House of Representatives
26 November 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Mon. 3. F. Cope) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3791

DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE 3. 3. DEDMAN

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– I move:

That the House expresses its deep regret at the death on 22 November 1973 of John Johnstone Dedman, a member of this House for the Division of Corio from 1940 to 1949 and a Minister of the Crown from 1941 to 1949, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

It can be said of the Honourable John Johnstone Dedman, more perhaps than of any of his contemporaries, that his true qualities and the true impact of his work were not widely perceived until after his active political career had come to a close. That career covered a particular era, a particular event, in our history - the war and its aftermath. As a practising politician he had no experience of pre-war sterility or post-war prosperity. He had no experience of Opposition and very little as a backbencher. His efforts were concentrated, with a singular intensity, upon the rigours of ministerial office during the most testing and difficult time in our history. His name became identified with the events and with the mood of those anxious years in a way that did much to obscure his great and lasting contribution to Australia’s development in peace.

That contribution was a remarkable one. He was a man of great vision and idealism. I have always thought it a particular misfortune that he was associated so irretrievably in the public mind with images of hardship and austerity. Undoubtedly there was something in his character and, may one say it, his Scottish upbringing that gave currency to the popular view of him as a severe man, as a moralist. Yet it can now be seen that this impression sprang partly from the dedication and zeal he brought to his work and partly from the high standards - some would say old-fashioned standards - that he applied to his personal and public life. He was a convinced, practising Christian; he worked for many years in the resettlement division of the World Council of Churches. Throughout his life there was a touching and unmistakably upright quality in all he did, a palpable sense of honour and rectitude, that informed his decisions and commanded admiration.

Within the Labor Party he is remembered with special affection as one of the last representatives of the national Labor governments of his day. His contribution to the style and philosophy of those governments was as marked, as characteristic in its way - though not of course as celebrated - as Chifley’s or Evatt’s or Curtin’s. He brought to those governments a far-sighted trust and purpose. He was largely responsible for the decision to undertake the Snowy Mountains scheme. He steered through Parliament the Bill which founded the Australian National University and for years afterwards, as a member of the ANU’s Council until his death, he retained his interest in the University’s growth and development. The honorary Doctorate of Laws which the University conferred on him in 1965 was a gracious and welcome recognition of his work. A year later, at the age of 70, he received, through his own studies, the degree of Bachelor of Arts.

John Dedman will be remembered, above all perhaps, as a great and gifted administrator. He became Minister for War Organisation of Industry in 1941, Minister for Postwar Reconstruction in 1945 and Minister for Defence in 1946. As Minister for Post-war Reconstruction he quickly applied himself to the expansionary needs of peacetime. He built up a truly remarkable department. It was a nursery for many of the finest talents and most notable personalities in Australian public life. The enormous scale of that achievement will be understood if I list just a few of the men who served in his Departments: Dr H. C. Coombs, Sir Allen Brown, Professor L. F. Crisp, Sir John Bunting, Sir Arthur Tange, Sir Lenox Hewitt, Mr J. F. Nimmo, Mr Walter Bunning, Professor Gerald Firth, Dr Lloyd Ross, Sir John Crawford, Mr G. Paul Phillips, Mr A. C. B. Maiden, Sir Giles Chippendall, Sir Ronald Walker, Professor S. Butlin, Mr R. G. Osborne, Mr Walter Ives, Mr Jack Campbell, the late Professor R. C. Mills, Sir Harold Wyndham and Professor R. I. Downing. The Department of Post-war Reconstruction was extraordinarily far-sighted and contemporary in the policies it followed. It is not too much to say that in its emphasis on regionalisation and the planned allocation of resources, we had a foretaste, in vastly different circumstances, of many of the principles applied now by the present Government.

John Dedman had an instinctive Australianism, He was a nationalist and a true patriot. His defeat in the seat of Corio at the elections of 1949 was singularly untimely. It was a loss to the Parliament and, more keenly still, to the Labor Party, which stood sorely in need of his competence and consistency in the following years, I believe the word ‘great’ is an epithet we should use judiciously on occasions such as this; I believe it can be justly used of John Dedman.

For years after his defeat he remained a familiar figure in the precincts of this House - eating here, reading in the Library - and at all times he retained the affection and respect of his comrades. He was exhilarated by his Party’s victorious by-election in Corio in July 1967, just over 27 years after his own by-election victory in Corio. He was equally exhilarated by his Party’s success in the general election a year ago. For myself, I was always touched by his loyalty and friendliness. In every sense we shall miss him. His presence here on so many occasions in the past year, among friends, among former colleagues, among those of a new generation who perhaps barely knew him, was a poignant reminder of the great service he rendered to the country he loved during a long and remarkable career.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– Emerson in the Sovereignty of Ethics’ wrote in these terms:

Serve and thou shah be served. If you love and serve men you cannot by any hiding or stratagem escape the remuneration.

It is in the spirit” of these words and in the overriding concept of service that I want to pay a warm tribute on behalf of the Opposition to a great Australian, the late John Dedman. He was a man who gave unstintingly in distinguished service to the Australian nation both in peace and in war. As the Prime Minister has indicated, John Dedman will be remembered for his administration of a number of difficult portfolios during a period when this country was under very severe test - the war and early post-war years. Indeed, it may not be without significance that a Scottishborn Australian should have been chosen by two great Labor Prime Ministers, John Curtin and Ben Chifley, to administer the Departments of War Organisation of Industry and Post-war Reconstruction.

John Dedman was a man of considerable determination and singularity of purpose.

Although his University studies in .engineering at Edinburgh University were uncompleted because of enlistment for World War I he nevertheless completed a Bachelor of Arts degree at the Australian National University in 1965. It was a rare event, indeed, to receive an honorary doctor of laws degree one year before completing a bachelor degree. John Dedman’s determination and his success were aptly described by his Prime Minister in these words:

John Dedman inherited a few files and no staff. He had to start from scratch. He entered upon his duties with the grim determination of a hundred generations of Scottish forebears.

Many Australians today will not remember the far-reaching reconstruction of Australian industry and the exigencies borne by the community in general during the war and post war periods. The fact that John Dedman was responsible for administering many of the policies which called for community sacrifices in no way diminished his popularity. This in itself was a tribute to his personality and character. His parliamentary career was marked by outstanding integrity. Moreover, he was a man of considerable compassion and concern for people. It was this concern for people that led him, at the end of his parliamentary career, to become a director of the Resettlement of Refugees Department of the World Council of Churches. He was a great churchman and an elder of the Presbyterian Church.

As the House will be very much aware John Dedman was a regular visitor to Parliament in recent years. Many honourable members knew John Dedman personally because of his continuing interest in Australian political life. I knew him from the time I entered this House in 1966. It was an association which I will continue to value. I take this opportunity to place on record my respect for a man wise in the affairs of men and genuine in his continuing and active concern for this country’s welfare. Although we differed politically at all times he was keen to make suggestions in those areas in which he felt his advice could be most useful. I was grateful for his interest. His maiden speech, delivered in this House on 19 April 1940, indicated at that time John Dedman’s future role. It was a speech which dealt in a purposeful and unembroidered manner with Commonwealth finance and the utilisation of Australia’s manpower, capital and natural resources. In summing up he stated:

There are many other matters upon which I should like to touch, but I feel that were I to do so I should not have sufficient time to give a complete explanation of them, and when one enters upon a subject one likes to make a good job of it.

History recalls that John Dedman approached each one of his many public assignments in that spirit. Perhaps the greatest tribute can be ascribed to the fact, that as a man charged with implementing a series of austere and restrictive policies, he held during his life the highest degree of public admiration and respect. I support the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and on behalf of the Opposition I offer my profound and sincere sympathy to his widow and family.

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– (Richmond- Leader of the Australian Country Party) - I associate the Australian Country Party with the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and also with the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch). The Prime Minister paid a very fine tribute to an ex-member of this Parliament. John Johnstone Dedman was a remarkable man with a humble background who distinguished himself as a very great Australian. I think that all of us must feel a tinge of sadness because John Dedman was one of the most familiar characters around this House over many years. While I was in the Ministry and had reason to be here during recesses there were many occasions when I would have lunch with John Dedman. He would talk to me about the difficulties faced during wartime years and post wartime years. I admired the way in which he faced up to many of the great problems and difficulties then. But probably what 1 admired most about him was that he was a very kindly man and he never had a bad word to say about anyone. He was the second last remaining Minister of the Curtin Government, the Government which took over responsibility for the defence of this country when we were under threat. I think that any Minister during such a period had a tremendous responsibility and burden thrust upon him.

We have a duty to recognise and appreciate what such Ministers did for this country. John Dedman also had the enormous task of developing policies for post-war reconstruction. As the Prime Minister said, he was a man of big ideas; he had his objectives and great determination. But possibly his greatest attri bute was a capacity to choose men to aid him in doing the job. I was interested to hear the Prime Minister read out the long list of men whom he had solicited to help him do that job. I feel a great deal of sadness at the loss of a man who distinguished himself as a truly great Australian. On behalf of the Country Party I express our sympathy to his widow and family.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– On behalf of the Corio electorate, which John Dedman represented so well, I would like to add my tribute to a man whom I did not know personally until I was elected to this Parliament; he had moved out of the Geelong area some years earlier. But during the period for which I have been a member of this Parliament John Dedman was here constantly and always tendered valuable advice when it was wanted. He had suffered for his own integrity. He had the job of putting into effect policies which were necessary in the interests of Australia and as a Minister he did this without apology or veneer. He had the reputation of administering his portfolio - and it should be remembered that such things as priorities for motor cars and motor tyres fell within that portfolio - completely without favour. This does not always help one’s political carer.

In 1949 during the general swing against Labor, John Dedman lost his seat to Mr Hubert Opperman, now Sir Hubert Opperman. Even though he had been warned by members of the Labor Party and others that this could occur he stuck with determination to his statement that as a Minister of the Crown he had a responsibility and that he must fulfil that responsibility irrespective of the consequences to him personally. He did this, and he lost his seat. I recall listening to the parliamentary broadcasts in the 1940’s when he was a Minister and I remember the disappointment I felt when he lost his seat in 1949; I felt that his electorate had not rewarded him well. But he had and always will have the respect that goes to a man who puts his country before himself and whose achievements will grow in recognition rather than diminish. He may not have had the respect or the support of his electorate in 1949 but he certainly earned a great debt of gratitude from his nation for the achievements, the planning and the dedication which he was able to give to public administration.

He came to this Parliament under circumstances almost identical to my own. The member who preceded him - now Lord Casey - was appointed to a diplomatic post and John Dedman won the subsequent byelection. He spent less than a quarter of his parliamentary career on the back bench. He was almost always a Minister. His most notable achievement and the monument which will always remind us of him is the Australian National University. But, more importantly, he was and will be remembered as a man who in his own lifetime was able to achieve those things that most of his fellow man and a lasting monument of achievement to his nation.

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Reid · ALP

– I knew John Dedman for the past 15 years. He was a gentle and sincere man with an enlightened and progressive approach to politics. I had not realised the depth of his progressive thinking until I became Opposition spokesman for urban affairs and regional development some 4 years ago. It was then that I began examining some of the proposals John Dedman made when he was Minister for Post-war Reconstruction in 1948. Since being appointed to my portfolio I have delved further into the work which John Dedman initiated, and I have found that some of the principles which he espoused are valid today. As Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, soon after the war he said:

Now that nearly all the factories built in war-time are in some way disposed of, the decentralisation movement must not stop. If we are to develop to the full a country the size of Australia, there should be the greatest possible balance in the distribution of population.

Unfortunately for Australia, that did not occur. There was a change of government after the 1949 election. Following the great immigration intake, the great bulk of those immigrants went to the over-centralised cities of Sydney and Melbourne. We are now putting into effect some of the regional development policies of which John Dedman could rightly claim to be a pioneer. The present Government has taken some initiatives on regions. Apart from the report of my Department which was released recently, the only significant investigation on regions by a national government was the one undertaken by John Dedman’s Department of Post-war Reconstruction. He was a pioneer in the development policies which are now being implemented.

John Dedman has a place in our hearts and in Australian history because of his role in wartime and post-war Australian governments. He has a special place in the history which is now being written in the policies of the present Government concerning regions and growth centres. I wanted to place that on record on behalf of John Dedman. I express my sympathy to John Dedman’s widow and family.

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

– I join the Prime Minister and support his tribute. As an official, I knew John Dedman. I worked for him for several years, and I got to know him intimately in that capacity. He was a tremendously hard worker. As the Prime Minister pointed out, he gathered around him a very dedicated, loyal and devoted staff. Although I knew him as an official, it was only after I became a politician that I appreciated, the full measure of what he did. Whenever he was conviced that logic was right and that he had the right policy, he would press it and carry it despite what everyone else might say. He was of tremendous help and assistance to the Prime Ministers of his day. He supported , them loyally in Cabinet and in Caucus. As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), he was never deflected by any personal favour or any of the temptations which normally come to a political person.

I know now that the amount of ridicule to which he was subjected and the pillorying over many years by the mass media, which would have deterred many a lesser politician, were withstood by him in a very solid and brave fashion. I know now that very few political folk on either side today would have the stomach to take anything like the amount of attack which fell to the lot of John Dedman over the years.

This fact about him should be remembered: He acted as the focus for many ideas which have borne fruit in various ways and which political parties over the years have followed. He remains a wonderful model for people to follow. He worked very hard indeed. He applied the ideas of which he was convinced as to their soundness over a wide field and gave his authority to a large number of projects which have been mentioned already, one of his favourites being the Australian

National University. I pay my tribute and express my sympathy to Mrs Dedman and the family.

Br JENKINS (Scullin) - I should like briefly to pay my tribute to the late John Dedman. I pay a tribute not because of the concrete structures that can be seen and are monuments to his efforts. I pay it on behalf of a number of those human beings who now play a very important part in today’s community. When we talk in the field of education, particularly that of tertiary education, we mention John Dedman’s involvement with the Australian National University. So many have forgotten that John Dedman, as part of his duties with the war organisation of industry, had much to do with manpower and the use of materials. I started at Melbourne University as a part time science student in 1942. In 1943 the Australian Government instituted a scheme for university students by which students in protected faculties had their fees paid, and were given a book and equipment allowance and a means tested living allowance. One condition of this assistance was that they signed a 3-year bond to serve the Commonwealth after graduation. John Dedman was the author of this scheme. Many hundreds, even thousands, of university graduates of that period owe to John Dedman the fact that they were able to complete their courses.

I knew John Dedman for a number of years after he had left the Parliament. It was always a source of great pride to him that some of us remembered this assistance. In fact, he used to refer to me as one of his boys because I was able to graduate from university under this scheme. I think one can see how this particular project led later on to Commonwealth university scholarships and today to free tertiary education in the community. While we think of the very massive projects that John Dedman originated perhaps we should remember his concern for human beings. This is one illustration of it. One illustration of his far-sightedness is that the concept of this scheme was not only for wartime but also to provide Australia with its professional and trained persons for the future. I valued John Dedman as a friend, as so many members in this House did. I pay my tribute to him as a statesman with so many interests in so many facets of the com munity. I offer my condolences to his wife and family.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– I should like to join with those who are paying tribute to the late John Dedman. I do it as a fellow councillor of the Australian National University. As the Honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) has said John Dedman had memorials both in materials and in people, and the Australian National University, I think, can be described as one of Australia’s great institutions these days. John Dedman’s influence not only on its formation but also on the subsequent policy pursued by it has been manifest. As a councillor, John Dedman’s interest, enthusiasm and above all his dedication have been of example to us all. I should like to take this opportunity of paying my tribute to him and passing on my sympathy to his family.

Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Thank you, gentleman.

page 3795

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 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 Dr Patterson, Mr Murford, Mr King, Mr McLeay, Mr McVeigh, Mr Ruddock and Mr Viner.

Petitions received.

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 Br Everingham, MrBonnett, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Cooke, Mr Corbett, MrDrury, Mr Matter, Mr Killen and Mr Eric Robinson.

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 existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

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

Petition received.

Television

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 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 build into 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 Les Johnson, Mr Morrison, Mr Bury, Mr FitzPatrick, Mr Lucherti and Mr Turner.

Petitions received.

Education

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shews:

  1. Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends, is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation. Further, they believe that this economic support should be in the form of per capita grants directly related to the cost of educating an Australian child in a government school.
  2. Your petitioners believe that in addition to this basic per capita grant additional assistance should be provided in cases of educational disadvantage.
  3. The reduction of the present per capita grants will impose great hardships on many parents who have chosen at personal sacrifice, to send their sons and daughters to independent schools. Further, the curtailment of the said grants will create divisions in the community.
  4. Parents should be encouraged to contribute to education. The proposed legislation penalises those who do contribute, and endorses the apathy of those who do not contribute.

Your petitioners therefore ask 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 so instruct the proposed National Schools Commission.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr FitzPatrick and Mr Riordan.

Petitions received.

Whales

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:

  1. That whales are a significant element in the world’s wildlife heritage.
  2. That whales are highly intelligent, highly evolved creatures.
  3. That there is growing international concern at the continued killing of whales for commercial gam.
  4. That synthetic products are able to fully replace all whale products.
  5. That Australia continues to operate a whaling station and to import whale produce.
  6. That Australia supported a proposal to enforce a ten year moratorium on all commercial whaling at the 25th meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in London, June 25- 29, 1973.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to immediately revoke all whaling licenses issued by the Australian Government and to reimpose a total ban on the importation of all whale produce.

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

Petition received.

Kangaroo Island: Telephone Service

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Kangaroo Island, South Australia, electors of the Division of Barker, respectfully sheweth:

That because of the island’s isolation from the mainland, there is a great dependence on the availability of z uniform, economic and continuous communication system between all subscribers and their local sea-port, airport, hospital and centre of industry.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a local telephone charge rate apply between all points within the Kangaroo Island community.

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

Petition received.

page 3797

QUESTION

ARMY APPRENTICES

Mr LYNCH:

– Is the Minister for Defence aware that his colleague, the Minister for Labour, announced on 13 November a national scheme to increase the number of apprentice training programs? In view of this, why has he decided to cut the intake of the Army Apprentices School at Balcombe from 289 this year to only 88 in 1974? Will he confirm that his action is quite contrary to the Government’s announced policy to increase the number of apprentices and is in fact virtually sabotaging the efforts of his colleague, the Minister for Labour? Is he further aware that his action has very seriously eroded the morale of those persons concerned with the administration of the Army Apprentices School at Balcombe? Finally, will the honourable gentleman give to this House details of any cutbacks in apprentice training in both the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force?

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

– The decision to cut back the number of Army apprentices entering the the course was once again, a decision made by the Defence Force Development Committee, and I acepted its recommendation. The decision was not mine. A recommendation was made to me by those who had the responsibility for making recommendations. I accepted that recommendation. If the honourable member requires details concerning numbers, I suggest that he put his question on the notice paper and I will provide him with the details required.

page 3797

QUESTION

REINSURANCE

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Treasurer. It deals with reinsurance. Is the Minister aware that for 1971-72 non-resident direct insurance premiums and overseas reinsurance premiums reached a record high? As a large proportion of reinsurance business transacted in this country is eventually placed overseas, therefore, to reduce the dominance of overseas insurers in the Australian market and to cut the outflow of funds, I ask the Treasurer: Will the Government take steps to establish an Australian reinsurance corporation to compete on a commercial basis with overseas interests?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– No official statistics are currently available on the amount of reinsurance business placed overseas by Australian direct insurers. However, when the Insurance Act of 1973 becomes fully effective, insurance companies will be obliged to submit regular statistical returns which will indicate, among other things, the amount of insurance placed outside Australia. When that information becomes available the Government will be able to assess more accurately the nature and the amount of reinsurance being placed outside Australia. This information will also permit consideration of the desirability of the Government’s establishing an Australian reinsurance corporation to compete on a commercial basis with overseas interests. However, it should be pointed out that the placement of reinsurance business overseas can reflect in part the need for insurers to spread their risks as widely as possible. This applies particularly to large risks in which access to international insurance markets is often essential. Nevertheless, I would suggest that Australian insurers could have been much more ambitious in the past and I hope that they will take the lead in the future.

page 3798

QUESTION

OIL EXPLORATION IN AUSTRALIA

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to an article in the authoritative London magazine ‘The Economist’ of 17 November entitled ‘Find It and Hope’, which claims that the policies on energy announced in Tokyo by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Minerals and Energy will effectively stop exploration for oil in Australia by non-Australian companies? Does he believe that this is the right time to limit the search for oil in Australia to Australian capital, reduced as it is by the withdrawal of various tax concessions and the abolition of the oil search subsidy and farm-in arrangements? Will he look at the suggestion made last week by the honourable member for Adelaide that there be a resumption of foreign investment in exploration ventures under specific guidelines and local equity provisions?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– No readers of The Economist’ regard it as authoritative on matters concerning East Asia or South East Asia. It has been consistently wrong on political, diplomatic and military events in the region and at least half wrong in economic events in the region for at least the last decade. I support the efforts which my colleague the Minister for Minerals and Energy is making to Australianisa the search for and development of Australia’s natural resources, particularly in the energy field. A month ago a great number of people on the other side of this chamber and outside this House were ridiculing, belittling and seeking to humilitate my colleague. Everybody now applauds his far sighted initiatives on behalf of the Australian people. I think that the question comes very ill from the honourable member because he was one of the Ministers who, over recent years, donated $400m to the search for oil and petrol in this country, mainly to foreign companies and left the Australian people with not one cent of equity to show for that largesse.

page 3798

QUESTION

CONVERSION OF COAL TO OIL

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Minister for Minerals and Energy been drawn to a statement made in the Queensland Parliament by the Queensland Minister for Mines, Mr Camm, in which, referring to information on the conversion of coal to oil, he said that the information sought by the planned joint study by Australia and Japan is already available in Queensland? He went on to refer to the major overseas companies that had expressed interest in the project and the sites that had been designated in Queensland. Will the Minister assure honourable members that the Government will take the necessary action to verify whether Queensland has the technological information? Will he also take steps to protect the interests of the Australian nation against any likely irresponsible decisions made by the Queensland Government to commit us to further economic strangleholds from overseas interests in view of the claim that Queensland already has obtained the information that the Minister is seeking?

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would say that there is the need for acute concern on the part of all Australians at the prospects for acquisition by overseas interests of further substantial blocks of Australia’s mineral wealth. There is a very substantial degree of irresponsibility, particularly in Queensland. It is a matter of grave concern to me that blocks of black coal are being made available beyond the capacity of that State for normal development and where they are obviously being acquired, admittedly so, by major overseas oil companies which have the specific objective of using that coal for hydrogenation and the derivation of motor spirit. With regard to the actual publication which I have had the opportunity of examining, I gravely doubt whether the technology referred to would be applicable to the present day hydrogenation. Nevertheless, I will get in touch with Mr Camm. I am always interested in seeing anything better than what we know to be the current and acceptable forms. I might add - and I strike this note of warning - that there is in Australia no more than 8 years known recoverable reserves of crude oil. I am greatly concerned to ensure that there is exploration - not exploration of the type which results in only 15 per cent Australian equity or only 43 per cent as in the case of Bass Strait but real Australian equity. There will be legislation introduced for that purpose in the very near future and I will be very happy to hear the present vociferous critics supporting that legislation in the best interests of the Australian nation.

page 3798

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does he fully endorse the action taken by the Minister for Civil Aviation and the Minister for Labour in supporting the stand taken by Trans-Australia Airlines against the pilots in the present industrial dispute which is affecting that airline? If so, does it mean that he supports in principle the concept of lockouts being used by employers against employees? If so, will he explain to this House his present attitude, if it has been changed, with respect to the Master Builders Association and the Builders Labourers Federation?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I support the action which my colleagues, the Minister for Civil Aviation and the Minister for Labour, have taken in the dispute between TAA and its pilots. I also, of course, supported the action they took in the previous dispute involving the Professional Radio Employees Institute of Australia which was an industrial dispute. The TAA dispute is, of course, a safety issue. The other matters which the honourable gentleman referred to did not concern the Commonwealth as an employer.

page 3799

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT MUNITION FACTORIES: EMPLOYEES

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister for Secondary Industry deals with the surplus manufacturing capacity in Government munition factories and the employment of the skilled workman in those factories. Having regard to the heavy demand for goods which are in short supply and with the object of retaining the skills of employees in government munition factories, will the Minister cause a searching investigation to be made into the supply of manufactured goods bought by government departments which could be manufactured in munition factories? Will the Minister also ascertain to what extent government factories may be able to meet the manufacturing needs of this nation and so preserve the expertise of those who have given faithful service in the supply of munitions?

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry · ALP

– I think there appeared in this morning’s newspapers an announcement of the Government’s intention to set up under the chairmanship of Sir Walter Scott a committee of inquiry to look into the question of Government procurement policies and to report to us early next year. Therefore the Government is very aware of the issue put in the honourable member’s question. The question of using the various factories that are operated by the Department of Supply and which of course are geared largely to the maintenance of a defence potential also has been under very detailed study. A committee of inquiry into work loads was established in October at the direction of the Minister for Defence. I understand that this group has completed its initial studies and is reporting to the Department of Supply. A committee within the Department of Supply is working with representatives of the unions involved to ascertain what are the best ways of utilising the production capacity of the factories and of obtaining civilian or non-defence orders to maintain the capacity. As the honourable member who has a factory of this type within his electorate would know, this is not an easy problem to solve. The Supply factories have a level of quality built into them because of the defence role which they play which makes it not easy for them to convert to this new role. The factory at Lithgow, for example, does a lot of civilian work. It has made golf clubs for years and it does contract work oh domestic appliances and also in the automotive industry. We are determined to look into the matter as hard as we can to see whether we can come up with a solution to the problem.

page 3799

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WINE INDUSTRY

Dr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware that on 19 October last year Mr Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia, wrote a letter to most people involved in the wine industry -in South Australia seeking funds for the Australian Labor Party election campaign to be given on the condition that a future Labor Government would ‘abolish the (wine) excise and not replace it with a sales tax or any other imposition’? Is he also aware that last Friday Mr Dunstan in publicly stating that he had been placed in a position ‘of acute embarrassment and dishonour’ said: ‘It was Mr Whitlam who authorised the statement I made to the wine industry’?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to put his question.

Dr FORBES:

– I now ask the Prime Minister: Did he authorise the statement to the wine industry? Who has been placed in a position of dishonour by the actions of his Government - is it he or Mr Dunstan?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– Earlier answers have been given on this subject to a question on notice in the Senate in the middle of September and during the debate on the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) 1973 last Thursday night by the Minister assisting the Treasurer in answer to a speech by the honourable member for Angas. To summarise the points: The Government when in Oppositon pledged to remove the excise on wine introduced in 1970 by the previous Government, the removal of which was consistently opposed by the honourable member for Angas and the honourable member for Barker by their votes. The Government’s pledge was carried out within a week of its taking up office last December. The Treasurer’s Budget proposal could not be seriously considered to be a new tax or impost. The removal of a special concession which had been distorting the income tax is a very different matter from the levying of a new tax. The proposed change in the basis of valuation of wine and brandy stocks really does nothing more than bring the wine industry into line with all other industries which already value their stocks on a proper basis. The amended Budget proposal simply means that in 5 years’ time the wine industry will be paying tax on the same basis as everybody else and that over the next 5 years the tax which is still deferred in respect of profits from past sales will be recouped in annual instalments.

page 3800

QUESTION

PROPOSED CORAL CRUSHING PLANT

Mr DOYLE:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Conservation and I preface it by referring to a proposal by Queensland Cement and Lime Co Pty Limited to establish a coral crushing plant at MacArthur Avenue, Meeandah at the mouth of the Brisbane River. I understand that an environmental impact study has been carried out, though it appears that the company has not released the report. As there is evidence of grave concern that the establishment of the proposed plant will result in air pollution affecting a large residential area of Brisbane, I ask the Minister: Has the Australian Government power to intervene with a view to preventing the construction of this plant? If so, will the Minister take appropriate action to protect those people of Brisbane whose life quality may be impaired as a result of the proposed coral crushing plant becoming established?

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– This is a good illustration of the confusion that reigns about problems like this and the part which the Australian Govern ment can and cannot play. My attention has been drawn to the report and it seems that the usual blame game is being entered into with the City Council on the one hand blaming the State Government and the State Government on the other hand blaming the City Council for the fact that the works are to be established. Of course, it is difficult to ascertain where the blame really lies but the point is that it does lie at State and local government level and not at Australian Government level. There is nothing that this Government can do because it is purely a State matter. The only sense of realism in this matter has been injected by the Secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union who pointed out that unionists are likely to withdraw their labour because they take the view that an industry which is potentially dangerous to the health of people, or could have a deleterious effect on the environment should not be established until an environmental impact statement has been prepared and published so that the community can see it and comment on it. I understand that a statement has been prepared but no one has seen it. In line with our policy I certainly endorse the attitude of the building workers. Because of the potentially hazardous nature of the proposed plant, the environmental impact study ought to be freely published and the community should be able to comment upon it. Then, and only then, should the matter be considered for further prosecution. However, I emphasise again that there is nothing which the Australian Government can do about it. It is strictly a State responsibility.

page 3800

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION: DECENTRALISATION PROGRAMS

Mr RUDDOCK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development who, in comments in this House today, mentioned the failure of the immigration programs of past governments to further decentralisation policies. Will the Minister assure this House that any scheme for decentralisation and the establishment of growth centres will not involve compulsion on migrants to settle only in country growth centres?

Mr UREN:
ALP

– The placement of migrants in this country is “within the role of the Minister for Immigration. I think it is generally accepted within the Government that we should be seeking to guide people away from the major cities such as Sydney and Melbourne. There has been over-centralisation in Sydney and Melbourne during the last 23 years and the area which the honourable member represents is suffering a great deal from this problem. Consequently this Government is trying to rectify that problem.

page 3801

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES: PILOTS DISPUTE

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation. Is the dispute between Trans-Australian Airlines and its pilots a lock-out? Was the pilot concerned offered alternative employment? If so, did he accept it? Will the Minister give an undertaking that any settlement of the dispute will not place in jeopardy the unparalleled air safety record which exists in Australia?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– A lockout does not exist between Trans-Australia Airlines and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots. Members of the Federation can return to work whenever they are ready to commence duty on condition, of course, that they give an undertaking that they will continue to work and not place the travelling public in the invidious position of first buying a ticket and then of being transported if the pilots elect to remain at work that day. I do not think any airline can operate under those conditions. The honourable member asked whether the pilot in question has been offered alternative employment. Yes, TAA has offered him alternative employment in a non-flying capacity. If the Federation is so concerned about his future employment then I inform it that there is a job for him at TAA in a nonliving capacity. Honourable members can be assured of one thing: Under no circumstances, whether it be by threat of strike action or by any other action, will the safety record of TAA be at any time reduced. Honourable members opposite have been chiacking, first of all, the Prime Minister by directing questions to him on this subject. It is interesting to note that one of the principal instigators of this dispute is, I believe, a Liberal Party nominee for pre-selection for the seat of Mitchell, and that, in actual fact, he was the campaign director for the defeated Liberal candidate for Mitchell at the last election. So if honourable members opposite are so concerned about peace in industry why do they not talk to their own candidates and influence them to create some peace in industry and to provide transport for the people? Honourable members opposite should have a look in the mirror. They will find just as much disruption in their own ranks.

page 3801

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES: PILOTS DISPUTE

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. As the Minister for Civil Aviation and the Minister for Labour have isolated one industrial dispute for the Government’s unrelenting and quite out of character action, which will not even permit Australia’s top civil aviation authority, Sir Donald Cameron - Anderson - to arbitrate, will the Minister give an assurance that immediate and effective action will be taken to provide isolated areas of Australia, such as the Gulf of Carpentaria, the Channel country of Queensland and similar areas with an alternative service which will make sure that those areas receive food and other urgently required necessities while the present situation persists.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
ALP

– There is no reason in the world why the pilots should not be flying at this present moment. As far as holding up any appeal or frustrating in any way whatsoever the right of appeal of the gentleman in question, let me very briefly trace what has happened. I do not want to go into the matter in detail because the whole of it is still subject to appeal. At the present time the Flight Crew Officers’ Industrial Tribunal is meeting in Melbourne to determine whether this is lockout action. It has received an application from the Australian Federation of Air Pilots for lockout bans to be written into the agreement. The Department of Civil Aviation has already investigated this incident after the dismissal of the pilot by TAA and later his appeal was rejected by the Australian National Airlines Commission. The Department of Civil Aviation has suspended the pilot’s captain’s licence and his instrument rating licence. It has issued a notice to him to show cause within 14 days why these licences should not be cancelled. There is nothing to stop that man lodging his appeal immediately and giving reasons why his licence should not be cancelled. That appeal can be dealt with, and after it is dealt with he has the alternatives of going either to a board of review or to the Supreme Court of the State or Territory in which the matter occurred or, if he does not want to go to that State or Territory, to refer it to a State

Supreme Court agreed to by the union and the Director-General. So there is ample opportunity for appeal. To suggest that Sir Donald Anderson - in case the honourable gentleman does not know his name, that is what it is-

Mr Katter:

– Just tell me-

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I do not know who wrote the question for the honourable gentleman; but the fact of the matter is that Sir Donald is chairman of the board of Qantas Airways Ltd, and I think it would place him in a most invidious position if he had to arbitrate on the actions of another government airline. So, as far as I am concerned, that proposition is not on.

As to the honourable member’s concern about the people in the Gulf Country having food supplied to them, if it can be shown that air transport is necessary to transport food there for their requirements I am certain that my colleague the Minister for Defence will be only too happy to make defence aircraft available. He would be prepared to make defence aircraft available to transport food there for the people if they get into a situation where normal means of transport cannot carry it; in fact, I myself would even have a look at providing DCA aircraft for the purpose.

page 3802

QUESTION

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Works. Is there any evidence to show that the measures introduced by this Government to deal with the liquidity problem have caused unemployment in the building and construction industry? Will the Minister give an assurance that the weapon of unemployment will not be invoked deliberately to relieve excessive pressures on the building industry?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is the firm intention of the Government to maximise the use of the building and construction force. We need something like one million houses in the next 5 years to meet the housing demand of this country. In those circumstances it would be foolhardy to adopt a policy involving the lay-off of employees. I think that there have been occasions on which the previous Administration used the weapon of unemployment for economic reasons.

Mr McMahon:

– No, never!

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is unquestionably the case. I can give an unequivocal assurance that such a weapon will not be used by this Government. We would rather use the weapon of price control to regulate the economic problems with which we are confronted. For that reason we are seeking a ‘yes’ vote on 8 December. Let me say very precisely to the honourable gentleman that there is no evidence of any serious trend towards unemployment in the building and contraction industry at present. In fact, the official figures released by the Commonwealth Statistician on 23 November were to the effect that registered unemployment fell by 140 and vacancies increased by 374.

page 3802

QUESTION

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Prime Minister seen several Press reports in which the Premier of South Australia describes the Whitlam Government’s total tax on the wine industry - revaluation of stock and shifts in excise duty - as being ‘much more onerous on the industry than the original wine excise’, 50 per cent of which was removed as a result of the efforts of my colleagues and myself? Does the Prime Minister realise that neither the Premier nor the industry regards these measures as anything other than political betrayal?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– Senators from the honourable gentleman’s State asked a question about this matter over 2 months ago and received a reply. The honourable gentleman is as slow in raising this matter in this House as he was in working for the removal of the whole of the wine tax last year. His voting record on this matter is plain. He is distorting the situation, as the Minister assisting the Treasurer showed very convincingly last Thursday night. There is no new imposition at all. An anomaly has been removed and full reasons have been given to all honourable members. (Mr Sinclair interjecting).

Mr ALEXANDER BARTON

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Immigration aware that that master racketeer, spiv, confidence man, company director and international crook, one Alexander Barton, who cheated Australian shareholders out of $21m before fleeing Australia is now travelling Europe on Australian passport No. G.528710 and is staying at luxury hotels, drinking scotch at $2 a throw and eating steaks at $10 each?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am not interested in his gastronomical doings. Will the honourable gentleman please ask his question?

Mr JAMES:

– He is paying $52 a night for bed and breakfast. Will the Minister in view of what the previous Government did in connection with Wilfred Burchett’s passport, which my Prime Minister had reissued within a month of taking office-

Mr Whitlam:

– Within a week.

Mr JAMES:

– The Prime Minister says that it was reissued within a week. Because of his honest writing, Wilfred Burchett’s passport was withdrawn by the previous Government. In view of the fact that this crook got away with $21m, will the Minister give serious consideration to withdrawing Alexander Barton’s Australian passport?

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I cannot confirm or deny the gastronomic delights enjoyed by Mr Barton and his family at present. But I did have a report that he was in Europe. This is the second inquiry that I have had regarding this gentleman. The first was a query as to whether he had in fact left the country. I made inquiries at that time, and he undoubtedly left the country on an Australian passport to proceed, in the first instance, to Hong Kong. He has an Australian passport; he is an Australian citizen. There was no hindrance to his leaving at that time because he had not been found guilty of any crime and there had been no report or action to prevent his departure by the New South Wales Government which, I think, has the major involvement in the prosecutions in this matter. So, as far as my officers were concerned, he proceeded overseas with all the rights and privileges of an Australian citizen. I would add, however, that great concern has been expressed about an Australian citizen who has been accused, I think, of being the Australian equivalent of Ronald Biggs. It was a slightly different operation, but the end result was the same. I cannot comment on that because the matter has not yet been brought before the courts–

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it within the competence of the Minister to comment on proceedings which, I understand, are being undertaken either by a court of law or by the Registrar of Companies in New South Wales in respect of the person named in the question asked by the honourable member for Hunter?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am unaware that an inquiry has been initiated. I am not too sure about that fact. If one has been initiated, I would prefer the Minister not to enter into any controversy regarding that matter.

Mr GRASSBY:

– An important point has been raised by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party. If any inquiry has been initiated and is already in train, I make no further comment on the gentleman or his activities. I am not sure about that fact, so I will refrain from saying anything more along those lines. There are well defined procedures for extradition from certain countries of any Australian citizen who is required by the due processes of law in our country. In view of the gravity of the charges which have been made here and the discussion generally, I will give the honourable member for Hunter an undertaking now to inquire immediately as to the status of this gentleman, as to the status of his passport and whether any action should be taken.

page 3803

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES: PILOTS DISPUTE

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister in future support the principle of shutting down any Commonwealth Government undertaking or enterprise when its employees break their contract of employment?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The honourable gentleman is presumably referring to the dispute between Trans-Australia Airlines and its pilots. This is a safety issue, not an industrial issue. If the honourable gentleman wants to know the basis for my asserting that it is a safety issue, I invite him to ask the Minister for Civil Aviation.

page 3803

QUESTION

PROPOSED PETRO-CHEMICAL INDUSTRY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Overseas Trade been drawn to reports that the Redcliffs development in South Australia is under threat because of the inability of the Australian Industry Development Corporation to participate as a member of the proposed consortium? Would the proposed participation of AIDC ensure that the development would proceed with a high proportion of Australian ownership? Conversely, would Senate opposition to the AIDC Bill threaten this important South Australian development as planned?

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

– The project at Redcliffs on St Vincent Gulf in South Australia would be, from the point of view of both its economy and its efficiency, a petro-chemical complex of world standard. It is very important for Australia and for South Australia that this proceed. If the Australian Industry Development Corporation does not proceed with its present plans, the operation at Redcliffs could be threatened. The difficulties of the AIDC in this matter are caused by a shortage of funds. I will leave no stone unturned to do everything that is possible to ensure that AIDC has enough funds. If the unwillingness of the Opposition in the Senate to agree to the passage of the essential features of the AIDC Bill and the National Investment Fund Bill continues, the Senate will be responsible for the difficulties of AIDC. I believe that the Senate has a duty to see that projects such as the one at Redcliffs are kept in Australian hands. The participation of AIDC in that project is necessary to retain a high proportion of this enterprise in Australian hands. The equity would be substantially overseas, substantially Australian private and substantially AIDC.

The substance of the 2 Bills which I have mentioned is in question. I do not propose to be concerned with the details, but the substance is the provision of the National Investment Fund to allow ordinary Australians an opportunity to contribute to a public corporation of this kind. To my mind, that is part of the substance, as is the extension of the scope and powers of AIDC. I will not argue about details, but these 2 provisions are the substance of the Bills. Unless they are passed AIDC would be unable to do its job in respect of projects such as the one at Redcliffs and many other projects of equal importance.

page 3804

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRY: PUBLICATIONS

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry accept as proper the use of official departmental publications for the making of attacks on the Opposition parties? In particular, does he accept as proper the use of the regular publication called ‘Meat Notes’, which is put out by the Department of Primary Industry, to carry an attack on the Australian Country Party, as it did at considerable length in the issue dated 8 November 1973?

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I do not know of the particular article. As the magazine is a reput able one, if this article carried an attack on the Australian Country Party I would assume that it was justifiable criticism.

page 3804

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Wine Overseas Marketing Bill 1973

Wine Grapes Charges Bill 1973

Diesel Fuel Tax Bill (No. 1) 1973

Diesel Fuel Tax Bill (No. 2) 1973

Excise Bill (No. 2) 1973

Excise Tariff Bill (No. 3) 1973

Customs Tariff Bill 1973

Broadcasting Station Licence Fees Bill 1973.

page 3804

STUDENT ASSISTANCE BILL 1973

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 3804

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 5) 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 November (vide page 3776), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Lynch had moved by way of amendment:

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 is of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill are a contravention of the Government’s electoral undertakings not to increase taxes and that the Bill specifically:

imposes unwarranted taxes on pensioners;

eliminates incentives for manufacturing industry inconsistent with the economic requirement to increase productivity and ease the pressure on domestic resources;

removes or drastically reduces important rural productivity incentives;

jeopardises the savings and future security of Australians holding life assurance policies;

places inflexible rules on the sale of property which take no account of reasons unconnected with profit motives such as illness and additional family responsibilities;

impedes the development of small businesses by increasing the rates of private company tax, and

places added cost burdens on Australia’s wine and brandy producers especially the smaller producers of wine grapes”.

Mr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– This Bill seeks to introduce a number of changes designed, in effect, to increase taxation. The situation is an interesting one in that the Government was elected on a program involving a vast range of expenditure proposals which, to the understanding of the lay voter, was to be achieved without an increase in taxation. lt is true that under, I think, clause 6 (1) of the cognate income Tax Bill the schedule of rates of personal income tax is unchanged. In that sense, there is no increase in personal income tax. The effect of the situation with which we are confronted is vastly different from that. What is significant in this context is what economists would call the real rate of taxation. This refers to the income tax which a taxpayer actually has to pay as a proportion of his income.

The effect of the policies of this Government in contributing to a rate of inflation, of price increase and associated increase in earnings, is that the impact of the unchanged schedule is to lead to a vast increase in personal income taxation. Indeed, the increase projected in the Budget papers - if I recall correctly - is $l,089m, a total increase in this taxation area alone of the order of fully 27 per cent. The total of taxation on individuals has increased gradually over many years, but in this one year there is an increase of the order of 27 per cent. I repeat, this has happened in the context of the understanding by the lay voter - if I may put it that way - that the proposals foreshadowed by this Government were to be financed without an increase in taxation. The fact is, of course, that the Government in its Budget, the enabling measures of which we are debating now, implemented a record increase in expenditure and of course it has come up against the difficulty of finding adequate means to finance it.

I have stressed the effective increase in the personal income tax rate where the proportion of taxation to personal income projected in the Budget papers increases significantly. We previously debated, in the context of this ‘no increase in income tax’ Budget, measures to increase indirect taxes - the excise taxes on the ordinary man’s petrol, cigarettes and drinks including, as it will work through the system, his beer. I take this opportunity of reminding the listening public that if it was, as I believe it was, the impression of the lay voter that the proposals of the Government were to be financed without increases in taxation, not only is there this increase in the personal tax when expressed in the only way that is really meaningful - that is as a proportion of his income - but also there are these previously debated increases of excise tax on petrol, cigarettes and on some drinks.

The consequence of the policies of the Government and particularly its budgetary policy has been to foster rather than to restrain inflation in this country and inflation is now proceeding at a record rate. Let me recall to honourable members another facet of this situation and that is that to compensate for a Budget where there is agreement on all sides that it contributed to the acceleration rather than to the restraint of inflation it has been necessary to have supplementary measures on monetary policy. One result of that was that I received through the post the other day a notice from an insurance company from which, when in financial straits a little while ago, I was obliged to borrow some money. The notice stated, in effect: ‘It is herey notified that the rate of interest on those loans is to be increased H per centage points’. That increase has a direct impact on me. But many other members of the Australian public at this moment are paying higher charges for their hire purchase contracts. What does that mean to the ordinary man in the street who is unable to purchase a large expensive item in any other way? It is simply an increase in the price he pays. In other spheres such as building I am not quite sure what decision this Government of great decision, speedy decision and compulsive decision when it comes to airports, has yet arrived at in relation to finance for home purchase - but many people are already paying for bridging finance and other supplementary finance higher rates of interest for their loans. These are major imposts on the man in the street - the average voter - in addition to the direct imposts I have mentioned on his petrol, cigarettes and drinks which are for all practical purposes equivalent to increases in taxation.

The Government has chosen in this clandestine way to make up for the obvious deficiencies of the Budget pointed out, I might add, by no less a person than Dr H. C. Coombs, the economic adviser or assistant to the Prime Minister, and I might also mention Mr R. J. Hawke, the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party. Therefore in the Bill before the House is a variety of measures designed to increase the revenue. Among these is a provision to do away with the age allowance relating to income tax on persons aged 65 years and over. The effect of that measure is that it is put forward in a context where the Government is removing the means test in a limited area on pensioners aged 75 years and over and at the other end is making some provision by way of tax rebate to reduce this impact. But for a considerable range of taxpayers in the age group 65 years to 75 years taxation by this measure is being increased. Is there any justice in a measure of that nature?

We have had reference in this House today to the impact on wineries One could go down the list. There is the position in relation to the investment allowance on new plant being installed in manufacturing industry and in rural industry. This particular measure is not a short term measure designed to be turned on and off in accordance with current business conditions. The purpose of the investment allowance in a competitive world is to provide an offset to high labour and other costs and to foster the investment in plant and equipment and the mechanisation of production with a view to increasing productivity. It had been my intention in speaking to this measure to table certain figures prepared by an economic task force of inquiry set up by the United States President which show the amount that can be written off after various periods - the table in fact shows the amount that can be written off after 3 and 7 years - in most countries of the world. The fact is that, even with the investment allowance, the extent to which investment in new plant and equipment can be written off after 3 years and then after 7 years in this country is one of the smallest in the world. Provision made in other countries for the writing off of new investment at a more rapid rate - it can be done at a very high rate in Britain, for instance - is the sort of provision made in those other countries to stimulate mechanisation and investment in new plant and equipment, thereby raising productivity and international competitiveness.

This is the long run purpose, the important purpose, of such an allowance. Its removal at this stage is, I believe, simply a matter of dogma, and it is inappropriate in the context in which we find ouselves. In fact, it fits in as one ingredient of the whole program of management of the economy by this Government. Not only is the appropriate control of demand on the one side not carried through and notable in this respect is this Budget, but measures are taken which inhibit and will inhibit the proper development of supplies, looking at the matter of inflation not from the demand side but from the other side. We have a situation to which I previously referred as perhaps the ‘chaos theory’ of managing the economy. The Government makes a variety of ambiguous, equivocal, qualified statements and combines these with arbitrary and unpredictable actions such as the 25 per cent tariff cut, and in this way inhibits industrial planning and creates uncertainty. The export incentive grants scheme was a case in point. The Treasurer said: Yes, we will renew it for 12 months. After that we may or we may not. It may take this form; it may take that’. Where does industry stand in this situation? At that time there was the same uncertainty about the investment allowance. In one sense that uncertainty has been reduced. The investment allowance has now been removed by this legislation.

As I said previously, it was understood by the lay voter that the Government would proceed without an increase in taxation. But although the schedule of rates of personal income tax remains unchanged the Government, by the variety of measures contained in these Bills, proposes to raise substantial additional taxation revenue. A few days ago the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said that his Government would be proud if its record in relation to the Aborigines was remembered. As a member of this Parliament I would like to be associated with that statement. But the Government will be remembered for less worthy achievements. It will be remembered for creating the circumstances for an acceleration of inflation in this country not previously known in a time of peace. It will be remembered as the government which presided over the highest interest rates ever to prevail in this country - a good record for a party pledged to low interest rates! It will be remembered as a government which has brought the state of the defences of this country to perhaps the lowest point within memory. I would say that the members of this Parliament and the members of the Press should honour the Opposition this day that has opposed, as we do oppose, measures as inequitable as the abolition of the age allowance and other measures in these Bills, and yet inappropriate, and indeed in many cases irresponsible, as the total Budget strategy is, these measures to raise additional revenue are not opposed by us to the point of refusing this Bill a second reading.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Before the House are 3 Bills. They are all significant, but the most significant is the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5). This is part of the implementation of the Labor Government’s Budget, a Budget which lacks responsibility and which is highly inflationary, particularly when it is considered that the

Government inherited an economy in good shape. It needed different emphases than it was given, but of course we have a Labor Government pledged to socialist policies - an acceleration of spending in the public sector, a dampening in the private sector. Government expenditure has gone up by 19 per cent that is about $2, 000m. Most of this expenditure has been funded by inflation because of the progressive rates of taxation in this country. But because there was a balance needed to fund the Government’s expenditure these Bills are before us. The Budget stated quite clearly that wages would increase by 13 per cent within the year, but that productivity would increase by only 2i to 3 percent. It was a first effort by the new Treasurer (Mr Crean), and given the chance today at an election the electorate of Australia would make certain it was his last.

These Bills are not ones of which the Government can be proud. The Government of course needed to implement the socialist objectives with all the committees and commissions it set up. The community at large will be hurt. The electorate is coming to realise that Labor’s policies come pretty highly priced. The decisions are made by a combination of Caucus and Cabinet. It is difficult today to know whether Cabinet makes some decision or whether the Caucus makes it. Probably, this legislation is a combination of both - the decisions of 27 men in Cabinet or 93 men in Caucus. One has difficulty in knowing whether it is a case of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) persuading the Caucus or the Caucus directing him.

But there is no doubt that there is uneasiness, uncertainty and fear in the mind of the electorate. With the Coombs report hanging over the electorate on a daily basis, not knowing what sections of it could be implemented, only one thing is certain: Inflation is running at an unacceptable level. To give Caucus its due, it did look at the gold mining industry and at the tax on age pensions. But it did only half a job on those 2 important matters. This legislation is part of the Government’s Budget and the Opposition takes a responsible attitude to it. I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch). It is worth reading. It states:

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 is of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill are a contravention of the Government’s electoral undertakings not to increase taxes and that the Bill specifically:

imposes unwarranted taxes on pensioners;

eliminates incentives for manufacturing industry inconsistent with the economic requirement to increase productivity and ease the pressure on domestic resources;

removes or drastically reduces important rural productivity incentives;

jeopardises the savings and future security of Australians holding life assurance policies;

places inflexible rules on the sale of property which take no account of reasons unconnected with profit motives such as illness and additional family responsibilities;

impedes the development of small businesses by increasing the rates of private company tax, and

places added cost burdens on Australia’s wine and brandy producers especially the smaller producers of wine grapes”.

The decisions to be implemented under these Bills erode business confidence and growth. In the manufacturing sector, they terminate investment allowances of the order of some 20 per cent on specified plant. These measures were introduced by the Liberal-Country Party Government for the simple reasons of productivity and national growth. Surely we want a strong economy. If we want a strong economy, we ought to see to it that private investment continues to grow strongly. We need investment in plant and machinery. Surely any reasonable government ought to accept that it takes time between the ordering of plant and its installation and the output which flows from it. In a growing economy we need a capacity to meet demand. In the world situation we need to keep costs down for competitive reasons. Surely if we need to keep costs down we need up-to-date plant and equipment. The investment allowance was designed not only to benefit the domestic market but also to assist external earnings. This allowance has been eliminated by this Government. The removal of this benefit will erode the growth of business throughout the nation.

The Labor Government further seeks to disadvantage private companies. I would have thought that the Labor Government believed in competition. If we look at the proposals in the Trade Practices Bill we might believe that it is intensely keen to have competition, even to the extent of making it tremendously difficult for business to be conducted effectively. Therefore, it seems to me to be reasonable to expect that it is desirable for small companies to be successful. Again, we have a Government that seeks to set up a small business administration. If the Labor Party wants to have small companies successful, surely it ought to realise that initiative and enterprise are not encouraged by unnecessarily increasing tax rates. Most small companies have small profits. I think that about 70 per cent of them have profits of $10,000 or less. This Bill will make it difficult for them to expand. In addition to increasing rates of tax for private companies up to the level for public companies, they, together with all other companies, will have to carry an additional burden of paying income tax in quarterly instalments. I pose the question: If we accept the argument that private companies ought to pay the public rate of tax why are they disadvantaged by having to pay a further additional tax if they do not distribute 50 per cent of their profits? I find it difficult to accept that this increased taxation will in any way assist the development of competition and growth of small companies throughout Australia.

We see in the primary industry decisions a further reflection of the anti-rural attitudes of this Government. We all know that the Labor Party won most of its parliamentary seats in the cities. We are all aware that the Labor Party is in government because it won seats in the large cities of this nation. But surely a national Party ought to have an outlook of national responsibility. Again, we see deductions abolished on some capital expenditure for primary industry. It is pointed out that some abuse has been made of such deductions by Pitt Street and Collins Street farmers - people who are not involved on a day to day basis in the industry. No one will dispute that. But this across the board approach hurts genuine producers at a time when such an approach is not justified. We all know that the rural industries are going well now. No one questions that. But they have been through very difficult periods and particularly long droughts. We need increased primary production. Like the manufacturing industries, we need primary industry to have the capacity to meet demand. In a competitive world we need to keep costs down. These Bills deal an unfortunate blow to rural industry.

Despite comments made during question time today, in the case of the wine and brandy producers we have a new system of valuing stocks. Surely it is reasonable to point out that these stocks have to be held over a long period, unlike other industries. It seems to me that, if we accept the fact that a new system has to be evolved, the Labor Government ought to consider granting a longer period for adjustment. The comment made last Thursday night by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, representing the Treasurer, indicated that some flexibility will be used. I would hope it will be used because small producers will have liquidity problems flowing from this legislation. We do not want to see small producers reaching decisions which will not have a desirable impact on wine and brandy producers.

Profits from the sale of property acquired within a year of sale will now be taxable. Generally speaking that is fair enough. There have been some areas involving property transactions that ought to have been taxed. However, again there will need to be flexibility in the terms of the amendment to ensure that this is carried out in a fair and proper manner. The moves taken in regard to life assurance companies will have wide significance. They will touch hundreds of thousands of policy holders and, through those policy holders, millions of Australians. The legislation will increase taxes and decrease allowable deduction. Everybody knows that the major life assurance companies exist basically for the benefit of shareholders. This legislation will mean a reduction in bonuses of perhaps 20 per cent. That will hurt many people who are planning for their retirement and those who desire, quite rightly, to create reasonable estates during their lifetimes.

But I think the most iniquitous aspect of the legislation is the tax on age pensions. All political parties have agreed for some time on the elimination of the means test. I think it is fair to say that when the Liberal Party announced last year that it would seek to eliminate the means test completely within 3 years for those people over 65 years of age the Labor Party followed the Liberal Party policy.

Dr Jenkins:

– The Liberals said in 1969 that it could not be done.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There may be some dispute about that from the Government side of the House, but if honourable members opposite look up the record they will find that to be an accurate statement. Nobody questions that pensions were to be taxable. There is no argument about that. Nobody suggests that somebody in retirement, with an income of $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 a year, should receive a tax. free pension. But it was the Liberal view that pensioners should not be disadvantaged. Under this legislation they will be disadvantaged.

I know of specific instances in my own electorate where, on the Gold Coast there is a substantial number of retired people. I know that in my area single people receiving about $2,000 to $2,500 a year and married couples in the $3,000 to $4,000 bracket- people who have demonstrated some thrift with a view to assisting themselves - will be treated unfairly under this legislation. The abolition of the existing age allowance means that the Government will receive from such people an extra $8m this year and $12m in a full year. This is regrettable because these people cannot combat inflation. They are not like people in many other sections of the community who can keep in step with the rate of inflation. In addition, it is difficult for them to accept that Labor will ever get around to implementing in the life of this Parliament its promise that pensions will be raised to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. With inflation continuing at the present rate and with the increases given by the Government, I can see pensioners becoming further disadvantaged and not getting any closer to what has been promised. It is both unfair and unjust. These measures were really quite unnecessary.

The Government needs to rethink its policies and objectives. It should have a bit of courage. We do not need regressive legislation such as this. We need positive policy decisions to stop the growth in the Public Service, which is growing at a substantial rate at the present time. The Prime Minister should come out and say: ‘I withdraw my promise to use the Public Service as the pace setter in the claims for a 35 hour working week’. Those claims are causing tremendous industrial turmoil throughout Australia. The Government should have the courage to do something about the sordid record of the 65 per cent increase in industrial unrest since this Government came to office. It should have the courage to say to the Australian electorate: ‘We accept that there have to be wage demands and wage increases, but when they are considered the productivity of the nation and the nation’s capacity to pay will be taken into account*. This Government should have the courage to do something about interest rates, which the honourable member for Berowra has said are at an all time high in Australia during peace time. These Bills basically deserve to be thrown out; but they are part of the Budget and, as I said, we take a responsible attitude. People will be hurt by this legislation. They will not forget. When the opportunity comes sooner or later they will pass judgment on this Government, and the 1973 Budget and the legislation which flows from it will get the judgment it deserves from the Australian electorate.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

– The Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5), which we are now considering, is an integral part of the 1973-74 Budget. Politically speaking, 1972 was the ‘Age of Aquarius’. More reforms were carried out in that year than in any other comparable year I can remember. The 1972-73 Budget was hailed, even by the cranky commentators, as both humanitarian and economically sound.

It lived up to the first principle of good budgeting - that is, that the Budget should reflect sound and progressive economic and financial policies and sound economic management. In fact the year 1973 was conceived under the most favourable conditions, as my colleague the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson) has just pointed out.

The inherited newborn economic and financial structure for 1973 was lusty and strong and - even according to Treasury, which is not usually given to compliments or adulation - with prospects for progress and development of an unprecedented kind. But, to use Treasury’s own words relative to inflation, our expectations were rudely shattered early in 1973 - the time of the advent of Labor to effective power.

By that time the parents and godparents had changed. The newcomers were inept and clumsy, without loyalty or semblance of unity, but with delusions of grandeur and with an incredible capacity to argue and to disagree publicly, in Parliament, in Cabinet and in Caucus.

Politically speaking, 1973 ushered in the Age of Cancer’ or the ‘Age of the Crabs’ as assuredly as 1974 will usher in the ‘Age of Scorpio’.

In the vernacular, as a whole 1973 has been a rotten year for the Australian people.

Mr Stewart:

– Hear, hear!

Mr McMAHON:

– I hear the words ‘Hear, hear’ from the other side of the fence.

Nearly every section of the Australian community has been alienated from the Government. There is no longer a feeling that large numbers of voters can identify either with the Government, the Cabinet and its members or with its policies and administration. The feeling is abroad that policies have been hideously and hastily ill-conceived and administered with indifference and, what is worse, with incompetence.

Why? Because basically the Government’s economic and financial policies have been unsound. The Labor Government’s credibility and reputation for political honesty are now below the Watergate level and the necessary and essential conditions in which John Citizen and the businessman can carry on their business and do their own thing with certainty and precision have been destroyed.

Let me take 2 examples to illustrate the 3 failures I have mentioned. No one with any degree of competence and intellectual and personal honesty can doubt that the 1973-74 Budget - the context in which we must consider this Bill - was badly conceived. It was a document singularly lacking in courage, populist in outlook and conceived with the intention of pleasing the Labor Caucus and its supporters rather than seeking the best interests of the Australian people. It made no claim to economic sanity or responsibility.

If ever there was a Budget that demanded restraint in government expenditure to prevent demand inflation superimposing itself on top of wage cost inflation, this was it. Even the critics of 1971 and 1972 are hesitantly and reluctantly now using this phrase. In the 1972- 73 Budget year some stimulus to demand was desirable, and it was given. In 1973 none was desirable or necessary. But expenditure was increased enormously - by something like 20 per cent over that of the previous year - and inflation was given a hefty shove.

Just the opposite was needed because demand had grown to proportions in excess of available or potential supplies. Shortages and bottlenecks are growing strongly and the work force has moved to a position of virtual over-full employment. In fact, vacancies now considerably exceed registrants for employment, as we forecast when we were in Government.

Perhaps the best illustration of where the Budget went wrong is in the figures relating to this year’s estimated Budget deficit of $162m compared with the estimated deficit of $60m in the 1972-73 Budget. In fact, sound and responsible budgeting demanded that there should have been not a deficit or a balance but a substantial surplus of up to $500m in internal terms - a turnabout of up to $650m - with its consequent effect on the money supply.

It could have been achieved easily by delaying the Walter Mitty dreams of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and his colleagues, as I shall remind them in a few minutes time when I refer to the Coombs task force.

Let me refer to what the ‘heroes’ of the new reform movement said in Labor’s review of expenditure policies. They were led by Dr Coombs and included Mr J. J. Spigelman, senior adviser to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), and Mr Paddy McGuiness, senior adviser to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden). Dr Coombs pointed out that the economic scene has changed rapidly. Some months ago he said:

There are limits to the possible supply of goods and services and we are close to them.

He went on:

It would seem therefore that a prime objective of economic management . . . should be to prevent the demand for goods and services rising to levels which will intensify the growing shortages of labour and bring about inflationary rises in costs and prices. … In these circumstances the scope for a Budget which would stimulate total spending is severely limited.

Later he said:

It can perhaps be questioned whether social welfare will be greatly reduced if we wait another year or two for some steps along the road.

For example, according to Dr Coombs, proposed expenditure in relation to such matters as transport, communications, radio, television and health services could be delayed. It is clear that this is the story of a failure of abysmal proportions; of a failure of political courage; of a failure to understand the basic rules of finance and economics; and of a failure to govern in the public interest rather than in the interests of Caucus and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This is why the taxpayer, personal and corporate, will have to pay about $648m in a full year in increased taxation.

The second point is Labor’s credibility and honesty which, as I have said, have sunk to below a ‘Watergate’ level. One of the proposals in the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) 1973 is contained in clause 8. It proposes to change the basis of end of the year valuations for taxation purposes of trading stock manufactured from grapes. The present basis is optional valuations above certain minimum levels. Clause 8 proposes that the maker shall have a choice between cost, market or replacement value. There is no doubt that this will have major unfortunate consequences for small and even moderately sized Australian wine makers, with the real prospect of driving them out of business after many years of discipline and effort to create a great industry.

Mr Dunstan, the South Australian Premier, has now revealed that at the request of Mr Whitlam before last December’s Federal elections he had told the wine industry that no new imposts would be applied to it. He also said that a Labor Government would repeal the 50c a gallon excise imposed by the Liberal Government and would not replace it with another impost. Despite protests from Mr Dunstan, tax exemptions on wine and brandy will be abolished and a preferential differential on brandy will continue keeping the price about $1 above that of the pre-Budget figures. Mr Dunstan said: ‘P.M. dishonoured me’. The Prime Minister had broken a promise, he said, and had caused him personal dishonour and grave embarrassment. ‘All I can do now is state my shame and make public my bitter opposition to what has occurred’. So to use a cliche, there is no honour among thieves, particularly where Mr Whitlam is concerned. If a man like Mr Dunstan - a Labor Premier who made a promise on Mr Whitlam’s behalf - can be dishonoured, what are the limits to political treachery and the lack of political integrity?

Let me now turn to the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) itself. I do so with specific concern for those revenue measures which will over a time have a significant and restrictive impact on the growth and prosperity of this country because they touch and concern incentives given to industry -in the interests of growth and development.

I base my statement on the incontrovertible fact that our future social welfare, health, environmental and cultural development depend on the extent to which our effective growth and development are expanded to meet the demands of an impatient society, a society entitled to expect to benefit from and to share in the good things of life.

Let me examine 4 changes proposed in the Bill. Clauses 14 and 15 propose to abolish the present investment allowance which permits a deduction from assessable income of 20 per cent of capital expenditure on specified new plant. The loss to industry in a full year, according to statement No. 5 of the Budget, will be $60m. In other words, the gain to the Treasury will be $60m in a full year.

I continue along this line because large scale capital investment in new and technologically advanced plant and equipment is vitally important if productivity is to be increased. This is an incentive which the Liberal-Country Party Government did provide. Inflation is certain if wage or income increases exceed productivity. So Labor is ensuring by this measure that a kick along is given to inflationary pressures by taking measures which will inevitably reduce productivity. Everyone will suffer because of the continued use of less efficient plant and the consequent increase in costs.

I turn now to clause 25 of the Bill which proposes that the special deductions allowable to life assurance companies under section 115 of the principal Act will be reduced to 2 per cent of calculated liabilities. The great majority of the larger life offices are, of course, mutual. Being a mutual company means that profits are not paid to shareholders or, to put it in a different way, the profits accrue to and are paid to policy holders. In total 99 per cent of surplus funds of the mutual life offices are directly appropriated for bonuses to policy holders and the only people entitled to participate in the distribution of surpluses are policy holders themselves. In the case of non-mutual Australian companies, 97 per cent of surplus funds are appropriated for the benefit of policy holders. In the case of the MLC, for example, 97£ per cent is distributed to policy holders.

Clauses 10 and 26 propose that the amount of dividends in respect of which a life assurance company is allowed a rebate of tax under section 96 of the principal Act is to be reduced by an appropriate part of the deduction allowable for the general management in relation to calculated liabilities.

These proposals must be considered in the context of the proposed increase in the taxation rate for life offices from 42.5 per cent to 47.5 per cent.

The combined effects of the proposals in the Bill will result in the income tax payable by life offices being increased by about 250 per cent or 2.5 times the previous level, which will in turn result in a reduction of bonuses of between 20 per cent and 25 per cent - and this is the latest information given to me from one of the greatest of the life offices - to policy holders and will affect 7,500,000 holders of policies.

The Australian life offices are efficiently managed by world standards. I have never heard that argued about; I have never heard it contradicted. In fact they are agencies and trustees for the investment of funds saved by their policy holders. Obviously 7,500,000 people or holders of 7,500,000 policies trust the life offices and are satisfied with their investments. In their turn the savings of the policy holders in the form of life office premiums are mobilised by the life offices and make a notable contribution to investment in this country.

Investment, as I previously said, is the basis on which real assets can be mobilised for our own growth and development. We would all be much the poorer if this mobilisation of savings for investment in government works and services, private development, buildings, plant and equipment, housing and other avenues had not been made and were not still being made out of life office assets and property.

There is one other threat hanging over the life offices. It has been stated by the Labor Government that what is called the 30/20 rule under which 30 per cent of the property or assets of the life offices must be invested in Commonwealth Government bonds or semi and local government securities in various proportions is to be increased to a 40/20 rule or some similar type of arrangement. The additional amount acquired, amounting to $700m in the first year and $l,600m during a period of 5 years, would be invested in the Australian Industry Development Association for the socialisation of Australian industry and other wildcat purposes. I have long thought that the 30/20 rule for life offices was a mistake and contrary to the interests of policy holders. Although I was not the Treasurer at the time, I know that the Treasury was opposed to the proposal when it was first considered.

I have 3 reasons for scepticism. Firstly, I believe the compulsory acquisition of life office property and assets for investment in government and semi government securities distorts the money and interest rate structure of the Australian money market and works to Australia’s long term disadvantage. Secondly, I doubt whether the acquisition of property on just terms under section 51 (xxxi) of the Australian Constitution permits the compulsory acquisition of the property of the life offices or of individuals held in trust for them by the life offices without just compensation. Thirdly, and more importantly, I object to the Government telling 7,500,000 policy holders how their savings must be invested, with a consequent loss of bonuses to the policy holders themselves.

This then is the substance of my objections: The Budget was a bad one.

With one or two exceptions its economic and financial policies have been destructive.

This Bill is another reflection of Government policies gone astray and I have given a summary of the damage some of the changes proposed to be made in the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) will do to the Australian economy. The Labor Government must assume complete responsibility for its fiscal and budget policies, and their consequences, and for other policies of a kind which are continuously affecting the confidence of the Australian people.

For all these reasons I support the amendment that was moved by my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I support also his arguments. Notwithstanding that, I am one who believes that a Budget, particularly its Bills such as taxation assessment Bills or appropriation Bills that are the basis of Budget considerations, should not be rejected without manifestly good reasons and in the interests of the nation.

The Labor Government must accept complete responsibility for the change in the feelings of the Australian people and their decision when next an election is held, and I hope it is pretty soon.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party (4.13 · Richmond

– I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) opposing the measures presented by these taxation Bills. At a public meeting earlier this year, along with other people, we discussed the broad issues of taxation concessions to rural industries. At that meeting I foreshadowed that the Australian Labor Party would use the emotional reaction to the Pitt Street farmers in an attempt to divide the rural community and to justify the elimination of concessions. The Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) is in effect the legislative machinery for dismantling the whole range of taxation concessions to primary industry. Clause 11 of the Bill provides that the accelerated depreciation rate of 20 per cent a year will be discontinued with respect to expenditure on plant and structural improvements incurred after 21 August this year. Clause 1 3 makes a similar provision for expenditure incurred in the Northern Territory. It is important to note that the depreciation allowance applied to fishing and various operations as well as to farming and grazing. That in itself is not necessarily to be criticised if reasons for it are sufficiently compelling. The reasons for discontinuing many concessions to rural industries are anything but compelling.

To me it is a Bolshevik-like attitude to use Pitt Street fanners as the reason for eliminating the tax concessions.

These people are being used as scapegoats with great venom. The Pitt Street farmers - that is, people not fully engaged in farming - are not necessarily wealthy businessmen. They also consist of thousands of people and ordinary families whose members are wage and salary earners. They are people who have had a lifelong desire to acquire a farm which will support them in order to give their children a new area of opportunity. They comprise thousands of wage and salary earners and business people, large and small, who have been encouraged to look towards a rural way of life by the taxation measures that have applied. Many thousands of these people actually have changed their occupation and have helped towards the development of rural industries.

These people have brought with them new ideas and new approaches. Their skills in many cases have improved farm techniques and management. Many of these new farmers have been the pace setters for certain types of land development and new farming activities. In some districts they have played a major role in reviving and reinvigorating farming activity and have brought new prosperity and greater population to their communities. To use the emotive issue of the Pitt Street farmer ignores the important contribution they have made to Australian agricultural and pastoral development and in so eliminating the concessions, punishes thousands of bona fide primary producers who have found the taxation concessions valuable.

Let us look at the effect of some of the actions taken by the Government in eliminat ing concessions. If a machine previously cost a farmer $1,000, he could have claimed as a deduction from gross income $200 for each of 5 years. This concession will now be discontinued. According to a study published by an officer of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in 1968, the effect of the 20 per cent depreciation allowance and the 20 per cent investment allowance was to make more profitable to a very considerable extent investment in many items pf farm equipment. For example, without these special tax measures, the post tax rate of return for tractors, earthmoving plant and bulldozers would have been 4.5 per cent at the 60 per cent rate on income. After the deductions are taken into account it would have been 1 1 per cent at the same tax rate.

There are also significant effects on investment on which depreciation is allowed over 5 years, but on which no investment allowance is deductible. Such items of investment include most structural improvements. For example, the effect of the accelerated depreciation allowance was to increase the post tax return on investment in woolsheds from 6i per cent to 9 per cent. I would like honourable members to note the concluding comments of the BAE study. I wish them to note in the light of a world food shortage and higher food prices the conclusion which states:

The accelerated amortisation measures almost certainly raise the total level of investment in agriculture.

Clause 13 of the Bill effectively brings to an end a special deduction for investment in plant used in primary production. The brochure put out by the Commonwealth Taxation Office and the Department of Primary Industry in 1970 stated:

The purpose of this allowance is to stimulate the use of new and up to date plant in Australian primary production.

Presumably one of the purposes of this Bill is to discourage such investment. The discontinuance of this allowance will also reduce the use of new and modern plant in the fishing industry, the same industry which the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) claims is in need of special Government assistance to up-date equipment and increase efficiency. The following items, among others, have received this allowance: Tractors, bulldozers, water boring plant, pumps, windmills, tanks, engines, shearing machines, fishing vessels, engines for these vessels, radar and echo sounders.

But this allowance is being removed by this Government which claims that inflation is caused, to the extent of 60 per cent of the increase in the consumer price index, by increased rural commodity prices. These prices have risen because the increase in demand has exceeded the growth in supply.

Are these measures the Government’s answer to this problem?. Is this how it proposes to increase agricultural production? Is this how is proposes to increase meat production? Is this how it proposes to encourage the development of the forestry industry? Is this how it proposes to assist the fishing industry? Is this how it proposes to hasten development of northern Australia,

The investment allowance applicable to manufacturing industry also is to be discontinued. This allowance is of tremendous importance to manufacturing industry. Its significance can be gauged by the fact that it is estimated to be worth $60m in a full year to the industry. The investment allowances encouraged increased replacement of obsolete plant and the development of an increased level of efficiency to match overseas competition, which is made more vigorous by revaluations of the Australian dollar and the 25 per cent tariff reduction.

Clause 17 of the Bill amends section 75 of the principal Act. Once again, expenditure incurred after 21 August 1973 shall not receive existing benefits under this provision unless the contract was made before that date. The effect of this clause is that a whole range of capital expenditure on land used for primary production is no longer allowable as a full deduction in the income year in which expenditure is incurred. If this Bill is passed, this expenditure will be deductible either at the ordinary depreciation rate or over 10 years. Some expenditures such as water draining, weed destruction and combat of soil erosion will be allowed to be written off over 10 years.

However, the following items of expenditure, instead of being written off in the income year in which the expenditure is incurred, will only be allowed to be subject to depreciation under general depreciation provisions and for some items it could be as long as 50 years. Items that this will affect will include the erection of fences, dam construction, underground tanks, concrete tanks, irrigation channels, levy banks, water pipes and fodder storage. This is the Government that talks of the need to protect the nation against drought. What this Bill seeks to do is to discourage drastically preparation against drought or against adverse conditions. It does not encourage good land management and the preservation of our most important heritage; that is, our soil.

Moreover, under clause 19 of this Bill, expenditure on fencing to prevent animal pests entering a property or to fence off areas affected by mineral salts shall no longer be allowed as a full deduction in the year of expenditure. Presumably the Government does not want to encourage pest control. Presumably it is not concerned to combat the rabbit menace. Under previous arrangements, a primary producer could have bought 1,000 acres of virgin land for, say, $10 an acre and spent $50 an acre on clearing and erection of a rabbit-proof fence. If he paid tax at the rate of 60 per cent of income, he would have saved $30,000 under the previous tax arrangements out of a total expenditure of $60,000. He will not save that much any more - nothing like it. So his incentive to invest in this way will be seriously reduced.

I only have time to canvass the major items of concern to rural producers and fishing interests in the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5). I would be failing in my duty if I did not point out the very great and adverse impact this Bill will have on the primary sector of the nation. This may best be expressed by a specific example. Let us assume that a typical farmer operates at a profit and, over the years, pays up to 25 per cent tax. He purchases $2,000 worth of farm machinery a year and farms up to 800 acres. Since he purchases $2,000 of farm machinery a year, he will pay an additional $180 due to the elimination of the investment allowance and the increase depreciation period for farm machinery assets. If he spends $600 a year on capital improvements he pays an additional $170 due to the increase in the write-off period of capital improvement items. Last year the purchase of a $10,000 tractor would have created $12,000 of tax-deductible expenses in the first 5 years. Now he is $875 worse off just on the one purchase of that tractor.

This Government has sold the primary sector down the river. What has happened to those Labor members in rural electorates who are supposed to represent their constituents? Let us remember that in the December 1972 election the Australian Labor Party gained additional support in 29 rural electorates and lost support in 21. Was it because the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby), who is now the Minister for Immigration, waxed so eloquent on the subject of the wine excise? Was it because he said in the House of Representatives on 25 May last year: by taking the revenue of $4m to $5m - That is from the wine industry - homes, towns and communities will be placed in difficulties unnecessarily.

He was talking about the wine excise. The Minister for Immigration should tell his constituents that the 1973-74 Budget will take $20m in a full year out of that industry. He should tell them that clause 8 of this Bill, which drastically revalues the trading stock of wine makers, may force many small family wineries out of business due to the lack of the necessary liquidity in those operations. He should tell his constituents that he is voting for this Bill. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the valuation of trading stock will be such as to bring in only the $15m anticipated over the period, and not the $30m which the industry estimates will be the actual amount. I note that the Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, has certainly had no inhibitions in vigorously attacking his Federal Labor colleagues for a gross betrayal of preelection promises to the wine and grape growing industries. A brochure distributed by the Labor Party before the December election stated:

A Labor Government will provide incentives to expand meat production where needed to supply new markets.

I ask those honourable members opposite who represent country electorates to tell those on this side of the House how the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) honours that promise. I state unequivocally that those in country electorates who voted Labor were sold down the river and no doubt now realise it. They certainly showed in the New South Wales election, that they realise where their friends are. I do not advocate unnecessary featherbedding of primary industry. However, I do advocate in the present circumstances that every effort should be made to encourage the rural sector and the fishing and forestry industries to respond fully to the present and prospective shortages of rural commodities. I recognise quite openly that some taxation concessions may not be the optimum means of achieving this purpose and that there may be anomalies and inconsistencies in some of those measures. A thorough examination is certainly necessary to ensure that the concessions achieve the purposes intended.

However, this Government is not prepared to undertake such an analysis but is simply dismantling the whole range of measures and leaving in their place a vacuum. The effect on the aggregate position will be to discourage investment and consequently rural productivity and output. Individuallly, farmers will be hit very hard on an income basis. At the last Bureau of Agricultural Economics survey, the income for sheep properties averaged between $2,000 and $5,000. The average income of a dairy farmer was $5,000, but nothing like that figure in New South Wales and Queensland. The average net farm income for apple and pear producers was $4,000. Statistics show that on a long-term basis the average income of a rural producer has risen at a much lower rate than that of non-rural wage earner. It can hardly be claimed that the rural sector represents an area of relatively great prosperity or that it has been the recipient in the past of huge government handouts to such an extent that other sections of the community were being penalised. In 1971-72 the year of the highest government payments to the rural sector, total government assistance to the rural sector on a direct and indirect basis, including taxation revenue forgone, amounted to 5 per cent of government expenditure. Yet rural production amounted to 10 per cent of the gross national product and one-half of the nation’s export income. It was a small amount in comparison with the value to secondary industry in tariff protection.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Country Party opposes this Bill as a classic example of distorted thinking. At a time when rising rural commodity prices are exerting profound influences on inflation as expressed in the consumer price index, the Government introduces measures which will aggravate those strains in the long term by reducing the incentive to increase production. For the information of honourable members, particularly those Labor members in country electorates, I seek leave to table a paper prepared by Mr Edwards of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in 1968 which sets out the effect on investment profitability of the depreciation allowance and investment allowance which this Bill seeks to remove.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr ANTHONY:

– I hope honourable members will study this table and that they will realise that by passing this Bill, investment in a whole range of primary items will be made drastically less profitable. I call on the Government even at this late stage to reconsider its attitude on these measures. I call on it to examine carefully the efficiency of income tax concessions and not simply to make acrosstheboard deletions in such an arbitrary manner.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a negative, illconsidered piece of legislation and should be recognised, and will be recognised, I am afraid, by primary producers as marking this day on which the Labor Party betrayed the rural people.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– I rise to support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) to add to the Bill now being debated a series of riders. The Opposition, whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, wants to express that the House is of the opinion that the provisions are in contravention of the Government’s electoral undertakings not to increase taxes. We list a series of items about which we wish to express our concern. In the time available in this debate it is not possible for any one speaker to touch upon all the items to which the Opposition wishes to draw attention. This afternoon, however, I wish to deal with 3 of those items and they are those lettered (a) where we say that we are most unhappy because the Bill imposes unwarranted taxes on pensioners; (e) because it places inflexible rules on the sale of property which take no account of reasons unconnected with profit motives, such as illness or additional family responsibilities; and (g) because it places added cost burdens on Australia’s wine and brandy producers, especially the smaller producers of wine grapes.

First, I want to deal with those provisions of the Bill which impose unwarranted taxes on pensioners. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and his colleagues during the election period gave an undertaking to the Australian electorate that their Party, if elected to office, would not raise taxation, would not increase the tax burden of any individual taxpayer. That undertaking has been broken on a number of occasions and is yet to be broken again in this Bill because of the manner in which age pensioners are being dealt with under the proposed legislation. Prior to the introduction of this Bill pensions paid to people eligible for them under the means test were exempt from tax. In addition pensioners or non-pensioners who qualified by age were entitled to have their tax assessed according to an age tax allowance.

This allowance was originally introduced to take account of the fact that some in the community received tax-free age pensions, whilst others deprived because of the means test of eligibility for a pension received taxable income and under the ordinary rates scale were liable for taxation at rates which reduced their income below the income of someone in a similar position, except that they were on a pension in contrast to the person who was in receipt of an independent income. The age tax allowance, therefore, was brought in to introduce equity as between one group of aged persons in the community and another group of aged persons in the community. There is no doubt that its introduction created anomalies with regard to the aged when compared with those who did not qualify by age. But that is a different question and I shall in a few minutes direct the attention of the House to that question also.

The effect of making pensions taxable is to impose a tax burden on many persons today whereas last year they were not liable for such tax. Insofar as that tax is imposed upon them today where it was not their responsibility last year, it is a breach of the Labor Party’s election promise. No one can object to the concept of means-test-free pensions being made taxable, but it is very strange that those pensioners who this year are receiving means-tested pensions should be informed that they are to be liable for tax this year and yet next year they will have means-test-free pensions. The effect of the imposition of tax upon their incomes will work a considerable hardship. Many of them - on the Treasurer’s estimates, 20 per cent of pensioners - will become liable to lodge tax returns and a high proportion of that 20 per cent will become liable to pay tax - and to pay tax at rates higher than were chargeable under the old age tax allowance.

I have drawn the attention of the House to the reason why the age tax allowance was originally introduced and I have underlined the fact that the way it operated caused a number of anomalies. But if the Government relied for its decision on the Coombs task force report - a report on which it has relied for many of its decisions - it seems harsh that it would now take the more severe of the 2 alternatives put forward by the task force. The task force said:

One possibility would be immediate abolition of the allowance. Unless some ‘no loss’ provisions could be devised, however, that would mean that some aged persons would be made worse off by the amount of the tax. Rises in pensions already foreshadowed by the Government would offset the loss in some but not all cases.

The rise in pensions may have offset the loss in money terms, but it has deprived that section of the community of income in real terms because it, too, is experiencing the difficulties of inflation. The way in which this age tax allowance abolition works means that a pensioner who has a non-pension income of $19 a week up to $44 a week is liable, under this legislation, to pay tax whereas under the previous Government’s age tax allowance that person would have paid either no tax or considerably less tax than is imposed by this legislation. The medium to low income earners are being asked to pay the cost of the introduction of this new system of taxation for one or two years at the most, because at the expiration of the 2-year period if, and only if, the Government carries out another promise which it made - that is, to abolish the means test - that test is abolished, those pensioners will be in receipt of means test free pensions, and the new system of taxation will work in a fairer way.

There is another aspect of the new tax system to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. It is the introduction of a rebate system. One might wonder whether the system is a precursor of other proposals yet to be introduced into the House. If it is, it has inherent in it many serious implications. The rebate which is allowed to certain aged persons - I underline ‘certain aged persons’ - is $156 off their total tax, assessed at normal rates. When that $156 is deducted, the balance of tax is paid up to a certain limit, and only up to a certain limit, because once the limit of a taxable income of $3,224 is reached the rebate begins to phase out. The effect of the phasing out is that the rebate is reduced at the rate of 25c in $1. The tax concession is reduced by 25c for each $1 of income over and above $3224 a year or $60-odd a week. That reduction in the rebate must be added to the marginal rate of tax charged at that level of income, and the marginal rate of tax over phased out incomes varies from 24.4c to 25.6c in $1. So aged persons who are in the income range of $3224 to $3847 pay a marginal rate of tax of nearly 50c in $1, a rate of tax payable by taxpayers whose taxable income is $12,000 a year. If it is not a crazy system of taxation to impose on low income earners a marginal rate of tax as high as that paid by those in much higher income brackets, I do not know what is.

The taxation system is in need of total review. This is not the first occasion on which I have spoken in the House on this matter. I have spoken on this question both from this side of the House and from the other side of the House. The tax system, as it bears upon the young family man, is in grave and urgent need of reform. Last year the lowest income on which tax was paid, or the threshhold of tax, was lifted so that no one with an income under $1,120 a year paid tax. There, too, we see a crazy system of phase - in whereby people whose income is above the threshhold, or on the lowest incomes which bear any tax liability, pay tax at a rate of 66c in $1 until the concessions which were granted to them are phased out, and then their rate is reduced to 14c, 15c or 16c in $1. At the general level, at the threshhold for the young family or the young income earner, we have this absurdly high rate of marginal tax payable which is destroying all incentive to work to gain an income above that level. By virtue of the introduction of the rebate system there is an equally crazy system of tax whereby people who pay a very high rate are on relatively low incomes.

I turn now to the provision which makes taxable profits on the sale of certain assets within 12 months. I express my concern at the inflexibility of the provision. There can be no argument that if someone buys an asset for the purpose of re-sale the profits on that sale should be taxable. There can be no disputing that it is sometimes difficult to tell a person’s intention. Therefore it is necessary for legislatures to say on occasions: ‘We will assume that it was a profit making purchase if the second sale which returns the profit takes place within 12 months of the original sale or first purchase’. To place an imposition on those who sell a house merely on the ground of changed employment is a totally inadequate reason. Think of the young family which comes to Australia from overseas and which wants to buy a house in its new country. I am glad that the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) is present. I hope that he will take note of the point which I am making. How many migrants has he heard of who have bought houses in the excitement of the first arrival, obtained a job, then found that they are a long way from their place of employment and have wanted to sell their house to buy another? Because of an inflationary real estate market they make a profit. This Government will prevent that young family improving its situation in its new country by preventing it from buying a house in a community closer to the place of work. This Government will tax the young family for the ‘profit’ which it makes on the sale. Likewise, where a young couple buys a block of land with the intention of building a house, then lets out the plans to a builder, gets a price, finds that the price is too high, and chooses within 12 months to sell the block of land and buy a ready built house, if they make a profit on the land they are taxed on that profit when it is really the transfer of one asset in the form of a block of land into another asset in the form of a block of land on which there is a ready built house.

There are other cases in cities such as my home city of Adelaide where one person could change a job and, seeking the benefit of this provision of the Income Tax Act, could claim that the profit made on the sale of his house should not be taxable. His next door neighbour could have been working at the same place all the time and could have been travelling a long distance, say from Tea Tree Gully in my electorate to the Chrysler factory in a southern Adelaide suburb. He could decide to move closer to the Chrysler factory. He has not changed his employment. His next door neighbour has. Because one was working somewhere else before moving to Chrysler he pays no tax on the profit he makes in merely transferring his limited savings from one house to another. The other is unable to take the full capital gain with him. I am sure that the Government will find that there is absurd inflexibility in that proposal in the Bill.

The third matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House relates to the changed tax provision for the assessment of stocks held by the wine industry. I draw to the attention of the House headlines which appeared in Adelaide’s newspapers late last week. In the ‘News’ of Friday huge 2 inch headlines said: ‘Dishonoured: Dunstan Hits Out In Wine Row.’ Saturday morning’s Advertiser’ said: ‘PM Dishonoured Promise on Wine, says Dunstan.’ I have a copy of a letter which came into my hands during the election campaign showing that the Premier of South Australia, claiming to be the Chairman of the Australian Labor Party Federal Election Finance Committee, wrote to members of the wine industry asking them to forward donations upon the basis that they would send that money to the Labor Party on hearing that the Prime Minister had given an unequivocal assurance during the election campaign that any government led by him would abolish the excise and not replace it with a sales tax or any other imposition. At the time I called the Premier of South Australia a law broker and a man who was prepared to go out into the electorate and seek contributions to election funds in exchange for legislation. That law broker is screaming today. In fact I think that law broker is running out of the country. He is quickly going overseas before this Parliament can embarrass him any further because his undertakings given at the request and on the instructions of the Prime Minister have been broken.

This legislation will cause irreparable harm in an industry which has been enabled to build itself up and do a great deal not only within Australia but also outside Australia. The industry is being asked to pay a restrospective tax. It is being called upon to pay tax on stocks that were taken into account years ago. By virtue of that the wine industry will have very severe cash and liquidity problems. The Government needs to look at the situation. I hear of the sort of promise that the South Australian Premier tried to make on account of his Prime Minister’s promising legislation in exchange for money. I hear of Caucus reversing the Labor Government’s decision on the gold industry. I wonder how much bad gold was provided to the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) for .the Labor Party’s funds in order to gain that decision. The Labor Government needs to look at this sort of legislation objectively and to assess the harm that it is doing to an industry that has served and is serving this country well. It needs also to examine the merits of introducing retrospective legislation which will drive many small wine and brandy producers out of business.

I urge the Government to look at the situation and to consider amending the legislation in a manner which will not have a retrospective effect even if it wishes to change the legislation for its future effect. I also draw the attention of the House to the dangerous implications of the change not merely to the wine industry but to every other industry where stocks are valued at considerably less than their market value.

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

Dr FORBES:
Barker

– I enter this debate briefly to add my condemnation to that so well expressed by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) and many other honourable members on this side of the House in relation to this legislation. I completely support the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition. I do this principally because virtually every measure which is contained in this Bill strikes at the very heart of productivity in Australia in the industries that are involved. If the Government had deliberately said: ‘We are going to pursue a policy in this country of reducing to a minimum the rate of productivity increase of the economy and we will therefore go through legislation brought in by the previous Government and select those measures which will most achieve that particular objective, that is to strike at productivity’ the Government could not have done better because this is precisely what it has done in discontinuing the investment allowance to secondary industry and to primary industry and the accelerated depreciation allowance for primary industry.

How does this Government believe that the primary industries of this country have survived the frightful vicissitudes they have been through in the last 3 or 4 years? How does the Government believe that the primary industries of this country have kept their heads above water without wholesale liquidation in a situation in which costs have been constantly rising and, except for the last .12 or 18 months, prices have been low on world markets? How does the Government believe that has been achieved? It has been achieved in one way only. It has been achieved because a prudent and sensible government introduced measures which enabled the primary industries of this country to increase their productivity, to cut costs and to offset the disadvantage of the cost price squeeze. Many of the primary industries were not able to keep completely ahead even then. But there were enormous additions to the infrastructure of the primary industries in Australia in the way of buildings, machinery, plant, fencing and everything else that was produced on the farms of Australia as a result of the incentives on inputs provided by the previous Government. This is what has enabled primary industries to survive. This is what has enabled them to withstand droughts which have occurred periodically throughout Australia and will always occur throughout Australia.

I remember well the expression used by Sir John McEwen when he introduced the drought bonds scheme. He said, in effect: ‘We are going to provide certain sections of farmers - the people in the pastoral zone - with a stack of money to equal the stack of grain, fodder or feed which we have provided by way of our incentives in the higher rainfall areas in the south of Australia’. It is these incentives which have enabled the farmers to survive these droughts and to survive the vicissitudes which will always be a problem for the man on the land. It is self-defeating and short-sighted of this Government to take away incentives which produce that situation because inevitably next time a drought occurs the farmers will not have provided the reserves of fodder, dams and so on which they provided when these incentives existed. The Government will find itself up for millions of dollars in drought relief which otherwise would not have been necessary. 1 condemn the Government for that.

I principally want to use the few minutes remaining to me to add to the remarks of many members on this side of the House who have criticised the Government for its breach o: faith to the wine industry. This goes far beyond the damage that has been done to a particular industry. As Mr Dunstan put it, it goes to the very heart of the honour of the Government itself. Have we reached a situation in this country where governments regard it as the normal pattern of conduct to dishonour election promises specifically given? That is the issue which this matter brings up, quite apart from the effect which it will have on the wine industry without a shadow of a doubt; but other honourable members have traversed that ground. In particular it was covered magnificently the other night by my friend, the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), who knows the wine industry better than any other member in this House. But when I talk about honour, when I talk about Government promises, I am not speaking as a party political antagonist of the Government. The Opposition is not relying on that particular assertion.

I asked the Prime Minister a question in the House today about statements made by Mr Dunstan last Friday. He avoided giving an answer to that question by referring to answers to questions which were given in the Senate a couple of months ago. This was meant to imply that in some way the honourable member for Angas and I were out of date, that the senators have been ahead of us. This was his way of sliding and getting round the question and not directly answering it. But there was a new factor in the situation; the damage done to the wine industry had not gone away, so the question of our bringing it up now in relation to this legislation is still valid from that point of view. But there was another factor which the Prime Minister chose to avoid, a new one, one that did not exist when the senators he referred to raised the matter in questions on notice in the Senate. The new factor was that it was only last Friday that Mr Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia, chose to speak out in the manner he did. I want to place on the record what Mr Dunstan said because, as I say, this is not a party political attack by us; it is an attack by the Premier of South Australia on his own Prime Minister. Everything I have to say is reported in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ in inverted commas. The report states:

At the request of the Prime Minister and on behalf of the Labor Party I gave an assurance at the last Federal election that the SOc a gallon excise duty on wine would be repealed and not replaced with another impost’, he said.

It has been replaced with 2 imposts which are worse than the excise itself.’

He then goes on to deal with what they are. The report then continues:

When the Prime Minister’s rejection of them became public yesterday representatives of the industry had gone to see him with copies of the letter in hand.

That is the letter that has been referred to that he wrote to many people in the industry to obtain funds during the election. The report goes on:

I have been placed in a position no politician should be placed in by his colleagues’, Mr Dunstan said. I resent that position.

A political promise made by a party going into office should be kept.’

I agree with him. A political promise made by a political party going into office should be kept. The report goes on:

It was Mr Whitlam who authorised the statement I made to the wine industry.

I would have thought that in any regard for me personally, apart from anyone else, he would have honoured the promise I made on his behalf and at his behest.

It is not a thing I- that is Mr Dunstan, as a leader and an honourable man - would have done to anyone else in any circumstances.’

I have been placed in a position of acute embarrassment and dishonour,’ he said.

I don’t believe a politician should ever go to the public and cynically make a promise he knows cannot be kept.’

It is this Government, the Whitlam Government, that Mr Dunstan is saying those things about. He said:

I don’t believe a politician should ever go to the public and cynically make a promise he knows cannot be kept.

The report goes on:

When he had reminded the Prime Minister of his promise to S.A. at the election, Mr Whitlam had replied: ‘Frank Crean has had a difficult time’.

Mr Dunstan said Mr Whitlam had not told him all the details of this weeks announcement.

I will not take this any further. I have agreed to sit down after 12 minutes. I will just say again that I cannot imagine a worse charge levelled at any government than the charge that Mr Dunstan makes in such trenchant and specific terms in the statement that he made on Friday.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Hansen) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question put -

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

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 46

Majority . . . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– At the beginning I indicate that I will move the amendment to clause 4 of the Bill which has been circulated in my name. There are 6 associated amendments which, with the leave of the Committee, I wish to move at the same time.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins)Order! There is too much audible conversation in the chamber. It is quite impossible to hear the Treasurer.

Mr Nixon:

– Tell him to speak up.

Mr CREAN:

– If the honourable member would speak down, I would be all right. I repeat that there are 6 associated amendments which, with the leave of the Committee, I wish to move at the same time. The amendments relate to clauses 4, 6, 28, 30, 32, 38 and 39 which read in part as follows: 4. (1) Section 23 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraphs (k),(kaa), (kab), (ka) and (o). 6. (1) Sections 23a and 23c of the Principal Act are repealed.

  1. The repeals effected by sub-section (1) apply to assessments in respect of income of the year of income that commenced on 1 July 1973 and in respect of income of all subsequent years of income. 28. (1) Section 122G of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (5).
  2. The amendment made by sub-section (1) applies to assessments in respect of income of the year of income that commenced on 1 July 1973 and in respect of income of all subsequent years of income. 30. (1) Section 122p of the Principal Act is repealed.
  3. The repeal effected by sub-section (1) applies to assessments in respect of income of the year of income that commenced on 1 July 1973 and in respect of income of all subsequent years of income. 32. (1) Section 128b of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph(b) of sub-section (3) the words “, or sub-section (2) of section 23c,”.
  4. The amendment made by sub-section (1) applies in relation to dividends paid on or after 22 August 1973 other than dividends declared before that date.
  5. Where the directors of a company shares in which were listed for quotation in the official list of a stock exchange in Australia or elsewhere recommended before 22 August 1973 the payment of a dividend on any of those shares and a dividend was declared by that company on or after that date in respect of those last-mentioned sharesin accordance with the recommendation, that dividend shall be deemed, for the purposes of sub-section (2), to have been declared before that date. 38. (1) This section applies in relation to so much of the following classes of expenditure of a taxpayer as has not been allowed, and is not allowable, as a deduction in the assessment of the taxpayer in respect of the year of income that ended on 30 June 1973 or an earlier year of income and is not included in the residual capital expenditure of the taxpayer, for the purposes of Division 10 of Part III of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1973, as at the end of that first-mentioned year of income, namely: -

    1. expenditure on exploration or prospecting for gold on any mining tenements in Australia or Papua New Guinea incurred by the taxpayer during the period from the commencement of the year of income that began on 1 July 1963 to the end of the year of income that ended on 30 June 1973;
    2. expenditure in connexion with mining operations in relation to gold, or gold and copper, incurred by the taxpayer during the period from the commencement of the year of income that began on 1 July 1963 to and including 9 May 1968 or incurred by the taxpayer after that period in accordance with a contract made during that period for the acquisition of property by, or the performance of work for, the taxpayer, being expenditure that would have been of the kind referred to in sub-section 122 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936- 1967 if the exemption provided by paragraph 23 (o) of that Act had not been provided; and
    3. expenditure (not being expenditure that is referred to in paragraph (b)) in connexion with mining operations in relation to gold, or gold and copper, incurred by the taxpayer during the period from and including 10 May 1968 to the end of the year of income that ended on 30 June 1973, being expenditure that would have been allowable capital expenditure within the meaning of Division 10 of Fart III of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1973 if the exemption provided by paragraph 23 (o) of that Act had not been provided.
  6. Where the amount of the expenditure to which this section applies exceeds the net exempt income from gold derived by the taxpayer during the period from the commencement of the year of income that began on 1 July 1963 to the end of the year of income that ended on 30 June 1973, then the amount of the excess, to the extent that it exceeds any unrecouped loss from gold incurred by the taxpayer during that period, shall, for the purposes of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1973, other than Sections 122e, 122f and 122h of that Act, be deemed to be allowable capital expenditure, within the meaning of section 122a of that Act, incurred by the taxpayer in the first year of income after the year of income that ended on 30 June 1973 in which the taxpayer carries on prescribed mining operations as defined by section 122 of that Act.
  7. For the purposes of sub-section (2) -

    1. ” net exempt income from gold “ means the income derived by the taxpayer that is or was exempt from income tax by virtue of paragraph 23 (o) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1963, or of that Act as amended at any time, less any expenditure that would have been or would be allowable (in addition to any deduction that was or is allowable) as a deduction, other than a deduction under Division 10 of Part III of that Act, or of that Act as amended, if the exempt income had been assessable income; and
    2. ” unrecouped loss from gold “ means so much of any loss incurred in a year of income by the taxpayer in carrying on a business the income from which, if any, would have been exempt from income tax by virtue of paragraph 23 (o) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1963, or of that Act as amended at any time, that has been allowed or is allowable as a deduction under section 77 of that Act, or of that Act as amended, as exceeds the profits that have been or are to be included under sub-section (3) of that section in the assessable income of the taxpayer of any year of income in respect of that deduction.
  8. The value of trading stock to be taken into account at the end of the year of income that ended on 30 June 1973 shall, for the purpose of determining the net exempt income from gold derived by the taxpayer during the period referred to in subsection (2), be ascertained in accordance with subsection 31 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1973 and, notwithstanding the provisions of section 29 of that Act, the value as so ascertained shall, for the purpose of the application of section 28 of that Act, be taken into account as the value of trading stock on hand at the beginning of the year of income that commenced on 1 July 1973,
  9. For the purposes of section 122k of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1973, the cost of a unit of property in respect of which expenditure to which sub-section (1) of this section applies was incurred shall be deemed to be so much of that expenditure as is included in the allowable capital expenditure in accordance with sub-section (2).

    1. Where an amount that is included in the assessable income of a taxpayer of the year of income that commenced on 1 July 1973 or a part of such an amount would, if the amendments made by sections 6 and 28 had not been made, be deemed to be assessable income to which section 23a of the Principal Act would apply, then, notwithstanding those amendments, section 23a and sub-section 122g (5) of the Principal Act continue in force for the purpose of applying in relation to that amount or that part of that amount.

The provisions that I propose to be omitted from the Bill would, with effect from the commencement of the 1973-74 income year, have withdrawn the outright exemption from income tax of profits earned from mining for gold in Australia and Papua New Guinea and the exemption of one-fifth of the profits earned from mining prescribed metals or minerals. Profits derived from these activities in 1973-74 and future years would then have been subject to income tax in the same way as profits from other mining operations. The Government has decided not to proceed with these clauses of the Bill. It has in mind that further action be deferred at least until the end of the 1973-74 income year. In the interim, an investigation will be made of representations received as to the effects that elimination of the exemptions might have upon people who are dependent on the mining industry for their livelihood. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I move:

  1. In clause 4, omit from sub-clause (1) “ paragraphs (k), (kaa), (kab), (ka) and (o) “, substitute “ paragraphs (k), (kaa), (kab) and (ka) “.
  2. Omit clauses 6, 28, 30, 32, 38 and 39.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Is it the wish of the Committee to consider the amendments together? There being no objection, that course will be followed. The question is That the amendments be agreed to’.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

– The amendments now proposed by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) are the result not of a Government decision but of the decision taken by the Labor Party Caucus on 14 November. It was a decision taken in the face of intransigent opposition by the Treasurer, an opposition which he consistently and publicly stated on many occasions both inside and outside this House. It is interesting to look at a review of the events which led up to this Caucus decision on 14 November. On 24 June the Coombs report was presented. It recommended the removal of all the taxation exemptions in favour of the gold mining industry and other prescribed mineral industries in relation to profits made, and also the exemption in favour of bona fide prospectors. In the Budget of 24 August, the Treasurer announced that he would follow the recommendations of the Coombs report. On 22 August the people of Kalgoorlie, as reflected in its local newspaper the ‘Kalgoorlie Miner’, were dismayed by these Budget decisions and they foresaw that the gold mining industry would be severely jeopardised, if not destroyed altogether. On 28 August questions were asked in this chamber and the Treasurer maintained the position that he had taken in the Budget Speech. He would not recant from the Budget decisions, though he foreshadowed that he would be prepared to listen to representations But the clear intent behind the statements of the Treasurer on that occasion was that he was firm in his acceptance of the Coombs decisions and the Budget proposals.

On 30 August, a public meeting was held in Kalgoorlie to which the Treasurer and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) were invited but neither attended. At that meeting there really was a public outcry against the decision of the Government. One of the most significant public outcries came from the miners themselves who led a march through the streets of Kalgoorlie to the public meeting. At the Town Hall one of them spoke of secession and the need for secession in the face of this kind of Government decision. That ought to be remembered by the Treasurer and Government supporters when we hear the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) try, as he did the other night, to label Sir Charles Court as secessionist. The supporters - as they were previously - of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie were as strong as anyone in Kalgoorlie on that day in a call for secession.

Again on 13 September questions were asked of the Treasurer and he maintained his position. There was no movement backwards by him. On 26 September a question was asked in the Senate of the Minister representing the Treasurer, and the reply which was read on that date to the Senate from the Acting Treasurer said that the Government was not of a mind to change its Budget decision. That was a clear, unequivocal statement made on 26 September. During October there was a deputation to the Treasurer, the Minister for Minerals and Energy and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). As appeared later from public statements in particular the Treasurer apparently advised the deputation that the Government could not see its way clear to change its mind on the Budget proposals.

On 10 November it was revealed in an article in the ‘Sunday Times’ published in Perth that a few days earlier the Acting Treasurer had written to a Mr Motion, who is the Chairman of the company Metramar Minerals Ltd which is engaged in opening up the Blue Spec Mine, that the Government had decided not to change its Budget decision and that the amendments in the Income Tax Assessment Bill - the Bill now before the chamber - would be pursued. There is a clear and unequivocal statement in that letter. On 13 November, in reply to a question from Senator Durack, Senator Willesee said again in clear and unequivocal terms that the Government would not change its decision. On the same day I asked a question in this place, in the light of the article in the ‘Sunday Times’, and the Treasurer’s answer to me showed that there was no intention on the part of the Government to change its Budget decisions.

On 14 November Caucus met and decided, as I said, in face of strong opposition by the Treasurer. But the Caucus decision in the light of those events can be seen as an act of calculated cynicism and only for the purpose of trying to save the political skin of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. It shows no concern for the industry itself, no concern for the people of Kalgoorlie, no concern for bona fide prospectors and a concern only for the political skin of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie because the decision of Caucus which the Treasurer and the Government were bound to accept was a short term decision to defer for one year the proposal to withdraw the exemption in favour of profits from gold mining and one-fifth of the profits from other prescribed minerals.

On .15 November a Dorothy Dix question was asked of the Teasurer so Chat he could announce the Caucus decision. On 23 November, last Friday, an officer from the Department of Minerals and Energy travelled to Perth and then to Kalgoorlie. So last Friday was the first occasion that this Government quite obviously set out to make an investigation on the ground of what its Budget proposals would do to the gold mining industry of Kalgoorlie and the other outlying towns dependent on that industry.

So it is quite clear that all that the Government had before it when it made its Budget decision was the armchair assessment of the Coombs task force economists. The recommendation of the Coombs economists reflected the attitudes of a stodgy accountant.

Nowhere in that recommendation, nowhere in the Government’s attitude towards the gold .mining industry is there reflected the spirit of the gold fields, the spirit of the people who have written the gold mining industry deeply into the history of this country. Nowhere do we find on the part of the Coombs task force, the Treasurer or members of the Cabinet any concern for or knowledge of the industry itself. It is quite clear that the Coombs recommendation and the Budget decision, carried through over many months into Caucus by the Treasurer, was a decision made out of plain ignorance, and only now is a study being made on the ground to assess the impact of that decision on the gold mining industry of Kalgoorlie and the outlying towns that are dependent on Kalgoorlie, and upon the outlying gold shows, the old gold mines and prospective gold mines which were expecting that this particular favour - in order to encourage the industry - would be continued. But overnight the desire to reassess old gold mines was shattered.

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

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

– This Bill, I believe, is an unbelievable attack upon private enterprise. The many specific proposals in it, which are the result of Budget measures brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in August, will have detrimental and far reaching effects upon all sections of this nation. I believe that this Bill clearly emphasises the socialist philosophy of the Labor Government. It emphasises the Government’s clear intention to transfer resources from the private sector into the public sector of the economy. I feel that it displays an ignorance of the important role that the private business sector has played in the community and must continue to play in the economic structure of this country. The measures proposed in this taxation legislation will raise approximately $360m. Pensioners will be taxed for the first time and it is clear that a large number of pensioners still under means test requirements will receive less income than they did before the latest pension increase. This legislation is also a severe blow to the small family and private company businesses as they have always been restricted because of a lack of availability of finance for expansion and development. Unlike the public company, which has ready access to the stock market, private business has been almost entirely dependent upon the accumulation of profits - a slow and often unreliable source - or the need to borrow from conventional finance sources such as banks or insurance companies. This type of borrowing has imposed huge limitations, particularly as capital repayments and interest costs have restricted working capital. At a time when productivity and increased supply is urgently needed in this country this clause of this taxation Bill will sap confidence and initiative and place the private company at a distinct disadvantage compared with the large Australian public company.

Many of my colleagues on this side of the chamber have spoken about the changes that are to be made in sections 75 and 76 of this Act - those sections which in the past have allowed primary producers to deduct in full expenditure incurred as capital expenditure and which have allowed primary producers and manufacturing industries to claim, in addition to depreciation, 20 per cent of the cost of new plant as a deduction, which is known as the investment allowance. These sections, which were introduced by the previous Government, have done much to encourage the establishment and updating of our primary and secondary industries. I believe that they have been largely responsible for the outstanding efficiency and productivity of our primary producers who, operating in a high cost economy, have been able to compete on favourable terms with exports to under developed low cost economy nations.

For the remainder of my. time this afternoon I wish to concentrate on clause 8 of the Bill which deals specifically with section 31a of the principal Act which relates to the trading stock of winemakers. Not only do the previous clauses which I have mentioned have a direct bearing upon the productivity and efficiency of wine producers and grape growers, but this Budget has dealt an extremely heavy blow to the Australian wine and brandy industry by phasing out section 31a. Section 31a has provided for the wine industry a consistent minimum basis of valuation, and it must be emphasised that this measure has acted only as a deferral of tax and not as a tax reduction. The deferral of tax liability on stocks is essential in an industry where producers’ profits cannot actually be determined until wine is sold. Now, however, these stocks are to be brought up to the value of cost, replacement or market value in progressive stages over the next 5 years. Tax will then be levied on revaluation of stock and is in no way related to sales. In other words, tax will be levied even if wine is not sold.

I believe that the Government should immediately defer this proposal so that the total effects of this measure can become known through an inquiry. The reasons why this action should be taken can be seen by pointing out the unique features of this industry. The industry has a long working capital cycle as funds are committed in maturing stock. Stock turnover is lower than in most other industries. The average turnover in 1972-73 in the wine industry was 33 months. This time lapse is, of course, from the receipts of the grapes until the sale of the finished product. Section 31a has aided and abetted the wine industry and it is by the previous Government’s policy on the brandy excise differential and the stock valuation provisions that incentives have been given to the industry. I am worried now that the wine industry will not be able to take all the grapes as and when offered. I am worried that the industry will not be able to absorb large tonnage fluctuations from vintage to vintage. I believe that section 31a has made a valuable contribution to the stability and prosperity of the grape growing industry.

These 3 factors have tended to keep stock levels higher than would have been the case in normal manufacturing industry and stocks of wine at wineries therefore have not been related only to sales forecasts. In other industries raw material often is readily available and can be easily stored. In the case of alcoholic beverages made from other than grapes raw materials can be obtained throughout the year on an immediate delivery basis. But wine growers have no alternative outlets and look to the wine industry only for the disposal of their raw materials over a very limited life of some 8 to 10 weeks. The major effect to the industry of repealing section 31a will be the dispossession of owners of private and family companies. There are approximately 180 such companies within the industry, which today has become one of Australia’s very important industries. The wine growing industry is scattered throughout the length and breadth of Australia. Therefore this is by no means a parochial matter. Previous government policy has been to encourage capital investment by the industry. As a result the industry has kept abreast of the best international wine and brandy making techniques and has continued to upgrade its equipment. The industry has invested in a large amount of expensive equipment which is used only for the vintage for a small part of the year.

The effect of this measure will result in an unwillingness to accept all grapes offered. There will be a general lowering of wine stock levels which will flow through to grape growers and the co-operatives. Professor Grant in his report on the Australian wine industry says that the wine industry is unusual in that the burden on surpluses is passed back to the residual suppliers who are defined as the growers who supply proprietary companies and co-operatives with grapes and some small wine makers who supply them with bulk wine. Cooperative sales to other proprietary companies would be considerably reduced and consequently their intake of grapes also will be affected. It is important to recognise that grape growing and the wine industry are interdependent. I have mentioned that the industry must undoubtedly restrict grape intakes and reduce stocks both to conserve cash and to reduce stock holdings on which it will be taxed. Even if one assumes that total wine demand remains constant, this will result in some diversion of grapes to large organisations with the resources to finance such stocks. Similarly, stocks of immature wine could be directed to the financially strongest organisations at less than economic prices.

This taxation measure, like most others in this Bill, points out, I believe, the ignorance and complete lack of understanding by the Government of this major industry. It is vital to the future of Australian wine producers and the producers of grapes that the repeal of section 31a be deferred. The Labor Government would not be denied taxation for some months and it would give it time to inquire into the disastrous repercussions that this measure will have on the industry.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina Minister for Immigration · ALP

– I rise to address myself particularly to the remarks that have been made about section 31a of the Act. I want to say that the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) was technically correct in the propositions that he put forward. But I would draw attention to the fact that the whole thrust of the Opposition’s stand in relation to this measure has been that the whole of the Government’s policy should rest on section 31a and the brandy differential and on that basis everything would be satisfactory. I want to put to the Committee the point of view that everything has not been satisfactory in the wine and brandy industry for some considerable time. In fact, over the last quarter of a century the industry has had more crises than booms and it has had quite a few near busts. Steps have been taken to correct the crises from time to time. A whole series of ad hoc decisions have been made. Indeed some of the legislative provisions in regard to this industry were introduced as ad hoc decisions.

As far as I am concerned, and as far as supporters of the Government who are interested and involved in this industry are concerned, it would be completely unacceptable to allow the pattern of decision making of the past to continue. Decisions sometimes have been made by the Tariff Board, sometimes by the Treasury, sometimes made by the Department of Customs and Excise and sometimes by the Department of Primary Industry. The end result has not been justice to the growers in terms of their returns and this is not the sort of stability which is good for any industry. I suppose I represent the largest wine grape industry in the whole of New South Wales and one which is the best in the nation. I am dedicated to see that this industry is on a proper and stable basis. We must, of course, end the ad hoc approaches and not rely on passing concessional measures which can be varied.

The Leader, of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) I think said that I was concerned about the repeal of the wine tax. Of course I was concerned about it. It was another ad hoc measure, and I would be concerned about any ad hoc measure taken by any government which, left on its own, would bring hardship to growers and instability to the industry. But I point out that the Leader of the Australian Country Party, in his remarks in this House earlier, referred to the fact that there was a need not to rely on taxation concessions alone. In fact he said that there was a need for a thorough-going review and for decisions to be taken in the long term. That was a very statesmanlike submission and I commend it to the consideration of the Committee, because that is exactly what the Government has in mind. It must be done and decisions have to be made in the long term. The policies that are laid down for this industry have to follow the pattern of policies” we have worked on for all other major industries.

When this Administration came to office there was a rural recession which had been in existence for 5 years under policies of the previous Administration - policies which have been referred to in this Committee in terms which indicate that they were almost holy writ. Well, they were not holy writ last year. They were rejected by the electorate. It is amazing to me that honourable members opposite can come forward and ask for the preservation of past policies which were unacceptable and which did not do the job. There is an urgency about this. There is a vintage coming up and before then it will be necessary to take steps to unveil a proper and long term deal for the wine and brandy industry. At present we face a situation which was caused when the previous Administration unleashed a flood of foreign imports. Some of the brandy that has come into this country in the past year is not really brandy at all; it is reminiscent of a potato spirit. That is the situation which this Government has to take into account, lt is just one of the problems which have to be tackled in concert, and I do not think that we can rely on more medicine, financial or otherwise, of the kind exemplified by the decisions made by the past Administration.

What we must do is ensure that there is an integrated deal for the whole of the industry. It has to be brought in by next year - in fact, by next season - because this is the only way in which we will obviate the hardships of the past and prevent the ad hoc-ism in decision making which has not brought benefits to the industry. It is not good enough to rely on one measure such as this, on a brandy differential or on some other ad hoc measure. It is necessary to take the whole of the industry into account and to ensure that there is some justice to growers who have not shared in the prosperity of the industry when it has enjoyed some times of prosperity. That is not good enough for them. They do not accept the position as it is today and they certainly do not accept the position as it was last year or the year before. What we are faced with at the present time is a need for a new deal for an industry which has been in trouble for some years. If we were talking in terms of simply this decision in isolation, of course there would be room for some of the exaggerated adjectives which have been used in this Committee and, more particularly, in the second reading stage. There is a need to have a review and to determine long term planning which is 25 years overdue in this industry.

The Treasurer (Mr Crean), who is at the table at present, knows of the concern I have expressed. He knows of the discussions which have gone on in the last months of this year. So, to say that he is not aware of them at present is not true. What is more, he shares the general desire on this side of the Parliament to put decision making on an ad hoc basis to one side and to go for long term stability. I want to make only one further brief point. By their deeds we will know them. Last year the Opposition was in Government. It imposed a wine tax; we took if off. This year we have the responsibility for the harvest that is coming up, and when that harvest is completed and the arrangements made are put into effect honourable members opposite will see the thrust of our policies in contrast to the policies of the past. By their deeds we will know them. We knew the Opposition last year and the year before. The Opposition will know us because we have set out to bring stability to a whole range of industries and we have done it.

As a matter of fact, the long term stabilisation which we have been able to bring about has already brought to the countryside a confidence which is reflected in the balance sheets of the masters of honourable members opposite - the banks, the pastoral finance companies and all the bodies which have helped to put them into office over the years. They are all making more money. They have all done extraordinarily well and have recognised the stability. The previous Government left us with a rural recession; we have brought stability and hope for the future. I do not blame honourable members opposite for getting excited. Their consciences must upset them because after all the tea and sympathy of recent years they left a countryside that was completely bankrupt in many spheres. This year the countryside is enjoying a level of prosperity it has not had before. Honourable members opposite say that it is all due to the weather; that under the Liberal and Country parties the weather was crook and under the Labor Party the weather is good. That is a pretty poor excuse for honourable members opposite to put forward. But I must give them full marks because their propaganda is more effective than I ever could have imagined. In the countryside during this period of prosperity they have preached doom and got away with it. In light they preach darkness and are successful. Even the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) personified them when he votes against his own motions. He can oppose himself and get away with it.

Mr Giles:

Mr Deputy Chairman, I rise to order. I have never voted against my own motion in my life and I am not responsible for-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins) - Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat or I will deal with him.

Mr Giles:

– The Minister should stick to the truth.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I ask the honourable member to resume his seat.

Mr Giles:

– Stick to the truth, Al.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Well, would the honourable member like me-

Mr Giles:

– This is twice I have had to do this.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I warn the honourable member for Angas.

Mr Giles:

– Warn him too, Mr Deputy Chairman.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I have warned the honourable member for Angas. If he interjects further, I will deal with him.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. I am glad to see some order brought out of the chaos opposite. I sum up by saying that honourable members opposite have been particularly successful in preaching doom amid prosperity; in preaching darkness amid light-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Nobody can say that the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) is not a fast talker when he is desperate; but it was not quite good enough tonight.

I am told that the Government intends to force this Bill through this chamber without adequate discussion, as it has done with so many others. Therefore I must be very brief.

This is an ill-advised and inequitable Bill. I will not have time to say why it is so illadvised in all respects; but I would have thought that in the present situation of inflation, when more production is needed, a Bill which is aimed at the roots of production is ill-advised. I would have thought also that in the present situation of world instability in economies and prices a drastic Bill of this character is illadvised. However, I will not have time to develop this. I know that some kind of fiscal action is necessary, but I do not think that this is. the correct kind of action at all. There are other means of controlling the excess supply of money. There are other means of meeting the additions to that excess supply caused by the Government’s Budget policy in other directions. Those are major matters.

I will deal with only one specific matter; that is, the proposals made in this Bill for the taxing of aged people. They are disgraceful, although they are not as disgraceful as the proposals which the Treasurer (Mr Crean) originally made. When the Treasurer brought down his Budget and, following that, when he issued a statement from his office it was obvious that he was proposing a major assault upon pensioners. His initial proposals were quite disgraceful. When I learnt of these proposals, when the Social Services Bill was under discussion I criticised them in this House. I drew the attention of the country and of the House to some of the gross fallacies in the Treasurer’s policy. Subsequently, as a result of that, the Labor Caucus forced the rather reluctant Treasurer to change his proposals and to make them far less inequitable.

Mr Viner:

– Another occasion on which the Treasurer was overruled.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Well, of course, in this case the Treasurer was in a corner because owing to his ill faith in regard to the means test he was proposing in his Budget to take from aged people by way of taxation far more than he was going to give them by any partial relaxation of the means test. It was a swindle. He was found out and, to some extent, he has corrected his course. The change of the base for the rebate from, I think, $2,322 to $3,224 did correct much, not all, of the inequity. I think the Treasurer’s original proposals would have taken something like $3 5m or $40m a year from these aged pensioners. I estimate his present proposals will take only another $8m. So at least three-quarters of the iniquity and the inequity has been resolved. But there is still something wrong in the Treasurer’s present proposals as they are before the House in this Bill.

I am not opposed in principle to the granting of a rebate as a mechanism for adjusting the aged person’s allowance, but I am opposed to what the Treasurer is doing. What he has put in this Bill will hurt certain groups of aged pensioners quite appallingly. Let me first look at the single person who has a taxable income, apart from pension, in the range of, say, $800 a year to $2,000 a year. There will be substantial loss to him, going to about $60 a year. That is not the main facet of the Treasurers proposition. The main inequity will fall on the married pensioner. This comes about because traditionally the married pensioner has had his pension rights adjusted in relation to half the income of the married couple. This does not apply to income tax. It is for this reason that major anomalies arise. Many married aged pensioners whose combined taxable income is in the range of $1,000 to $4,000 a year will lose substantially. Those who will lose most will be those whose combined income is in the range of $2,400 a year, which is not a great amount. Of course it depends on how the income is divided between husband and wife. But in most of these cases the income belongs to the husband because the modest income of aged people is generally superannuation. It is in one pair of hands and taxed in those hands. Some of these people will lose up to $250 a year. It is quite appalling that a married couple will be losing $250 a year by reason of this new tax.

But worse than that, there will be complications in regard to provisional tax. These complications are of such a nature that even the

Taxation Office at the present moment does not quite know how it is going to deal with them. I can say that because I have been in consultation with tax officers in relation to these complications. I am afraid that not only this year but also next year - perhaps next year more than this year - certain pensioners will find themselves in very deep water because of the operations of provisional tax.

It will be said that, after all, the means test is being taken away for people over 75 years of age and that they will get a means-test-free pension. I am not complaining on behalf of people over 75 years of age. I am complaining on behalf of those pensioners under the age of 75 who do not get anything from this Budget and who will have to pay, particularly if married, this large additional tax. It is difficult in this short time to explain these details to the House; I will not attempt to do so. All I say is that these married people, particularly if the income is in one pair of hands, will get slugged this year. When the operation of provisional tax comes upon them - I am not quite certain because the Taxation Office does not quite know how it will deal with this - they will find themselves in very hot water in many respects.

As I have said, I am not talking just for the people over 75 years of age. They do get the advantage of having a means-test-free pension. They get something. But in this Budget the great bulk of pensioners, those under 75, do not get the means-test-free pension. It is an absolute swindle on the part of the Treasurer in this Budget to load these additional burdens on to those of pensionable age below 75 when he is not taking off the means test. Even at this late stage I ask the Treasurer to reconsider and to see whether he might not show a little humanity and equity for a change.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– I want to reply to the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) who, I am sad to say, is not with us at the moment; I doubt whether he was with us before. He is obviously in trouble in trying to defend a situation which is quite indefensible as far as this Budget’s effect upon the rural sector is concerned. Of course this was well noted in the New South Wales State elections held only a week or so ago. There was a swing against the Australian Labor Party of up to 12 per cent and it was probably higher in Riverina than in most other parts of New South Wales. I know the feeling of country people as a result of the provisions of this Income Tax

Assessment Bill (No. 5). They feel that they have been deceived. If honourable members look through the Bill they will find that the cancellation of accelerated depreciation allowances amounts to a loss of SI Om at least to the rural sector. The cancellation of deductibility of certain expenses amounts to a further SI 7m and the cancellation of investment allowances amounts to a further SI Om. These shock provisions have caused great despair in the rural areas of Australia. So it is not without some significance that only last week Labor recorded the worst vote that it has recorded since 1932 in the rural areas of New South Wales.

The Minister for Immigration affords himself an enormous task in trying to go out and defend the Government’s policies and attitudes towards the rural areas of Australia. I have never heard him so unconvincing about the rural rump of the ALP. As I said in this House once before, the cheeks of the rural rump of the ALP must be blushing as a result of this Budget. The Minister claimed that this Government has now adopted a policy - a collective or a planned policy - for the rural sector; that there is no longer this ad hoc approach to the rural areas. Yet the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) in speaking to the fruit juice industry claimed that he knew nothing about the fruit juice tax. So who has adopted this ad hoc approach to the rural industries and rural producers?

To me one thing is certain and that is that it is not an ad hoc approach to the rural sector, it is a deliberate policy to try to shift resources from the rural sector to the milk bar economies of Sydney and Melbourne and certainly to shift resources from the private sector to the government sector. This is part of the Labor Party’s policy. It is no ad hoc policy, it is part of a total plan. It is certainly a result of the Coombs Task Force report, this task force which could be likened to an economic police squad. Its clear guidelines were to make savage cuts in the former government’s expenditure policies so as to enable the Labor Government - the Whitlam Government - to implement its socialist program - and the end result is that the rural sector, not only for the fanners but for the townspeople alike, can be described only as brutal and discriminatory.

In the provisions of this Bill which we have been debating there has been a total loss of $140m to the rural areas of Australia. Need

I remind the House of what the Treasurer (Mr Crean) has said about this Bill and the other provisions of the Budget. Perhaps it is not SI 40m contained in this Bill because I think the $140m loss is the total sum of the provision for the Postmaster-General’s Department and other areas which were affected by the Budget that was brought down. But let me remind the House that the Treasurer with great frankness and honesty has told us that this Budget represents only phase 1 of the implementation of the Coombs report. We await with some anxiety and fear the implementation of phase 2 and phase 3. This is what is causing consternation in the rural sector. Because of high world prices and the best seasons across Australia since 1964 the people in the farming areas are to enjoy the best incomes they have received since that time. Of course no government can claim - nor can the Minister for Immigration, the honourable member for Riverina claim - that this has been a result of Labor policy.

World markets have never been much better for primary products than they are at present. Just at a time when a government should be trying to encourage the farmers of this nation to plough some of their profits back into improving their properties and their productivity and to increasing production many of the taxation incentives that were available to the rural sector - indeed, to industry generally - have been withdrawn. Then we hear all the screams about high food prices brought about by a shortage of goods. Surely at a time when the Government is trying to stabilise prices and when it is worried about inflation it should be providing incentives and encouragement to the farmers of this nation to produce more food so that we shall have more of those products available to the housewives in the metropolitan areas.

It has been a disastrous Budget from the rural sector’s point of view, and this view is shared by the rural community as a whole. It was evidenced in the New South Wales elections of last week when Labor sustained the biggest swing against it since 1932, since the days of Jack Lang. So I say to the worthy men of the Labor Party who are representing rural seats: Get to work in caucus and make sure that these Cabinet gentlemen do not steamroll and walk across the face of rural Australia with policies that will cause harm not only to the farming community but also to the nation as a whole.

Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie

– It was not my intention to rise in this debate but I could not let the honourable member for Stitrling (Mr Viner) with his usual disregard for the truth get away with some of the things he said just a short time ago. He spoke of some mythical march in Kalgoorlie - it must have been one that I knew nothing about - at which he suggested there were a large number of people who were severely critical not only of the Government but also of myself. The true situation is that there was a march and it was organised by the Liberal Party and the Democratic Labor Party combined. So apparently there may be a move on for a merger between the DLP and the Liberal Party in Kalgoorlie. It was certainly organised by those branches. The employers - I am not talking about the employers in the gold mining industry but some in the mineral exploitation field - gave their employees the day off so that they could attend this march. The number that attended the march was between 60 and 70 - 60 or 70 people out of a population of 26,000. I do not think that this showed a great deal of criticism. This did not show that the people were greatly upset about the situation.

They were not greatly upset at that time because they know very well that the Australian Labor Party has a good record. They are loyal to the Party and they know that they can look to me to do whatever is right in that regard. I am not trying to pat myself on the back but they have the experience of the things that I went through with the previous Government. Only as recently as a couple of years ago the previous government when it was returned said quite definitely - it is in Hansard if anybody wants to look at it - that it had decided that the goldmining industry could die away. That was the situation. The honourable member for Stirling apparently puts himself forward as someone who has a great knowledge of the industry. Of course, just a short time ago he showed that he had no knowledge of the industry when he asked an inane question about whether the North Kalgoorlie gold mine had put off 30 men. I am pleased that the manager of that gold mine came out in the Press and showed how little the honourable member for Stirling knew. I know that he appeared for some of the unions in cases but my information is that what he charged was greatly in excess of the value of his work.

Mr Viner:

– Keep up your slurs and you will do well.

Mr COLLARD:

– It is apparently all right for the honourable member for Stirling to get up and say that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie did not do something, but if I get up and say something about the honourable member for Stirling it is hitting below the belt. This is the general attitude of the people of the opposite side. It was the same when they were in government, when they were able to kick us to death, but now that are getting a little of it themselves they do not like it.

One of the prime objectives in the proud record of the Australian Labor Party is always to protect wherever and whenever possible the best interests of people no matter who they may be who are not in the fortunate position of being able to protect their own interests. That situation can be so easily present with respect to both current and future employment opportunities. Therefore it came as no surprise to the vast majority of the general public and particularly to those with knowledge of the mining industry when it became known that the Labor Party had given further careful consideration to the advisability or otherwise of terminating certain tax concessions which applied to the mining industry and particularly those applying to the goldmining industry.

Mr Viner:

– What about the bona fide prospectors? You have abandoned them.

Mr COLLARD:

– The honourable member apparently gets very hurt when somebody has something to say about him. It came as no surprise when it was learned that the Labor Party in its normal sympathetic thoughtful.ness for the future livelihood of the community decided that it could well be in the best interests of the mining community - and indeed of the rest of the community - if certain clauses contained in the Bill were withdrawn. It was well known both inside and outside the Parliament that the Government had decided to take that action. Its decision to do so was widely applauded and was hailed with considerable enthusiasm in the various mining centres in which so many people rely on the mining industry for their livelihood. I would have expected the Government’3 decision to have been welcomed by all members of the Opposition, both inside and outside the Parliament, particularly by Western

Australian members and senators. But I regret that subsequent comments and reports have caused me to be rather doubtful whether they support our decision. The remarks which the honourable member for Stirling made earlier make me even more doubtful whether they support our decision.

There is a story kicking about Western Australia that the Liberal Party had printed for the State election thousands of pamphlets which attacked the Federal Government on this issue. I suppose that is why honourable members opposite are so concerned that we decided to take the action which we did. As everyone knows, it was after lengthy investigation, examination and consideration of submissions, both verbal and written, that on Wednesday, 14 November, the Government eventually decided to make the amendments referred to which, as I said earlier, were expected to be received happily by the Opposition. But on Thursday, 15 November - the next day - Senator Durack of Western Australia asked in the Senate a question which appears in Hansard under the heading ‘Gold Mining Industry Concessions’. The question was asked of Senator Willesee as Minister representing the Treasurer. Incidentally, Senator Willesee is also a Western Australian senator. It is no wonder that in his reply he expressed surprise and disgust that a Western Australian senator should raise objections to proposals which assisted Western Australia and its people. Hansard makes it clear that Senator Durack had the backing of his Western Australian colleague Senator Withers. It also shows that Senator Drake-Brockman was similarly concerned.

The question asked by Senator Durack makes it obvious that he and his colleagues were most unhappy that the Bill was to be changed. They were most unhappy that the Government was not proceeding with the Bill in its original form. The senators drew attention to the fact that the Bill was the result of the August Budget. They were arguing that because Liberal-Country Party members had supported the Budget which contained the provision to remove certain tax concessions to the mining industry the Government had no right to change those provisions. That is what they were saying. There can be no doubt about their attitude. They were not concerned one whit that the implementation of the Bill in its original form could cause a running down in gold mining activity which, in turn, could cause unemployment and suffering. They could see no good reason for retaining the tax concession to permit a thorough inquiry into the effect its termination might have on workers and their families and on the community generally on the mining fields.

This is where we differ from the Opposition. We realise that to change budgetary proposals can bring criticism and cause embarrassment. We know those things, but we say that as far as we are concerned they pale into insignificance when the livelihood of people is at stake. The honourable member for Stirling attacked the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and said that the Treasurer was a great opponent of assistance to the industry. Let me tell the honourable member this: The Treasurer made some token resistance, but like all other members of the Australian Labor Party he has a great concern for the livelihood of the people, for the little people about whom honourable members opposite did not have any concern when they were in government when they were attacking the gold mining industry. They could not care less about the livelihood of the men working in the mining industry. That is the situation as far as honourable members opposite are concerned. It was only as a result of the Australian Labor Party, when it was in Opposition, moving motions of censure that the then Government decided to change its view and increase the subsidy to the gold mining industry. This appears in Hansard. Previously honourable members opposite had decided that the gold mining industry should be destroyed - that it should fall apart and be allowed to disintegrate. That was their policy. So it is no good their putting on a show about being the great heroes and the great supporters of the working people. They just could not care less.

Sitting suspended from’ 6.14 to 8 p.m.

Mr FOX:
Henty

– I rise to register my protest at the removal of the age allowance for income tax purposes. This allowance was introduced by the Menzies Government to ensure that persons of a pensionable age who did not receive pensions would not have to pay tax on an income the equivalent of which in the hands of pensioners was tax-free. The Government devised a scale to ensure that this occurred and the scale also provided a very small tax advantage for those nonpensioners who were in receipt of a slightly higher income and in a higher bracket over persons who had not reached pensionable age but who had a similar income. I believe that this was not an unreasonable arrangement because many of these people who could have stayed at home and drawn a pension preferred to go to work. In doing so, they contributed to the national economy. This Bill, which we are now discussing in the Committee stage, not only removes this concession but also leaves some single pensioners $1 a week worse off than they were before. Some married couples are more than $4 a week worse off than they were before. 1 admit that as a result of this action quite a number of pensioners are in a better position than they were previously. But I am of the opinion that no pensioner should be worse off. The Labor Government has gone back already on one promise it made to pensioners. This was to provide an immediate increase of $1.50 a week following the election, and thereafter $1.50 a week every spring and every autumn until the pension reached 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings. Not only have the pensioners been taken down for one of these increases of $1.50 because they have received only 2 increases since the Government came to office 12 months ago, but, by removing the age allowance in a time of high inflation and an increasing rate of inflation, this Government has left some pensioners worse off than they were before this Bill was introduced. I believe that this is inexcusable. On behalf of the pensioners I register my protest at what this Government has done.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– I support the remarks made by the honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox) on this subject. I commence my remarks by saying that if ever there were a Bill on which one could spend a great deal of time in criticising certain of its provisions, this would be it. I appreciate that, if a government is to spend a lot of money it, of course must take certain action to increase taxation revenue to meet the additional costs. In other words, it is virtually a body blow to many sections of the community. During the second reading debate we heard a number of honourable members, particularly from this side of the chamber, refer to the problems caused by the wine tax and the changed taxation provisions for primary producers as a whole. I should like to make brief and quick reference to taxation as it affects pensioners. I appreciate that the Commissioner of Taxation has issued a pamphlet entitled ‘Income Tax and Pensions 1973-74 - An Explanatory Booklet’. I point out directly to the Treasurer (Mr Crean) that since the Budget was introduced in this place, a few months ago, I have had numerous requests for information from elderly people. I do not want to go into all the ramifications of the problems faced by elderly people. Having examined this document which was put out by the Commissioner of Taxation one, to say the least, would need to have a little knowledge of the general run of taxation before one could understand it.

Quite naturally, one of the first problems facing people of the age of 75 years or over is that their eyesight starts to fail. In many cases they are not used to worrying about figures. Take the case of a widow who usually left those things to her husband. Now, because of alterations to our system, made here in Canberra, she is expected to fill out a taxation return. I appeal to the Treasurer and ask him or his Department to put out a simple explanation for those people who naturally would find this document terribly difficult to follow. It is easy for those of us who have made a close study of these things and have been filling out taxation returns for a period of years. We can work it all out but the people I mentioned want to know what sort of returns they have to put in. They want to know what sort of income is subject to taxation. I am thinking particularly now of war widows, for instance. Such people want to know whether they have to include in their returns income received from the Department of Repatriation because of the death of their husbands, and so forth. I will not take up any more of the time of the Committee. I appeal to the Treasurer to see whether he can simplify this particular document and forward it to those people who are eligible for pensions under the new age principle applying to those of 75 years of age.

Motion (by Mr Crean) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Crean) - by leave - proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I ask the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to reconsider the matter of the aged persons tax allowance. The $35m that he proposed initially to take away from these people has been reduced by, I think, $27m. Following upon my initial protest, Caucus made him make that reduction. I askhim now whether he will go the last bit of the way. Only $8m is involved. It would not affect the Budget as a whole. Will the Minister do the fair thing by these old people? I make this plea to the Minister to change his line of approach even at this late stage.

Mr Crean:

Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I remind the Treasurer that if he responds at this stage he will be closing the debate.

MrVINER (Stirling) (8.10)- Having been gagged twice in this debate, I am extremely grateful to the Treasurer (Mr Crean) for allowing me to have some further to say. I was beginning to feel that the reason for denying me an opportunity to speak was perhaps something personal on the Treasurer’s part, but I suppose one should not have those kinds of thoughts about him. I want to ask the Treasurer a question concerning the administrative arrangements provided for in the Bill in regard to the quarterly payment of tax by companies. I know that in Western Australia - I am sure this is the case right throughout Australia - many questions have been asked as to how this provision will be administered, particularly in relation to those companies which obtain extensions of time for the filing of their taxation returns.

Although the financial year ends on 30 June, after being allowed a certain amount of liberty by the Department companies may not file their returns until December. In their case, how will the tax for the current year be assessed? On what basis will the companies be obliged to pay their quarterly assessment during the current year? Will it be on the basis of an estimate of tax payable in the current year, based upon the tax paid in the preceding year? What provision will be made for companies to challenge the amount of tax that they will be called upon to pay quarterly? Will some administrative arrangement be made whereby they can ask for a reconsideration of this quarterly assessment? One could imagine within a period of fluctuating fortunes that a company could have a financially high year followed by a low year, and it could be put in serious financial jeopardy if it had to pay tax during the current year on the basis of the assessment for the previous year. This is a matter which I wanted to raise during the Committee stage because it has great practical importance to companies. I am grateful to the Treasurer for giving me this opportunity to raise the matter now on the motion for the third reading. The Treasurer might well answer these points when he concludes this debate.

I wanted to raise other matters concerning clause 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) which is related to section 26aaa of the Act but, as I have said, I have been gagged twice. I was able to rise once during the debate to talk about the gold mining industry, and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) responded to my remarks. However, I did want to raise these other areas of concern. Honourable members have totally inadequate time in which to raise matters if a Bill of the size of this Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5), which has wide financial ramifications, is gagged both at the second reading stage and at the Committee stage. We were allowed only an hour and a quarter in which to debate these proposals during the Committee stage. I am sure that many worthwhile and practical comments could have been made during the consideration of the Bill in Committee which would have assisted the Treasurer and his Department as well as the taxpayers. After all, in a matter of this kind, I would venture to suggest that the taxpayers are paramount.

Where there are practical problems and practical considerations in relation to a Bill the Committee stage is the appropriate stage at which to present these matters to the Minister so that he may answer them. I am very sorry that the Committee stage particularly was cut so short. But perhaps the Treasurer at least will answer the questions that I posed to him with regard to these quarterly payments of company tax. I am sure that there are many taxpayers in Australia who want to know exactly where they stand.

In concluding my remarks, I might add that inquiries have been made of the Commonwealth Taxation Office in Western Australia but it has not been able to advise company taxpayers as to what administrative arrangements will be made. I should have thought that, with such far reaching innovations being made in the system of payment of tax, the Treasury and the Treasurer would have already worked out the appropriate administrative arrange ments. But, quite obviously, they have not because these questions have been directed to officers of the Taxation Office in Perth and they, through no fault of their own, have not been able to answer them. I do hope the Treasurer can now do that.

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– In, hopefully, closing the debate all I would say to the new boy of the House, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner), is that if he had looked up recent debates in this chamber on income tax legislation he would have found that far more time has been afforded to this debate than has been the case for several years. Maybe it was due to a lack of interest in the past on the part of honourable members who now sit on the other side of the chamber. I point out to the honourable member for Stirling that, as far as the first quarter is concerned, the company tax assessment will be on the basis of last year’s assessment. This has been done for a good number of years in relation to provisional assessments. All that is happening with respect to company tax is that the companies are now being put on the same basis as everybody else of having to pay as they earn. The wage earner pays week by week as he receives his wage. The provisional tax payer gets an assessment in advance on the basis of what his earnings were last year. Why should companies be in any better position? It will be easier to overcome certain liquidity problems if it is done in this way. If honourable members opposite were honest I think they would have done this sort of thing themselves a long time ago.

I did not altogether like the references this afternoon by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) to a swindle. I think most honourable members on either side of the chamber regard me as being a reasonable man. I would not use such a term. There is no swindle. All I wish to say in this respect is: Why should a person, merely because he is of a certain age and has a certain aggregate income, pay less tax than some people of lesser years? That is what we are endeavouring to bring about here.

Mr Whittorn:

– They have been thrifty and prudent.

Mr CREAN:

– There are plenty of people who had no opportunity to be thrifty and prudent in the 1930s. Some of them arrived at their age of retirement in the 1960s without anything. They did the best they could in all the circumstances to provide for themselves and their families. I would have liked to be able to give some relief in the Budget to the lower income groups where there is only one income in the family - that of the married person who has dependants. Because of the overall position of the Budget, I could not do that. I ask: Why should somebody, merely because he is over 65 years of age and is in receipt of a certain aggregate income, pay less tax than somebody of a lesser age who has a wife and children to support? That basically is the position we are endeavouring to rectify. That is all we have sought to do.

The honourable member for Mackellar said that I had never been in favour of abolishing the means test. Candidly, I had not. Nevertheless, there was public agitation about it and both sides supported such a view in the last election campaign. Whatever the end result may be, I acknowledge that we won on the proposition of a progressive abolition of the means test. Once we have done that I think we have at least to acknowledge the economic reality. I think the honourable member will agree with me when I say that in the long run it is part of a social contract that if one wrought in the years of one’s strength one is entitled to reasonable certainty about an income in the years of one’s decline. I find it very hard to accept that somebody who has a higher income should, merely because of his age, pay less tax in total than somebody who has a lesser income and who has dependants. This is what we are seeking to do here. We are seeking to acknowledge, in the finish, that anybody in retirement is entitled to reasonable certainty about his future.

Mr MacKellar:

– He cannot add to his income.

Mr CREAN:

– His actual income, if you like. But I think the honourable member for Mackellar would acknowledge that honourable members opposite left the age allowance stagnant for a good number of years. I think that honourable members opposite made a great mistake recently in respect of superannuitants. The previous Government commuted part of what previously in any sensible sense would have been regarded as income and said it was not income. This is the kind of thing we were stuck with. We have done the best we think we could have done in all the circumstances. I appreciate the arguments used by honourable members on both sides but I would hope at least that this debate has centralised some of the questions that should be examined in the next year or two. This consideration should include everybody, not only those who have been lucky enough to have been provided for by government superannuation funds. And the government has been a better provider in terms of superannuation than has private industry. We still have an awful mish-mash and some 2 people out of every 3 people in the population still are not covered by any scheme. Once a national superannuation scheme comes into being, the situation will be different. There will be a lot of arguments about phasing in and phasing out or, if you like, contracting in and contracting out. We are taking the first reasonable assumption that, once we get to this point, at least part of the aggregate income of everybody, irrespective of whether it is partly made up of pensions payable by the Government or by superannuation funds, comes from the Government. If we look at the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, we see that, of every $7 that is paid, $5 comes from the Government and only $2 from the contributor and, if we look at the private funds and take into account the taxation concessions that are involved, we see at least that they have been a privileged section in comparison to the rest of the community. The view of the Government is that everybody should be provided for and there will be some difficulties in the transition. I appreciate the interest of the honourable member for Mackellar because I think, like me, over the years he has acknowledged more than have some other people that 1983 will be different from 1973 and that 1973 is different from 1933 but that in 1973 we still have the inheritances of 1933. 1 hope that in the next decade this House sensibly will move to a better transition for everybody and not selective arrangements for certain people.

Mr Wentworth:

– The Treasurer has asked a question. Could I have leave to answer it?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no question.

Mr Wentworth:

– I ask for leave.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman does not have the call.

Mr Wentworth:

– I ask for leave.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. He knows well enough that the Treasurer has closed the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Wentworth:

– Might I have the indulgence of the House for one sentence?

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is a matter for the Treasurer to decide.

Mr Crean:

– I am reasonable; I will give you 60 seconds.

Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar)- by leave - I shall not need all of them. The Treasurer (Mr Crean) asked why special allowances should be made for aged people. The reason basically is that their savings and their superannuation rights were accumulated in times when the value of money was quite different. They have been the main losers by the endemic inflation that is occurring here and everywhere else and which has halved or divided by four the real value of the savings they have made.

Mr CREAN (Melbourne Ports- Treasurer) - by leave - I say: Lucky were they who could accumulate. It was by no special virtue on their part, or no vice on the part of those who could not save.

page 3836

INCOME TAX BILL 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 October (vide page 2708), 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 Crean) read a third time.

page 3836

INCOME TAX (NON-RESIDENT DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST) BILL 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 October (vide page 2708), 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 Crean) read a third time.

page 3836

HIGH COMMISSIONER (UNITED KINGDOM) ACT REPEAL BILL 1973

Second Reading

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill, though brief, is of some practical and historical significance. In form it is merely a Repeal Bill: it will repeal the High Commissioner (United Kingdom) Act 1909- 1966. In its practical effect it will terminate the present legislative basis for administration of the Australian High Commission in London, thereby clearing the way for administration to be on the same basis as that for all other Australian diplomatic missions abroad. In its historical aspect, it formally signifies that Australia’s diplomatic relations with Britain are no longer regarded as being different in kind from its diplomatic relations with other countries.

It may be of interest to honourable members if, before dealing more fully with the Bill, I outline briefly the history of the Act which it is proposed to repeal. In 1906 the Australian Government found it necessary to appoint a representative to look after its interests in the United Kingdom, especially in connection with the purchase of defence material. A representative of the Treasurer was later appointed to deal with financial matters. In 1909 the High Commissioner Act was passed to enable broader diplomatic functions to be exercised by Australia’s official representative. The four-yearly Imperial Conference had apparently been then regarded as a permanent arrangement, and it was felt that a High Commissioner, with an enlarged staff, was necessary to assist with liaison work between these Conferences, as well as to present a balanced Australian representation in Britain, as distinct from the primarily parochial efforts of the States’ agents-general. Canada had maintained a High Commissioner in Britain for several years, and questions of prestige and trade promotion were evidently important. It was envisaged, in this humble beginning, that the States would agree to transfer their function to the High Commissioner but, as honourable members are well aware, the States still maintain offices under agents-general in London.

The 1909 Act created the office of our first diplomatic representative abroad. Over the years, it was amended as necessary because of changing requirements. It retained its original title through 4 amendments between 1909 and 1952, but by 1957 the post World War II expansion of Australian diplomatic representation was reflected in a change of name to the High Commissioner (United Kingdom) Act. From 1957 on it became increasingly anomalous to administer Australia House, as the High Commission has long been popularly known, separately from other Australian dip.limatic missions, all of which are staffed by Australia-based officers and locally engaged employees under the Public Service Act 1922- 1973. Not only was it anomalous to have a separate administrative basis, but responsibility for the High Commission, alone of all our diplomatic missions, lay with the Prime Minister and not with the Foreign Minister. The previous Government, I am pleased to say, finally saw benefit in rationalising the position of the London mission and, on 1 November 1972, transferred responsibility for it to the then Foreign Minister.

The present Bill is consequential on that transfer. Upon repeal of the Act, administration of the High Commission will continue under the Public Service Act. To this end, determinations under the Public Service Act will be made at the time of repeal. These, with existing provisions of the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act 1928-1969, the Superannuation Act 1922-1971, and the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act 1943-1968, will preserve or improve existing rights, and terms and conditions of service, of the present locally engaged High Commission staff who, at present, will all continue in employment.

While this Bill has been in preparation, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Public Service Board have taken care to keep the staff of the High Commission informed of developments and to consult closely with the Australian High Commission Staff Association. The Staff Association has given the fullest co-operation to the representatives of the Department and the Board, and I am happy to be able to inform honourable members that agreement has lately been reached with the Association on new rules to replace the High Commissioner (Staff) Regulations which at present detail the terms and conditions of the staff. The new rules, as 1 have already indicated, will be in the form of determinations under the Public Service Act. The Association has indicated that it is anxious for early repeal of the Act and making of the determinations. Indeed, the High Commissioner has personally represented to me the importance of having the Bill passed during the present sittings if possible, so that plans for administrative reforms that have been agreed with the Staff Association can be expedited through the use of the more modern and more flexible procedures available under the Public Service Act. The determinations will, of course, need to come into operation immediately upon repeal of the Act. In order to facilitate this, provision is made in clause 2 of the Bill for the Act to come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. The only other clause that calls for comment is clause 4. The clause preserves existing rights under the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act 1928-1969 of persons who have such rights by virtue of having been officers of the Public Service immediately before they became officers under the High Commissioner (United Kingdom) Act. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– On behalf of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and the 2 Opposition Parties, I indicate that the Opposition supports in its entirety the Bill which the Government has presented tonight. However, there are some aspects of the Bill to which I should like to draw the attention of honourable members. Firstly, I think there is no greater fallacy than that which has been perpetrated by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), namely, that the initiative of a new sense of independence in foreign policy, a new sense of Australian identity, is seen to be Labor in origin and motivated largely during the term of his own occupancy of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Indeed, the acknowledgement in the course of the second reading speech which he has just made, that the initiatives for the rationalising of the position of the London mission were begun during the days of the preceding administration, indicates how far the trend away from the old identity of Australia, particularly that in its foreign affairs policy it was subservient to other countries, had been developed.

Certainly there are areas where, as a result of changes in the balance of diplomatic and international status, Australia perhaps has moved more rapidly than it has in its relationships with the United Kingdom. But the United Kingdom has served and still serves traditionally as the base from which so many of our actions in the international arena began. This Bill more than any other sets the seal on the transfer from our old complete dependence on the United Kingdom to a stance of independent action, independent initiative and greater Australian identity. As I say, it is a move which began not with the Whitlam regime but in fact at the time when the former Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) was Foreign Minister. As to the actual changes being implemented, there are several things upon which I think the House might dwell for a few moments. The first is that the office of the Australian High Commissioner is one of those posts abroad which has been traditionally filled by men who are so-called political appointees. Whether the Government in office is of a Liberal-Country Party persuasion or of Australian Labor Party persuasion, it is necessary to recognise that there are certain posts around the world where there is a distinct advantage in having responsible for the command of that post a man who has some understanding of politics and government in Australia.

However, equally it is true that whoever that man might be, he needs to depend significantly on the advice given to him by the full time officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs whose expertise is beyond parallel and whose ability to give him the diplomatic and international overtones which are necessary in the exercise of his functions is of vital importance if he is to undertake his job properly. Those who have occupied the position of High Commissioner in the United Kingdom have served this country well. For all that they have been political appointees, I believe that no full time professional officer could have exercised those responsibilities better. Let me make the point that I think there will continue to be a role in Australia’s foreign service for those who have had a background in government and are able for that reason to exercise a slightly different measure of emphasis in a country’s foreign relations than can be exercised, for all their expertise, by those who are full time members of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The second matter is one of concern, that is, the degree to which an office such as that in the United Kingdom seems to have applied the laws of Parkinson and developed to such a large degree an administrative base which we are told today will be extended so that all the officers currently engaged will continue in employment. In a review of the Australian High Commission in London issued by the then Assistant to the Prime Minister and the present

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) in Canberra on 20 February last, there were some references to the number of personnel employed in the United Kingdom. According to that statement, current staff is about 1,100 persons, of whom about 900 are locally engaged and about 350 are engaged in immigration matters. It concerns me that in the 1972-73 Estimates some $7m of taxpayers’ funds were spent on the maintenance of staff in the Australian High Commission. One is aware that in the last few years there has been some run down in the number of personnel who have been selected as migrants from the United Kingdom to come to Australia. One is aware also of the industrial trouble caused by so many of those who have become shop stewards and agitators on the industrial front in Australia, and who unfortunately have had a base in the trade union movement in the United Kingdom and seem to have brought to Australia prejudices which are not part of the Australian tradition. Accordingly I question the need for maintenance of the 350 persons engaged in immigration matters. I also query the degree to which it is necessary for that full complement of personnel to be maintained in the United Kingdom, given the different orientation of the United Kingdom within an enlarged Europe and given the different relationship which Australia has to the United Kingdom in this day and age.

I believe that as a result of that Press statement by Senator Willesee, Mr Collings of the Australian Public Service Board is undertaking a comprehensive review of the staff of the Australian High Commission. Having full respect for members of the Public Service Board, I still wonder whether it might not be more inclined to meet the ends of efficiency and organisation if some managerial agency were employed to assist Mr Collings. One wonders whether, given the different relationship, the different posture and the different commitment between Australia and the United Kingdom, perhaps we could have employed a firm of management consultants and could have halved the number of personnel who are today employed by the Australian High Commission. Certainly now that they are working under the Department of Foreign Affairs there would seem to be every reason for this type of review to take place.

I believe that, not only in the United Kingdom but in every Australian civil service post, whether in Australia or outside, there is a need for a constant reassessment of the role and function of the people involved. There is probably no instance in which this can be identified to a greater degree than in the High Commission in London. One recognises the tremendous contribution that those who have served there in the past have made to this country’s relations with the United Kingdom and to Australia’s relations with the rest of the world, but I doubt whether at this stage there is any need to maintain such a large staff. One hopes that from this legislation will come a fairly comprehensive review not only of the staffing itself but also of the role of the staff, to ensure that the terms and conditions of employment more nearly relate to the circumstances of Australia and the United Kingdom in 1973 and the years to come.

Finally, the Prime Minister referred in his second reading speech to the role of the Agents-General of the several Australian States. Probably in the United Kingdom more than anywhere else, the States feel that they need to preserve the separate identity that the Agents-General represent. One hopes that, in the United Kingdom or anywhere else in, the world, these State Agents-General will recognise the degree to which, by co-ordination and co-operation with those officers who represent the Australian Government in the diplomatic or commercial areas, so much more can be achieved. If the States seek to assert their independent role I believe that they will prejudice the efficiency of those who represent the Australian nation as a whole. I concur completely in the general emphasis that the Prime Minister has put on this aspect of change which was foreseen so early in the introduction of Australian representation in the United Kingdom. I believe it is necessary in other posts certainly that the Australian States accept the degree to which any Australian representative abroad is appointed not to service only one State or any individual commercial or other Australian interest. Such representatives are there to represent the nation as a whole. As such, I believe that they can more effectively represent a country which, after all, as long ago as 1901 was prepared as a nation to accord to the Federal Government the power to represent this country in the international arena. For that reason one hopes that the States will give serious thought to the general trend of the Prime Minister’s emphasis in his second reading speech. The Opposition supports this Bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I join with my colleague, the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), in supporting the High Commissioner (United Kingdom) Act Repeal Bill but there are one or two remarks I would like to make. Firstly, I agree with what has been said in regard to the technical aspects of the Service and the way in which this Bill can make improvements. I regard this as a good thing. But I would regard it as a bad thing if this Bill were to mark any further diminution of the special relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom. I say this with full consciousness of the need for furthering our Australian identity and for creating in Australia a nation of independent outlook. I think nobody in this House more than I would be able to say that.

I remember moving, I think in 1952, in this House a motion regarding the takeover of a large section of the Australian broadcasting network by British Press interests. The Labor Party supported that foreign takeover at that time. I moved, and was successful in getting through this House, a motion regarding that action.

Although I am not opposed to all foreign investment by any means, I have always stood opposed to the excesses of foreign investment in Australia. I would have, I think, in this regard, a longer and more consistent history than probably anybody on either side of this House.

I return to the special relationship between Australia and Britain. Let me come back to taws in this respect and put things squarely on the line. It is customary for us to say that Australia is safe, that we have no enemies, that no one will attack for 15 years and that physical violence against us is unthinkable. I wish that this were true but I do not necessarily believe it to be true. With New Zealand, we could be isolated in this region of this hemisphere. It will be well for the existence and continued identity of Australia if the special relationship with the United Kingdom were continued and, indeed, intensified.

The British Commonwealth has now become so diluted as to be devoid of its old meaning. ‘Almost meaningless’ would perhaps be too hard a term but the British Commonwealth is not what it was. But between the

United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada there may still be - I hope there still is - a special and inner link. Canada does not need for its defence a special relationship with the United Kingdom, because geographically it shelters under the umbrella of the United States. Australia does not. It is regrettable, I think, that many forces in Australia have been urging, through their propaganda, isolationism on the United States and have been saying to the United States: ‘You are not to intervene on this side of the Pacific’ These are voices from people who might well need that intervention.

British intervention on our behalf might be surer if we kept this special relationship.

It may be that British power is not so great east of Suez as once it was but at least there is still - let me say the brutal truth again - a British nuclear capacity which might be essential at some stage for the survival of Australia. I would hope that both the United States and Britain would give us that ultimate protection if ever we needed it. But I would place more reliance on Britain than I would on the United States if that final showdown should ever come. I do not mean that the nuclear weapon would be used. What I suggest is that the capacity to call on the nuclear weapon would mean that it would not be used and it would mean that the identity and security of Australia could still be maintained.

Thus, while this is a trivial Bill and it can be supported for trivial reasons - and it will be supported for those trivial reasons - I hope that we do not at the same time tear up a much more vital and special relationship. I hope and trust that the passing of this Bill will be consonant with the maintenance to the full degree of that special relationship with the United Kingdom and with the Crown which we hold in common with the United Kingdom. I hope that people will realise that the security of Australia and New Zealand may still in the last ultimate horrible reality depend upon the maintenance of that special relationship.

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 Whitlam) read a third time.

page 3840

CUSTOMS BILL 1973

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The amendment to the Customs Act proposed by this Bill is designed to permit complete application of the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. I think the House will agree that I am in a new field tonight. The Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Moss Cass, recently announced that the Australian Government had decided to sign the Convention. At that time the Minister foreshadowed amendments to customs legislation which would prohibit international trade in those species covered by the Convention. Contracting parties to the Convention are obliged to control importation or exportation of specimens to which the Convention applies. The import control is required to apply equally in respect of any such specimens which are introduced from the sea.

The authority, given respectively by sections 50 and 112 of the Customs Act, to prohibit by regulation the importation or exportation of goods provides adequate basis for the imposition of import and export restrictions in terms of the Convention. I hope that that is clear to the House. However, a somewhat anomalous position arises in that section 131a of the Customs Act specifically exempts from the control of the Customs fish and other produce of the sea landed by Australian-registered fishing boats operating out of Australian ports. It is necessary to qualify this provision to make it quite clear that exemption from the exercise of control by the Customs authorities does not apply in relation to any specimen of a marine species the importation of which is subject to prohibition or restriction under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations; that is, to conform with the provisions of the Convention. That should be clear to all honourable members. The Bill now before the House simply makes that necessary qualification. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lynch) adjourned.

page 3840

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL (No. 2) 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 September (vide page 1637), on motion by Mr Beazley:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- -Mr 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 States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3), the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 4), the States Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 3) and the Commission on Advanced Education Bill, as they are related 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 5 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– The States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 2) seeks to amend the principal Act which provides for expenditure in the 1970-72 triennium. The Bill basically seeks, to include 3 new projects in the Second Schedule to the Act. These projects arise in response to submissions received from the New South Wales and Victorian State Governments in the closing stages of the 1970-72 triennium. The projects, which will be funded by the transfer of grants previously allocated and two of which were approved by my colleague, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser), are the New South Wales Election Board, the Prahran College of Technology and the Emily McPherson College.

The States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3) seeks to amend the principal Act, as it applies to the 1973-75 triennium, to provide financial assistance for all State teachers colleges as from 1 July 1973. These provisions arise from the recommendations of the report on teacher education prepared by the Australian Commission on Advanced Education. The Commission’s inquiry was commenced in 1972 as a result of initiatives taken by the former Liberal-Country Party Government.

The States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 4) amends the principal Act to enable the Commonwealth Government to assume full financial responsibility for advanced education from 1 January 1974. The Bill also includes provision for the salary increases recommended in the report by Mr Justice Campbell and for the cost of increased salaries and wages to college staff following the national wage case decision in May this year. The Bill enables payment of grants in respect of full time university students resident at a college of advanced education and for grants for special courses in dental therapy, social work and physical education at such colleges.

The States Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 3) amends the Act to remove the liability for State Government matching contributions of finance to universities in 1974 and 1975. It makes provision for the costs of academic salary increases following the report by Mr Justice Campbell and the national wage case. The Bill also seeks approval for a capital grant of up to SI. 8m for the establishment of a national school of management education.

The Commission of Advanced Education Bill provides for the appointment of a full time Deputy Chairman of the Commission of Advanced Education. As the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) pointed out in his second reading speech, the growth in the colleges of advanced education has very substantially increased the demands made on the Commission.

The Opposition has agreed with the request of the Leader of the House, the Minister for Services and Property, that these 5 Bills should be subject to a cognate debate which is not to proceed beyond tonight. Accordingly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to limit- my remarks on the detailed provisions of the legislation. As a matter of general principle the Opposition supports the increased allocation of funds for education as provided in the 5 Bills introduced by the various Ministers. As we have emphasised consistently on so many prior occasions, the Opposition welcomes the Government’s very real emphasis on education policies. This is an emphasis which we certainly share. It should be made clear that most of the financial provisions and particular projects contained in this legislation were initiated and agreed to by the former Liberal-Country Party Government.

I believe that there is a considerable degree of unanimity between all political parties towards the objectives of educational justice in this country. This means, of course, a continuing effort by all governments, Commonwealth and State, to achieve equality of opportunity for all children with the consequent responsibility to provide special assistance for disadvantaged children. Whilst we support the Government’s advances in policy, there are, however, a number of dangers in this transfer of expenditure to give the Commonwealth total authority in these areas. On a previous occasion in this House my colleague the honourable member for Wannon dealt with the question of the location of new universities and colleges of advanced education. During his remarks he alluded to the Government’s failure to consult effectively with the Victorian Government. The point I highlight here, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have done on previous occasions, is that although this Government came to power pledged to a process of consultation, in so many areas that process has been totally ignored. Instead we have seen a process of confrontation. My colleague the honourable member for Wannon, the Opposition’s spokesman on education, who is unable to be here because of a pressing commitment in one of the States, made this comment in the House on 23 August this year:

There is one aspect of ‘this transfer of expenditure which I think is unfortunate. It now means that, while universities, colleges of advanced education and teachers colleges are established by State law and are largely responsible to the States, the financing of them will be solely a matter for another government which does not establish them. That means that there will be complete central authority. There already has been evidence that the present Commonwealth Government will pay no heed to the States concerned in regard to where they want a new university to be located or what kind of a new college of advanced education a State wants to establish. After long and intensive studies in Victoria there was a recommendation and a decision by the Victorian Government that a multicampus university should be established to specialise in external studies- It was, if you like, the forerunner of an open university. It was decided that there would be study centres at a number of sites throughout Victoria and the campus would be at 3 main sites. Without any, consultation with the Victorian Government, a Commonwealth committee recommended that there should be an additional university somewhere near the Dandenongs. It was to be another city based, centralised university, lt would have put back the clock and it may still do so if this Government is determined to use its financial authority and financial power to do what it wants and to ignore the wishes of Victoria and the generally accepted Victorian decision and position which supported the view of the Victorian Government. So there are dangers in this transfer of expenditure which will give total authority to the Commonwealth in these matters.

It is not my intention tonight to elaborate on these points in detail except to make it perfectly clear that while we support the increased financial allocations which are embodied in the legislation, we intend to ensure where possible that the financial authority assumed by the Commonwealth will not be used to exert un warranted pressures in areas of State administration. State governments are rightly concerned by the fact that the funds provided by the Commonwealth to finance tertiary education are being substracted from the general grants made available to the States and are being handed back, as recommended by the Interim Schools Committee, in the form of tagged grants. We go on record as saying that we are very much opposed to the general squeeze which has been put on the States, particularly in the field of education, and to any acceptance in this House of the distribution of funds to the State governments on the basis of the tagged grants concept which is inherent in the various Bills before the House at the present time. This practice means, in the first instance, that there is a transfer of payments, and secondly, that States’ priorities in general education in fact are being supplanted by the Interim Schools Committee.

I do not use this forum tonight as an opportunity to speak in any depth about the question of educational philosophy, except to say this: We, as an Opposition Party, certainly do not believe in the centralisation of power. We recognise the importance of decentralisation and that form of devolution of power which leads to diversity and experimentation in approach and which we believe is essential for the best interests of this country as far as its education advancement is concerned. The Government in fact has no appreciation whatever of the importance of the State governments, of their constitutional powers and of their rights. Indeed, if one looks at the various Bills which have been brought down in this House it is quite clear that the present Government is determined effectively to erode the powers of the States in the field of education and in those other areas for which the States have responsibility. The assumption by the Commonwealth of financial responsibility for tertiary education raises obvious and very real problems in relation to the constitutional position of the States. We reject the approach of centralised control as the best method of education advancement in this country.

I put it to the Acting Minister for Education (Mr Lionel Bowen) who on behalf of his colleague claimed in the second reading speeches that have been delivered that the various State Premiers are in agreement with policy initiatives embodied in this legislation, then I doubt very much whether the basis which now obtains for the disbursement of funds was the basis, upon which that original agreement was made between the Commonwealth and State governments. That certainly is the information which has been given to me by some of the States which claim that the basis has changed. But the Minister continues to utilise the opportunity to claim some false support of endorsement by the State governments.

The Government claimed when the Budget was brought down that educational expenditure was to be increased by $404m or that it would be 92 per cent more than that of the previous financial year. However, of that amount of $404m, $ 144.6m is a straight transfer payment as between the States and the Commonwealth, representing expenditure in the second half of this financial year with respect to tertiary education. Therefore, in quite plain terms I say to the Acting Minister for Education that any allegation that there has been a 92 per cent increase in expenditure on education is phoney at best and dubious at worst. Of that $404m additional expenditure, $90m arises from the reports of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education, the Australian Universities Commission and the Cohen report on teacher training. The first 2 reports were subject to the full approval of the previous Government, with the exception of one item, and the Cohen Committee was established, of course, by the previous Administration. An amount of $26m is allocated for technical education. I personally do not cavil at the allocation of that financial resource. However, it should be emphasised that this was a policy outlined by my Party at the time of the last general election. Equally, the previous Government foreshadowed very substantial pre-school programs.

The Opposition is not opposed to the Bills before the House for the reasons which I have elaborated. In fact, we will co-operate in seeking to expedite their passage through this House. I am aware that a number of my colleagues wish to raise detailed matters in relation to the legislation. I do not seek to pre-empt those comments by utilising the full time available to me in this debate. I hope that the Minister will appreciate the full measure of support that is being provided and that, so far as the financial allocations are concerned, there is no debate between the 2 sides of the House. But in responding to the views put by members of the Opposi tion Parties in this debate I invite the Minister to comment specifically on the educational philosophy of the Government in bringing forward legislation which embodies the transfer of tertiary education from the States to the Commonwealth. I ask the Minister to comment specifically also on the basis of the original agreement and to answer the questions as to whether that basis now obtains. I ask him further to indicate whether he is prepared to go on record as saying that in the field of education this Government is prepared to recognise that the various State Governments have constitutional authority and that that authority must be protected.

Mr OLDMEADOW:
Holt

– I wish to speak briefly on the 5 Bills which are being taken in a cognate debate and all of which are associated with the tertiary level of education. The fact that we are saving time by considering the 5 Bills in a cognate debate should not be interpreted as indicating that these Bills are not regarded as important. That would be far from the truth. I believe that one method frequently used to measure the importance of a program is its cost. If this criterion were applied to these Bills they would rank as being of the greatest importance. The additional expenditure which will result from the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bills will be $399m. The additional expenditure under the States Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 3) will be approximately $467m. In other words, the Government will be allocating of the order of $796m additional expenditure. Therefore it is not surprising that the Opposition should choose to give support to these Bills.

That support was given with certain qualifications. I was amazed to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) speak of a general squeeze that is being put on the States in the field of education. The Opposition is speaking of a squeeze when we are giving an additional $796m to the States to finance tertiary education! I do not propose to go through the provisions of the Bills in detail, but those honourable members who have read them in detail will have noted the large number of initiatives that have been taken by this Government. I believe that the Minister for Education in Victoria is the person who has created the situation of confrontation. I believe that if we looked into the circumstances of the establishment of Melbourne’s fourth university we would see that it was the Minister for Education in Victoria who failed to make the submission. Then at a later date he blamed this Government for the report that was made.

A considerable amount of the sum of $796m is being allocated for the purpose of the Commonwealth’s assuming full responsibility for financing tertiary education from January 1974 and also for tuition fees at universities and colleges of advanced education. This is both a significant and an historic step. This was one of the promises that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in the election campaign, and it is another of the promises that has been kept. It is my hope that in time the result of this step will be that the number of places available at universities will be increased. It is also my hope that the students who are able to go to universities will come from a broader cross-section of the community than at present is the case.

I wish to address my remarks chiefly to that part of the legislation which deals with financial assistance for the training of teachers in our schools and pre-schools. I would submit that the efforts of the previous Government in this respect were paltry and could be regarded as little more than token contributions. The importance that this Government places on the teachers and their education is reflected in the financial assistance which is to be given, namely, $188m commencing in January 1974. It is interesting to note that the report of the Cohen Committee on teacher education and the report on teacher education prepared by the Australian Commission on Advanced Education call for a program for teacher education costing $2 10m. This would be the cost of financing all the former State teachers colleges and pre-school colleges and existing colleges of advanced education. Under the system of matching State-Commonwealth grants which existed under the previous Government, all that the Commonwealth would be required to do in this respect would be to pay $86m. In fact, it has made a contribution of $188m - an additional $102m. That, of course, encompasses our taking over of the whole of the tertiary education expenses.

It is encouraging to note that provision is made in this legislation for the integration of teachers colleges within the framework of colleges of advanced education. I would have liked to have seen them placed under the universities as I feel that this would have been the ideal position for them. However, I think the most important point is that the teachers colleges now have autonomy and that the most unhealthy arrangement of the employers, in the State teachers colleges, training their teachers will not continue. I believe that the practice of having students of other disciplines alongside teachers should be encouraged. At the moment many of them have transferred their names; they have their autonomy. I think the final step will come when we have multi-purpose institutions and the teachers of the day are being trained alongside students who will be entering other professions.

As I have said, this legislation demonstrates the high priority that the present Government places on adequate teacher training. It is a recognition of the crucial role played by teachers in the process of education. I think the learning process is based on the relationship of the teacher to his pupils and his ability to establish both empathy and rapport. Until he is able to do that he is not likely to be able effectively to get the child to the point where it can learn efficiently. It is essential that the training of those who teach in Australian schools should be of the highest quality. Only then will it be possible to create adequate learning situations for the pupils. The concern of the Government for this high ideal is reflected not in the mouthing of the words that we heard spoken in this field for 23 years but in the taking of the actions which have resulted in the allocation of large amounts of money.

There are just 2 other points to which I should like to make brief reference. The first is the provision of increased grants for courses in physical education. I believe that such courses are to be instituted at the Preston and Footscray Institutes of Technology. I applaud the fact that they will be training alongside other disciplines in a multi-purpose situation. But I would highlight the point that there is a tragic shortage of physical education teachers in our schools. Three years ago at the school at which I was teaching and at which I was in charge of deploying the staff available we bad one physical education teacher. Actually, to be precise, we had 0.6 of a teacher. For those who are unfamiliar with the use of such terms, that means a teacher who taught physical education for only 3 days a week. The only physical education that could be given at this school of 1,100 pupils was to the pupils of first form. That is happening in a day and age in which we place great emphasise on the need for physical fitness. I believe it is of tremendous importance that we create extra places for physical education at both universities and colleges of advanced education.

The other matter to which I wish to refer is the increased money that is being made available for the training of social workers. That, of course, will mean the number of places available will be increased. I am encouraged to note that one university very close to my electorate - Monash University - will now have a social workers’ course, presumably a diploma. The University of Queensland also will have one, as will certain colleges of advanced education. When one thinks of the Government’s aims in regard to the Australian Assistance Plan - the health centres and the various other facilities in which there is a great need for social workers to take their place in the team - one can appreciate the great demand that there is for places in both colleges of advanced education and universities for the training of social workers. It is also encouraging to note that more places are being made available for dental therapists.

I believe that these Bills are significant not only for the amount of money they provide, which in itself is most significant, but also for the extensions that they make at a tertiary level. It is certainly of the utmost importance that the Government has achieved free tuition at universities for all students who are accepted by the university authorities. I commend the Bills to the House.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– I was very interested in the remarks of the honourable member for Holt (Mr Oldmeadow), particularly his statement that yet another promise is being kept. If my memory serves me correctly the promise was made in the policy speech of the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), in particular, and in the policy document of the Australian Labor Party that the Australian Labor Party would, if it came to power, take over financial responsibility for tertiary education and that that was followed by a very significant phrase, namely, that the money thus released will be available for primary and secondary education undertaken by the States. That was included, as I remember, in the policy speech. I was rather interested in the passages in the second reading speeches of the respective Ministers on the various Bills which we are debating in a cognate manner tonight in which it is stated that the ‘Premiers of the States have agreed with the program as set out in the Bills.

I come back to the point that the money thus released will be available for primary and secondary education undertaken by the States and also to the point that the Premiers have agreed with the program. If we look at what actually happened we will find that the Premiers agreed with it at the Premiers Conference in June of this year for the simple reason that the Commonwealth said it was going to take over the financial responsibility for tertiary education whether the States liked it or not. What in fact happened after that Premiers Conference? Let us have a look at one of these much vaunted promises of the Prime Minister. What did happen to the moneys thus released after the Federal Government took over the financing of tertiary education? The general reimbursement grants in fact have been reduced by the amounts that the Federal Government has put into financing tertiary education throughout Australia. In fact my own State of New South Wales will lose $36m in the 6-month period ending December of this year. So let us have no pious statements about keeping promises. In fact yet another promise has been debased.

I agree with the views set forth by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) in his speech and I go along with his statement that the Opposition will neither oppose nor seek to amend the Bills. I have read with interest some of the movements in policy enunciated in these Bills. In relation to the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 2), I notice that there is reference in the second paragraph of the second reading speech of the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) to 3 new projects being included in the Second Schedule to the Act. Two of those proposals were approved by the previous Minister for Education and Science. Let us at least be fair minded and even-handed in our appreciation of what is being done in these Bills and admit that a great proportion of the advances as set out in these Bills was initiated and in some cases approved by the previous Government. I notice that the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3) had its origin in the recommendations of the report on teacher education prepared by the Australian Commission on Advanced Education. When did the inquiry of that Commission commence? It commenced in October 1972, in the time of the previous Government. So again, let us acknowledge that part that the previous Government played in funding education at a much higher level than previously had been the case. I pay tribute to the present Government for carrying on the work initiated by the previous Government.

I was interested also to see in the second reading speech on the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3) the statement that the Government is tremendously concerned about the high quality and professional skill of teachers. The Government says that this is ‘crucial to the process of education’. I would agree absolutely and wholeheartedly with this view because I think that education is not merely a matter of money; it is much more than that. The professional qualifications and the interest shown by the various teachers have an enormous part to play in the total education of the child. I am sure we can all remember during our own educational period those teachers who impressed us more than others. It is not only the sheer technical skill of but also the degree of interest expressed by such teachers which makes the total educative process so much more realistic and meaningful for a great number of students. <I notice that the Government accepted in their entirety the recommendations of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education which was set up by the previous Government, including the recommendations for special grants for the particularly worthy purposes of accelerating the development of teachers college libraries, of fostering research into aspects of teacher education’. I should like to emphasise the need for more research in education. This has been a .consistent theme of mine during my time in this House. I believe that nobody has the complete answer to what is the best method of educating both children and adults. Incidentally, this is why I am such a great advocate of freedom of choice being offered to people, not only parents in the education of their children but also to adults when they have the opportunity of carrying on their education later in life. Certainly I think that we should be emphasising research much more than we have done in the past. I am glad to see that the present Government is adopting the recommendations of the Commission and has agreed to foster research into aspects of teacher education.

I am particularly pleased also to see emphasis being put on the preparation of teachers for handicapped children. I would agree with those people who point out that handicapped children, whatever the nature of the handicap, should have special treatment, special resources and a special place in the thinking of governments, whether they be at the federal or State level. Again, I commend the Government for its emphasis on the education of handicapped children - an emphasis which I point out once again was contained in the recommendations of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education set up by the previous Government. I notice also that the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3) provides for an integration of teachers colleges completely within the framework of the advanced education legislation. Again, I have been a consistent advocate of the idea that ^teachers colleges should be removed from the control of State education departments. I see this as a form of decentralisation, as a breakdown in the excessive bureaucratisation of education and as placing upon the adminstrators of teachers colleges a greater responsibility because they will be independent organisations more so than at any stage in the past and therefore have not only the right but also the responsibility to live up to the independence with which they are to be provided.

I notice in the second reading speech on the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3) that the Government has allocated $100,000 to increase the number of preschool teachers in training and that this grant will meet the cost of the additional trainees from January to July 1973. I wonder if the July 1973 date is correct because, of course, the Government has a continuing responsibility to meet the cost of these additional teachers and here we are in late November 1973. If the grant applied until only July 1973, what has happened about meeting the cost of training pre-school teachers after that time?

The States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 4) in many ways is perhaps a more significant Bill than the others because in the initial stages of his second reading speech the Acting Minister for Education, the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Lionel Bowen), set out the proposition that the Australian Government will assume full financial responsibility for advanced education from 1 January 1974. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has already pointed to the fact that some difficulties could arise because of the assumption of this responsibility by the Federal Government. We all know that the various States have the responsibility for overseeing the various aspects of tertiary education including, of course, the technical colleges and the universities. I believe that these institutions will in future years find difficulties arising from the fact that, in fact, they will be serving 2 masters. They will have their financial requirements met by the Federal Government and yet they will be set up and legislated for by State governments. How these difficulties will be overcome remains to be seen but I predict that difficulties will arise because of this dichotomy.

Again, in his second reading speech, the Acting Minister for Education made a point of saying:

The Premiers of all the States have agreed to the major policy change which is incorporated in this Bill.

Once again, I point out that this was brought about literally with a financial gun at their heads. The fifth Bill which the House is now considering is the Commission on Advanced Education Bill. It is proposed to add to the number of commissioners by appointing a deputy chairman as an additional full-time member. In this case I merely point to the figures supplied in the second reading speech. The number of colleges has increased from 48 in 1971 to 83 in 1973. Again, I think that Government supporters should pay at least some tribute to the former governments not only because of their promulgation of the idea of colleges of advanced education but also because the program was put into effect with such success. The fact that the number of colleges has risen from 48 in 1971 to 83 in 1973 is a measure of that success. As the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) pointed out in his second reading speech, the student enrolments in the colleges have increased enormously from 45,000 in 1971 to 95,000 in 1973. The fact that as a greater proportion of Australians has the opportunity of receiving at least some tertiary education at a high level is splendid and something that i am sure we would all applaud. Naturally enough, the demands placed upon the body overseeing this development have become excessive as I am sure we will find that the demands placed upon a number of the commissions set up by this Government will become excessive and we will have a succession of Bills, such as this Commission on Advanced Education Bill 1973, coming before the House as the Government appoints more and more people to these commissions. This situation will arise unless the Government devises some method of reducing the centralisation of the administration of these organisations.

I support the Bills before the House. I think that they embody some very worthwhile progressive changes. I would seek from Government supporters opposite some acknowledgement that at least many of these changes were not only envisaged but also were put into train by previous governments and I hope, as other honourable members have said, that with the passing of these Bills more and more Australians of a range of years will have the opportunity of taking advantage of superior avenues of tertiary education because in this way, when they do have this opportunity, not only will they benefit but also the whole nation will be enhanced

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– I listened with interest to the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), particularly when he talked about the Australian Government holding guns at the heads of the State Premiers to force them to accept financial assistance. I do not know about his State, but I can assure him that certainly in Victoria during the last State elections the Liberal Premier and the Liberal Minister for Education accepted the guns at their heads with glee and very happily spent the extra finances that were to be made available to the Victorian Department of Education from these sources. In fact, in being fair minded and even handed, the honourable member for Warringah might have remembered that a Bill will be before the House tomorrow which makes provision for vastly improved expenditure on primary and secondary education.

Another thing I should like to comment on is the statement of the deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) who implied that this Government was forcing a fourth university on Victoria at a specified site. The real problem in Victoria is that the Australian Universities Commission has waited so long for a statement from the Victorian Minister for Education as to this other institution that decisions have been delayed. Now the State Minister is trying to foist his own concept of this institution on local authorities. He is talking of multicampus type institutions in country centres. This is admirable in its concept, but one of the things in his concept is that this plan should be superimposed on teachers’ colleges and completely ignores the existence of colleges of advanced education and technical institutes.

For example, in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) the superimposition of a teachers college will mean the acquisition of a new site and the building of a new institution. The Gordon Institute of Technology, a well respected institution which already exists has a campus site at Waurn Ponds. An area is available for the site to be extended so that one good tertiary institution could be established there with a viable number of students. If the Victorian Minister gets his way with his double institution it will be a long time before a viable institution is established. There will be 2 sites and 2 buildings competing for finance and competing in every way. So I think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have been far better to have let that aspect alone.

In looking at this group of Bills it is rather interesting to reflect that we are dealing in some instances with finance that was made available during the 1969-72 triennial allocations. These amounts have been reallocated so that they serve a useful purpose. The Bills actually bring up to date the allocations for teachers colleges, colleges of advanced education and universities in the 1972-75 triennium. I suppose that one might say that the real crunch will come in the next triennium of 1975-78 when one sees what sort of propositions are put forward for new courses, new concepts, and new facilities at tertiary institutions.

In dealing with this matter of tertiary institutions I think it may be as well just to outline briefly the history of this type of financing of tertiary institutions. It indicates a rather basic difference in philosophy between the Government and the Opposition. The Australian Parliament in the past has concentrated far more on tertiary education than any other field of education. Earlier today I spoke of the grants that originated in war time for students in protected faculties. Their fees were paid, they were given book and equipment allowances and they were paid a living allowance according to a means test. Such students had to promise to give 3 years service to the Commonwealth Government if required. As far as I know no student was ever required to fulfill that promise.

In the post war period this scheme was added to by the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme, which produced many graduates from ex-servicemen. However, then there was a change of government and a change in philosophy. We then had the Commonwealth tertiary scholarships scheme - I use the term tertiary scholarships scheme to group all the schemes together - which served a completely different function. The previous schemes had relied on the ability of the student to qualify for university entrance. The Commonwealth scholarships scheme, which had its good points, however, relied on the student being allocated a position on merit. It was easier for those who were privileged and advantaged in their educational backgrounds to obtain these awards. One feels that perhaps many students who would have benefited under the previous scheme were disadvantaged by the subsequent scholarship scheme. With the change of Government there is now a swing back to a situation in which all students at tertiary institutions will be able to attend without paying fees and will receive appropriate living allowances. This will increase the opportunities for persons to pursue their educations. Some doubts have been expressed that this process may lead to a overloading of the institutions. Only time will tell.

I would have joined those who criticise the Australian Government concern with tertiary education as the main thrust of its education policy if it were not that this Government has instituted measures which will give a substantial injection of finance into other areas of education. When I think of the situation of 39 per cent of fourth form students in one high school requiring remedial education, I feel that the primary and secondary sphere of education should have more money spent on it. However, it is a historical fact that the Government has accepted tertiary education as essentially its primary concern. Now, we are getting down to the really nitty-gritty - to primary and secondary education and to disadvantaged children.

So I am not going to criticise the Government’s overriding tertiary interest as an initial interest. However, I think that there is an aspect that might arise out of our assistance to colleges of advanced’ education, institutes of technology and universities. That is the extension into external studies and open universities of opportunities for those who have not formal university or college of advanced education entrance qualifications. I mention this because the La Trobe University in my electorate has run a rather interesting project under which it has admitted students who do not have the formal admission requirements of a university, nor have they even attempted to attain those qualifications.

The university has admitted a number of students to courses on a trial basis, and their performance has been very good. One feels that opportunities should be given for an extension of this. As far as I can ascertain, only the University of New England and the Macquarie University have schools for external studies. I believe that many people could be benefited by universities increasing the opportunities for external studies. I think perhaps that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) was nodding his head then. These external studies courses are most helpful for persons in remote areas, just as they are for persons even in urban areas where the opportunity to attend tertiary institutions may be restricted by occupation or other reasons, although these persons wish to continue their education and to gain knowledge. I think that there is a very real role for an expansion of this facility.

One of the other problems that is cited with regard to tertiary institutions in the question of whether institutes of technology and colleges of advanced education in awarding degrees may not by very inclination shift towards the university atmosphere and the university concept of courses. I can recall the occasion when on behalf of the Opposition in the Victorian Parliament, I handled the Victorian Institute of Colleges Bill. We were told that the Victorian Institute of Colleges was to give much more practical degrees, that it was to follow the British concept of giving degrees in more technological sciences and so on, and that these degrees were to be for the practical persons with a practical knowledge of the various subjects rather than the purely didactic or theoretical learning of subjects. I have a reservation about some of the colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology. There is a tendency for these bodies to see themselves as being of the same kind as universities and for their courses gradually to alter to the university type courses. I think it would be a shame if these bodies overlooked their very real role in giving an education different from that given by the norma! university in the Oxbridge or red brick tradition.

Sometimes we are amused about the subjects undertaken at colleges and universities in the United States of America. Sometimes we show some friendly amusement about the sort of units with which students can be credited for courses undertaken. But looking at the overall situation, I think there is much benefit in these wiser and practical courses that allow persons to acquire quite a breadth of general education which may not necessarily suit them for a particular vocation or profession but which may very well suit them ideally for every day life, communication with their fellows and the conduct of whatever the activities in which they are engaged. So I hope that colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology will use their facilities to give this variety of courses in the community for other than formal occupations.

One has some other queries regarding the question of fees not being paid at tertiary institutions. I think that one also has to start thinking about those students who, having taken a first degree, look forward to taking a second degree either because it is a vocational one or because they have a love of knowledge for knowledge’s sake. We may have to start to do some educational research on the motivation of these persons and the number of persons who are involved at tertiary institutions. I am sure, just as I spoke of the open university and the external studies departments, that this question of persons wanting to continue to second degrees will become really important.

I note with some pleasure among the allocations in these Bills the allocation for the social worker course at the Preston Institute of Technology. The Preston Institute was one of the original members of the Victorian Institute of Colleges. It existed for many years in my electorate, but now it has shifted to another campus at Bundoora. I am pleased that this Institute will be able to set up its course in social work because there will be a much increased demand for social workers in the community, not only because federal authorities are increasing the instrumentalities that are using social workers to carry out their work but also because of the problems that exist and the much wider appreciation by people and institutions of the fact that social workers can serve a very useful purpose in the community. To illustrate that point, I have in my electorate one state school which is in a socio-economically deprived area. The committee at that school is most anxious that social workers should be associated with the staff of the school to deal with many of the problems facing the children at the school. At the present time these social workers are just not available. I am pleased that grants such as that to be made to the Preston Institute of Technology will result in an increase in the supply of social workers who will be needed in the future.

This cognate debate covers a very wide range of matters affecting tertiary education. 1 believe that this Government has kept faith in its allocation of money for these purposes. As I said during the earlier part of my speech, I think that the crunch will come in the next triennium, when we see just what this financial assistance has done for these tertiary institutions and how they will respond to the stimulus that they are given, because respond they must in the submissions that they make for the next triennium and in the variety of courses and the variety of facilities which they will make available and which will allow young men and women to cope with the needs of modern day life.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– Before dealing with the Bills, I should like to refer to a couple of the comments made by the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins). He referred to what he detected to be a basic philosophical difference between the present Government and former governments in that former governments placed a greater degree of emphasis on the need for tertiary education rather than on the general needs of education. To an extent, that perhaps was true. In a general sense former governments desired to leave the primary and secondary education principally to the administration of and the funding by State governments. But, of course, events have really overtaken that position - on the one hand, the events of 2 December last and, on the other hand, the pressing financial reasons why greater Commonwealth involvement has been necessary in order to help the States to fund this important area of education. I should like to endorse what the honourable member for Scullin said regarding external studies >and the need for a greater expansion of external studies within existing universities. He ‘paid a compliment to the University of New England which is in the northern part 6f New South Wales. For some time this University has provided external studies which have been of tremendous benefit to students in- the outback areas of New South Wales.

In supporting all five of these Bills, I should like to deal brieflly with a few aspects of each of them. The State Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3), which deals with the 1973- 75 triennium plan to integrate teachers colleges and pre-school teachers colleges, will assist with libraries in particular. Its origins lie in the recommendations of the report on teacher education initiated by the former Government in October last year. A report on teacher education has been prepared by the Australian Commission on Advanced Education. The present Government accepted its recommendations entirely, providing special grants for teachers college libraries and research teacher education and increasing the number of teachers to teach handicapped children. Unfortunately there appears to be no provision for funds to train teachers in the education of children with specific learning difficulties. Perhaps I have misread the Bill, but I hope that if this provision is not included the time will soon come when the Government will assist the parents of children with specific learning difficulties.

I should like to pay a tribute to the tremendous work that SPELD has done in highlighting this important need. The SPELD organisation has not been anxious to have its children classified as handicapped children. Many of the children suffering from specific learning difficulties have very high or above average intelligence quotients. However, there is a great need for more remedial teachers in our schools and I hope that funds will be provided to assist in this area of need.

This Bill will make similar provisions for teachers colleges as exist for universities and colleges of advanced education, integrating teachers colleges completely within the framework of the advanced education legislation. I also applaud the allocation of $ 10.29m for pre-school teachers colleges, in view of the universal provision of this facility for our young people within the Commonwealth of Australia. The Bill provides variations in the schedule of expenditure as requested by the States - a transfer of funds rather than new grants. I welcome the provision of full financial support for tertiary education so far as private teachers colleges are concerned.

Let me now deal briefly with the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 4), which enables the Australian Government to assume full financial responsibility for advanced education from 1 January 1974. All the Premiers have agreed to this major policy change. The Bill provides supplementary grants to colleges to meet increased costs, particularly with respect to academic salaries arising from Mr Justice Campbell’s enquiry, which was initiated by the former Government. These provisions will assist students substantially with per capita grants for living away or accommodation costs in advanced education college residencies. The Australian Government will assume full responsibility for the funding of tertiary education from 1 January 1974, and of course for the entire cost of construction of student residencies in country areas. I also commend this decision.

With respect to the Commission on Advanced Education Bill, I think it is reasonable that there should be appointed a full time deputy chairman because of the increased work load upon the Commission itself that has become evident. This has been due to the rapid growth in the number of colleges. The Minister in his second reading speech indicated that in 1971 there were 48 such colleges whereas today there are 83, including 39 former teachers colleges. Of course, the student enrolments have risen quite rapidly from 45,000 in 1971, when the original Bill was introduced by the former Government, to 95,000 today. I pay tribute to the splendid work of the Commission in advising former Ministers and the present Minister for Education (Mr Beazley).

The major policy decision implemented in this legislation is the assumption by the Australian Government of full financial responsibility for university education from January 1974 and the abolition of fees for university and tertiary education. As I said earlier, the State Premiers agreed in June 1973 that this responsibility should be assumed by the Australian Government. In addition, teachers colleges and pre-school teachers colleges were to be financed by the Australian Government, as recommended by the Cohen Committee. The Australian Government has shown an increasing and evolving interest and involvement in tertiary education for many years. Initially its involvement was with the universities which, in the immediate post-war years, were in considerable difficulties. In 1956 the Murray Committee was established to make recommendations to improve the situation of the universities. If recommendations were accepted in full and one result was the establishment of the Australian Universities Commission to oversee the continuing welfare of the universities. Through the 1965 Martin Committee report on the future of tertiary education in Australia, the Australian Government widened its sphere of influence to include other institutions in the tertiary education sector. The Australian Commission on Advanced Education was subsequently established in 1971. The legislation provides that these 2 commissions should consult together in order that the development of universities and colleges of advanced education should be co-ordinated. With the funds for all these institutions coming from the same source, it is likely that such co-ordination will be regarded as even more essential.

The desirability of this was argued in principle in the Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Education in South Australia, 1969-1970, which is known as the Karmel report. I quote from page 306:

We believe that there are powerful arguments for establishing procedures to facilitate the co-ordination of the plans of the various tertiary institutions. Since the expansion of tertiary, education that is being demanded by the community will involve greatly rising expenditures, the need to ensure an efficient allocation of resources becomes greater and greater.

The Armidale conference on higher education held in 1969 recommended that the Australian Universities Commission and the Advisory Committee on Advanced Education, as it was constituted prior to the establishment of the Commission, should be replaced by a single higher education authority to advise the Commonwealth Government and to consult with State governments on the short and long term needs of all institutions comprising the higher education system. It is possible that such an overall authority may be found desirable. The previous Government felt that until the status of the colleges of advanced education had been improved the proposal should not be implemented. The Labor Government has as yet shown no signs of amalgamating its education commissions. On the contrary, since the Labor Government took office, interim committees or commissions have been established for schools, preschools and technical and further education.

Dr C. Duke, Director of the Australian National University Centre for Continuing Education, has warned that ‘the proliferation of educational commissions may artificially divide educational experience or perpetuate administrative divisions which already exist, in a way which does violence to the learning needs of persons in a rapidly changing society and economy.’

The Australian Government’s direction of university education has in the past been exercised largely through the system of matched grants and specific purpose grants. These have enabled the Australian Government largely to determine priorities. The inability of the States to match the grants, it has been argued, has limited growth in some areas. The increasing costs of university and other areas of education have made increased Australian Government involvement inevitable. As I said earlier, it has been an evolving process, and this has been necessary to maintain desirable standards of education. The Labor Party undertaking to abolish fees at tertiary level and take over the funding of tertiary education is based partly on the premise that the States could not realistically be expected to bear the increasing costs without a major adjustment in Commonwealth-State financial arrangements.

The 2 aspects - fee abolition and the general funding of tertiary education - are closely linked. The Australian Government contributed $1 for each $1.85 collected in State contribution plus fees for recurrent expenditure. The only way in which fees could be abolished without the States having to replace them with other revenue or the university having to forgo them, was for. the Australian Government to make up the difference. The Government has gone further than this by assuming the States’ share of the financial responsibility for tertiary education. One of the most serious problems in the future will be to ensure that centralised financial responsibility does not lead to a centralisation of administrative and educational responsibility which stifles initiative and diversity at the local level. This has been stressed by honourable members who have spoken in this debate. It has been said often in this House. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an opinion on that position.

Two streams of argument have been ventured with respect to the abolition of tuition fees at the tertiary level. I have heard it argued, firstly, that fee abolition will improve access to tertiary ‘ education for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds; secondly, that it is” a fundamental principle that all education should be free; and, thirdly, that an urgently needed revision of StateCommonwealth arrangements for funding tertiary education would become necessary. On the other hand 1 have heard it argued that, firstly, the abolition of fees might replace some of the more motivated students by the less motivated. If selected on matriculation results, it has been shown that, below the top 60 per cent, matriculation results are less important than motivation as an indicator of success.

Secondly, I have heard it argued that if all financial constraints were removed, students from lower socio-economic levels would still suffer owing to their home background, parental motivation towards higher education, poorer schooling and so on. Thirdly, although some poorer students would be helped, this would be done by subsidising other students who are not in need and who will eventually earn more anyway as a result of their university education. Fourthly, through higher costs there may be a decrease in the number of tertiary places available. Fifthly, institutional control of recurrent expenditure may b& decreased.

I do not altogether agree with the arguments against the abolition of fees. I throw them into the debate to provoke thought. I believe that the Government has made a worthy and generous attempt to provide for all children of ability an equality of opportunity in all fields of education. I support the Bills and commend the Minister for the effort that he has put into having this legislation passed through the House prior to the commencement of the next school year.

Mr McKENZIE:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– When one looks at so many Bills which do so many things, one hardly knows where to start. Perhaps I ought to start by repeating what I said in the first speech that I made in this place. I said:

I believe that we need to start thinking of education not only as a service- for the young but as a service’ to the whole community, to be used as and when necessary - like health services. This will need a completely new emphasis on the role of adult education and retraining programs.

These Bills go part of the way towards assisting tertiary education in various aspects, not only in relation to universities but also in relation to colleges of advanced education and preschool and ordinary teachers colleges. I believe that the additional funding which will be made available through these Bills will be of tremendous importance and great significance for the future of education in Australia.

The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) mentioned children with specific learning difficulties. This is something on which we both agree and I am sure on which most honourable members in this place agree. As a teacher, I have taught children who, although appearing to be and in fact being very intelligent and able to cope in many ways, have had a blind spot in their ability to grasp certain information - perhaps in reading. I can remember one outstanding case where the brightest boy in the school was unable to read above grade 1 level. At that time I had not heard the word ‘dyslexia’ but I am pretty sure in my mind, looking back on it, that that child had dyslexia. If I had been specially trained and if the facilities had been available to give that child a better education by providing the specialist service that was available, he and, I believe, the community would have been much better off. We hope that this Bill will provide additional specialist teachers in particular fields.

The honourable member for Gwydir also mentioned various ways of looking at fee abolition. One of the Bills proposes to abolish fees for tertiary education completely. I think we would all agree that there are difficulties in doing this, with sufficient regard being paid to the ability of children to reach this level in the first place. What this Government is attempting to do is to raise the level of education over all. I agree entirely with the honourable member for Gwydir that, unless a child has sufficient motivation and has been given sufficient opportunity in his early schooling to become motivated and to be able to build upon that groundwork, he will have great difficulty in establishing himself and gaining benefit from tertiary education although it may be completely free. This is one of the things we must look at.

I think it was the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) who referred to the establishment of a fourth university in Victoria. Certainly the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) mentioned it before. Just to put the record straight I would like to state the situation concerning the fourth university in Victoria. The promise was made by the Victorian Government at the election held in 1970 to move for the establishment of a fourth university in Victoria. A committee was set up. It reported in about October 1972. The Victorian Minister for Education was then asked for a detailed submission by the Australian Universities Commission and by the then Minister for Education and Science, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser). In December, on the election of the Labor Government, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) as Minister for Education in the First Whitlam Ministry set up an inquiry into university needs in Melbourne and the surrounding areas. A further request for details of the Victoria proposal was ignored. Then in February the Victorian Premier announced the 3-campus proposal, which was mentioned previously. In May the Australian Universities Commission report was tabled. There was still no submission in detail from the Victorian Government. In May the Victorian Minister attacked the Commonwealth for ignoring his proposals. In July the Victorian Minister submitted proposals that were contrary to the wishes of the local education authorities. Obviously if we are going to solve the problems of where to put the fourth university in Victoria we will have to sit down and really work out where we are going. Until now one would have imagined that the Victorian Government was not quite sure where it was heading in this matter. As at least 2 honourable members on the other side of the House wish to enter into this debate, I shall be brief. I shall confine my remarks to one or two matters.

Firstly, the Bills before the House provide additional funds for kindergarten training institutions - kindergarten teachers’ colleges. For a long while kindergarten teachers’ colleges were independent not only in their administration but also in the provision of their finance. This meant, because of the fees that had to be charged, that only girls who belonged to relatively wealthy families could afford to attend these institutions. This was not a good state of affairs, not only because it cut down the number of potential students but also because it limited the variety of people offering themselves for training as kindergarten teachers. During recent years, a great number of kindergarten teachers have entered kindergarten teachers’ colleges for training additional to, perhaps, their training as primary teachers and this has, of course, built up the numbers.

We know that pre-school education will go through a great phase of expansion. In Victoria, which is probably the best equipped State so far as pre-school education is concerned, there is still a great need for improvement. In my own area in the shire of Diamond Valley, which is part of the electorate of Diamond Valley, I think that the shire council during the years has provided the best standard of pre-school education available anywhere in the Commonwealth. It is something of which I am very proud. I am proud also to have been associated with it. But there are still children, even in that municipality, who do not receive the one year of pre-school education which most people who understand the work in this field believe is necessary. So, the provision of additional funds for training teachers in this work is of great significance.

Finally, I hope that the additional funds which will be released - and despite any arguments from my friends on the other side of the House, if they examine the figures they will find that additional funds are being made available which will allow other State funds to be released - will be used in the forthcoming year to make sure that the promise which was made, and partially backed up, to abolish composite fees in secondary schooL and even in primary schools will result in those schools having enough money to be able to do away with levying parents for the basic needs of those schools. I make a plea on behalf of those parents who will find, if this is not done, that they will be asked yet again to provide additional funds to help run the schools. I trust that the additional money which is being released through the funds provided by these Bills will be spent partially in this area.

A number of the actions which are being taken in relation to education are real landmarks in education. I acknowledge that the former Government did take initiatives on the Cohen report and similar reports. I am pleased that so far as something like the Cohen report is concerned, we are not only implementing its recommendations but also are going that extra mile. When the provisions of these Bills are put into operation and the money is provided not only schoolchildren but also the whole community in Australia can look forward to a better education system. I am pleased that the Opposition is supporting these Bills. I commend the Bills to the House.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

– Each of the 5 Bills now before the House deals with tertiary education. The honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr McKenzie) mentioned that two speakers were to follow him. This means that I must cut my remarks and make them fairly brief. In doing so, I immediately come to the point with respect to the fourth university for Victoria, which has been mentioned to a degree and in which I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are vitally interested with respect to your electorate as I am in relation to the electorate of Bendigo. Following quite a deal of investigation and discussion, as the member for Diamond Valley mentioned, the Victorian Government decided originally that that fourth university was to be sited in the 3 areas of Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo. Following a report presented by the investigating body which carried out that inquiry, this was agreed to by the Minister for Education in Victoria and was eventually brought forward as a promise by the State Government.

That body of inquiry had considered submissions put in by representatives of those 3 country areas. I know that, in particular, a great deal of time, money and effort was spent by the authorities in Bendigo in making sure that their submission stated the case in the best possible manner, setting out the requirements for a university. Also it checked far afield in Victoria to see from which areas of population the need would come for such a university. I am sure that those in Geelong did the same.

Following that submission and the decision by the State Government, we were greatly disappointed when we found out that we would have to wait on the Australian Universities Commission to make up its mind and to report on whether it would accept the decision by the Victorian Government. At the time when the decision was made to site the university in those 3 centres, the responsibility rested with the State Government. Now, the policy has been changed and universities are to be funded entirely by the Commonwealth. We are now in the position where we must wait for the decision by the Commonwealth body. Costs are rising all the time. The wait is becoming somewhat irksome.

Let me put the honourable member for Diamond Valley more clearly in the picture as to what is happening with respect to the inquiry by the Australian Universities Commission. The Commission has visited the 3 areas involved in this inquiry and has just completed its investigations and talks, having held hearings in the 3 centres concerned. Unfortunately, the Press heralded that the Commission had a preconceived opinion as to exactly where this university was to go. It was stated quite emphatically in the Melbourne ‘Age’ that the university was to be located in Dandenong. This was before the Commission visited Bendigo to investigate the matter. The newspapers in my city stated that the Commission was to support the establishment of the university there on the basis of the existing teachers’ college with university extensions and proposed to keep the college of advanced education as a separate entity which would function apart from the university. These statements led to a great deal of heartburning in my electorate, particularly on the part of the council of the college of advanced education in Bendigo of which I am a member. We were anxious to meet the Commission. When we did so, we found that the newspaper reports had not correctly recorded the true state of affairs.

Firstly, the Australian Universities Commission was looking at the possibility of locating the university at Dandenong. Secondly, it was considering looking at the AlburyWodonga area. These were but two of the areas which the Commission proposed to consider. Also, it was considering the possibility of the university combining with the college of advanced education and the teachers college as well as the possibility, as mentioned in the Press, of the college of advanced education operating separately from the teachers’ college and the university. One feels that perhaps the Press was looking for news containing startling revelations rather than the facts of the matter which would have shown to the public that the Commission was trying to discover all facets of the matter and report on that basis.

Nevertheless I trust that following all the waffling that has occurred between the Federal Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) and his Interim Commission under the control of Professor Karmel, the Commonwealth will get around to agreeing to the decision already made to site the university on the 3-campus basis as being the best way to deal with the requirement. If that is done, we will be able to get on with the necessary work.

Let me explain what has happened as a result of the procrastination that has occurred with respect to this matter. A promise has been made to supply the State College at Bendigo, the fenner teachers’ college with S3. 75m so that it might proceed to erect a resources centre and a humanities building. This was promised earlier in the year but suddenly, because of the waffling that occurred on the part of the Universities Commission and the hold-up in the whole situation, this project also was held up. There was some lame excuse that it might not work in with the university when the decision was made. This has all been designed to work in with the university. In the Bendigo area the College of Advanced Education is almost adjacent to the teachers’ college or the State college. There are a few acres of land in between. The site is an ideal one because it can be extended and linked up. This was the plan and everybody in Bendigo has worked for this ideal. It was accepted by the State, but now the whole thing has been held up, particularly the building project associated with the State college. I think it is a shame. Building costs are accelerating. This project has been held up now for 3 or 4 months and we will find that more money will have to be paid. Money is being wasted when the job could have been under way at the estimated cost.

The honourable member for Holt (Mr Oldmeadow) also mentioned that $188 is to be spent as part of the funding in 1973-74. He quoted $102m more than was quoted by the previous Government. He blithely stated that it would have paid $86m this year in accordance with previous arrangement for equal participation by the States. He conveniently forgot what he had just said - that the States are paying their share. So in effect the outlay would have been $172m from the State and the Federal governments, an increase of $16m or of less than 10 per cent and far less than the escalating cost caused by inflation. The total sum being spent by the Government on education is excellent and we heartily endorse it, but for goodness sake let the Government not try to put around the idea that it is doing marvellous things. It is not even keeping up with inflation.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

– The House is having a cognate debate on 5 Bills dealing with education but I wish to concentrate my remarks on the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3), which will extend the provision of financial assistance for all State teachers’ colleges and the pre-school teachers’ colleges as from 1 July 1973. The Australian Country Party, as part of the Opposition, fully supports this Bill. Over past months various education Bills have been passed by the Parliament which have rightly placed considerable emphasis on expenditure to improve the amenities and the facilities of our education system. But more important to the future success of education programs will be the effectiveness and capability of our teaching profession. This Bill will assist just that. By integrating teachers’ colleges completely within the framework of advanced education we will have a situation where the same financing arrangements will apply to teachers’ colleges as to our universities and colleges of advanced education. Teachers’ colleges now will be fully within the structure of tertiary institutions.

Pre-school education is recognised now as a most necessary start to the education of our children. Work done by teachers at this level is important to the future success at higher levels of schools, and greater support is necessary not only from the Federal Government but from State governments which also must recognise the rights of our young children to pre-school training. It is of particular advantage in under-privileged areas. In many inner city suburbs where there are large families, where often 2 parents are working or where large concentrations of migrants are living, it is essential to provide satisfactory pre-school centres staffed by adequately trained teachers who can apply themselves to problems which face these young people. Our teachers need training but they also need adequate working and living conditions so that they do not just become commuters to the schools and their pupils but can live and work within these communities. We have to encourage our teachers to raise the performance of themselves and their students. There is no doubt that the environment and the relationship between the teacher and the child will have a much greater influence on educattion than the surrounding facilities which, as I mentioned, are being given great attention.

There is an ever stronger argument for increased pre-school activity for our Aboriginal people and children in rural Australia who do not always have the advantage of constant communication and association with other children in some form of tuition before primary school. The teaching profession is the major link between parents and our society in our education process. It is, I believe, the most important link. I am firmly of the opinion that to date too much finance has gone into the top academic roles and it is for this reason that I am pleased to give my support to any legislation aimed at diverting funds into teacher training. Teachers must be encouraged to develop standards in their profession and to accept responsibility for the measurement and appraisal of those standards. This is not easy and it will not be an easy task, since each child is an individual and responds to different circumstances, techniques and personalities.

We must expand the. facilities for in-service training for teachers. We need special course arrangements and for teachers to participate in post-graduate courses. Changing patterns in education must apply to a rapidly changing society and it is vital for the teaching profession to participate with in-service training in order to give teachers a more fulfilling and productive role. The Australian Country Party is aware of the ferment and uncertainty surrounding education and of the need to adopt the organisation, control, methods and objectives of education to the requirements of the people in this changing world. We see the likelihood of far reaching changes in education and teaching methods as part of this rapidly changing environment in which national policies must be continually determined and revised.

There must be greater recognition of the fact that the structure of the family in society is not only changing but is under challenge. Demands and new approaches are being applied to the places occupied by each person in the family and society, and to the means by which each person is to be enabled and equipped to play his or her role. I mention these changes and these challenges because it is to the teachers, to responsible professionally trained young men and women, that the future course of the lives of our young children will be moulded.

It is not my intention to canvass or challenge the source of the funds made available in these 5 Bills except to say that with the spiralling inflation rate causing high rises in building and wage costs of at least 20 per cent anually a 20 per cent rise would be required to maintain the status quo given present conditions. The only question I raise in relation to the funding of education is that the source of finance should not be used as a means of control. Diversity and freedom of choice will be the criteria of an effective educational system and if there are any tendencies they should be towards regionalisation of administration, control and policy making.

Since I entered this Parliament I have always stressed the need for governments to meet the deficiencies in library facilities and conditions at our primary and secondary schools quickly. Libraries today are an integral part of education and it is pleasing to see libraries receiving special grants in respect of the acquisition of library material and the employment of library staff as these things apply to teacher training colleges. The Country Party applauds the provision of $9. 17m by the Government to meet the cost of pre-school colleges and its decision to meet its share of these grants even though these institutions will not become selfgoverning under the general supervision of the appropriate bodies in the States. We support these Bills in total, recognising the right of every member of society to avail himself or herself of a period of education at public expense, an education that will be appropriate and useful to his or her needs.

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

– In the period of about 5 minutes which I have to speak I would like to thank honourable members who have taken part in the debate this evening for their comments. Many of them have been laudatory; a number have been critical. I will endeavour to answer in these few minutes some of the criticisms which have been levelled. One of the questions asked at the outset was what this Government’s philosophy was. I refer honourable members to the ministerial statement made in this House by my colleague, The Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), on 23 August last in which he clearly set out that this Government, for the first time, really would give to education all that was needed to ensure that every child in this nation was educated to the utmost of his or her talents. That statement covers a wide spectrum. Tonight we are dealing mainly with the tertiary field. We are dealing with the fact that the Commonwealth, with the concurrence of the various Premiers, is taking over tertiary education. We are taking it over, with their concurrence, but in a sense the future will be under their guidance. It is worth while placing on record also that for the first time youngsters now entering the tertiary field will not be obliged to pay tuition fees. That in itself gives great encouragement to the advancement of their education. Following the splendid undertaking set out in the Government’s policy speech, this policy has been put into practice. The initiatives that were announced in this House covered those who are disadvantaged and those who are handicapped. Those who needed the opportunity to complete tertiary education would not be denied it simply because of insufficient funds. There has been some criticism in relation to the funds provided, even though the extent to which they have been increased is magnificent. There has been a 67 per cent increase over and above what would have been provided under the previous program, and this 67 per cent increase would run into some $290m. It goes without saying that this Government is really interested in guaranteeing that tertiary education will not be denied in any field.

Some of the specific criticisms, particularly those from the Victorian members, were related to the fourth university in Victoria. 1 would refer those honourable members to the fact that the Victorian Government itself commissioned a report on this matter. I would name it the Ramsay report because I do not know of any other name attached to it. That report was presented in January 1972 to the Victorian Parliament. Let us place on record what that report recommended. It was:

An initial site for a campus of the Fourth University should be acquired immediately In the Eastern region of the Melbourne metropolitan area.

We might ask what the Victorian Government has done ab: ut that matter. The report recommends in addition:

Serious consideration should also be given to acquiring a second site to serve, as far as possible, the Geelong, Ballarat, and Western metropolitan regions.

It recommends a second site. We know that there has been an election in Victoria. We know that there was a suggestion that the campus should be on 3 separate sites. But let us put on record again the report tabled in this Parliament in May by the Australian Universities Commission which said that it was awaiting further information from the Victorian Minister. I can now say that that information was received on 27 July of this year. As a result of that information there has been consultation. But do not let it be suggested that there has been any delay on the part of the Government. The real point is this: The Victorian Government, I understand, did not accept the recommendations contained in the report of the Victorian Fourth University Committee, and that caused delay in itself. Further the report suggested 3 sites with a campus on each site. That caused some consternation. Further information was requested, and that is now being sought. So let us leave it at that and let us hope that politics drop out of that issue in the interests of tertiary education in Victoria. Without indicating this too clearly, I think it could be said that there is a great chance of some tertiary institution being established in the Albury-Wodonga area. I have no doubt that Victorians will be happy to see that happen.

The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) made a very fair speech. He was interested in the position as regards funds for the training of teachers of handicapped children. Clause 7d of the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3) provides $1.5m for the training of teachers of handicapped children, and that will cover-

Mr Hunt:

– Specific learning difficulties?

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

– I do not say it will cover that particular problem. In response to the matter mentioned by the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), the Australian Universities Commission has established a committee on an open university at the request of my colleague, the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley). This committee is investigating the need to provide extra mural studies in what is deemed to be external studies of a university standard. The committee is expected to report to the Commission early next year.

The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) was concerned as to whether there had been some reduction in the amount of money made available for pre-school teachers courses. I am advised that if the honourable member looks at clause 7e of the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3) he will find that it provides for an appropriation of S425,000, which represents a great increase in the amount of money provided. It will meet the continuing cost of increasing the number of pre-school teachers in training from January 1973.

So in whatever aspect we are looking at we find that there has been a substantial increase in the amount of money made available. This relates back to my initial remarks. We are providing 67 per cent more money than was provided previously. I do not think I should delay the House any further, except to say that the philosophy of the Government in all aspects of education is to ensure that no child is prejudiced. The fact that a student enters a tertiary field does not of itself guarantee that he will complete the course undertaken because there is a fair drop out rate. Because of the marks that have to be attained, there is a fair failure rate, but the fact is that at least the opportunity is being given. Although I could argue on the basis of statistics, it is on record that many a student, who may only just have been accepted, usually applies himself and is successful. I thank all honourable members for the efforts they have put forward this evening.

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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time.

page 3858

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL (No. 3) 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 27 September (vide page 1639), on motion by Mr Beazley:

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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time.

page 3858

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL (No. 4) 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 November (vide page 3706), 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.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3859

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL (No. 3) 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 15 November (vide page 3407), 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.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3859

COMMISSION ON ADVANCED EDUCATION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 8 November (vide page 3060), on motion by Mr Daly:

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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time.

page 3859

ADJOURNMENT

Defence-Navy Requirements: Housing

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! It being 15 minutes to 11 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House, I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

– I desire to raise the subject of the effect upon the defence of Australia of the scrapping by the Government of the DDL program for the Royal Australian Navy. The Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) made a number of points about how this program has been criticised by honourable members on this side of the House and he named the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) and myself. We have, in fact, asked questions about the cost of this program in relation to our total defence commitment. I would point out that it is the Navy which, relatively speaking, has fallen furthest behind. The Navy notably is our first and most important initial arm of defence. The lead time for the Navy is longer than for all other arms of defence. It takes longer to build a ship, to train the men who man it, to construct naval dockyards and to employ the labour force involved than it does for any requirement of any other arm of the Services.

The first consequence of the abandonment of the DDL program is that the naval design team which has been built up in Australia to provide a corps of naval constructors expert in the requirements of our Navy has been disbanded. It contained a number of highly trained experts of world class in naval affairs. All this has been dissipated. Apart from that, involved in the DDL program was the expenditure of quite large sums of money on reequipping the Williamstown dockyard and other essential changes in the modernisation of our dockyards to enable the personnel to cope with the latest construction methods. It is a precious labour force. It takes longer to train a naval ship builder than it does a merchant ship builder. The Navy dockyards, in fact, work to very much finer requirements, necessities and measurements than ordinary ship builders outside. Our naval dockyards are a vital part of our defence. Their efficiency depends upon the skilled naval forces which exist at Williamstown, Garden Island and Cockatoo. It is of serious long term effect to start to disappoint these people, who need a continuous flow of work and training. They, in turn, are training younger engineers, naval architects and so forth. The delay in the construction of naval facilities at Perth also will put back the time when we will have a satisfactory base in the west from which our fleet can be deployed if necessary.

The Minister has given as part of his reason for doing this that he wanted to have a fresh look at the situation. So one has to try as far as one finds it possible, to follow how his mind is working and what he is considering. The point made by us originally was that the conception needed examination. But the Minister and the Government have already cut some of their options. For instance, they have forsaken the idea of constructing a fast combat supply ship. Such a ship would have given the means for smaller ships to be sustained over long distances in distant places with full support facilities close by. The scrapping of such a project means that any attempt to look for a really effective overall alternative has been abandoned for some years. From what has been indicated so far, the Minister is not looking for a fresh conception of naval defence but at alternative vessels. We are bound to compare the cost of the DDLs with the cost of several alternative vessels which are being examined overseas. As far as one can deduce from information supplied - of course, not much is forthcoming in this direction - the Minister is looking at 3 alternatives.

In thinking of Australian naval defence in terms of individual ships and their ability to sustain themselves over considerable distances, a number of factors are important. They include their range, their complement - the number of people they require is an expensive proposition if a large number has to be maintained over the years - their size and speed. The Minister is thought to be considering the United States naval patrol frigate; the Dutch warship ‘De Ruyter’. which he went to look at in rather spectacular fashion just before the election; and the British vessel ‘Sheffield’. The American frigate is a 25-knot vessel. I point out that 25 years ago the British decreed, in relation to warships of this type, that 30 knots was the minimum speed on which designers would be permitted to work. In the meantime speeds have gone up and not down. The Dutch ‘De Ruyter’, although of about the same tonnage as the DDL, carries a crew of 306 as against 200 for the DDL. Thus the continual annual upkeep would be very much higher than for the DDL and there has been no indication whatever that there would be any gain in efficiency. We can, to some extent, find out details about the British ‘Sheffield’. Its range is certainly shorter. It has a range of about 4,000 miles at 18 knots as compared with a range of 6,000 miles at 20 knots of the DDL.

There are a number of other deficiencies. The American frigate, for instance, does not carry any guns, which is one of our requirements. None of them carries more than one helicopter. Fast combat ships can supply any deficiencies in helicopters carried on those ships. But if a ship is to operate on its own over long distances it would, as the team involved very reasonably decided, need 2 helicopters instead of one. To all outward signs, the alternatives which the Minister is looking at are, as individual ships, of less effect and are likely to be of lesser account than the DDL, which has 2 guns, carries 2 helicopters and has built into it the range we require. The other ships would, on the face of it, need considerable modification. Basically the Minister seems to be chasing around from the point of view not of working to an entirely new conception but of bargaining about a few dollars as between one warship and another, and these vessels could be regarded, in some sense, as being equivalent.

It is particularly important that the team which was got together and which has produced the initial designs for the DDL should be kept together and built up and also that the dockyard facilities should be expanded at the same time. Likewise, it is essential to develop and maintain the capacity of our electronics industry to develop and supply the radar, gun control mechanism and other features which no doubt apply to all these ships. It is important to keep this continually in being and to have it a living entity in Australia so that it is being worked on continuously and being developed, but all this appears to have gone overboard. I must apologise for raising this matter in the adjournment debate, but there has been no other opportunity. The defence statement upon which we were once promised a debate is now No. 50 on the notice paper. We were allowed about 4 speakers only during the debate on the Estimates, and the Minister for Defence took up a great deal of the time available.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

– The House has welcomed the efforts which are being made by my colleague the Minister for Housing (Mr Les Johnson) to reduce the cost of building homes by negotiating a uniform national code of building regulations. The House has similarly welcomed the efforts being made by the Minister to bring down the cost of housing by fostering additional research and development work in the building field. An area of housing activity which so far has escaped the attention of the Minister is the acceptance of responsibility by other authorities associated with housing in the matter of the preparation of building sites. Home builders can find themselves involved in very heavy costs if local government is not prepared to accept proper responsibility for the land which it agrees to see subdivided, if solicitors are not prepared to accept proper responsibility for the residential land in which they are involved through the conveyancing process and if building firms enter into contracts to erect homes on sites which are not suitable for the purpose.

I am encouraged to draw this matter to the attention of the House because of the experience of a couple in my own electorate who, 4 months after the date of commencement of the construction of their home, find themselves with a bill for $2,800 for which they have so far to show IS concrete piers. I quote from a letter which was sent to me by this couple. It states:

On the 12th July a bulldozer attempted to excavate the site to prepare for the concrete slab foundation, this was unsuccessful and a letter was sent to us by the builder requesting access to the site and for the site to be drained, this was done immediately at a cost to us of $680. Another attempt was made, again unsuccessful. So a consultation with the builders and

Lilydale Council resulted in a decision to redesign the slab on a pier and beam foundation. A quote was requested it came to a total of $1,200 made up of $525 for the piers $480 for additional concrete and the rest made up of $134 engineers drawings and the rest for additional steel and form work. We sought the extra from the Commonwealth Bank which was granted, the piers were done and a letter from the builder arrived saying the piers were $1116.72 a difference of $591.72. The council then demanded the site be filled to a deph of 18 inches with 6 feet around the house. The fill was arranged, again at cost to us however the builders were at a loss as to which machinery could be used to spread the fill a drot was arranged and this got bogged, another bill for $153.

So the story goes on. I want to put it to the House tonight that all these additional expenses in which this couple found themselves involved, in which many other couple previously have found themselves involved and in which many other couples will find themselves involved in time to come, could have been avoided if at each stage of the process of this land becoming available for housing use more responsibility had been accepted by the authorities concerned.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 o’clock, the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 3862

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Correlation Between Erotic Material and Adverse Behaviour (Question No. 744)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a recommendation from the Anglican Synodin Melbourne that an expert committee of inquiry be set up to investigate the correlation, if any, between erotic material and adverse behaviour.
  2. If so, will the Minister give effect to this recommendation.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Results of overseas inquiries into the correlation between erotic material and adverse behaviour have been available to, and have been studied by me and officers of my Department. I have suggested that this would be a suitable subject for investigation by the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Scales of Imprisonment (Question No. 743)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. What scales of imprisonment are laid down to cover cases were default is made in paying fines or court costs in (a) New South Wales, (b) the Australian Capital Territory and (c) the Northern Territory.
  2. Can he say why there are any differences in the scales.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Scales are prescribed in section 82 of the Justices Act 1902-1973 (New South Wales), section 189 of the Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance 1930-1972 (Australian Capital Territory) and section 81 of the Justices Ordinance 1928-1973 (Northern Territory).

Broadly speaking, the scales provide for imprisonment in default of payment at the rate of a day for every five dollars (New South Wales) and a day for every two dollars (Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory). The New South Wales scale is mandatory, whereas the scales in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory prescribe maxima - i.e. the Court can order a lesser period of imprisonment than the one calculated in accordance with the scale.

  1. Provisions for imprisonment in default of payment of fines or court costs are made, for New South Wales by Act of the New South Wales Parliament, for the Australian Capital Territory by Ordinance made by the Governor-General, and for the Northern Territory by Ordinance made by the Legislative Council of the Territory, on which elected members have a majority. It is not unusual in such circumstances for legislation not to be uniform.

The present scale was introduced in the Northern Territory in 1965, Australian Capital Territory in 1967 and New South Wales in 1971. Before 1971 the New South Wales provision was substantially similar to that in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. I have asked my Departmental officers to let me know what scales are in force in the several States with a view to preparing an appropriate amendment for the laws of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. I should add that imprisonment for non-payment of court costs is contrary to the platform of the Australian LaborParty and action will be taken when amending the laws mentioned to remove imprisonment as a sanction for the payment of costs.

Child Care Centres (Question No. 895)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education; upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 712 which I asked on 30 May 1973.

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

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

My answer to Question No. 712 appeared in Hansard (page 2873) on 6 November 1973.

Education: National Recognition of Awards (Question No. 948)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

What action has the Government taken, in consultation with the States and the appropriate professional bodies, to achieve Australia-wide recognition of certificates, diplomas, degrees and similar qualifications.

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

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

To assist in achieving national recognition of awards in the field of advanced education, the Government has continued to support the work of the Australian Council on Awards in Advanced Education which was established under the previous Government. The Council, which is a national body jointly responsible to the six State Ministers for Education and the Commonwealth Minister, was set up to seek to promote consistency in the nomenclature used for awards in advanced education and in the relationship between levels of courses and their associated awards.

The Council considers courses and associated awards submitted to it by State and A.C.T. accrediting authorities and registers those which meet its requirements.

I understand that the Council has maintained liaison with professional bodies in the course of its activities.

The Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education was established in April 1973 and will be reporting to the Government in the first half of 1974. I am informed that it is examining the equivalence of State certificates and similar qualifications.

Energy Sources: Scientific Development (Question No. 950)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. Is it the intention of the Government to encourage the research and development of energy conversion methods which entail minimum pollution of the environment such as solar energy and tidal power. <2) If so, what action has he taken to encourage research and development in respect of (a) solar energy and (b) tidal power.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Government intends to promote the scientific development of all energy sources and the means by which this will be done are being considered.

Education of Aborigines (Question No. 997)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. Does he recall my asking him in the House to document and evaluate the Katherine Project and its success in advancing the education of Aborigines in the Community School; if so, has this work commenced.
  2. If the work has commenced, (a) When will it be ready for publication and (b) When will he make copies available to members interested in the particular problems of Aboriginal children.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The request was noted and the preparation of a report is proceeding.

(2)

  1. I am hopeful that the work will be completed before the end of the current Sittings.
  2. Arrangements for duplication and distribution of the report will be made as soon as it has been completed.

Educational Statistics (Question No. 996)

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

Will he update routine questions formerly asked by the former Leader of the Opposition, concerning educational statistics.

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

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

A number of questions concerning educational statistics were asked by the former Leader of the Opposition. Some of those questions have been asked again by members of this House during the course of the current Parliament. Other questions relate to policies which have either been or are being discontinued as a result of the present Government’s initiatives in the area of education. If the honourable member would care to indicate the particular statistics he requires I will endeavour to have them compiled.

Student Teacher Trainees: Allowances (Question No. 1052)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

In view of the proposed free fees at universities in 1974, will the teacher studentship allowances be (a) increased or (b) decreased.

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

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

I have assumed that the honourable member’s question refers to allowances paid by various authorities to students who are undertaking courses of training in order to become teachers. The living allowances of students training for the Commonwealth Teaching Service will be raised to $850 per annum (living with parents rate) and $1,400 per annum (living away from parents rate) from the beginning of 1974. The decision to increase the rate was based on cost of living factors, and is not connected with the Australian Government’s arrangements to abolish fees in tertiary institutions from 1974. These higher rates will also apply to the Government’s new scheme of tertiary allowances for students in universities, colleges of advanced education, technical colleges and similar institutions.

It is a matter for the other authorities concerned to determine whether any changes will be made in allowances paid to student teacher trainees in 1974. As with the Commonwealth Teaching Service trainee allowances, the factors most likely to result in increased allowances are related to cost of living. I am not in a position to provide an answer on behalf of other authorities concerned, such as State Education Departments.

Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1087)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

Will he provide a list of the interdepartmental committees, which have been established since 2 December 1972, of which officers of his Department are members.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

On 20 September 1973, my colleague, the Prime Minister, informed the right honourable gentleman in reply to a Question Without Notice about interdepartmental committees that, if he wished to know the composition and function of any particular interdepartmental committee, and for what period of time it had been active, the Prime Minister would be happy to provide him with that information. If the right honourable gentleman wishes to have information about a particular committee on which my Department is represented, I will assist him as far as possible having regard to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question Nos 964 and 1057.

Schools: Provision of Funds (Question No. 1097)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. With respect to the funds being provided to schools for running costs, but not including the cost of capital programs, school programs, libraries or any other building programs, (a) what sum will be provided to non-government schools, under the Karmel Committee’s recommendations, in 1974, (b) what sum will go to each category of schools, (c) how much of this money will go to <i) Catholic and (ii) non-Catholic schools in each category.
  2. How much have the running costs of education in government schools increased for 1974 when using the formula used by the Government in 1972 to work out the per capita payments for 1973.
  3. What are the actual costs for 1974.
  4. What was the total per capita payment for running costs to non-government schools in 1973, and how much of that payment went to (a) Catholic and <b) non-Catholic schools.
  5. With respect to the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972, (a) what would be the payment for running costs under the Act if it were applied in 1974, (b) how much would the payments to independent schools have been increased through inflation, (c). what would be the total payments to those schools and how would those payments be divided between (i) Catholic and (ii) non-Catholic schools and (d) what would be the per capita payment for (i) secondary and (ii) primary schools.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The figures requested are:

There are a small group of appeals by nonsystemic schools which have yet to be finalised; in addition some schools, which were only established in 1973 or which submitted late returns, have yet to be categorised.

Other Recurrent Grants

Catholic systemic schools will be eligible to receive approximately $1.2m in 1974 for recurrent assistance to disadvantaged schools. Non-government schools for the handicapped will be eligible to receive assistance from the $1.75m available to State governments in 1974 to assume responsibility for, or make increased subsidies to, non-government schools of this type. (2), (3) and (5) Figures for the estimated running costs of government schools in 1973-74, as required for the application of the 1972 formula, are not yet available. My Department is working with the State Departments of Education in the preparation of the necessary source material to determine the agreed national average cost of running government schools. If the estimated cost of running government schools in 1973-74 were 10 per cent higher than in the preceding financial year, the application of the formula under Part III of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972 would produce:

  1. Cost per pupil (government schools) - Primary, $341; Secondary $572.
  2. Per capita grant - Primary, $68; Secondary $114.
  3. Total Costs 1974 (Six States)-
  1. Final figures for 1973 are not yet available. Estimated payments for the six States are:

By-Law Approvals (Question No. 1118)

Mr Bennett:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Can import duties be waived by ministerial determination.
  2. Have duty exemptions been granted in the past.
  3. If so, what was the amount of exemptions, and to whom were they granted in the years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73.
Dr J F Cairns:
ALP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes. Ministerial determinations are the normal method of granting ad hoc by-law approvals.
  2. Yes. Provision for the making of by-laws has been a feature of the Austraiian Customs Tariff since Federation. Successive Australian Governments have recognised the need for flexibility in administration of the Tariff and the Minister for Customs and Excise is empowered through the provisions of the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff to approve concessional admission of imported goods where it can be established that suitably equivalent goods of Australian manufacture are not reasonably available.

All requests for concessional admission of imported goods are investigated by officers of the Department of Customs and Excise before any decision is taken. Additionally in cases where the Minister for Customs and Excise feels a need for advice over and above that available to him through norma! departmental channels he has right of recourse to the Tariff Board.

In the day to day routine of the handling of the many by-law applications received, the power to make determinations in accordance with established policy guidelines, which ensure consistency in granting concessions without derogation of the tariff protection local industry fairly merits and which reflect the more flexible approach of the present Government, have been delegated to officers of the By-law Branch of the Department.

Concessions are granted on a wide range of goods, including capital equipment, components and raw materials, with the object of reducing costs where the concession would not be likely to cause detriment to local industry.

  1. There were 101,416 by-law approvals, which resulted in the issue of ministerial determinations during the period 1968-73:

In addition there are of course a large number of continuing by-laws.

The total imports under by-law in 1971-72 were valued at approximately $1060 million (latest figures available).

The names of the recipients of ministerial determinations are commercially confidential. However, in accordance with Section 273b (2) of the Customs Act 1901-1971 details of the kind of goods covered by these determinations, any conditions that may apply and the items under which the determinations were made are published in the Australian Government Gazette.

North Vietnam: Supplies of Galvanised Corrugated Iron (Question No. 1166)

Mr Street:

asked the Minister for Overseas

Trade, upon notice:

  1. Has any galvanised corrugated iron been sent to North Vietnam since 2 December 1972; if so, what quantities have been sent.
  2. Are there any contracts for the supply of this material to North Vietnam which have not been fulfilled; if so, what quantities are involved.

Br J. F. Cairns - The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Official statistics are only available until the end of August 1973, and indicate that no shipments of galvanised corrugated iron were made in that period to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. However, I have been informed that, under Australia’s program of Special Aid to Indo-China, a shipment of 760 tons of galvanised corrugated iron has been recently made to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

This shipment, valued at approximately $153,000, arrived in Haiphong on 24 October 1973.

  1. I am unaware of the existence of any commercial contracts for the sale of galvanised corrugated iron to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

Penrhos Ladies College (Question No. 1159)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Educa tion, upon notice:

What are the reasons for the Penrhos Ladies College, South Perth, being placed in category A in the Karmel Report.

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

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

Penrhos Ladies College, South Perth, was initially placed in category A in the Karmel Report for the purposes of recurrent assistance in 1974 and1975. As a result of appeals against categorisation, results of which were announced on 25 October 1973, the College is now placed in category D.

Computer Systems: Traffic Speeds (Question No. 1249)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to statements by Dr T. C. Helvey, Professor of Cybernetics at the University of Tennessee, that computer systems are being developed that will control traffic speeds on highways.
  2. If so, will he have his Department investigate and evaluate these claims with a view to incorporating any successful systems in Australia.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. Systems are in service both overseas and in Australia in which computers are used to assist in the control of traffic speeds on arterial streets, particularly at intersections. Developments in this field are kept under review by the Department of Transport, with a view to encouraging the further use of suitable systems in Australia where practicable. My Department has taken steps to acquire copies of any publications by Dr Helvey which are relevant to this topic.

Transportation of Dangerous Goods by Road (Question No. 1248)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the recent collision in South Australia between a fuel truck and a car and caravan in which 3 Western Australians were incinerated, will he investigate the possibility of Australian standards for the carriage of inflammable fuels being reviewed, taking into account fire fighting equipment for vehicles and training of personnel, including contractors.
  2. Where loose tanks are used on a table top type vehicle, will he also investigate the possibility of introducing under-run surround bars as a standard requirement.
  3. Where road contractors are using long distance hauls parallel to railways, will he investigate the possibility, in conjunction with State authorities, of rationalising the hauls with a view to eliminating the road danger as much as possible.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. The Australian standards concerning such matters are contained in the ‘Model Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road’ prepared by an advisory committee and endorsed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council. The code sets down requirements upon which new or amended State and Australian Government legislation might be drafted in order to introduce more uniformity in the various regulations in Australia.

The model code currently includes provisions relating to:

  1. Training of drivers in handling of dangerous goods
  2. instructions to drivers on the action to be taken in case of emergency, and reminders on contact with manufacturer and emergency services
  3. provision of fire extinguishers and instructions to drivers on their use
  4. security of the load.

The model code is constantly under review and such matters as have been raised are taken into account.

  1. The matter of under-run barriers for commercial vehicles is currently under study by the advisory committees to the Australian Transport Advisory Council. The advisory committees are also examining measures to increase the visibility of the vehicle with the aim of preventing collisions and the committees are studying recent United Kingdom experience with the use of high visibility reflective placards.
  2. The aim of the Government’s overall transport policy is to provide Australia with a modern, efficient and economic integrated transport system with each transport mode performing those tasks to which it is most suited. There is already some evidence to suggest that the proportion of the domestic freight traffic task, in terms of ton-miles, performed by rail compared with road is increasing. Most of this increase would be due to a substantial increase in freight moved by rail on long distance routes. I would hope that as we are able to redress the present imbalance in investment in the different modes, particularly rail vis a vis road, the problem will right itself. In fact I have already asked the Bureau of Transport Economics to undertake a comprehensive study of the mainline railway systems to establish their investment needs for freight operations.

Road Safety Improvements (Question No. 1268)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is there a lack of suitable run-off areas for emergency use by commercial and other vehicles on major national roads, some in populous areas.
  2. If so, will he have a survey instituted with a view to bringing in a common policy for their installation in all States.
  3. Will he have his Department investigate the possibility of utilising loose material strips, similar to those developed for the end of aircraft runways overseas, to minimise the defacement of the environment.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. The Bureau of Roads in conjunction with State road authorities has recently completed a survey of Australian roads to be used in its report to the Australian Government on financial assistance to the States for roads after June 1974. This report will recommend action aimed at upgrading roads to acceptable standards. The survey was not, however, designed to determine which specific locations would need emergency run-off areas.

The Australian Government has also initiated a program of traffic engineering and road safety improvements at accident locations, for which $3 million has been provided in the budget for 1973-74. Only a few of the projects submitted by the State authorities for consideration under this program involved emergency run-off areas.

  1. A committee known as the Australian Committee on Road Devices is at present preparing an Australian manual of uniform traffic control devices. Part of the manual relates to the use and application of the various devices, including recommendations for the uniform application of safety ramps. This could form the basis for a common policy.
  2. The more detailed examination of various facets of road development so far as their effect on road safety is concerned is one of the matters which will be undertaken by the new National Authority on Road Safety and Standards. The Authority’s responsibilities will include the formulation, in consultation with State and other Australian authorities, of safety standards in respect of highway engineering and traffic management.

Automotive Fuel Taxes: Expenditure (Question No. 1251)

Mr Hamer:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Did he, in May 1969, move an amendment to the Commonwealth Aid Roads Bill 1969 regretting the Government’s continuing refusal to plan expenditure of an amount at least equivalent to the proceeds of all automotive fuel taxes on roads and associated facilities.
  2. If so, does he plan to ensure that the new Commonwealth Aid Roads Bill will follow the principles he enunciated in 1969.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. At the time of my statements in Parliament in 1969, it was Labor Party policy for all revenue received from motorists by way of fuel tax to be spent on roads. When this policy was adopted we believed that it was necessary to upgrade our road system to meet the needs of the increasing number of cars coming into the roads.

Subsequently, however, consideration was again given to Australia’s overall transport needs. From this it was concluded that the motor car was creating social, environmental and economic problems and greater emphasis should therefore be given to the development of public transport. It was also concluded that fuel tax should be regarded as a general revenue tax in the same way as the tax levied on cigarettes, etc. Roads compete not only with other modes of transport but also with the other objectives of governnment. A direct linking of petrol tax to road development may result in expenditure on services which the community hay indicated require high priority, being less than it would be.

It is possible to compare petrol tax collections at any given time to necessary expenditure on roads. However to rigidly link the two would reduce the ability of the Government to attune its policies to match developing circumstances and the changing needs and desires of the Australian people.

At present the Australian Government is reviewing its policy of assistance for roads. This review will include not only road needs, as disclosed by the roads survey being undertaken by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads in co-operation with State road authorities, but also prospective sources of road finance. It will also take account of the limits of construction resources available for roads.

Applied Ecology Pty Ltd and Islander Marketing Pty Ltd. (Question No. 1298)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Will the Minister make available to the Parliament the Auditor-General’s Report on the conduct of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd and Islander Marketing Pty Ltd.
  2. If so, when will the report be presented to the Parliament.
Mr Bryant:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) A firm of chartered accountants and not the Auditor-General was appointed by the directors as auditor, for the purposes of the Australian Capital Territory Companies Ordinance 1962-1973, of Applied Ecology Pty and Aboriginal and Islander Marketing Pty Ltd. Consequently it is not the Auditor-General’s responsibility to report on the conduct of these companies or to inspect and audit their accounts and records.

The Auditor-General’s responsibilities are limited under the Audit Act to ensuring that payments made to the companies from the Public Account have been approved by the competent authority. A similar situation exists with regard to his responsibilities under the Aboriginal Enterprises Assistance Act in respect of payments made to the companies from the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises.

I might add that the Audit Act makes no provision for Ministers to request reports from the AuditorGeneral on particular matters. In accordance with that Act the Auditor-General includes in his Report to the Parliament such information as he thinks desirable in relation to those examinations and inspections carried out by him in pursuance of the provisions of the Audit Act or any other Act.

Industrial Disputes (Question No. 1289)

Mr FitzPatrick:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for

Labour, upon notice:

How many man days were lost on account of strike action in each of the 3 States controlled by Labor Governments compared with the 3 States controlled by anti-Labor Governments during the last month for which he has statistics.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

In the publication ‘Industrial Disputes, August 1973 (Preliminary)’, the Commonwealth Statistician provides available statistics of working days lost on account of industrial disputes involving a stoppage of work of 10 man days or more during the month of August 1973:

Of a total of 218,600 working days lost on account of industrial disputes during the month of August more than half of the working days lost occurred in the State of New South Wales.

Department of Social Security: Relocation (Question No. 1295)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister for Ser vices and Property, upon notice:

  1. Is the office of the Department of Social Security to be moved to new premises in Hargraves Street, Bendigo, when they are completed.
  2. If so, is it intended to move the section of the Department at present housed at the Fountain Plaza site where both the Taxation and Labour offices are also housed.
  3. Is it a fact that the Department will be paying $7 per square foot in the new offices while at present it is paying $1.75 per square foot for the offices in the Fountain Plaza area.
  4. If the position is as stated, will he reconsider the moving of this section which, if it remains at its present site, will be adjacent to the new offices where other sections are to be housed.
  5. Has his Department checked to see if all sections of the Department of Social Security could be housed in the Fountain Plaza area where it appears that there is space available at a greatly reduced cost.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Relocation of the Department of Social Security is under consideration. No commitment has been made.
  2. The current rental being paid for accommodation for the Department of Social Security is $1.75 per square foot per annum. Rental for alternative accommodation is under negotiation but is not even remotely near the figure suggested by the honourable member.
  3. Existing accommodation is entirely unsuitable for access by aged persons. It is located on the first Boor of an old movie theatre.
  4. A thorough investigation has been made of all accommodation available in the Fountain Plaza area but none is considered suitable for the Department of Social Security having regard to its requirements such as ground floor accommodation and easy access for the public.

British Advanced Passenger Train Project (Question No. 1353)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

With reference to the British Advanced Passenger Train project and reports that it will be operating commercially within three years, have any steps been taken to:

Evaluate the train under Australian conditions.

Test the train in Australia at an early date.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. Because the Advanced Passenger Train prototype would be subject to considerable test and evaluation in the United Kingdom before the train is put into serial production, a production train could not be available for test in Australia for several years.

Commonwealth Railway Passes: Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers’ Association (Question No. 1300)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Trans port, upon notice:

  1. How many free passes does the Commonwealth Railways provide to the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers’ Association for distribution among its members.
  2. What percentage of Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers does this number represent.
  3. Why are free passes not made available to all members of the Association.
  4. Who decides the number of passes to be provided and on what basis.
  5. What entitlement do the free passes bestow.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Forty free passes are issued each year by Commonwealth Railways to the Federal Secretariat of the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers’ Association which allot them to its State Branches for distribution to Association members.
  2. The number of free passes available each year to members of the Association is currently equivalent to approximately 0.25 per cent of the total membership.
  3. and (4) Free passes were first made available to the Association in 1948 when the then Minister for the Interior approved the issue of twelve passes each year. The number was equivalent to the number of free passes then made available to the Limbless Soldiers’ Association of Australia.

The number of free passes issued to the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers’ Association were since increased in 1956, 1961 and 1964 on the basis of increases in the total membership of the Association.

I understand that subsequent applications by the Association in 1965, 1966, 1969 and 1970 for increases in the number of free passes were refused by the previous Government.

  1. The free passes allow members of the Association free first class return travel over Commonwealth Railways between Port Pirie and Kalgoorlie.

Snowy Mountains Council (Question No. 1330)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for

Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

Will he supply me with a copy of the minutes or record of the special - telephone meeting of the Snowy Mountains Council held on Sunday, 23 September 1973.

Mr Connor:
ALP

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

During the afternoon of Sunday, 23 September 1973 the Deputy Chairman of the Snowy Mountains Council sought the views of State Government representatives on the Council in turn by telephone about the circumstances then existing at the Tumut Power Stations. This was not a formal meeting of the Council. The Deputy Chairman referred to his telephone conversations and the antecedent circumstances in a ‘Note for File’ dated 28 September 1973, a copy of which I tabled in the House on 9 October 1973. For the most part, the text of that document appears in Hansard for 9 October 1973 at pages 1725 and 1726. I have supplied the honourable member with a copy of the document.

Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1070)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Nor thern Development, upon notice:

Will he provide a list of the interdepartmental committees, which have been established since 2

December 1972, of which officers of his Department are members.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

On 20 September 1973, my colleague, the Prime Minister, informed the right honourable gentleman in reply to a question without notice about interdepartmental committees, that, if he wished to know the composition and function of any particular interdepartmental committee, and for what period of time it had been active, the Prime Minister would be happy to provide him with that information.

If the right honourable gentleman wishes to have information about a particular committee on which my Department is represented, I will assist him as far as possible having regard to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question Nos 964 and 1057.

Aged Persons Hostels (Question No. 1306)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Further to question No. 883 will he indicate for those applications that have been approved (a) the organisations involved (b) the subsidy involved in each case (c) the number of beds provided in each case and (d) the location of the hostels.
Mr Hayden:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

Nursing Homes (Question No. 1320)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact, as stated by the President of the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Western Australia, that one nursing home in the eastern States has closed because of financial difficulties and others have discharged patients.
  2. If so, what were the circumstances in each case.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) In the first ten months of this year a total of 33 nursing homes throughout Australia, containing 681 beds, have ceased to operate. These figures include 5 nursing homes with 116 beds in Queensland which ceased to operate because of adverse fire authority reports in regard to the premises. Twenty-one homes containing 532 beds ceased to operate during the corresponding period in 1972.

The reasons that nursing homes ceased operations are many and varied. For example, some specific reasons given by proprietors of the nursing homes which have closed this year were- conversion of premises to flats, sale of property for development purposes, the age of the proprietors, uneconomic operation due to the small size of the nursing home and the poor standard of the premises which made them too expensive to raise to a satisfactory standard.

None of the proprietors of the 33 homes which ceased to operate this year specifically stated that the closure was directly caused by financial difficulties arising from the new nursing home benefit arrangements framed by the previous Government and introduced with effect from 1 January 1973.

Western Australia: Nursing Homes (Question No. 1321)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact, as stated by the President of the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Western Australia, that private nursing homes in Western Australia will face a crisis early in 1974; if not, what is the situation.
  2. Can he say what are the profit margins for nursing homes in Western Australia.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 cannot agree that nursing homes in Western Australia will be facing a crisis early in 1974, although I freely admit that both the nursing home proprietors and my Department are continually facing very real difficulties in the administration of the nursing home benefits scheme that was designed and introduced by the previous Government.

I assume that the honourable member’s question is directed to the financial position of nursing homes in Western Australia. Undoubtedly some nursing homes are facing financial problems. There are several reasons for this. Possibly the main reason is that operating costs of nursing homes are increasing dramatically and some nursing homes are proposing higher fees than can easily be met by the patients. A second reason is that proportionate to the population there are more nursing home beds available in Western Australia than in other States - (refer table 59 Annual Report of the DirectorGeneral of Social Security for 1972/73) and the occupancy rate of Western Australian nursing homes is generally lower than in other States. This means that the total income received by way of patients fees and benefits is also lower.

Notwithstanding the above facts, there is still a steady growth in the number of private profit nursing home beds in Western Australia. During this calendar year, 291 new nursing home beds in new nursing homes have been approved. In addition, proposals for extensions to existing nursing homes totalling 129 beds are under consideration. In this calendar year only four nursing homes with 87 beds have ceased operation.

  1. Information regarding the profitability of all private profit nursing homes in Western Australia is not available. In respect of those homes for which reliable information for 1972-73 is available the average return on proprietors’ invested capital was 16.7%. When proprietors’ salaries are taken into account, the average return increases to 30.2%.

Aged -Persons Homes (Question No. 1347)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a statement by the Brotherhood of St. Laurence that rising building costs make it difficult to build aged persons accommodation under $10,000 per unit, and claiming a need for an increase in subsidy rates.
  2. Have grants for new hostels been taken up.
  3. Has there been a decline in the building rate of aged persons homes.
  4. What action is he taking in this matter.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. It is assumed that the honourable member is referring to grants made under the Aged Persons Hostels Act. Since this legislation was introduced in September 1972, 31 grants have been approved, totalling $8.6 million. When completed the hostel projects in respect of which these grants have been made will provide accommodation for 1,106 aged people. A number of further applications are at present being processed in various offices of the Department of Social Security. This is in addition to subsidies that have been approved during the same period under the Aged Persons Homes Act for hostel-type accommodation which will house an additional 1028 aged persons.
  3. No. During 1972-73 grants totalling $22.6 million, for projects to house 4,345 aged persons, were approved under the Aged Persons Homes Act or the Aged Persons Hostels Act. By comparison, in the four months to 31 October 1973 grants totalling $13.3 million, for projects to house 2,200 aged persons, were approved. These figures indicate that the building rate of aged persons homes is rising not falling.
  4. A review of the existing maximum subsidy limits is one of the matters being considered by a Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons Housing, set up by the Social Welfare Commission. When the Committee’s report has been considered an announcement will be made at an appropriate time.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 November 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1973/19731126_reps_28_hor87/>.