House of Representatives
9 October 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 28th Parliament
  3. 1973

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1717

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this morning a parliamentary delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany led by Frau Liselotte Funcke, Vice-President of the Bundestag. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation.

Honourable members - Hear, hear!

page 1717

APOLOGY BY MEMBER

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

–

Mr Speaker, in accordance with your direction, I apologise for the interjection I made at the end of the last sitting day.

page 1717

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:

National Health Scheme

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 showeth:

That they oppose the Australian Health Insurance Program and any National Health Scheme.

That they wish to retain the right to choose their own medical care by selecting a general practitioner, specialist or any other medical classification of their own choice under the present conditions in private consulting rooms and also the right to choose an intermediate ward or private hospital of their own choice.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measure to interfere with the existing health scheme.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron and Mr Jarman.

Petitions received.

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost four out of five Australians more than the present scheme.

That the proposed scheme is discriminatory and a further erosion of the civil liberties of Australian citizens, particularly working wives and single persons.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalised medicine which will lead to gross waste and inefficiencies in medical services and will ultimately remove an individual’s right to choose his/her own doctor.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the

Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

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

Petition received.

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed ‘free’ National Health Scheme is not free at all and will cost four out of five Australians more than the present scheme. That the proposed scheme is discriminatory and a further erosion of the civil liberties of Australian citizens, particularly working wives and single persons.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalised medicine which will lead to gross waste and inefficiencies in medical services and will ultimately remove an individual’s right to choose his/her own doctor.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the

Government will take no measures to interefere with the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McLeay and Mr Wilson.

Petitions received.

Television

To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the undersigned men and women of Australia believe in a Christian way of life; and that no democracy can thrive unless its citizens are responsible and law abiding.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will see that the powerful communicator, television, is used to buildin the nation those qualities of character which make a democracy work - integrity, teamwork and a sense of purpose by serving, and that television be used to bring faith in God to the heart of the family and national life.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Luchetti and Mr Lucock.

Petitions received.

Second International Airport for Sydney

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth:

That jet aircraft operations have a detrimental effect by way of air and noise pollution on the environment and therefore on the lives of citizens living in the general area. That in close proximity to the proposed Galston airport site are the Berowra Reserves, the Hallstrom Nature Reserve and the Muogamurra Sanctuary, and areas of Sydney’s Green Belt, which would be so affected and should be preserved for future generations.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House take appropriate steps to ensure that the Government does not proceed with the proposal to site the second international airport for Sydney in the Galston area or surrounding north-western suburbs of Sydney.

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

Petition received.

Kangaroos

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

Thatindiscriminate slaughtering of the kangaroo species in Australia and the unnecessary cruelties to which these animals have been subjected, has disgusted Australian citizen and many people overseas. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives urge the Australian Government to take immediate and appropriate action to ensure that wherever it is necessary for kangaroos to be killed or trapped, this be done by specially qualified and licensed governmental officers of the conservation departments, and that poisoning of all native fauna be prohibited.

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

Petition received.

Petrol Prices

To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble Petitioners of Queanbeyan being Service Station Proprietors, respectfully showeth:

  1. That petrol prices have been fixed by the Government in Canberra without regard to the situation so far as retail petrol prices are concerned in Queanbeyan.
  2. That such fixing of petrol prices within

Canberra by the Government has meant that petrol retailers in Queanbeyan cannot compete on just and equal terms with Canberra retailers.

  1. This has directly resulted in loss of income and hardship to Queanbeyan petrol retailers notwith standing the fact that both Queanbeyan and Canberra petrol retailers are all supplied from the same bulk depots.
  2. That it is erroneous and impractical for the Government to say that the correction of this discrimination within and distortion of the market is a matter for the wholesale petrol suppliers to rectify.
  3. Correction of the distortion must be undertaken by the Government as it has directly resulted from the Government’s intervention into the free market and ought reasonably to have been foreseen by the Government.

Your petitionerstherefore humbly pray that the Government take urgent steps to remove the distortion from the market so as to enable Queanbeyan petrol retailers to compete on just and equal terms with Canberra petrol retailers.

And your Petitioners as in duty will ever pray. by Mr Whan.

Petition received.

Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that your petitioners oppose the proposed reduction of Commonwealth per capita grants to independent schools on the following grounds:

  1. Your petitioners support the principle that all children are entitled to a basic per capita share of government moneys spent on education but at a time of rising costs this should mean increased rather than reduced government aid to children attending independent schools.
  2. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education which shall be given to their children. This freedom of choice is guaranteed to parents under the Declaration of Human Rights.
  3. Curtailment of the said grants will create divisions in the community by confining independent schools to the very wealthy.
  4. Some independent schools of high educational standards will undoubtedly be forced to close if the present proposals are carried out with the result that the children involved will be forced into the already overtaxed State school system, with a resulting loweringin standards.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should acknowledge the right of every Australian child to equal per capita grants of government money spent on education.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson.

Petition received.

page 1718

MINISTERIAL CHANGES AND ARRANGEMENTS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs · Werriwa · ALP

-I inform the House of the following ministerial changes.

The new Ministers were sworn by His Excellency The Governor-General earlier today. Senator the Honourable J. L. Cavanagh has been appointed Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The honourable Gordon Bryant has been appointed Minister for the Capital Territory. The honourable Les Johnson has been appointed Minister for Works. The honourable Kep Enderby has been appointed Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply.

I inform the House also of the following additional ministerial changes not yet in effect but intended to be given effect in the near future. The honourable Rex Patterson, who is at present representing the Australian Government at the International Sugar Agreement Conference and who will return to Australia during next week, will after his return be sworn as Minister for the Northern Territory. Also, after my visit to Japan where I am to represent the Government as Minister for Foreign Affairs as well as Prime Minister, and my visit to China, Senator Willesee, who is himself now abroad representing Australia at the United Nations General Assembly and other international meetings, will be sworn as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The new arrangements will produce a more even and better balanced distribution of the workload within the Cabinet. In particular, some portfolios having common interests will be brought together under one Minister and the ultimate amalgamation of the departments concerned thus facilitated. I have already in one such instance - the Department of Supply - foreshadowed in the House a proposal for its amalgamation with another department. The re-arrangement will also reduce the heavy burdens previously falling to some senior Ministers. As honourable members will be aware, the Minister for Repatriation, Senator Bishop, is ill. During his absence the Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Bryant, is acting Minister for Repatriation. Mr Bryant is also representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in this House.

page 1719

MOTION OF CENSURE

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Whitlam) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent motion No.1 General Business being proceeded with forthwith.

page 1719

MINISTER FOR MINERALS AND ENERGY

Motion of Censure

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I move:

That this House censures the Minister for Minerals and Energy for his gross abuse of power in relation to the New South Wales power dispute.

This censure motion stands on 3 grounds: The misleading of this Parliament by the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) - and it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that he misled this Parliament deliberately - the Minister’s abuse of authority, and the attempts of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to cover tracks in relation to the dispute. It is necessary to recall that the power dispute in New South Wales began in about 1971 when the 35-hour week case first went to the State Industrial Commission. Over 20 unions were involved. A 35-Hour Week Committee was established. It was formed by the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council but a Mr Jack Syme claims to control 30 of the 50 members of the 35-Hour Week Committee. That claim appeared in the ‘Australian’ in June of this year. I am also advised that Mr Syme is a member of the Communist Party of Australia, and that has not been denied. The Industrial Commission rejected the claim for a 35-hour week because there was no cause for it. As a result there was reduced output and there were restrictions causing difficulty in New South Wales.

The matter was referred, for a second time, to the Industrial Commission on revised terms. A few days ago the Commission again said that there was no cause for a 35-hour week in that industry, and the State Government has upheld that decision. But there were significant power cuts throughout New South Wales a few days before the actual report of the Commission came down. This was industrial blackmail, it was in breach of an agreement, and the shortages of power, the cuts and the hardship have continued ever since. The strike is partly over hours, but it was stimulated by this Government’s statements concerning a 35-hour week for the Commonwealth Public Service, although I cannot understand what justice there is in saying, as the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) says: ‘You can have a 35-hour week if you are in a capitalintensive industry, but you must have a 40-hour week in a labour-intensive industry’. But this strike is also over the control of the power generation equipment in New South Wales, and Ron Ross, secretary of the 35-Hour Week Committee has made that claim in the Communist Tribune’ of 28 August.

It is against this background of striking against 2 decisions of the Industrial Commission or striking for worker control of the power generation equipment in New South Wales that we need to examine the role of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. On 26 September the Minister was charged with secretly directing the Snowy Mountains Council to produce power only in accordance with the dictates of the 35-Hour Week Committee. I have given the origins of that Committee, and that directive quite plainly gave control of the Snowy Mountains Tumut operating station to the 35-Hour Week Committee and took it out of the control of the Snowy Mountains Council. The Minister was charged with supporting the striking power unions against the Industrial Commission of New South Wales, against the Government of New South Wales and against the people of New South Wales. These charges have been proved by the letter that the Minister wrote to Mr Reiher, Deputy Chairman of the Snowy Mountains Council, on 24 September. I shall again read the letter that the Minister wrote:

I write to confirm the direction I conveyed to you by telephone at about 4 p.m. yesterday to the effect that the Snowy Mountains Council should operate the permanent works of the Authority in a manner that does not run counter to the intentions of the 35-Hour Week Committee unless, in so doing, the personnel associated with the Snowy Mountains Scheme, and/or the equipment and permanent works of the Authority, are endangered.

The letter was signed by the Minister for Minerals and Energy and written on his own notepaper. He has not denied that he gave that direction. He has not denied that he gave over the control of the Snowy Mountains power stations and the Tumut system to the 35-Hour Week Committee. But he tried to hide it until it became quite plain that he could hide it no longer.

On 26 September, in answering the initial charges, the Minister said that he had never at any time been approached by any representative of the trade unions in this matter. This was subsequently proved to be false. He said that he had been telephoned by one of the engineers from the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority and told that the Blowering was overflowing. This was subsequently proved not to be the main substance of the telephone conversation he had with Mr Douglas, the Chief Operational Engineer. In that first debate it was hard for this House to understand why the Minister should say that he had told the engineer to speak to the trade unions because that was the first mention of the trade unions in this matter.

The Minister tried to say that all his actions and everything that had been done had been done because of concern with flooding. That was false, as the letter and the directive have shown. The reply was but designed to show that the flooding alone was the cause of the Minister’s action. That was misleading. I believe that it could only have been deliberately misleading. For example, he said that each day water is spilling over the Blowering which could irrigate 44,000 acres. The Blowering has filled in substance on 9 or 10 days alone. That is certainly not every day. In the first debate there was no mention of the industrial demands which the Minister mentioned on a later occasion. There was no mention of the directive and the substance of the directive that the Minister had given to the Snowy Mountains Council. He deliberately led the Parliament down a false path.

On 27 September, during question time, some of the truth was revealed. It became clear that Mr Douglas, the Snowy Mountains engineer, had rung because of industrial requests and not really because of flooding. The Snowy Mountains Council is competent. It does not need the Minister’s help over a routine matter like the control of flooding and spills from Blowering. Mr Douglas was in fact representing the views of unions to the Minister. Therefore the Minister’s statement that he had never been approached by the unions was a false claim. The suggestion that he was rung because of flooding was false. He was rung because of industrial demands - because of an unusual circumstance which took the matter out of the normal run of the operations of the Snowy Mountains Council.

On 27 September this House understood for the first time that the emergency meeting of the Snowy Mountains Council held on Sunday, 23 September, was held because of industrial union demands. The Council reacted in the proper way and made a decision to produce normal power. That, of course, led to the directive from the Minister which the Minister sought to keep secret. On 27 September the Minister said that irrespective of the decisions of the Council he would do what he wanted.

That was the first indication from him that there might have been some directive to the Council. He was still misleading the House and not coming clean with what he had in fact done. He said, in answer to questions later, that the union demands did not matter. But the directive only mentioned union demands. It mentioned nothing about flooding, for flooding again was a routine matter with which the Council was fully competent to deal, not needing the interference of the Minister.

I am advised that this directive is the first directive ever to have been made in these terms by any Minister to the Snowy Mountains Council. It is an abuse of power and a misleading of this House which should be condemned. In fact, the Minister said in the House on 27 September that the unions’ demands were reasonable. He went on to say that the professional engineers were not going to be used as agents provocateurs. Again, this statement revealed part of the truth for the first time. If the Minister had not issued this directive and if the Snowy Mountains Council had operated as it ought to have operated and then, as a result, there was a strike and possible stand-downs in the Snowy MountainsTumut power stations, professional engineers from the Snowy Mountains Authority or from New South Wales could have kept the system going. The Minister knew this and he knew quite well that this would weaken the 35-Hour Week Committee in NSW. Therefore, he was determined to see that it did not happen.

So during question time on 27 September we learned for the first time of the union demands that had been conveyed to the Minister some days before by Mr Douglas and we learned that the Minister would do what he wanted irrespective of the decision of the Snowy Mountains Council. That implied that there had been a directive, although the Minister did not say it. Also, we learned that the Minister thought the unions’ demands were reasonable. And that, if the unions were not to operate the power stations, professional engineers would. The Minister would not have a bar of it. That was the explanation he gave during the debate on a matter of public importance on 26 September. It was thin, false and misleading. He tried to suggest to the House that flooding was the only cause of what the Minister had done. But a reading of the directive of 27 September proved that what the Minister had said was false and proved that the directive had been given because of the union demands and not because of flooding. Later, during the adjournment debate that night, the Minister virtually admitted it.

At this moment, the Blowering Reservoir is not flooding or spilling. I am advised that there is no evidence of flooding below the dam. The Minister for Immigration, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby), sent a telegram to his constituents indicating his weakness. He urged them to send telegrams to the Minister for Minerals and Energy complaining about what was happening. The Minister for Immigration, who is a member of Cabinet, revealed by that action his importance in this place. The Minister for Minerals and Energy would listen to him only if he received a few hundred - perhaps a few thousand - telegrams from the constituents of the Minister for Immigration but would not listen to the Minister speaking alone and on his own account, I would like to know how many telegrams were sent out of the Minister’s office and paid for at Government expense in regard to this operation. In any case, I have also been advised by the Snowy Mountains Authority that there is plenty of water for the full entitlement of all the irrigators during the 1973-74 season and that the water stands in the reservoir in a comparable position to previous years. The position is much better than some earlier years - for example, 1968 and 1969.

However, that situation - the supply of water, the protection of irrigators, the control of flooding - is well within the understanding, competence and control of the Snowy Mountains Council without this Minister’s interference. There is no need for him to intervene because of flooding. That is routine. But giving in to the demands made by the power unions is not routine. A Minister has to give in to them to make sure that the strike against the New South Wales Government and people is more effective than it might otherwise have been. This is an abuse of power. It is an act undertaken secretly on the side of the power unions against industrial law, the Industrial Commission and the New South Wales Government, because it is a Liberal-Country Party Government. But more particularly, it is an act against the people of New South Wales who are being hurt grievously.

The Minister is an agent of the 35-Hour Week Committee within the Cabinet itself. He is an agent of the committee led by Mr Jack Syme of the Communist Party of Australia, a committee which he claims to control. He has said that publicly. The directive was an abdication of authority because it gave control of the Snowy Mountains Authority to the power unions. The Minister who thinks this and the hardship involved in New South Wales are amusing matters should well know of the consequences of his decision. He stands directly responsible for it.

The role of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in this matter is well worth mentioning. Firstly, he said that the Commonwealth had no right to intervene. He said this at a Press conference on 25 September after the Minister for Minerals and Energy had intervened. The record stands for anyone to see. The Minister had intervened already. Either there had been no communication with the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister had connived at the action of the Minister for Minerals and Energy in misleading the House. On 4 October the Prime Minister offered a Federal judge to New South Wales as a smokescreen to try to overcome this problem. In clarification a further telegram was sent to the Premier of New South Wales by the Prime Minister which indicated the importance, the harmful effects, and the effects on inflation but then went on to say: there can be no suggestion that the Federal Judge would review the decision of the State Government or the State Commission.

In other words the Prime Minister in his second telegram on this subject to the Premier of New South Wales was supporting the decision of New South Wales and the decision of the State Industrial Commission. Therefore, what purpose could there be in any federal judge being involved in this matter except to create a smoke screen over the activities of the Minister for Minerals and Energy whose activities, whose directive and whose misleading of this House the Prime Minister learned about after the event? Why else would he have made that offer?

There are other matters. There have been other communications between the State Government and this Government. Yesterday morning the bans were reimposed on the Tumut stations. The bans are still imposed on the Tumut power stations as a directive of the 35-Hour Week Committee. The production of those power stations yesterday morning and this morning is running at 200 megawatts, a mere fraction of the capacity of the system and adding greatly to the difficulties in New South Wales. The Premier in a letter yesterday to the Prime Minister, which has not yet been answered, said that in an endeavour to eliminate serious effects to industrial production caused by unscheduled and widespread disruption of electricity supply to factories and to avoid blackouts to domestic users and some important essential services such as smaller hospital and convalescent homes, the New South Wales Government has introduced power rationing. He said that, however, power stations had arbitrarily reduced output yesterday morning below that being supplied over the weekend and operators of the Tumut power stations also restricted their output in an endeavour to cause load shedding and to thwart the Government’s efforts to maintain orderly supply arrangements. The Premier was strongly urging the Prime Minister personally to act in this matter and as a matter of urgency to take action to cause the Prime Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Minerals and Energy, to withdraw his directive issued on 23 September and put in writing on 24 September requiring the Snowy Mountains Council to act in conformity with the wishes and dictates of the power unions.

If the Prime Minister has any credibility in this matter, if he seriously wishes to overcome this strike he should see that the Minister for Minerals and Energy removes his directive, which is running counter to industrial law and counter to the interests and concern of the people of New South Wales. That is one action that the Prime Minister, who is reported to have wanted to give the Minister for Minerals and Energy another job but the Minister refused, in this particular instance will not take because he cannot take it as he has not the power or the authority to act upon it in that way. Again, if the Prime Minister wanted to be concerned about solving industrial disputes that are causing grievous harm he could do something about the radio technicians strike in New South Wales which has shut Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and is running the risk of shutting other airports. That industrial dispute is on his desk. It is a Commonwealth Public Service matter. Between 60 and 90 radio technicians have been involved. There are disciplinary powers which the Public Service Board would not use without the approval of the Prime Minister of the Government. Those powers have not been used and it looks as if Sydney airport will be closed indefinitely. If the Goverment were not prepared to use those powers or if the strike continued there would certainly be technicians-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member to confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair It is all right to mention that matter in passing but it is not in order for the honourable member to debate the question.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

- Mr Speaker, I am mentioning in passing that there is a very serious industrial dispute on the Prime Minister’s own desk. If he wishes to act to solve it he has the power to do so. He has the power to use Royal Australian Air Force or Royal Australian Navy technicians to get the aerodrome operating. This is a measure of the lack of his bona fides in relation to the power dispute. It means that all he is doing is trying to cover the activities of the Minister for Minerals and Energy, the directive that that Minister has provided and the misleading of this House which has been perpetrated by that Minister in a shameful way. The Prime Minister could demonstrate his good faith only by withdrawal of the directive. There is no other way in which he could do so. Instead, he tries to create a diversion. The Minister stands condemned for a secret abuse of power and for misleading this House - that has been proved from his own mouth and from his own pen - and the Prime Minister stands condemned for protecting him. I can think of only one other abuse of power of an equivalent kind which is just as bad. It occurred a fair way back in an earlier period when the Labor Party was in power. A Commonwealth Railways Commissioner was threatened in. relation to his employment by 2 Ministers of the Commonwealth unless he gave evidence before a court strictly in conformity with the case put by the Commonwealth. The judge in that case, which was heard in 1944, had this to say:

I learn from the Commonwealth Crown Law authorities that the case is listed for hearing this month and that application for certain supoenas has been taken out in the name of the plaintiff. It is understood that one will be served on Mr Gahan.

He was the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner. When referring to a telegram which was sent by a Minister to Mr Gahan, the judge quoted the following from the letter mentioned in the telegram:

It would be unfortunate if Mr Gahan, who, I understand desires his reappointment to be considered by Cabinet, were to give evidence not completely in accord with the case presented by the Commonwealth.

That was blackmail of an individual. This is blackmail of a State. (Extension off time granted) I thank the House for granting me an extension of time but I will take only a moment longer. That was blackmail of an individual by Ministers of a former Labor Government. This present instance is blackmail of a State and tens of thousands of ordinary workers, housewives, women and children, people in hospitals, people in convalescent homes, by the power unions which will not accept the arbitrator’s verdict, the umpire’s verdict. Those power unions have been given material and moral support by the Minister for Minerals and Energy - support which is condoned and supported by the Prime Minister. These activities are contemptible. The Minister will be judged, if not by the numbers in this House then by the people outside, and by people who will read the record on a later occasion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is the motion seconded?

Mir Anthony - Yes. I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · Cunningham · ALP

– Mr Speaker, so much for the melodrama; now for the facts. These might have been made available on the last evening on which the Parliament sat had it not been for the turbulence and behaviour of the Opposition which resulted in the sitting of the House being abruptly terminated. (Opposition members interjecting) -

Mr CONNOR:

– Mr Speaker, members of the Opposition are interjecting. The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser), was heard in silence and I expect the same courtesy to be extended to me.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I intend to see that the Minister is heard in silence.

Mr CONNOR:

– Having bitterly opposed the Chifley Government’s Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme and having boycotted its inauguration, it is consistent for the Opposition to again abuse that undertaking for political purposes. Power politics are being played in New South Wales by a Liberal Government in the present power dispute. It is a sure-fire vote winner for the Askin Government to pull a major industrial upheaval correctly timed for the coming State election based on these emotional issues. The present target date is 17 November. Not to be outdone, the Opposition has sought to involve this Government in the dispute. As a bonus, of course, the honourable member for Wannon seeks to big note himself against his rivals, the honourable members for Flinders (Mr Lynch), Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and Hotham (Mr Chipp), who are prepared to knife one another in turn, and then their present incompetent leader. I reject with contempt the censure motion as despicable and emanating from a Party which would stop at nothing and stoop to anything to achieve its political objectives.

The impasse in Snowy power generation which I forecast at our last sitting week has now arrived. The New South Wales Government is in a desperate position, having exhausted 80 per cent of its yearly allocation of Snowy Mountains waters for electricity generation in 5 months, with only 20 per cent remaining to meet its requirements during peak demands in the remainder of the planning year, namely to 30 April 1974.

The Electricity Commission of New South Wales advised at 1700 hours on Friday, 28 September, that it would be limiting its draw on the Snowy to conserve water so that its further requirements could stay within the limits of its yearly allocation, even though this might lead to load shedding. The 35-Hour Week Committee controls were lifted on 29 September 1973. The 200 megawatt control was renewed yesterday. The intensification of the New South Wales blackouts is a direct result of the New South Wales 35-Hour Week Committee dispute, as lamely admitted by Fuel and Power Minister Fife. The Askin Government has in no case taken disciplinary action against State Electricity Commission employees, not one of whom is on strike and none of whom have been suspended. Instead it has to date carefully avoided full confrontation with these men knowing that a major industrial dispute would cripple New South Wales. The time to pull it, I repeat, has not yet arrived. Nevertheless, it has been quite prepared through its representatives on the Snowy Mountains Council to provoke such an industrial flare-up amongst its State Electricity Commission employees who work on the Snowy Mountains hydro-power stations.

The honourable member for Wannon would, of course, be delighted if I had not chosen the wise and responsible course. I was- not prepared to place the Snowy Mountains power system in a worse situation than that operated by Premier Askin. The Opposition asked for the tabling of all documents relevant to this issue. I gladly table them, fo its embarrassment, and not singly to be quoted out of context, as occurred last Thursday week, tout in proper association. The first document is an address by Mr D. W. Douglas, Operations Engineer of the Snowy Mountains Council, given to the New South Wales Electricity Commission engineers at Carlingford, Sydney. I quote:

The purpose of the Snowy Mountains scheme is to collect, regulate and use the waters of the southwardflowing Snowy River plus other streams in the Snowy Mountains to serve two prime objectives. The first is to augment the flow of the westward-flowing Murray and Mumimbidgee Rivers to permit largescale expansion of primary production by irrigation of the dry fertile plains of the Murray and Mumimbidgee valleys. The second is to generate large quantities of peak load power for New South Wales, Victoria and the A.C.T.

It might be interesting in passing to note that although this is merely an off-peak system, it has been used as a base load system for some months by the New South Wales Electricity Commission. That Commission and the Premier and Government of that State were not prepared to face up to the industrial realities. I now table -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What about your 35-hour week letter?

Mr CONNOR:

– May I have some silence?

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr CONNOR:

– I now table the draft provisional minutes of the Snowy Mountains Council meeting held on 14 August last which noted a report from Operations Engineer Douglas that power generation at the then current high rate beyond September could cause flooding in the lower Tumut River and that the New South Wales and Victorian Electricity Commissions’ planned entitlements of generating water would be exceeded. The New South Wales representative agreed that, to avoid flooding, pre-releases from Blowering reservoir would need to commence within a week. The functions of Blowering reservoir are well known. It is owned and operated by the New South Wales Government. Its planned function is to trap all water discharged from power generation during the winter and to store that water for release during the warmer months to the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. Normally at this early stage it is filled only to about 85 per cent of its capacity. In the 10 days from 22 September to 2 October 24,000 acre feet of water were lost - sufficient to irrigate an area large enough to feed 400,000 people.

On 28 August operations engineer Douglas, with growing alarm, called together the Operations Engineers Committee, comprising the operations engineers from the New South Wales and Victorian electricity commissions. The water liaison officers of the New South Wales and Victorian irrigation commissions also attended. 1 now table Mr Douglas’s notes of that meeting and also a letter dated 5 September sent by the Secretary, Mr Gleeson, at the direction of the Chairman of the Council to all its members, requiring their comments on Mr Douglas’s notes as a matter of urgency. It is clear from these notes that the New South Wales generation requirements from the Snowy scheme, during September were likely to be such as to cause flooding in the lower Tumut. The notes also show that if power generation were restricted to the extent necessary to avoid flooding the Snowy scheme could not meet demands and load shedding could become necessary in New South Wales.

On 18 September Mr Douglas sent a teleprinter message to the Secretary of the Council, Mr Gleeson, advising him that Blowering reservoir was at spillage point and that the system control engineer from the New South Wales Electricity Commission had confirmed that the alternative to meeting generation schedules which at that date would cause spillage at Blowering reservoir was to shed load. He further advised the Snowy Mountains Coucil that until it had considered the situation the Operations Engineers Committee itself had decided to adopt some policy. The policy was:

Provided the only alternative to generation from the Tumut system which will induce spill from Blowering is load shedding, generation from the Tumut system will be such as to endeavour to restrict the release. . . .

I table the text of that teleprinter message. On Friday, 21 September, a meeting of the Snowy Mountains Council was convened for Tuesday, 25 September. I table the text of that teleprinter message. In the event, the date of this meeting was altered to the morning of 26 September. I table the text of the further notice.

On Saturday, 22 September, Blowering Dam commenced to overflow, and Mr Douglas received advice that the operators of the Tumut stations intended to limit generation from those stations in accordance with determinations by the 35-Hour Week Committee. Mr Douglas telephoned me at Wollongong at midday on Saturday, 22 September. This was my first knowledge of the situation. At no time and at no stage during the whole of this situation have I been approached by the trade unions or the 35- Hour Week Committee to implement their policy. I requested Mr Douglas to telephone the leaders of the 35-Hour Week Committee in Sydney, so that he could explain to them the overall situation and the difficulties of operating a complex system which required maximum flexibility and control, and to report to me on the following day as to the results of his discussion. On Saturday night, 22 September a request not to operate the Tumut No 3 power station was acceded to. I did not authorise that, but I can understand the growing concern of Mr Douglas which impelled him to act as he did.

On Sunday morning, 23 September, I received a telephone message from Mr Hunter, a departmental officer and a deputy member of the Council, who told me of further union demands. I instructed him to get the Federal officers together for me to confer with them at Parliament House on late Sunday afternoon. I drove to Canberra for that purpose. Shortly after my arrival at Parliament House I was telephoned by Mr Reiner, Deputy Chairman of the Snowy Mountains Council and Australian Director-General of Works, who informed me that he had been in consultation by telephone with the State representatives on the Snowy Mountains Council earlier that day. I table his ‘Note for File’ of 28 September 1973 which gives the exact details of what happened on that Sunday prior to his telephone message to me. I quote:

Industrial Action by E.CNJS.W. Hydro Operators of the Tumut Power Station

The attached resolutions of the EC.N.S.W. hydro operators of the Tumut power stations of the Snowy

Mountains Scheme were brought to my notice by the Operations Engineer of the Snowy Mountains Council by telephone during Saturday 22 September 1973. At 6 p.m. on Saturday, 22 September, demand was placed on the Operations Engineer by the Co-ordinator of the New South Wales 35-hour Week Committee through nominated representatives in the Tumut power stations, not to operate Tumut 3 power station from 6 p.m. Saturday, 22 September, to midnight the same day.

This demand and a subsequent demand not to operate Tumut 3 until 4 p.m. Sunday, 23 September, were acceded to. The officers controlling power supply from the Snowy were not advised by the E.C.N.S.W. of any adverse effect on their system imposed by the Snowy scheme during this period.

On Sunday morning, 23 September 1973, a further demand was placed on the Operations Engineer to limit power generation from the combined Tumut nations to 200 MW from 12.37 p.m. on 23 September 1973 until 6 a.m. on Monday, 24 September 1973. New South Wales power requirements from the Snowy were met within this limit of generation from the Tumut Stations during the afternoon of Sunday 23 September 1973.

However, as this limitation was expected to lead to load shedding in New South Wales during the evening peak … I sought the views of members of the Snowy Mountains Council as to whether in the circumstances, E.C.N.S.W. hydro operators who refused to follow the directions of the Snowy Mountains Council’s Operations Engineer, should in their view be stood down and replaced by E.C.N..S.W. engineers who had volunteered to man the stations and who had been moved to the Tumut area by the - (Extension of tune granted) I take it, Mr Speaker, that I will have the same period of time as was granted to the Opposition spokesman on this matter.

Mr Viner:

– You can have all day.

Mr CONNOR:

– He happened to have a further advantage of 5 minutes. Mr Reiher’s minute continues:

It was impracticable to call a formal meeting of the Council at such short notice and with the Snowy Mountains Authority member of Council, Mr P. G. Collins and with Mr Hunter, … I sought the views of other Council members in turn by telephone . . .

The consensus of view of the Council and in particular of the New South Wales and Victorian State Government members of the Council, was that E.C.N.S.W. hydro operators in the Tumut power stations of the Snowy Mountains Scheme who were not prepared to follow the directions of the Operations Engineer of the Council, should be stood down, and that the operations tasks should be performed by alternative manning forces, provided by the E.C.N.S.W.

S. Reiher Deputy Chairman. 28 September 1973

You will note, Mr Speaker, the role played by the representatives of the New South Wales and Victorian State governments who were members of the Council. They were quite prepared to precipitate an industrial stoppage on the Snowy Mountains scheme and to introduce professional engineers to replace those men who ceased duties - action which the New South Wales State Government was not prepared to take in New South Wales. I told Mr Reiher I was not prepared to accept the consensus of view of the Council which would place the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme in a worse position than that of the New South Wales power stations. Two union demands had been met before I had any knowledge of them. Later that afternoon I met at Parliament House with Messrs Reiher. Douglas and Collins. Also present were Messrs Townsend and Hunter of my Department. Refusal to comply with the request of the operators would have resulted in a complete stoppage of generation and the introduction of strike-breaking engineers and this action could have provoked a general upheaval among the Snowy Mountains Authority’s own employees.

During the course of my discussion with my officers I said we were faced with 2 stark situations: Further wastage of- irrigation water through the Blowering and the depletion of Lake Eucumbene which was already half empty, and also with a general industrial upheaval. We would have the worst of both worlds. I said that in the circumstances it would be preferable to conform to the requirements of the 35-hour Week Committee which would at least provide some relief to the system rather than to accept the decisions of the New South Wales and Victorian representatives on the Council which would have led to an even worse situation. I was concerned to ensure that only the hydro-electric plant operators normally employed on the stations be allowed on the premises and that the safety of both men and plant should be ensured. I also considered it entirely unacceptable that the Snowy undertaking should be placed in a worse situation than that which operated in stations in New South Wales and be discriminated against by any outside body or persons. I specially stressed that management and control of the stations was to remain in the hands of the Council. It was pointed out to me that because of the views of the New South Wales and Victorian Council members expressed in telephone conversations earlier that day it would be necessary for me to issue a ministerial directive in writing. I instructed Mr Reiher that as no typist was available, he should prepare an appropriate directive and on the following day it was sent to me by courier from my Department. I table a copy of that letter.

Mr Hunt:

– What was the date?

Mr CONNOR:

– It is dated Monday, 24 September. My decision was an honest and responsible one. Only one formal advice to the Snowy Mountains Council control centre from the Electricity Commission of New South Wales that shedding was to occur due to failure of the Snowy to meet its demands was received. That was at 1703 hours on Sunday, 23 September. I also asked to be provided with daily reports of both the restricted power outputs and their effect on the water conservation system. I am particularly concerned about the storage position of Lake Eucumbene which is at present 54 per cent full. Its full capacity is 3.9 million acre feet; it contains 7 times as much water as Sydney Harbour. This is the second lowest level of Lake Eucumbene since the completion of the total system. It was at its lowest on 31 August, a month earlier, at 51 per cent. Normally it is partly replenished by the melting of snow. The Spencer’s Creek readings show that at the end of September 1973 there was 21 inches of snow at that point containing a water yield of 10 inches. The annual average depth of snow at this time at Spencer’s Creek is 67 inches, containing 30 inches of water. This is equivalent to a drop in rainfall of 20 inches for the year. Even if the whole of the water from the melting snow flows into Lake Eucumbene it will add100,000 acre feet less to its storage than the average.

On 26 September - the Wednesday - the Snowy Mountains Council met in Canberra. I table a copy of its draft provisional minutes. The Tumut system had reached a critical situation resulting from the filling of the Blowering reservoir by consistently high energy demands from the Electricity Commission of New South Wales over the past several months. The position had been reached where water was spilling from the Blowering reservoir and flow limitations of the lower Tumut River were becoming a serious constraint on the flexibility of the scheme and its capacity to meet further energy demands. The operational guidelines which are contained in the draft provisional demands were strictly adhered to. I also refer honourable members to a minute of the Deputy Chairman on 26 September which was tabled by me in Parliament on 27 September. It was conveniently ignored by the Opposition. I especially refer honourable members to the paragraph which says:

Irrespective of the industrial action directed at the Tumut power stations of the Snowy Mountains scheme by the hydro plant operators of the Electricity Commission of New South Wales during the past several days, responsible management of water at Blowering Reservoir required curtailment of energy production from the Tumut system. At its meeting today, the Council set down operational guidelines which will have the effect of curtailing power production. . . .

I also table for the information of honourable members a copy of a Press statement by Mr Macbean of the 35-hour Week Committee in which he said:

At no time have I or any other members of the 35-hour week committee asked Mr Connor to reduce regular output of the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric system.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Minerals and Energy from concluding his speech.

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– I thank the House. I continue Mr Macbean’s statement:

The New South Wales Liberal Government has made it clear that it will not use professional engineers to take over jobs of men engaged in industrial action, nor has it suspended employees for operating at reduced loads. The decision not to use employees of the Snowy Authority to take over operations is precisely in line with the way the Askin Government has been managing the dispute in New South Wales. To attack Mr Connor the way Messrs Fraser and Anthony have is ridiculous, Mr Connor has no more assisted the unions in the management of their campaign than has the New South Wales Premier, SirRobert Askin . . .

The only metropolitan journal in New South Wales and Victoria which published the full text of Mr Macbean’s statement was ‘The Australian.’ The other journals conveniently omitted the major references which I have just quoted.

I also express my contempt - I repeat, my contempt - for the attack made by the honourable member for Wannon on Mr Reiher following the publication of an interview, in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 29

September, in which a representative of that paper telephoned him for comment and in which he was reported as saying:

Mr Connor made a responsible decision. If >Snowy had been the subject of a full scale industrial dispute, the whole system could have been jeopardised . .

On the following day, the honourable member for Wannon again burst forth in the Press, suggesting that I had asked Mr Reiher to make a public statement. I certainly did not do so, nor did I have any knowledge of the newspaper article until it was drawn to my attention by my staff. The honourable member for Wannon, of course, would not spoil a good story for the matter of a few facts. If he has any decency he will apologise unreservedly to a competent and responsible senior public servant who cannot and will not involve himself in public political controversy. The present situation is exactly as I anticipated. New South Wales, with only 20 per cent of its water generating power quota left, has to conserve it for peak hour production. My actions have been in the best interests of the proper and efficient operation of Australia’s greatest engineering feat - a Labor dream which became a reality.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– Mr Speaker, I second the motion moved by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that the House censure the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) because he has abused his power in relation to the New South Wales power dispute and has deceived the House in the information that has been provided to it. All the tabling of documents today, massive as they may be, will not clear up some of the misinformation, the misleading information, that he deliberately gave to this House.

I was unceremoniously removed from this chamber just before the sittings of the House were interrupted 10 days ago. But this action was the culmination of one week’s effort to try to obtain information from the Minister regarding his involvement with the Snowy Mountains Council in the New South Wales power strike. An attempt by the honourable member for Wannon to have a document tabled failed to reveal the information that the Minister had given a direction to the Snowy Mountains Council to conform with the wishes of the 35-Hour Week Committee. When we moved a procedural motion on Thursday 27

September the Minister did not respond. He ducked the issue. No papers were tabled then. Today we have had to use one of the most extreme measures to try to get the tabling of some documents. But I am afraid it is too late because it is quite obvious that this Minister has little respect for this Parliament. Today he has shown that there was complicity between the 35-Hour Week Committee and himself. He does not deny that he was involved with the trade unions. He has given in to this industrial power.

The motion now before the House is a very serious one. But it is not only members of this place who are concerned. The Melbourne Age’, which is more patient than most other newspapers, last week eventually came to the conclusion that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) must be wondering how much longer the Minister for Minerals and Energy can be safely left to rampage in the corridors of power. This is a question which every member of this House must ask himself today. It is certainly, as the ‘Age’ suggests, a question which the Prime Minister must ponder on very deeply. We have heard about a Cabinet reshuffle. Surely if there is anywhere there should be a reshuffle - not just a change of portfolio but a dismissal - it is in the case of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. The Australian people must ask themselves whether it is good enough for vital industries of this nation to be under the control of a Minister who is so out of control. The Minister’s fitness to continue to hold his portfolio must be seriously questioned.

Again, as the ‘Age’ says, no Minister has contributed so consistently and offensively to the decline in the Government’s international reputation, national confidence and public goodwill. It is perhaps not very serious when he throws things about in this House, or when he insults mining industry leaders, or when he makes childish and petulant remarks about the Press, or rips clocks off walls. These things, however undesirable, can perhaps be overlooked as the expression of a person’s own idiosyncracies. But when great and vital national industries, the national interest and the well-being of the Australian people are placed in jeopardy by a marauding, uncontrolled and apparently uncontrollable Minister, the time has come for some pretty serious thinking. Today we are looking closely at this Minister’s involvement in the

New South Wales power dispute and the administration of the Snowy Mountains Council. In doing so we must ask whether he has acted with the propriety that is expected of a Minister of the Crown. What we are concerned about is not only the abuse of this power by a Minister of the Crown; the overriding issue is the manner in which the Minister for Minerals and Energy has explained, or not explained, to this House his actions and decisions. The truthfulness of his explanations also is under challenge. I have come to the conclusion that the truth is not contained in the explanations given by the Minister here today. His explanations are not wholly untruthful but they are at least a real manipulation of the truth.

Let us look at the events leading up to the Minister’s intervention in the New South Wales power dispute, including some matters which have not been made public, and certainly they had not been made public by the Minister until today. The 5,000 employees of the New South Wales Electricity Commission recently renewed their application to the State Industrial Commission for a 35-hour week. Following rejection of this request by the Commission the 35-hour Week Committee of the New South Wales Labour Council resolved to reduce progressively the output of power stations, and in Sydney there were some blackouts on the night of 23 September. Speaking on television on the night of 23 September the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) said that he supported a 35-hour week for the power industry. The 35-hour Week Committee soon intensified its activities and severe power restrictions occurred in New South Wales. In the New South Wales Parliament on 3 October the New South Wales Minister for Power said that the Electricity Commission was drawing on supplies from the Snowy Mountains in a bid to minimise serious hardship throughout the State. New South Wales had used 80 per cent of its power entitlement from the Snowy up until the end of September. Meanwhile, industrial trouble had spread to the Snowy Mountains power stations. Mr Jeffrey of the 35-Hour Week Committee had gone there to organise industrial action. On 23 September there was a telephone discussion between the Deputy Chairman of the Snowy Mountains Council, Mr Reiher, and members of the Council concerning the operations of the scheme. Council members had been informed that the work force had decided to limit production from the scheme. The decision of the Council was to the effect that it would require the work force to operate the scheme in accordance with the Council’s requirements and that it would not accept a situation where the work force limited production to less than its requirements.

According to the Minister for Minerals and Energy, he was telephoned at 12.15 on the day before the Council’s decision - Saturday, 22 September - and was told by one of the engineers of the Snowy Mountains Authority that the Blowering Dam was overflowing, and was asked what should be done. According to the Minister, he told this engineer that he should point out the position to the unions concerned. The Minister came to Canberra the following day - Sunday, 23 September - to meet officers of the Authority and to establish what was the position. No doubt he would have been told about the industrial dispute, the demands of the 35-hour Week Committee and the decision of the Council, but we were told none of these facts last week. The next development was that at 4 p.m. on that day the Minister phoned the Deputy Chairman of the Council, Mr Reiher. te tell him that the Snowy Mountains Council should operate the permanent works of the Authority in a manner that did not run counter to the intentions of the 35-hour Week Committee. He followed this up with a confirmatory letter next day, a copy of which has been made public by the honourable member for Wannon. That was the only way we could get the information.

Those are the facts of the situation. Let us now see how they line up with what the Minister has told this House. As I said earlier, the Minister said that he was told that the Blowering Dam was overflowing. He went on to say in the House on 26 September that Blowering was full because of consistently high energy demands of the New South Wales Electricity Commission. He painted a graphic picture of the huge overflows from the Dam and talked about flooding. He related this to the fact that Lake Eucumbene was 50 per cent empty to keep up the supply of power and that if the overflow from the Blowering Dam continued there would a shortage of water for irrigation.

The explanation simply does not hold up. If it is not a deliberate untruth it is at least a distortion of the truth. Let us consider the facts one at a time. Lake Eucumbene is at present 54 per cent full, which is target level.

The level is purposely kept down so that the dam can cope with wet seasons. On a number of occasions - not two previous occasions as the Minister suggested - it has been as low as at present. The Minister is not correct. It has never been intended to keep the dam full. So the Minister’s use of this matter is exposed as phony.

Secondly, there is no cause for alarm about the overflow of Blowering. It overflowed only for a very brief period and did no harm. The rules adopted by the New South Wales Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission allow for a discharge from Blowering through the power station or irrigation valves at a rate of 3,000 cusecs. If flows occur over the spillway on Blowering the release through the power station or the irrigation valves is reduced accordingly. In a situation of some emergency there is scope for marginal change in these releases. Following a meeting of the Snowy Mountains Council on 26 September to consider this matter, arrangements were made for the total flow past Blowering to be raised to 3,100 cusecs. This increase does not create flood conditions along the Tumut River. The river level at the Tumut River pumping station was 4 feet 8 inches on 25 September and 5 feet on 5 October.

Thirdly, there has been no question that there will be inadequate water supplies for the Mumimbidgee Irrigation Area. Lake Victoria is full, the Hume Reservoir is full and the Menindee Lakes scheme is full. Blowering and Burrinjuck are full and Lake Eucumbene is at target level. With these water reserves, high rates of power generation could be maintained for 12 months or even for 2 years without concern over irrigation supplies. To put it bluntly, this whole tactic of scaremongering on irrigation supplies was used by the Minister, and supported in a most unscrupulous way by the Minister for Immigration, in an attempt to hide his real motive which was to support the blackmail tactics of the New South Wales trade unions. The real issue is that the documentary evidence shows that the Minister on the afternoon of 23 September told the Deputy Chairman of the Snowy Mountains Council to obey the demands of the people running the New South Wales power dispute. On that day the Deputy Chairman had been in telephone discussion with the members of the Council and they had decided to stand firm against the trade unions. The direction given by the Minister meant that the Council was overridden. More importantly, it also meant that in effect the 35-Hour Week Committee, with the connivance of the Minister, was running the operations of the Snowy Mountains scheme.

What the Minister said to this House on 26 September was completely irrelevant and completely misleading. This whole matter is now exposed for what it is - a direct and illegal intervention by the Minister in a State industrial matter. This is the unvarnished fact and the unclouded truth. It is clear that the Minister has completely misled the House in his explanation of his activities. He has hidden the truth. He is directly responsible for much of the hardship resulting from the power restrictions in New South Wales. He has interfered in a most unwarranted, distasteful and sordid manner in the administration of the New South Wales Government. The Minister secretly has used his authority to support worker control of the Snowy Mountains Council and has undermined established authority. He has encouraged worker-control lawlessness to force the introduction of a 35-hour week by blackmail tactics against the New South Wales Government and the people of New South Wales. He has acted contrary to the stated attitude of the Prime Minister who said that his Government had no right to become involved in the New South Wales power dispute. Yet the directive of the Minister still stands that the Council has to obey the working conditions set by the 35-Hour Week Committee.

The Minister has disgraced his high office and the propriety of this House by his evasiveness and his failure to reveal the full facts. (Extension of time granted). I thank the House. I will take only another minute. If the Government is to have any credibility, any self-respect, it has no option but to remove from office this Minister who has not treated this House with the dignity and the respect with which we believe he should have because of his failure to reveal all the facts. There has been a shameful disrespect of the authority and the proper place of this Parliament. If the Prime Minister at a time of a major ministerial reshuffle is to ignore the behaviour of this Minister, I believe that not only the Minister stands condemned but also the Government stands condemned for its attitude towards this 35-hour week strike and the Snowy Mountains power authority.

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · Riverina · ALP

– I rise to move the following amendment to the motion which is presently before the Parliament:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: this House congratulates the Minister for Minerals and Energy for his firmness and wisdom in the balanced and flexible management of the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme; condemns the Opposition for its blatant attempt to involve the Government in a major industrial dispute to which the New South Wales Liberal coalition Government is a party, and in which employees of the New South Wales Electricity Commission at the Tumut power stations covered by New South Wales industrial awards and under that Commission’s industrial discipline are involved; further condemns the Opposition for seeking to impose upon the national Government, in respect of State employees a course of industrial action which that Government is not prepared to take in any power station in New South Wales, knowing that it would result in a complete cessation of power generation.’

I move this amendment because in fact there has been a cynical-

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I remind the honourable member for Griffith that it is usual to ask for the call to raise a point of order, not to bang on the table to get it. The honourable member will behave.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Sir, 1 respectfully suggest that the amendment moved by the Minister for Immigration totally negates the meaning of the original motion and, therefore, is unacceptable. It is not a proper amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I rule that the amendment is not a direct negative of the motion; that it is relevant to the motion and is in order.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Mr Speaker, thank you very much. The Opposition has engaged in a cynical exercise this morning to involve the national Government and the national Parliament in a dispute between Sir Robert Askin and his own employees. It is nothing more nor less than that in the first instance, but it goes a little further. It is an attempt also to limit the actions of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) in his endeavour to safeguard the heritage and the assets of the nation. This is merely a smoke screen, the first of a series of them that we will see in this Parliament in the next few months.

I deal first of ali with the issue that has been raised in relation to the operation of the Snowy Mountains scheme as it affects irrigation and food supplies for the people in the major cities of the nation. I am talking about the Murray and Mumimbidgee Valleys. I deal with that issue first because the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made some reference to it. I would like to place on record the facts of the situation relating to water storages in the Snowy Mountains at this time. These are the facts of the situation as they have been established by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. The situation is that Lake Eucumbene is at present filled to half its capacity or, to put it in more precise terms, to 54 per cent of its capacity. At its full capacity of 3.9 million acre feet it contains 7 times as much water as Sydney Harbour. It is the key storage for the whole of the western areas which produce so much of this nation’s food supplies.

At the present time, according to the documentation of the Snowy Mountains Authority, Lake Eucumbene is at its second lowest level since the completion of the total system. I also draw attention to the fact that the Minister has pointed out - and this again is borne out by the Snowy Mountains Authority - that the lake was at its lowest on 31 August last - a month earlier - at 51 per cent. He also pointed out that normally it is replenished by snow falls. Spencer’s Creek readings show that at the end of September 1973 there were 21 inches of snow containing 10 inches of water. The annual average depth of snow at this time is 67 inches containing 30 inches of water. So this means that there has been an equivalent drop in rainfall of 20 inches. Yet the Opposition says that it is not a matter for concern that we should not be worried about this. I might say that I alerted every irrigation authority in the Murray-Murrumbidgee valley. I let every authority, every local government body know exactly what the position was. I said that I did not want to see the water supplies of the nation in jeopardy because of an industrial dispute between Sir Robert Askin and his employees. The Minister stood firm on that. He said: ‘We will not get involved in an industrial dispute; we will not extend it; we will not provoke it’. What the Opposition is trying to do is to involve this nation in a parochial dispute in New South Wales.

I am not surprised at the honourable member for Wannon. I was not surprised at all when he rose in his place on this particular tack. But it was with a sense of disappointment that I saw that the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) was prepared to play ducks and drakes with the countryside in order to score a political point. I was saddened by this. I think it was a poor effort. As a matter of fact, he also sent some telegrams to people in my electorate of Riverina, and I am glad that he did so. He said: ‘Do not be involved in an industrial dispute’. God bless him, that is right. Do you know what I told them? I said: ‘Send him a few telegrams, let him know, because I think it would be very good for the right honourable member for Richmond to be put on the right track now and then’.

All of this business about the role of the Snowy scheme has been blown up, in the words of the honourable member for Wannon, because the Minister for Minerals and Energy made a decision. I made a note when the honourable member for Wannon was talking. He said in effect: ‘You know, the great sin that this Minister committed was that he gave a directive, and it was the first directive that had ever been given to the Snowy Mountains Council; no Minister had ever given a directive previously’. God bless him, I hope that the Minister gives many more because 8 months ago - not last week or the week before - a deputation arrived from the MurrayMurrumbidgee valley. The people comprising the delegation were concerned about this water supply. They were concerned not only about the immediacy but also about the future and security. They came to put one simple case, which was: Would there be in fact a continuation of past policy whereby first priority was given to cheap power, or would there be a new priority for irrigation for food supplies?

I went to the Minister for Minerals and Energy and I put the view of the deputation, which was not a party political deputation; it comprised people from all political parties. They asked that there be a directive, and the Minister for Minerals and Energy said: ‘When it comes to a choice between cheap power and the food supplies of the nation, I will opt every time for the nation’s food supplies’. That was the first time it had been stated in 20 years. I was grateful for it and ‘I conveyed it at that time. I acknowledge it in the House today, and I am proud and happy to do so.

Mr Katter:

– We are sick of your one-eyed views.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Somebody in the Opposition said that I was one-eyed, but at least in one week’s time I will be normal but he will not. The decisions in relation to irrigation supplies were made 8 months ago. They were announced 8 months ago and they are on the record of 8 months ago. As far as the industrial dispute is concerned, of course there was no intention by the Minister for Minerals and Energy or this Government to be involved in an extension of an industrial dispute, which I might say is a disgrace to the State of New South Wales. I turn now to another matter because it is an associated matter in this context. A concerted attack has been made on the Minister for Minerals and Energy. It is not an attack because of the power industry or because of Sir Robert Askin and his worries with employees; it is an attack on the Minister because of his dedication to ensuring that in future the nation’s assets will not be prodigally made available to other interests outside Australia.

Mr Reynolds:

– Where are the millions of dollars for the Liberal Party coming from now?

Mr GRASSBY:

– Of course, the nation’s assets in minerals and fuel supplies exceed $400,000m, and wherever there is a honey pot there are a lot of bees.

Mr Fairbairn:

– What has this to do with the motion, Mr Speaker?

Mr GRASSBY:

– Everything. I suggest that this motion-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister will confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair and the amendment moved by him.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Mr Speaker, this has everything to do with the motion. I make passing reference, of course, in accordance with your instructions, as I always do. My point is that the attack on the Minister in this instance is a spurious attack. It does not go to the heart of the matter and has nothing whatsoever to do with the realities of the situation. As a matter of fact-

Mr James:

– It is a one-eyed attack.

Mr GRASSBY:

– That is right, but the members of the Opposition will not recover. The situation is that the Minister is under attack because of his dedication to the conservation of Australia’s resources and Australia’s heritage. That is the real reason for the attack and it is one of the reasons I rise in my place to support the Minister. If one examines the present situation one will find, as did the Labor Government when it came to office, that in Canberra, for example, there are 60 foreign lobbyists. Most of them have an interest in the Minister for Minerals and Energy. They are, I might say, totally sustained by outside funds. Some of them, of course, masquerade under the titles of Australian association of this, that or the other. They are here in effect, as foreign agents. If they were in Washington they would be required to be registered, but in Canberra they are not.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the Minister to confine his remarks to the motion and the amendment.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Thank, you, Mr Speaker. I was going to develop this point because I believe sincerely that the motion moved by the Opposition today has nothing whatsoever to do with the administration of the Snowy waters. I do not believe that the right honourable member for Richmond, for example, has any belief at all in the things he said. He was attempting to score political points and that is all. The reality of the situation is the attack on the Minister. He is in the hot seat because he is resisting the pressures to which I have referred. That is the real reason that he is under attack.

I have established that some of the most infamous of international interests have been able to set up in Australia. An example is the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation which was able, under the previous Government, to build up assets of $52m. This is an organisation which the Senate of the United States has described as being capable of dictating to foreign governments. It is trying to dictate to this Minister now.

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– What about the 35-hour week? Get to the heart of the matter.

Mr GRASSBY:

– A New South Wales member interjects on a New South Wales matter. He was once a member of the New South Wales Parliament and I suggest that he go there, put his case in the New South Wales context and cease involving the national Parliament and the national Government in a domestic issue in New South Wales.

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Come out into the open and tell us where you stand.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will tell you where you stand in a moment.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrer

– The action which we are taking today is one of the most severe actions which an Opposition can take in a parliament. We have brought forward a motion of censure of a Minister for misleading the Parliament. In these circumstances, in any normal parliament, one would expect the Minister to be supported by the Prime Minister and by many of his Ministers. But where are they? The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is not even in the House. At one stage the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), who is under attack, and the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby), who has just completed his speech, were the only Ministers in the House. I see that the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) has recently entered the chamber. All that the Minister for Minerals and Energy has had to support him is this poor, pathetic member for Riverina, the Minister for Immigration. Let me say why I believe that he is pathetic. He said that recently he had attempted to warn all the irrigators of the position. Let me read what he told them, because he told them nothing. To begin with, we know that this Minister wastes an incredible amount of money sending telegrams. Possibly he would be equalled by the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hayden) who recently sent a 600-word telegram to each of the 93 members of Caucus, but I think the Minister for Immigration is still in the lead. Let me read this explanation of everything that was given by the Minister to his electors and the irrigators in the Murrumbidgee.

Mr Grassby:

– And the Murray.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– If I were the Minister I would not mention the Murray. At the byelection held last Saturday in that area the Australian Labor Party vote dropped from 50 per cent to 25 per cent, so I would keep a little quiet about the Murray if I were the Minister. The Minister for Immigration sent an explanation in these terms:

Great pressure is being brought to bear on the Minister for Minerals and Energy, the Hon. Rex Connor, MHR, to release more water from the Snowy for power purposes. Eucumbene Dam is already half empty and, with light snowfalls, unlikely to refill.

Anyone who knows anything about Eucumbene knows that it will never fill, that it is designed so that it will not fill and that if it overflows money will be lost. The Minister continued:

Blowering Dam already spilling. Threat to further flooding in Murray Valley and flood threat in

Murrumbidgee Valley if rate of release maintained. Power authorities have used 70 per cent of year’s water allocation in 4J months. Sustained rate of release will cause further flood threat and endanger irrigation supplies. Suggest your views on releases be made known to Minister urgently.

This is the way in which he completely misled his electors and the irrigators. He knows that there is no danger to irrigation supplies at present. Everyone knows this. Blowering Dam is full, with 1.3 million acre feet of water. Lake Eucumbene, which has 2 million acre feet, is shared two-thirds by New South Wales and one-third by Victoria. Burrinjuck, which is almost full, holds 830,000 acre feet when it is full, and it is only about 11 feet from the top level now. There, is something like 3 million acre feet of water sitting above the Murrumbidgee. That is certainly enough to irrigate for the next 2 years, possibly more. But the Minister is trying to say that irrigation supplies could be endangered.

Let me leave this Minister and come back to the Minister who is under attack for misrepresentation. That is why he is under attack. lt is no good the Minister saying: ‘What I did was right, and I believe that it was right’. This is not the case at all. We are saying that he misrepresented to the House the action which he had taken. I believe that he no longer has the confidence of this House and is no longer fitted to hold the position of Minister of the Crown in Her Majesty’s Australian Government. He has taken actions to the grave detriment of our nation and he has misled the House and the public, as I shall proceed to show.

On Wednesday, 26 September, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) proposed that a matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely, the serious situation caused by the New South Wales power strike. During the debate the honourable member for Wannon charged the Minister for Minerals and Energy with having exacerbated the effects of the power strike by ordering - perhaps ‘directing’ is a better word - the Snowy Mountains Council to operate in accordance with the 35-Hour Week Committee’s direction. The Minister was all smiles when he stood up to reply to the charge. I should say as an aside that some sections of the mining industry think that when the Minister smiles it only makes him look a little more like a crocodile. The Minister said that there was a perfectly simple answer. He said that the Blowering Dam was overflowing, that each day water was spilling uselessly over its walls at a fate which would fully irrigate 44,000 acres of land, that Eucumbene was half empty and that we have to safeguard our food needs.

There was an incredulous gasp of surprise from members of the Opposition. Never for one moment had the Minister mentioned the 35-Hour Week Committee’s decision, which we all knew was the reason why the Minister directed the Snowy power cuts. Who did he think he was fooling? Surely the Minister could not have been naive enough or stupid enough to believe that the reasons for his actions were not already fully known and understood by the New South Wales Government and by the power and water authorities. Did he for one moment imagine that the Opposition would be so gullible as to say: ‘How convenient it was for the Minister that he had to order the Snowy Mountains Council to reduce power production because responsible management of water demanded this action be taken’? It is ludicrous to think that that was the situation at the identical time when the demands of the 35-hour Week Committee were being thrust upon the Council. Let us look for a moment at the excuses of the Minister to see how shallow and groundless they were. Let us take his first assertion. The Minister said:

At the present time Lake Eucumbene is SO per cent empty. . . . It is to be hoped that unusually high rainfall will curtail the deficiency and safeguard our food needs. . . . Each day water is spilling uselessly over the Blowering’s walls.

Let me comment on that. First of all, as I said, Eucumbene was designed never to fill and it has never filled since it was built. It was designed to last through the long dry periods recorded in the earlier rainfall records of the district. The heaviest release of water from Eucumbene occurs between May and September. At present the level of Lake Eucumbene is 54 per cent of its total active storage. There is more water in it today than there was on 30 September in any year ,in which I was Minister for National Development, namely, from 1964 to 1969. As a percentage of active storage, Lake Eucumbene held at the end of September of each year since 1963 the following amounts: 1963, 42 per cent; 1964, 45 per cent; 1965, 38 per cent; 1966, 37 per cent; 1967, 30 per cent; 1968, 20 per cent - a decline due mainly to drought; and 1969. 52 per cent. In 1970 it rose to 68 per cent because water had been gained from other sources. In 1971 it was 60 per cent and in 1972 it was 69 per cent. Today it is 54 per cent. Obviously the availability of irrigation water - or the lack of it - had absolutely nothing to do with the Minister’s decision to restrict Snowy power output.

As I have said previously, the Blowering Dam is now full. It holds over 1.3 million acre feet. Burrinjuck holds 840,000 acre feet when full. It is very close to being full now. It could also be used for irrigation as well as power. A total of something like 3 million acre feet of water, if the New South Wales share of Eucumbene is taken into account, is available. Of course, the Coombs Task Force, in a report which has only recently been presented - I refer to page 207 of the report - has stated that large volumes of water presently being stored in the Blowering Dam are unused. The New South Wales Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission has said that it will have need for some of the uncommitted water in the Blowering earlier than was originally anticipated. Nevertheless there is no doubt that the Blowering holds a good deal more water than will be required for irrigation this summer.

I turn to the Minister’s assertion that at an overflow rate of 3,200 cusecs flooding would occur at the poplar plantations section of the Tumut River. Certainly, flooding has been a problem. But we are told that there have been no floods this year. Some years ago, the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority bought up much of the land that flooded and planted it with poplars. Water does not affect the poplars. So everything that the Minister has said to try to mislead and misrepresent the case has been proved to be completely incorrect. I return to the nub of the matter. For some time the Electrical Trades Union members employed by the Electricity Commission of New South Wales have been limiting power output to attempt to force on the New South Wales Government their demands for a 35-hour week. The State Industrial Commission rejected the workers’ claim for a 35- hour week. It was asked to re-examine its decision. It did so and the second time it reported that there were no grounds for reducing the hours worked in the industry. Even the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) has said in regard to the Commonwealth Public Service that there are no grounds for a 35-hour working week.

The Industrial Commission also rejected the phasing in of a shorter working week. No doubt, it took this action in view of the fact that the Electricity Commission of New South Wales has estimated that it would need another 682 workers if the 35-hour week were introduced. This would increase the shortage of skilled tradesmen in industry. But this decision of the Industrial Commission did not suit the militant left-wing workers. They decided not to abide by arbitration but to continue to restrict power so as to cause the maximum inconvenience to the public. No one is really sure whether the members of the Electrical Trades Union, in seeking a 35-hour week, are seeking more leisure, more overtime pay or just to disrupt the community and undermine our industrial production. The strike is in the hands of strong left wing control, including Mr R. Ross and Mr Jack Syme-

Mr Hunt:

– Of what party is he a member?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– He is a member of the Aarons - Carmichael Communist Party of Australia. He is the secretary-

Mr Grassby:

– Probably employed by the ITT.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– It would be nothing unusual for the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) to be associated with a member of that Party. This man is the secretary of the Electricity Commission Combined Union Delegates Organisation. Of course, the restrictions were not hurting people sufficiently as they were not severe enough. So deliberate acts of sabotage were planned. Munmorah power station, for example, the second-largest in New South Wales had to shut down completely. The word ‘sabotage’ has an interesting derivation. It comes from the French word sabot’ - a shoe or a clog which the French workers threw into machinery to stop the works. It makes one wonder whether we are facing another revolution here.

Still the power situation in New South Wales was not sufficiently bad to bring about the severe blackouts which the Electrical Trades Union needed. One reason was that the Snowy was feeding between 1,600 and 1,900 megawatts daily into the New South Wales power system. Something had to be done to stop this. The way was soon found, with the active co-operation of a compliant Minister. Despite the decision of the Snowy Mountains Council to continue normal power production, the Minister, using his power under section 16.i.6 of the Act, directed that the works be operated in a manner that did not run counter to the intentions of the 35- Hour Week Commitee. At last the

Electricity Commission Combined Union Delegates Organisation was able to achieve what it had set out to do. Blackouts and restrictions became the order of the day. It mattered little that in the process a man in hospital died when power was cut off from his ward, that children received third-degree burns when candles ignited their cots or that a man with a heart attack died because the doctor who was called to help him could not find a light. What about the many hundreds of thousands of housewives and ordinary citizens who have been inconvenienced? The man directly responsible for this situation was a Federal Minister who had intervened in an industrial dispute on the side of the communists and the leftwingers despite the statement of the Prime Minister: ‘This is not a matter where we can do anything as the employer. We have no right to intervene’. Even the Leader of the New South Wales Labor Party, Mr Hills, called on the men to resume work. King Canute tried to hold back the waters but failed. King Kong has succeeded where King Canute failed. This brings me to the point that the Minister has demeaned himself as a Minister of the Crown. He has given false information to the House. He is no longer a fit and proper person. It will startle everyone if this Minister is left where he is. Everyone will ask: ‘Why? Does he have something on the Prime Minister?’ When the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, was replaced, why was not the Minister for Minerals and Energy replaced? I support the motion.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

– I am sure that all who have heard this debate so far will feel a sense of disgust and shame at some of the cheap political gimmickry which has come from the other side of the House and the cheap gratuitous insults which have been offered at a time when the people of New South Wales are suffering considerable hardship and the economy of this country is suffering because of a severe industrial dispute. I invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), who is trying to interject, to dispute what I am saying. There has been no dispute in this country’s history which has been resolved by the exchange of gratuitous insults. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) know from their own experience that what I say is true. This country is presently confronted with a serious situation. Do we have a constructive suggestion from members of the Opposition? Do they come forward like responsible members of Parliament? No, they come forward with a mixture of cheap political gimmickry and cheap second rate name calling which is the best that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn), could put forward.

What is behind this motion of censure against the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) because he refused to extend and further involve this country in a severe and critical industrial dispute? First of all one must wonder why the motion was moved by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser). One might perhaps wonder whether this is not tied up with the internecine bitter struggle which is going on on the other side of the House about who is to be the Leader of the Opposition before the next election? One might think that it is part of some kind of cynical plan which seems to be emerging in New South Wales to take the heat off a bankrupt Premier who has no answer to the problems of the State and is attempting to manufacture problems so that he can divert interest from his own inadequacy. This is the position with which we are confronted. I want to say to members of the LiberalCountry Party clique on the opposite side that this dispute will be resolved whether they like it or not. No matter how hard they might try for their own cynical purposes to continue it and to perpetuate the suffering and hardship they will fail because at this stage there are too many people concerned to try to find a solution.

Members of the Opposition have said nothing. This is like their counterparts in New South Wales. They are prepared, knowing the futility of their action, to say it is desirable that there should be a complete standoff between the parties to the dispute. They come here today to try to exacerbate that situation. The New South Wales Government is guilty of serious dereliction of duty. I am sure that the people of that State will cast proper judgment in due course. They, and members of the Opposition in this House, have trespassed against the public interest. What are the facts. The simple facts are that the New South Wales Minister for Mines, Mr Fife - not strife as the name is sometimes being mispronounced - last week confirmed in the New South Wales Parliament that what the Minister for Minerals and Energy has told this Parliament is exactly correct. He has done that.

Mr Fairbairn:

– He did not tell us till this morning.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The honourable member is not up with the news. He is a bit out of touch. I know that half the Liberal Party does not talk to the other part, but perhaps he might be able to obtain a copy of the New South Wales Hansard from the Parliamentary Library and see that what I am saying is correct. It is reported for all to see. Yet, members of the Liberal Party in this Parliament, aided and abetted by the Country Party-Democratic Labor Party group, come along here to attack the Minister for the sole purpose of trying to divert attention from a solution of this dispute. It does no credit to any member of this House-

Mr Giles:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I seek your ruling. I did not think this debate was about the subject that the honourable member is discussing. The debate is about whether the Minister for Minerals and Energy has misled the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! No point of order is involved. The motion has to do with the power dispute in New South Wales. What the honourable member for Phillip is saying is completely relevant.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I can understand the apprehension of the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). The only responsible suggestion in the last week aimed at solving the dispute came from the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam).

Mr Hunt:

– What rot.

Mr RIORDAN:

– That is the most unintelligent remark I have heard the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) make. The Minister for Minerals and Energy is under attack in this Parliament today because he said that the Australian Government will not allow itself to be put in a position where it may create a dispute which could perhaps black out all of New South Wales and half of Victoria. That is what the Opposition wants. The Opposition sought to set the Minister up in a cynical and callous manner, without regard to the public interest, in order to try to gain a miserable, cheap political objective, lt does no credit to the Opposition.

Mr Giles:

– Mr Speaker. I take that personally. I do not see why-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order is involved because there was no personal reflection on any honourable member.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The Minister simply said that 2 considerations were involved. One con sideration relates to irrigation and the other relates to power generation. He acted wisely in respect of both. In regard to the first matter, irrigation, I accept the advice of experts that it was a wise decision. As for the second matter, 1 need no advice. I know very well that what would have occurred is simply this: The Minister would have been asked or expected to take an action which would have caused a strike. Presumably at that stage - because the fighting would have been in the Minister’s territory and not that of the New South Wales Government - the New South Wales professional engineers would have been told to do the work of the striking men who normally generate the power. That is what would have happened. Others in Victoria, probably under the influence of Liberal Party collusion, would have been told to do the same. This would have caused the most extraordinary situation in the industrial annals of this country. For the first time ever we would have had a situation in which men sent in to break a strike would have been enjoying the conditions which the men on strike were trying to obtain. These are facts. The strike breakers would have been working a 35-hour-week - as they are - and those out on strike would be refusing to work because they could not get a 35-hour week. That sort of logic might be all right in the councils of the Liberal Party, it might suit the comedian who is the temporary Premier of New South Wales, but it does not suit a responsible Australian Minister who has obligations to the Australian people and who takes them seriously. That, of course, is the big difference.

The Prime Minister, seeing that the 2 parties were separated widely, made a generous offer to make available an independent judge, a member of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, with a view to getting the parties to confer again - not to review the decision of the New South Wales Industrial Commission, not to form a de facto court of appeal, but to try to get negotiations started again. What response did he get from the Premier of New South Wales? He rubbished it. He treated it with contempt. He ridiculed the suggestion. He acted like a man in panic. He acted like a man who did not want a settlement of a dispute. This leads me to the belief that there must be people high in the Liberal Party who do not want this dispute resolved. Every single action that they take is designed to continue and to extend that dispute. They would be very happy indeed if they could kid the Australian Government into a position where it would fight it out and where the New South Wales Government would, as it were, stand back - I suppose with more wisecracks - while the people of New South Wales and also Victoria suffered because of this cheap political cynicism.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– They do not care how much loss they impose upon industry to get it.

Mr RIORDAN:

– As the Minister for Labour points out, the losses to industry today are enormous. The increases in costs are enormous. The fact that a reduction has occurred in the production of urgently needed supplies of goods and services is a serious matter. But does the Opposition care? Do Opposition members go to their Liberal colleagues and say: ‘Why not give the Prime Minister’s suggestion a fair chance?’ What have they to lose and what has any party to this dispute to lose from a further discussion and a further conference?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Liberals will lose power.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I thank the Minister. Only men who are frightened of the emergence of the facts and only those who are scared to justify their position are the ones who refuse to discuss and to negotiate in these matters.

There are some unsatisfactory features in this strike. Nobody on this side of the Parliament is happy with the present situation. We are very concerned. But the Prime Minister has made a constructive suggestion. It is up to the Liberals and to their colleagues in New South Wales to respond in a sensible and responsible manner, if that is within their capacity. Let us not forget this: The Askin Government in New South Wales more than 2i years ago granted the 35-hour week to 35 per cent of the employees of the Electricity Commission of New South Wales. The same Askin Government which today says to the Australian Government: ‘When you grant the 35-hour week to your public servants, we will have a different attitude; we will have to reconsider our position’, 2i years ago gave the 35-hour week to public servants in New South Wales. Of course that was just before an election, and it was a promise; I suppose that that makes some difference to the matter.

The Premier of New South Wales is attempting to act in a quite irresponsible way. His colleagues in this House are attempting to coerce the Government into a similar situation.

The people of New South Wales are suffering while the New South Wales Government and the State Industrial Commission pass the buck backwards and forwards. Let me say this to the honourable member for Wannon: There has not been an umpire’s decision, to use his quaint but quite inaccurate term. There has been no arbitration about a dispute. The New South Wales Industrial Commission was asked to inquire into the question of working hours and to make a report to the Government. It has no power in its own right to grant the claim. It does not have the power to grant working hours less than 40 hours. It is not like the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which, if it wishes, can order a 20- hour week.

But we hear served up this nonsense and garbage that if a 35-hour week is granted to some employees it must spread to everybody else in industry. Did that stop the Askin Government from awarding a 35-hour week to its own public servants to get an advantage? Certainly not. What has been the history in the Federal sphere for instance in the stevedoring industry, in the container packing industry and in the coal mining industry? Those are 3 industries which by a combination of agreement in some cases and arbitration others have been awarded a 35-hour week. What has been the result? There has been no flow-on of that decision - no flow-on at all. I say to honourable members opposite who are trying to interject that when they know what they are talking about they should then speak. There has been no flow-on. There has been no - I emphasise the word ‘no’ - loss in productivity. In fact in some industries there has been an increase in productivity. This is a time when members of this Parliament ought to be acting responsibly and ought to put the national interest before their own personal and party political considerations.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

- Mr Speaker, I would like to-

Motion (by Mr Hansen) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 63

NOES: 54

Majority 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Grassby’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 54

NOES: 63

Majority 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Mr Grassby’s amendment) be so inserted.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 63

NOES: 54

Majority 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Malcolm Fraser’s), as amended, be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 63

NOES: 54

Majority 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 1.25 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1740

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– I ask that questions be placed on notice.

page 1740

TARIFF BOARD

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– Pursuant to section 18 of the Tariff Board Act 1921-1972 I present the annual report of the Tariff Board for the year ended 30 June 1973. The report is accompanied by an annexure which summarises the recommendations made by the Board and shows the action taken in respect of each of them.

page 1741

QUESTION

REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I present the following paper:

The 52nd report of the Commissioner of Taxation dated1 October 1973.

I move:

That the paper be printed.

Honourable members will recall that it is the practice of the House to agree forthwith to the motion to print this paper so that it may be covered by parliamentary privileges. This course has the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden). When the motion to print is agreed to, the report will be circulated immediately.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1741

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr LYNCH:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Flinders

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr LYNCH:

– Yes, I do. At his Press conference on 25 September the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was asked the reason for the alarming increase in industrial unrest under his Government. In response he stated:

Because of the Lynch laws. Most of the industrial disputes, as I observe them, flow from demarcation issues.

That statement demonstrates an appalling ignorance by the Prime Minister and is a pathetic attempt to abrogate his Government’s own culpability for the present industrial turmoil.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said that he has been misrepresented personally. He should not open a debate about a television interview.

Mr LYNCH:

– With respect, Mr Speaker, it will be clear as I proceed. In terms of the direct quotation from the Prime Minister to which I adverted it is very clear that he is seeking to apportion blame in a circumstance in which the facts equally clearly belie his contention. It is, therefore, on that basis that I claim to have been personally, directly and flagrantly mis represented by the honourable gentleman. The most recent statistics provided by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics are for the June quarter. They show that 11 per cent of strikes during that quarter were concerned with the employment of nonunionists, inter-union and intra-union disputes, sympathy stoppages in support of employees in another industry, recognition of union activities and other similar questions. It is quite clear and it is a matter of record that allows of no qualification, that actual demarcation disputes accounted for significantly less than 10 per cent of all disputes during that quarter - and not most disputes, as the Prime Minister stated.

To compound the error the Prime Minister blamed the massive increase in strikes on what he referred to as the Lynch laws. I repeat that that is a direct, personal and flagrant misrepresentation. The honourable gentleman should know that following the legislation which I introduced on behalf of the former Government there was a significant fall in industrial disputes in 1972. The legislation is the same this year as it was last year. The difference lies in the administration of that legislation. I seek to incorporate in Hansard the statistics which clearly show the causes of industrial disputes. The Prime Minister will see from the table that wage demands are the most significant element - 224 of the 519 disputes during the June quarter were as a result of wage demands. I ask leave of the House to incorporate it in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Whitlam:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr LYNCH:

– It is really an extraordinary situation.

Mr Whitlam:

– There was no communication with me about this.

Mr LYNCH:

– Is the honourable gentleman taking a point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will continue.

Mr LYNCH:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I really appreciate your protection in this situation when the Prime Minister sits at the table, of course, mute with embarrassment because he recognises that on the record-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now debating the question. I think he has made his point in regard to the misrepresentation as he sees it. It is not open to him to debate what happened on a television session.

Mir LYNCH - I certainly accept that. In fact it was not on television; it was at one of the Prime Minister’s regular Press conferences outside this House, and I underline the words outside this House’. So that the honourable gentleman may be better informed, I am happy to table the document. If he seeks to deny this House the opportunity to see the facts, to give these facts full public scrutiny - the Government says it believes in open government, but what a sham that is - and if he seeks to hide the facts I am happy to table the document and to send him a copy of it. I think the point has been well made.

Mir JARMAN (Deakin) - Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I do. I am sure you will understand my feelings, Mr Speaker, and those of the many constituents of Deakin who have phoned me over the weekend, because you were similarly grievously misrepresented prior to your elevation as Speaker in respect to your pride and joy, your beautiful down-town city of Redfern. In a report appearing in a Melbourne morning newspaper I and a large number of the constituents of the electorate of Deakin have been misrepresented, unwittingly I have no doubt, but nonetheless misrepresented. The report was headed ‘Chipp defines his dropout*. It went on to say:

A Liberal M.P. Mr Don Chipp yesterday gave his definition of an Australian dropout. ‘He works nine to five, goes home to a well manicured lawn and double garage in Blackburn or Malvern’, Mr Chipp said. ‘When it comes to community involvement outside his own short-term and materialistic interests, he is the model of apathy.’

Mr Speaker, I cannot answer for the citizens of Malvern - the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) is best able to do that - but I live in Blackburn in the heart of my electorate of Deakin and I know only too well the kind of people who live there. Blackburn is a unique bushland oasis in the midst of the vast asphalt jungle which is the city of Melbourne. It is only 11 miles from the General Post Office and one can wander there among the wattles, gums and other native flora. Blackburn has been deliberately kept that way by the people who live there. Every morning one wakes to the sound of bellbirds.

To show that these people are not dropouts, I point out that on Saturday morning last 300 people attended a meeting and last night a similar number met at the council chambers protesting at a projected subdivision by a developer of a 4-acre site known as Bellbird Corner. Blackburn people know the meaning of the term ‘quality of life’ and mean to maintain it in Blackburn. Blackburn is sometimes scoffingly referred to as the Bible belt of Melbourne. We are proud of that title. Perhaps the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) just plucked the name Blackburn facetiously out of the air without being aware of how beautiful this area really is. But I assure him and this House that the people of Blackburn are no more materialistic and certainly much less apathetic than other members of the Australian community. They are very much aware of their duty to society.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member for Hotham claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– I have not been misrepresented, Mr Speaker. I have been represented in an unfair way and I seek the indulgence of the House for about 20 seconds. It is true that I was opening what I thought was a private exhibition of a painter from Romania. I was paying a tribute to this man for the way he had involved himself in the community and suggested that more Australians should do the same as he had done. I have formed a close relationship with this gentleman who happens to live in Blackburn. One of my best friends who was standing next to me happens to live in Malvern so facetiously I mentioned Blackburn, knowing the painter came from there, and Malvern, whence my best friend comes, not knowing that any representatives of the Press were present. In fact I suspect that no members of the Press were there but that a certain friendly ferret reported it to the newspapers. I withdraw any suggestion of insult to the good people of Blackburn or Malvern.

page 1742

PRICES AND INCOMES REFERENDUMS

Ministerial Statement

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs · Werriwa · ALP

– Mr Speaker, after the dropouts, I seek leave to make a statement concerning referendum proposals.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr WHITLAM:

– In accordance with proper manners in the House I acquainted the Opposition with the fact that I proposed making this statement. On 22 September 1973 both Houses of Parliament passed Bills containing proposed laws to alter the Constitution. The Bills were the Constitution Alteration (Prices) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Incomes) Bill. Under the provisions of the Constitution a proposed law for an alteration to the Constitution must be submittted to the electors not less than 2 months nor more than 6 months after the proposals have been passed by both Houses. The Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act provides that if within 4 weeks after the passage of a proposed law through both Houses there are forwarded to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer arguments in favour of or against the proposed law he shall print and post a copy of the proposed law to each elector. The Government is presently arranging for the arguments in favour of the proposed laws to be prepared and submitted to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer on behalf of those who voted for the proposals. No doubt those who voted against the proposals will also be arranging for arguments to be prepared for submission to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer.

The Chief Australian Electoral Officer is required to post pamphlets containing the arguments to electors not later than 2 weeks after the issue of the writs. In the circumstances the Government has decided that the referendums should be held on 8 December 1973. The Government will recommend to the Governor-General that the writs for the referendums should issue on 12 November. The rolls for the referendums will close on the day the writs issue.

Mr Wentworth:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker, might I ask the Prime Minister to clarify his statement. In view of the fact that he himself was personally opposed to these proposals but has accepted them in his Caucus will he prepare the case for or against the referendums?

Mr Whitlam:

– On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I understand that the honourable gentleman has been away from the House with a most distressing complaint. We are all relieved that there were no complications, so one cannot describe his argument in terms of such complications. I have been in favour of every referendum mat has been put to the people except that which was put in 1951. I believe that any Australian government would bc able to govern better in the interests of the Australian people if every referendum, other than that of 1951, had been carried. I have supported referendums on prices on the occasions they have been put to the people. I would have supported a referendum on incomes on any previous occasion. I will support it on this occasion. I should have thought that nobody in the Parliament would have doubted my belief that the Australian Parliament should be vested with any power that the people could be persuaded to confer upon it. I should not have thought that after 20 years in public life the Australian people would be in any doubt as to my attitude on that matter.

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Speaker, may I apologise to the Prime Minister. I did not understand his position. I was misled by Press reports to the effect that he, at a Caucus meeting, had opposed putting the matter to a referendum at this stage.

Mr Whitlam:

– The honourable gentleman was not so specific in his first intervention. Any such Press reports would have been erroneous. In fact, in the Caucus I have consistently supported the idea that there should be an incomes as well as a prices referendum.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– I seek leave to make a short statement, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– At the commencement of his statement the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) referred to dropouts. These referenda proposals fit precisely into that category - they are dropouts. The second point I wish to make is that the Prime Minister just cannot resist resorting to personal abuse whenever he is challenged on his policies. There was no reason whatever for the Prime Minister to refer to the recent health of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) and make nasty insinuations about it. The Opposition will always give the honourable gentleman leave to make statements about policy, but it regards it as reprehensible on his part to seize the opportunity, when challenged on policy, to make a personal attack upon the honourable member for Mackellar. It is unfitting of a member of this House. It is particularly unfitting of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister said in his statement:

No doubt those who voted against the proposals will also be arranging for arguments to be prepared for submission to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer.

I will be making arrangements, on behalf of those who voted against the proposals, for the preparation of an argument for submission to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer.

page 1744

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Post and Telegraph Rates Bill 1973.

Post and Telegraph Regulations Bill 1973.

Post and Telegraph Bill 1973.

page 1744

ROYAL STYLE AND TITLES BILL 1973

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor-General informing me that His Excellency has, under section 58 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, reserved the Royal Style and Titles Bill 1973 for Her Majesty’s pleasure.

page 1744

SHELTERED EMPLOYMENT (ASSISTANCE) BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 September (vide page 1698), on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is’That the Bill be now read a second time’. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’; of the contrary ‘no’. I think the ‘ayes’ have it.

Mr Chipp:

- Mr Speaker, before rising I was waiting for the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) to move that this Bill and the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Bill be debated cognately.

Mr Daly:

– That has already happened. Both Bills were debated cognately last week.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The motion ‘That the Bill be now read a second time’ has been carried.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– I must confess to the House that I am bewildered. I understood that there were two Bills before the House for debate, namely, the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Bill and the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Bill. They are both listed on the notice paper and are bracketed on the blue sheet as being the subject of a cognate debate. The normal practice after the order of the day to be debated is read by the Clerk is for the question to be put by you, Mr Speaker, and then for the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) to ask whether it suits the convenience of the House to have a cognate debate. I was waiting for the Leader of the House to do that before rising in my place. May I proceed to make a speech on both Bills, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member has already spoken to the. motion that the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Bill be read a second time. Does the honourable member now wish to make a speech on the motion for the third reading of the Bill?

Mr Daly:

– Perhaps I can clarify the situation, Mr Speaker. A cognate debate was held on both Bills on 27 September. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) might recall that he entered the debate late in the proceedings and that he spoke after the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). The debate was interrupted on the last day of the sitting. The honourable member for Hotham has already contributed to the debate on the motion for the second reading of this legislation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think the Clerk will be able to clarify this matter to the satisfaction of the honourable member for Hotham.

Mr CHIPP:

– It is my error, Mr Speaker. I apologise.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1744

HANDICAPPED CHILDREN (ASSISTANCE) BILL 1973

Second Reading

Considerationresumed from 29 August (vide page 526), on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Daly) read a third time.

page 1745

TERRITORY AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 August (vide page 340), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 3 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr LYNCH:
Deputy Leader of of the Opposition · Flinders

– All three of these Bills, which were introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) on 23 August, relate to the establishment of the Darwin Community College. The college, which was conceived and planned by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government, is unique in Australia inasmuch as it is designed to provide for the Darwin community’s total post secondary educational and leisure requirements. It will almost certainly be the forerunner of similar colleges in other parts of Australia where the population is not sufficient to warrant the diversity of post secondary institutions normally found in a metropolitan area but is large enough to justify the development of a community college along the lines of that which is nearing completion in Darwin.

My colleague, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), has been involved in a very personal way with the development of the college from the outset. In fact, it was the honourable member for the Northern Territory who, in a most outstanding example of bipartisanship, nominated Darwin lawyer Mr R. C. Ward to the initial planning committee of the college. Mr Ward heads the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory Legislative Council and stood against the honourable member for the Northern Territory in 1966. Despite their political differences the honourable member recognised that Mr Ward’s capacity and worth warranted appointment to the committee, and his recommendation to the then Minister for Education and Science, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser), was accepted. The contribution made by Mr Ward is a tribute to Mr Ward’s ability and the judgment of the honourable member for the Northern Territory. In the same sense of bipartisanship, I am certain members opposite would want to join members of the Opposition parties in placing on the record again our recognition of the outstanding contribution the member for the Northern Territory has made, and continues to make, to the development of the Territory in all its facets.

The Darwin Community College was established by an ordinance passed by the Northern Territory Legislative Council and which received assent on 19 July this year. However, as the Treasurer pointed out in his second reading speech, there are certain provisions that cannot be encompassed within the ambit of a Territory ordinance and it is therefore necessary to enact them in complementary legislation of the national Parliament. The three measures before the House relate to financial provisions for the college and for air accident liability and superannuation for the staff.

The Territory Authorities (Financial Provisions) Bill includes certain financial provisions which normally apply to statutory authorities established by an enactment of the Commonwealth Parliament. These relate to the payment to a statutory authority incorporated by a law of a Territory of moneys appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of that authority. The Bill also removes the need for further specific legislation by the Commonwealth Parliament in relation to other authorities that may be similarly established in future. The Air Accidents (Australian Government Liability) Bill amends the principal Act to provide that any body corporate incorporated for a public purpose by a law of a

Territory may, where appropriate, be declared by regulations to be a body corporate to which the Act applies. The Superannuation Bill (No. 3) provides for the application of the Superannuation Act to the principal and staff of the Darwin Community College. The amendment will operate with retrospective effect from 19 June 1973 to extend superannuation cover from the date the college legally came into existence.

In supporting all 3 measures on behalf of the Opposition, I point out some of the features of this college which set it apart from other post-secondary institutions in Australia. The most fundamental is the manner in which it will cater for the Darwin community’s total needs. These were determined by conducting surveys in the Darwin area, and seeking information from the local populace as to which specific courses they would be prepared to support. The result is a diversity unmatched by any other Australian post-secondary college. It includes a comprehensive range of leisure activities, courses leading to matriculation, a wide variety of apprentice training, technology at the tertiary level and even a diploma course in commerce. The college also will offer short courses in management programs. A great deal of preparatory work is currently going into the structure of the total program, to ensure that courses are held during that part of the day or evening most suitable to the greatest number of Darwin people.

The college is situated on a most desirable 40 acre campus at Casuarina in the vicinity of the foreshore. Part of the college will face on to the lake formed by the Rapid Creek development which is currently under way. The campus is about 8 miles from the centre of the city of Darwin in the heart of a developing suburban region in the type of area from which it is likely to draw the bulk of its enrolment. Built at a cost of approximately $4.5m, the college will open with 6 large trade workshops, an administration block, a library and a cafeteria. Student residences on the site will be of sufficient size to accommodate some 80 students in single rooms, although the design’ is sufficiently flexible to permit the adaption of some rooms to suit married couples should there be a demand for such accommodation. Provision was made in the planning for the college, which began in 1969, for the provision of a number of different kinds of playing fields, although sport will be an extra-curricula activity.

When the Darwin Community College begins teaching in March next year it will incorporate the Darwin Adult Education Centre which has, for the past 14 years, provided Darwin’s only post-secondary educational facilities. Over the years, the centre has run some apprenticeship training courses, but its major concentration has been on recreational and hobby classes, together with assistance to people undertaking degree courses by correspondence, mainly with the University of Queensland. At the peak of its activity, the centre was meeting the requirements of approximately 8,000 students enrolled for part-time tuition. As I indicated, these courses will be absorbed by the new community college from the beginning of the 1974 academic year. But the emphasis at the college will shift much more heavily to technical and advanced education. The community college is currently recruiting the staff it requires and anticipates opening with a teaching and administrative staff complement totalling approximately 100. The community college concept is one which is ideally suited to many locations outside Australia’s major population concentrations. It is a concept pioneered successfully at Darwin by the Liberal-Country Party Administration and now continued by the present Government. These measures deserve the support of the House. The Opposition parties will vote in support of the Bill now before the House.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I rise to support these three Bills which are being debated together and which will benefit Territory instrumentalities in every way. I refer not only to the Darwin Community College. Other provisions in these Bills will, in other circumstances, benefit various sections of the community. I believe that the estimated completion date of the new college is 3 February 1974. I hope - and the way things are going in Darwin at the moment there is nothing to prevent this - that the contractors will meet that completion date which will enable students to commence at the college in March of next year. The concept of the college, the introduction of it and the finance provided for it were thought out and organised by the previous Government. As the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch) has said, the concept has been followed through by this Government. I am glad to see that it is carrying on with the concept as it was introduced.

This college is the first of its type in Australia. I believe that in America there are about 800 or 1,000 of these community or junior type colleges. Although the courses at these institutions are relatively short when compared with courses at normal tertiary education colleges, the degrees or diplomas achieved at the community colleges are acceptable and enable students to go on to a normal university, if they wish, or to go into a trade, business or whatever they are trained for at the college. In Canada the State of Ontario, I think, instituted some 20 of these colleges in one year, so this concept is not a thing of the past overseas. It is well that we in Australia are getting something like this off the ground. The college at Darwin will be governed by a council which will comprise citizens of Darwin. They will be able to keep a very close watch on the development and programming which will be undertaken by the college.

The proposed studies, which may not have been mentioned by the previous speaker, cover a very wide range which will help all sections of the community into the tertiary education stage. The studies will include anthropology, linguistics, political and Pacific-Asian cultural studies, which I think pertain very much to this part of Australia. Darwin is many thousands of miles from Canberra and many of the interests in which students would be involved may not be experienced by students in other parts of Australia. The Darwin college will be operating in very close co-operation with local business, industry and the people of Darwin by way of organised control. I am looking forward to the establishment of this college. I think we all look forward to it. I think it is a wonderful concept. It will provide a magnificent set of buildings in a very fine area of Darwin.

I want to say a few more things just briefly. Before I sit down I would like to place on record the great respect and thanks of the community for the tremendous job that the Darwin Adult Education Centre has done over the 14 years that it has been in existence. The activities of the adult education centre will be taken over by the college. I take it that they will lead into the community college so, they will not be forgotten. They will be just a part of a greater thing. We all realise what a tremendous job the adult education centre has done over the years.

I believe that the recruitment of staff is going fairly well at the moment. The college needs a staff of something like 140, and 600 applications have been received. Applications closed only today or yesterday. There is tremendous interest in joining the academic and administrative staff of the college, with the exception of the posts of librarians. The library is to be a principal part and an outstanding feature of the college and they have appointed a very able librarian. However, because a lot of colleges and tertiary education centres in the south employ and pay academics as librarians, the Darwin Community College is tending to fall behind in the recruiting of librarians because such people will be recruited and paid as librarians, rather than as academic staff. If there is a shortage of librarians, I hope that this point might be considered.

Including the 500-odd full time students, there are some 3,000 full time and part time students enrolled for daytime courses and about 3,600 enrolled for night classes, yet only stage one of the project is to be completed in March next year. I hope that the Government will continue to plan ahead because it will take 4 years or thereabouts to bring about another increase in the buildings and organisational structure of the college. So I ask the Government to keep a close watch on this situation as the number of enrolments is rather more - in fact, it is considerably more - than was anticipated. It is better in these projects to be in front of such a situation than trying to catch up from behind. As I said, the college should be open by January, February or March of next year. I only hope that the building program proceeds according to schedule.

One thing that was apparent with the Darwin adult education centre was that about 200 children were being looked after at a creche or child minding centre. I do not know whether there is provision for this sort of amenity to be attached to the Darwin Community College. I hope that there will be because, of that enrolment of 3,000 students, many will be young mothers who may not otherwise be able to attend the college. If there is no provision for a creche or child minding centre, I hope that such a proposal will be very seriously considered. With the limited numbers enrolled at the Darwin adult education centre, 200 children were required to be looked after while their parents were attending classes and, with the greater numbers enrolled at the Community College, it surely will be necessary to take some steps, even if it is not in the original plan, to acquire a house in the near neighbourhood to be used as a child minding centre so that these many students will be able to attend the college and not have to turn their backs on courses that otherwise they would have taken. I commend the 3 Bills. I think the fact that superannuation and air accident liability are now covered by the legislation will attract people to apply as teachers in the north. I would only hope that the recruiting program continues as well as it is now going. I support the Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Hayden) read a third time.

page 1748

AIR ACCIDENTS (AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT LIABILITY) BILL 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 23 August (vide page 340), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Hayden) read a third time.

page 1748

SUPERANNUATION BILL (No. 3) 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 23 August (vide page 340), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Hayden) read a third time.

page 1748

SOCIAL WELFARE COMMISSION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 September (vide page 1239), on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– The Opposition supports this Bill, although I understand that the honourable member for Indi (Mr Holten) will move an amendment, which we will not push to a division. The thrust of his proposed amendments is that the Opposition wishes to sound some warning signals to the Government in this undertaking and the Opposition wants them recorded. I think the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) would be the first to agree that in asking the Parliament to pass this Bill he is asking it to take him and his Commission on trust. He made what I called an excellent statement to this House on 30 August when he tabled the report of the Interim Commission on Social Welfare together with the Australian Assistance Plan. The report was full of philosophy; the assistance plan was full of ideas, many of which were untested. At the time I commended the Minister and the Commission for both the philosophy and the suggested ideas in the plan.

This Bill is to establish a social welfare commission. In other words it is to make legal, the body that is now functioning. I want to raise a point here without being too critical, although my friend the honourable member for Indi will pursue this point. The Commission has been functioning for some months now, virtually without the authority of Parliament, as has that other child of the Minister, the Health Commission. This has been done simply by creating an Interim Committee and by hypothecating the sum of money out of the Treasury to pay the wages, stationery and telephone bills in the meantime. I think it would be irresponsible of me as the Opposition’s spokesman if I did not point out to the Minister and to the Government the dangers in this procedure.

In this particular matter I can fully understand that to get the scheme rolling the Interim Committee had to be formed and money had to be hypothecated to it, but it is a dangerous procedure when this sort of thing is done. The Social Welfare Commission is working, people are being paid salaries, letterheads are printed and letters are being written for an institution which purports to be a statutory corporation when the Parliament has not yet authorised its establishment. For all the Minister knows, such a concept might well be refused in the Senate where the Government does not have the numbers. I do not want to labour the point; I just raise it at this stage.

This Bill to establish the Commission is one of a number of Bills before the Parliament seeking to establish commissions in such areas as education, tariff making and aspects of trade practices. The Interim Committee of the National Social Welfare Commission was appointed on 3 April 1973. Since that time a specific number of matters has been referred to it by the Minister, including the Australian Assistance Plan, the Aged Persons Homes Act, the home care program, the Senate Standing Committee’s report on mentally and physically handicapped persons in Australia, emergency relief and multi-purpose welfare centres. The general functions of the Commission, as set out in clause 14 of the Bill, are substantially the same as the Interim Committee’s reference. Therefore my remarks today will be relatively brief because I made a fairly long speech on 30 August in reply to the Minister’s statement when he tabled the report. There seems to be little point in repeating that today.

I would like to make a few remarks, though, on the Australian Assistance Plan. One of the first tasks of the Commission is to be midwife - to use the Minister’s expression - to the Australian Assistance Plan. The plan has as its stated aim ‘to assist in the development, at a regional level within a nationally co-ordinated framework, of integrated patterns of welfare services, complementary to income support programs and welfare - related aspects of health, education, housing, employment, migration and other social policies.’ In doing this, account should be taken amongst other things of the existing responsibilities of State and local governments and voluntary agencies, as well as the Australian Government. The Opposition supports this Bill and the philosophy behind it but it is taking the Government on trust and taking the Minister at his word - the words he used in the statement he made to the House on 30 August and in his second reading speech. There is an inbuilt guarantee by the Minister that State governments will not be bypassed, that some autonomy will be vested in the regional councils. The last thing the Minister or the Government would want would be for these detailed decisions in this matter to be made in Canberra or to be centralised in any way!

Regional councils for social development are regarded as an integral part of regional planning. It is recognised that these councils will vary from State to State according to any differences which may exist. That is quite proper. Of course, social conditions and prob- lems applicable to Redfern would be quite different from the social problems applicable to Gosford. To take a Victorian example, the problems of Collingwood or Carlton would be quite different from the social problems of Wangaratta. As I mentioned in my speech on 30 August, if one wants to assist in the social development of youth and young people, say, in Gosford or Wangaratta one would tend to build football arenas and other sporting facilities. To cope with different kinds of social problems in places such as Carlton and Redfern one might not be persuaded to build such things as football grounds and gymnasiums. There is a different solution to different sets of problems. Therefore the Opposition agrees that the responsibilities of different regional councils would vary.

It is also recognised that the suggested composition of these councils - involving representatives of the Australian, State and local governments, trade unions, employer groups, welfare consumer groups and non-government bodies concerned with social welfare - rests on an untried assumption, and more needs to be known about what might be a desirable composition. Evaluation of the appropriate population level for the planning and provision of welfare services will be necessary. This will affect notions of the definition of a region. The Minister was vague - I do not blame him for that - about where the regions will be, who will be on the councils and how they will be formed. I presume he will be waiting for reports and recommendations of the Commission on these matters. The Bill provides that the Commission must make an annual report and that annual report must be tabled in this Parliament by the Minister. I make another plea, that when such a report involving the lives of millions of Australians is put down here, adequate debate will be allowed on such matters rather than wasting hours debating peripheral things. Sometimes one wonders if the cause of the nation is advanced by some of the long, tedious, repetitious debates that occur from time to time.

As yet the Australian Assistance Plan is still at the ideas stage. In addressing a recent welfare conference in Melbourne the Minister made the following observations:

Obviously we need more information. We don’t want a situation in which too many of our skilled and committed people are conducting surveys and testing models.

Let me make a mild tilt at the Labor Government. So many commissions, authorities and boards have been created since the Australian Labor Party won government on 2 December last - I think the last count was 63 new boards, departments and commissions - that it must be fresh out of people to form any new ones. The Minister went on to say:

Nor do we want to see a situation in which welfare agencies proliferate and are nationally organised in such a way that there are too many incentives for empire building, demarcation and territorial disputes, and, amongst the personnel, for self-maintenance and career improvement at the possible expense of the rights of the people the system is supposed to be helping.

I thoroughly commend the Minister for saying that and I support him in saying that.

It seems that the Minister is well aware of the definition which has been put forward of the ‘typical’ poor New York family. It has been defined as a man, a woman purporting to be his wife, 1.27 children, plus 2 social workers. The Minister went on to say that he suspected ‘that an over-complex system is worse than an unintegrated system’. Whilst substantive comment on the Australian Assistance Plan must await more concrete proposals it is possible to examine the broad outlines of the workings of a regional council. There is a heavy emphasis on liaison. Theoretically, a council will have to work in liaison with the Australian Department of Social Security or the State offices of it and up to 13 other Australian Government departments, such as Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-Generals’, Capital Territory, Education, Environment and Conservation, Health, Housing, Immigration, Labour, Northern Territory, Repatriation, Tourism and Recreation and Urban and Regional Development; the State Government in its various departments concerned with welfare services; local governments - there are 900 of them; the Australian Council of Social Services and the State Council of Social Services; various planning boards in existence and to be set up; and local bodies and charities concerned with welfare services. It is a mindboggling list of the number of bodies with which these regional councils have to work in liaison. Sometimes my sympathies go out to my friend the Minister for the Environment (Dr Cass), who is trying to implement his philosophies on the environment around the nation and is frustrated by having to deal with so many other people and finds himself impotent - in a political sense, I assure him - in being able to carry out these policies.

Any concept based on population distribution as a basis for regionalisation will result in councils which will benefit from this scheme being mainly those in the metropolitan cities. The dominance of the State capitals is shown by the following figures, of which I think very few Australians, particularly parliamentarians, can be proud: In South Australia 68.9 per cent of the people live in Adelaide; in Victoria 68.2 per cent of the population lives in Melbourne; in Western Australia 62.1 per cent of the population lives in Perth; in New South Wales 59 per cent lives in Sydney; in Queensland 44.7 per cent of the people live in Brisbane; and in Tasmania 33.3 per cent lives in Hobart. The distribution of the population outside the metropolitan areas is of crucial importance in the setting up of regional councils. Some indication of this distribution is given in a table which I would like to incorporate in Hansard. I apologise to the Minister for not showing it to him. It is a short one. Its source is “The World’s Most Urbanised Country’ by K. W. Robinson published by Hemisphere in September 1973. It again highlights this terrifying way in which population in Australia-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! Is the honourable member seeking leave to incorporate it in Hansard?

Mr CHIPP:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr CHIPP:

– I thank the House. One aspect worthy of perhaps brief comment is that of the proposal to use, initially at least, index numbers to measure inter-regional differences in social needs. I sound a note of warning to the Minister here. As is well known, such needs are relative and the conclusions yielded from such studies might depend very heavily on the type of social indicators used. Somewhat widely differing results on independent school needs in South Australia have been yielded by 2 different committees, the Cook Committee of South Australia and the Interim Committee of the Australian Schools Commission, the Karmel Committee, both using index methods, both apparently researching the same problems but each of them coming up with conclusions and recommendations so many miles apart. There is a great danger - I warn the Minister - in the use of social indicators unless one knows the limitations of the tools which one is using.

The involvement of the local community and local government bodies in the provision of welfare services is not entirely a new concept or one exclusive to the proposed assistance plan. In Victoria the State Government has for a number of years, since 1969, provided a subsidy through the Social Welfare Department to pay the salary costs of a full time social worker to promote local government involvement in community services. We on this side of the House regard that as absolutely vital - encouraging the involvement of the community in the areas. No sum has ever been done on what it saves governments in this country - both Federal and State governments and local government bodies - in terms of the cost of the voluntary involvement of citizens in charitable and philanthropic activities. This is something that is certainly encouraged on this side of the House. What is perhaps new is the attempt to integrate these services and co-ordinate them at a national level, and the use of pilot projects to test ideas before fully mounting the assistance plan is well advised. In such pilot programs and the proposed action research the hope can be expressed that heed is paid to the experience, pitfalls and insights gained from similar research conducted in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, of which I am sure the Social Welfare Commission is aware. Since the Bill was introduced the Minister has indicated that the Australian Government has decided to emphasise support for welfare pro jects proposed by local communities under the assistance plan rather than to proceed with welfare centres operated by the Department of Social Security. This again is something the Opposition supports. It is a point which I would imagine, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, my friend the honourable member for Indi will be making more of when he addresses himself to the Bill.

In conclusion, there is one point that did concern the Opposition. I have discussed it privately with the Minister. It concerns clauses 7 (4) and 17 (4) of the Bill, which we noticed in going through the Bill were rather unusual clauses to put a Bill in this House. They deal with the constitution of the Commission and its committees. Clause 7 (4) reads:

If a part-time Commissioner is also a member of the Parliament, he shall not be paid fees, expenses or allowances under sub-section (3), but shall, subject to the approval of the Minister, be reimbursed such expenses as he reasonably incurs by reason of his attendance of meetings of the Commission or of his engagement . . . with the approval of the Commission, on business of the Commission.

That seems strange to us because that provision is not necessary. Such a situation is already provided for in the Constitution, and one wondered why all of a sudden such a provision should appear in this Bill. I presume the reason for it was specifically to cover the position of Mr Tom .Roper, who was a member of the Interim Committee of the Social Welfare Commission and who after joining the Interim Committee was elected as a member of the Victorian Parliament. The Opposition accepts that, but at some stage before the second reading of this Bill is passed I would like an assurance from the Minister that if members of Parliament are appointed to the Commission, members of both persuasions - Government and anti-Government persuasions - will be represented on it. This is a Commission that is not just an unimportant body. It is an extraordinarily important body, and the opportunity would be there on the Commission for an unscrupulous member of Parliament, of no matter what persuasion, to direct the expenditure of moneys in his own or other electorates which would serve his own party politically. The Minister has given me an assurance privately - I would appreciate it if he would place it on record in the Parliament - that if such moves are made in the future, both sides of this Parliament will be represented on such a commission. The Opposition supports the Bill.

Mr OLDMEADOW:
Holt

– I rise to speak briefly in support of the Bill. It is not a complex Bill. Its purpose is to establish formally the Social Welfare Commission and to set out its powers and functions. It is to be a Commission composed of 1 1 commissioners. The detailed functions of the Commission are very clearly set out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden). I believe that it is an opportune time to congratulate the Interim Committee on the work that it did. I think the quality of its work is reflected in the reports that were tabled in Parliament. These reports referred to the preparations for a comprehensive Australian social welfare assistance plan. One of the things which I think are important in this measure is that there is not to be undue haste in the implementation of this assistance plan. I think that, if we send out discussion papers to the people so that they can really come to grips with the problems at the local level in their community and then feed information back to the Commission, when the plan comes into operation it will be a first rate plan.

The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) pleaded that time should be given for debate on reports from this Commission in future. I support him strongly in this matter. I believe that in this very important area of social welfare for the nation, particularly the provision of assistance at the local level - a concept which is a new and exciting one - it is imperative that this Parliament should give of its time. I believe there is much evidence that some of the time we take in other debates could be done without, as frequently such debates are on issues that are not worthy of debate.

I said that the involvement of the local community in a nationally co-ordinated regional plan is an exciting concept. Stress should be placed on the fact that the program will be flexible and one in which priorities will largely be guided by decisions made at the local level. I applaud this grass roots approach. I feel it is most important in any scheme of this type if it is to measure up to what are the needs of the particular community. Planning and funding obviously must be done at the national level, but at the local level the administration and decision making regarding the actual needs of a particular community can be carried out most effectively. I believe that in this way this Parliament, through its assistance, can maximise the effectiveness of voluntary organisations, service organisations, churches, local government bodies and those bodies that are already in the field and operating. We can work in conjunction with these organisations in regionally planned councils and gain the very best in a social welfare scheme.

As I said earlier, this is not something that should be done in haste but rather with careful planning, assessment and reassessment throughout. In this way the social welfare needs of Australia will be released from the heavy hand of centralism that for too long characterised the programs of the past Government. Too often decisions have been made in Canberra. Priorities have been determined in this Parliament with little contact at the local level and then applied across the board. This assumes that the needs of communities are the same but all honourable members know that this is not so. I know that the social welfare needs of my outer suburban electorate are vastly different from the needs of the electorate of, say, the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), which is an inner suburban area. In the past the special needs of particular areas have been neglected through the rigid nature of the previous administration and the way that centralised administration or decision making took place in Canberra. The diversity of the nation’s social, economic and cultural patterns in the past too often has been neglected but I believe that through this plan the problem can be overcome.

With regionalised administration we can move into the area of regionalised decision making and here we can come to grips with the problems. During the last week’s break from parliamentary sittings I became aware of problems in . my own area, including the need for emergency housing. This may well be a problem in many other areas but it is of great magnitude in my area. I believe it requires attention at the regional level rather than attempting to cope with it through municipalities, as has been done, or even on a national scale. Again I stress that in such a case the funding would, of necessity, have to come from the central government. My reason for rising to support this Bill is that I believe it places the emphasis on grass roots development while, at the same time, maintaining co-ordination at the national level. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr HOLTEN:
Indi

– I move:

I have only 12 minutes remaining in which to speak to this important Bill. This does not afford much opportunity for me to express at length my thoughts on it. I shall deal with the amendment as I proceed. As honourable members know, the Bill is designed officially to establish the Social Welfare Commission. In my judgment it is appropriate to question whether this Commission is really necessary. It will be one of more than 40 new commissions and boards created by the Labor Government which seems to have gone commission happy. In the Labor Party’s policy speech there was no mention of this new instrumentality, to be known as the Social Welfare Commission, being set up. This is another example of the Government having misled and misinformed the people. The second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) was vague, as was the first annual report of the Social Welfare Commission which, incidentally, this Bill seeks to establish although it has already produced an annual report, and also the booklet entitled ‘The Australian Assistance Plan’. These 3 documents are all vague and it is not possible for an informed judgment to be made or informed debate to be conducted.

It does appear that this Commission may be duplicating many services that presently are working well. The eventual function of the Commission could be that of a giant government machine with an enormous expenditure budget conveying with it gigantic economic strength and administrative centralist domination. In his second reading speech’ the Minister attempted to dismiss in almost one sentence any concern that the establishment of this new Commission’ could be thought to be a centralist move. I want it clearly understood that I believe that the broad concept is to be commended, but the way of achieving it is very questionable because it is another move towards centralising power in Canberra and even . towards abolishing the Department of Social Security and other departments.

The Minister’s second reading speech, the booklet entitled ‘The Australian Assistance Plan’ and the annual report of the Social Welfare Commission are full of references to links between the Commonwealth and regional areas. In that regard this Bill follows a similar pattern to that of the Grants Commission Bill. These documents certainly mention the States but I can see no definition of the link with regional areas. Although mention is made of the States and links with them, I can see the State authorities either being phased out or by-passed by the power of money. It is well known that the organisation which provides the money will be the organisation which will dominate the administration of the Commission. Who will provide the funds? It is not possible to give a definite answer to that question. However, every indicator points to the Commonwealth Government providing the bulk of the money. Therefore, the Commission could be fairly said to be another move to centralise more power in Canberra over a far-reaching range of government departments, State and Federal.

To attempt to obtain some basic understanding of this Bill it is necessary to concentrate on 4 documents. They are the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security, who is obviously a strong disciple of Parkinson’s law, the first annual report of the Social Welfare Commission, the Australian Assistance Plan compiled by members of the Social Welfare Commission and the transcript of the comments made by Mrs Coleman on the television program ‘Monday Conference’ a few weeks ago. It is possible to make only a very brief reference to each of those 4 documents in the time available to me. The ‘Mrs Coleman’ to whom I have referred will be the full time Chairman of the Social Welfare Commission - at least, I presume she will be. She has been up to date. I presume that if this Bill is passed by both Houses of the Parliament she will be appointed as full time Chairman of the Social

Welfare Commission, which has been operating for 6 months or so without any authority from this Parliament. I have said that broadly speaking the concept of this Bill is a good one, but it is absolutely staggering to me that the Government should set up the. Commission and appoint a Chairman and 9 members to it and for it to be working for 6 months without the consent of the Parliament.

Mr Oldmeadow:

– It is an interim committee.

Mr HOLTEN:

– I heard an interjection that it is an interim committee. I have in front of me the first annual report of the Australian Social Welfare Commission. The fact of the matter is that it will not be an official body until this Bill is passed by this House and the Senate. This seems to me to be quite in keeping with the contempt that is being shown by the Government to the Parliament. We have seen it with the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) at question time. I guarantee that he has not answered 50 per cent of the questions that have been put to him. We have seen it with the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). We now see it with the. Minister for Social Security. This Commission has been in operation for 6 months without any charter from the Governor-General. If I have time to do so I will deal with certain sections of the Bill which indicate that the Governor-General has to make the necessary appointments. Parliament has been ignored in the. setting up of the Social Welfare Commission. This is a very wide ranging piece of legislation, as anyone who reads the Australian Assistance Plan will see but even if it were only a minor Bill, relatively speaking, it would be still showing contempt for the Parliament to have such a commission operating for so long without parliamentary approval. I say that it is quite typical of the Government that it should do this.

I referred earlier to the transcript of an interview on the television program ‘Monday Conference’ with Mrs Coleman, who is the full time Chairman of the Commission. I want to raise another matter that I think is a matter of principle. If I am wrong the Minister may correct me later on. As far as I know the position of Chairman of the Social Welfare Commission, which carries with it the status of Permanent Head of a Government department and a salary of $25,000 a year plus allowances, including a $34 a day travelling allowance, was not advertised.

Mr Hayden:

– It would have been a waste of money because we would still have appointed her.

Mr HOLTEN:

– The Minister for Social Security agrees with me. Fancy the Minister talking about the wasting of money. He has just spent more than Sim of the taxpayers’ money on putting out a pamphlet supporting his health scheme but he would not spend a couple of hundred dollars advertising the position of Chairman of such a far reaching and important body as the Social Welfare Commission.

Dr Forbes:

– They wanted to give it a Labor Party hack.

Mr HOLTEN:

– I leave it to the people of Australia to make their own assessment. The Minister’s actions were an insult to the members of the Public Service and, to a certain extent, an affront to the social workers or any other persons around Australia who would have applied for the position if it had been advertised. I am not reflecting upon the person who was appointed; I am reflecting upon the principle of not advertising the position. I do not intend to discuss the comments made on the ‘Monday Conference’ program to any great extent, except to quote 3 paragraphs from the transcript of it. I would like anyone who does not think that the fears I have expressed in the amendment I have moved, to the effect that this organisation could be a tremendous move towards further centralism of power in Canberra, are warranted to listen to the quotation I wish to make from the transcript of the interview on ‘Monday Conference’ with Mrs Coleman. Robert Moore asked: . . is there some much bigger, granted social welfare plan quite unlike anything we’ve even known before, that the Government has in mind?

Mrs Coleman said:

Well, whether it’s in the mind or whether it’s a gleam in somebody’s eye at the moment I guess is the operative question, but we certainly do not want to try to completely restructure the social welfare system . . .

What is going to happen to the departments of Social Security, Health and Repatriation - to name 3 of them - which have social workers working for them? The Department of Social Security has hundreds of social workers working for it. What are they going to be doing? Why can they not advise the Government on this matter? Mrs Coleman went on to say: . . if one is talking there about the network of cash benefits that are paid as income supports for various people, and the range of personal welfare services that are provided f - various people for particular purposes. But in addition to that I think the function of the Social Welfare Commission is very much broader than to think in terms of even an amended system which will catch the casualties, so to speak. We’re very concerned to try to make some kind of very broad policy input in the whole area of the social consequences of other areas of Government policy so that, for example, we’re profoundly concerned with the social implications of housing policy, the social implications of migration policy.

It looks as if every government department is going to have a member of the Social Welfare Commission within its organisation - that is, if they are not all swallowed up by it.

Dr Cass:

– Oh!

Mr HOLTEN:

– There has been some ridiculing of that comment. I feel that someone has to flag a warning. Only time will tell whether what I am saying has any substance to it. I have quoted just a couple of paragraphs from a 25-page transcript. Mrs Coleman and her Commission have outlined for themselves a huge ambit of power and influence. A close watch will need to be kept on the progress of this organisation which has all the earmarks and ingredients of attempting to forge itself into a super overriding bureaucratic structure which will extend its tentacles and authority into practically every government department and everyone’s life in Australia.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You are not reading this, are you?

Mr HOLTEN:

– At least I can read. That is more than the Minister can do. Those of us in this Parliament - particularly members of the Country Party - who represent the country areas will be seeking to obtain the answers to some questions. Are the Government and the Commission to make a special effort to help to attract more social workers and trained personnel to country areas? If funds are provided on a per capita basis it woud seem that there could be cause for concern that more of the available money and personnel will be directed to the densely populated metropolitan areas.

Members of the Country Party and other members representing people living outside Melbourne and Sydney appreciate that there are more people and more problems and therefore greater necessity for more trained staff in the metropolitan areas. But those who represent non-metropolitan areas in this Parliament have a duty to speak up for our people. We must not, and will not, allow the deafening silence on behalf of the non-metropolitan people exhibited by the Labor Ministers and the members who represent the country people to paralyse our voices too. People living outside the capital cities already have been treated shockingly and savagely by this Labor Government. Not only have the rural people received no help from this Labor Government but also actually have had their incomes reduced and expenses increased over a wide range of goods and services.

As I implied earlier it could be fairly said that a great part of the Minister’s second reading speech, the discussion paper No. 1 and the Social Welfare Commission Annual Report consist of cliches, vague statements, no expenditure estimates - which is typical of many of the pieces of legislation which recently have been brought into this Parliament - and hard to define technical jargon. Looking at the whole concept in a very broad way it must be conceded that there are some socially worthy and desirable features. There seems to be a desire and an aim to encourage more people to involve themselves in a much wider range of welfare activities. It is hoped that there will be an increasing feeling of community involvement in areas of social welfare which previously has been lacking in many communities. It is clear that an improved quality of life can result only from more people involving themselves with and assisting local welfare programs. However, I pose the question: Do we need a huge new national welfare commission to achieve these aims?

It must be conceded that the objective and concept of improved provision and awareness of social welfare will assist many Australians. However, I believe the effectiveness of the scheme and the achievement of its objectives will depend on many factors, one of which is co-operation with State organisations and cooperation with and encouragement of voluntary agencies to ensure that maximum use is made of their experience and skills. Clients must retain the right to choose from a variety of organisations for help, rather than being dealt with by one big bureaucracy. Co-operation must be achieved with regional areas, particularly making sure that there is maximum community involvement. It must be ensured that rural areas outside the capital cities obtain a fair share of money and personnel. Maximum use must be made of the skills and knowledge of people who already live in the rural areas. The success of the scheme will depend on its ability to attract suitably trained personnel and not on robbing other departments and services of trained workers. Care must be taken not to overlap and interfere with established departments, which I fear will happen if the Commission is allowed a free rein. As my time is almost up I remind the House that I moved the amendment to put on record some of the concerns of members of this Parliament towards the Social Welfare Commission Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Corbett:

– Yes. I desire to second the amendment and to reserve my right to speak.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– We have just listened to the typical, whining, whingeing, moaning and bellyaching type of speech we have heard from the Country Party goats since this Government was elected. How different it was from the fine speech made by the Liberal shadow Minister, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp). During his speech on this Bill some weeks ago he had nothing but praise for the establishment of the Commission. In the typical style of the Country Party since 2 December its members have tried to score off every single improvement and every social advancement that this Party has made. They have fallen flat on their faces as usual. Let us have a look at some of the criticisms made by the honourable member for Indi (Mr Holten). He said that the Social Welfare Commission was set up without parliamentary approval. I remind him that Sir Robert Menzies set up the Australian Universities Commission as an interim committee on exactly the same basis and he also appointed Sir Hugh Ennor without advertising the position. He acted in exactly the same way as the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden).

Mr Holten:

– That does not necessarily make it right.

Mr COHEN:

– The honourable member did not say anything about it at the time; I can assure him of that. I point out that the discussion paper No.1 concerns both this Parliament and the nation. The initial objectives as set out in the discussion paper are:

The aim of the Australian Assistance Plan is to assist in the development, at a regional level within a nationally co-ordinated framework, of integrated patterns of welfare services, complementary to income support programs and the welfare-related aspects of health, education, housing, employment, migration and other social policies, having regard to the following matters:

That the existing responsibilities of State and local governments, voluntary agencies and the Australian Government are recognised.

That assistance should be available for planning and developmental programs.

That the development of regional planning systems is to be encouraged.

That every effort is made to avoid duplication and overlapping of services.

That local residents and welfare consumer groups are encouraged to participate in the planning and provision of welfare services.

That continual elvaluation and monitoring of all programs occur to ensure their flexibility, adaptability and appropriateness in light of changing patterns of social need.

The honourable member for Indi said that the discussion paper is vague. Of course it is vague. We are moving into a totally new field. The previous Government never bothered to do any research into this field. It set up a whole lot of government agencies for each department andlet them run on their own without any co-ordination or integration. When the honourable member for Indi was Minister for Repatriation the Department of Repatriation operated in isolation from other departments, as did the Department of Social Services. If there is anything for which I should criticise the previous Government more than anything else it is for lack of information we received.

The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) is now in the chamber. When he was Minister for Social Services I wrote to him repeatedly and asked for information and statistics about the depth and the amount of poverty that existed, the lack of housing and the lack of welfare services to the community. I never received any information because he always said that this field was the responsibility of the universities and the academics. He said it was not the Government’s responsibility to find out where the problems were. It was always someone else’s responsibility. In effect the previous Government said: ‘You tell us what the problems are and then maybe we will do something about them’.

The previous speaker asked what was to happen with respect to the other government departments. I hope that they will learn to co-operate with one another and to work together. I am reminded of the number of departments both Federal and State that now exist. In most communities today, particularly in country areas, the departments operating in this field include the departments of Social Security, Labour - that is, commonwealth employment - Immigration, Repatriation, Aboriginal Affairs and Tourism and Recreation.

In my State of New South Wales the State departments operating in this field include the Department of Housing, which administers the State Housing Commission, the Department of Youth and Community Services, which was formerly the Department responsible for social welfare, the Police Department and, to name one other State office, chamber magistrates. In addition, through the Department of Health various services are provided.

Other organisations include local hospitals, domiciliary health care clinics, nursing homes, nursing care services, aged persons’ homes and the various voluntary agencies such as Legacy, the civilians widows’ organisations, the Returned Services League, the war widows’ organisations, the handicapped children’s organisations, sheltered workshops and various community service clubs such as those catering for age and invalid pensioners and senior citizens together with the parents without partners and birthright organisations. All of these bodies operate without any form of co-ordination. This is what is wrong with the social welfare system. This is the fragmented nature of the system that exists and will continue unless action such as that proposed by this magnificent document entitled the ‘Australian Assistance Plan’ is agreed to by this House and by the Parliament and is implemented by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) and his Department.

The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) talked about volunteer help. He said that his Party believed in voluntary involvement in social welfare services. I think this involvement is important. But I differentiate between what I call voluntary help and government involvement. We should make sure that voluntary workers are not filling a void caused by government abdicating its role. The sight of voluntary workers being forced to beg in the streets to provide basic health and social welfare amenities I find intolerable as, I am sure, do most sections of the community. We must strike a happy medium with respect to government involvement and voluntary help in decision making. We should not depend on voluntary helpers to provide all needs including the massive finance that is essential to make our welfare system function.

The Country Party, through the honourable member for Indi, as it has done with respect to almost every Bill which has come before this House, has tried to discover some plot in this legislation which demonstrates that the

Labor Party practises a form of discrimination against country people by giving preference to metropolitan areas and to the cities. I represent a partly rural electorate. Many of my colleagues represent rural electorates. There is an enormous amount of rural poverty. From the discussions that I have had with the Minister and from early reports, I have been informed that rather than rural areas receiving less per capita through the Australian Assistance Plan, any discrimination will probably be in thenfavour.

The great advantage that I see in this program is that at last on a regional basis we will have some sort of direction as to where we are going. I am sure that I speak for every member in this House when I say that a member suffers enormous frustration when he sits in his office and meets his electors and representatives of voluntary agencies who, one after the other, discuss various problems and different programs. One person will say: ‘I think we need an aged persons’ homes unit. How do we go about doing that?’ The member asks: ‘Where should we build it?’ The reply is: I have not accurate information. I do not know whether we need 10 units, 50 units, 100 units or 500 units’. Someone suggests that a social worker is needed. Someone else might say that 5 or 10 social workers are required. The question is: How many do we need? People suggest that we should set up youth centres or senior citizens clubs. Again the question is: How many do we need?

Does direction or planning exist? There is no co-ordination throughout the whole community to analyse and to dissect the welfare and health problems and what is required in a total community program to bring them to fruition over a period to meet the requirements. All of the organisations that I mentioned earlier and others in our community go off in different directions and do their own things without any form of co-ordination. I see the Australian Assistance Plan as the beginning of a program to create a proper integrated welfare system in Australia. I deplore the attempts made by the previous speaker to try to score political points in this matter. I hope that the people who are listening to this debate or who read about this debate will note the deep divisions which exist between the Opposition parties.

The honourable member for Hotham made one of the most laudatory speeches that I have heard from an Opposition member towards the Government since I have been a member here. On the other hand, the former Country Party Minister attempted to score political points. I find it incredible to believe that in respect of this basic document setting out laudable social objectives the honourable member could find so many points on which to whine and whinge. The document is vague - I agree with him on that point - ‘because the area in which we are moving is vague because so little information is available on which to base it. So much of what we are to do will be exploratory. We will be researching and gathering facts and information. I am most disappointed - in fact, I am quite bitter - to think that this action, of all the steps that we have taken, should be knocked in such a performance by the Country Party.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I speak in support of this Bill. If I have any reservations they will be constructive reservations which I hope will be directed to make work better a plan which I believe contains inherent value. I certainly will not approach this matter in any political frame of mind at all. First let me say that I agree entirely about the importance of voluntary bodies. I will speak in a few moments about what I think their functions should be. When I was Minister for Social Services I did try to upgrade the functions and facilities of these voluntary bodies. I believe that, in their sphere, they can do a job which no government department can do as well. I believe that they have a real place in our social system. I support entirely the concept that they should be helped to fulfil their proper role.

I do not believe, however, that voluntary bodies can cover the whole field. I do not think that there is perhaps sometimes a tendency to downgrade the abilities and the resources of the Federal Public Service in a field such as this. It is true, I suppose, that there are still many defects in our social service system as there are indeed many defects in any social service system, as far as I am aware, existing in the world. But it is not right to pretend that there is no skill whatsoever - no humanity and outlook whatsoever - in the Federal Public Service and in the relevant departments. I know that the opposite is true. I know that it is true that many departments are involved and that some co-ordination is necessary. That co-ordination primarily is the responsibility of the Government at government level. The Government can get help most assuredly from outside expert advice. I am not trying for one moment to say that valuable help cannot be given, but in the final analysis it is the Government’s responsibility to take or to reject advice and to fashion at government level the social services plan.

It is important that we should help these voluntary bodies to develop. I do see in this a possible danger - I do not say that it is an actual danger; it is a danger against which we have to guard - that the proposed Social Welfare Commission will cut into the field of the voluntary bodies and to some extent impair their successful operation. We should be careful not to kill voluntary bodies by kindness even. We should not short-circuit the functions of the States or local government. I am a little bit worried by sub-clause (vi) of clause 14 (b) of the Bill which states:

  1. The functions of the Commission are -

    1. to make recommendations to the Minister .. .
    2. … for avoiding the duplication of social welfare programs . . .

I know that it is desirable to avoid that duplication. I know that co-ordination has become, like Mesopotamia, a blessed word, but there is some function which the voluntary bodies can best perform if they are not too coordinated. The advance of a social welfare program depends on experiment. Try this - it may work in this area; it may not work in that area. I would be worried that in the interpretation of the recommendations for avoiding the duplication of social welfare programs there might not be inherent some kind of brake and construction upon voluntary bodies and we might even find the position where worthwhile experiments are not being pursued because they may not commend themselves to the Commission. It is, of course, natural that co-ordinators should feel that all the wisdom is in their court, that they know everything. This is a natural human failing. Very often the best system arises from some kind of analogue of a higgling of the market with people trying things. Some will fail and some will succeed. But in this area of voluntary experimentation, which we should not try to replace because we might say it is duplication and wasteful effort, lie the seeds, I am sure, of a great deal of social advancement. I had the opportunity of listening to Mrs Marie Coleman on ‘Monday Conference’ and of taking particular note of what she said. May I say that I have the utmost regard for her judgment and integrity and I believe that she will be a most excellent head of the Commission. Nothing that I say is meant in any regard to diminish the appreciation that I would have for her work in the past or her potential for the future.

When one looks at the functions of these voluntary bodies I think one comes to this conclusion: First, the Government, through its system of social services - age pensions, family endowment, widows’ pensions and the other payments that it makes - should be able to make certain that nobody in the Australian community is left below a certain level of poverty. That certain level must rise and should rise continually with the growth of the productivity of the total Australian community. I do not look on this as something static. I look on social services as permanently unfinished business because always we can be improving them as the standards in the community as a whole rise. But the things which the Government gives have to be given in accordance with the book. Very big sums of money are involved and there are very big privileges. It is necessary that they be properly policed not only in the interests of the taxpayer but also in the interests of maintaining a spirit of incentive and integrity in the community as a whole.

The things which are given by the Government have to be given by the book, and I think there is no way out of that. But beyond that always, whatever is given by the book, there will be deserving sections of the community. There will be people whose needs are not covered by the overall provisions of social services. It is for those people that the voluntary body is specially adapted. This is one of its functions. One of its functions is to meet the exceptional case which cannot be met by the rule of the book which the Government must follow. It is therefore, I think, not a bad thing for the Government to use these voluntary bodies as its agents, to subsidise them, to help them to expand their services so that they can do more and do things more quickly than they would be able to do without governmental help. It is this kind of thing which we inaugurated, for example, in our aged persons homes scheme where we put in two-thirds of the money, leaving some responsibility to the voluntary body but using government money in order to accelerate the necessary program. In this way we bring in the human factor.

If we are talking about the relief of people who through some unforeseen emergency or some unfortunate occurrence find themselves in need, it is much better for them to be helped by a voluntary body, with Government help perhaps, and with responsibility - and let me pay a tribute as sincere as I can to a number of our voluntary bodies for their sense of responsibility. It is their function, I think, to help these exceptional cases which cannot be met by the rule of the book. What the Government does is not charity; it is the right which the citizen has. Whether it involves the age pension, the widow’s pension or family endowment, it is the citizen’s right; it is not charity. But if the individual finds himself in some unforeseen situation, which the Government cannot foresee perhaps any more than he can, that person does need the help of charity. I believe that this is much better administered through a voluntary body with government subsidy and assistance than it would be through a government department. We all know for example that the States have food relief and various kinds of emergency help available, but I am not certain that this kind of help would not be better given through some of the responsible and excellent voluntary bodies which work in the field.

The other function of a voluntary body is to carry out experiments. The Government can initiate experiments. It can do things and provide the money. But I think that the Public Service as a whole is not very well adapted to the experimental approach. Many experiments will fail but it is from the successful experiment that real advances in the social service field can be expected. So I believe that the proper functions of the voluntary body are to experiment and to meet the emergency cases which cannot be met by the book, and to provide the human contacts which a government department cannot provide as satisfactorily. I want to support in every way and to the greatest extent the expansion of the work of these voluntary bodies. Mrs Coleman has had a tremendous amount of contact with them. I believe that these are things which really merit government support and, insofar as that is inherent in this Bill, it is a good Bill.

The Commission will not have executive functions. Its functions are to recommend and, as I have said, the final responsibility of either accepting or rejecting the Commission’s recommendations will rest on the Government.

The Government cannot shrug off that final responsibility; no government should be allowed to shrug it off. No doubt the Commission will be directing its first attention to what I would describe as the residual pockets of poverty which are being investigated by the Henderson Committee which was originally set up under the previous Government. However, these pockets of poverty, acute though they are and although they are very hard for those who are in them, are to my mind not as important as the massive social trends which have to be met. Although time will not permit me to develop this point now, I believe that the most important major and massive social problem which lies before the Department of Social Security is providing help for the young and the forming family, especially in the lower income brackets. I believe that this is the problem which we on this side of the House will be endeavouring to solve. I would regard a matter such as this as being bipartisan and I believe that the present Government, for as long as it remains in office - it may not be very long - would also support a concept such as the one which originally was formulated by the previous Government and which I still regard as the most important social service problem confronting Australia.

What we have done in the past and what this Government has done has been to a very large extent, but not entirely, to clean up the acute pockets of poverty. We now are faced with the much more massive problem which goes right to the root of our social structure, namely, of help for the young and the forming family and, particularly, help for the young couple at the time of the birth of their first child or in the provision of the matrimonial home which is desirable at all times but becomes, I believe, necessary when the first child is born. I hope that this will not involve the reduction in our living standards which we have been inclined to accept by having an economic system which compels so many young mothers, against their inclinations, to go out to work to support their families. A social system that has this as one of its ingredients is a bad social system and, insofar as we have moved towards this situation, I believe that the standards of the Australian people in the last few decades have not advanced but have regressed. If a woman wants to work, that is her business and her privilege. But we should not have a social system which compels the mother of a young child, for economic reasons, to go to work against her will.

I know that the Government has appointed a large number of committees. I sometimes feel that it has the idea that if it appoints a committee to investigate a problem, the problem will go away. It is not quite as simple as that, but I hope that this Commission will be a fruitful one. I and, I am sure, all honourable members on this side of the House, will do everything we can to further the work of the Commission, to help it to progress and to try to assist it in avoiding some of the dangers which might be inherent in the abuse of the scheme which the Government has brought forward. But most certainly - I hope I have done it constructively - I support the Bill.

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– in reply - I should like to commend the Opposition spokesmen on health, the honourable members for Hotham (Mr Chipp) and Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), and the honourable members for Robertson (Mr Cohen) and Holt (Mr Oldmeadow) from this side of the House for their thoughtful contributions to the debate on the Social Welfare Commission Bill which is now before the House. Some points were raised as questions and I feel an obligation to discuss those points. However, by and large, there has been agreement with the proposal which the Government has introduced. This in itself is a significant achievement and indicates, firstly, the correctness of the decision of the Government and, secondly, that the Commission should be quite successful in its endeavours. It seems clear that generally, there is a bipartisan approach to the purposes which have been set before the Commission; they are extremely valuable ones.

I will not go over the whole field again. The Commission is to be an advisory commission. It will be a commission that will make recommendations to the Government after proper inquiries have been made - inquiries which will be more than a matter of seeking information from people in some sort of inquisitorial way, but rather, inquiries which will be as much based on the functions of properly set up pilot studies and support for the projects of voluntary agencies within the regions in the Australian community. In other words, there will be an effort to tie together comprehensively the welfare services which exist and which should and will be developed in the Australian community as a result of the work of this Commission in order to meet the requirements of the people in the community. I refer not just to the requirements of the needy people in the community but also to the requirements of all the people in the community who have cause at some stage, whether it is intermittently in their lives, only very rarely or, through misfortune of some kind or another, regularly, to call on the support of such services.

As I said, some points were raised which deserve a reply from me. Firstly, the point was raised and was laboured somewhat by the honourable member for Indi (Mr Holten) - I rather gathered he was trying to manufacture opposition to the program but I thought he did not do so convincingly either for the House or for himself - that the Interim Commission had been functioning without authority from Parliament. I remind the honourable member for Indi that we have a precedent for this and we followed that precedent. A former Australian Prime Minister, now Sir Robert Menzies, when setting up the Australian Universities Commission in fact appointed that Commission on an interim basis without any authority from the Parliament and had it operating for several months before the parliamentary authority was provided. Of course there is no problem about this. In a worthy program or project such as this one where there is clearly bipartisan support of the proposal there should be no difficulties at all. I think it is mean and shallow quibbling to try to manufacture some sort of opposition in the way the honourable member for Indi did. His action did not do him, his Opposition or the case he tried to present any great favour.

The Opposition spokesman on health and welfare matters, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), raised questions about clauses 7 (4) and 17 (4) of the Bill. These clauses do not refer to members of State parliaments. They are a reminder of the requirement in the Australian Constitution that a member of Parliament cannot hold an office of profit under the Crown. As I understand the situation, if my recollection is correct of the advice I received some weeks ago, there is no real need for these clauses to be in the Bill and they could be as easily left out. But they are there as a timely reminder and to that extent they have value and I suggest that they ought to be left there. The case of State members of Parliament was raised in relation to

Mr Tom Roper, who at the time he was appointed to the Interim Commission was not a member of Parliament. He was appointed to the Commission because of his qualities and experience as an educationalist with a sociological bent. In appointing to the Commission a person with an educational background it seemed to me that we needed someone who had this sociological bent in his approach to educational requirements in the community because the people the Commission is to be concerned about are people who suffer socio-economic deprivation. Therefore one has to understand the socio-economic dynamics in our society which can lead to deprivation and in fact can reinforce it and even perpetuate it through generations.

This is a very vital aspect in any consideration of what educational programs can contribute in welfare services. Of course this is much more broad than merely the concept of poverty; it covers generally the requirements of people who call upon welfare services where there is some sort of attendant educational requirement. So that is why Mr Roper was appointed. I am advised, for what it is worth and I think it is interesting for the record, that the ‘Crown’ referred to in this Bill is the Crown which is recognised by the Australian Government. It seems that the Victorian Government recognises a different Crown’. In each case the Crown is Queen Elizabeth II but for the purpose of constitutional requirement and probity the Crown referred to in Victorian Acts is an entirely different one. Therefore, when Mr Roper, as a member of the Victorian State Parliament, acts as a member of this Commission he is not acting as a servant of the Victorian Government’s Crown but of the Australian Government’s Crown. It rather confirms impressions 1 had gathered of the general attitude of the Victorian Government, which I understand is an experience not peculiar to this Government.

The honourable member for Indi raised a point which really had no relevance to the Bill but again it is worth answering because it has to be rebutted. He said that this Government is spending over Sim in distributing pamphlets in the community on the health insurance program. That is not true. We are spending about $250,000. I point out that the program has been outstandingly successful. As a result of our advertisements many people have written to the Department seeking copies of the pamphlet. The pamphlet has been sought quite actively at the post offices where it has been placed for distribution to the community. Again I would ask the honourable member for Indi not to moralise on this question because the Country Party is in a very weak position. When the present health insurance program was introduced by the late Sir Earle Page, he in fact arranged for a fairly compendious document to be printed at public expense and to be distributed to every household in Australia at public expense. That was all done some 6 months or more before there was any legislative authority for his Government to take that action. So there is ample precedent for our action. The difference, however, in this instance is that we are distributing a pamphlet in a fairly mild and moderate program in that we encourage people to seek the pamphlet. That is, they have to indicate a genuine concern and interest to inform themselves. The pamphlet covers only a small range of questions. It contains a bland statement of the principles of the proposed program and does not canvass in any way the polemics of the curret debate. That is a very significant point which ought not to be forgotten.

The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) made some of the most thoughtful and helpful observations which have been made at any stage in the debate. I concur with his assertions about the valuable role of voluntary agencies in the maintenance of any community based welfare program. I assure him and other honourable members that insofar as I have influence on these matters, voluntary agencies will be playing a powerful role under the program we are putting forward. It is not a program, as was suggested unkindly by the honourable member for Indi, to centralise welfare programs at Canberra but rather it is a program for the Australian Government to take up responsibility to fund adequately the development of these programs out in the community - out in the regions where people live - but more importantly to have those people, as much as this is possible, identify what are the priorities in those areas.

I have mentioned this before in this House and in other places. But it is absolutely vital that the people who live in these communities should be given considerable say in what sort of programs are appropriate for them. Of course we will take proper and responsible measures to ensure that money is not wasted. But this does not mean that those measures have to be intrusive in any way at all. Not at all. There are quite successful ways of achieving this objective by peer group discussion, peer group review, seminars, example, illustration and experience. In other words we are aiming at a very flexible approach to the development of this program in the community - an approach which will encourage people rather than push them towards achieving the objectives which will best serve the needs of the community in the provision of social welfare programs.

I was heartened to hear the kinds comments from a number of honourable members from both sides of the House on the capacity, integrity, enthusiasm and ability of the Chairman of the Commission, Mrs Marie Coleman. We did not advertise the position of Chairman of the Commission. That point was raised in the course of debate by the honourable member for Indi, again trying to make a mean little point. It is not the practice either of this Government or of previous governments, as I understand it, to advertise the positions of heads of departments. In any case I assure the House that from my extensive knowledge of the people who would have been available it would have been a waste of the public’s money advertising because Mrs Coleman would have applied for the position and she would have been appointed in any case. I thank honourable members for the comments they have made. I particularly thank the former Minister for Social Services who has much to look back on with a sense of satisfaction for a creditable performance in a number of areas when he was Minister for Social Services. I thank him particularly for the thoughtful contribution that he made in the course of this debate.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr HOLTEN:
Indi

– Listening to the remarks of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) I think I could be excused for believing that this chamber was a mutual admiration society. The proposal he is putting forward has obviously been his dream for some considerable time but he seems to think that it is out of order for people to put forward ideas that conflict with /those held by him and even by some other honourable members. Time will tell whether any or all of my comments relating to certain aspects of the Bill are correct. If this is not a centralist move it will be about the first time that this Government has not aimed more and more at centralism on issues concerning a great many people around Australia.

The Minister did not dispute the fact that it is generally recognised that where the funds come from lies the power. He said himself that it is the responsibility of the Australian Government to fund adequately the social welfare services throughout Australia. I stick to the principle that the source of the funds will turn out to be the source of the power and the body that will dominate this scheme. He said something about the health scheme pamphlets and he drew attention to the proposals of the scheme. Mr Chairman, is it in order for me to refer to those remarks of the Minister?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– No. The honourable member would not be in order in doing so in Committee.

Mr HOLTEN:

– I accept your ruling on that matter. Perhaps I will have the chance to comment later on the contents of the pamphlet which is called the ‘The Plain Facts’. Some people call it ‘The Half Truths’; I do not know whether that is a correct description but it has been described to me in that fashion. Clause 4 of the Bill reads:

For the purposes of this Act, there is hereby established a Commission by the name of the Social Welfare Commission . . .

I believe that the people of Australia should have been informed that a social welfare commission would be established if the Australian Labor Party was elected, because this would have indicated that another government department would be established entailing the appointment of the head of the department, deputy heads and various other personnel. But the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) made no mention of a social welfare commission in his policy speech. He said that an Australian assistance plan would be introduced but he made no mention at all of the fact that it would be necessary to establish a commission by the name of the Social Welfare Commission. I believe that the people have been misled. I turn now to clause 5 of the Bill. I repeat that such an important position in a new department as Chairman of the Commission should have been advertised. If that is not accepted as precedent I ask the Minister whether the positions of deputy chairman and 9 other commissioners will be advertised.

Mr Lloyd:

– Including State members of Parliament.

Mr HOLTEN:

– Yes. Or is it to be taken for granted that the personnel mentioned in the short biographical notes contained in the annual report of the Social Welfare Commission, which has not yet been established officially, will constitute the commissioners and perhaps from them a deputy chairman will be appointed? I express concern that not one member of the Australian Public Service is a member of this Commission. I believe that some people within the Public Service would be suitable. Clause 6 says that the chairman will be appointed for 7 years. This seems to me to be a long period. I think it would be one of the longest periods for which any chairman would be appointed. This Commission has been operating as the Social Welfare Commission for approximately the last 6 months, but the Bill says that the Governor-General shall appoint the chairman and the commissioners. The Governor-General cannot appoint them until this Bill has passed through the Parliament. I repeat that this is just another example of the disrespect and disregard for Parliament that we have come to expect from this Government since it has been in office.

It is said that this is only an interim committee and that other interim committees have operated in the past. I venture to say that there is no comparison between the establishment of the Australian Universities Commission which was appointed to do a specific task and this Commission which, according to appendix B on page IS of the Australian Assistance Plan, has in mind trying to coordinate 17 different major areas with 127 sub-headings. If one looks at this closely one finds that there is no area of our lives or activities not covered by appendix B. It lists the range of community services which can be provided and which are obviously in the mind of the Commission to provide. It covers exservicemen, legal services, services for the aged, incomes security, protective services and domiciliary services. It goes so far as to cover religious and sacred services. The 3 subheadings there are (a) churches, (b) graveyards and (c) crematoriums. This is going to be a function of the Social Welfare Commission. Anyone who thinks that it will not be a huge instrument of government has another think coming.

What I really started to say was that it is said that this is only an interim committee which is putting out reports. It has sent out loose leaf notices telling people to write to the Social Welfare Commission if they want further reports. It is actually asking people to write to the Social Welfare Commission, which has not yet been established. Mr Chairman, I see that my time is running out so I will have to leave unsaid some points I wanted to raise. I think that somewhere in this report-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– If the honourable member for Indi (Mr Holten) is unhappy about the composition or the arrangement of the Commission it will be a simple matter for him to change it, if ever he is in a position to be able to exercise that sort of decision making.

Mr Holten:

– The way things are going we might soon be in that position.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Because of the way things went last year you are where you are now, and I do not think the people of Australia will be particularly convinced that you would do any better job than you did last year, given the sorts of problems about which you are talking and which confront us at the present time. We set up the Commission to advise us. We sought and appointed to that Commission people who we believed would be best equipped to give us the necessary advice. There is, as I mentioned earlier, ample precedent for the steps we took. I scarcely think it is worth delaying the Committee further by repeating the things which have been said by me not only today in this Parliament but also on previous occasions when I have discussed the subject, or the statements of members on the Government side and members of the Opposition, including its spokesman on health and welfare matters, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp).

Mr HOLTEN:
Indi

– Clause 14 of the Bill sets out the functions of the Commission. It states:

The functions of the Commission are -

to ascertain, and report to the Minister on, the social welfare needs of the community and to make recommendations to the Minister in respect of those needs;

to make recommendations to the Minister for furthering the achievement of a nationally integrated social welfare plan -

Paragraph (a) states that the Commission is to report to the Minister. I would have thought that somewhere in this Bill provision would be made for the Commission to report to Parliament. I may be misunderstanding the provisions of the Bill. It is not easy to get the definite meaning of every single part of the Bill. I have searched the Bill to see whether there is a requirement for this Social Welfare Commission - that is a rather awe inspiring concept - to report to the Parliament and not only to the Minister. Sub-paragraph (vi) of paragraph (b) states: recommendations for avoiding the duplication of social welfare programs -

This seems to me to indicate the elimination or abolition of some of the existing social welfare programs. Sub-paragraph (iv) of the same paragraph refers to recommendations for the co-ordination of social welfare activities of organisations. It would be interesting to know the definition or the eventual result of the word ‘co-ordination’. ‘Co-ordination’ to the average person means working together, but it can mean in this context the subjugation of many agencies to make sure that they toe the line and do what they are told by Big Brother in Canberra. Paragraph (c) of clause 14 states: to estimate, and report to the Minister-

Once again there is no mention of Parliament on, the likely cost of proposed social welfare programs and to advise the Minister on the relative priorities to be given to the implementation of those programs;

What is the Department of Social Security for? What is the purpose of officers of other departments such as the Departments of Immigration and Housing? Is the Department of Housing still be the Department of Housing or it to be the Department of National Construction? That is an impressive title. The Department of Housing has officers well equipped and well served wim advice on proposed social welfare programs. But the most important department to me seems to be the Department of Social Security, which served this country very well as the Department of Social Services over the years. It has been able to advise the respective Ministers and the governments of the day with great expertise on social welfare programs and problems, aided of course by information obtained from interdepartmental committees comprising its own representatives and those from other departments. Surely there is some duplication here, or there seems to be some threat to the Department of Social Security. I turn to clause 17.

The general public ought to be most concerned about the provisions and the ramifications of this clause. It states:

The Commission may appoint a Committee to assist the Commission in relation to a matter.

It does not say that the Commission has to get the permission of the Minister to appoint a committee. It virtually puts in the hands of a chairman, a deputy chairman and 9 commissioners, who together with their respective staff are all being paid by the taxpayers, the power to appoint a committee on any matter at all, and as far as I can see the committee can be of any size. It may be a committee of 10, it may be a committee of 200 people who will have their fees, expenses and allowances as prescribed paid by the taxpayers of this country. It seems extraordinary to me to have a provision in a Bill to give a blank cheque to an organisation such as the Social Welfare Commission to set up a committee on any matter and the committee can have any number of members. There is no restriction. To me this seems to be a most irresponsible move. Mind you, I agree with the Minister that there does not seem to be a great deal of concern and worry at the moment about this matter but let us see how things eventuate. This sort of thing could easily be attended to by parliamentary committees. We have parliamentary committees now covering a wide range of matters, but we are giving a statutory body which has a tremendous amount of autonomy the authority to set up a committee on any matter. I think this is most irresponsible. There should be at least consultation with the Minister on whether a committee is necessary. Maybe there is some provision in the Bill for consultation with the Minister.

Mr Hayden:

– Don’t you read the bloody Bill before it comes before the Parliament?

Mr HOLTEN:

– That is a very interesting interjection from the Minister. It shows that he is a bit uptight about some of the comments I have been making. It is the first time I have ever heard the Minister use bad language in the chamber. It indicates that he has some problems. I can understand that he has problems, for sure. I am afraid I cannot wish him good luck with them. That is a most interesting interjection to have recorded. I have made the basic comments I wanted to make at the Committee stage on the various clauses of the Bill.

The Minister referred to my critical attitude to this Bill but he did not mention that I agreed that it had some worthy objectives and passed some commendatory remarks concerning the establishment of the Commission. I feel it my duty to point out some flashing red lights and register warnings about what could happen under this particular provision concerning the establishment of the Social Welfare Commission. If the Minister would answer my specific question concerning the Commission in more parliamentary terms I would be interested to hear him. I should like to know whether the Commission may appoint a committee without the Minister’s permission and determine its composition and the matters to which the committee addresses itself without reference to the Minister. With those comments I leave the matter for further consideration by the Committee.

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– The honourable member for Indi (Mr Holten) wondered why I displayed some irritation. There is nothing more irritating than the sustained imposition of a fool. It is intolerably so if it is a bloody fool.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! I would suggest to the Minister that he uses language which is acceptable in this House. His expression is not within parliamentary parlance and I ask him not to use it again.

Mr Holten:

– Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I ask the condescending Minister with his patronising attitude-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! What is the point of order?

Mr Holten:

– I ask whether the Minister will withdraw that remark, as I find it offensive, and apologise.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Indi finds the remark offensive and I ask the Minister to withdraw it.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I do so, Mr Chairman. If the honourable member appears at the front bench for his Party because he has some standing within his Party and, one would expect, is more prominent and credible as a spokesman on this subject than other members of his Party, I would have expected that he would have read the Bill which the Committee is considering. The 2 points which he has been labouring for the last 10 minutes are covered adequately. One point relates to why the Commission is not required to report to

Parliament. I refer the honourable member to sub-clause (2) of clause 16 which states:

Where the Commission furnishes a report to the Minister, the Minister shall, as soon as practicable, cause that report to be laid before each House of the Parliament.

The second point he laboured concerned the open-ended financial support which must be available for committees appointed by the Commission under clause 17 of the Bill. I draw the honourable member’s attention to sub-clause (2) of clause 15 which states:

The Commission shall not incur expenditure except on behalf of Australia and shall not incur expenditure on behalf of Australia except in accordance with the approval of the Minister.

There is more than ample control.

Mr Holten:

– Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I asked the Minister whether the Commission could appoint a committee to assist-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member cannot ask the Minister a question on a point of order. He can take a point of order only on a matter of procedure concerning a departure from the Standing Orders. He cannot ask a question of the Minister or anyone else.

Mr Holten:

– Do you mean that I cannot take a point of order?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member can take a point of order if there is a departure from the procedures of the House and only on that question.

Mr Holten:

– I cannot take a point of order if the Minister has not answered one of the questions I asked?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No, there is no provision for that.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Hayden) - by leave - read a third time.

page 1766

DIESEL FUEL TAX BILL (No. 1) 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 August (vide page 1 73), on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Lalor · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I should like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Diesel Fuel Tax Bill (No. 2), the Excise Bill (No. 2), the Excise Tariff Bill (No. 3) and the Customs Tariff Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 5 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 5 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– These Bills- the Excise Tariff Bill (No. 3) and the corresponding Customs Tariff Bill, which relates to similar commodities which are imported, and the Diesel Fuel Tax Bills - implement first the increased duty of 5c a gallon on petrol and aviation fuel. This represents an increase in the retail price of the order of 10 per cent and is estimated to yield some $157m in a full year. The Bills implement also the increased duties on cigarettes and tobacco - again 5c on a packet of 20 cigarettes. This represents an increase in price of slightly more than 10 per cent. So these are Bills which are considerably inflation producing. Thirdly, there is the increased duty of about 3c a nip on spirits. After making some exhaustive inquiries from among my colleagues I gather that this also is an increase of the order of 10 per cent.

Mr Grassby:

– Is it 3c or 2c?

Mr EDWARDS:

– It is 3c a nip.

Dr J F Cairns:

– Not 3 nips a cent?

Mr EDWARDS:

– It was a long time ago that that would have happened. This, of course, represents a substantial increase in the total duty - approaching the order of 100 per cent. I foreshadow that in relation to Excise Tariff Bill (No. 3) I will move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House deplores the adoption of measures which serve to worsen the already alarming inflationary situation and impose directly an extra burden on the living costs of the Australian community, and greatly increase the cost of transportation at the expense of the community in general and the development of decentralised industry in particular!’

I did not mention that the increased duty on cigarettes and spirits is designed to yield $112m in a full year, so with the yield from the petrol tax increase a total of $268m is involved in a full year.

Also in this group of Bills being debated is the Excise Bill (No. 2) 1973. I think it is one of the really phoney elements of a phoney Budget. One had to be a keen listener to what was said on the night the Budget was brought down to detect anything being said about there being an increase in the excise payable on beer in addition to the additional taxation that I have just mentoned on the ordinary man’s cigarettes, petrol and, if he takes them, spirits. Nevertheless that will be the effect of the passage of this Bill. There was, of course, a reference in the Budget speech of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to an increase in the specified dutiable contents of beer vessels. Apparently actual average fills are typically larger now that stain ess steel containers are widely used instead of the traditional wooden keg. I do not know whether that makes any great difference to the taste of the product; but that is the situation. The passage of this Bill will result in excise being charged on 79 litres a kilderkin - in plain language, an 1 8-galIon keg - instead of 76.5 litres, as was the case previously. I understand that this will result in an increase in duty payable of 63c a kilderkin. That is according to the report of the Coombs Task Force.

I take this opportunity to correct a reference I made in a speech the other week to the report of the Coombs task force. I referred to it as the gospel according to Coombs’. A good Christian would know that ‘gospel’ means good news. Since there is in the report of the Coombs taks force hardly anything that amounts to good news - there is only doom to many sections of deserving Australians in it - I withdraw my reference to it as ‘the gospel’. But according to the report of the Coombs task force this increase in the deemed dutiable content will increase the duty payable on beer by about $7m per annum. That is not a large amount in the league in which we are operating. It represents about 0.2c a 10 oz glass.

Mr Grassby:

– ‘How much?

Mr EDWARDS:

– About 0.2c a 10 oz glass.

Mr Grassby:

– I think you will manage it.

Mr EDWARDS:

– It probably will be managed. Just the same, I guess the draught beer drinker will, after some backing and filling by the Prices Justification Tribunal, end up paying for it in one way or another. In the other cases, as I have said, the increases in duty represent substantial increases in retail prices. Thus they will give a direct impetus to inflation and for the ordinary man in the street, who is the professed concern of this Government, will mean a lift in prices where it hurts a lot.

The overall effect on the consumer price index can be variously estimated. In ratio of gross national product the sums I have mentioned represent rather less than a percentage point. But .the impact of the increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuels will be more complex and more insidious than the others. Transport costs enter into every product, and in its non-private component as this increase works it way through the various stages of the production process it is inevitable that it will be subject to a mark-up. Thus the impact on the price level certainly may be put at upwards of the order of a percentage point. While governments of all colours have over the years fallen back on the hardy perennials of higher taxes on the ordinary man’s cigarettes, drinks and petrol, the introduction of these measures on this occasion, when the containing of inflation is the dominating issue of national economic policy, are so inappropriate as to be ludicrous. Perhaps ‘ludicrous’ is not the right word, as it is no laughing matter. Perhaps I should have said ‘as to be utterly and completely irresponsible’. I believe that the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) spoke for most honourable members and most ordinary people when - as reported at page 475 of Hansard of 28 August 1973 - he said:

Let me say that I do regret the indirect taxes, particularly the increase in petrol prices, because of their effect on the consumer price index and inflation.

It is good that so economically literate a supporter of the Government - indeed, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Prices - as the honourable member for Adelaide should acknowledge that. I think the key issue in this matter can then be put this way. While the effect of these increases in duties will add directly upwards of the order of one percentage point to the increase in prices over and above the momentum of the current inflation stemming from more general causes the key issue is whether these increases in duty together with all the other tax increases in the Budget - the covert ones as well as the overt ones - are likely to have an outweighing, restraining, dampening effect on the fundamental inflation momentum. 1 am saying that the direct effect on the man in the street of a rise in the price level of cigarettes, petrol and spirits is adding to inflation. Is the indirect effect of these duty increases in company with the other tax increases in the Budget likely significantly to dampen down inflation? It has to be said that the revenue from these increased duties is comparatively small change compared with the increase in the personal income tax, which has been projected at no less than a cool SI, 089m. That is a figure which I would suggest the tax paying public should note in this Budget of no increase in income tax’. Technically, 1 concede, there has been no increase in tax rates. It is a truly massive take, even in this overall Budget context where Sim can easily become lost in the areas of estimating. That take in income tax is large by any standards. It represents an increase of 27 per cent and thereby raises the ratio of personal income tax to personal income, which is the only tax rate that really counts when one is arguing about tax increases, by a percentage point or two. Incidentally the increase in income tax of SI, 089m - over $1 billion, as the Americans would put it - that is anticipated this year compares with an increase of only S321m under the previous Government last year. I leave it to the people at large to judge whether the Government has kept within cooee of the spirit of its election promise not to increase taxes - under the breath, of course, ‘tax rates’ - in the formal sense.

In addition to that massive income tax take, the increase of S50m in private company taxes, the additional charges on meat exports, which are to yield S20m, and, indeed, the massive sum of S330m-odd which will be the impact within the short period ahead of the bringing forward to December of a quarter’s payment of public company tax, the Government has imposed these duty increases. Why? What is their purpose? The Treasurer in turning to the excise increases towards the end of his speech said that despite the revenue arising from measures announced up to that point in his speech ‘further revenue measures are needed’. We have to move on to the end of his speech for an explanation. By adding the estimated S223m to bc derived in 1973-74 from these increased duties to the swingeing increase in the personal income tax and other tax increases, the Treasurer gets a prospective total increase in receipts of nearly S2,000m or, to use the American term, S2 billion - to match the Government’s irresponsible super boost in spending of $ 1,938m, an increase of 18.9 per cent overall, but in its impact on the domestic economy - the effect that counts - it is an alltime high increase of 20 per cent. By adding the revenue from these duties to these other sources of revenue the Treasurer in this way can match the record boost to expenditure proposed by this Government.

In fact the Treasurer can do a bit better. With these additional duties he can show an increase in receipts somewhat greater than the increase in expenditure. A prospective domestic deficit of about $S3m, slightly smaller than last year’s, is involved. And all this, the Treasurer manages to convey, is terribly responsible - responsible budgeting - ‘appropriate as he put it, to the ‘buoyant economic circumstances’ confronting us in 1973-74. What a way to assess the impact of the Budget! The country is in a position of overfull employment brought on by the Government’s topping up to overflow the nicely judged 1972 Budget of the previous Government. We are in a full employment situation induced in this way which has been exacerbated price index-wise and thence in its effect on wage demands by the externally - admittedly externally affected to some extent - rises in food and commodity prices - rises which the Government has done nothing, did nothing to ameliorate those rises.

In this submission the Government budgets for a real expansion of the public sector spending of, as I have just said, 20 per cent. What does that mean in real terms? The lowest estimate of the sort of price increase built into this Budget I have seen namely - 7 per cent - does that imply a real expansion of 13 per cent? Inflation built into the Budget is, I believe, at least to the order of 10 per cent. With an expenditure increase of 20 per cent does this mean a real expansion of some 10 per cent? If it does, it is not feasible because overall as authoritative estimates, as the Treasury estimate would have it, we will not do better than an increase in real terms in the output of goods and services than about 6 to 7 per cent. If the public sector is aiming to take the amount to which I have referred, what is to happen to the private sector? As the Treasury Roundup No. 8 says, private demand is rising very fast. Private consumption, housing, other private non-building despite a small reduction in July, even now at long last and hopefully private fixed investment are rising at real rates which are equal to the projected total output of the economy.

We have a situation in which the Government projects an expansion of an order which, taken along with the expansion taking place in the private sector, is not feasible. Therefore I suggest that the deterrent effect to private spending of these additional duties will be swallowed up in the absence of truly Draconian monetary or credit restrictions, as the private sector with personal consumption expectations and aspirations in the vanguard rises to defend its share of the national cake. In this way as the private sector competes with the public sector for resources inflation is stimulated. When all things are counted up 12 months from now and we have the national income White Paper with the proposed enlargement of the public sector, if it exceeds the order of an additional percentage point in proportion to national income I will be very surprised. In the meantime accelerating inflation will be the outcome.

As I said, this Budget is best categorised as the phoney Budget and the greatest phoney aspect is that the Budget, the main instrument of sound and responsible economic management of the economy, should be constructed on this occasion as an instrument not of containing inflation but of sustaining, and indeed as I have suggested, of fostering galloping inflation; that is to say, domestically generated inflation superimposed on the situation where it is true there has been a significant measure, but not exclusively so, of so-called imported inflation. What I am saying is that in point of fact the responsibility of this Government was to contain and to cut back its spending and thereby to have eliminated the need for these unjust and unfair inflationproducing imposts on the ordinary man’s cigarettes, petrol and to a much more limited degree, beer.

Dr J F Cairns:

– Can you tell us where you think the Government should have cut back?

Mr EDWARDS:

– The Government could have started with the pipeline. It could have proceeded to do something about the expanded expenditure on the Public Service, and beyond that it is the Minister’s responsibility.

Dr F Cairns:

– Did you say it should cut the Public Service?

Mr EDWARDS:

– I said that the increase projected for expenditure in that area could have been less than is projected.

I draw an analogy between these increases in duties and the monetary or interest rate weapon which the Government is now relying on almost wholly to rein in the gallop. What I have tried to make clear about these increases in duties is that they add directly to the rise in costs and prices in their impact on tha man in the street and that this effect, in all the circumstances, outweighs any restraining effects through a concealed curtailment of spending power. On present indications at least the same can be said of the Government’s monetary measures.

Higher interest rates are forcing up costs and affecting prices. For instance they are affecting the price of a refrigerator that the ordinary man is buying on hire purchase. They are likely to do that in prevailing circumstances more than they are likely to curtail the demand. These items are an element in a Budget which is inherently and significantly inflationary in its impact. These duty measures in particular impinge on the ordinary man in the street. As the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurtford) implied, the Government stands condemned for these increases in indirect taxes and particularly in petrol prices. At a later stage when the Excise Tariff Bill (No. 3) is before us, I will move the amendment that I foreshadowed earlier.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I did not intend to speak in this debate but, as the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Edwards) has made a number of statements with his tongue in his cheek, I feel obliged to point out a couple of facts to the House. Basically, what the honourable member spoke about was the strategy of the Budget in its totality. He did not relate his speech specifically to the excise Bills now before us but rather used them as an avenue to attack once again the Government’s Budget.

Mr Edwards:

– They are part of the total strategy.

Mr KEATING:

– That is right, but the honourable member did not confine himself to them. That is what the Bills are all about. I take the honourable member to task on a couple of matters. I will deal first with the overall Budget strategy. As the Treasurer (Mr Crean) said, fiscally the Budget was a very responsible one. Outlays were increased by 18.9 per cent but receipts increased by almost 20.6 per cent. The Budget did not do anything to worsen the inflationary situation, as the honourable member claimed; in fact, it will help it. Normally, receipts would have been expected to increase by $l,621m. The Government had to increase its expenditure by $223m to meet the program which the Budget encompasses. With total receipts of $ 1,960m, we had to find a deficit of $223m.

Undertakings had been given to the electorate in December last that we felt obliged to honour. One of those undertakings was that any additional revenue that we needed to collect would not be collected by increases in personal taxation. As the honourable member would be aware, at the moment the Asprey Committee is investigating income tax in Australia. Before this Government would propose any changes in or additional collections by way of personal income tax, we would look to see the report that that Committee brings down. In line with our undertaking that personal taxation would not be increased and realising that the Asprey Committee was still considering its reference, the Government decided to honour its obligations to the electorate.

What the honourable member did not mention is what this Budget does in terms of the re-allocation of resources. Let me refresh his memory on certain aspects. ‘I direct his attention to statement 1 at page 3 of the Budget documents which sets out a summary of Government expenditure. The amount appropriated for education has been increased this financial year to $843m from the amount appropriated last financial year of $439m. This is an increase of 92 per cent. I ask the honourable member to comprehend the magnitude of that increase of 92 per cent. It is different if an allocation is doubled from $10m to S20m. The doubling of an allocation from $43 9m one financial year to $843m the next financial year is something most worthwhile for any Government to undertake. The honourable member has spoken about increases in excise and how those increases will affect the family man. How does he think an extra $400m for education will affect the family man and his capacity to provide a decent education for his children. The honourable member did not mention that.

I turn next to health where expenditure has been increased from $783m last year to $979m this year - an increase of 25 per cent. In the terms of any Budget that is quite a considerable increase. I go further down the table. Last year for housing and community ameni ties $127m was provided. This year the appropriation is $53 8m. This is a staggering increase of 324 per cent in that socially desirable area. The increase in expenditure in culture and recreation, again a most desirable area, is 39.8 per cent, rising from $117m to $163m. When speaking about how certain action affects the family man, the honourable member must consider the totality of the situation and return to weigh the priorities. The priorities must be weighed on a political basis. To the Labor Party, these are much more socially desirable priorities.

If one reaches the conclusion that this money needs to be allocated to see that education and these other areas of activity are better catered for, one must look at the ambient economic situation. If we accept the fact that the last Budget introduced by the Liberals was an election Budget designed to eradicate a pool of unemployment of 130,000 persons and also to save their sagging electoral stocks, and if we realise also that the excess money which was proposed for expenditure in that Budget finally trickled into our economy in March and April of this year causing an inflation level of 13 per cent, we understand that we cannot afford to put very much more money into the economy directly in the succeeding Budget. Receipts must be increased to match outlays. That is what this Government did.

We asked: Where can we increase our receipts? Can we do this by personal taxation? The answer is no because we have given undertakings to the electorate; we cannot do this by increasing personal taxation. So we looked at other ways. As a result of the report of the Coombs committee which brought the matter to a head, we have cut out some of the tax lurks and dodges introduced by previous Liberal administrations. We looked at other areas. We came to the question of excise on fuel-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I remind the honourable member for Blaxland that in his explanation he has covered the need for an increase in finance to meet certain requirements. I suggest that he has spent sufficient time on what actually is inclined to be more a general debate on the Budget than on the subject matter of the diesel fuel tax Bills before the House.

Mr KEATING:

– I accept that. My only misgiving is that you were not in the chair when the previous speaker addressed the House; he might have been confined in his remarks as I am to be.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I point out to the honourable member for Blaxland that if he looks at the speech of the honourable member for Berowra I think he will find that the honourable member for Berowra did not transgress perhaps quite as much as the honourable member for Blaxland has done. I suggest to the honourable member that he concentrate on the provisions of the Bill.

Mr KEATING:

– Let me say in defence of the argument that I have put forward that I was answering what I considered to be charges made by the honourable member for Berowra on the overall strategy of the Budget. In considering these matters and acknowledging the fact that they are part of the Budget, I think I am entitled to defend our Budget on that basis in terms of these different taxes. Anyway, I was starting to deal with the fuel tax. We looked at the fuel tax. If the fact is accepted that receipts must be obtained from areas other than personal income tax, excise on fuel was one of the taxes that the Government decided it could afford to increase.

I did not hear the honourable member for Berowra mention the fact that, for instance, a petrol price war has been going on in Victoria for 2 years now. A reduction of 7c a gallon has applied right across the city of Melbourne and in some parts of Sydney for that period. Even a person like the honourable member for Berowra must come to the conclusion that perhaps the petroleum industry can afford not to pass on the excise increases. The Government believed, as it had intended to set up a royal commission into the price of fuel - it has done so since the Budget was introduced - that some of the additional receipts that it was raising from diesel fuel might be recovered as a result of the findings of that royal commission. We will be most interested to see the result of that inquiry. One thing is sure: If the oil companies can sustain a price cut of 7c a gallon in Melbourne and Sydney for such a long period, one would think that the increases of 4.9c a gallon on diesel fuel and Se a gallon on motor spirit could be covered by the companies themselves.

While the imposition of any excises or any indirect taxes is a distasteful action for any government to take, the fact of the matter is that additional amounts cannot be spent on education, welfare and in other areas without making an additional collection to see that there is not any more net amount of money moving into the economy to aggravate the inflationary situation and by that factor in fact very much diminishing the value of money going into the pockets of working people throughout the length and breadth of Australia. We were left in the horrible position of making choices in regard to areas from which additional money ought to be collected. One method of collection was on the basis of an increase in the excise on liquor and cigarettes. Again, this is an indirect tax and the Government Party does not like indirect taxes. But we gave an undertaking that there would be no increase in personal income tax and there was no other area in which money could be raised. We could not chop back expenditure on education, social welfare and all those other things. So the excise on liquor and cigarettes was increased.

All along the Government has been conscious of the need to introduce a Budget that did not aggravate the inflationary situation and every measure that it has taken has been taken in the light of that consideration. We have raised the statutory reserve deposits with the savings banks in order to take money out of the economy. We have twice revalued the Australian dollar to make imports more competitive. We have cut the tariff on imports by 25 per cent in order to make the goods more competitive, to ensure that more goods were put on the Australian market and to ensure that a few goods were not being chased by a lot of money. All those things were designed to deal with the question of inflation. We have raised interest on the bond rate. If people can secure a better rate of interest for their money they are more inclined to leave it on deposit, rather than have their money chasing a block of land as a hedge against inflation. Everything that the Government has done has been on the basis that it needs to take cognisance of the economic situation.

The Budget in fiscal terms was a very responsible document. When we look at the massive additional expenditure on health, social welfare, housing and all these other things, I think that for the man in the street the increased fuel charges, which probably could be absorbed by the petrol companies anyway, and the increase on spirits and cigarettes is only a very small price to pay for the additional services given to him through health services, to his children through better education and all the other facets of Government expenditure in the way that they affect people. I think that the amendment moved by the Oppostion does not deserve the support of the House. I commend the Bills to the House.

Mr EDWARDS (Berowra)- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr EDWARDS:

– Yes. I claim that I was not canvassing the whole Budget situation generally. The point of my remarks was that the direct inflationary impact of these duties was clear. I was trying to assess whether the indirect effect of these measures was worthwhile as a means of curtailing inflation, and I judged that they were not.

Mr HALLETT:
Canning

– There are a number of Bills before the House at the moment but, summed up, their effect is to increase costs to the community throughout Australia. Although the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) may have said that the Government had a mandate not to increase personal taxation the Government increased taxes in general, not from the right-hand pocket of the taxpayer but from his left-hand pocket. The measures now before the House increase taxation payable by people now residing in this country. The honourable member for Blaxland mentioned also that the Government proposes to spend a considerable amount of money on education. But of course what he failed to mention was that the Government had taken from the States certain responsibilities in relation to some areas of education, that it had deducted from payments to the States the money which would have been involved and that it had added this amount to its own Budget. The honourable member mentioned also that the Government was pouring additional money into the field of housing. He is now leaving the chamber. Apparently he docs not want to listen.

The Government has done those things, but what is the net result of its actions? The Government has imposed extra taxes, as has been mentioned today, in relation to housing. The result of this is that there is a drastic shortage of builders in this country and there is a drastic shortage of bricks and so forth with which to build houses. In addition, the Government has turned around and increased costs to people seeking private dwellings through very savage increases in the rates of interest. On a $10,000 loan repayable over 30 years the increase in the rate of interest will amount to something like $2,500 - on one home. That increase is quite apart from the effects of the increased costs across the board. That action is what this Government terms as good economics. In my book it is bad economics to bring home owners in this country into the position in which we see them today.

The third point made by the honourable member for Blaxland related to the price of fuel which is the subject of this debate. He referred to the fact that through one source or another fuel is cheaper in the cities of Sydney and Melbourne. I cannot help mentioning again that many members on the other side of the House seem to think that this country starts and finishes in Sydney or Melbourne. As I said in this House a couple of weeks ago, a tanker can be brought into Melbourne or Sydney and distribute fuel in most centres somewhat more cheaply than would be the case if the Government accepted the responsibility of distributing the fuel requirements of users throughout the entire continent. That is the vast difference. What this nation wants is fuel depots right throughout the country to supply fuel when it is required. That is an entirely different exercise from just dumping fuel in the 2 large cities in this country, Sydney and Melbourne. It seems impossible for those honourable members on the other side of the House to get that message. There are industries throughout this country which make the wealth of this nation. In fact the Government is at the moment living on our current account which was put together by the previous Government from our production. As you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the previous Government had begun to pay our way in the current account in the middle of 1972. It is that money which is now carrying this Government through and it is through those services of which I have been speaking that the nation has been enabled to achieve that position. The money does not come from Sydney and Melbourne; it comes from throughout the nation.

Of the Bills now before the House I will speak mainly to those relating to fuel. These fuel Bills are important to this nation. They increase the cost of diesel and other types of fuel by 5c a gallon. This is a tremendous increase in costs as it affects industry and private users throughout the country. The Treasurer (Mr Crean) in his Budget Speech on 21 August mentioned that in a full year the increased fuel charges would give an amount of SI 57m revenue to the Government. That is quite a lot of money. To suggest that an increase in the price of fuel which will achieve that amount of money is not inflationary - in other words, it is not going to put up costs - is quite ridiculous. Of course it will put up costs. Road transport in this country is a very important industry. Other means of transport are limited. The areas in which railways operate for the transport of goods and the areas in which goods are carted even by air are limited. Although those industries will also be affected by these increased fuel charges, it is the road transport industry which in the main will be affected. The road transport industry is of considerable magnitude in this country.

This industry will also be affected by another measure which we expect the Government to introduce very shortly. I refer to the Bill to amend the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act which to some extent is coupled with these money Bills.

Spread over the last 5 years I think the previous Government made available to the various States a sum of SI, 252m. One would expect that with the substantial increases in fuel taxes and the increases in the amount of fuel being used throughout this country, the Government would have available to it substantial additional money for distribution to the various States for the purpose of building roads. The Commonwealth contribution to road construction throughout the nation amounts to about one-third only of the total expenditure. It will be interesting when that Bill comes before the House to see what amount of money is in fact made available to the States from this additional revenue because it was said on numerous occasions in this House when members of the present Government were in opposition that the full amount of revenue collected from these areas should in fact be made available for road construction purposes. I doubt very much whether that will be done because one speech made in this House this afternoon from the Government benches indicated that the reason for these taxes was for other things such as education, health, home building, etc. So, it has been indicated that the money raised from these taxes will be channelled into another area and not into that area which was suggested by the Government when it was in opposition. No doubt, that Bill will come before the House; I hope it will be in the near future. However, I think it is time that the Government spelled out its policy in relation to these matters because a lot of local authorities throughout Australia are anxious to know precisely what is the Government’s policy in relation to the renewed Commonwealth roads legislation. These authorities must budget each year, just as this Government must budget each year for its works program.

An important angle relating to fuel generally and to the discussion now taking place is the supply of fuel in this nation. Previously, we had incentive programs to attract to this country people, industries and businesses with their know-how and capital in an endeavour to find fuel. But in recent times - in 1973 - the enthusiasm to drill for oil in this country seems to have waned. It is noticeable that on 10 October 1972, 18 wells were being drilled, 7 off-shore and 1 1 on-shore.

Mr O’Keefe:

– They should be putting them down like pins in a pincushion.

Mr HALLETT:

– I agree with my friend, the honourable member for Paterson. On 9 October 1973 - that is, today - we have only 12 wells being drilled, 6 off-shore and 6 onshore. In other words, we are going downhill fast when it comes to finding fuel in this country.

We also hear of meetings taking place in the world relating to fuel costs. Only this week there was a meeting in the Middle East, where about 80 per cent of the total oil reserves are held. I have no doubt that those countries will be seeking a substantial increase in the cost of fuels. If we in Australia do not increase our search for fuels and bring to the surface sufficient for our own needs, we will be subject to those negotiations and will be paying substantially more for fuel than otherwise would be the case. The Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) who is sitting at the table interjected earlier to ask in what area the Government should cut back its expenditure if it were not to increase taxes under the measure that is now before us. Of course, honourable members opposite always mention social services, health and education programs. Nobody is suggesting that we should cut back those programs. However, there are areas which the Government should have left alone. For instance, the national pipeline has been mentioned. Private industry was willing and able to carry out this project and, in fact, has started the program of installing the necessary pipes for the distribution of natural gas. But the Government took over.

Dr J F Cairns:

– Would private expenditure be less inflationary than public expenditure?

Mr HALLETT:

– It is inflationary because the Government apparently is determined to take over from private enterprise and to tax the people or get the money from somewhere - we are not quite sure where all the money is going to come from; I wish the Government would tell us - and then spend it. I have never yet found government expenditure of this nation or of any other nation that is as economic as expenditure by private enterprise. This Government certainly would not be as economical as private enterprise. Can it be suggested that this Government could take over all the private enterprise in this country and be as efficient as private enterprise? It follows that if the Government starts taking over one area of private enterprise, it is going to take over the lot. Australia has some of the most efficient areas of private enterprise in the world. God help the day when this socialist Government takes over from those private enterprise organisations. I would challenge the Minister for Overseas Trade on this point. If he wants to cut back expenditure, he should start with government expenditure. Do not expect private enterprise, as the Government is doing with its monetary measures, its interest rates and so forth, to come to the party and try to cut back when the Government itself is not making any effort whatsoever to cut back on its program of expansion in endeavouring to take over private enterprise.

There are many examples I could give relating to the taxes we are now discussing, for that is what they are; they will place further burdens on the individuals and industries throughout this country. I should like to cite figures relating to a couple of these increases. The cost in a full year of the increase in duty on motor spirit alone will be SI 34.6m and the increase in duty on diesel fuel in a full year will raise SI 2.9m. They are substantial increases in anybody’s language. It is not just upon the country people who use this fuel that the increased costs will fall, as one might think. Honourable members opposite seem to forget that we have to transport all the necessary foodstuffs to the millions of people who live in the cities of this country. A lot of this food must come many hundreds of miles and, obviously, when transport costs are increased, the cost to the consumer is increased by the time the food reaches its destination. As 1 have said before, transport costs are the biggest single factor in our cost structure and such costs are coupled with the increased fuel taxes we are discussing. Of course, the Government has a responsibility to carry out its mandate. Whether the people will be happy with the way that that mandate is carried out probably is another matter altogether. I cannot agree that an increase in fuel costs of 5 cents a gallon, plus additional increases of up to 1.7 cents a gallon for country areas over and above the amount of 3.3 cents a gallon which was contained in previous legislation, making a total increase in many country areas of nearly 7 cents a gallon, is justified. It is far too high a price for anybody to have to pay in increased costs in one year.

We notice these increased costs every day. Costs are moving up in every area. One has only to ask the housewife, who is the best economist in the country, to see the truth of this. The housewife has to make her dollars stretch each week to purchase the requirements of the family and the home and when housewives find that these costs are continually moving up, every day and every week, as they have been doing in more recent times, they will start to think about the policies which the Government is implementing. There has also been a rapid across the board increase in interest rates. I thought that the Government stood for a policy of low interest rates. However, the very reverse is the situation. Interest rates are the highest we have seen. Again, this increases the prices of goods right across the country. These are the things that the housewife is now finding out in her daily economics.

I feel that the Government could and should have cut its expenditure in this Budget. An increase in Government expenditure of 18.9 per cent is far too high in the inflationary situation in which we find ourselves today. In my book, these measures only tend to increase that inflationary situation and do not in any way assist the economy of this country.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Lalor · ALP

– In closing this debate on these 4 Bills I remark that I have been very interested in the debate on the Budget that has taken place this afternoon. There are several points that I should like to mention, one or two general ones and then a couple of fairly specific ones. Everything the Government has done in the last 6 months to deal with inflation has been said by the Opposition to be wrong. But I have yet to hear one constructive suggestion from the Opposition about what should be done. This debate is a good example of that.

The Opposition is against the imposition of these extra taxes for which the Bills provide. As an alternative to them the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Edwards), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, and the honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett), said that the Government should have cut its expenditure. I asked by interjection: ‘In what way?’ The honourable member for Berowra gave the Public Service as one example and then turned to the national pipeline as did the honourable member for Canning. First of all, the Government has not spent any money on the pipeline so that could not have contributed much to the present inflation. So we would not have dealt with the inflation as it is by not spending money on the pipeline because we have not spent any on it. The second point about the pipeline is that the honourable member for Canning recognises the need for a pipeline. He said that private companies sought to construct it. But the belief that spending by private companies is any less inflationary than spending by the government is a completely inaccurate view. $1 spent by private enterprise is the same as $1 spent by the Government. Every dollar is equally inflationary.

Mr Edwards:

– Private enterprise is more efficient.

Dr J F CAIRNS:

– I turn to the question of efficiency. We have only a few government enterprises in Australia but does anybody seriously claim that Trans Australia Airlines is less efficient than Ansett Airlines of Australia? Does anyone claim that the Commonwealth Bank is less efficient than any other bank? No, there is silence from the Opposition. Nobody believes that. So the idea that private enterprise is necessarily any more efficient than the government is always disproved by practice. We do not have many examples of government enterprises but every one we do have is efficient. I notice that a very large number of members of the Opposition choose to fly by TAA. So. I dismiss this argument as part of the political clap-trap in which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) is the leader of the band. I have never heard anyone better at it than he.

Let us have a look at these Bills as they stand. Let us look firstly at the Diesel Fuel Tax Bills. Firstly, 80 per cent of the diesel fuel used in Australia is not taxed at all. The only disel fuel that is taxed is that which is used on public roads. The people in the country, for whom the honourable member for Canning has been speaking, have had a pretty good go under Labor. We have not attempted to take lc from the high incomes that they have been receiving throughout this year as a special inflationary measure. They have been subject to exactly the same conditions and principles as everybody else. But I say now that more than 60 per cent of inflation - the honourable member for Berowra dismissed this rather simply - measured in the increases in retail prices of commodities today is inflation from outside. It is imported. Unless we can stabilise the entry of inflation into Australia we will not be able to deal with inflation within Australia.

We have not taken lc from the growers, the producers or the exporters. As I said, 80 per cent of the diesel fuel used in Australia is not taxed at all. That is the first point. I shall now give examples of the price of petrol around the world to show where Australia stands on this aspect. The prices per gallon are: United States of America, 42c; Britain, 68c; Austria, 59c; Belgium, 79c; Eire, 66c; France, 84c; Italy, 96c; Netherlands, 81c; Sweden, 82c; Switzerland, 71c; Denmark, 76c; West Germany, 68c; Greece, 76c and Australia, 51c. Petrol is available in Australia at a lower price than in almost any comparable country.

Mr Edwards:

– But we are talking about containing the existing situation.

Dr J F CAIRNS:

– Let us have a look at containing the existing situation. What percentage of the total cost of petrol in comparable countries is attributable to tax? I have figures for some of them. In Britain it is 66 per cent; Belgium, 73 per cent; France, 72 per cent; Austria, 44 per cent and Australia, 46 per cent.

Mr Edwards:

– It is a question of the time and place to do these things.

Dr S F CAIRNS:
Minister for Overseas Trade · LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It will be a question of all sorts of things. I have just been answering and dismissing all the points that have been made in the debate so far. The honourable member for Berowra by interjection wants to introduce a few more. We do not have time for that. The position is that if we look at the matter in simple language, if the goods that are carried in trucks powered by diesel fuel had to be carried on the railways the cost of the railway would have to be paid by those who use them. In the case of roads this is not so and road transport in Australia has had a remarkably good go in that respect. I think that however one looks at the situation, this tax was economically sound and economically justified. It was one of the many measures that had been taken by the Government to deal with inflation, every one of which has been objected to by the Opposition. But no constructive proposals of any significance have ever come from the Opposition before and until they do I think we can continue this debate on another occasion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns) read a third time.

page 1776

DIESEL FUEL TAX BILL (No. 2) 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 21 August (vide page 173), on motion by Dr Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns) read a third time.

page 1776

EXCISE BILL (No. 2) 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 21 August (vide page 173), on motion by Dr Cairns:

That the Bill be now rend a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns) read a third time.

page 1776

EXCISE TARIFF BILL (No. 3) 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 September (vide page 767), on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr EDWARDS (Berowra) 5.59)- As I foreshadowed in my earlier remarksI wish to move an amendment to this Bill. In the existing situation the imposition of the measures contained in this Bill worsens an existing inflationary situation. Therefore, I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House deplores the adoption of measures which serve to worsen an already alarming inflationary situation and impose directly an extra burden on the living costs of the Australian community, and greatly increase the cost of transportation at the expense of the community in general and the development of decentralised industry in particular’.

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

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– I second the amendment.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Edwards’s amendment) stand part of the Bill.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 53

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns) read a third time.

page 1777

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 11 September (vide page 767), on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by DrJ. F. Cairns) read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 6.8 to 8 p.m.

page 1777

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1973-74

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 26 September (vide page 1589).

Second Schedule.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Proposed expenditure, $48,935,000

Department of the Special Minister of State

Proposed expenditure,$ 14,570,000.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– Having been in this Parliament for some years, I can think of many dull and desultory debates on the estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department and other similar matters. But never before in my memory has there been anything quite so contentious as the estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department with which we are dealing tonight. Frankly I do not know where to start, and many other honourable members must feel the same. We do not know whether to start with the fact that the personal performance of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has put Australia in such serious straitswith many of our allies overseas. We do not know whetherto start with the size of his staff and the salaries he pays them or with the numbers of staff and salaries he has allowed to Ministers in the Whitlam Government. We do not know whether to start with the dissatisfaction in respect of the Australian Council for the Arts or the numerous letters that all Oppositio n members have had sent to them complaining bitterly about the bad treatment being handed out to people, whether they be writers of books, painters of portraits or concerned with any other side of the arts.

Furthermore I think this is the first time we have had a chance to discuss the philosophy behind aid to the arts in the broad sense of the word, the philosophy behind the purchase of a painting for$US2m in round figures, indeed what this philosophy aims to do, what it aims to achieve, whether it goes with the lessons of history or whether it goes against the lessons of history on the basis that Dickens, for instance, was popular at the grass roots level through ‘Pickwick Papers’ and that set the seal on what amounted to national artistic aspirations and what have you. But I do not have time to discuss all these things, in the first 10 minutes, at any rate, in the debate on the estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department tonight.

I wish to commence on a mildly provocative note by getting back once again to an appalling example of the Prime Minister’s personal performance. He wrote to the Premier of South Australia, the driest State in this Commonwealth, whose entire lifeline is the River Murray system and the water the

State can glean from it, and suggested originally that work on the Dartmouth Dam should be curtailed. As his letter went on he used other phrases such as ‘delay in construction’, ‘wishes to delay the building of and ‘we must defer contracts’. I have not brought along with me tonight documentation of the reaction to this letter by both the Premier and the Deputy Premier of South Australia, but it was right down the line and it left no shadow of doubt that there was one Labor Premier who would not have a bar of going against contracts drawn up to protect the water requirements of people who live in houses in Adelaide and of blockers who grow fruit for the dried fruit and canned fruit industries and who are in a rather parlous state in South Australia. It did nothing to appease the people of Victoria, many of whom I gather had bought land to grow further crops under irrigation and who required extra water. It did nothing for the other signatory to the River Murray Agreement, New South Wales, which reacted as the other States did. It pointed out that it would not have a bar of the suggestion by the Prime Minister of the country to cut off future water assurance for those States.

I come now to my second point and refer to another small matter of great interest to the Riverland area of my electorate of Angas - the production of brandy. This will not be the first time that this chamber has heard protestations at the critical taxation measures which are being imposed on this wine producing industry by the Government. I suppose that the Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby), who is sitting at the table, might object if I were to say that the taxes imposed by the Government are worse than those introduced by the previous Government. If the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) were present he probably would say: ‘Ah, you are going back on your word and what you said before’. However to indicate the seriousness of this matter I point out that I did not make the statement to which I have referred. It was made this afternoon by the South Australian Premier who said that the taxes on the wine industry brought down by the Whitlam Government were worse than those imposed under the wine excise by the previous Government. I do not know that I would have been so moderate in my comments because the information used by the South Australian Premier does not back up the exact figures that I have been able to deduce in relation to this matter. 1 suppose that the South Australian Premier has scant regard for the exactness of statistical information but he certainly disowns the action of the Prime Minister and his Government in relation to the 2 factors I have mentioned so far.

After saying that the taxes on the wine industry were worse than those imposed by the previous Government the South Australian Premier went on to point out that many efficient, and some of the better known, wineries in South Australia could go broke. He pointed out that South Australia produces 99 per cent of Australia’s brandy requirements. This is a situation at which we should be looking in our consideration of the estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department. We should be examining the performance of the Government, yet we get a miserable 10 minutes in which to debate such matters. Of course, it would not surprise me if, in line with past performances, this debate were gagged later, although naturally all honourable members hope it will not be.

Let us consider one or two other matters. I would not be stupid enough to stand in this chamber and suggest that it is a completely derelict attitude to buy high priced paintings from overseas in order to set up an art gallery in this national capital of Canberra. I would not be so narrow minded as to say that, but can people be blamed for questioning such a purchase when the cost of a single painting was more than the requirement of South Australia or of this Government for capital to build the Dartmouth Dam? Can people be blamed for comparing the cost of safeguarding the future water requirements of more than one million people with the expenditure on one flaming painting?

In my more sane and broadminded moments I would admit that I see merit in adopting sensible practices to encourage people to take a more intelligent interest in the arts, in the general sense of the meaning of that word, but I do not know that the experts in Australia, from Mr Mollison downwards, are not good enough. I could mention numerous people who over the years have purchased paintings for $100, $500 or $1,000 and who in a few years have gained in value five times that capital expenditure through having the capacity to select artists who will be recognised as significant in the Australian national situation. These remarks apply to authors and others engaged in other forms of art. I do not want to be regarded as parochial or as suggesting that our artists should not be equated with overseas artists. I believe that in the past we have had the tendency to appreciate in value Australian works of art which, in many instances, would not be of equivalent value to an overseas product. I believe that this is a most important error that has been made in Australia but I do not want to be taken as suggesting other than that. Nevertheless the point about any Government encouragement in the field of the arts is that one must look for someone whose appeal to the population at large is such that they can identify the form of art of that person, whether it be Dame Nellie Melba, Gladys Moncrieff, Roy Rene, or, indeed, the Dobells, the Sydney Nolans and the rest that come to mind. All of those people had a capacity to thoroughly intrigue the people of Australia. That is the only way in which one will encourage art. That is also the only way in which one will encourage people to take a broad interest in these matters and help to promote the artists and accomplished people in whom the people of Australia can take pride. I do not know whether the people of Australia will be prepared to stand and revere a painting that was painted by the dropping of hunks of paint from a palette onto a piece of cardboard a storey below such as Blue Poles. The Government may be adopting the right course of action but I suspect that the people of Australia do not think that is the right way to attract people to galleries and the proper way to enable people to achieve an appreciation of art.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

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

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– I wish to deal with Division 546 of Appropriation Bill (No.l) 1973-74, which relates to the Grants Commission and which is included in the appropriation for the Department of the Special Minister of State. In particular, I refer to the recent amendments to the Grants Commission Act, which enable grants to be made to local government. That was a very great step forward for local government. It was one of the many important reforms of the Whitlam Ministry. It is a reform which never would have been achieved under a Liberal government. The attitude of the Liberal Party of Australia to local government was well illustrated at the Constitutional Convention held in Sydney recently. At the Convention Liberal Party spokesmen from the various State parliaments repeatedly spoke out against local government being able to deal directly with the Com monwealth Government, either by the receipt of grants or by having representation on the Loan Council. It was extraordinary to hear claims by Liberal Party speakers that if their local councils took money from the Commonwealth they would lose their financial independence. It is worth noting that this extraordinary argument has never been used by mendicant States. They have always been quite willing to take money from the Grants Commission and have never suggested that the States would be any worse off by getting this money. The fact is, of course, that the payment of section 96 grants to local councils will remove many of the constraints under which they now operate.

The responsibilities of local governments have expanded greatly in recent years and they now carry out a much broader range of activities than they did when local governments were first set up. However, over that time the ability of councils to raise revenue has not expanded in line with their responsibilities. Councils still depend largely on rate revenue. Rates were originally intended to be a charge on land. This was to be used to provide improvements for that land, such as roads, footpaths and similar facilities. These were therefore the main matters which concerned local government. Now, however, local government is involved in many other activities, such as those of a welfare nature. As these are not greatly related to property improvements local governments should be given extra finance by methods other than taxes on property. In other words, they should be financed out of the same revenue as other governments use to pay for their welfare services, that is, local councils must have access to Commonwealth revenue. That was the reason why the recent amendments were brought in by the Government.

The principle of payments from the Grants Commission will be the same as now applies to the States, that is, it will enable the local governments, if they undertake reasonable revenue raising efforts themselves, to provide a standard of services and amenities comparable with that enjoyed by other communities elsewhere. This measure will help the people - I emphasise the word ‘people’ - who depend on local government for services, particularly in those areas which have been unable to provide a standard of services which Australians should reasonably expect. However, the Liberal Party speakers at the Constitutional Convention did not seem interested in the rights of the people. They were more concerned with what they called the rights of State governments. It was amazing how Liberal Party speakers who were so against being dictated to by the central Government in Canberra were so centralist themselves when it came to their relationships with local governments.

The areas which will benefit particularly under this new provision are mainly made up of new housing developments. I have such areas in my own electorate where there are no long established areas to help to distribute the burden of paying for local government works and services. Every area requires such works. The problem is compounded because most of the families are young and are paying for houses at a time when the home repayments form a high proportion of their incomes. The responsibilities of councils in these areas are great, but their ability to raise revenue is limited unless supplementary assistance comes from the Commonwealth via the Grants Commission. I would like briefly to refer to the requirement that local councils form regional groupings. I thank the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) for coming into the House to hear what I have to say although this matter comes under the control of the Special Minister of State (Senator Willesee). We all know that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development has a very important role to play under this provision.

In general I agree with the principle of regionalisation. I think that grants for specific projects, such as those which will be provided by the Department of Urban and Regional Development and the Cities Commission, will serve a good purpose. However, in the case of payments from the Grants Commission I can think of examples where regions would not be of great value. For instance, supposing requirements for Commonwealth assistance within a region are not uniform; in other words, different councils within the one region have different requirements. How will the grant to such a region be divided up? Clearly someone will have to apportion the grant between the different councils in that region. This can be done in one of two ways. The grant could be divided up on a basis decided upon by the councils themselves or the apportioning could be done by the Grants Commission. Consider the first alternative. I believe it will be quite impracticable to expect the councils forming a regional grouping to divide a grant between themselves except in the unlikely chance of their getting complete agreement amongst themselves. If there were any disagreement the regional body would have no statutory author ity to resolve any difficulties, because the regional grouping can be only a uniform arrangement.

Clearly the Grants Commission will have to decide the needs of individual councils in such cases. I believe the Minister agrees with that view. Therefore we might as well allow individual local governments to approach the Grants Commission in the first place. No doubt regions will have a decisive say at some future time but this will be surely in the long term. The provision of assistance to local governments should not have to await clarification of what the regions are, what they will do and how they will do it. I urge the Government and the Minister to allow individual councils to deal directly with the Grants Commission so that this much needed and most welcome reform can get under way and assistance can be provided to local government authorities in the next Federal Budget.

Mr MCVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– I would like to make a few comments on the Estimates. The estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State show a disconcerting trend of increased expenditure. I hoped that at least in this new Department it would have been possible to sort the essential from the transitory, to get to the bottom of conflicting claims, to pierce the propaganda and the puffery of the present Labor Government, to try to get the facts straight and to make the conclusions sound. The Department should attempt to deal with the foreseeable as well as the unexpected. One is surprised at the great amount of finance, $228,300, which is appropriated for the Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Post Office as detailed in division 540, subdivision 3, item 07. We on this side of the Committee have no objection whatsoever to an in depth analysis of the Post Office. But we submit that the Budget indicated the familiar dilemma of the Australian Labor Party. Caught as it is in the intricacies of socialism and endeavouring to nationalise all power in Canberra post haste and in an endeavour to smash free enterprise, rural industries and people who live in rural areas and rural towns, the Caucus could not even wait for the Commission to come up with its findings and recommendations. It acted to implement its own policies, aims and objectives.

This is a national concern. Why have a Commission at all? Why use national funds if the Government intends to act independently of that Commission and to reach conclusions before the recommendations of that Commission are received? We on this side of the Committee submit that it would have been greater national value to be patient and to stop drifting into an eventual chaotic state which seems to be penalising efficiency and rewarding inertia. It would appear to me that, even if this modest gesture of waiting until the findings were received by the Government, the observance of this formality would have become an act of history.

Talking about history, I point out that Australian history is something of which we are all proud - at least, we on this side of the Parliament are. It fills us with great pride to think of the deeds of heroism and the pioneering spirit of the pathfinders and trail blazers of yesteryear. We are concerned that, unless positive moves are made to retain what is now available of our history and if efforts are not made to protect and, in some instances, to restore the crumbling ruins that are our early historic buildings, future generations will be penalised by the passage of time from seeing these buildings. They will be unable to relive the cultures of past generations and to absorb the history and culture of our country. As the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) commented, the situation in which vast sums of money are spent to purchase paintings when we appear to have no money to give to out historical societies to encourage them to preserve the buildings of the past is a great paradox.

Mr Corbett:

– Hear, hear!

Mr McVEIGH:

– I am concerned as other members of the Country Party are concerned with this aspect. The honourable member for Maranoa, a man whose people pioneered and tamed the western areas of Queensland, has expressed his concern. It is good to observe that he is concerned about this matter. Division 540, subdivision 4 of the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State reveals that the small sum of $4,400 has been allocated to historical societies in this Budget.

Mr Lucock:

– Shame.

Mr McVEIGH:

– As the honourable member for Lyne says: ‘Shame’. It is great shame on Ministers that this paltry amount of money is allocated for this purpose when we find them hobnobbing in the 4 corners of the globe every day that they can get away from this national forum. Yet the Government has allocated a sum of only $4,400 to preserve the history of this country. The Country Party is proud of the history of Australia. I submit that history is culture and that it should be preserved. Even at this belated hour I make a very special plea to the Minister, as a tribute to the pioneers of the past, to reconsider this rather parsimonious allocation.

The honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) spoke about the Grants Commission. We recall that earlier in the life of the present Parliament legislation was enacted to spread the work of the Grants Commission to reduce inequalities between regions, in the same way as previously inequalities between the States were considered to be the prime purpose of the Commission. I have been informed that later this month the Commission will hold special meetings to define guidelines as to how it shall operate. I do not share the views of the previous speaker in this debate. I share the views of the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) who interrupted earlier and said that it is about time that local government was granted a fair share of the national revenue. I applaud the action of the honourable member for Mallee in bringing to the notice of this Parliament the great financial burden that has been placed on the ratepayers in the various local authorities of this Commonwealth. I share his concern that it is about time that the national government gave to the local authorities some reimbursement from the common taxation pool. I wish now to refer to the area of Darling Downs where recently 5 Shires - Allora, Clifton, Cambooya, Pittsworth and Jondaryen - were declared soil erosion hazard areas. This was put down in a statutory declaration under an Act of the Queensland Parliament. The people of Darling Downs are concerned because they are alive to their responsibilities and aware of the sacred trust that has been placed in them to preserve and hold in trust for the use of future generations the land on which they have had the great honour to work and from which, through their toil and labour, they have earned a living. Plans for soil erosion prevention measures will be designed by the Queensland Department of Primary Industry and will include plans for land usage, reafforestation and pasture establishment.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mir HAMER (Isaacs) (8.29)- In many ways the Department of the Prime Minister and

Cabinet is the most important Department of State. It has the task of co-ordinating the activities of the other 36 departments for the present Government has ten more departments than the previous Government had, fully complemented with the fat cats described by the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron). No wonder the numbers and the cost of the Public Service go up. This Committee must examine very critically how well the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is performing its vital co-ordinating role. How well is it doing? The answer clearly is very badly. It probably is not really the responsibility of the Department. It all stems from the administrative methods or lack of method of the Prime Minister <Mr Whitlam). We all knew that the Prime Minister had no administrative experience and he was taking on the biggest administration job in the country. Yet I think we all thought he could do better than he has. The Prime Minister seems to think that words - floods of words - are a substitute for sustained constructive thought and administration. Like most inexperienced administrators he seems to think that decisions are all that is required - any decisions, necessary or not , thought through or not, just decisions to give an impression, albeit a false impression, of effective government.

Mr Cooke:

– Decide in haste, repent at leisure.

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Very true. The Prime Minister reminds me very strongly of a similarly inept administrator I used to know who, when asked what he thought about a particular situation, snapped back: ‘How do I know what I think until I hear what I say?’ For the Prime Minister has a deplorable habit of blurting out half thought through ideas. He sometimes talks brilliantly, particularly on television, until he suddenly says something which reveals he has not the faintest or foggiest idea of what he is talking about. Like the thirteenth chime of a crazy clock, it casts doubt on all that has gone before.

A good example of this, perhaps, is his performance in the field of interest rates. He did have the grace, if that is the word, to say that there were gaps in his knowledge on interest rates. I think that all who heard him on the subject would have said rather that there were gaps in his ignorance and even those gaps are hard to perceive.

Mr Cooke:

– Caucus helped to fill them in, though.

Mr HAMER:

– Yes. Of course the Prime Minister’s administrative performance is not helped by having a 27-man Cabinet and a 93-man supervisory Cabinet - his Caucus. It would take an administrator of much greater capacity than the Prime Minister to cope with such handicaps.

The Prime Minister seems to be dancing to music which he alone can hear. I am able to reveal what the dance is. It is called the Whitlam waltz. Watch his footwork. He takes as many steps to the left as he dares, then a few paces back to get onside with the right wing, and then waltzes round in circles until totally confused. When the Prime Minister confessed to the House the other day that he tossed and turned in bed at night, it was obvious that he was training for the Whitlam waltz.

Why are the Prime Minister and his departments failing so deplorably in their coordination? One reason is that there are now more than 50 committees and inquiries advising 27 Ministers. There are so many interdepartmental committees that the Prime Minister is not even prepared to find out how many there are or what they are doing. Twentyseven Press secretaries are daily promising instant Utopia. If we are to have so many committees and their activities are not to overlap and their findings are to be considered and, where appropriate, converted into policy - if all these objectives are to be achieved - it will need a far higher level of administrative control than this Government and in particular the Prime Minister have yet shown.

The second and far more sinister development has been the vast increase in the personal staffs and advisers of Ministers. These individuals, unlike the public servants whom they supersede, owe their allegiance solely to their Ministers.

Mr Cooke:

– They are all political has-beens.

Mr HAMER:

– Yes. It was this trend which in America led directly to Watergate. It is an indication of the trend of thought in the present Government which led to the Prime Minister publicly to describe one of his staff as his Kissinger. It was one of these advisers - being paid, I am told, nearly $1,000 a week - who led the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) into his blundering raid on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. But here too it is difficult to establish the facts. There is in the Budget some incomplete information on Ministerial personal staffs but nothing about the number of paid advisers. The trend is dangerous and quite foreign to the Australian system of government.

The administrative record of the present Government is a mass of contradiction. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) have visions of desirable changes in our society, which the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) and the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) immediately frustrate by destroying the future growth in productivity which alone could make these social objectives possible. Then there is the distribution of wealth. The Minister for Labour and the Prime Minister have disagreed publicly on this subject, but the Minister for Labour has campaigned for the 35-hour week, with attacks on firms which, as he describes them, can afford it. His first target is the oil industry. The irony is that the oil industry has been under price control for its principal products for many years. If its profits are excessive, surely the best answer is to reduce the price of the products so that the whole community can share, rather than giving all the benefits to a small group of trade unionists. The Government’s policy seems to be that all Australians are equal, but militant trade unionists are more equal than others.

One could go on endlessly with these contradictions. Another is to be found in education. Here the Government claims to intend to raise the quality of sub-standard independent schools and then adopts a recurrent grant system that is a positive disincentive to the improvement of standards. What school will improve its pupil-teacher ratio if the effect is that it will be put in a higher category and lose part of its grant. And so it goes on.

Conservation is a joke under this Government. Do honourable members remember how enthusiastic the Labor Party was to save Lake Pedder before the election? And what about Galston? What about industrial relations? The man hours lost through industrial action in the first 5 months this year as compared with the first 5 months of last year have gone up by 54 per cent. So much for the special ability of a Labor Government to reduce industrial disturbance. This Government is bringing this country to industrial chaos. Then there is the basic contradiction between our new foreign policy and our new defence policy. But we cannot debate the statement of the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) because the Government is not prepared to bring it on, when all its faults and absurdities would be revealed for all to see. And so it goes on. Shuffling Ministers around will not cure the problem. The administration of this Government is a shambles and for this the Prime Minister, and through him his Department, must take the principal blame.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) revealed the jealousy and the hatred that honourable members opposite have for the greatest political leader this country has had for generations. As I listened to him speak a few moments ago, wailing about what is wrong with the economy and what is wrong with the administration and what is wrong with the nation, I could not help but think what a tremendous improvement this Government has made in a few months on anything those on the other side did in 23 years of Government.

I refer to the last point mentioned by the honourable member in relation to man hours lost by industrial trouble. How many man hours did those 120,000 unemployed under the Liberal Government lose? How many man hours were lost because the honourable member and his vicious policies sought to make men so economically dependent that they would take any kind of employment? The previous Government wanted a pool of unemployment to lose man hours. Now, when this pool has been removed, the Opposition says that this Government has not done anything.

The honourable member complained about Ministers’ advisers. If any government needed advisers it was the one that he supported. He is out of office because he not only had no advice but he also would not take the advice that some people offered to give. This is not a new development. The honourable member knows full well that right at the top level and other places this Government seeks advice from those who have the ability to advise on the great problems confronting the nation.

I was hoping to be able to give honourable members of this Parliament additional staff, but how can I do it for honourable members on the other side when they are complaining about the growth of the Public Service? Would it not be dreadful? I would be criticised by each of them. As I gave them a new research officer or a new secretary they would say: ‘My goodness, look how the Public Service is growing’. I did not hear the Opposition complaining about the mammoth staff of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) or how they cry and wail every week to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to give them additional staff. They say: ‘We do not have many members ourselves. We want as many as we can get to help us.’ That is the situation. I will stack up the staff of any office bearer on the Opposition side against the staff of any Minister and I will find that the Opposition has twice as many as it ever gave to any member on this side.

Whilst honourable members opposite are clamouring about ministerial staffs they should turn their eyes on to their own leaders, including the Country Party leaders, and they will see not only the staff that they have but also what they are continually demanding from this Government. So why do we hear all this humbug about what the Labor Party is doing in these matters? Honourable members opposite know as well as I do that the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) and his Deputy are always clamouring for additional staff. If one is talking to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party he will say that he has a top staff and wants more. The same applies to the Leader of the Opposition. I think that the big fault with them is that they have good staffs but they will not take the advice that is offered. That is precisely what I think the situation is. The honourable member for Isaacs dealt with schools any other items. Does he suggest that the wealthier schools such as Timber Top and Melbourne Grammar should receive the same money as the schools in the poor, depressed areas receive? As I stand here I notice the wealthy individuals who sit opposite. They have never seen a poor man because they do not mix in those circles. They have never seen kids who wanted an education but could not receive it because the former Government preferred to give the money to Timber Top, Melbourne Grammar and all the other wealthier schools instead of to the ones that really needed it. This Government is spreading the wealth of the nation among those who richly deserve to share in it.

Let us look at the 27-man Cabinet and the 93-man Caucus. Do honourable members remember the first and second elevens of the former Government? There were 12 in the first eleven and 12 or 13 in the second eleven, and half of them could not trust each other. They all came from one or two States. The first eleven never consulted anybody. They just walked into the Parliament and said: “This is the policy. Take it or leave it’. The Labor Party is a democratic party. Every member of the Ministry is a member of the Cabinet. There are no first and second elevens on this side of the chamber. They are all equal and they all receive the same pay. Over there I can see the third eleven - the Country Party. Many of them could not get in anywhere. I see one member sitting there looking at me. He has been gazing from that side of the chamber for years and years. Those honourable members have never shifted from that side. When I looked at the first and second elevens I thought how crook these members must be because they could not get into either.

The 27-man Ministry decides on matters in accordance with the policy of this Party. Then in accordance with all the democratic practices of government the Ministers submit their proposals and participate in the deliberations. The Labor Party gives the right to every member who is elected to come to this Parliament and who has to. answer to his constituents to have a say in what should or should not be done. Of course, a Cabinet is not infallible. We do not blindly follow anyone who puts up proposals. Members of the Caucus carefuly examine matters that are submitted to them and, as is their right, they have the opportunity to vote. The majority rule prevails. Of course, if honourable members opposite want a system whereby a discarded leader such as Billy McMahon comes in and stands over them telling them what they have to do, good luck to them. But that is not the Labor Party’s approach to these problems.

Honourable members opposite referred to the Labor Party sometimes rejecting Cabinet proposals. Would they expect the Cabinet to be right every time? Admittedly, 99 times out of 100 it is right on the ball but occasionally it might miss one. At least these things are done and although somebody may be rebuffed temporarily, that is the democracy of a parliament. I prefer to tell my constituents, as honourable members on this side do, that our Party is one in which every member has an equal say in the policy that is presented to this Parliament. They have a right to adjudicate on decisions that are made and to express their opinions. Consequently decisions are made that have the support of the Party as such. Let me mention to honourable members opposite that there is nothing wrong with the system of Cabinet that we have here. In case they might not think so, let me inform them that in the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada every member of the Ministry is in the Cabinet, and it is about as big as ours. In other parts of the world the same thing applies. Those who follow Whitehall, the House of Commons, the late Sir Winston Churchill and Mr Heath will have their first and second eleven because that is what those who wear the old school tie want. They love to look up to somebody. That is the system the Country Party tries to foist on the Australian people. It is so different on this side of the Parliament.

I just mention these matters in answer to the honourable member. I suggest that the Country Party should consider the Prime Minister’s performance and compare what was done in the years it was in office with what has been done in the months that we have been in office. In the 9 months that this Government has been in office its record in social welfare, administration, world affairs and presentation to the Australian people stands unequalled in the annals of this country. Look at honourable members opposite now. 1 have said it before and I say it again. They are like roaring lions in opposition but in government they were quiet as rabbits suffering from myxomatosis. We never got a word out of them when they were in government but since they have been in opposition they have discovered all that is wrong with the nation and all that can be done. Do you know what annoys them? They cannot do anything about it ‘because we have a government that will remedy the state of affairs that they created and bring real justice, equality and social and economic security to the people of this country.

The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) has become the great reformer. He wants extra standing orders. He wants the whole Parliament reformed. On one occasion he wanted the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to pay SI 0,000 to put a telephone on to some cocky’s place in the country. As the Postmaster-General said, it would have been cheaper to buy the farm. This is the kind of case he puts up to a government. Is it any wonder that members of the Country Party are in opposition? I ask the people to judge. Are they not where they ought to be? Why would they be on this side? There is not a thought between them. All they can do is rail and rant about the democracy of the Australian Labor Party, about the prestige of the Prime Minister and about our methods.

Not one member of the Country Party has a vote for anybody in his own party. They are told what to do, and most of the people who tell the Country Party what to do live in Pitt Street, Sydney, or at Darling Point and such places. Members of the Country Party are terribly frustrated because in this Parliament they act as well paid puppets for those people who put them here under the guise of being Country Party supporters.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage) - Order! The Minister will relate his comments to the estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department and Cabinet and the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State, whom he represents here.

Mr DALY:

– Mr Deputy Chairman, I may have deviated slightly, but you will agree that what I said was exceedingly interesting. I finish on this note: I am sick and tired of hearing honourable members opposite talking about all that this Government has not done. If I had another 25 minutes to speak I would not be able to tell them a quarter of what the Government has achieved in the months it has been in office. I finish on that note because I think it is important that we should again give those opposite the chance to wail and moan if they will. But let them remember this: This Government will continue along the course it is following, which the great majority of Australian people endorse.

Mr HALLETT:
Canning

– I understood that we were discussing the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! The Minister for Services and Property was speaking on the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State, whom he represents in this House, and accordingly his time was unlimited.

Mr HALLETT:

– I am not talking about the time, Sir. I was suggesting that we were discussing, firstly, the estimates of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and, secondly, the estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State. May I suggest, Mr Deputy Chairman, with respect, that the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) got up to answer a previous speaker and he touched on practically every department, including of course his own, the Department of Education and a few more, other than the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Was he trying to defend something he could not defend? What he was trying to do we will never know but it was a typical speech by the Leader of the House. He seems to enjoy himself but he does not really go anywhere.

I shall endeavour to come back to the question before the Committee, and that is the estimates of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It has been said on numerous occasions and repeated during debates today by members on the Government side that the Opposition should suggest ways and means of cutting down Government expenditure. This is an excellent opportunity perhaps to have a look at some of the estimates in relation to the portfolios we are discussing this evening. It is rather a pity that the Minister spent so much time wandering around the various portfolios other than the ones we are discussing, because I think it would be more appropriate if he would answer a few questions that may be raised during these discussions. For instance, in division 430 of the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which deals with administration, the total expenditure in the previous financial year was $5,121,955. This year the total appropriation is $9,389,300.

Mr Hewson:

– It is doubled.

Mr HALLETT:

– It is not quite doubled. Perhaps the Minister at the table who is responsible for answering on behalf of the Prime Minister tonight would indicate the reason for the difference. There is limited information within the various documents in the Budget papers, but the information available is not good enough, as I see it, to explain the variation in those sums of money. I think it is in these sorts of areas that the Ministers at the table can spend their time telling us what it is all about. In division 448, which deals with the Public Service Board, expenditure in the previous year was $8,135,337. This year the appropriation is $9,159,000. About $lm more is to be spent on administration and other services within the Public Service Board. That is quite a figure. In division 442, which deals with the Australian Council lor the Arts, expenditure in the previous year was $7,185,081 and the appropriation this year is $15,019,900. That division covers quite a field. There is limited information in rela tion to that figure in the Budget documents. Again it is not sufficient to describe what the increase is all about. It is quite a considerable increase. The appropriation this year is a little more than double what it was the previous year. Perhaps the Minister for Services and Property would like to describe precisely where that money is going.

Let us look at the Tariff Board. I think the Tariff Board has been disbanded and something else is to take its place. We are not too sure what the operation of the new body will be. In division 449, which refers to the Tariff Board, expenditure in 1972-73 was $2,606,004 and this year the Government has increased the appropriation to $3,264,700. That is quite a lift in the appropriation for the administration of the Tariff Board. Perhaps the Minister could indicate the reasons for it. I have already mentioned the Australian Council of the Arts. I notice that on page 87 of the Bill under the heading ‘Other Services’ there appears as item 06 the acquisition of works for and the conservation of the national collection. I do not know what is meant by ‘the national collection’. One of my colleagues was talking about retaining some of the older structures in Australia today. Perhaps the Minister might explain what this item is all about. It is noticed that in 1972-73 expenditure on this item was $1,077,646 but in 1973-74 the appropriation is $4m. So here is another considerable expansion of expenditure that the Minister might also explain. How will that money be spent? Where is it going and by whom is it to be spent?

I would like for a moment in my limited time to turn to page 111 and the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister for State. Here we find that the total administrative expenses last financial year were $1,661,291. This financial year that figure has increased to $3,207,850. Here again limited information is available. Can the Minister explain precisely where these millions will be spent? I am sure that the Committee and members of the public would like to know on what this money is to be spent. Item 544 relates to the Commonwealth Archives Office. During the financial year 1972-73 this Department expended $1,335,581 but for the financial year 1973-74 the estimated expenditure is $2,038,400. This also is a considerable increase and perhaps the Minister might explain the situation.

In the few minutes remaining to me I want to refer particularly te the Grants Commission.

I think it was the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) who gave his interpretation of precisely how he thought the Grants Commission would operate in future. This is probably the first explanation that has been given by a Government supporter. I am anxious to know how the Grants Commission will operate. I am sure that local authorities throughout Australia are also interested in this matter. Perhaps the Minister later tonight will have the opportunity to tell us precisely how it will operate. Item 546 relates to the Grants Commission. Last financial year $124,732 was expended by the Grants Commission. This was quite a modest sum but in the current Budget $593,250 is provided for this financial year. Only a few weeks ago in reply to a question the appropriate Minister suggested that it would be some 3 months before any guidelines of any sort would be available to indicate what is to happen with the Grants Commission. If this is the case it will be Christmas time or later before the Government’s proposals for the Grants Commission get off the ground and therefore they will be in operation for only a few months before the end of the financial year. However the people of Australia and local authorities want to know how the Grants Commission is to function. We as a Parliament have not been told, nor have the people, and if the Minister can explain how this money will be spent people will be a little better informed.

Item 549 concerns the National Library of Australia which performs a most important function, but here again whereas last financial year $5,820,000 was made available by the previous Government this year that amount has been increased to the round figure of $7m. This is a substantial increase and a little later during this Committee debate I should like the Leader of the House, who represents the Special Minister of State, to explain precisely how this money will be expended.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– This has been a remarkable debate more remarkable because from listening to the speeches that have been made it would seem that what has been said has had more to do with the name of the Prime Minister than the administration of his office. The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) in his remarks, made a bitter complaint about the measly time he was allowed in which to speak in this debate. I remember complaining about the same thing when the time allowed for speaking in Esti mates debates was reduced from 15 minutes to 10 minutes during the period when the right honourable John Gorton was Prime Minister of Australia and the honourable member for Angas voted in favour of that proposition. Apparently the passage of time produces some rather strange results. This afternoon we heard from members of the Opposition speeches similar to those made years ago by honourable members who are now supporters of the Government about increases in the petrol tax. John Gorton was Prime Minister at the time when his Government increased petrol tax by 3c a gallon. Every member of the Country Party then voted for it and lauded it, so do not let us get too far-

Mr Calder:

– You are talking rubbish.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I may be, but if the honourable member examines the 1970 Budget he will find that the increase in revenue raised from the 3c a gallon increase on petrol was $86m. The Country Party was part of the Government at that time and supported that proposal, so do not let us kid ourselves. We are debating the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and of the Department of the Special Minister of State. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) seemed to believe that if he could use sufficient disparaging words he would not have to put forward arguments. However one of his propositions should be examined in close detail because I think it signifies rather clearly the philosophy of the Liberal Party, apparently supported by the Country Party, regarding the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Mr Whittorn:

– And the people.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I am glad to hear the honourable member say that because I would not have thought that he was a man who believed he had no right whatever to comment on any Government decision but must come here only to vote in Parliament in support of what the Prime Minister and the Cabinet did. However that was what the honourable member for Isaacs said. He said that the people who are elected to this Parliament to support the Government have only the right to elect the Prime Minister and have no right whatever to question any decision of the Cabinet let alone take part in a debate on, and possibly reject, a decision of the Cabinet in the Party room. If the honourable member for Balaclava believes that, he should stand in this chamber and let the people he represents know that he does not believe that he should accept the responsibilities of being a member of the Parliament and, more importantly, the responsibilities of being a member of a government.

Ms Calder:

– You accept the decisions of your Caucus.

Ms SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I will repeat what the honourable member for Isaacs said because I do not think the honourable member for the Northern Territory was present and if he had been most likely he would not have understood.

Mr Calder:

– You will not get anywhere by making personal insults.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I am not trying to be personally insulting, but the honourable member is. The honourable member for Isaacs said that this country could not be run while there was a 27-man Cabinet making decisions and a 93-man Cabinet overriding those decisions. I suggest that if the parliamentary institution has any function whatever, and recognising as I think most practical politicians would, that once the decisions in the Party room are made members of the Party will support them in the House because that is the way the Westminster systems works other than on the most exceptional occasions, Cabinet decisions should be considered by members in the Party room. The honourable member for Isaacs said that once Cabinet decisions are made - he made it clear that he did not believe that all Ministers should be Ministers of the Cabinet - members of the Government Party had no right to express an opinion or to ask the Cabinet to reconsider its decisions. I remember the mess the then Government Parties got into a couple of years ago when-

Ms Calder:

– What sort of mess are you in now?

Ms SCHOLES:

– We are not in any mess at all.

Mr Edwards:

– What was your decision on the interest rate?

Mr SCHOLES:

– I should have thought that the honourable member would have known that if he asked a question he would be told. Honourable members are entitled to ask questions in this place. The point I am making, and I want to make it clearly, is that the Liberal Party in this chamber - this has been said by members of that Party on the front bench and not only by the honourable member for Isaacs - has expressed the clear opinion that it does not believe that those members of the Party who are not Ministers of the Cabinet have any right to express opinions in the Party room on Cabinet decisions. I ask any member opposite to deny that that is what has been said and that their leaders are saying it now. Quite clearly this is what the honourable member for Isaacs said. He said that the Government could not be run while the Caucus made decisions contrary to those of the Cabinet.

If we are to have government by the Prime Minister or government by the Cabinet and not have a position where members of the Parliament who are not Ministers are entitled in the Party room to express their opinion, whether it be for or against the Government., we should cease going through the exercise of having meetings of the Parliament because all that should be done is once every 3 years to elect a Cabinet and members go away and forget about it, especially if people are to repudiate their responsibilities as members of the Government party when they are members of such a party.

Mr Cooke:

– Of course, normally the Prime Minister enjoys the support of his Party.

Mr SCHOLES:

– Normally the Prime Minister enjoys the support of his Party. On almost every issue the Cabinet enjoys the support of the Australian Labor Party. Of course, any person who comes into this chamber and says that he is going to agree with every decision that someone else makes, irrespective of what that decision is, clearly has no independent thoughts of his own. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has been continually interjecting. It was not long ago that he and every member of his Party - the Australian Country Party - in this chamber voted in favour of a proposal to give Senate representation to the Northern Territory and every member of the same Party in the other place voted against the same proposition. So the honourable member for the Northern Territory should not talk about making up one’s own mind.

Mr Calder:

– Do you win every vote in Caucus?

Mr SCHOLES:

– I do not win every vote in Caucus.

Mr Calder:

– You are talking nonsense.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage) - Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory will cease interjecting.

Mr SCHOLES:

– It appears as though the members of the Opposition are saying that

Party decisions should not be made. That is the proposition which has been put on the other side of the chamber. I think that should be made quite clear. In the last couple of moments left to me in which to speak I want to make one other point which I think is relevant to the activities to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Mr Corbett:

– That will be a change.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I do not think I have said anything which has been irrelevant to the operations of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I realise that the members of the Opposition have found what I have said about them to be offensive to them. A previous speaker - I think it was the honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett) - suggested means by which Government expenditure could be cut down, which has been the holy cry of the front bench of the Opposition. I want to point out that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony), the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair) and other front bench members of the Opposition who have said repeatedly that there should be a cut down on Government expenditure have also said that the Government should increase the defence vote by $3 00m and the social services vote by over $100m. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), an Opposition spokesman, has said that the Government should have increased the health vote by $90m to pay for increased doctors’ fees. Those are all published statements. The Opposition has demanded an increased expenditure by the Government of at least $490m - that is only a part of what its demands have been - while at the same time it has talked about reduced Government expenditure. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. The speeches this afternoon on the petrol tax were exactly the same as those made by a previous Opposition when the then Government increased the petrol tax.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Department of the Treasury

Proposed expenditure, $157,723,000.

Advance to the Treasurer

Proposed expenditure, $50,000,000.

Mr WHITTORN:
Balaclava

– I propose to devote my attention to the estimates for the Department of the Treasury during this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1973-74. I have found it very interesting to look through past Hansard reports and see what the present Treasurer (Mr Crean) had to say on previous occasions about the expenditure of federal money throughout the States of the Commonwealth. In fact, I had a look at a speech he made on 10 September 1968 in which he said that he was then - I think he still is - a federalist at heart, although on looking at the Budget figures on this occasion one finds that he has restricted expenditure by the States to such an extent that they have found it almost impossible to find the moneys to carry out the work they have to do. In fact in those days the Treasurer thought that the then government was mean and without tolerance. He indicated the real responsibilities of the State governments. As I have said, the speech to which I am referring was made by the present Treasurer on 10 September 1968. It can be found at page 854 of Hansard on that date. The Treasurer said:

I want to talk about the lack of understanding, lack of sympathy, lack of tolerance . . . that exists throughout the federation . . .

He went through various aspects of this lack of tolerance and then went on to say:

Because of the lack of proper, sympathetic understanding of the needs of the States, the States are continually being forced to have recourse to indirect taxes as the form of raising additional revenue.

The Treasurer is not present in the chamber tonight. I must concede that he has just returned from representing Australia in Kenya. If the Treasurer were present I would ask him what sort of sympathy and tolerance he has shown in the Budget for the State governments. The Treasurer has presented a money grubbing Budget, which indicates that the Government is a money grubbing government. It appears to me that the Government is endeavouring to obtain as much money as it can from the people. It has diverted money from the States. It has diverted money from expenditure on defence and in other areas in which normally Australian people would expect it to be expended. It is obvious that there are very good reasons why a socialist government, which is what we have in Australia, would want to do this.

I notice that the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Works (Mr Les Johnson) is smiling benignly. I had a look at the estimates for the Department of Housing and found that in 1972-73 the Budget appropriation for housing was $126m. The Budget appropriation for housing in 1973-74 is over $570m. The Budget appropriation for housing has been increased to more than fourfold. In other words A. V. Jennings and all the other housing concerns in Australia will be eliminated by the Minister taking charge of housing production in Australia. He and his minions want to produce all the houses for the people of Australia in the areas in which they want to build them.

They will tell the people of Australia where they have to go, what type of housing they will live in, what they will do with it, how much a week they will pay for it and so on. That is not the wish of the prudent and hard working people of Australia. They want to be able to decide for themselves where they want to go, what type of house they live in, die area where their children should be educated and where they will live in future years. This socialist Government has already decided what it will do insofar as housing is concerned in Australia. I repeat that it is a money grubbing Government and the Budget is a money grubbing Budget that is designed to take money from any source wherever possible and divert it to government use in Australia.

The Treasurer talked in 1968 about tolerance, sympathy and understanding, but since becoming Treasurer his attitude has been completely contrary to what it was in 1968. In 1968 he also said - I agree with him - that the States have more responsibilities and more people to look after than has the Commonwealth Government. How right he was, because they have to look after education and health - or should do - as well as look after the fire service, the roads, irrigation and all the other things that happen within the State boundaries, but the present Government is prepared to take over these responsibilities and negative the activities of the State governments forever.

The present Treasurer also said - this is something which I have already said - that the States are responsible in such significant fields as education, health, public transport, power, irrigation and roads. It is laughable when we hear the present Minister for Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Charles Jones) say what he will do with the railways in Victoria and elsewhere. The Minister says that the Commonwealth Government will give Victoria $9.6m provided that the Commonwealth Government has a man on the commission for the transport system in Victoria, that he can determine where the contracts go and at what price the contracts are let.

I can hardly believe after reading the debate on the Estimates in 1968 that the present Treasurer said the things which I have recounted. He talked about the hundreds of schools that State governments had to construct. He talked about the hundreds of locomotives that had to be purchased and where they would be obtained. I believe those are the responsibilities of State governments and not of the Federal Government. On page 855 of the same speech the present Treasurer said - and I agree with him - that State governments spend threequarters of the public capital expenditure throughout the Commonwealth. This is what was done in those days and this is what should be done in 1973-74, 1974-75 and so on. The present Treasurer has had an amazing transformation of thought on the uses that State governments appealed to in the past and will look to in the future. One only has to look at statement No. 2 in the Budget papers to see what the Treasurer has done. I refer to the Budget domestic outlay. The increase in capital expenditure on domestic outlay over last year is 40.6 per cent. This Government and the people of Australia are wondering about inflation. One only has to look at the Budget papers to realise what are the causes of inflation. Statement No. 2 states:

The rapid acceleration in capital expenditures on gods and services, which are estimated to rise by over two-fifths in 1973-74 compared with little change in 1972-73;

Is it any wonder that we on this side of the House talk about the extent of capital expenditure by the present Government and the reasons why we are in this serious and raging inflation situation? It is because of the Federal Government. Statement No. 2 also shows that net advances other than to the States increased by 67.5 per cent over last year. I hope those people who are listening will hear me send out this call. These are the reasons why we are in the inflationary situation we are in today. The present Government is spending and will continue to spend such large amounts of money from the public purse in Canberra. The money is not being spent by the States or by local governments but is being spent by this Government in Canberra. I have not time to deal with all the matters because 10 minutes is not long for a politician to speak. I have a chart prepared by the Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service indicating some of the reasons for inflation. It shows that average weekly earnings between 1964-65 and 1971-72 increased by 68.2 per cent. The consumer price index, which one would expect-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– An analysis of the estimates for the Department of the Treasury will show that the operation of this Department is indicative of the whole Budget - inflationary and expansionary. No effort has been made to contain costs. This is exemplified by reference to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1973-74, division 582. The cost of running the Commonwealth Taxation Office has increased by $5,106,649 and the cost of overtime has increased by $238,244. This represents in the former case an increase of 8.5 per cent and in the latter case an increase of 16.5 per cent. In these days of the computer, when the systems have been experimented with and the programs are established and stabilised, these costs seem to us to be remarkable. What is more astonishing is that computer services charges have been increased by more than 200 per cent. We are concerned at these increases in the cost of the tax gathering machine. It would appear that the Treasurer (Mr Crean) has adopted the ideology of taking the cash and letting the credit go. We on this side of the House submit that he has not yet heard the rumble of the distant drum.

We could have expected with the increased use of the computer that salaries and travelling and subsistence allowances would have shown a decrease. Large wage and salary increases are a potent cause of inflation. Why has there not been an increase in productivity? Productivity is simply an increase in output per unit of labour per man hour. It would appear now that we are merely getting less work for more money. The Treasurer must explain to this House and through this House to the nation why this should be so. The figures which indicate the percentage of revenue it costs to collect taxes such as estate duties and gift duties are revealing in the message they convey. Estate duty as at June 1972- the last year for which figures are available - indicates the rather startling cost of collection figure of 1.826 per cent with the figure in 1970 being 1.170 per cent. Gift duty is more remarkable - in 1972 5.565 per cent of revenue and in 1970 3.955 per cent. I wish to know, and the constituents of the Darling Downs electorate wish to know, why tax collection is costing more and more and why the percentage is growing.

This year, with the estimated decrease in revenue for estate duties - and we should pay tribute to the decision of the previous Government for this decrease - the collection charge will be astronomical because the increased cost of collection will be contrasted with a decrease in revenue.

Of course the question of estate duty is one in which members of the Country Party have a deep philosophical aim. We aim to abolish this obnoxious tax. I pay tribute to that great statesman, the honourable Jo Bjelke-Petersen, who abolished probate duty in Queensland. (Government supporters interjecting)

Mr McVEIGH:

– Let members opposite squirm; let them call. An analysis of the Queensland Budget introduced into the Queensland Parliament only a few weeks ago will show that the Country Party in that State abolished probate duty with the support of our partners of the Liberal Party. I submit that the action of Jo Bjelke-Petersen and Sir Gordon Chalk is an example that could be followed by the socialists who unfortunately occupy the Treasury bench in the Commonwealth Parliament. On this point of Country Party philosophy of total abolition of death and estate duties I submit for the education of those who quite often do not wish to be educated that these taxes have completely outlived the reasons for which they were instituted. They were instituted in the early days of our history for the purpose of breaking up large rural estates and for restructuring primary industry. But the position at present is that those with the financial means to do so are able to avoid the payment of death duties by arrangement of their financial affairs.

We on this side of the Committee are concerned at the great problem that the payment of death duties causes to small families, particularly to women who unfortunately through a sudden death find themselves widowed and left to shoulder the burden of rearing a young family. We are concerned with the charges that are necessary to collect these duties as shown in division 582 where the rather tremendous cost of collection is indicated. We call therefore on the Commonwealth Government to withdraw from this field, because the percentage of national income is very small but the hardship following an untimely death can be monumental.

Any taxing principle must surely be similar to what the Prime Minister said on one of the occasions when he has showed great discourtesy to this Parliament. Such occasions are rather numerous, as honourable members know. In answer to a question asked recently by someone on this side, the Prime Minister said ‘that which causes inconvenience to the fewest and convenience to the most’ should be what we do. All will agree that it is better to tax one when one is alive rather than to tax one’s estate when one is dead. One certainly does not have any control over one’s destiny then.

Certain disparaging remarks have been attributed to the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) with respect to fat cats. Whilst the Minister was somewhat guarded in his reply to a question asked on this subject by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) and irrespective of criticism of public servants, figures indicate that the number of people working in the Taxation Office this year - it is controlled by the Department of the Treasury - will be 11,396, an increase of 247 on the staff of 11,149 employed last year. These figures are revealed in division 582. Surely this increase necessitates a reply from the Treasurer (Mr Crean) as to why this rise has occurred. No additional taxes will be collected yet this outstanding phenomenon occurs with the numbers employed in the Australian Public Service continually growing without any product of gain. At June 1973 the number of full time staff employed under the Public Service Act was 254,367, an increase of 10,006 or 4.09 per cent on the figure for 1972-73.

We have instanced much talk interspersed with hot air by the Government in the last few weeks regarding the control of inflation. The simple fact of the matter is that the value of the dollar will decline or conversely the cost factor will increase unless we have economic responsibility and demand management The Government surely could have given a lead by restricting the growth of the Public Service which will slowly become a colossus. Governments, because of the cost of maintaining the Service, could be subservient to it. I remind honourable members that, as far as we are concerned, the Parliament must remain supreme.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– I wish to make a small contribution to the debate on the estimates of the Department of the Treasury. I relate my remarks to divisions 580 and 582 of Appropriation Bill (No. 1). I wish to raise a few points which, I believe, are terribly important. Ever since this Budget session commenced, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the question of inflation. No doubt exists in my mind that many of the matters raised have been most important. The value of a nation’s currency is far more important than anything else. If a nation’s currency is valueless or near valueless or is losing its value, irrespective of what may be done on the production line, that nation will not have any success at all.

It is not my intention in this debate to go into the pros and cons of inflation. We have heard plenty of debate on that topic. Time certainly will not allow me to say a great deal on it other than to remark that the question of price control has been mentioned and, to my mind, it certainly is not the answer to the great problem of halting or even cutting the rate of inflation. In the short term, it is very easy to put forward the argument that this control will check prices. But what follows? The result is a shortage; this is what happens as the result of artificial price fixing. This in turn would be followed by the usual under the counter sales and then general disruption in trading. I say that price control will never work satisfactorily. It is certainly not the answer to this important problem.

I now turn to the question of income, as Treasury is involved. I immediately refer to taxation. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in the course of his election campaign said that he would not increase taxation.

Mr Holten:

– At any level.

Mr KING:

– That is right. In theory he acceded to that promise. But in practice he has actually failed miserably to honour it. Revenue derived from taxation this financial year will be ever so much higher than it was last financial year. This increase does not result from any direct rise in taxation which, as he promised, he has avoided or as a result of an increase in the tax paying population. Rather has this increase resulted from a rise in income. There are 2 reasons for this increased income. The first is that many wage and salary rates have been increased. Therefore the rate of taxation as well as the quantity of ‘ tax collected has risen. Income has increased also as the result of growing returns from higher international prices for many of our exportable goods. I think immediately of wool, wheat and meat.

On the question of the income of primary producers and taxation thereon, the position is exemplified by the fact that because of recent drought conditions and low returns very little provisional tax is on hand in many instances. This must in turn mean that producers whose income was reasonably high last financial year will find that not only will they be paying a reasonably high tax this financial year but also they will be paying reasonably high provisional tax. In other words, they are paying double the rate for a temporary period. It is as simple as that. But it is not so simple when one has to write out the cheque. I know of a number of people who, by virtue of such conditions, find themselves in a position where they can be paying very close to 100c in the dollar in tax. No doubt if honourable members look around they will find some people who would be paying more than 100c in the dollar tax. I say that this is an angle on which the Prime Minister has greatly deceived the public.

Mr Hunt:

– Do you think that he did it deliberately?

Mr KING:

– The honourable member for Gwydir asks whether the Prime Minister did this deliberately. I do not wish to accuse the Prime Minister of doing that deliberately. No doubt he was well aware of the situation when he actually made that promise.

When primary production and other industries wish to develop their types of industries, it is very difficult for them to expand knowing only too well that as their income rises they are to lose a greater percentage of it in the form of taxation. This factor naturally has a big bearing on our export trade. It is terribly easy, because of inflation and other related matters, to say that the price of meat is too dear. We have heard this claim time and time again. All I say is that if we try to interfere with the price of meat by seeking to reduce it, I am sure that we will finish up with a situation in which we face a shortage of meat. That will mean dearer meat. Naturally it could be much harder to secure. At least today we can secure meat in the quantities that we require.

I wish to give the Committee an example of costs. If honourable members look at some of the statistical information that is available to them they will find that during the period from 1961 to 1972 the average price rise secured by the producers for food production averaged about 1.5 per cent a year. But the cost to the housewife was an average of about 3.2 per cent a year. During this same period productivity returns to the producer were showing an average increase of about 3.4 per cent, and at the same time average weekly earnings increased by 7.2 per cent. So I say again that it is not the cost of the raw material that increases the cost at the retail level; rather it is the in between area. That is why we always find that it is the purchaser at the retail end who is complaining.

On the question of taxation rates, it is not right for any one on the Government side to claim that it has not increased taxation because, as I explained before, it has done so. Every time the inflationary rate increases, in theory so does the return to the individual in salary and wages, which in turn puts him into a higher taxation bracket. As I explained in this chamber during the Budget debate, a 10 per cent increase in a person’s salary, taking a base salary of $100 increasing to $110 - that is the average male earnings today - means that whilst his costs have- increased 10 per cent, what appears to be an increased return in his salary turns out to be not another $10 but only $6.40. In other words, he is then $3.60 behind.

People who operate under the averaging scheme have a better chance of cutting back their extra high income in one year and spreading it over those years of low income. This is a matter that concerns me greatly as it concerns many primary producers. However, we have reached a stage when the maximum amount, that is permitted to apply under the averaging scheme has now become a little unrealistic. When I mentioned a figure of $16,000 maximum it is very easy for people to say: ‘Well, that is a fair sort of income and anyone in receipt of that amount should pay a high tax’. If it was an annual income of $16,000 I would agree, but in regard to people under the averaging scheme I would disagree. Many people, particularly in the northern parts of Australia where the country is such that incomes vary tremendously, may get a good return every 3 years, every 6 years or it might even run into 10 years. So a $16,000 income spread over 10 years, of course, is not a very high income. I submit that it is time that the Treasurer had a very good look at the suggestion which I am putting forward, that the maximum of $16,000 that applies under the averaging scheme should be increased to a more realistic figure. I am very pleased to see that the Treasurer is taking a note of this. I am sure that he will understand the situation. It has been suggested that we might even lose the averaging system. I believe this would be completely disastrous for primary producers.

All I want to say in conclusion is that the previous Government increased the maximum average from $8,000 to $16,000. If this Government is sincere about wanting to assist the development of this great nation, a continuation of the averaging system is one very good way of doing so. If the Government does the opposite, as has been suggested, and removes the averaging system entirely, all I can say to the Treasurer is that he should keep his eyes and ears open because otherwise at the next election he will certainly get the result that may be expected from this side of the chamber but not expected by honourable members on the other side.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– Official statistics show that since 1964 the average weekly earnings rate has increased by 68 per cent. The same statistics show that the consumer price index has increased during that period by 30.2 per cent and productivity has increased by 16.7 per cent. In putting these figures to my friend the Treasurer (Mr Crean) I know he will appreciate that I am blaming neither one government nor the other. These are facts with which any government must come face to face. I am quite certain that when reliable statistics on a yearly basis are next available to the House they will show an increased trend in the rate of weekly earnings. I think they will show an increased trend in the consumer price index. I am not quite so sure what they will show in terms of productivity.

I wish to apply myself tonight to the argument as it concerns industries, whether they be small businesses, small private processing works, such as the Murray Bridge Meat Pty Ltd which is in my electorate, or other businesses. “I wish to apply these figures to the impossible squeeze that has been placed on industries that do take a risk with their investment. Although my argument will apply mainly in regard to non-capital city areas, I think there is no reason why the points that I wish to deal with do not apply equally to the small corner storekeeper, the small private engineering works or a variety of small businesses throughout the nation. I think it is accepted by the Committee that these huge increases in the average weekly earning rate will produce a vastly increased revenue situation this year for the Treasurer. All I suggest is that instead of doing in so many areas those things which were portrayed in the recent Budget Speech, the Treasurer should give careful consideration to those people and those collections of people, such as co-operatives in country towns and other areas, with a view to ensuring their future existence. It is patently obvious to me that many such industries will not see the light of day in the future. I cannot quote from previous speeches made by the Treasurer, but I can remember the Treasurer himself sitting at the table when he was in opposition and pointing to the very problem which I am raising tonight, that is, the future survival of the small businesses, the small family businesses and the small co-operatives throughout the length and breadth of the land.

A study of the figures I mentioned makes one thing patently obvious. If this country is going to have referenda it needs to have a referendum to ascertain the opinion of these people in terms of an incomes policy. I doubt whether I shall be supporting that line of thought, but at least the productivity figures and the increase in the average weekly earning rate point to the fact that no economy can stand up to undue increases in wages and in prices. This concerns not only those on fixed incomes. It affects not only those who perhaps are in receipt of a small income from superannuation and who have saved their money. Everyone wants to see some value in his savings or some equity in his business. This is the problem that is making life so extraordinarily difficult for many of the industries that I aim to represent in the Federal seat of Angas. Before I deal with any of them as individual industries I say to the Treasurer that I am most appreciative of his attitude towards the people whom I aim to represent in relation to the brandy interests and the wineries. They feel that they will suffer very considerably - and that is a modest statement - in relation to the re-allocation of stocks held. There are historic reasons for that, but I will not go into them now because this is not the time to debate that issue. However, there will emerge at a later time historic reasons why these things have been done in the past.

My only point in getting up to speak tonight is to say quite clearly that any extra onus put on these industries would place them in a very difficult position. I refer to the fruit canneries, the dairy processing plants and the cooperatives. If the Minister and the Government must adopt this chip on the shoulder attitude to anyone who makes a profit, surely they have some sympathy for co-operatives - people who have gathered together to put their own resources into co-operative association to try to process their own goods and, perhaps, to market them as well. It is these sorts of industries to which I wish to refer briefly. Let us take one of them. Because of the policies of the previous Government, the citrus industry in recent years has undergone a complete transformation. In a few years since 1966, for instance, the amount of valencia oranges used for juicing purposes has increased. The industry has gone from a fresh case fruit orientated industry to a situation where 60 per cent of the crop is used for juicing purposes.

The amount of navel oranges used for juicing also has increased, but to a less extent because of the bitterness that occurs when one tries to juice navels and the difficulties in overcoming that problem. The lemon industry has now reached a situation where 60 per cent of the crop is used for juicing. This is a matter that my friend, the Treasurer, has already recognised with his beneficience to the Lemon Board being, as it is, purely a New South Wales organisation. However, we are left with all sorts of difficulties in other areas. For instance, the Treasurer will be well aware of the fact that 99.1 per cent of brandy produced in this country is produced in the State of South Australia. As I had the opportunity of mentioning in the debate on another item of the Estimates a little while ago, tonight’s newspaper has produced the illuminating comment by the Premier of South Australia that the Government’s tax on the wine industry which, to all intents and purposes, is entirely on the brandy industry, is a worse blow to the industry than anything the previous Government succeeded in doing through wine excise.

Mr Holten:

– Who said this?

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Mr Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia - the so-called puppet experimental area of the socialist dream, and he is not very happy.

Mr Hunt:

– What about the people of Canberra, suffering from the same socialist experiment?

Mr GILES:

– If I might be permitted to answer that interjection, I believe that that is a fait accompli, no matter how the Government juggles and attempts to wangle its way out of that one. I put this quite seriously because it is most urgent that if the Federal Government is to take advantage of the huge additional yields that the figures I gave earlier suggest will occur during this 12 months, it should try to channel something back to that productive element of our economy.

The Government cannot keep cutting the icing off the top of the cake and putting it into other areas if it discourages productivity at that level. Anything approaching this obviously is counter-productive and self defeating. My appeal tonight to the Treasurer in relation to his conduct of the economy of Australa is a very sincere one. It is simply that he must not lose sight of the tremendous wealth generated by people who are keen to work, by people who have small businesses, by co-operative companies or by small country companies whether they be proprietary companies or not. I refer, for instance, to Murray Bridge Meat which has had to sack all of its employees because of demands for vastly increased wages primarily founded on the New South Wales wage structure. That is the message I put up to the Treasurer tonight. I appreciate that the Treasurer has shown me consideration in my appeals on behalf of the brandy industry but he should not lose sight of the fact that he must go much further than a single industry and that productive elements must be encouraged if this is to be a great nation in the future.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– The estimates debates do not allow the opportunity to develop in depth any major economic point and therefore I will simply utilise this opportunity to make some general observations on the role of the Treasury as the central arm of economic advice available to the Federal Government. One of the most disturbing features of the economic policies adopted by the Labor Administration has been the manner in which major economic policy departments have been ignored. The Treasury of course should be the fundamental source of policy advice. This does not preclude alternative avenues of policy advice. Naturally, there are other government departments which are vital areas of interest in the nature of economic policy. Equally, the private sector can provide valuable counsel.

Nor should it be assumed that the Treasury is the total repository of economic wisdom in this country.

However, against that context I believe it is increasingly obvious that decisions of major economic consequence are being made by a small cabal of economic advisers and consultants. The expansion of the economic policy functions which are occurring in both the Department of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Department of the Special Minister of State (Senator Willesee) provides a salient indication of the Government’s apparent desire to divest itself of any reliance on the Commonwealth Treasury. A further undesirable factor which apparently is now emerging is the pre-eminence of the Labor Caucus in economic affairs. No one seriously argues with the proposition that the Government should be able to determine the nature of its economic policy within “the framework of its parliamentary party. However it is clear that any form of rational economic management is impossible when Caucus commences to overrule specific policy decisions for purely political reasons. But this certainly has been the case during the course of the past 3 weeks.

The most published avoidance of Treasury advice occurred in the decision to impose an across the board 25 per cent tariff cut. According to well-founded newspaper reports, which have not been contradicted by Government sources, this decision was based on a report by a committee established by the Prime Minister on which there was no representative of the Federal Treasury. The formulation of the Budget itself was a further area in which the Treasury advice apparently was not accepted. The whole thesis of the Treasury White Paper was in contra-distinction to the nature of the Budget which subsequently was brought down by the Treasurer. In fact, the White Paper was an understatement of the Treasury’s views but even so, its comments on the effects of Government spending were clear.

In the area of international finance the Treasury’s advice appears to have been negative. The Treasurer was able to state to the Committee of Twenty at the International Monetary Fund in Washington that Australia was not in favour of allocating special drawing rights to underdeveloped countries, nor of an automatic adjustment process based on objective indications. However, the Prime Minister has indicated that he subscribes to quite different policies in these areas. Presum ably, his brief is different from mat provided by the Treasury. As the Treasurer is aware, I have placed questions on the notice paper directed to him for answers on this point and he may be interested in taking this opportunity in the Estimates debate to provide an explanation of the apparent discrepancy between his comments and those which have come forward from the Prime Minister.

Further evidence that proper advice is not being taken by the Government has been gained from the number of ill-considered comments which have been made by individual Ministers. The fiasco of the Treasurer’s comments on building societies is one particular example of this. It can only be hoped that the Ministers of this Government, particularly the Treasurer, are beginning to learn that unthinking remarks on matters of major economic policy do have direct and consequent effects on the business community as a whole. The restricted nature of this debate does not provide an opportunity to make detailed comments on the role of the Treasury in the decision-making process. Nor do I believe that this question is an appropriate one in which to seek political advantage. I do not seek such advantage in making that comment but I would invite the Treasurer to reassure this House that the Federal Treasury is still the major policy making department subject, of course, to the decisions of the Government itself and also to the wishes of the Federal Caucus.

There is one simple proposition that does need consideration. If taxpayers’ funds are to be appropriated towards the maintenance of the very high levels of competence which undoubtedly exist within the Commonwealth Treasury the Government must be obliged to utilise that competence fully. There can be little justification of that expenditure if the Treasury is to be ignored, or its advice not sought, on matters of major economic consequence.

Similar comments can be made in respect of the Reserve Bank. Because of the fiscal irresponsibility of the Budget and the refusal by the Government to utilise a number of available policy instruments to control inflation there is now an unprecedented burden on monetary policies. I would ask the Treasurer in this context to make available to the Opposition Parties the advice which he has received from the Reserve Bank in respect of legislation to control non-bank financial institutions.

National economic management is a complex question. In spite of the severe nature of our current inflationary problem the Treasurer has failed to make a major statement to the Parliament on the economy. In spite of the Prime Minister’s several speeches seeking to reassure Australian business the Government has failed to spell out in detail its intentions for combatting this essential question in the future. Today we are experiencing a growing erosion of confidence in the economic policies of the Government. A major part of this erosion of confidence is occurring because of the inability of the Government and the Treasurer to communicate effectively with the many sections of the Australian community which are directly involved by major economic decisions. Each iniative undertaken by the Treasurer has been notable for a lack of consultation. Before the election the present Treasurer espoused the concept of government planning and the establishment of guidelines for economic development. The measures taken by the Government have not been in conformity with that type of planning which was previously advocated. New measures have been reactive. They have been ad hoc and they have been fragmented.

The absence of a major policy statement by the Treasurer has been compounded by the conflicting statements of other Ministers. An assessment of Government economic policy largely depends on which Ministers can be believed and which Ministers have the influence to achieve an acceptance of their views in the Caucus. The Opposition Parties believe that the Treasurer should make an immediate and detailed statement to this Parliament on the economy.

The Budget Speech could not be regarded as a statement of this type, nor were the Prime Minister’s pathetically short speeches on the incomes and prices referendums. Of course there are a number of significant economic issues which require detailed answers by the Treasurer, not on an ad hoc basis but rather in the form of a comprehensive statement. What action is proposed to ease the labour market? What action has been taken to review the increase in the Public Service? Ls it proposed to shelve the pacesetter principle now applied to the Public Service? What action is proposed to restrain wage and salary increases? What is the proposed role of competition policies? What are the limits to the present increase in interest rates? Is this Government prepared to provide effective national leadership to curb the inflationary impact of increased industrial unrest? What is the Government’s view on an incomes-prices policy? Has a systematic review of expenditure commitments been carried out to develop a set of priorities? What is the Government’s policy in respect of natural resources development.

I believe that it is very much in the interests of this Australian community that these questions be answered not ad hoc, not piecemeal, not fragmented, but in a comprehensive statement. It is in the context of the absence of that statement that we see the erosion of such confidence not simply in the business community but throughout the nation at the present time. I believe that confidence in this Government will continue to diminish until effective national policies are clearly outlined, are articulated in this Parliament and become the vehicle for a debate in which all parties of the Parliament can play an effective and meaningful part.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– In speaking to the estimates for the Department of the Treasury I think it is appropriate that one should draw to the attention of the Parliament and the people of Australia the fact that there has been an increase in the expenditure of this Department from some $114m to SI 57m. The worrying aspect of the allocation of finance lies under the heading of Salaries and Payments in the nature of Salaries’. In this area we see an increase from some $91m last year to a figure of $132m this year. Therefore, the cost of running the Department of the Treasury in this regard is up by some 40 per cent in one year. There are those who have regarded galloping inflation as involving an increase of around 10 per cent or 12 per cent a year, but here in a government department is an increase in the allocation for salaries of 40 per cent, from $91m to $132m. Who is making this money available - the ordinary people out away from the national capital and, of course, some of those here. It is the people of Australia who are being so heavily taxed to make possible this tremendous growth in the allocation of salaries for the Department of the Treasury.

When one looks back on the recent Budget and recalls that this mean, lousy Government has taken away from all men over 65 years of age and from all women over 60 the age tax allowance, one wonders how it can parade itself in this Parliament as a Party with heart. How can it do that? So frequently when honourable members of the Opposition have pointed to the fact that the Budget by its very nature has contributed to inflation Government supporters have said: ‘Tell us what you would save money on. Where would you not spend the money?’ Government supporters have said: ‘Are you saying that we should reduce pensions? Should we reduce the allocation for Aboriginal welfare or social security?’ They mention all those emotive areas but it is only when one starts carefully to scrutinise the manner in which the money is being spent in an instance such as this that one realises that the reason the people of Australia are being belted from pillar to post is to finance some of these grandiose schemes which have been hatched out of the infertile imagination of a government which is already cracking at the seams.

The Australian economy is well and truly on the skids. The attack by the Prime Minister on the Australian Stock Exchange 2 or 3 weeks ago indicated a lamentable lack of knowledge. He suggested that it was the people who run the Stock Exchange who are manipulating prices and causing the falls which have taken place. He admitted that his understanding of economics is but small, but he failed to realise that the fall has happened because the confidence of the average Australian has been eroded because of the policies of this Government. At a time of inflation and money being worth less, the values of shares in companies such as Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd should be going up commensurate with the inflationary trend, but instead everything is going backwards.

Mr Hunt:

– Building societies are out of funds.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have heard a story about building societies. Perhaps this could well be a chance for the Treasurer to enlighten the House as to whether the story is true or false. There is a story that the Treasury or some other Government agency had to move in following the Treasurer’s statements about building societies to stop the flow of money out of them. This action was taken to prevent the whole concept of building societies from crashing to the ground worse than Wall Street did during the worst depression this world has known.

Mr Peacock:

– Is that a fact?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member for Kooyong asks: Is that a fact? I do not know. I have only heard it spoken. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity here tonight to tell us whether in fact this is the case. One has only to turn back into very recent history to discover another deplorable situation. I recall the words of the Prime Minister in speaking in this Parliament or on the platforms throughout the nation that his was a decisive government - a government which was able to make decisions about the value of the Australian currency relative to the value of foreign currency. He referred back to the 3-day deliberation that went on a couple of years ago when the previous Government had to wrestle with the same problem. But only recently we had another confidence shattering example of bungling by the Labor Government. A decision was made in Caucus, that body made up of all the wise men from various parts of Australia. I see my friend the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) over there, the great economist, in his purple suit. I see the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) the Minister for something yesterday and I am not quite sure what today; but at least he was a trier in his previous portfolio. Men such as those make up caucus. It was announced that interest rates in this country would rise and that charges would rise. The matter went to Caucus or, as it is commonly called these days, cactus, which made a decision that the matter should be referred to the Caucus economics committee.

Mr Peacock:

-Why is it called cactus?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am told that there is a difference between a caucus and a cactus but I am not sure what it is. The economics committee deliberated for 3 weeks. For 3 weeks no one knew what was going on. Yet this Government has presented us with an Appropriation Bill - expecting support from honourable members on this side of the chamber - by which with its own spending it is adding to the impetus of inflation. I repeat that the allocation for salaries and payments in the nature of salaries for the Treasury - every Australian should take note of this - has risen from $91 m to $132m. Where is the money coming from? It is coming from the taxpayers. It is coming from those elderly people who have had taken from them the tax allowance concessions they had. It is coming from the small man, the man in the street, who previously supported the present Government but who recognises today that it is a Government of ineptitude - an incompetent Government. Mr Deputy Chairman, you might convey the message that the people of Australia are just waiting for an election, for the opportunity to show the Prime Minister, his 27 Ministers and the rest of the Australian Labor Party what the people think of their first 305 days in office. The country is going backwards. It is the little people outside who count. Undoubtedly the ministerial and parliamentary salaries will continue but it is the little people who count, and they are the ones who are being knocked. Again I express amazement that the appropriation for salaries for one department has risen from $91m to S132m. I wonder what will happen with this money. Will it be used to employ another 500 people to chase up the taxpayers?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– Firstly I would ask the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), instead of looking only at page 124, to look at page 128. He would find that the $32,500,000-

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– One hundred and thirty-two.

Mr CREAN:

– Thirty-two million dollars That is the major part of the difference between $91m and $132m. It is to cover increased salary payments as a result of recent awards to all sections of the Public Service and not to the Treasury in particular. That makes a fundamental difference to the kind of remarks the honourable member made. I think that some of his other general observations were just as inaccurate in the total context. I do not want to say anything more on that subject because one scarcely replies to abysmal ignorance of that kind. I am trying to be as kind as I can, but I suggest that it shows what little attempt is made in these Estimates to look at what the expenditure is supposed to be about. After all, the Estimates are details of what the Government expects to spend on certain purposes for the period to 30 June 1974. I do not want to say anything more about that.

But I would say, in response to the many general remarks that have been made, that I will take note of certain comments that have been made and, whilst I cannot reply to all of them tonight, I will endeavour to supply the honourable members with detailed replies for which they asked. In relation to the

Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr Lynch) who now leads for his Party in these matters, I would suggest that some of the things he has asked me to give definitive answers upon are scarcely relevant in an estimates debate. 1 assure him that I intend to make a statement as soon as I possibly can about the recent meetings of the Committee of Twenty, of the annual meeting of the Board of the Bank and of the International Monetary Fund. He will be given an opportunity to reply in detail. I hope that as well as making a speech I will be able to attach to it, as I did upon a previous occasion, some of the areas of difficulty. In many respects, I suppose, the annual meeting of the Bank and the Fund were disappointing because they did not achieve what some people thought they ought to achieve. I do not think that anyone who had closely followed the deliberations of the Committee of Twenty would have been surprised that no final answers were given. I felt that all that had been achieved at the Washington March meetings was to get agreement as to what the areas of disagreement were. To propound solutions to these disagreements one will have to await a meeting which is scheduled for late January and another one perhaps in April or May 1974. It is hoped that there will be something for the next annual meeting which will take place in September or October 1974-

Mr Lynch:

– I would be happy to go with you.

Mr CREAN:

– I am not too sure that at times it would not be a bad idea if some members of the Opposition as well as of the Government attended some of these meetings just as they do at the United Nations. It certainly was never done to me when I was the shadow Treasurer. It may have made it easier for me to realise the difference between substance and shadow earlier than I did. However, that is by the way. I find a little inconsistency, if I may say so, in the complaints about increasing the total of employment in the Public Service and the demands which some of the former Ministers are now making for additional research staff. I think that this shows how poverty stricken they left the office of Opposition, not knowing that they would soon be the inheritors of it. I must say that I am not unkind towards their submissions because I think the debates in this Parliament would be better if they were better informed. The honourable gentleman who preceded me is a pretty good example of that. Had he come and talked to me a few minutes earlier 1 might have been able to illustrate the point to him and perhaps save 10 minutes of the time of the Parliament. But I thank those members who have asked seriously for details on matters that concern them. I do not want to trespass on the time of other estimates but, as I have indicated, I assure them that I shall endeavour to provide more detailed replies for them.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $89,326,000.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– The Opposition Parties strongly support the real emphasis that has been given to Aboriginal advancement in this Budget. We also recognise that the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), has made a distinct personal contribution to the Aboriginal cause in Australia over a long period of time - not just during the period of his Ministry, which unfortunately was brought to an end by the Prime Miinster (Mr Whitlam) this week. 1 go on record as saying that there is no doubt as to his experience with and genuine concern for Australian Aborigines. Unfortunately the same comment cannot be made in respect of the new Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh), a man with no experience and a man who has shown no evidence of any previous concern or interest. It is a matter of regret - I say this without making any party political point - that the honourable member for Wills is no longer in control of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio.

This is an area in which there should be no major philosophical difference between political parties, even though there are and will be differences in particular policies. It is also an area in which the efficacy of Government policy depends on community acceptance and support. A high level of expenditure coupled with enlightened policies may even be counter-productive without a corresponding level of community commitment. There is no doubt that the future success of Government policies will be facilitated by a greater understanding of Aborigines, their history, their culture and their contemporary problems by all Australians. The present Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs, in expressing the hope that a book published by Professor

Rowley would have a similar impact to such famous classics as the ‘American Dilemma’ by Gunnar Myrdal, said this:

I pray this not simply because of the transparent need of Aboriginal Australians for recognition and understanding but because of our inability to see the Aboriginal Australian as a blindness also towards ourselves. While it persists we are prisoners, trapped in an accepted history and a pattern of conventions the falsity of which we know at some acknowledged depth of our own consciousness. Until we break out of that trap and are prepared to accept the commitment to action which that action demands, we will remain ourselves half invisible to ourselves - with our own identity but partly realised.

Because I believe that the development of a greater understanding of Aborigines is important I would put the following suggestions for consideration by the Minister. The first is that in consultation with State governments and appropriate education authorities, suitable courses be made available covering Aboriginal history and culture. These courses could be made available in primary, secondary and tertiary education systems. The second is that similar courses be instituted in such institutions as police colleges and academies. The National Conference of Aboriginal Advisory Councillors passed 2 resolutions on this subject in 1972. Resolution 7 states:

That this Conference supports Black Studies programs and asks that Commonwealth finances be made available to set up programs in all universities.

Resolution 24 states:

That police academies introduce studies in social, cultural and economic problems that are particular to Aboriginal people.

I believe that the Government should move with a sense of real urgency to fulfil both of these resolutions and to assist in the introduction of similar studies into Australia’s secondary education institutions. I believe that policies of this type can play an important role in the advancement of the Aboriginal people. The Government has foreshadowed an Act of Parliament to outlaw racial discrimination. There may be some advantage for Aborigines in legislation of this type where there is provision for the investigation of complaints and for conciliation procedures such as exist in the United Kingdom and New Zealand legislation. I do not intend to comment in detail on that proposition now. However, I am sure that the Minister would agree that laws alone cannot hope to eliminate racial discrimination although they can serve to prevent its most disturbing manifestations. Racism and racial discrimination are the products of ignorance and misconception. It has always been a matter of deep concern that our education system has chosen to ignore Aboriginal history and culture in favour of the more superficial aspects of Aboriginal life. Every Australian child is in fact familiar with the boomerang and the corroboree. Too few are familiar with the devastation of the traditional Aboriginal culture and life-style by successive generations of white Australians. Too few are really familiar with the contemporary problems of the urban Aborigine, divorced from his own traditional background and society and rejected by white Australian society.

The Opposition recognises the rights of individual Aborigines to effective choice about the degree to which, and the pace at which, they come to identify themselves with our society. For the urban Aborigine that choice has, in a sense, already been made. But the dilemma is that the urban Aborigine is in our society but not in fact of it. The dual policy which seeks to inculcate and maintain a pride in Aboriginal identity, tradition and culture while providing bridging assistance into Australian society such as legal and medical services, operates on Aborigines but not on the white Australian society. Clearly, if Aborigines are to be assisted towards accepting the values and social structures of our society there must be an equal emphasis on policies designed to create acceptance and understanding of this by white Australians. General public education programs designed to create higher levels of community objectivity and understanding towards minority groups have been implemented in many countries, including the United States. However, it is clear that because attitudes towards these groups tend to be formed at an early age, public education programs of this nature have a very limited achievement. It is eminently more rational to endeavour to create more objective attitudes through the medium of our education processes. I am not of course suggesting that a conscious education program be adopted to achieve certain ‘desirable’ attitudes. Propaganda is neither required nor desirable. What is required and desirable is an objective and honest portrayal of Aboriginal history, culture and contemporary life. Unless greater emphasis is directed towards the public understanding of Aborigines most of the increased financial assistance provided in the Budget will not have the most productive results.

I have referred generally to the availability of courses within our general system. But, as

I said at the outset, the Minister, in consultation with the State Governments, should give consideration to the desirability of special courses in such institutions as police academies and other public authorities which administer policies touching on the problems experienced by the Aboriginal community. I am aware that such courses already exist in certain institutions. However, I am sure that further consideration by the Minister would have beneficial results. In addition, the Minister might consider the success of ‘good neighbour councils’ in assisting, on a local basis, the problems faced by migrants. Many migrant groups experience substantially similar problems to Aborigines in our society. As a former Minister for Immigration, I am aware of the success which these councils have had in facilitating the integration of migrants. There is no reason to prevent the sponsorship of councils along similar lines for the benefit of both Aborigines and white Australians. I hope that the new Minister will give some thought to the ideas which I have put forward during this debate. I would urge him to consider appropriating some of the additional funds available this year for these purposes.

Because the former Minister is in charge of Government business in the debate on these estimates I comment again on what 1 believe to be the very able contribution made by him to the progress of the Aboriginal people in Australian society, not just during the term of his ministry but over a long period of time. He is a man who has shown a very great sense of dedication. No one can doubt the motives which, in fact, have led him in the pursuit of seeking to bring a better destiny to the Aboriginal people of Australia. In that sense I pay the warmest tribute to the honourable member for Wills and I am pleased that he is at the table at present.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– In speaking to the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs it is to be noted that there has been a large increase in the allocation for this Department this year. I am not critical of what has been done in the past.. I realise fully that since the Commonwealth Government assumed the power with respect to Aboriginal affairs the amount made available for this purpose has risen annually, but the. Commonwealth has never been in a position to say that it has been catching up on requirements. With the 92 per cent increase in money available this financial year we hope that we will be able to catch up on past deficiencies and do something of which we as a nation can be proud. I think all honourable members will agree that much catching up is needed and we hope that this year’6 allocation will enable us to correct some of the deficiencies.

I should like to refer to a number of matters within my electorate which I hope the additional allocation will enable to be rectified by the responsible authorities and that, as a result, there will be some improvement in the conditions of Aboriginal people in South Australia. Apart from the urban dwellers most Aborigines in South Australia are located in the electorates of Wakefield, Grey and to a lesser extent Angas. Most of the western and northern Aborigines reside in my electorate and I should like to see something done for them. At Port Augusta, which is one of the larger provincial cities in my electorate, there is a considerable Aboriginal population of possibly 600 to 700. It is a fluctuating population. Port Augusta has been accepted by the Aborigines as the centre of this area. On the outskirts of the town is the Davenport Reserve which has been established during the last 7 or 8 years. Prior to that time it was a humpy town - a real fringe-dweller type of settlement. Despite what has been done by the South Australian State Government - it has provided a first class old folks home to care for Aboriginal people who are getting on in years - the reserve still leaves a lot to be desired. It certainly can be classed as possibly a semifringedweller type of settlement. However it provides a stepping stone for those Aboriginal people who want to move into the general community. It affords them the chance to become used to European type housing. What usually happens is that after a period in this reserve the Aborigines can be moved into houses provided by the South Australian Housing Trust.

Recently some rather nasty incidents have occurred, including one in which violence was used. White residents got together and signed a petition asking that a particular family be removed from an area in the town. This resulted in a nasty accident in which some violence occurred. One of the problems concerned the question of housing. In this particular area 22 Aboriginal people were living in one house. They comprised a number of families and their children. Whilst I do not condone violence in any form I am sure it would be agreed that if white citizens were living in the same circumstances unhygienic conditions would result in that toilet systems would not operate, there would be overcrowding and an unhealthy situation. This indicates the great need for additional housing.

In Port Augusta a group of Aborigines calling themselves the Aboriginal Social Club has done a fantastic job, thanks to money allocated by the Commonwealth Government and with the assistance of the local council in purchasing an old house and transforming it into a social club wherein the group has provided facilities for Aboriginal old folk, including a television room. The group has been able to provide a facility through which it can supply school children with a hot meal during the day. Playrooms and other facilities have been provided. Unfortunately the incident to which I referred a moment ago resulted in some adverse publicity in the local Press, the Adelaide Press and on television. Whilst I do not condone violence I believe that the media should take a more responsible attitude. The only time Port Augusta receives publicity on the Aboriginal question appears to be when something goes wrong. When Aborigines make a go of life, are able to hold down steady jobs, move into the town itself, become part of it and merge into community life no publicity results. It is only when something adverse crops up that the Press and the television blow it up in many cases out of all proportion. In so doing they incite racial hatred. I know from questions that I have been asked in the last few weeks since this incident occurred just how people’s minds can be inflamed when something like this occurs.

Last year the Commonwealth Government purchased the property known as Everard Park. This was a cattle station carrying 2,500 head of cattle. It has now reverted to its Aboriginal name of Mimili. Efforts are now being made to make this an area from which Aboriginals can gain some sort of living and on which they can occupy themselves. The land around this area is sacred to the Aborigines. It is located in the Everard Ranges. I have had the opportunity with the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), of travelling through this area on a number of occasions. One can appreciate the significance of these Ranges to the Aborigines in the area. I hope that part of this year’s allocation can be devoted to this particular project which deserves the support of the Commonwealth Government. Stock numbers can be built up and a better type of housing can be provided. There are possibly 200 to 250 Aboriginal people in the area and by the provision of extra finance something can be done to improve their lot.

Adjacent to Mimili is the State Government reserve of Indulkana. This is not an area about which we can boast. In 1968 this property was purchased as an Aboriginal reserve. A hard bargain was driven by the owners of Granite Downs station on which this area is located. The State Government was able to purchase 12 square miles of land but unfortunately it is not a good area for wood or water supplies. Apparently one of the conditions of purchase was that a dog proof fence had to be built around the 12 square-mile area. The people on the reserve regard this fence as they would a prison wall. These people are steeped in tribal tradition. Although they can jump the fence and walk on the other side of the property the fence has become symbolic to them. I hope that the Commonwealth Government will consider purchasing further land in this area to give these people more land on which to move around. The people could tell honourable members, as they have told the former Minister and myself on a number of occasions, that all their sacred sites are located outside the dog proof fence. This fence is a disgrace and I hope that when the Government sees its way clear to get control of more of the adjacent land that fence will be pulled down.

Indulkana is an area in which advanced use has been made of the native language for teaching purposes. This situation applies also at Ernabella, Amata and other places in the area. The local language has been used in the teaching of children. It is very fortunate that some Aborigines who are full time teachers on the staff of the Education Department of South Australia are from that area and, as such, are able to teach the children in their own language. English has become a second language. What has been achieved there is a credit to all of the teachers who have gone into these areas and made their contribution. There is no doubt that they are very dedicated people.

In the short period I have left in which to speak I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant), who is sitting at the table. I have sat with him on committees on Aboriginal affairs over a number of years and know his concern. I think everyone who has worked with him would appreciate the work he has put into this field.

I regret that he is no longer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, although I am sure that the new Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) will give of his best.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is a pity that the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant), who is sitting at the table, is no longer fully responsible for the actions of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Although I have had considerable disagreement with him in the past on certain subjects, I am firmly convinced that he - like the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), who also struck stormy times - is a man who was sincerely motivated in his interest in the welfare of the Aboriginal people.

Mr Cross:

– Hear, hear!

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Perhaps it was that interest which led to their downfall. It amused me to hear the honourable member for Brisbane say ‘Hear, hear’. I can cite examples of contradiction after contradiction between him and the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. At least the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and present Minister for the Capital Territory has been given the crumb job of representing in this chamber the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh). The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is this year to increase its expenditure from $46m to $89m.

Mr Cross:

– More than that. You cannot count.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member for Brisbane says that more is to come. As far as I am concerned, it is about time the Government became honest about its actions and started to tell this Parliament exactly what it has in mind instead of saying that more is to come. The figures shown in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1973-74 hardly tell us anything. For instance, a proposal to increase expenditure from $3 2m to $70m is described simply as ‘Aboriginal Advancement (for payment to the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account)’ What the devil that means I do not know.

I take the opportunity of this debate on the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to remind the Minister for the Capital

Territory that 2 weeks ago- on 25 September - he was reported at page 1469 of Hansard as saying:

Many questions were raised this afternoon, and perhaps honourable members opposite will forgive me if I leave the answers to some of them until the Estimates debates start.

I see a smile on the face of the Minister for the Capital Territory. Heaven help the people of the Australian Capital Territory. I want to remind the Parliament of an issue which I raised on 25 September. I refer to the shabby deal that I believe has been dealt to the residents of the Brisbane suburb of Hill End by the Labor Government in its wishy-washy handling of the purchase of the former Baptist Theological College in that suburb. I point out to the Minister for his sake and so that when he does get a chance to reply to my comments - I imagine that that will be tomorrow - he will have it clearly in his mind that he stated on 23 June that the proposed hostel at Hill End would provide study facilities and a respectable place for Aborigines to live. On 24 June - if that was a Saturday - he stated initially at a public meeting that it would be for students and immediately afterwards said that it would be a place for people to live - a slight retraction. On 8 July the honourable member for Brisbane came out and said in his capacity as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs-

Mr Cross:

– That is not true.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member for Brisbane does not know yet what I am going to say. On 8 July he was reported in the Brisbane ‘Courier-Mail’ as having said-

Mr Bryant:

– Oh!

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Minister for the Capital Territory says ‘Oh’.

Mr Cross:

– I rise to a point of order. Any statements I made in the Press in Brisbane would have been made as a member of the Australian Labor Party’s Aboriginal Affairs Committee.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member may take a point of order only on a procedural matter concerning the Standing Orders and not on debating points.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am glad the honourable member for Brisbane has clarified that matter. In the making of statements the honourable member has not hesitated to use the mantle of his dual role to boost his importance as a spokesman for the Labor Party. Let me quote what he said:

The purpose in our mind is to accommodate Aboriginal girls completing Senior and wishing to enter commercial and other courses starting in February.

I wish again to quote what was reported to have been said by the honourable member following some suggestions that the hostel was to be used for other purposes. On 18 July, under the large headline ‘Hostel use determined’, the following statement appeared:

There was absolutely no suggestion of the Aboriginal hostel planned for Hill End being used for anyone other than students, the Federal member for Brisbane Central, Mr Manfred Cross, said this week.

That article appeared in another newspaper. The ‘Sunday Mail’ of 29 July 1973 carried the story that the Aboriginal hostel planned for Hill End will accommodate girl workers and not students when it opens on 1 October. The picture was unfolding for all to see. I hold up the ‘Sunday Mail’ of that date and read a little further from it. The article to which I am referring went on to say that an official of the Federal Aboriginal Affairs Department, Mr Bob Huey, said this in Canberra yesterday. One of the things that the people of Hill End, whom I represent, want explained to them is what authority Mr Bob Huey had to make statements which were contrary to those of the honourable member for Brisbane and to indications which the Minister had himself given. I repeat that that article appeared on 29 July. I come now to an article which appeared in the ‘Observer’ - a large newspaper which is distributed on the south side of Brisbane.

Mr Cross:

– What is its circulation?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It has a circulation of 100,000. It has a larger circulation than the Australian Labor Party’s magazine Trend’, whose circulation is diminishing. On 8 August the ‘Observer’ reported:

Despite Press reports to the contrary the Federal Government still intended the Aboriginal hostel at Hill End to be set up for students, Federal member for Brisbane, Mr Manfred Cross, said this week.

That is just one small chapter in the procrastination and uncertainty which has surrounded this hostel. The Minister is sitting at the table with his jaw in his cupped hand wondering what the devil has gone on behind his back. Is it any wonder that today - the day on which he was dropped from the portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs - he has suddenly been able to see the reasons why there were people who had doubts as to his capacity to run his Department properly. I do not believe that this is representative just ofthe Minister. I believe it is something which is happening in almost every department under the new Government. It is not the fault of the departments - it is a case of the right not knowing what the left is doing and the left not knowing what the right is doing.

All of this has sadly had the effect of creating a degree of bad will in the suburb of Hill End. Unfortunately the people of Hill End have been portrayed as racists by certain elements within our society. All they want to know is what has been planned. I hope that the Minister for the Capital Territory, as the representative in this chamber of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, will when he has an opportunity to do so spend quite a few minutes telling us what went wrong and how it is that Mr Bob Huey was allowed to make a statement which was so contrary to the assurances we had received from other quarters. It is just not good enough that the whole issue should be treated in this manner. We look forward to clarification of it. I assure the Government that if the new Minister for Aboriginal Affairs does not clarify this matter he will regret that he ever obtained his new portfolio.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

-Order! It being 15 minutes to 11 o’clock in accordance with the order of the House of 1 March I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 1805

ADJOURNMENT

Workers’ Control Movement - Country Newspaper

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question is:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I would like to bring to the attention of the House something which I think is important. I refer to the movement known as workers’ control and what it can lead to if this Parliament and the other parliaments do not take some kind of action in regard to it. This movement which started overseas is not a spontaneous movement. The international com munist parties have sponsored it. In Australia it has taken a European form and I think its nature can be seen from the more or less official broadsheet ‘What is Workers’ Control?’ which is being circulated in Sydney. It states:

It begins with simple trade union demands for control of hiring and firing, tea breaks, hours, speed of work, allocation of jobs, and so on. It mounts through a whole series of demands (open the books, for example) to a point where, ultimately, over the whole society, capitalist authority meets impasse.

At this point, which in its general political correlative is described as ‘dual power’, one reaches a revolutionary situation-

This is the communist prescription and the tactics which are being employed. I think it is important to remember what a communist means by reformism. Reformism is a term of contempt applied by a communist to those who really want to improve wages, hours of work and working conditions. The reformist, says the communist, is out to make things better. The communist will use reform as a means to create a revolutionary situation. In other words a communist trade union leader when he professes to be working for better conditions is really double crossing his own union and double crossing his own men. This is the important thing still to get across to people. In Australia the Communist Party or parties adopted these tactics aslong ago as 1969. It was only recently that they stepped up the tempo of the work. The Communist Party of Australia - the Aarons group - appointed a man called Denis Freney, a previous Trotskyite, to control the operation. In the communist Tribune’ of 17 April last Denis Freney wrote:

Workers’ control demands and tactics as outlined above provide a testing ground today for even greater challenges in the coming years to the power of capitalism and its State machine. They provide a testing ground for what a revolution in advanced capitalist countries means- the taking-over by the mass of workers of their workplaces, of social and cultural institutions, and finally of the whole of society and the State.

It is in point of fact a communist tactic. I have quoted Mr Freney who was the moving spirit behind a conference which was held in Newcastle last Easter and which is reported in the ‘Tribune’ of 24 April this year. Under the name of Denis Freney it states:

Newcastle: Institutes or centres for Workers Control will be established in all main cities in Australia, following the highly successful National Workers Control Conference held here on Easter Saturday and Sunday.

Over 450 workers from all over the country attended.

The article continues with a report of the communist activity, the communist control and the communist manipulation of that conference. It is there in the communist ‘Tribune* for everybody in the House to read. I think it is true to say that at that conference all the factions of the split Communist Party in Australia attended. They all supported the idea of workers’ control and I think it is fair to say that they differed to some extent among themselves as to the proper tactics which should be applied in this operation. In particular there was a belief that the Aarons group, the C.P.A., was out to take over control of the S.P.A., which is the Russian oriented and controlled faction of the Communist Party. They professed to believe that they should not disrupt the normal trade union leadership. There was some difference as to tactics but there was no difference about objectives. Again I would like to quote, and I think it is worth quoting, from the communist Tribune’ of 19 June last an account of workers’ control given by Mr Joe Palmada. He said:

The Left should boldly advance the concept of workers’ control and encourage the embryonic movement which brought together over 4S0 delegates at the National Workers’ Control Conference in Newcastle last Easter. They should combat and expose the developing theories of workers’ participation in management, a class collaborationist theory borrowed from West Germany and being Forcibly propagated by the “new Right’ such as John Ducker, President of the N.S.W. Labor Council and the N.S.W. Labor Party. The theories have already taken root in the

A.C.T.U. business enterprises and represent new moves to enmesh the trade union movement in the capitalist framework.

Mr James:

– What paper is that?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am quoting from the communist ‘Tribune’. It is quite clear that the people controlling the workers’ control movement, because they are controllers of the so-called controlled, are not out to help the workers. They are trying to betray the workers in order to create a revolutionary situation and to create chaos. The 35-Hour Week Committee concerning the power stations in New South Wales is part of this game. It is very largely under communist control and leadership is given of course by the controller, Mr Ross, himself a communist.

The House can judge how far this movement towards a state of revolution has already gone by what happened last Friday when the Minister responsible for the generation of power in New South Wales was refused normal admission to a power station by a mob of power workers who were perhaps not technically on strike but who were having a consistent program of go slow. I regret very much that it is not appreciated how far this has already gone, how far these people have been able to manipulate the unsuspecting power workers who do not realise what is being done to them and how they are being used as pawns in this revolutionary game by far sighted and unscrupulous communists who are out to double cross and betray their own men. I regret very much that there has been an A.’L.P. surrender to these forces. I regret very much indeed that Mr Hills, for example, or Mr Unsworth, who are not communists, have surrendered to these men and are taking up their cause, and perhaps without realising what they are doing, have collaborated in this communist plot. I do not put them as communists. I put them as weak mean who have surrendered to the communists and, by so doing, are helping the communists in their game.

I regret even more that the responsible Minister in this House, the Minister for Minerals and Energy, has himself either surrendered or collaborated. On the evidence of the letter which has been quoted in this House, he gave instructions that there should be cooperation with what he called the 35-Hour Week Committee, which he knows perfectly well is a communist front, and which has already produced this disastrous situation. The blackouts and the chaos are all part of a plan. The sooner this House and the country realise this fact, the better.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (10.56)- I rise to support a small country newspaper operating in Condobolin and called the ‘Lachlander’. This paper is under a brutal and vicious attack by an Orange based company called Western Newspapers Ltd. The ‘Lachlander’ is about 80 years old and has been operated as a family business by Mr and Mrs Ryder-Wood for the past 21 years - in fact, since 1952 when they purchased it from Mr M. J. Condon who had been its proprietor for 42 years. It is an exceptionally good local newspaper and, in common with most country newspapers, does the job printing required by the town as well as present local news in pictures and editorials.

A blatant attempt on the part of Western Newspapers Ltd, a company which operates a chain of newspapers based in Orange, is being made to take over this local Condobolin biweekly newspaper from the present proprietors by methods which I consider highly unethical to say the very least. Taking advantage of a temporary disagreement by the local newspaper with a local organisation, Western Newspapers Ltd has been following its usual tactics which have proved successful in other instances - a threat to move in and to start another newspaper unless the ‘Lachlander’ immediately sells out to it. Telephone calls and several visits have been made to Condobolin by high officials of the Orange company and Mr and Mrs Ryder-Wood have been told that Western Newspapers Ltd is prepared to lose many thousands of dollars to break the ‘Lachlander’ unless it is sold to them. In other words, sell out or cop it!

The time chosen for the pressure tactics was when Mr Ryder-Wood was sick in Sydney hospital and Mrs Ryder-Wood was handling the business on her own. In that time, she received a telephone call from Orange, and a representative of the firm went throughthe town asking business people whether they would advertise in a rival newspaper if it started up in Condobolin. He received a mostly negative reception and, I believe, was advised against the idea. Nevertheless, 2 officials of the company called on Mrs Ryder-Wood within a week and threatened to start in opposition if the ‘Lachlander’ would not sell out to them. A week later another official visited the ‘Lachlander’ and used the same tactics. Another week later 2 members of the company saw Mr Ryder-Wood and adopted the same theme. I have not time to finish remarks. Part of the story is told in the ‘Lachlander’. I ask for leave to incorporate that extract from the Lachlander’ in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 1807

PROPOSAL FOR LACHLANDER MADE AND REJECTED

The Lachlander received a visit - by appointment this time - from two representatives of the newspaper chain which has been making a nuisance of itself to the Lachlander proprietors during the past couple of months or so. The appointment with the Editor was for one person only- but the appointee brought along another to bolster himself up, and although it was not in accordance with our arrangement, both were courteously received.

We might say as a preliminary that it was not an easy meeting for the reason that it is difficult for two parties to discuss anything when it is obvious that one’s ethics - at least, business ethics - are not the same.

It is rather like trying to get two parallel lines to meet together.

We do not doubt for one moment that, according to their lights, these two gentlemen felt that they were being perfectly ethical, and perhaps even generous, in the proposal they made.

This was demonstrated by the shock expressed when the Editor referred to the tactics used so far as “industrial blackmail”.

They were apparently genuinely shocked, which is rather odd when one considers the short history of this unpleasant business to date.

The proposal made to the proprietors of the Lachlander was put with the alternative previously stated by these same people that if not accepted they would start a rival paper to the Lachlander.

In other words, the olive branch in one hand and the big stick in the other.

No negotiations under threat can be termed free and equal, and that is why, without doubting their own sincerity, we say that our standards are not the same.

We have simply been brought up in a totally different school, and we do not walk the same path.

To dispel any rumors we inform our readers of the following: ° No offer as such was made at the interview, but a rather comprehensive proposal was made, which we undertook to consider. ° Having done so, we find it quite unacceptable and are so informing the people concerned. ° The basic consideration is still that the Lachlander is not for sale.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.

page 1808

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Australian Regular Army Volunteer Strength (Question No. 154)

Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. What was the strength of the Australian Army as at(a) 31 March 1972, (b) 30 June 1972, (c) 30 September 1972, (d) 31 December 1972, (e) 31 January 1973 and (0 28 February 1973.
  2. What number has been set as the number of regulars needed.
  3. What is the predicted strength as at (a) 31 March1973, (b) 30 June 1973, (c) 30 September 1973 and (d) 31 December 1973.
Mr Barnard:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

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

  1. Regular Army Volunteer Strength (including Women’s Services and CMF on full-time duty but excluding national servicemen, Pacific Islanders and illegal absentees).
  1. and (3) As I announced on 22 August 1973, the Regular Army volunteer strength will be kept at some 31,150 during1973-74. Regular Army volunteer strength as at March 1973 was 30,694 and as at 30 June 1973 was 31,151.

Nationalisation: Government Policy (Question No. 752)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it the intention of the Government to in any way (a) establish or (b) extend public enterprise by nationalisation in the areas of (i) banking, (ii) consumer finance, (iii) insurance, (iv) marketing, (v) housing, (vi) stevedoring and (vii) transport.
  2. If so, will he outline the nature of the directions given to his Department or any other organisation subject to his Ministerial authority which is in any way connected with the Government’s intentions of nationalisation for each category specified in part (1).
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

Although under Standing Order 144 it would not be appropriate to announce Government policies in answer to a Question on Notice, the attention of the honourable member is invited to the Policy Speech and Platform of the Australian Labor Party.

British Government: Screening of Migrants (Question No. 781)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What requests have been made to the British Government concerning the screening of migrants.
  2. Has the British Government refused to co-operate on any of these requests.
Mr Grassby:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The screening of migrants from Britain has been the subject of representations to the British Government from time to time since the commencement of post-war immigration.

It is my intention to pursue this matter personally as soon as I am able to make a visit to London.

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund; Pensions (Question No. 808)

Mr Oldmeadow:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Why was the notional adjustment method of adjusting retired members’ pensions, as recommended in the Jess Report, not continued by the Government for those members who will remain within the provisions of the DefenceForces Retirement Benefits Act.
  2. Did he say that the recent cost of living increase applied to the pensions was an interim adjustment only and that final increases to retired members were yet to be determined; if so, what did this statement mean.
  3. On what reasonable grounds could the surplus of $4 million be transferred to the new composite fund before the quinquennial review due in 1969 and a terminal review in 1972 determined the equity of retired members.
  4. It is possible to use the $4 million to be transferred to the composite fund to provide the basis of notional adjustments to retired members.
  5. On what premise can a member retired in 1971 be expected to exist on a lesser basis than one retired in 1973 when in the past they have contributed equally in relation to their income.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) When I introduced the various retirement benefits Bills in the Parliament on 25 May 1973, I explained that provision had not been made for post-retirement adjustments of pensions in the way envisaged by the Jess Committee because the whole question of adjusting benefits payable under the old and the new schemes was still being examined in the light of recent developments in other Commonwealth pension schemes. As the examination was expected to take some time to complete and there had not been adjustment to existing pensions since October 1971, the Government decided on an immediate increase using a method of adjustment which was both simple and capable of early implementation. I made it quite clear at that time that this was an interim measure only and that I would be announcing full details of the method to be adopted, which would apply in the future in respect of all eligible pensioners, as soon as the present inquiries were complete.
  2. The Fourth Quinquennial Investigation of the DFRB Fund for the period 1964-1969 disclosed an actuarial surplus of $ 14.9m, of which $3.4 m was attributable to pensioners. The then Treasurer, when announcing the results of the investigation on 26 October 1972 advised, however, that the surplus depended on the continuation into the future of the old scheme and that if any of the conditions and assumptions taken into account by the Actuary were varied, the conclusions reached would need to be revised. Because of the changed circumstances arising from the introduction of the new scheme, I have arranged for a fresh investigation of the Fund to be made as at 30 September 1972 and I will be announcing the results when the necessary information is to hand.
  3. Historically, there has not been any association between the Fund and post-retirement pension adjustments, the costs of which have always been met from Consolidated Revenue.
  4. Leaving aside the question of post-retirement pension adjustments which are relevant in this particular context, comparisons made in relation to contributions and benefits arrangements provided at different points of time by conceptually different schemes will inevitably reveal what appear to be inequities in treatment as between individuals. The point of the matter is that arrangements made in respect of a person’s retirement are traditionally in terms of the contributions, benefits and salary applying to him at that time.

Victoria: Proposed Fourth University (Question No. 827)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. On what occasions has the Australian Universities Commission asked the Victorian Government for details of Victoria’s proposed country university.
  2. When did the Australian Government first indicate that it was prepared to consider the Victorian Government’s proposals.
  3. When were detailed submissions made to the Australian Universities Commission by the Victorian Government.
Mr Beazley:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) On 10 August 1972, the then Minister for Education and Science, the Hon. Malcolm Fraser, wrote to the Victorian Minister of Education, the Hon. L. H. S. Thompson, advising that the Victorian Government proposal for the establishment of a fourth university in that State would need to be considered by the Australian Universities Commission which advises the Australian Government on proposals for new universities. Mr Fraser also advised Mr Thompson that the Chairman of the Australian Universities Commission would be getting in touch with him to arrange a meeting to discuss the matter. Subsequently, on 13 October 1972, a meeting was held between the Commission and the Victorian Minister of Education who was accompanied by representatives of the Victorian Education Department. At this meeting it was agreed that the Victorian Government would provide the Commission, as soon as possible, with a detailed submission concerning the proposed fourth university. On 5 February 1973. 8 March 1973. and 7 June 1973, the Chairman of the Commission wrote to the Victorian Minister oi Education asking for detailed information on this proposal. However, it was not until 31 July 1973 that the Commission received a detailed submission from the Victorian Government.

Victoria: Proposed Fourth University (Question No. 828)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Educa tion, upon notice:

  1. Are the detailed submissions on Victoria’s proposed fourth university, reported to have been received on 30 July 1973, based on the criteria previously indicated by the Victorian Government.
  2. How many students are planned for each of the colleges at Geelong, Ballarat md Bendigo
  3. What degree courses and post-graduate courses are proposed in each college.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), ‘.!) and (3) The Australian Universities Commission is, a statutory authority, established to promote the balanced development of universities in Australia and it makes recommendations to the Government with respect to financial assistance that should be granted to universities. Submissions made to the Commission are regarded by the Commisison as being confidential to it, and it is not the practice of the Government to make these submissions, or any details of their contents, publicly available. How/vcr, the honourable member might like to approach the Victorian Minister of Education and seek a copy of the submission from him.

Victoria: Proposed Fourth University (Question No. 829)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Educa tion, upon notice:

Will he table all submissions received by the Australian Universities Commission or himself from the Victorian Government and other interested bodies relating to Victoria’s fourth university.

Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to (be answer to Question No. 828.

Victoria: Proposed Fourth University (Question No. 830)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

Have any proposals been made for the establishment of a university in Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong, which would combine the existing colleges of advanced education and teachers colleges as part of the university.

Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer to Question No. 828.

Australian Government Insurance Office: Establishment (Question No. 834)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Is it the Government’s intention to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office to compete on a non-profit basis with private companies in all States in the fields of life assurance, fire, accident, workers’ compensation and other forms of insurance.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The Government is unlikely to consider the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office before it receives and considers the report of the National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme Enquiry.

Grants Commission (Question No. 847)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. How will the Grants Commission ascertain what is a standard not appreciably below the standards of local governments in the same or other regions.
  2. What criteria will the Commonwealth use in determining a standard.
  3. Did the Government consider providing section 96 grants for local government, with the grants to be administered by State local government departments.
  4. If so, why was the Grants Commission alternative preferred.
Mr Daly:
ALP

– The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) This will be a matter for the Members of the Grants Commission to inquire into and report upon in the course of their examination of applications by local governing bodies for financial assistance.
  2. and (4) The Australian Labor Party has long advocated that local governing bodies have access to the Grants Commission. This has now been accomplished with the provision of legislative authority for the Commission to enquire into and report upon applications by local governing bodies for financial assistance from the Australian Government.

Australian Services Canteens Organisations (Question No. 852)

Mr Bourchier:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. What is the future of the Australian Services Canteens Organisation?
  2. Are its members to be incorporated into the Public Service?
  3. Has he approved any plans for improving the staff conditions of its members?
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. The role and functions of the Australian Services Canteens Organisation are being reviewed. It is expected that the Organisation will continue in being to provide a canteens service for the Forces.
  2. There is no proposal to this effect.
  3. Under the Australian Services Canteens Organisation Regulations, the Board of Management is primarily responsible for determining rates of pay and conditions of its employees.

Ordnance Factory Bendigo - Retrenchment of Employees (Question No. 853)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. With reference to his statement that there will be retrenchment of employees at munitions establishments due to the reduction in orders from the Defence Services, will he state what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, in order to provide sufficient orders from other sources to ensure continuity of employment at the Bendigo Ordnance Factory which also relies heavily on the Defence Services to provide continuous employment.
  2. If he has no such plan, will he give an assurance that there will be no retrenchments at the Bendigo Ordnance Factory similar to the assurance he gave in the House concerning the Lithgow plant.
  3. If there are to be retrenchments in Bendigo, what proposals has he for the re-employment of those to be retrenched.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. The Ordnance Factory Bendigo has for many years derived a significant proportion of its work load from non-defence work. Efforts are being made to increase the volume of such work.
  2. and (3) There are no plans for retrenchment at Bendigo this year. The need for any future retrenchment action will be determined by our ability to secure non-defence work for the factory and the extent of natural separations in employment which occur.

Australian Capital Territory: Protection of Property and Livestock

Question (No. 926)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital

Territory, upon notice:

In view of the high rates of livestock loss and damage to property in rural areas of the Australian Capital Territory, caused by thieves and vandals as well as by workmen on the Tuggeranong development, will he (a) provide rangers and police patrols to protect the property and livestock of rural residents of the A.C.T. from thieves and vandals and (b) ensure that the rights of rural lessees are respected by surveyors, planners and other workmen employed on the Tuggeranong development.

Mr Enderby:
Minister for Secondary Industry · ALP

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

The necessary information is being sought from the Departments responsible. When this is received I will make it available to the honourable member.

Heads of Mission at Overseas Posts: Official Cars (Question No. 927)

Mr Hamer:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Will he bring up to date the figures supplied in answer to my question No. 4169 (Hansard, 29 September 1971, page 1706) by indicating what were the makes and countries of origin of the official cars supplied for the use of Australian Ambassadors and Heads of Missions overseas between 30 June 1971 and 30 June 1973,
  2. How many of the cars supplied in the period were of distinctively Australian manufacture.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. I am informed that the following cars were supplied for use by Heads of Mission (Ambassadors or High Commissioners) at Overseas Posts during the period 30 June 1971 to 30 June 1973:
  1. Twelve of the vehicles were of Australian manufacture and were supplied to countries where right hand drive traffic provisions apply.

Prime Minister’s Statement: Philippines and Thailand (Question No. 959)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Did he state during his recent visit to the United States of America that Thailand and the Philippines should be prodded into a more realistic situation; if so, what did he mean by this statement.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The statement referred to was made at the National Press Club in Washington on 30 July 1973. I said that the Philippines and Thailand ‘need to be nudged to a realistic situation.’
  2. This statement was made in the context that three members of SEATO, Britain, New Zealand and Australia, recognise Peking as the capital of

China, while the United States now conducts its meaningful relations with China through liaison missions in and from Peking.

South East Asia Treaty Organisation (Question No. 965)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Were other members of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation consulted before the announcement of Australia’s withdrawal from SEATO exercises planned for October 1973; if so, which countries and when.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The matter was raised with all active SEATO members individually some three weeks before the Australian Government’s decision was made public.

Conference of Non- Aligned Nations (Question No. 966)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did Australia have a representative or observer at the recent non-aligned nations conference in Algiers.
  2. Was an invitation of any kind for Australia to be present (a) received or (b) sought by the Australian Government.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The answer to this question was given by the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Senate to Senate Question on notice No. 432 (Hansard, 19 September 1973, p. 721).
  2. (a) No. (b) No.

Prime Minister’s Statement: Regional Organisation Concept (Question No. 968)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Foreign

Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did he state on 27 January 1973, in relation to his concept of a regional organisation that it should be genuinely representative of the region without ideological overtones, conceived as an initiative to help free the region of great power rivalries that have bedevilled its progress for decades and designed to insulate the region against ideological interference from the great powers, and that the Government would be punctilious in consultation? towards the realisation of a representative regional community.
  2. If so, does he see the great powers as being excluded from this regional community.
  3. Does he include the People’s Republic of China, Japan and India among the great powers.
  4. Does he regard the Soviet Union as having a legitimate interest in a community involving the Asian region.
  5. What countries have so far been consulted about the development of a truly representative regional community, when did these consultations take place and where were they held.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. Since then in my foreign policy statement of 24 May I have said ‘the new regional arrangements we have in mind will be a slow and delicate growth. We are content to let the concept take seed in the thinking of our neighbours and we remain completely flexible on the timing, structure and membership of any new arrangements. Meanwhile, we shall devote our efforts towards strengthening bilateral relations and continuing careful discussion of future regional co-operation until such time as countries of the area are ready to participate in a wider grouping.’ In Washington on 30 July I said, the fact is that Australia would benefit from some arrangement whereby nations of the Western Pacific could regularly consult and, obviously China is one of those countries’ … ‘so one would hope that it would be possible in the Western Pacific, irrespective of ideologies, to have some arrangements where countries like Australia and Japan are able to consult regularly without motive, without imputations, on the matters which concern them as neighbours.’
  2. and (3) In general we would see membership, including possible membership of the great powers, as evolving from a consensus within the region itself with no restrictions or preconditions at this stage on individual membership.
  3. Yes.
  4. The Australian Government has an open mind as to the timing for the creation of a new organisation, its functions and its membership. Our purpose to date has been to seek regional reactions to the concept and this process has begun. I have personally discussed the concept of a new regional arrangement on a number of occasions including in Wellington during 20-23 January, in Jakarta during 20-23 February, in India during 3-7 June, in Washington on 30 July and in Ottawa during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting which was held from 2-10 August. The concept will be discussed during my visit to Tokyo from 26-31 October and Peking from 31 October-4 November. I shall also discuss the concept during my visits to Kuala Lumpur. Singapore, Bangkok, Rangoon and Manila which are scheduled to take place early in 1974.

Postmaster-General’s Department: Accommodation (Question No. 618)

Mr Garland:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the reply by the Minister for Services and Property to my question No. 174 (Hansard, 16 May 1973, page 2250), in which he suggested that details relating to occupancies by Commonwealth authorities in buildings not owned by the Commonwealth should be obtained from the Ministers concerned.
  2. Will he provide details, as set out in that question of all places occupied by his Department and by authorities under his control in buildings not owned by the Commonwealth.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. Yes.

    1. The number of buildings not in Commonwealth ownership, and occupied by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Aust.) are 737 and 5 respectively.
    2. (a) the range of rentals paid, and
    3. the average rental paid in
    4. each State, and
    5. each Capital City are as follows:
    6. (a)-

(ii)(b)(i)-

(ii)(b)(ii)-

Migrants’ Contributions to Productivity (Question No. 767)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

Will he make available the evidence on which his answer to my question No. 81 (Hansard, 4 April 1973, page 1110) was based.

Mr Grassby:
ALP

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

As I informed the honourable member in my answer to his question (No. 81 of 4 April 1973), the final assessment of the evidence must await the completion of the economic cost-benefit analysis by Associate Professor J. R. Wilson. The honourable member will recall that when this study was commissioned during his term as Minister for Immigration, he stipulated that the final report was to be closely studied before a decision was made to release details of the findings.

At this time I see no reason to vary this original instruction.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 October 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1973/19731009_reps_28_hor86/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant