and the executives and shop stewards of trade unions obtain a copy of his sermon and thoroughly study its contents.

Power is dangerous when vested in the hands of a few, particularly when innocent people are suddenly affected. People must realise that this power is granted to them by God and it is to be used in the best interests of the people. These thoughts are the fundamental principles of Christianity which must be demonstrated and practised more in our daily lives, particularly in big business and big unions, if people are not going to be hurt. I have often wondered why big businesses are not better organised, why they suddenly have to dismiss hundreds of people, as they have done recently in my electorate. This was before the power strike. Surely they should be better able to judge their potential more accurately. It is obvious that they must know that production from their industries is outstripping demand, and subsequent action should be taken more progressively. But no. they like to saturate the market, then suddenly call a halt, with the result that hundreds of workers are affected. Surely the employer must realise he is dealing with human beings who have responsibilities to maintain their families, and that he is nol dealing just with motor cars and other materialistic things. I emphasise that human beings are not playthings.

If firms persist in continuing with their stop-go tactics of hiring and firing people at will they should be penalised and made to contribute to the unemployment benefits of their affected employees. I am sure that if this was made compulsory they would be able to organise their businesses more effectively. In my electorate it has been left to the churches, community service groups and the Springvale, Dandenong, Berwick and Cranbourne local councils to supplement assistance in the form of food vouchers, with very little active participation on behalf of some employers. It is about time that employers realised that they also have a responsibility within the community in which their products are produced.

I cannot speak too highly of the voluntary groups, individuals and donors who did a great job in assisting with and processing the needs of the unemployed and in providing assistance where necessary. One cannot readily assess the importance of a voluntary effort within a community. This was very evident within my electorate, particularly within the townships of Dandenong, Springvale, Berwick and Cranbourne, where a large number of people were ever ready to assist. I only trust that some of it rubs off on the firms, as they should realise that they are not just there to increase their dividends to shareholders each year. Unfortunately, for certain reasons many of those unemployed, particularly migrants, were unaware that they had to register to receive unemployment benefit and consequently missed out until they had registered. In instances such as this, all one should need to do to become eligible is to produce evidence that one has been unemployed from a certain date. The same principle should apply with respect to sickness benefit.

Finally, I commend the Government for quickly making a decision to increase unemployment, sickness and special benefits. These have been increased from $10 a week to $17 a week for adults, from $6 a week to $11 a week for persons from 18 years to 20 years of age and from $4.50 a week to $7.50 a week for those in the age group from 16 to 17 years. The wife’s allowance remains at $8 a week as does the allowance of $4.50 a week for each child. The allowance for each child was increased from $2.50 to $4.50 a week in the last Budget.

An important aspect of this Bill is that those who qualify for special benefits will receive the increased rate as soon as this Bill is passed. This category includes some women caring for invalid parents or other relatives, some migrants not residentially qualified for normal pensions and certain unmarried mothers. This will provide much needed relief. As these increased subsidies are urgently awaited within the community, I am sure that this Bill will have a speedy passage through the Parliament.

Debate (on motion by Mr Foster) adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.58 p.m.

page 69

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Aborigines: Living Conditions (Question No. 3213)

Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department inspect the standard of food and living conditions of Aborigines employed at Victoria River Downs and Wave Hill Station?
  2. If so, have the conditions and food found to be satisfactory?
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The supplementary answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

In my answer to part (2) of Question No. 3213 (Hansard, 3rd November 1971) I indicated that the provision of food at both stations and accommodation at Victoria Downs was under examination by the Arbitration Inspectorate. I am now advised that an Inspector recently inspected both stations and found that the variety of items of food provided for Aborigines did not fully meet the standards prescribed by the Cattle Station Industry (Northern Territory) Award.

Accommodation for Aborigines at Victoria Downs did not fully comply with the provisions of the award. At Wave Hill, the accommodation provided originally met the award conditions but had deteriorated since.

The Inspectorate will draw the employers’ attention to the deficiencies but, for the reasons given in the previous answer, it has no authority to demand that award standards be provided in respect of persons who are not members of the North Australian Workers Union. (I am advised that a new log of claims as to proposed terms and conditions of employment in the Northern Territory cattle industry has recently been served by the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia.)

Industrial Relations: Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectors (Question No. 3534)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. What was the total number of Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectors employed in each State and Territory of the Commonwealth in each of the last 20 years.
  2. What was the total number of State Inspectors authorised to carry out inspection of federal awards in each State and Territory of the Commonwealth in each of the last 20 years.
  3. What sum was paid by the Commonwealth to each of the States as reimbursement for the employment of State Inspectors authorised to carry out inspections of federal awards in each of the last 20 years.
  4. Do Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectors carry out inspections of State awards in any State of the Commonwealth: if so, what are the particulars.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. In the last 20 years, the establishment strength of the Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate has been increased in 1964, 1965, 1967 and 1969. The establishment strength in each State and Territory over the last 20 years has been as follows:
  2. I invite the honourable member’s attention to parts (5) and (6) of the answer to his question No. 1218 (Hansard, 2nd September 1970, page 906).

Arrangements with the Governments of New South Wales and Western Australia were entered into in 1957 and an arrangement with the Government of Tasmania was entered into m 1961. By virtue of the arrangements persons appointed as inspectors under the appropriate State Acts are appointed by the Commonwealth as inspectors for the purposes of s. 125 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It follows that all State inspectors in New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania since the dates of the respective agreements have had authority to inspect under federal awards.

  1. and (4) I would invite the honourable member’s attention to the answers provided to his questions Nos 1951 (Hansard, 16th February 1971, page 85) and 2657 (Hansard, 17th August 1971, page 158).

Industrial Relations: Underpayment of Wages (Question No. 3557)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act a claim for under-payment of wages must be made within 12 months.
  2. ls it also a fact that the number of Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectors employed by his Department are insufficient to enable regular annual inspections in their areas of their respective locations.
  3. If so, what is the (a) average interval between each inspection and (b) maximum period between each inspection.
  4. Will he consider (a) the employment of sufficient Inspectors to permit regular annual inspections of all places of employment covered by federal awards or (b) amending the Act by extending the period within which claims for wage arrears may bc made.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (4) There is no limitation in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as to the time in which a claim may be lodged with an employer by an employee that the employee has been underpaid or otherwise not had the terms of the awards applied to him.

However, s. 1 19 (3) of the Act provides that where, in any proceedings against an employer before a court specified in sub-section (1) of that section, it appears to the court that an employee of that employer has not been paid an amount to which he is entitled under an order or award, that court may order that the employer shall pay to the employee, the amount of the underpayment but no order shall be made in respect of so much of the underpayment as relates to any period more than twelve months prior to the commencement of the proceedings.

By section 123, an employee entitled to the benefit of an award may at any time within twelve months from any. payment by way of wages in accordance with the award becoming due to him, but not later, sue for the same in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Pursuant to section 125, Inspectors are appointed to secure the observance of the Act, Regulations and awards. In the process of doing so they inform an employer as to the manner in which he should observe the award. However, they are not empowered to recover monies on behalf of employees or former employees. By section 119(1) Inspectors (and others) are empowered to sue for the recovery of a penalty for a breach or non-observance of an award.

  1. and (3) The establishment needs of the Inspectorate are under continuous review. The strength of the Inspectorate was last increased generally in 1969 by 64 per cent.

The Arbitration Inspectorate has its work pro. gramme in each State arranged so as to make at least annual visits of inspection to each relevant country area. In relation to many areas (eg., in Tasmania) in certain Victorian and New South Wales centres, routine visits of inspection are carried out at much shorter intervals. Continuous routine inspections are undertaken in metropolitan areas. In addition, inspections are carried out in both metropolitan and country areas in response to complaints from individuals and unions.

United Nations: Expenditure in Australia (Question No. 3731) Mr Whitlam asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Will he seek information from the United Nations Representative in Australia about the amounts which the United Nations spends in Australia and her territories as a former Minister did (Hansard, 20th October 1964, page 2130) so that he can answer question 234S which his predecessor could not answer (Hansard, 7th April 1971, page 1649).

The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

On 6th October 1971 1 informed the honourable member that the information was not readily available but would be obtained.

have now been informed by the United Nations Office in Sydney that United Nations Expenditure in Australia in 1970 was as follows:

United Nations Expenditure in the Territory of Papua New Guinea in 1970 was as follows:

The combined total of expenditure in Australia and the Territory of Papua New Guinea is $US6,932,143.

In addition to the above expenditure, there were loans to the Territory of Papua New Guinea of $US4.5m by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and $US4.5m by the International Development Association.

Unions: Controlled Election (Question No. 3566)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. What are the names of the unions which were affected by requisitions for controlled elections under the provisions of section 170 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in each of the last 10 years.
  2. Which of these elections were conducted by (a) the Commonwealth Electoral Office, (b) the Industrial Registrar and (c) any other person.
  3. Has the Industrial Registrar employed additional staff to assist him in conducting such elections: if so, how many.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) The information requested by the honourable member is contained in the schedule which was made available al the Table Office of the House of Representatives in answer to parts (1) to (5) of Question No. 2236 (see Hansard, 7.9.71, page 899).
  2. I am advised that the only information available on this part of the honourable member’s question is that, on some occasions, additional staff has been borrowed or brought in from outside the Registry where large elections have been involved.

Education: Pupil-Teacher Ratios (Question No. 3650)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Can he give later figures of pupil-teacher ratios in primary and secondary grades of government, Catholic and other non-government schools in each State and Territory (Hansard. 26th September 1969, page 2146 and 17th September 1970, page 1364.

    1. Can he give separate figures of enrolment in primary and secondary grades of government, Catholic and other non-government schools in each State and Territory (Hansard, 22nd February 1971, page 474).
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Pupil-teacher ratios in government primary and secondary schools for 1969 and 1970 are contained in the following table -

Ratios shown are not directly comparable between States. Variation exists in the methods of compiling numbers of teachers and in particular it should be noted that numbers of teachers used in these calculations do not include a component for part-time or casual teachers. The figures therefore, which appear in the table, may differ from those quoted from other sources where different methods of compiling teacher numbers have been used.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Neither I nor my predecessors in office have made any formal directions that the Australian Universities Commission Act should apply to institutions or proposed institutions other than universities. However, by arrangement with the Minister of the day, the Commission has in fact made a number of recommendations over tho years in respect of institutions or proposed institutions that were not, in a strictly formal sense, universities, for example, new universities that were in the course of being formally established and residential colleges that were amliated with or about to he affiliated with universities. As honourable members are aware, the functions of the Australian Universities Commission are advisory rS the implementation of any recommendations made by the Commission involves the passage of special legislation.

The financial assistance which t,he Commonwealth has made available in its programme of support for universities has been provided by Parliament under legislation which has mentioned by name each institution, other than student residences, and has indicated the nature and the purpose of the assistance.

page 71

ESTIMATES OF PUPIL-TEACHER RATIOS IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY GRADES OF GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS- 1969 AND 1970

Source: The ratios have been derived from - (i) Enrolment -

Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, ‘Schools’ Bulletins, 1969, 1970. (if) Teachers -

Information obtained from Slate Education Departments for State schools; Department of Education and Science for Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory schools. For non-government schools, my Department collects details of numbers of teachers at primary and secondary level on a voluntary basis from schools seeking per capita grants under the State Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1969. The most recent information relates to August 1970 and this has permitted the calculation of estimates of pupil-teacher ratios for 1970, separately for primary and secondary grades of non-government schools. These are shown in the following table. In cases where both primary and secondary classes were taught by the same staff, teachers were classified to the level at which they spent the greater proportion of their teaching time. Special schools for physically or mentally handicapped children have been excluded.

ESTIMATES OF PUPIL-TEACHER RATIOS IN

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY GRADES OF CATHOLIC AND OTHER NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS- AUGUST 1970

Other Non- Total NonCatholic Government Government Schools Schools Schools

New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia . . Western Australia Tasmania

Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory

PRIMARY ORA DES I

29.6

IS. 8 17.7 22.0 21.4 21.4 16.7

16.2

32.2 32.7 32.1 29.0 32.7 27.6 35.2

27.7

Source; Application forms for pre-capita recurrent grants. Special schools for handicapped children are excluded.

Austraiian Universities Commission (Question No. 3658) Mr Whitiam asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

To what institutions or proposed institutions apart from universities have the Minister and his predecessors directed that the Australian Universities Commission Act should apply.

Aluminium Industry (Question No. 3772)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

What is the estimated cost to the Commonwealth of the aluminium industry in Australia in terms of (a) subsidies and bounties, (b) exploration and 0.her se; vices by the Bureau of Mineral Resources and (c) increased payments to the States and other statutory authorities to cover the net loss to Stales of providing infrastructure for the industry after allowing for increased State revenues by way of royalties, railway net profits, etc.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The answer to the honour able member’s question is as follows:

  1. The Commonwealth does not make any direct subsidy or bounty payment to the aluminium industry.
  2. The programme of the Bureau of Mineral Resources does not include active exploration for specific minerals. Many minerals arc assessed during the course of a field survey, the primary aim of which is to obtain basic geological and geophysical data. The Bureau’s work has ‘ed to the discovery of major mineral fields including bauxite at Gove in the Northern Territory. It is not possible to dissect out and estimate what part of the costs of the explora tion and 0! her services of the Bureau should be assessed against the aluminium industry.
  3. The Commonwealth has made no payments to the States or to statutory authorities specifically to cover the net loss to Stales from providing infrasructure for the aluminium industry.

Advertising Agencies (Question No. 3798)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Have Commonwealth Government Departments and Agencies entered into contracts with advertising agencies.

  2. If so:

    1. how many contracts have been entered into;
    2. what agencies are involved;
    3. what is the value of each contract; and
    4. what was the subject of the advertising in each case.

  3. Which of the advertising agencies are -

    1. foreign agencies; and
    2. Australian owned.
  4. Can he say whether the law in the United States of America provides that the Government or its associated instrumentalities may not appoint foreign services in the form of advertising agents unless these services are absolutely unprocurable from an American source.
  5. If so, is he able to say whether the overall effect is lo prohibit the expenditure of American taxpayers’ money otherwise than through American facilities.
  6. Can he say whether Ci,nada has excluded foreign agencies from participating in the bulk of the $20m spent annually by federal and provincial governments through their various operations.
  7. Will he explain the attitude of the Australian Government in this matter.
  8. [f the attitude of his Government is significantly different from that of the United Slates and Canada what is the reason.
Mr Howson:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is a,* follows:

  1. to (3) Advertising by Commonwealth departments is handled through an association of advertising agencies known as the Commonwealth Advertising Council. With few exceptions fixed period contracts between a department and a particular agency have net been involved.

Placing/charging work is passed through four agencies each of which is appointed for a 5 year period to cover a particular media category (Press Display, Press Classified), Radio/Television and Miscellaneous).

For planning/production of advertising material, individual agencies are selected by the Commonwealth Advertising Branch of the Australian Gov.ernment Publishing Service to handle specific requirements rather than being engaged on a period contract basis.

During the year ended 30th June 1971 the Branch used the services of 46 advertising agencies. Of these agencies 33 arc understood to be substantially Australian-owned and 13 to be substantially foreign-owned.

  1. and (5) 1 am not in possession of full details of United States policies in regard to government advertising. I am having enquiries made and will provide the information obtained as soon as possible.
  2. I am having enquiries made and will provide the information obtained as soon as possible.
  3. and (8) The basic aim of Commonwealth purchasing policy in advertising, as in oilier fields, is to obtain the best value for money spent.

South Africa: Sport (Question No. 3801)

Mr Kennedy:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What was the full text of the communication which he referred to on 6th April 1971 (Hansard, page 1456) and in which he claimed that he had communicated to the South African Government the disappointment and regret felt by a great number of Australians that native Africans should be prevented from coming here to participate in a sporting event.
  2. What was the nature of this communication and when and to whom was it sent.
  3. Were any other communications made to the South African Government on the subject of the sporting visit or on that Government’s apartheid policies within 4 months prior to or 4 months after the communication referred to on 6th April; if so, what was the content, date and nature of the communications and to whom were they addressed in each case.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) it is not Government practice to make public the details of such communications. The communication about which the honourable member asks was in fact made orally, at my request, to the South African Ambassador for forwarding to his Government. It was inadvertently referred to as a letter in answering the question without notice some months later. The message conveyed the strong feelings of concern on the part of a large section of the Australian public that the South African Government had declined to allow non-white players to participate in the visit to Australia.
  2. The honourable member will appreciate that a Government’s views are made known to other Governments by many means over and above the naturally rare exchange of messages between Heads of Government, lt is in the nature of diplomatic activity (hat public statements are reported and contacts on issues are maintained with embassies, ministers and departments.

By these additional means the South African Government has been made aware of Australia’s abhorrence of the policy of apartheid and the situation regarding the proposed cricket tour.

Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission: Duty Judges (Question No. 3947)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Has he rend the text of an address given to the Institute of Personnel Management in November 1970, by Mr Ian Macphee of the New South Wales Chamber of Manufacturers, urging that a duty judge be appointed each month in both Sydney and Melbourne so that when a dispute occurs in a particular industry, and the Commissioner assigned to that particular industry is interstate, or otherwise engaged, the duty judge could ask another Commissioner to act in the dispute.
  2. Will he discuss the proposition with the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Sir Richard Kirby, to ascertain whether the proposition can be justified and, in particular, to ascertain whether the President, in fact, needs the kind of assistance sought for him by the Chamber of Manufacturers.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– I atn advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) An article by Mr Ian Macphee published in the March 1971 issue of the Journal of Industrial Relations includes a suggestion along the lines of that described by the honourable member. A footnote to the article states that it is based on an address to the Institute of Personnel Management. New South Wales Division, in November 1970. The suggestion in the article was directed to the avoidance of delays in the hearing of disputes by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. When announcing the Government’s proposals for amending the Conciliation and Arbitration Act (see Hansard of 7th December 1971, page 4182), I said: ‘the Government has in mind that the Act will provide for the establishment of what might be termed “task forces” in the Commission. Under this arrangement a presidential member will be responsible for a group of industries with one or more conciliation commissioners and arbitration commissioners. Thus there will always be more than one person with an Intimate knowledge of the particular industries available to deal with disputes. The presidential member will be responsible for coordinating tha work of the group’. One of the reasons given by me for this was ‘to assist in the elimination of possible delays in the hearing of matters’. As to delays under the existing machinery, provided by the Act, I refer the honourable member lo pages 12 to 14 of the 15th Annual Report by the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which was tabled in the House of Representatives on 2nd December 1971.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act: Review (Question No. 3957)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. When did the Government first become aware of the need for a general review of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.
  2. When was the review commenced.
  3. When is it anticipated that the Government will be in a position to present to the Parliament a BM to give legislative effect to its conclusions.
  4. If he is unable to formulate his proposals for presentation to Parliament during this period of sittings, will he request the Attorney-General to grant my request for the assistance of Parliamentary Counsel to enable me to give effect to the proposals already formulated by the Opposition along the lines it believes to be necessary to remove the causes of industrial unrest.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

W, (2), (3) and (4) As has been indicated in earlier replies to questions from the honourable member, the Government keeps the Conciliation and Arbitration Act under continuous review. Beyond that, as the honourable member will be aware, al the conclusion of a meeting of the National Labour Advisory Council on 21st April 1971, a statement was issued recording agreement between employer and ACTU members that representative tripartite discussion concerning the operation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act should begin as soon as possible. The statement also indicated that the Treasurer and the Minister for Labour and National Service acknowledged that these representative discussions should proceed though without commitment on the part of the Government to acceptance of the outcome. Following completion of those discussions in November 1971, the Government gave detailed consideration to the operation of the Act and on 7th December 1971, I made a statement to Parliament setting out the Government’s proposal (Hansard, 7th December 1971, page 4176). It is anticipated that legislation to amend the Act will be introduced as early as possible in 1972.

Arbitration: Answer to Question (Question No. 3952)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

Can he give an assurance that the name J. E. Dunford was the only one inadvertently omitted from his answer to Question No. 850 (Hansard, 16th February 1971, page 67).

Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

I am advised that the answer is yes.

Cambodian Servicemen: Training (Question No. 4696)

Mr Killen:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did a member of the American Embassy approach an official of his Department this year requesting that the Australian Government provide instructors to train Cambodian servicemen in South Vietnam. If so:

    1. What evidence is available to indicate that the person making the request acted with the authority of the American Ambassador.
    2. How was the request made.
    3. On what date was the request made.
    4. What position in the American Embassy did the person making the request hold.
    5. Have any discussions been held with the American Ambassador concerning the request by
  2. Australian Ministers
  3. Austraiian officials.
  4. If Australian Ministers and officials have held discussions with the American Ambassador concerning the request when were the discussions held and by whom.
  5. Has the Cambodian Government made a request to the Australian Government to provide instructors to train Cambodian servicemen in South Vietnam if so, how and when was the request made.
  6. Has the Australian Government requested permission from the Government of South Vietnam to train Cambodian servicemen in South Vietnam. If so, when was the request made.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.

    1. lt is diplomatic practice to assume that a member of a foreign mission who raises matters of official business with the Department of Foreign Affairs does so with proper authority.
    2. Orally.
    3. 30th September 1971.
    4. Counsellor for Political Affairs.
    5. No.
  2. See 1 (e) above.
  3. On several occasions since mid-1970 Cambodian Ministers and senior Cambodian Service officers have stressed to Australian Ministers and officials Cambodia’s critical training needs and have sought Austraiian assistance in training. For some months before the approach mentioned in question (1) the Australian Government had been considering alternative forms of training assistance. It was considered that, if Australian cooperation in existing United States training’ programmes for Cambodian personnel in South Vietnam proved feasible and otherwise acceptable, this would be welcomed by Cambodia. This judgment has since been confirmed.
  4. Following the Government’s decision in principle last month it has concluded detailed discussions on this proposal with the Republic of Vietnam as well as with the other countries concerned.

Company Income: Foreign Debt (Question No. 3961)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Did he reject my statement, in answer to a question without notice on 28th April 1971 (Hansard, page 2126), that 30 per cent of all Australia’s company income is currently going overseas to service Australia’s foreign debt.
  2. Did he advise me by letter on 7th June 1971 that the proportion of company income payable overseas has in fact risen to over 30 per cent in recent years.
  3. Did he further state that the immediate effect of overseas investment was, inter alia, to increase international reserves in the case of an inflow of cash.
  4. If so, will he list the sources of additions to our overseas reserves in the various locations in which they are held and the categories of investment which they, represent.
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. In my answer in the House on 28th April I believe 1 made it clear that I wished to have the opportunity of checking the source of the honourable gentleman’s figures.
  2. Yes. I also pointed out however that less than half of total company income payable overseas in recent years has been actually remitted overseas. (In the 3 years to 1969-70 only 14 per cent of total company income was actually remitted abroad.) I added further that income payable overseas has remained relatively stable as a proportion of Gross National Product, lt currently represents only, about 2 per cent of GNP.
  3. Yes. I went on to say however that in the longer term the main balance of payments impact of overseas investment arises from the direct and indirect effects on exports and imports generated by the addition to total resources available for domestic production. 1 further added that although these effects are complex and cannot be calculated precisely they are of considerable net long-term benefit to the balance of payments, and to the Australian economy as a whole.
  4. It is nol possible to list the sources of additions to our overseas reserves or the categories of investment which they represent as it is not possible to directly relate changes in international reserves to individual capital and trade transactions. The aggregate addition to (or reduction in) our international reserves comes almost entirely from die overall surplus (or deficit) in the balance of payments which, in turn, is the result of a multitude of individual transactions of goods, services and assets.

Visits and Awards by Governor-General (Question No. 4250) Mr Whitlam asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. When has the Governor-General represented the Queen of Australia on formal or ceremonial occasions outside Australia and the Australian Territories (Hansard, 19lh November 1968, page 3013).
  2. ls the Queen’s delegation to the Governor-General to make gallantry awards still limited to awards for gallantry in Vietnam (Hansard, 26lh September 1968, page 1624).
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. At the invitation of the Governor-General of New Zealand, and with the approval of The

Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Governor-General visited New Zealand from 11th to 18th February, 1971.

At the invitation of the Shahanshah of Iran, and with the approval of The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Governor-General visited Iran to participate in the celebrations which took place from 13th to 17th October 1971 to commemorate the 2500th anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire.

  1. The Queen’s delegation to the Governor-General to make gallantry awards, dated 2nd April 1968. is still limited to awards for gallantry in Vietnam and Vietnamese waters.

Mercury Pollution (Question No. 4382)

Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. ls mercury pollution becoming a danger to the Australian fishing industry and to people who eat fish in significant quantities.
  2. ls he able to say whether industrial plants producing caustic soda and chlorine from salt are a major source of mercury pollution in Australian waters.
  3. ls it a fact that most of the waste from caustic soda-chlorine plants enters estuarine and coastal waters and under these conditions mercury can enter marine food chains.
  4. If so, is it a Commonwealth responsibility to watch the development of the caustic sodachlorine industry which at present is growing considerably in Australia because of the need for caustic soda in alumina production.
  5. Has his attention been drawn to a proposal to set up a caustic soda-chlorine plant near the Great Barrier Reef.
  6. Did he indicate in answer to question No. 2579 (Hansard, 18th August 1971, page 271), that no systematic check for mercury pollution existed in Australia.
  7. If so, will he take steps, as a measure of great urgency, to set up standards covering the release of mercury by these plants.
Mr Howson:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. There is no evidence available at present to indicate that mercury pollution is becoming a danger to the Australian fishing industry or to people who eat significant quantities of fish caught in Australian waters.
  2. Mercury occurs naturally in the ocean by the erosion of mercury bearing rocks. In addition, other industries besides caustic soda and chlorine plants also contribute to the volume of mercury entering the sea as industrial waste.
  3. Caustic soda and chlorine are produced in some plants by a process which does not use mercury. Where mercury is used in the production process and effluent is discharged into estuarine and coastal waters, mercury could enter marine food chains. One company which has undertaken research in waters surrounding the discharge points for treated effluent from its chlorine/caustic soda plants has reported that the maximum concentrations of mercury in fish are well below the minimum safety levels set by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the recently recommended standards of the National Health and Medical Research Council.
  4. The matter is generally the responsibility of the States except in the Commonwealth’s own territories.
  5. 1 am aware of a proposal to set up a caustic soda-chlorine plant near the Great Barrier Reef but I understand that the proposed plant is for a diaphragm process which does not use mercury.
  6. My answer to the relevant part of the question was: ‘If by “systematic’” the honourable member means “unified and standard”, the answer is no. However. State and Commonwealth Departments of Health and the Department of Customs and Excise check the quality of water, air and food’.
  7. I will refer the general question of mercury pollution in Australian waters to the Australian Environment Council.

Petroleum Titles (Question No. 4392)

Mr Crean:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. What is the total area in Australia, onshore and off-shore, under petroleum titles in each of the descriptions of (a) authorising, (b) prospecting and (c) production.
  2. What areas in each description are held by (a) Australian companies and (b) non-Australian companies.
  3. What percentage of fields actually in production are held by Australian companies, e.g. Bass Strait, Moonie, Barrow, Moomba and Gidgealpa.
  4. What is the actual Australian equity in these producing fields.
  5. What is the extent of Australian equity in fields where commercial reserves have been discovered but are not in production at the present time.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) The information requested by the honourable member will nol be available until an examination at present being made in the Bureau of Mineral Resources of my Department has been completed. The information will be forwarded to the honourable member when it becomes available.
  2. and (4) Based on published information the following is the breakdown in equity in each of the producing fields as at 22nd November 1971: <5) Again based on published information, at the end of November 1971 the Australian equity in fields with potential commercial reserves but not in production was as follows:
  1. Not announced- could be 50% Aust. 50% overseas if Esso and Hematite share developmental costs, if not 124% Aust. 87)% overseas if Esso bears full development costs.

South Vietnam: Inaugurations of President (Question No. 4844)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What other governments sent Ministers to represent them at the inaugurations of the President of the Republic of Viet Nam (Hansard, 25th November 1971, page 3782).
  2. Why did the Government deem it appropriate to send Ministers to represent it at the inaugurations of this President but to send only diplomats to represent it on the ten occasions when it was invited to attend the inaugurations of other presidents over the same period.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Other governments sent the following representatives to attend the inauguration of President Thieu in 1971: The Republic of Korea (Prime Minister), Thailand (Deputy Prime Minister), the Philippines (Minister for Foreign Affairs), Malaysia (Minister of Lands and Mines). In addition, the Vice President of the United States of America, the Chairman of the Royal Council of the Kingdom of Laos, and the Chairman of the Joint Staff of the Republic of China attended as Special Representatives. Other countries were represented by Special Ambassadors. Other governments sent the following representatives to attend in 1971: Republic of Korea (Prime Minister, Laos (Deputy Prime Minister), Thailand (Acting Foreign Minister), the Khmer Republic (Acting Foreign Minister), and United States (Secretary of Treasury). In addition, the Vice President of the Republic of China, the Special Adviser to the King of Jordan, and the Adviser for Foreign Affairs to the President of the Philippines attended as Special Representatives. Other countries were represented by Special Ambassadors.
  2. The Australian Government has enjoyed a very close relationship with the Government of the Republic of Viet Nam, and Australian forces have fought side by side with Vietnamese forces for the defence of the Republic. It was therefore appropriate that, on the occasions of the inauguration of the President, the Government should be represented by a senior Cabinet Minister. In both cases the representative was the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Oil Lease Auctions (Question No. 4399)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Can he say what amount has been obtained by the Government of the United States of America from oil lease auctions in each of the last 3 years.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The amount which has been obtained by the Government of the United States of America from oil lease auctions is:

The onshore data are comprised of competitive oil and gas lease sales on public and acquired lands under supervision of the Geological survey. The offshore data refer to lease sales for oil and gas.

Australian Universities Commission (Question No. 4424)

Mr Reynolds:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many students (a) entered and (b) graduated from the faculty of medicine in each relevant Australian university in each of the last 7 years.
  2. What first year quota applied in each instance.
  3. What (a) number and (b) percentage of the first year intake was in receipt of a Commonwealth university scholarship.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)(a) The number of new M.B., B.S. enrolments for the years 196S to 1971 inclusive is set out in the following table:

The above figures do not include students repeating first year and the figures for years from 1968 onwards do not include students transferring from other courses. (l)(b) The number of M.B., B.S. degrees conferred in the years 1965 to 1971 inclusive ls set out in the following table:

  1. The first year quotas for the course of M.B.,

B.S. for the years 1965 to 1971 inclusive are set out in the following table.

Quotas applicable in universities are not strictly comparable as some universities include only new entrants in the quotas, while others also include students repealing first year.

Other medical schools impose quotas in second year.

  1. The answer to parts (a) and (b) is set out in the following table:

Overseas Investment in Australia (Question No. 4433)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has he referred my question without notice, relating to overseas ownership of pastoral and agricultural land as far as Commonwealth Territories are concerned, to the Minister for the Interior in accordance with his undertaking on 2nd April 1971 (Hansard, page 1417).
  2. If so, will he arrange for the information as to the extent and location of overseas ownership to be made available to the House and indicate the measures the Government is taking to prevent a sell-out of Australian land resources.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. Regarding the extent and location of overseas ownership, 1 am advised by my colleague, the Minister for the Interior, that, in the Australian Capital Territory, on:y one lease of 1,530 acres or 0.6 per cent of the total area for grazing or agricultural purposes, is held by overseas interests. In the Northern Territory, of the total area of 286,648 square miles held under pastoral lease, 16.8 per cent is held solely by overseas interest, of which British interests hold 9.9 per cent and American 5.7 per cent. A further 8.7 per cent of the area under lease is held by joint Australian and overseas interests, leaving 74.5 per cent of the area held solely by Australian residents.

In the Top End of the Northern Territory (i.e., annual rainfall above 24 in roughly north of 16° latitude) 27.7 per cent of the total area of 45,500 square miles is held solely by overseas interests, of which American interests hold 17.1 per cent, Asian 7.3 per cent and British 3.3 per cent. A further 29.1 is held by joint Australian and overseas interests, leaving 43.2 per cent of the area held solely by Australian residents.

My colleague also informs me that in the respect of agricultural leases in the Northern Territory only 3 leases comprising about 115 acres, or less than 0.1 per cent of a total area of 203,555 acres under agricultural leasehold, are held by overseas interests.

The Government’s policy on overseas investment in Australia was outlined in a statement made to the House of Representatives by the former Prime Minister on 16th September 1969. Overseas investment in pastoral leaseholds in northern Australia accords with that policy, lt supplements the inadequate supply of Australian risk capital to such enterprises and thus contributes to the balanced development of the region. It is also of some relevance that pastoral properties in the Northern Territory may be held only on a leasehold bases. Leases are granted for SO years, included covenants to develop and stock the land and are liable to forfeiture for breach of covenants.

Australian Notes: Value (Question No. 4504)

Mr Daly:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What is the value of Australian notes in circulation.
  2. Is there a statutory limit; if so, (a) how is the limit fixed and (b) how are fluctuations dealt with.
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. The value of Australian notes in circulation as at Wednesday 20th October 1971 was $1,416,534,368.
  2. There is no statutory limit on the value of notes in circulation which fluctuates daily in response to the public’s requirements.

River Murray Commission (Question No. 4519)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Where and when have there been meetings of the River Murray Commission since its 227th meeting at Canberra on 22nd September 1970.
  2. What requests or suggestions were made at each meeting for legislative or administrative action by each party to the River Murray Waters Agreement.
  3. What steps have been or are being taken to extend the charier of the Commission to include the mitigation of (a) floods and (b) pollution.
  4. What amendments to the Agreement have been sought by any of the parties in the last 5 years but (a) have been rejected or (b) are still being considered by the other parties.
  5. What amendments to the Agreement have been sought by the Commission in the last 5 years but have not yet been ratified by the Parliaments concerned.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Meetings were held on the following dates - 1st December 1970 30th March 1971 20th July 1971 19th October 1971 7th December 1971. All meetings were held in Canberra.
  2. The honourable member is in effect seeking a recital in detail of substantially all of the business of the 5 meetings listed above, and 1 am not in a position to provide such information.
  3. The charter of the Commission is being extended in terms of the Amending Agreement approved by the Commonwealth Parliament last year. I might add that in relation to floods, in the operation of the works under its control, the River Murray Commission endeavours to provide mitigation to the extent compatible with its primary responsibility of providing water supplies for the thousands of irrigators, and the towns and industries which are dependent on the River Murray system.

With regard to pollution, the Amending Agreement includes additional provision for the mitigation of salinity through the release of dilution flows under specified conditions.

  1. There are no amendments which the Commonwealth has requested that have been rejected or are still being considered by the other parties. I am not in a position to provide information on any requests that might have been made by other parties to the Agreement.
  2. The Commission has not sought any amendments in the last 3 years, other than those recently accepted by the Parliaments of the Contracting Governments.

Pollution Control (Question No. 4562)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts upon notice:

  1. Can he say what statutes are in force concerning (a) environmental control and (b) pollution in each State and Territory.
  2. Cun he also say what proceedings have been taken with respect to infringements of statutory provisions concerning environmental control and pollution in each State and Territory in the last 3 years
Mr Howson:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

As the honourable member will appreciate, there is a very great number of statutes which impinge on environmental control and pollution. For example, Appendix 3 of the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution in Australia lists 162 Commonwealth and State statutes dealing with water pollution and these, the Committer notes, are ‘illustrative only of the multiplicity . . . involved and should not be taken as inclusive of all that may be concerned’. However, 1 shall discuss with my colleagues on the Australian Environment Council the question of assembling the data which the honourable member has sought.

Wine Imports (Question No. 4582)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that 2 million gallons of foreign wines have been imported into Australia since 1966-67.
  2. If so, does this represent a loss to Australian wine grape growers of approximately Sim at a cost of S80 per ton.
  3. From which countries have wine imports originated and what were the quantities in each case for the latest year for which figures are available.
Mr Anthony:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Total imports of wine into Australia for the years 1967-68 to 1970-71 (inclusive) were 1,716,332 gallons.
  2. No. The Annual reports of the Australian Wine Board state that vintages over the past 4 years have been at record or very high levels and that in most, if not in all years, all grapes available to wine-makers were processed.
  3. Countries from which wine imports originated and the quantities involved for 1970-71 are shown below.

Vietnam (Question No. 4605)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did the Prime Minister state on 18th August 1971 that the decision to commit Australian Forces to the aid of South Vietnam was made pursuant to our obligations under the Manila Treaty.

  2. Do the provisions of the Treaty impose any obligations on a signatory nation to supply details of any proposed military commitment under the Treaty to its own Parliament or equivalent system of Government or to any other authority, including the United Nations before making the commitment.

    1. If so, will he give
    1. full details of these obligations and
    2. details of how these obligations were fulfilled by each signatory nation.
  3. Which nations are signatories of the Treaty, and which of them committed troops to the war in South Vietnam.
  4. How many troops were committed in each case.

  5. In respect of each nation which committed troops, can he say

    1. whether the troops were
    1. combatant or
    2. non-combatant,

    3. how many were committed in each category,

    4. when they were committed, and
    5. when they were withdrawn.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

en - The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. On 18th August 1971 the Prime Minister stated in the House of Representatives that the decision to commit troops . . . ‘was made in the national interest pursuant to our obligations under the Manila Treaty and at the invitation of the Republic of Vietnam.’
  2. No.
  3. See answer to part (2).
  4. The signatories to the Manila Treaty are Australia, France, New Zealand. Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
  5. and (6) Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand and the United States committed troops to the defence of South Vietnam. Australia’s first military, contribution was a team of 30 Army advisers which arrived in June 1962. Additions were made from time to time of elements from all 3 services to a peak strength of a little over 8.000 men by 1967. The first reduction waa made when a battalion was withdrawn in December. 1970. In accordance with the Prime Minister’s announcement of 18th August 1971. withdrawal of Australian Force Vietnam is now proceeding.

New Zealand’s first commitment of troops was in July 1965 when an artillery battery was sent, and subsequently 2 infantry companies were added in May and November of 1967. During the peak period, from April 1969 to April 1970, there were approximately 540 New Zealand troops in Vietnam. The New Zealand force is now being withdrawn.

The Philippines’ deployments to Vietnam began in 1966, when a civic action force and an engineer battalion totalling some 2,000 men arrived in South Vietnam. The force was withdrawn by December 1969.

Thailand committed 6 transport aircraft to Vietnam in 1965 and followed with elements of the Black Panther Division. A peak force level of about 11,250 was reached in February 1969. Withdrawal of the force commenced in 1971 and is estimated to have reduced it 6,300.

United States forces in Vietnam were increased progressively from 1962 and reached a peak of between 540,000 and 550,000 in early 1969. The force level is now under 200,000. lt is not possible to give figures for troops committed in the categories ‘combatant’ and non-combatant’ since these terms are not precise and could well vary in meaning from country to country.

Long Service Leave (Question No. 4624)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Will he confer with the Minister for the Army, the Minister for Labour and National Service and other Ministers whose Departments are concerned with the employment of civilian employees in maintaining Service vehicles in regard to the long service leave entitlements of these employees.
  2. Has there been a failure to guarantee effectively the right to long service leave of civilian employees at Mob Siding, Seymour, Victoria.
  3. Will the Government take steps to introduce appropriate legislation or to amend Commonwealth agreements with civilian contractors to ensure that civilian employees are guaranteed to payment of wages during long service leave.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Service vehicles at Mob Siding, Seymour, and certain other Service establishments are maintained under period contracts let by the Department of Supply. The civilian employees thus are employed by contractors and not directly by the Commonwealth. In accordance with normal Commonwealth practice, the contracts require that the contractors abide by appropriate Commonwealth or State legislation covering conditions of employment.

When a new contractor is successful in gaining a Commonwealth contract, the Commonwealth would not normally be involved in the question of whether the new contractor takes over staff previously employed on the task. In the case of the vehicle service contracts, however, where the task is to operate at a Service establishment rather than perform work in the contractor’s own premises, it is known that employees commonly transfer to the new contractor. I am informed that the relevant departments have given close and sympathetic consideration to the case of these employees. However, I am informed that their case cannot be considered in isolation. I understand that the matter is being considered further but that the outcome cannot be predicted at this stage.

Industrial Finance Corporation (Question No. 4643)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group the right to take equity in private companies which it finances worldwide.
  2. Has it shown a special interest in primary industry.
  3. Are any Australians members of the Corporation; if so, who are they.
  4. Can he say what enterprises in Australia are financed by the Corporation.
  5. Is it the intention of the Government to give the Australian Industries Development Corporation power to acquire full details of foreign investment in Australia and to compete with the International Finance Corporation on equal terms.
  6. Will he take steps to ensure that (a) priority on freehold or long leasehold of Australian land is reserved for Australians, if necessary, by the use of public funds and (b) there is overseas no prior or greater promotion of sales of Australian land or other resources than in Australia.
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes. As at 30th June 1971 the International Finance Corporation (IFC) held equity in 101 of the 172 enterprises in which it had made investments.
  2. Not particularly - the main concentration of investment by IFC to date has been in manufacturing industry.
  3. There are six Australian members of the staff of IFC at the present time, viz. J. E. Dolin, M. F. Hartigan, Miss J. MacKaness, Miss E. Malcolm, N. J. Paterson and Miss R. Tunyep. Mr Paterson is Director of Investments for Central America, Australasia, Mexico and Europe. In addition, of course, I, as Governor for Australia, represent Australia on the Board of Governors of the Corporation. Along with South Africa and New Zealand, Australia is represented on the Board of Executive Directors for IFC by Mr R. L. Knight of New Zealand; his Alternate in that position is Mr M. A. Cranswick, who was formerly employed in the Commonwealth Treasury and is currently in the unattached list during bis period of service in Washington.
  4. IFC invested SUS660,000 in Duncan’s Holdings Ltd in 19S7-S8 and a total of $US3 15,000 in Rubbertex (Australia) Pty Ltd in 1958-59 and 1959-60. Both of these investments have since been liquidated.
  5. It is not the intention of the Government to give the Australian Industry Development Corporation any special powers to acquire details of foreign investment in Australia. The current policy of the International Finance Corporation is to concentrate its investments in developing member countries and, as the answer to question (4) indicates, the question of competition with the Australian Industry Development Corporation is therefore unlikely to arise.
  6. (a) The Goverment’s policy on overseas investment in Australia was outlined by the former Prime Minister in a statement to the House on 16th September 1969. (b) No. Quite apart from the policy issue raised, it would be most difficult to draft appropriate legislation and virtually impossible to enforce it.

South Australia: Voting Age (Question No. 4648)

Mr Keogh:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether 18-year-olds living in South Australia are considered legally to be adults and qualified to vote at State elections as from 30th June 1971.
  2. If so, what action will be taken by the Government to ensure that their rights under section 41 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth will be protected in the event of a by-election in South Australia for a vacancy in the House of Representatives or for the next House of Representatives election.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for the Interior · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Eighteen year old persons living in South Australia are not yet entitled to vote at State elections.
  2. This part of the question raises the interpretation of section 41 of the Constitution and I do not propose to answer it.

Universities: Enrolment (Question No. 4663)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What was the total (a) full-time and (b) part-time enrolment in (i) each university and (ii) all universities in (A) each State and Territory and (B) the Commonwealth in each year since 1965.
  2. What percentage of total enrolment did each category of student constitute in each case.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Parts (1) and (2).

Broadcasting and Television Act (Question No. 4695)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

Will the Attorney-General take steps to ensure that section 103 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1969 conforms with section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The provisions of what is now section 103 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1971 were included in the legislation by the Parliament in 1956 and have appeared in the legislation in that form ever since. Any further comment by me would require the expression of a legal opinion, and it would not be in accordance with the Standing Orders and the practice of the House for me to do so.

Oral Contraceptives: Sales Tax (Question No. 4710)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Does the Government receive sales tax on oral contraceptives at a rat? of 271 per cent which is the same rate as that on goods for amusement purposes.
  2. What sum did the Commonwealth receive from sales tax on (a) oral contraceptives and (b) all contraceptives during the financial year 1970- 71.
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Oral contraceptives, in common wilh other contraceptives, are subject to sales tax at the rate of 27i per cent.
  2. No statistics are available relating to collections of sales tax on contraceptives.

Public Service: Special Qualifications (Question No. 4708) Mr Enderby asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

WQ1 he identify and list the latter courses referred to in the answer to question No. 3835 (Hansard, 3rd November 1971, page 2998) which are now being offered by the Canberra College of Advanced Education, and which are now being examined, and which may or may not be accepted by the appropriate employing departments.

Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 have been advised by the Public Service Board thai the courses, offered tat the Canberra College of Advanced Education, to which he refers arc as follows:

Botany Bay: Pollution Study (Question No. 4731)

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

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Can he say (a) what works have been carried out and are yet to be carried out in the Botany Bay area and (b) whether the environment of Botany Bay has been altered by public works, sewage discharge, oil spillage and industrial waste.
  2. What evidence is available that the marine ecosystem of the Bay has not been affected.
  3. What tests have been carried out in the Bay to determine (a) coliform counts, (b) oxygen content of water in selected areas and (c) methyl mercury concentration, and what were the results of these tests.
  4. Will the Government arrange for the Division of Fisheries and Oceanography in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to investigate the marine ecology of Botany Bay and furnish a report to Parliament dealing in particular with the effects of (a) public works carried out by the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments, (b) sewage discharge and (c) industrial waste including oil spillage, and to recommend means of preventing further damage and re-establishing the affected natural resources.
Mr Howson:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) In general, the questions would be more appropriately addressed to the New South Wales State Government. However, I would be prepared to seek information concerning any particular Commonwealth work in the Botany Bay area in which the honourable member may be interested.

  1. A study of the marine ecology of Botany Buy would be the responsibility of the relevatnt State authority. If the New South Wales Government were to seek assistance from the Commonwealth in such a study, the matter would be considered in the light of the facts presented.

Commonwealth Literary Fund (Question No. 4742)

Mr Howson:
LP

– On 9th December 1971 the Attorney-General in his reply to question upon notice No. 4742 stated that I had been asked to supply the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) with a written answer to part (5) of the question. The answer is as follows:

  1. The Commonwealth Literary Fund assists authors both directly and indirectly. Direct assistance is provided by way of fellowships and research grants to writers engaged or wishing to engage in literary projects. Indirect assistance is provided through assistance to publishers for the publication of manuscripts of literary, merit. The Fund also helps Australian writers and writing through lecture programmes, writers’ workshops and seminars, and by way of support for literary magazines. It also operates a scheme of pensions for Australian writers of national stature. The appropriations for Commonwealth Literary Fund activities for each of the last 5 years have been as follows:

Direct assistance given to writers for each of the last 5 years is as follows.

Public Service: Education Bonds (Question No. 4749)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

How many of the public servants whose fees were paid by the Commonwealth in each type of educational- institution in 1970 (Hansard, 27th October 1971, page 2649) had entered into bonds to remain in the employment of the Commonwealth.

Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The number of staff employed under the Public Service Act 1922-1968 for whom fees were paid by the Commonwealth in 1970, and who had entered into bonds to remain in the employment of the Commonwealth, is as follows:

New Zealand: Investment (Question No. 4780)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether Australian entrepreneurs have been offered a range of incentives to establish enterprises in New Zealand.
  2. Can he also say whether incentives offered by the New Zealand Government surpass those offered by, the Australian Government lo industry to establish enterprises in cither town or country.
  3. If so, will he state the incentives made available by the New Zealand Government lo encourage the establishment of industry in New Zealand, including tourism, and will he compare them wilh Australian incentives.
  4. If the comparison is unfavourable, what action is proposed by the Government to bring Australia to at least parity with New Zealand.
Mr Anthony:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes. Incentives, which apply lo overseas and local investors, include: - a special depreciation allowance on plant and machinery, buildings for employee accommodation, new farm buildings, and on certain facilities in holds of 20 per cent which may be .spread over 4 or 5 years. - a special depreciation allowance for meat processing companies on cold storage facilities and buildings of 20 per cent over 4 years in cases where the company is exporting - an investment allowance on plant and machinery used in manufacturing, for farming or agricultural purposes, and for fishing of 10 per cent in the first y,ear of the plant’s use - a special investment allowance for redevelopment projects in the West Coast region of the South Island. The allowance is

    1. 10 per cent for plant or machinery installed or acquired after June 1966 and before June 1969 otherwise it is 20 per cent
    2. 20 per cent in the case of buildings or extensions to buildings

The allowance applies to

  1. new plant, machinery and buildings bought, installed or extended since July 1963

  2. second hand equipment or buildings acquired since April 1964 - a special depreciation allowance on buildings for approved tourist accommodation projects of 20 per cent over 4 years.

    1. Taking account of both State and Commonwealth measures the range of incentives in the two countries would be broadly comparable. Commonwealth measures affecting the establishment and development of industry in Australia include tariff protection and taxation and o:her incentives to promote exports and to assist efficiency and productivity, and to assist technological advancement and creativity in industry. Also, financial assistance is available through institutions such as the Commonweath Development Bank, the Australian Resources Development Bank and the Australian Industries Development Corporation. In addition to Commonwealth assistance each Stile hr.s its own policies of assistance to industries established or wishing to establish within its territory.
    2. See (2).
    3. The comparison is not unfavourable.

Oil and Mineral Exploration (Question No. 4781)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. What sum has the Commonwealth spent on encouraging oil and mineral exploration in Australia since the introduction of the present incentive scheme.
  2. What companies have been granted a subsidy and what sum has been paid to each company to date.
  3. What is the country of origin of each company which has been granted a subsidy.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member s question is as follows:

  1. The total sum paid by the Commonwealth, to the end of October 1971, in respect of operation’; approved under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Acts is S 109.565,996. No incentives in the form of subsidy are offered for the exploration for any mineral other than petroleum.
  2. and (3) The answers to these 2 questions are given in the attached table.

Northern Territory: Education Subsidy (Question No. 4784) Mr Collard asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Does the Commonwealth pay a subsidy to parents living in remote areas of the Northern Territory who are obliged to send their children to Darwin, Adelaide or elsewhere for educational purposes.

Is a subsidy paid to parents in these areas if they employ a person to teach the children at home.

If so, what is the amount of the subsidy in each case and what are the required qualifications.

What was the cost of subsidy in each of the last two years.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Boarding and Travelling Allowance -

In the Northern Territory, a boarding allowance of $250 per annum is payable by the Commonwealth Government to the parents of all primary and secondary school children who have to live away from home to attend school. Parents must be permanent residents of the Northern Territory and must reside over 10 miles from a school bus stop or suitable school.

An additional $120 per annum is payable subject to a means test.

Pupils qualifying for a boarding allowance may have their return fares home paid once per term if attending school within the Territory or once per year if attending school outside the Territory. The interstate travelling allowance of a student concession economy class fare is provided on the evidence that boarding accommodation was not available within the Northern Territory at the time of enrolment.

Conveyance Allowance -

A conveyance allowance is available to primary and secondary students in the Northern Territory who live 3 miles from a suitable school or bus stop and are transported daily in a private vehicle to attend school. A set rate dependent on the horsepower of the vehicle and the mileage between school and home is paid irrespective of the number of students conveyed. Payment is made on a term basis after the end of each term.

Handicapped Children-

In cases where a suitable institution is not available within the home town a boarding and travelling allowance can apply for the nearest suitable centre in the Northern Territory. If an institution is not available in the Northern Territory, which is the case for blind, deaf or mute children, approval may be granted for a boarding allowance of $250 to (370 per annum and reimbursement of a student concession economy class fare once per annum.

If a child has to attend school interstate for special medical reasons the Director of Education can approve the above allowance on the provision of a suitable doctor’s certificate.

  1. and (3) Correspondence Supervision Allowance -

The Commonwealth Government also pays an annual subsidy of $100 in respect of children in the Northern Territory who are undertaking correspondence lessons with any recognised State Correspondence School, and whose parents employ a person to enable the supervision of lessons. The conditions are that the parents must be residents of the Northern Territory and they must declare that at least $100 per annum per child is expended either for a governess or domestic assistance to free the mother to supervise lessons. A proportion of their allowance may be paid for children enrolled for only part of the school year.

Al present this allowance is payable only in respect of children studying at primary school level. The payment of allowances to secondary school children is being investigated.

  1. Annual expenditure on these schemes appears b;low: There is no separate vote for handicapped children as expenditure is included in items 1 and 2:

There are a number of other special schemes of educational assistance for Northern Territory children (e.g. Northern Territory Secondary Scholarship Scheme and the Northern Territory Tertiary Scholarship Scheme) but the funds under these schemes are not earmarked for children who live outside the Northern Territory metropolitan area.

Citizen Military Forces (Question No. 4797)

Dr Gun:

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. How many members were serving in the Citizen Military Forces as an alternative to national service on 18th August 1971 when the Prime Minister announced the reduction in service periods.
  2. How many of these members fulfilled their obligation as at 18th August 1971 as a result of the revised service period.
  3. What was the average period served beyond 5 years by those members affected by the reduction in obligation due to the delaying factors mentioned in his answer to question No. 4720. (Hansard, 25th November 1971)
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) As at 18th August, 1971, when the Prime Minister announced the changes in the national service scheme relating to both full-time and part-time service, 11,961 national service registrants ware serving in the Citizen Forces. Certain steps were necessary before the announced changes could be given effect to. In the case of registrants serving in the Citizen Forces verification was required from individual units that the men had served efficiently for the required period in fulfilment of their obligation. Registrants serving full-time in the Army could not be discharged prior to the passage of enabling legislation. There was no ‘delay’ in the application of the changes in the scheme to men serving in the Citizen Forces. The enabling legislation already referred to was treated as a matter of priority by the Parliament. In summary the changes in the scheme were applied to men then serving as quickly as the necessary prerequisites permitted.

Overseas Shipping Freights (Question No. 4798)

Mr Webb:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

What has been the cost of overseas shipping freights in each year since 1966-67, and what has been the total cost since that year.

Mr Anthony:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The Commonwealth Statistician advises that for the years 1966-67 to 1970-71, total freight payable overseas on imports is estimated at SI, 854m, the cost in each year being as follows:

Statistics are not available to show the total annual freight charges for exports. The Australian balance of payments statistics prepared by the Commonwealth Statistician do not include an item relating to amounts payable overseas for freight on Australian exports. Conventional balance of payments treatment regards the cost of transferring goods beyond the exporting country as a transaction between the foreign importer and the carrier (in the Australian c°.se, usually a non-resident shipping company). Thus, in the circumstances, no entry is made for such freight charges and no estimate is prepared for this item by the Statistician.

Nuclear Tests (Question No. 4806)

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon no’.ice:

  1. Can he say whether the French Government has indicated that it will continue with nuclear testing in the atmosphere at its Pacific tests centre in Polynesia; if so, what are the announced details.
  2. Has the Australian Government protested against these tests; if so, what are the details of the protests and what plans are there for future protests
  3. Is it a fact that atmosphere radiation from these tests produces a cumulative danger which jeopardises the health of all people, particularly children, that radiation particles build up in the bones and thyroid glands of children, hence subjecting them to the dangers of bone cancer, leukemia and thyroid carcinoma, that the radioactive elements can remain in the body for many years and that they can result in the mutilation of the reproductive cells leading to the birth of deformed and diseased children.
  4. What evidence is there of radioactive fallout in Australia resulting from the French Pacific nuclear tests carried out to date.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. The honourable member’s attention is directed to the answers to Question No. 1509 in the Senate (Hansard, 28th October 1971, page 1552) and Question No. 4772 in the House of Representatives (Hansard 2nd December 1971, page 4123).
  2. Details of the most recent Australian official protest, on 20th April 1971, arc contained in the answer to Question No. 3e.73 in the House of Representatives (Mansard, 7t<i September 1971, page S77). For details of previous protests the Honourable Member’s attention is dire.’ led to the answer to Question No. 493 in the Senate (Ilansard. ! 9th August 1970, page 64). Concerning the Government’s plans for future protests, the Honourable Member’s attention is directed to part (2) of the answers to Questions 1509 and 4772 referred lo above.
  3. The National Radiation Advisory Committee was appointed by the Government in 1957 lo provide guidance in any matter pertaining to the effects of ionising radiation in the Australian community. Details of the effects of ionising radiation on health arc contained in the Committee’s report to the Prime Minister of November 1965. The Committee, having considered the data on the French nuclear tests, has a J vised trie Government in reports of November 1965, March 1967. December 1967, March 1969, and March 1971 that the fallout does not constitute a hazard to (he health of the Australian population.
  4. Extensive monitoring of fallout in Australia, including that resulting from French nuclear tests in the Pacific, has been carried out by the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee. The results of monitoring over the period 1966-71 (during which French nuclear tests occurred in the Pacific) are contained in 15 publications amongst those listed in the Appendix to Report AWTSC No. 1 published In February 1971 by the Defence Standards Laboratories. The results of measurements on fallout in Australia this year will be published when all the data has been analyst*). This data, however, is broadly similar to that obtained in 1970 and which the National Radiation Advisory Committee found to be of no significance as a hazard to the health of the Australian population.

Tinned Beef: Imports (Question No. 4814)

Dr Patterson:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What amounts of tinned beef were imported into Australia from (a) Argentina, (b) Paraguay and (c) other countries during the last 12 months.
  2. Why is tinned beef being imported into Australia.
  3. What guarantee have Australian cattlemen that this tinned beef is completely free of exotic viruses such as foot and mouth disease.
Mr Anthony:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Import clearances of canned corned beef have been recorded separately since 27th January 197!. Over the period ;7th January 1971 to end of September 1971, imports of canned corned beef totalled 92.838 lb of which Argentina supplied 36,000 lb. No imports from Paraguay were recorded during the period

    1. Tariff rates of 10 per cent and S0.05 per lb apply lo imports of canned corned beef from non-preferential tariff countries such as Argentina and Paraguay These duties a’e friended to protect the local industry from damaging import compel lion. Imports of tinned corned beef for the period represent less than I per cent of local production.
    2. The importation of tinned beef in:o Australia from all countries excepting New Zealand (which has a sim:la. disease status to Australia! is completely prohibited unless the product is contained In hermetically scaled cans and accompanied by a health certificate which must sta:e that the product has been heated lo a temperature of a least 100° C throughout the contents of ‘he can. This treatment is sufficient lo destroy ibc agents of exotic diseases, and ensures that imports do nol present a disease risk to Australian livestock industries.

Petroleum Companies: Australian Equity (Question No. 4826)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minis:er for National Development, upon notice:

Will he take steps io introduce legislation to require the transfer to the Australian public from private petroleum producers equity in those petroleum companies equal to the amount of search subsidy given them within a reasonable period after the net investment of those companies in Australia has become profitable; if not, why not.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The policy of the Government on this matter is implemented through existing legislation and the practices established thereunder. All operations which are approved for subsidy under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act are covered by agreements between the Commonwealth and the company. In the event that a subsidised exploration drilling operation leads to the discovery of a field from which petroleum is produced for commercial or industrial purposes within 10 years from completion of tha operation, there is provision in the agreements for certain repayments in respect of the subsidy paid on the drilling operation.

International Society for Social Responsibility in Science (Question No. 4827)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon no’.ice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the resolutions of the 1971 meeting of the International Society for Social Responsibility in Science as reported in the ‘New Scientist’ of 16th September 1971.
  2. If so, will Australia support the Society’s resolutions to be submitted to the 1972 United Nations Conference on Human Environment; if not, why noi.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. The Secretariat for the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment is drafting action proposals for discussion at Stockholm from the material that has been submitted to it, including National Reports, reports of five intergovernmental working groups, the United Nations Specialised Agencies and other intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations. Final drafts of action proposals have not yet been received. A great deal of data will therefore be available to the Conference on which the participating governments will be able to base their action.

Australian Universities Commission (Question No. 4829)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. When was the Australian Universities Commission requested to re-examine the question of payments to honorary clinical teachers for their teaching services (Hansard, 25th November 1971, page 3768).
  2. When did he receive or docs he expect to receive the Commission’s report.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 24th August 1971.
  2. I have received the Commission’s report and the matter is now being considered by the Government.

Queensland Alumina Limited (Question No. 4833)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. What precautions are taken by Queensland Alumina Limited and other refineries in Australia to prevent run-off to ground water or the sea of deliquescent alkaline mud effluent.
  2. Has seepage from pondage systems or other effluent from these refineries contributed to the alleged deterioration of marine life in the region of Gladstone Harbour.
  3. Has Queensland Alumina Limited sought approval to deposit process effluent in a creek or inlet which will thereby be destroyed as a fishing area or marine breeding area.
  4. Will the Government take steps to preserve and restore affected marine life; if so, what steps are proposed.
  5. What are the penalties for (a) pollution or interference with marine life on an industrial scale, (b) using explosives to kill fish and (c) taking undersized fish by line or net.
Mr Howson:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

These questions would be more appropriately addressed to the Queensland Minister for State Development. 1 am however making enquiries of the Minister and will advise the honourable member in due course.

Fairbairn Dam Irrigation Area (Question No. 4834)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. What precautions will be taken in the Fairbairn Dam Irrigation area to prevent build-up of phosphate and other fertilisers and pesticides in run-off into the Nogoa subdivision of the Fitzroy basin.
  2. Could the problem bc avoided by pumping run-off into exposed and -‘or anerobic ponds, or onto high ground to allow trickle filtering in subsoil.
Mr Howson:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

These questions would be more appropriately addressed to the Queensland Minister for State Development. I am however making enquiries of the Minister and will advise the honourable member in due course.

Coal Washeries (Question No. 4835)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. What is the nature of flocculant (coagulant aid) chemicals used to clarify water for recycling to coal washeries in the Dawson, Mackenzie and Isaacs subdivisions of the Fitzroy basin.
  2. What precautions are taken to prevent the dispersion of these and other residues possibly harmful to soil, or water organisms, especially in run-off to the river system.
Mr Howson:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

These questions would be more appropriately addressed to the Queensland Minister for State Development. I am however making enquiries of the Minister and will advise the honourable member in due course.

F4 Aircraft (Question No. 4854)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. What rentals have been paid to date for the 24 F4 aircraft.
  2. What is the estimated cost of converting the leasing arrangement for these aircraft into a purchase.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Rental paid to 30th November 1971- $US6,227,654.
  2. SUS 1 14m for 24 aircraft.

Public Service: Working Hours (Question No. 4K57)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What are the hours of duly prescribed in the Public Service Act and Regulations for various classes of Commonwealth Public Servants.
  2. Does any determination of the Public Service Arbitrator vary significantly from the statutory provisions.
  3. Approximately how many persons are employed in each class.
  4. If one class works shorter hours, upon what basis were the shorter hours prescribed.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (4) The Public Service Board has advised me that Public Service Regulation 9 prescribes the hours of business for staff. However, actual hours of duty for the various categories of staff are prescribed by the relevant determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator. Office type staff generally observe a 36i hour week. These hours have applied since Federation and bad their origin in the conditions applying in the State Public Services. Following the 1947 decision of the (then) Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, the weekly hours for non-office type staff were reduced from 44 to 40 with effect from 1st January 1948. Some other staff observe lesser weekly hours than the foregoing prescriptions because of the nature of the work.

  1. It would be possible to obtain this information but it would entail considerable analysis and collation within departments in order to achieve this break-down of information. In the circumstances I am reluctant to authorise the undertaking of this large administrative task.

United Nations Charter (Question No. 4864)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Upon notice:

  1. Has bis attention been drawn to the article called The Violence of the Continued Claim to National Sovereignty Today by the Reader in Criminology, University of Melbourne, in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology for September 1971.
  2. If so, will he -fake steps to include the points raised in the article in publicity designed to stimulate public discussion of United Nations Charter Reform proposals for the 1972 General Assembly debates.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. The honourable member is again referred to the answers given to his questions No. 984 of 21st May 1970 and No. 3422 of 19th August 1971, which adequately deal with the Government’s attitude to public discussion on revision of the United Nations Charter. The honourable member may rest assured that the points raised in the article to which he refers, as well as the points he himself raised in question No. 3423 of 19th August 1971, will be among those taken into account when the subject is being considered in more detail.

Learmonth Airfield: Compensation (Question No. 4869)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Has it been found necessary to purchase from or pay compensation to any company or person for land or buildings situated in the vicinity of the Learmonth Airfield in Western Australia.
  2. If so, what are the companies or who are the persons concerned.
  3. What area of land is involved and what is the purchase price or compensation to be paid for it.
  4. What buildings are involved, of what material are they constructed, and what was the purchase price or compensation paid or to be paid for them.
Mr Hunt:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. M. G. Kailis Gulf Fisheries Pty Ltd.
  3. and (4) Five acres on which is situated a fully integrated prawn processing factory comprising processing plant, packing shed, refrigeration room, store rooms, laboratory and other ancillary buildings, plus accommodation for about ISO staff with mess huts and ablution blocks. Buildings ure of timber and iron or asbestos construction.

The compensation agreed upon is $335,000 plus $6,521 for reconnection of telephone facilities.

Rosella Preserving and Manufacturing Company (Question No. 4877) Mr Barnard asked the Treasurer, upon notice: Can he say -

  1. what was the percentage of overseas ownership in the Rosella Preserving and Manufacturing Company at

    1. January 1963 and
    2. 30 June 1971 and
    3. what were the names of the overseas companies involved.
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that the type of information sought is collected by him under the authority of the Census and Statistics Act for the purpose of compiling statistics of overseas investment in Australia. However, under the provisions of the Act, information relating to individual companies is strictly confidential and cannot be disclosed to any person or any other government authority.

The following incomplete information on the ownership in 1965 and 1970 of the companies referred to in this question and in questions Nos 4878 to 4884 has been taken from the 1966 edition of the Directory of Overseas Investment in Australian Manufacturing Industry published by the Department of Trade and Industry, and from the proposed new edition of that directory which is at present in the course of publication.

Australian Companies: Foreign Ownership (Question No. 4878) Mr Barnard asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can he say (a) what was the percentage of overseas ownership in (i) Shelleys Drinks Ltd, (ii) AJM Industries Pty Ltd (Mynor Pty Ltd) and (iii) Hellidon Gardner Pty Ltd at (A) 1st January 1964 and (B) 30th June 1971 and (b) what were the names of the overseas companies involved.

Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

See answer to question No. 4877.

Australian Companies: Foreign Ownership (Question No. 4879)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can he say (a) what was the percentage of overseas ownership in (i) Mayfair Hams Limited, (ii) Lionel Sampson and Son and (iii) Thomas Playfair and Sons at (A) 1st January 1965 and (B) 30th June 1971 and (b) what were the names of the overseas companies involved.

Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

See answer to question No. 4877.

Australian Companies: Foreign Ownership (Question No. 4880)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can he say (a) what was the percentage of overseas ownership m (i) Harvest Foods Limited, (ii) Cottees Industries Limited, (iii*) Thomas Brown and Son and (iv) Coca Cola Bottlers (Melbourne) Pty Ltd at (A) 1st January 1966 and (B) 30th June 1971 and (b) what were the names of the overseas companies involved.

Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

See answer to question No. 4877.

Australian Companies: Overseas Ownership (Question No. 4881) Mr Barnard asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can he say (a) what was the percentage of overseas ownership in (i) Golden Poultry Farming Industries, (ii) Toppa Holdings Pty Ltd, (iii) Macrobertsons (Australia) Pty Ltd, (iv) Masterfoods Holdings Pty Ltd and (v) Hungerford-Hill Vineyards Pty Ltd at (A) 1st January 1967 and (B) 30th June 1971 and (b) what were the names of the overseas companies involved.

Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the hon ourable member’s question is as follows: See answer to question No. 4877.

Australian Companies: Foreign Ownership (Question No. 4882)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice: Can he say:

  1. what was the percentage of overseas ownership in

    1. South West Frozen Foods,
    2. Smiths Potato Crisps (Australia) Ltd,
    3. Big Sister Foods Ltd,
    4. Girgarre Cheese, (y) Barnes Honey and (vi) Medallion Products at
    1. 1st January 1968 and
    2. 30th June 1971 and

  2. what were the names of the overseas companies involved.

Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

See answer to question No. 4877.

Australian Companies: Foreign Ownership (Question No. 4883)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice: Can he say:

  1. what was the percentage of overseas ownership in J. Y. Tulloch and Sons Pty Ltd at
  2. 1st January 1969 and (ii) 30th June 1971 and
  3. what were the names of the overseas companies involved.
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

See answer to question No. 4877.

Australian Companies: Foreign Ownership (Question No. 4884)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice: Can he say:

  1. what was the percentage of overseas ownership in

    1. Morris Family Wineries,
    2. G. Gramp and Sons (Orlando),
    3. McLaren Vale Wines Pty Ltd,
    4. Ryecroft Vineyards Pty Ltd and
    5. Reynells Wines at
    1. 1st January 1970 and
    2. 30th June 1971 and

  2. what were the names of the overseas companies involved.

Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

See answer to question No. 4877.

Social Workers (Question No. 4885)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. How many social workers are employed by his Department outside the capital cities.
  2. At which centres are they employed and how many are employed at each.
  3. How many social workers are employed by his Department in each capital city.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) None.
  2. There are two professional positions of senior social worker in the Department, one in Sydney and one in Melbourne. In addition to these two positions, there are specialist employment officers in all Regional Offices and most District Employment Offices who provide counselling and assistance to the physically and socially handicapped, young people, elderly workers, aborigines, ex-prisoners and others with special problems.

Educational Needs Survey: Queensland and Tasmania (Question No. 4915)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. On what date was the Queensland Survey of Educational Needs released to the Press (Hansard, 30th November 1971, page 3877).
  2. On what date was the Tasmanian Survey of Educational Needs made available to the public on request from the Tasmanian Education Department.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. The Queensland Survey of Educational Needs which was released to the public is dated 3rd June 1971.
  2. I am not aware of the exact date of the release of the Tasmanian Survey of Educational Needs but I understand that it was made available to the public on request in early June 1971.

Russian Government: Trade Office (Question No. 4922)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Russian Government has requested permission of the Australian Government to open a trading establishment in Sydney; if so, was the request refused.
  2. If the request was refused, what reasons were given by the Australian Government for the refusal.
  3. What reasons were given by the Russian Government for wishing to establish a trading establishment in Sydney.
  4. Does the Government agree that there is general advantage to Australia in having as much contact of a trading kind as possible with all countries, including Russia.
Mr Anthony:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) The Soviet Government has requested permission of the Australian Government to establish a trade office in Sydney. The Government has agreed to this request. The Soviet Office will tak? the form of a Consulate.
  2. The reasons given by the Soviet Government are that it is anxious to increase its exports to Australia in order to improve an adverse trade balance and that Sydney is an important commercial centre where the USSR already has substantial trading interests.
  3. The Government believes that Australia derives very considerable benefit from trading with all countries on a multilateral basis and within the framework of mutual commercial advantage. Our pursuit of economic growth requires a constantly improving export performance by Australia to pay for our rising import requirements. The Soviet Union is a valued customer for Australian primary products and non-strategic goods generally, having consistently purchased large quantities of wool from Australia and, at various times, of wheat and meat. In 1970-71 Australia exported to the USSR goods worth $A62.7m, against imports from the USSR valued at only $A2.2m. As a manifestation of our growing interest in the Soviet market Australia is at present in the process of establishing a Trade Commissioner Post in Moscow.

International Maritime Consultative Organisation (Question No. 4925) Mr Enderby asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. How many, conferences or conventions have been held by the International Maritime Consultative Organisation on Safety of Life at Sea.
  2. Which countries participated in each case.
  3. Was any agreement reached in these conventions.
  4. If so, which countries signed the agreements on safety of life at sea.
  5. Can he say which countries are enforcing these agreements.
  6. Did Australia ratify or accept any agreement on the safety of life at sea; if not, why not.
  7. If Australia did ratify or accept an agreement, is it being enforced.
Mr Nixon:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. The International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, 1960 was convened under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO). The previous international conferences in 1929 and 1948 on the

Safety of Life at Sea were convened by the British Government. When IMCO came into being in 1959 the administrative functions concerning the 1948 conference were transferred to IMCO and it became the depository organisation.

  1. The following countries were represented by, delegations at the 1960 Conference:

Argentina

Australia

Belgium

Brazil

Bulgaria

Cameroun

Canada

China

Cuba

Czechoslovakia Denmark

Dominican Republic

Finland

France

Federal Republic of Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

India

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Republic nf Korea

Kuwait

Liberia

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Pakistan

Panama

Peru

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Union of Soviet Socialist Republic

United Arab Republic

United Kingdom

United States of America

Venezuela

Yugoslavia

The Governments of the following countries were represented at the Conference by observers:

Ceylon

Chile

Guinea

Indonesia

Iran

Roumania

Thailand

Turkey

Union of South Africa Vietnam

  1. The 1960 Conference drew up and adopted for ultimate international acceptance -

    1. The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960
    2. International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1960
    3. Recommendations applicable to Nuclear Ships
    4. Recommendations on a variety of subjects arising from its deliberations.

  2. The following countries signed the Final Act of the 1960 Convention -

Argentina

Australia

Belgium

Brazil

Bulgaria

Cameroun

Canada

China

Denmark

Dominican Republic

Finland

France

Federal Republic of Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

India

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Kuwait

Liberia

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Pakistan

Panama

Peru

Philippines Portugal Sweden Switzerland

Union of Soviet Socialist Republic

United Arab Republic

United Kingdom

United States of America

Venezuela

Yugoslavia

  1. The following countries have formally become parties to the 1960 Convention -
  1. Australia deposited an Instrument of Acceptance of the 1960 Convention on 20th December 1967, which took effect on 20th March 1968.
  2. Legislation has been enacted to comply, with the provisions of the Convention.

Language Allowance (Question No. 4947)

Mr Keogh:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Are language allowances granted to those officers of bis Department whose competence in foreign languages has been formally established?
  2. If so, how many of Australian based officers at each of the diplomatic and consular posts listed in his answer to my question No. 4646 (Hansard, 30lh November 1971, page 3875) are currently receiving language allowances pertaining to the languages in official use at their particular posts?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer, to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes. Language allowances are paid to officers who qualify at prescribed examinations.
  2. The following statement shows the number of officers in receipt of a language allowance in the count!ries mentioned at the present time:

China (Question No. 4948)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

In view of the fact that the Soviet Union is never likely to be a threat to the integrity of Australia whereas Communist China might pose such a threat twenty or more years hence, will he do everything possible to encourage peaceful relations in trade, tourism, culture, medicine, literature and science with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The right honourable member’s question is based on hypotheses upon which I do not propose to comment. As for our relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, it is the Government’s policy to work progressively for the establishment of normal working relations with the Soviet Government, in all fields where it is in Australia’s interests to do so.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 February 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19720222_reps_27_hor76/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant