House of Representatives
10 July 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session



The House met at 2.30 p.m.

page 33

ABSENCE OF MR SPEAKER

The Clerk:

– I have to inform the House of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker. In accordance with standing order 14, the Chairman of Committees will take the chair as Acting Speaker.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Scholes) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers.

page 33

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Television: Pornographic Material

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 we strongly oppose the easing of restrictions on the importation, production in Australia, sale or distribution of pornographic material whether in films, printed matter or any other format. That any alterations to the Television Programme Standards of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which permits the exploitation of sex or violence is unacceptable to us.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the existing Television Programme Standards or to permit easier entry into Australia, or production in Australia, of pornographic material.

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

Petitions received.

Social Security

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

That inflation which now besets so many countries today and in Australia is now at the rate of 14.4 per cent per annum is most seriously affecting and making life intolerable for those least able to take corrective action to maintain their position, namely, pensioners and those now retired living on fixed incomes.

Whilst the Australian Government is giving effect to its election policy of making $1.50 per week pension increases each autumn and spring such actions have been completely nullified by the stated rate of inflation.

This fact of life impels your petitioners to call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Make a cash loading of $5 per week to those pensioners who have little means other than the present inadequate pension eroded by inflation.

That each autumn and spring the increase in social security pension payments be not less than $3 per week to ensure that within a reasonable period the Government’s policy pledge to affix all pensions at 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings be achieved.

In order that money may go to areas of greater need the Tapered Means Test ceilings of income and assets be frozen.

To allay the concern of social security recipients as to their future when in 1975 the means test has been abolished and replaced by a National Superannuation Act that there be an assurance by the Australian Government that the said Act will provide a guaranteed minimum income to social security recipients based on the policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners’ Federation and that of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, namely, the payment of 30 per cent of average weekly earnings adjusted from time to time in accordance with figures issued by the Commonwealth Statistician and published quarterly.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hayden, Dr Cass and Mr Lynch.

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 many citizens more, particularly single people and working wives.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalisation of health services which will lead to impersonalised and mediocre standards of medical care, the creation of a huge new bureaucracy, and will limit the citizen’s freedom of choice.

That the present health scheme can be amended to overcome existing deficiencies, and that the proposed scheme is totally unnecessary.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

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

Petitions received.

Pornographic Literature and Films

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 undersigned persons believe that some literature and films being published and shown throughout Australia are detrimental to the wellbeing of the community.

Your petitioners thereby humbly pray that the Government will take steps to see that the publication and availability of pornographic and other material of that nature is restricted and that the people are made aware of the dangers to the community from such literature and films.

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

Petition 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 showeth:

  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 which are 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, but they believe that the appropriate instruments for reducing economic inequalities are taxation and social welfare systems which deal with individuals and families and not with schools.
  3. The reduction of the existing per capita grants will impose great hardships on many parents who have chosen, at considerable personal sacrifice to send their sons and daughters to independent schools. Indeed the curtailment of the said grants will create divisions in the community.
  4. Some independent schools of high educational standards will be forced to close with the consequences that children attending those schools will have to attend government schools already over taxed and under staffed.
  5. Some independent schools have been encouraged to lower standards in order that their parents may continue to receive per capita grants.
  6. Parents should be encouraged to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed legislation will penalise parents who try to exercise this choice, and discourage them from making a vital financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

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

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

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 Garland.

Petition received.

Political Prisoners in Indonesia

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 many Australians believe that thousands of political prisoners have been detained for long periods in Indonesia, without trial, legal advice or cultural and educational activity, have been subjected to forced labour and often suffer from malnutrition.

That any such prisoners would face difficulty in re-integrating into society on release.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Prime Minister to make known publicly to the Indonesian authorities when he visits Indonesia the concern of Australians about the plight of Indonesian political prisoners.

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

Petition received.

Whales

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 whale is an endangered species and should be protected by international agreement. That whalemeat and all other whale products should be excluded from all Australian manufactured goods. That no whale products should be imported into Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will form appropriate legislation to protect the whale from commercial exploitation.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McLeay. Petition received.

Censorship: Pornography

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 the present increase of pornography and liberalisation of censorship is opposed to the fundamental responsibility of good government, that of serving the common good of society.
  2. That it is a cause of concern to parents that the society in which children must grow up is being conditioned into accepting as normal the dehumanised and loveless views of sex, the violence and the brutality which individuals or groups are free to present as they wish, and that this conditioning of society should be opposed.
  3. That pornography for private use or public display and sale is degrading.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will oppose the increase of pornography and the liberalisation of censorship and not broaden censorship laws to allow ‘hard-core’ pornography into Australia.

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

Petition received.

page 35

QUESTION

ILLNESS OF MR SPEAKER

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I call on questions without notice. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

- Mr Acting Speaker, before I ask my question, I seek your indulgence to say that I would like you to convey to Mr Speaker our hopes that he will recover quickly from his indisposition. I hope that anything that we said yesterday did not lead to his indisposition.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I am sure it did not.

page 35

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY: INFLATION

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is it still the objective of the Government’s economic policy to reduce inflation to 8 per cent by mid-1975? If not, has he abandoned the 8 per cent target which he announced publicly during the election campaign?

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. No.

page 35

QUESTION

FOREIGN FISHING VESSELS

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Northern Development: What action is the Government taking with respect to the increasing numbers of foreign fishing vessels operating off the north and north-west coast of Western Australia? Has the Minister’s attention been directed to the growing concern in those northern areas of the possible introduction of exotic disease and quarantine problems generally and is that possibility being closely policed?

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

– The Western Australian Government has asked for an increased amount of surveillance off the north-west coast of Western Australia. It is a fact that there has certainly been an increase in the number of foreign fishing vessels operating in that area. These vessels operate principally from 2 countries - Indonesia and Taiwan. We understand that approximately 100 ships are operating from Indonesia and about 300 ships are operating from Taiwan. There is nothing illegal about these operations because the ships are well off the coast in the Monte Bello Islands area.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has been having a close look at the position and it is in contact with the Indonesian Embassy. However, when such a number of ships are operating in fishing waters off the Australian coast there is the possibility of an exotic disease host coming into the country. The Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy are watching the position very closely as are, of course, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and other associated departments. I can assure the honourable member that his concern is well understood by the Australian Government which does not want to see any exotic disease brought into the remote areas of northern Australia. But at the present time the position is quite safe and there are no problems. As I have pointed out, there is nothing illegal in the present operations.

page 36

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY: INFLATION

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Did the Minister for Overseas Trade say on 30 May last that inflation could be reduced by 5 per cent in a year, that is from 13 per cent to 8 per cent - the Prime Minister’s objective - but that it would be likely to be at the expense of throwing 350,000 people into unemployment? As 350,000 is almost exactly 6 per cent of the work force, I ask: Who provided this estimate to the Minister? Is the Minister prepared to face an unemployment level of 350,000 persons which, he said, would be necessary in order to reach the objective just restated by the Prime Minister?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I was commenting then on the kind of policy that had been implemented by previous governments in this Parliament, and was suggesting that if honourable members opposite constituted the Government now they would be so concerned to try to stop inflation that they would be quite willing to accept an unemployment level of 5 per cent in order to do so. I believe that if too extreme a policy with respect to inflation was adopted and applied, that could only result in a very considerable increase in unemployment and perhaps 350,000 is the kind of figure that one has to bear in mind. In any of these things we are talking about results that cannot be much better than guessed at. If the right honourable gentleman wants to suppose that one can be exact or precise in these things he is deceiving himself, and I do not know anyone who can do that better than he can.

page 36

QUESTION

QUARANTINE PROCEDURES IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to reports criticising quarantine procedures in Western Australia? What steps has the Minister taken to investigate these reports and to ensure that proper quarantine measures are maintained in Western Australia? Is there any substance in the criticisms?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Yes, I became aware earlier this year that there had been some local criticism of quarantine procedures at Port Fremantle. Naturally, I am concerned that we should maintain proper standards of quarantine. At my direction 3 senior officers of my Department investigated these allegations. They were the First Assistant Director-

General of Quarantine, a veterinary surgeon of many years private and governmental experience; the Director of the New South Wales Division, who is a medical officer with considerable practical quarantine experience; and the Assistant Director-General of the Department’s policy secretariat. They went to Western Australia in mid-March. At the conclusion of their inquiry, during which they interviewed every person considered to be in a position to throw light on the allegations that had been made, they reported that there was no evidence to suggest that there had been a break-down in procedure.. In particular, they found that quarantine security had not in any way been impaired by the decision of the Director of Health in Western Australia - a medical officer with long experience in quarantine work - to reserve to himself the authority to order the fumigation of vessels.

More recently there was criticism in the media that the grain ship ‘Lorana’ was not fumigated with cyanide gas while it was at Fremantle in June. The Western Australian Director has been instructed to issue a Press statement setting out the full facts of the case but for the benefit of honourable members I add that I am satisfied that proper quarantine measures were taken in regard to ‘Lorana’. The ship was thoroughly inspected on its arrival by a quarantine medical officer and a qualified quarantine inspector. Subsequently it was visited daily by a quarantine inspector who specifically searched for signs of rat infestation. The holds were fumigated with methyl bromide to kill insects that were found there on the initial quarantine inspection. Baits were successfully laid on the forepeak and mid section of the ship, the only areas which showed any evidence of recent rat infestation. The procedures were thorough and entirely in accord with recommendations made as late as 1972 by the World Health Organisation and were consistent with our high standards of quarantine security. I will make available to the honourable member a copy of the full Press statement if he wishes.

page 36

QUESTION

CREDIT SQUEEZE

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Treasurer will recall during the election campaign denying the existence of a credit squeeze. In view of the excessive interest rates now being charged and the massive lift in the official rate since the election, does the Treasurer still deny the existence of a credit squeeze?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– I understand that later this day a debate on a matter of urgency will take place. I will be better able then to define what I think is a credit squeeze.

Mr Snedden:

– Is it going to get worse?

Mr CREAN:

– Sometimes, I think, there is a fairly loose use of terms and a tendency to talk jargon and to evade the basic issue. I hope, after question time to have 15 minutes during which I will expand my remarks.

page 37

QUESTION

TASMANIA: SHIPPING STRIKES

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Transport: What steps have been taken by the Government to ensure adequate shipping for the island State of Tasmania and thereby permit industrial concerns to return to full production and thus remove the fear of further retrenchments? Will the Minister use every endeavour to obtain total exemption for Tasmania if this strike continues, and for any future strike, in view of the. crippling effect the current strike is. having on the State’s economy and the employment opportunities for its people?

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

– May I say first of all that in the present dispute concerning the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, the union made an application to Mr Justice Ludeke for 4 sets of study leave of about 1 6 weeks each. The union was granted 2 sets of study leave, one of 15 weeks and one of 16 weeks, on 75 per cent of the members’ aggregate wage. This meant that the members would receive their normal rate of pay not including overtime. They would be paid in full for the time they would be taking the study leave. The union has rejected the decision by Mr Justice Ludeke and wants the full amount for the 4 sets.

It might be interesting to note at this point that when the union made a submission to the Commission which this Government has appointed, it asked only for what Mr Justice Ludeke later gave it. In other words, at that time the union asked for on!ly 2 sets of study leave of 16 weeks at 75 per cent of the members’ aggregate wage. That is what they received. That is what they asked for originally. It would be interesting to know what evidence the union has brought forward in the intervening period to justify the demand for 4 sets of study leave instead of 2 sets. I think that the action of the union is most irresponsible. It has no regard for hundreds of workers who are being thrown out of employment in Tasmania.

Mr Sherry:

– Thousands.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– ‘Thousands of workers’, the honourable member for Franklin interjects. The union has no regard for thousands, of men who are being thrown out of employment there or for the hundreds of thousands of people who are being inconvenienced by this dispute. One should take into consideration the fact that these men are receiving annual salaries of between $11,750 and $18,000, and that is the regard they have for people on less than average weekly earnings. I have issued a direction to the Australian National Line not to concede to this demand otherwise it will mean that every time a union goes on strike it will continue the strike and one will have to concede every point that the union demands. The Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) and I have had discussions on this matter. We are in complete agreement that if the union wants this additional leave it will have to go back to where it came from, namely, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It will have to present a case and argue why its members should be granted the additional leave. There is no justification for the dispute. The channels are available for the union to explore. Mr Justice Moore has offered to adjudicate in the matter, to hear argument and to deal with it on that basis. That is the way I see it and that is the way the Minister for Labor and Immigration also sees it. We have been in touch with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I personally have had discussions with Mr Souter. Last Friday on behalf of the Australian Transport Advisory Council I forwarded a telegram to Mr Souter. It is a long one. If honourable members wish, I will have it incorporated in Hansard.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting today in Darwin, considered a report from the Tasmanian Minister for Transport on the critical situation facing Tasmania as a result of the strike by Marine Engineers and the consequent tie up of interstate shipping. The Tasmanian Minister for Transport advised that the general position with Tasmanian industry and commerce due to the stoppage of ships is as follows:

Freight Forwarders standing down 220 men Monday, 8 July,

Australian Newsprint Mills, Boyer, complete shutdown Wednesday, 10 July,

Australian Paper Manufacturers, Geeveston, to close Monday, July15,

John Phoenix (Foundry), Launceston, complete shut-down Monday, July 15

Kauri Timber, Stanley, stand down 40/50 men Tuesday, 9 July,

Daffodil, Hobart, 30 men to be stood down next week,

Electrolytic Zinc, Risdon, if ‘Silver Hawk’ not arrive Monday, 8 July, employment 2,000 men in jeopardy,

Australian Paper and Pulp Mills, Wesley Vale, possibility stand down from Sunday, 7 July,

Kelsall and Kemp (Textiles), Launceston, 300 men to be stood down from Monday, 15 July,

Coates and Pa ton (Wool Manufacturers), Launceston, employment will cease from Friday, 12 July,

Paper Converting, Hobart, 10 employees on short week from next week,

Motors, Hobart (G.M.-H Dealers), 50 new car fitters and associated sales staff to be stood down from Monday, 8 July,

Building Industry is suffering major shortage materials and lay-offs throughout Tasmania commence next week,

Sawmilling Industry has shipment some six hundred thousand dollars worth timber products held up each week and facing closure of mills,

Wheat Supplies at critical level. Launceston and Hobart each less than one week urgently awaiting ‘North Esk’. Delay in shipments also causing shortage starch manufacture in turn affecting A PPM Plants, Burnie, Wesley Vale,

Ships Terminals are now fully closed and no more cargo movement taking place,

Council unanimously adopted a resolution that the Institute of Marine and Power Engineers and the A.C.T.U. be requested to exempt Tasmania from the present stoppage and any further marine industrial disputes.

Greatly appreciate your consideration and favourable decision on this request.

K. JONES

Chairman A.T.A.C.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– That telegram clearly sets out our attitude. It was a unanimous decision taken by all Ministers present, including State Ministers, the Minister for the Capital Territory and myself. I received a telegram from Mr Souter dated 8 July. It reads as follows:

ACTU has advised the officers of the Marine Engineers to conform with the ACTU policy in regard to Tasmanian trade.

It is signed ‘Souter, ACTU’. That is the attitude of the ACTU on this matter. There is agreement between the ACTU and the maritime unions that in the event of a strike involving Tasmania in the whole of the Commonwealth, Tasmanian trade would normally be exempted from it. The best that the Institute has done up to date has been to exempt a very limited number of ships. I am prepared, at the conclusion of this dispute, to make available as many single voyage permits as are necessary to clear the backlog of trade which is obviously building up.

In relation to what we have been doing in the past, we are aware of the problem in Tasmania. When we took office there was a shortage of shipping. Since that time the Union Steam Ship Co. has ordered 2 roll-on roll-off ships to be built at Whyalla. The first one will be available early in 1975. The Australian National Line has also placed orders for a seacoaster. Because we could not get it delivered in time in Australia, we are purchasing a roll-on roll-off ship in Norway. It will be completed early in 1975. These ships will be provided to do the work that has to be done. In actual fact, there is sufficient tonnage to meet the requirements of the Tasmanian trade.

It may be of interest to honourable members to learn that in the last 15 months 53 shipdays have been lost as a result of industrial disputes in Tasmania. Because of the actions of the maritime and land-based unions involved in the Tasmanian trade there has been a loss of 100,000 tons of cargo. At no time has there been such an amount of cargo surplus or a backlog of that kind. These are the facts. We have done our best to make sure that there is continuing trade, that people do not lose their employment in Tasmania. I repeat that this is a most irresponsible act on the part of the Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, which up to this point - I have been in contact with it over the years, and I have been in ship building - I have always considered to be a responsible union, but I have had to change my opinion of it.

page 38

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The honourable gentleman will be aware of the text of a letter sent by his colleague, the Minister for Labor and Immigration, to the Treasurer, a copy of which was sent to the honourable gentleman’s office, wherein the Minister for Labor said:

You will recall that at the beginning of the year I said that unemployment would rise before the end of 1974. but, on that occasion, Treasury officials saw fit to ridicule my forecast. I am convinced that I was right. I want the Government to change course. . . .

I ask the Prime Minister: Is the Minister for Labor and Immigration right? Does the honourable gentleman share his colleague’s view that the Government should change course along lines which the Minister for Labor and Immigration has publicly indicated?

Thirdly, is the Minister for Labor and Immigration, by inference, publicly criticising his colleague the Federal Treasurer? Finally, because of the widespread public interest in the text of this letter will the Prime Minister agree that it should be incorporated in Hansard?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for asking this question. I must get a copy of the letter.

page 39

QUESTION

EXTRADITION TREATY WITH BRAZIL

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I preface it by saying that I wish to express the feelings of thousands of decent Australian citizens defrauded by professional crook company directors and others who seem to have commenced a yearly migratory flight to Brazil because of the absence of any extradition treaty between Australia and Brazil. Will the Minister make urgent representations to the Brazilian Government with a view to negotiating a reciprocal extradition treaty to bring to justice reputed swindlers such as Barton, Sommers and a well-known Sydney solicitor who are reported to be living in Brazil on the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains from Australian citizens, and to see that they are returned and are tried according to Australian law?

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for the question. I am sure we all can assume that all honourable members in this Parliament share the concern of Australians generally when crimes of the sort to which the honourable member refers are committed, particularly when the fugitives, even though they might be only alleged fugitives, proceed to other parts of the world. The Government does have in mind amendments to the Extradition (Foreign States) Act to permit the application of that Act to countries which offer reciprocity of treatment to Australia under their domestic law. The Extradition (Foreign States) Act of 1966-72 deals with extradition to and from countries other than those in the British Commonwealth. It provides for continuation of former British extradition treaties and authorises the Governor-General to apply the Act to any other foreign State by regulation where a treaty exists. While it must be said that some progress has been made in negotiating new extradition treaties, it cannot be said that the progress has matched the increasing mobility of such persons throughout the world because of modern means of transport. I believe that the Attorney-General of 1969 approved of negotiations for an extradition treaty being made with Brazil, but now that we have reached this stage the situation is that in the case of, say, the Bartons, no treaty exists.

It is proposed that the Act should be amended to permit the Governor-General to apply the Act to a foreign country where he is satisfied that under the domestic law of that country extradition is provided where reciprocity is offered, and proper safeguards will be made for protection of rights for fugitive persons in Australia who might be sought by a foreign country. Such persons should be fully protected by the Australian Act from prejudice arising on account of race, religion, nationality or political opinion. The proposal is that the Act be extended to a foreign country by regulation, and it will provide the Parliament with the same opportunity to scrutinise regulations applying the Act to any foreign country as applies to any other set of regulations made in the normal course of events.

page 39

QUESTION

AMERICAN AMBASSADOR TO AUSTRALIA

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. It is my intention not to ask the Prime Minister whether anybody is missing who he felt would be here but rather to ask him a question in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the words: ‘Since the present American, ambassador has arrived in Australia he has constantly used pressure against the Australian Government in a way I suppose never equalled by any foreign government for 100 years’? Considering that these are the words of his Deputy Prime Minister written in a letter last January, will the Prime Minister inform the House of the pressure to which his deputy refers?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I have not seen any such letter, and it would appear to me that the correct course would be to put such a question on the notice paper or to ask my colleague who is alleged to have sent it.

page 39

QUESTION

LAND PRICES IN MELTON AND SUNBURY

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Has the Minister for Housing and Construction been informed of land purchases in the areas of Melton and

Sunbury in Victoria by the Housing Commission of Victoria as the agent of the Victorian Liberal Government? Can he tell the House whether the price, paid was reasonable or exorbitant? Will he investigate the purchase and, at a later time, perhaps advise this House whether Australian Government money has been wisely used by the Victorian Government? Can he also take action to ensure that Federal money is used by the State governments for the purpose for which it is allocated and not to make land speculators or others rich?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The first thing I want to say in answer to this question is that at no time have I ever alleged that the Victorian Government was responsible for the action attributed to it by the ‘Age’ newspaper. Nevertheless, when these disclosures were made in relation to land at Melton and Sunbury I indicated my intention to do everything I could to investigate thoroughly the circumstances associated with the charges, and to that end government to government overtures were made to facilitate an investigation by my Department. The Premier of that State advised the Prime Minister that such an investigation could be facilitated. At this stage the position is that officers of my Department have met with the representatives of the Victorian Housing Commission, and the Commission has given a categorical denial of the allegations made. The Department still has under study a number of documents tendered by the Commission. It is the intention of my Department and, in fact, of the Government to ensure that money made available for welfare housing produces the best possible result and is used effectively to provide housing for low income people.

One thing is certain, namely, that there is prima facie evidence which enables me to say that some of the land acquired from these companies is to be used for welfare housing under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. I think there is prima facie evidence to enable me to say that it is unquestionably the case that this land ‘has been acquired far more expensively than was necessary. Other forms are available to State, governments to assemble land for public and other housing purposes and, in my view, the Victorian Government has been remiss in not taking the most effective ways of so assembling land.

It has been open to the States for months to take advantage of the assist ance offered by the Australian Government to attack the problem of making land available at fair prices. At present, only the South Australian Government has taken the appropriate action in collaboration with this Government and the results of that action are already evident. I believe all honourable members are concerned at the reports that have been made to the effect that, in some instances, land companies made $3m in a relatively short time in turning over this land to the Victorian Housing Commission and I would hope that every possible effort will be made to prevent a recurrence of that kind of transaction. When the results of our inquiries are fully known, 1 will be pleased to let the honourable member and the House know the full details.

page 40

QUESTION

JOINT SITTING OF PARLIAMENT

Mr ANTHONY:

– My question is to the Prime Minister and relates to the eligibility of Bills for a joint sitting of the 2 Houses of Parliament following a double dissolution. I ask the Prime Minister: Is he aware of the doubt surrounding the justification for a double dissolution in the Senate’s second failure to pass the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill due to the fact that the period of 3 months, as required by section 57 of the Constitution, did not elapse between the Senate’s first rejection of the Bill and the second passing of the Bill by this House? The period in fact was only 6 days. In view of the doubt which has arisen in respect of this Bill’s role in the steps leading to the recent double dissolution, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will table the advice he received from the Government’s legal advisers on this matter and on which, presumably, his own advice to the Governor-General was based?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The documents leading up to the double dissolution of the Parliament are being printed and I hope to table them next week. They will include the advice from the Solicitor-General and the AttorneyGeneral concerning the 6 Bills, including the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill, and from that advice it will appear why I advised the Governor-General and why he agreed that there had been a failure to pass or a rejection of each of those Bills, including the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill. Perhaps I could take this opportunity to say that I have not assumed in any of my public statements that the Senate in the new Parliament will continue the policy of obstruction which the Senate pursued in the last Parliament. I believe it is quite possible that the Senate will pass all 6 Bills in this Parliament which the old Senate rejected in the last.

page 41

QUESTION

SUPPLIES OF LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Mr KERIN:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. What is the position regarding the supply of liquefied petroleum gas in Australia? What actions can the Government take to ensure supplies for Australian consumers?

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

– The position in relation to supplies of liquefied petroleum gas is rather complex. To begin with, the main shortages are in New South Wales and certain parts of Queensland which have depended for their supplies on refineries in Sydney and Brisbane. Quite adequate supplies are at Westernport but there are problems associated with cost. To be very frank, I suggest that any honourable member and particularly those from country constituencies - there are many which are in a very grievous plight at present - ought to refer to pages 70 to 78 and pages 85 to 88 of the report of the Prices Justification Tribunal where it is stated quite clearly that the application of the Shell Company of Australia Ltd for an increase in LPG prices from $28 to $5 a ton would be rejected and that the company would be allowed an increase of $14 only on the grounds that it was possible to produce the whole of Australia’s LPG requirements within Australia. In a rather mutinous fashion the company indicated at the time that it may not continue to do so.

The alternative fuel that was also the subject of an application for a price increase was fuel oil. As a result of the determination of the Tribunal the retail price of fuel oil represents a $6 per ton greater profit for the oil companies than does the production of LPG. I can quote here from correspondence received by my Department from Total Australia Ltd, as a case in point, in which it stated that the current selling prices for LPG indicate use of LPG as a refinery fuel and gasoline blending component thereby reducing saleable volumes of LPG and increasing the output of fuel and motor spirit. Mobil Oil Australia Ltd advised: due to recent decisions of the Prices Justification Tribunal we may not be able to maintain this position (output not reduced) indefinitely due to under recovery of increased imported feed stock costs. . . . Most of our LPG volume is associated with commercial contracts which we will continue to honour.

I mention that in the case of Armidale its contract with the Shell Co. of Australia Ltd expired on 30 June and supplies were promptly terminated. The obligation is on the different major oil companies in Australia to conform with the exact and correct determination of the Prices Justification Tribunal.

In point of fact, there are further obligations on the companies in respect of section 18(6) and section 1 8 (7) of the Prices Justification Tribunal Act. The necessary telegram has been sent to the Prices Justification Tribunal to see what remedies are available. We will not accept, nor will we tolerate, inconvenience to hundreds of thousands of consumers of LPG in Australia and particularly to municipal corporations and to persons in isolated positions for the matter of a paltry $6 per ton extra profit by the sale of fuel oil. At present LPG that ought to be made available to consumers is being burned as a fuel in refineries.

page 41

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer and is prompted by the presence in Canberra today of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions for talks about growing unemployment. I ask: Does the Treasurer recall telling the Australian people just before the election that ‘inflation was on the way down’? I think that is the term he used. Was this statement made, as some have claimed, to defuse inflation as an election issue? If it was not, and inflation was in fact falling, why is it now necessary for the Government, through its tariff and other policies, to create unemployment in the electrical, motor vehicle, clothing, footwear and other industries?

Mr CREAN:
ALP

Mr Acting Speaker, I sometimes despair of the sort of questions that are asked from the other side of the House. We will have a full scale debate on this subject in 5 or 10 minutes time and I will say then what I want to say.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Are there no further questions? I call on notices.

Mr Wentworth:

– Yes.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I called on notices. No one rose. I call the honourable member for Wannon. If no one rises again there will be no further question time. I cannot call members when they are sitting down.

page 42

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– Does the Minister for Labor and Immigration still say, as he did in his letter of 27 June, that the Government’s economic policies will cause unemployment? On what does he base his conclusions when the Prime Minister has plainly said that they will not? Has the Minister for Labor and Immigration and the Minister for Overseas Trade - the Deputy Prime Minister - yet convinced the Prime Minister of the probability, if not the certainty, of unemployment as a result of Government policies? Is that the reason for the reintroduction of import licensing for certain industries as it was announced yesterday which was, I think, point 4 in the policy matters proposed by the Minister for Labor and Immigration in his letter which the Prime Minister claims to know nothing about?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I did write a letter to the Treasurer about my views on fiscal and monetary policies. I do not have it in front of me but one paragraph I remember very well was a passionate plea that the Treasurer ought not to follow policies that would get this Government into the same sorry mess as the McMahon Government got into and into the same sorry mess as a future Liberal and Country Party government would get into, when its only policy for dealing with inflation is massive unemployment.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I ask the Minister would he like to incorporate his letter in Hansard?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

page 42

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture confirm that the interest rates henceforth to be charged by the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank have been increased by 2i per cent so that they will be, for marketing authorities, at a record level of about 9i per cent to 10 per cent? Does he recognise that the marketing authorities and grower co-operatives which use this loan money have no alternative source of finance and that this increase will cost the wheat growers alone some $4m to $5m from the next crop? Does he also recognise that this increase has come at a time when there is a deteriorating marketing opportunity for meat, for wool and for other agricultural produce and that this is likely to lead to a marked downturn in the agricultural sector?

Dr PATTERSON:
ALP

– As the honourable member knows, preferential rates of interest have been available to primary producers for a long time. As he also knows, the question of interest rates for rural reconstruction, for carry-on loans, for amalgamations and other financial assistance available under the various rural assistance Acts is a matter for the Minister for Agriculture or the Treasurer. I will endeavour to get for the honourable member specific details with respect to the wheat industry and the meat industry about which he asked and will give him a written reply.

page 42

QUESTION

TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETIES

Mr MATHEWS:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Housing and Construction see advantages in directing a greater flow of funds for housing through terminating building societies? Has his attention been drawn to statements by some State authorities that they would be opposed to such a direction of funds? Can he perceive any possibility of action in this field in the immediate future?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– At present the building industry is on the turn. There is still close to full employment of resources. But in my view there are not sufficient orders ahead and if activity is to be maintained it will be necessary fairly quickly to take remedial action. If we find that pockets of unemployment are developing in the building industry, I believe that it will be the responsibility of the Government to act very quickly to maximise the building force of this country to ensure that houses are turned out at the fastest possible rate. That, of course, has been the situation up to now.

If it is necessary to bring some additive to bear, 1 believe that one of the first methods that should be invoked to provide this stimulation is to give more money firstly to the State housing authorities for the construction of low income housing. Built in to that system is a second tier which is welfare housing. This provides housing for people whose incomes are under 95 per cent of average weekly earnings. I believe that it could become possible for an extra tier to be invoked to provide for an even higher echelon of income. In that respect, the terminating building societies could well be the vehicle that could be used to facilitate this injection of funds and to stimulate housing activity in

Australia. 1 might say to the honourable gentleman that my Department is at present giving thought to a proposal along these lines which will go before the Government for consideration.

page 43

QUESTION

PRIORITIES REVIEW STAFF

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I desire to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Overseas Trade. Is one of his duties in the economic field the implementation of the report by the Priorities Review Staff? If so, is the Minister aware that this report made a strong attack on some of the policies being pursued by his colleague, the Minister for Minerals and Energy? How will the Minister for Overseas Trade ensure that these sound recommendations are implemented when his colleague has so far completely ignored them and refers to the Review as ‘impertinent’?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am responsible for the Priorities Review Staff. I read its report. 1 read what it had to say about the policies of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. 1 do not agree with it. In my opinion, the Minister is correct and the Priorities Review Staff incorrect.

page 43

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S BALANCE OF TRADE POSITION

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Overseas Trade aware of the forebodings by some sections of the business community in Australia about the Australian balance of trade position? Can the Minister give any projections on the growth of imports into Australia in the next 12 months and also give a projection of the growth in exports from the primary, secondary and extractive industry areas, together with an assessment of the impact that an increase in imports will have on our balance of trade position? Will the Minister also inform the House what other factors arise in the balance of payments position from invisibles?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The present level of Australia’s reserves is a little short of $3,800m. That is a very extensive direct first range reserve level. In the last 2 months there has been a trade surplus, the one in June being higher than the one in May. The June figures for imports are down a little, the figures for exports are also down a little, but both figures are almost at record levels. It seems to me that the present situation for Australia with respect to exports of visible items, both ways, is very satisfactory. The level of reserves is very satisfactory.

The predictions - if one could call them that - that were made by the Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition speakers before the last election have proved to be wrong as far as May and June are concerned. I will not try to do the same thing as they have done, that is, to predict out into the next 12 months, but it seems quite apparent that in respect of commodities like meat the situation will not be as favourable over the next few months. 1 hope that the growers of meat will not hold back their stocks, as they apparently are doing now, from the local market. I would imagine that the price of meat in Australia today is quite sufficiently good to justify the producers putting their stock on the market. For a great many months over half the increase in the retail price index has been caused by foodstuffs - by meat. Despite the enormous increase in farm incomes - about $2,000m in the first 18 months of this Government’s term of office - there has hardly been an increase in any physical quantity of the foodstuffs that have been produced from the land, and that has been one of the main causes of the inflation of the last 18 months.

page 43

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing and Construction · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. I seek leave to make a personal explanation about a misleading advertisement which appeared in 2 Sydney newspapers of Friday, 5 July. On Wednesday, 3 July, I responded to an invitation by the principals of Lucas and Tait (Sales) Pty Ltd, a development company, at which the company proposed to announce a scheme designed to assist young couples to build their own homes on an estate developed by the company at Penrith. After one of the principals, Mr Tait, introduced me with a brief speech, I addressed the gathering which included representatives of the media. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a verbatim transcript of the introduction by Mr Tait and my own speech.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Transcript of Opening Speech made by the Minister for Housing and Construction, the Honourable Les Johnson, M.P., at Reception held by Lucas and Tait (Sales) Pty Ltd, Wednesday 3 July 1974

Mr TAIT ; Ladies and Gentlemen, on behalf of our Company, it is our extreme pleasure to have with us the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Les Johnson. We know that Mr Johnson is a very busy man extremely dedicated to his portfolio and we really appreciate his attendance with us today. The field of housing and construction would cover one of the largest and most vital industries in Australia today. I find that Mr Johnson has got this right in his grasp and doing a very good job there.

The announcement which we wish to make today is in respect of Werrington County. This is a joint development by our Company, Lucas and Tait, and Cambridge Credit Corporation. Werrington County is situated in the Penrith District. It has been acclaimed as one of the finest residential developments in the Sydney metropolitan area. We believe that this is a tremendous opportunity for young couples to be part of a new prestige residential development at prices well within their budgets. We firmly believe that this is the lowest priced land in the Sydney metropolitan area. These low prices, combined with a special home building subsidy which 1 would like to talk about, should be of great benefit to all young couples in acquiring their own homes.

The home building subsidy is basically a very simple plan to assist young couples who wish to build their own homes. Any future purchaser at Werrington County who is 35 years of age or under qualifies for a $500 home building subsidy from our Company. Upon selling a home site at Werrington, our Company deposits $500 into a special trust account with the Permanent Trustee Company. This $500 is then paid to the purchaser as soon as they have substantially commenced building their home. By substantially commenced, we mean construction to say roof frame stage. They have two years in which to have construction to this level.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Thank you very much Mr Hawkins. Ladies and Gentlemen. I am very pleased that right at the start of proceedings you are pleased that I am here, and the good thing about being here, is that Lucas and Tait know that it’s my custom to come to occasions like this to say what I feel, and the first thing I want to say is that my visit is in the nature of a good neighbourly one, in that this building happens to be the accommodation for the headquarters, the Sydney headquarters, for the Department of Housing and Construction. A very large number of people operate from here in the floors above you. I hope we always keep just a little bit above you, but I suppose it is sensible that we should relate together. I might also say, that the Lucas’s and Tait’s, since there is two of each, are _ a reputable Company, and they have been in business for quite some time. The enquiries that 1 have made preliminary to my visit here today have been of an endorsing nature from people in the associated industries and professions. And then of course, there is the added interest of being here today in respect of the matter which has already been referred to, that there is this new embellishment about land selling to the effect that young couples can be endowed with $500 if they are under 35 years of age, and if they substantially commence their home within two years of purchase.

I have often felt that developers are in the same nature as Politicians, in the sense that we are all heaped together, and the good and bad are designated in the public mind as being of very similar substance and calibre. Nothing is further from the truth so far as Parliamentarians are concerned. There’s the principled and the parisites, and I don’t think that principles differ in any way from the study we could make and the conclusions we could come to from such a study in respect of developers. There are indeed developers in this country who operate efficiently and with extremely high principles, and who take off for themselves a margin which represents fair compensation for the skill and expertise which is involved in their work. Whilst in addition to that, there is an echelon of developers, and even people beyond the development capacities, who can only be regarded as exploiters, some of them ruthlessly exploitive.

One of the interesting enticements about coming here today, is as I’ve said, that you propose to take this course of action which is designed to minimise the activity of that in-between echelon, those people who neither reap nor sow, but who come in-between, often right at the time the raw land has become developed and sold. They descend like a bunch of hungry crows, and offer margins of profit to the person who is able to buy in the first instance. A quick turn over, and too many of our young people of course are subject to land acquisition which has been the subject of speculation on a number of occasions.

Now somebody asked me as I walked in here today, one of the ladies of the media, if I was here to give this scheme my imprimatur. Well now all of you know that nobody with the responsibility of administering a Government Ministry is in the business of setting himself up as an advertising agent backing, giving imprimaturs, endorsing for the purpose of commercialisation, or advantaging anybody, engaged in that kind of endeavour. In fact, I remember a predecessor whose wife was once involved with the advertising of sheets, and that necessitated her husband offering his resignation to the then Prime Minister. Well, I’m too fond of my work, and regard too much of it as yet undone, to put myself in that position. And I said to the lady concerned, that whenever the Prime Minister goes out to launch a steel mill it doesn’t necessarily mean that the Prime Minister of the day who is demonstrating his interest in steel production in Australia is in the business of underwriting all the upward movements in steel which have manifested themselves even in recent times on too many occasions, or indeed if the Minister for Shipping and Transport launches a ship, and usually it’s his wife who does it, then he is not there to underwrite the fares that are going to be charged on an overseas passage.

Now similarly, I am not here to say that the price of land at Werrington is high or low. Frankly, I have had no opportunity to study its merit. I know that you have a very large scale development there, and I should imagine that there are many ways by which you can ensure that the profitability of your business can be sustained. This kind of thing depends not just on the price of land, of course, that you finally impose, but it also reflects the type of land you set aside for commercial development and things of that kind.

I know little of the acquisition cost, I know little of your servicing cost of the land, and for that reason I believe that I have to transfer this obligation to determine whether you are offering a good proposition, or a bad proposition, to the discerning home buyer, and naturally my advice to home buyers is to become as discerning as possible in every situation. To go around looking keenly at the comparable blocks of land in the area where one wants to build, and to decide whether this is the competitive price for the block of land in question.

Now we are here to look at something that might be regarded as a prototype approach to land development for the kind of motive which you have outlined today - the business of minimising the involvement of that in-between fellow who makes a racket out of turning land over, and we want to make sure that young couples to the extent that this will encourage them to do so, actually build on that block of land they acquire within two years.

Well I think that it is going to be interesting to see how this whole thing turns out. And I want to congratulate the Company on this very novel and enterprising approach to land sales. And I certainly hope that the motive you have in putting things the way that you have put it is fulfilled, and that people are advantaged in the long term.

I just want to make a few comments about the general situation in respect of land. The fact is, in Sydney, the average block of land has risen by 80 per cent over the last three years, to a level of about $18,500 and this is the highest rate that prevails in any capital city of Australia. In South Australia, the average price of land is more in the vicinity of $5,000 as against $18,500.

Now land prices, as I have said, have gone up 80 per cent in three years, and when one takes into account the fact that earnings have gone up about 32 per cent in that same period, all of us have to be extremely concerned at the movements in this particular area.

One of the things that interests me is that the land cost component of house and land in Sydney back in 1968 was 34 per cent, 1971 went to 42 per cent, 1973 to 47 per cent, and I am now told that the land cost is in the vicinity of 54 per cent here in Sydney. In Melbourne, it is still running at a level of about 32 per cent. The land component of the total land and housing cost.

Ten years ago, a young couple looking for a block of land would need to expend about one year’s pay to buy that block of land. Now they need to spend not twelve months pay but thirty-six months pay for the same purpose.

I am extremely concerned that there has not been .sufficient public initiative from the standpoint of regulating the obviously undesirable practices that have occurred in land development here in Sydney, and indeed, in this State. Let me say to you that whilst I regard Queensland to be the most backward State generally speaking, from the standpoint of political administration there can be no question that they are very keenly rivalled by New South Wales when it comes to dealing effectively with this very important social question.

For the first time in the Nation’s history, we now have a Federal Government prepared to play its part in assailing this problem. And it is gratifying that the State of South Australia, led by a contemporary Premier, responded more quickly, more promptly, than any other State Leader. So that quite some time ago, a considerable amount of money was accepted by that State and has been expended. A total of $8.2m has been expended on the acquisition of some 9,000 blocks of land, not for the purpose of monopolising the land market, not for the purpose of squeezing out the developers, but for the purpose of giving very real effect to the thing that we all stand for - competition.

And just as Governments play a regulatory part in many fields such as banking and air services, there seems to me to be a very real necessity for Governments to demonstrate that some kind of competition in the land area, not unfair competition, but one can not get away from the fact that Governments have advantages.

I was also pleased to see that the most contemporary Liberal Premier in Australia, that is, Mr Hamer in Victoria, recently responded to the overtures of the Commonwealth Government and accepted an amount in excess of $27m for the purpose of getting under the neck of the unreasonable developers and speculators, and that is already playing a part in keeping land costs down there, to a relatively low level compared with New South Wales.

Here in this State, the continued overtures by my colleague, Mr Uren, about offering $28m as an initial contribution to a land assembly programme has for unaccountable reasons been flatly refused by Sir Robert Askin. Now one has to speculate as to the reasons for this failure to co-operate. You know, in my own Electorate, some 20 miles out from Sydney, just a short time ago Crown Land was offered out there and the reserve price on 24 blocks of land was in the vicinity of $18,000. Only two blocks had a reserve price under $13,000.

The State Government here has made $8.4m profit out of Crown Land sales, and yet is prepared to offer so little back itself in the business of land assembly, and then as I have said, flatly refuses to co-operate with the Federal Government. Now for the reasons I have mentioned, and the fact that we now find that land and houses, and the combination of the two, are going beyond the reach of people, and that predominately the reason for this is the land cost factor. Its imperative that we get more co-operation, not just with Governments, but with developers as well. Quite frankly, I think the day has just about gone when any developer can go out and find a piece of green belt land, have it redesignated and require the servicing of that and the whole public echelon of services to come following in the wake of that original initiative.

Obviously, the whole approach has to be planned. We will never want the bureaucrats doing the whole lot. That would be a most ungaily innovation, but there is a part for the Public Service and Government enterprise to play, and I believe that we are going to move from here into an era where the reputable developers who can effectively give an account of their stewardship in their chosen field of endeavour, can be called into effective partnership by Governments in joint ventures.

No longer can we have the ribbon development, the spreadeagled unutilised services, as a characteristic of land development. From here on we need to develop suburbs, whole suburbs, with all the head works and all the roads and the schools and the pre-schools, with aesthetic approaches by planners and architects. And there is a place, as I have said, for competitive and efficient developers.

Unfortunately, we have had some decades of developers emerging from anywhere calling themselves developers, taking finance company money. I find myself in strange . company, because I have often made adverse speeches, I suppose as most Parliamentarians have, about that beleaguered combination, finance companies and developers. That is not to say, that I disparage them all.

I disparage the fact for all kinds of reasons, including reasons that you can attribute to Governments, too much of the whole business of providing houses and land is turned over to finance companies instead of coming from the lower range of finance, the lower range of interest rates, and the expansion of finance company involvement is unjustifiable and unsupportable. And in my view, cannot be sustained for a long period of time.

So we are going to look very hard at this joint venture operation. I hope that the kind of situation that will evolve from this is that the planners will identify lovely parts of Australia which are suitable for development and they will say to companiesget your experts in some instances, and in other instances have the benefit of the Government ones, draw up these plans and we will ensure that you have the benefit of low interest money for your land acquisition, for all your development, for the construction of your houses, indeed. Provided you are able to show that the benefit of that high turn-over you pass on - you can show that you pass on advantages to the consuming public.

Now in my own ramifications, I administer the best part of $1,000 million a year, a great deal of it is directed to housing. For far too long, Governments have been making money available for housing, not caring terribly much how it is being spent, and at what price it is turned out to the consuming public in the end.

Those things, in this country, and I believe just about in the whole world, are starting to cut out. One of the things I have hopes about in regard to Lucas and Tait, not exclusively, but surely them among others, is that they are capable of contemporising their attitudes. I think the matter that they put up to us today is a case in point, an example that we are going to watch with interest.

Ladies and Gentlemen, if Lucas and Tait’s are engaged in a ripoff and I wouldn’t for one solitary moment suggest that they are, its the worst thing that they have ever done in their business career, because they have attracted the interest of the Minister for Housing and Construction, they have attracted the interest of the Media, Mr Mulock, a State Member of Parliament, and a number of others, and they will be watched with very close interest with very great discernment, and by the consuming people outside as well.

I believe their motives are good. I believe that we have something to watch, and I hope there is going to be highly beneficial things accrue. Let me just say one or two other things in conclusion. Today or yesterday we have had announcements about some other factors which contribute to (Speech ran out on Tape Recording).

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As the transcript of my speech shows, I made perfectly clear that I was not present to give the company scheme my imprimatur, endorsement or support. Page 3 of my speech makes this clear. On Friday, 5 July, in the first edition of the ‘Sun’ and all editions of the ‘Daily Mirror’ there appeared a full page advertisement, which 1 seek leave to table.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the honourable member want leave to incorporate the document in Hansard or leave to table it?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to table it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– The Minister is entitled to table papers at any time. He does not have to seek leave to do that.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Thank you. This advertisement was laid out in a style similar to a news page except that it carried the required ‘Advertisement’ heading in small type at the top of the page. Although the advertisement included in its body copy one of my statements that I was not present to give the scheme my imprimatur, sections of my speech were taken out of context and presented in such a way as to give a misleading impression of my role at the function.

At first glance the advertisement, which used 2 photographs of me, one of them with the principals of Lucas and Tait, would give the impression that I was in some way associated with the development scheme and was giving my tacit endorsement and support to the company’s scheme. I believe that an unsuspecting land buyer could well be induced by the form and content of this advertisement to believe that in some way the land development at Penrith and its associated subsidy scheme had the support of the Australian Government. I regard this advertisement as a very grave breach of commercial and advertising morality in that the company endeavoured to use my presence at its function to suggest Government backing for a land development scheme. I was never consulted or informed by the company or any of its agents that this advertisement was intended for placement in 2 major newspapers only 2 days after I spoke. I’ immediately sent a telegram to the company, which I seek leave to include in Hansard, expressing my grave concern at the company’s action.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Gravely concerned with your advertisements contained today’s newspapers which misleadingly give the impression that I am endorsing the Werrington county project stop

As you know 1 have not been consulted either about your intention to publish such advertisements or the form they have taken stop

It must have been completely clear to you from the remarks 1 made at your function last Wednesday that my presence was in no way to be regarded as an endorsement of the Werringtonland project or the subsidy for young couples scheme which is associated with the project stop

In factI made direct reference to the impropriety of Ministers being associated with commercial advertising and indicated that I would not engage in this practice stop 1 must insist that these advertisements be immediately discontinued and that a public and prominent announcement be made in the newspapers carrying the advertisement indicating that I neither gave the scheme or the advertisements my approval and that 1 am in no way associated with the venture stop

Your acknowledgement would be appreciated stop

page 47

LES JOHNSON M.P

Minister for Housing and Construction

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My Press Secretary asked both newspapers to withdraw the advertisement and the ‘Sun’ newspaper agreed to withdraw it from the second edition onwards. The ‘Daily Mirror’ refused to do so because of the so-called mechanical problems which would be involved in dropping the advertisement. 1 also released a Press statement on Friday, 5 July, to all media, a Press report of which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

page 47

MINISTER DEMANDS END TO ADVERT

CANBERRA, Friday- The Minister for Housing, Mr Johnson, demanded today the immediate removal of an advertisement in which he is quoted in a daily newspaper.

The advertisement, by Sydney developers Lucas and Tait, publicises the Werrington development, near Penrith, and a home subsidy plan.

It carries a picture of Mr Johnson and quotes from a speech he made last week at a reception to launch the home subsidy plan.

Mr Johnson sent a telegram to Lucas and Tait today insisting on an end to the advertisement and a prominent announcement in newspapers which carried it indicating that he neither gave the scheme, or the advertisements, his approval and that he was in no way associated with the venture.

In the telegram, Mr Johnson said he was gravely concerned about the advertisement.

They ‘misleadingly’ gave the impression that he was endorsing the Werrington project.

As you know I have not been consulted either about your intention to publish such advertisements or the form they have taken’, he said in the telegram.

It must have been completely clear to you from the remarks I made at your function last Wednesday, that my presence was in no way to be regarded as an endorsement of the Werrington land project or the subsidy for young couples scheme which is associated with the project.

In fact, I made direct reference to the impropriety of ministers being associated with commercial advertising and indicated that I would not engage in this practice’.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My Press Secretary also made strong telephone complaints about the advertisement to the public relations firm involved and the advertising agency which produced and placed the advertisement. On 9 July I received a telegram conveying an apology from Lucas and Tait Pty Ltd, the development firm, which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

page 47

SYDNEY NSW 321 5P

Mr L. JOHNSON, M.P.

Federal Minister for Housing and Construction, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T

We acknowledge your telegram of 5th inst stop We assure you that this company did not intend to imply by the advertisements in question that you were in any way associated with the project or that you had endorsed the project for the home building scheme stop In fact in the advertisement you were quoted that you were not present to give the scheme imprimatur stop

None the less we regret our companys failure to consult you before publishing these advertisements which have now been withdrawn from the press stop Tomorrow we shall publish a notice in the papers concerned in the following terms Quote Public Notice and Apology stop In advertisements published in this newspaper last week by this company concerning the opening of a release of land in the Werrington County Development in the Penrith District various statements were quoted from Mr L. Johnson, M.P., Federal Minister for Housing and Construction and from Mr R. Mulock, M.L.A., State Shadow AttorneyGeneral stop We wish to make it quite clear that neither Mr Johnson nor Mr Mulock are in any way way interested in or associated with this company or the Werrington County Development nor have they given their approval of or endorsement to the project or the home subsidy scheme referred to in the advertisements stop The advertisements were published without the prior approval or knowledge of

Mr Johnson or Mr Mulock and any impression or innuendo that Mr Johnson or Mr Mulock may have any interest in or association with this company or the project or that they have given their approval of or endorsement to the advertisement the project or the home subsidy scheme was entirely unintentional and is regretted stop Lucas and Tait (Sales) Pty Ltd end of quote We Trust that you will find this satisfactory. Lucas and Tait (of or endorsement). (5th L MP R MLA) 40

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In the ‘Sun’ newspaper on 9 July a 3 column advertisement was published in the form of an apology by Lucas and Tait. I seek leave to incorporate the text of that advertisement in Hansard.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

page 48

ADVERTISEMENT PUBLIC NOTICE AND APOLOGY

In advertisements published in this newspaper last week by this company concerning the opening of a release of land in the Werrington County development in the Penrith district, various statements were quoted from Mr L. Johnson M.P., Federal Minister for Housing and Construction and from Mr R.’ Mulock M.L.A., the State Shadow Attorney-General.

We wish to make it quite clear that neither Mr Johnson nor Mr Mulock are in any way interested in or associated with this company or the Werrington County development nor have they given their approval of or endorsement to the project or the Home Subsidy Scheme referred to in the advertisements.

The Advertisements were published without the prior approval or knowledge of Mr Johnson or Mr Mulock and any impression or innuendo that Mr Johnson or Mr Mulock may have any interest in or association with this company or the project or that they have given their approval of or endorsement to the advertisement, the project or the home subsidy scheme was entirely unintentional and is regretted.

Lucas & Tait (Sales) Pty Ltd

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is clear from the advertisement that its creator, acting for the company, was deliberately and improperly attempting to use my attendance at the announcement of the company’s scheme to induce people to purchase land from the company. Although the company has denied that it intended to imply my support or association with the scheme, I do not believe that such an explanation could be accepted. I believe that somebody acting for the company deliberately attempted to sell land on the company’s estate by the unethical and commercially immoral practice of placing an advertisement designed to give an impression to potential buyers that this scheme was in some way supported by the Australian Government.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes. I claim I was misrepresented in an article on page 9 of the ‘Australian’ of 9 July 1974. I am not critical of the newspaper for this article but I am critical of the author, Mr Barry Hughes of Flinders University, South Australia, for what he has written. The article shows both ignorance of the problems associated with employment and unemployment and little or no knowledge of many of the principles involved in estimating the figures relating to unemployment.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member must state where he has been misrepresented.

Mr McMAHON:

– The article is headed ‘Full or overfull employment’. Mr Hughes states that I hold the view: . . . that a general increase in the level of demand would no longer be able to reduce unemployment below 2 per cent.

There has never been any justification for these views. I have not used them and no statement that I have made could give rise to an inference that these are my views. I am told that what happened was that Mr Hughes plagiarised an article by Professor K. J. Hancock headed ‘Unemployment in Australia’.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the right honourable gentleman is getting to the stage of debating the question. He must say where he has been misrepresented.

Mr McMAHON:

– No. With great respect, I am explaining the matter.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I realise that, but I think the right honourable gentleman is debating the question too. He is explaining how the misrepresentation occurred, not what it was.

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes, I am.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– He is not explaining the misrepresentation.

Mr McMAHON:

– I have already done that. Now I am explaining how it occurred.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– How it occurred is irrelevant.

Mr McMAHON:

– I ask leave to have incorporated in Hansard the answer which I gave in this House.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

I think it can be said . . . that we no longer face the problem of slackness in the general level of demand with its consequential impact on the general level of employment. We do face 2 problems: One is that of the unskilled worker and the other, to a lesser extent, is the problem of special categories of people, particularly young women, in country areas. . . . These matters do cause concern to the Government, and particularly to myself. We are looking at the problems carefully. As I have said, they require special treatment rather than a general increase of the level of demand.

Mr McMAHON:

– I finish my statement in this way, that those who would care to read this article - under present circumstances I believe it is important that this should be said - will recognise that this gentleman has no knowledge or understanding whatsoever of the problems of unemployment and employment in this country. I make these 2 comments: Firstly, Mr Hughes should be informed that the figures relating to seasonal adjustment of unemployment can never wisely be used in Australia. This is a view held not only by the Treasury and the Department of Labor and Immigration but also by the Institute of Applied Economics and Social Welfare in the United Kingdom. Secondly, Mr Hughes should know, if he looks at the figures-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! What the gentleman should or should not know is not relevant to the right honourable gentleman being misrepresented. I think that if I allow him to go much further we will have continuing debates on personal explanations.

Mr McMAHON:

Mr Acting Speaker, I believe that what you are saying is correct but I think that what I wish to say now is so important that there should be some liberalisation of the normal procedures.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– If the right honourable gentleman wishes to make a statement he should seek leave to do so.

Mr McMAHON:

– I seek leave to make a statement to add the concluding part of what I want to say.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:

– When reading the unemployment figures, we have to be careful to discern between those people who can be effectively employed at going market rates of pay and those who can not. When I was the Minister for Labour and National Service I ensured that a thorough review was taken out in every office of the Department in Australia to ascertain how many among the unemployed could be effectively employed at going rates of pay. I think it is fair to say - now I rely upon my memory fairly heavily - that between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of the people registered for unemployment at that time could not be effectively employed. I make these 2 statements because I think so much that is wrong and so much that is ill informed and contrary to well recognised academic views has been said about unemployment that it is high time that somebody spoke up and corrected the misapprehensions and the misstatements when they are made.

page 49

SUPERANNUATION SCHEME FOR AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report by Professor A. H. Pollard and Mr G. L. Melville on my proposals for a new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees, dated 5 June 1974.

page 49

RURAL POLICY IN AUSTRALIA

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a paper entitled ‘Rural Policy in Australia’ which was prepared by a working group commissioned by the Prime Minister on 14 December 1973.

page 49

NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Special Minister of State · KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present volume 1 of the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Compensation and Rehabilitation in Australia, dated July 1974. Volume 2 has yet to be completed.

page 50

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present an information booklet entitled ‘Australian Government Assistance to Local Government Projects’. This is a guide to sources of funds and how to apply for them. It was compiled at the request of the Lord Mayors of the 6 capital cities to the Prime Minister at a meeting at the Lodge earlier this year.

page 50

DEVELOPMENT OF ALBURY-WODONGA

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled ‘Development of Albury-Wodonga’ dated June 1974. This report is about the initial policies and plans of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation for the growth of the city.

page 50

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

- Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr BERINSON:

– Yes, in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of Friday, 5 July. The headline of the front page article to which I refer reads: ‘MP’s pay sacrifice pure theatre’. The article purports to give my views on proposed or possible increases in parliamentary salaries. The correction I would like to make to the House is that the headline and the introduction to this article have the effect not only of misrepresenting my views but also of positively reversing them. I give just 2 examples: The article in its opening paragraph has me claiming that restraint in respect to pay rises by politicians would be an empty gesture. I assume that readers would understand from that that I would be opposing any approach involving restraint on our own salary increases. On the contrary, my very first comment in a letter on this subject to the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) was that I would support his suggestion - that is, of a wage freeze for members of Parliament - but provided that it was part of a co-ordinated approach to an incomes policy and not merely an isolated gesture.

The newspaper also quoted me as saying that a wage freeze by politicians would be ‘strictly for the theatre*. I did use that phrase but in relation to the much narrower proposition heard in recent weeks, that wage increases for parliamentarians should proceed but with provision for members who disagree with them to opt out on an individual basis. I trust that the distinction between the propositions as printed by the newspaper and as originally put by me will be clear to all. The later sections of the article did quote me accurately but unfortunately, the misrepresentation in the headline and earlier paragraphs, tended to eliminate the possibility of one’s making any sense of the whole.

page 50

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– On behalf of the Speaker, pursuant to standing order 18, I lay on the table a warrant nominating the following honourable members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees and when requested to do so by the Chairman of Committees: Mr Armitage, Mr Berinson, Mr Drury, Mr Giles, Dr Jenkins, Mr Luchetti, Mr Lucock and Mr Martin.

page 50

GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC POLICY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– 1 have received a letter from the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The serious social and economic consequences of the Government’s credit squeeze policies.

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

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– Yesterday the Governor-General informed the Parliament that the Government, in continuing its fight against inflation, would be guided by certain principles including protection for the weaker sections of the community, and a firm commitment to the principle of full employment. In the same 24-hour period the Government chose to announce a widespread increase in official interest rates. The 2 propositions are not only contradictory and incompatible - they represent the unrestrained hypocrisy of this Government economic policies. The Labor

Administration has placed an irrevocable seal on an economic strategy which is manifestly inequitable and steeped in the inevitable social consequence of increasing unemployment.

During the Budget debate last year the Opposition explicitly cautioned the Government against the massive increase in expenditure it proposed. We stated clearly and definitely that the inevitable burden and over reliance on monetary policy would lead as a direct consequence to economic instability. The Government rejected that argument. Since that time it has deliberately and methodically applied a credit squeeze of unparallelled intensity. On 28 August 1973 the Statutory Reserve Deposit ratio of Australian trading banks was raised one per cent to 9 per cent. On 14 September the Reserve Bank increased bank loan and deposit rates. On 4 October the Government raised the long-term bond rate to 8.5 per cent. On 25 October the variable deposit on long-term overseas borrowings was raised from 25 to 33i per cent. On 14 January interest rates on trading bank fixed deposits of less than $50,000 were increased. On 22 March, 4 and 29 April Treasury Note yields were raised. The yields were increased twice during May and again early in June. This week, bank overdraft rates were raised to 11.5 per cent, the short-term bond rate to 11 per cent and the long-term bond rate to 9.5 per cent. Notwithstanding the most recent official interest rates it is clear that the Government has not yet clarified an effective and realistic long-term rate. The persistence with an inverse interest rate structure not only disguises the real long-term interest rate, but also creates indecision for both borrowers and leaders thus precluding them from effective forward financing.

The Labor Government has consistently adverted to the build-up of liquidity during 1972 as the basis of its monetary problems. Yet the recent report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the Australian economy pointed out that, as a consequence of Labor’s financial policies, the narrowly defined money supply - currency and current account deposits - rose at a seasonally adjusted rate of 30 per cent in the second quarter of 1973. The money supply rose at a rate of 20 per cent during the third quarter. In seasonally adjusted terms, therefore, the money supply grew in similarly high proportions in 1972 and during the first 3 quarters of 1973 under Labor’s administration. The point of distinction, and the basis of this Government’s ineptitude, is that during 1972, as honourable members on both sides of the House will recall, stimulus was required. During 1973, with the economy moving ahead strongly, restraint and moderation were at that time equally required. During 1973 the Government’s fiscal policy was one of the most expansionary since statistics on the Government’s financial transactions have been recorded.

Then the brakes were applied. In September 1973 the Government instructed the Reserve Bank to sell Government securities and to curtail the rate of expansion of the money supply. Tighter financial conditions have, therefore, been in effect for a period of almost 10 months. The change in monetary policy through open market operations resulted in a rapid change at which the money supply was growing. The money supply has actually decreased in seasonally adjusted terms in both the December and March quarters.

In April, before the present credit squeeze reached its present intensity, the Reserve Bank summarised the situation in the following terms:

Private sector liquidity, after growing appreciably less in the seasonal run-up this year compared with 1972-73, contracted sharply over March and April. This sharp fall reflected the normal acceleration in collection of company and personal taxation, accentuated by net sales of foreign exchange by the Reserve Bank and other transactions which absorbed liquidity. The resultant paucity of liquidity has been reflected in keen competition for funds and large rises in private sector interest rates . . . The run-down in private sector liquidity has been rather larger over March-April than in any previously corresponding period.

So much for the facts which are now before the Australian nation. Let us reflect that during the recent Federal election campaign the Federal Treasurer (Mr Crean) who sits opposite at the table, consistently denied the existence of a credit squeeze. The Federal Treasurer is a man who over a period of many years has championed, together with his Labor Party colleagues, the cause of low interest rates in this country. He denied the existence of a credit squeeze despite the record increases in interest rates and public calls by major banks for an easing of liquidity. Who in this chamber will forget the attacks upon the private banks of this country made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) during the course of the last election campaign?

The decision taken by the Government this week dispels any lingering doubts as to the intensity and the severity of the present policy of monetary restraint. The Government’s monetary actions are based on the misconceived and dangerous assessment that inflation is accelerating in response to excess demand. This assessment completely ignores the primary impetus of the current inflation cost-push pressures. The current level of wage settlements indicates that earnings are increasing at a rate in excess of 25 per cent per annum. This is further substantiated by the evidence available from estimates of average weekly earnings and pay-as-you-earn tax collections. The recent moves by the metal trades unions to seek a new award in addition to the $15 increase granted in April demonstrates a new militancy and sense of aggression of unions towards the whole concept of wage negotiations. In short, it is abundantly clear that wage costs will push inflation to 20 per cent by December. The economy is now poised on the verge of a wage explosion which I believe to be without precedent in Australian history. In the absence of policies to curb cost pressures, inflation will inevitably accelerate past 20 per cent before the end of this year.

The current inflation was initiated by an excess demand situation and gravely exacerbated by the irresponsible growth in public expenditure, f believe there is now substantial evidence to show that demand pressures have peaked in the Australian economy. As a direct result of the economic mismanagement of this Government inflation is now so firmly entrenched that orthodox demand management policies cannot reverse the situation except at a cost that would be heavy and unnecessary. In essence, the Government has embarked on a course which, if it does curb inflation, will only do so through serious and unacceptable levels of unemployment. This inevitable consequence has been recognised by the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron), the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) and also by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Minister for Overseas

Trade, in a speech to the National Press Club on 20 June, said this:

So the economy is not now forging ahead in demand inflation; it is being compressed between a rising cost flow and a ceiling which will not rise nearly as much, if at all. We do not, therefore, need the tight money policy usually adopted at such times as these.

The Minister for Labor and Immigration, in a letter to the Treasurer dated 27 June, copies of which were sent to all of his ministerial colleagues, said this:

You will recall that at the beginning of the year I said that unemployment would rise before the end of 1974, but, on that occasion, Treasury officials saw fit to ridicule my forecast. I am convinced I was right. I want the Government to change course before it finishes up in the same sorry mess as its predecessors found themselves in 1972.

You will also recall, Mr Acting Speaker, that I sought leave of the Prime Minister today to table that correspondence - which of course was denied - because this correspondence indicates again, as we have seen on so many earlier occasions, that at the present time in Australia there is no semblance of Cabinet government but rather a public meeting of Ministers who parade their particular views before the Press and before the general public without at the same time seeking to involve their colleagues in meetings of the Cabinet. The sorry mess which was referred to during question time today and which was gratuitously referred to by the Minister for Labor and Immigration was an economy in which the worst level of unemployment was 2.4 per cent or almost 137,000 in December. At the time he wrote the letter the annual rate of inflation was 4.5 per cent. The policy mix being pursued by the present Administration will combine unacceptable and higher levels of unemployment with inflation almost 5 times the rate experienced under the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1972. In precise terms, the policies of the Government will lead to the most serious of all modern economic difficulties. I refer of course to slump or stagflation.

The Labor Party has now once and for all, as a matter of public record, abandoned any claim which it may have had as Australia’s low interest rate Party. It has abandoned the Prime Minister’s 1972 election promise that:

Labor will deliberately plan to reduce interest rates whenever practicable.

It has repudiated the consistent claims by the Treasurer that there would not be a credit squeeze and that a credit squeeze does not now exist. It has demonstrated the falsity of the repeated assertion by its Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) that action by the Government was in hand - it is a matter of record in the parliamentary Hansard - to reduce interest rates. It has washed its hands of the security of low income earners with savings invested in savings banks at a rate of 3£ per cent. Most serious of all, it has abandoned the advice of its own monetary adviser, the Reserve Bank. Quite apart from any question of economic rationale, it has demonstrated that a high interest rate strategy is socially regressive. The burden in absolute terms weighs more heavily on lower income groups. On previous occasions I have detailed the inequitable effects of the Government’s monetary policies. I do not do so again today.

The real tragedy is that the current level of interest rates is not a mandatory requirement for curbing inflation. On the contrary, given a comprehensive and integrated antiinflationary strategy, there would now be room for a general easing of credit. We believe that in the context of the economic proposals which we have put forward such a course would be warranted. Liquidity is excessively tight and the rate of growth of the money supplied has been cut back too sharply. Easing of the monetary situation can be effected by abandoning the variable deposit requirement on overseas borrowings and by reducing the statutory reserve deposit ratio, but such a strategy cannot be adopted in the absence of effective Government policies to curb those cost pressures to which I refer and which in a sense are the primary kernel of the inflation problem throughout this country today. The Opposition parties therefore place on record their total rejection of the Government’s illconceived monetary policies.

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

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I would like to begin by reading once again the terms of the matter of public importance, because I am sure that anyone who is not here but simply listening to the debate would be puzzled as to what we are talking about. The matter of public importance is in these terms:

The serious social and economic consequences of the Government’s credit squeeze policies.

I do not know what the supporters of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), who led for the Opposition in this debate, thought about the first 5 or 6 minutes of his speech on this matter. I must say that 1 found it a little difficult to follow. I would like to go back a little in history to something that the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and the then Treasurer said in August 1971 when he was introducing his Budget for that year:

In the prevailing and foreseen economic conditions it will be necessary to maintain a restrictive monetary policy and, as was the case last year, to encourage sales of Government securities.

That was said in August 1971 and, of course, the consequences of that policy were so disastrous by October and November 1972 that when an election was held the Government was turned out of office. I do not know whether in those days the term ‘credit squeeze’ was applied to the process. It is easy enough to use terms that are emotive and unpopular; ‘credit squeeze’ is such a term. There does not seem to be any equivalent description for a situation of excessive ease of credit extension. After all, in some respects what is now called a squeeze is the reduction of the excessive ease of credit extension that began under the previous Government during 1972. The sorts of things that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested that we-

Mr McMahon:

– Why did you keep it going right through 1973?

Mr CREAN:

– If the right honourable gentleman will listen I will tell him why we did certain things yesterday. Honourable members opposite are great at describing what ought to be done now but when they were given the time to deal with these situations when they were in office they were not very efficient in their performance. The now second but one Prime Minister wants to have himself described as the greatest Australian Treasurer since I do not quite know when. I do not think that immodesty is very well received by the Australian community. The Australian people turned him out when they had the opportunity.

There never has been a time in Australia’s economic history when everybody who wanted a loan from a trading bank, a savings bank, a finance company, a merchant bank or a building society could get it. There never has been a time when everybody could get all that he wanted, and certainly the position in 1974 is no different from what it has been in the past. I hope that when I introduce either later this week or next week a Bill dealing with other financial institutions it will receive ready passage through this House. At the moment the only area in which the Government can operate to influence interest rates directly is in the banking area. What was done yesterday or the day before was to allow the savings banks and the trading banks to be able to pay the same competitive rates of interest as were available in the areas that we cannot control. After all, although certain institutions give themselves titles such as building societies, merchant banks, trading banks or savings banks, all of them are financial institutions. They are dealers in credit. They are receivers of deposits, and they can get those deposits only if people are satisfied with the rate of interest that they will get when they make their deposit in one place rather than another. In turn the institutions lend the money they get at a somewhat higher rate of interest than the rate at which they borrow. They could not survive otherwise.

Mr McLeay:

– That is brilliant.

Mr CREAN:

– I do not hear too much brilliance from that corner of the chamber in which the honourable gentleman sits; I never have and I do not expect to in the future.

Mr McLeay:

– Do not get excited.

Mr CREAN:

– I think at times that the honourable member is a little stupid, and there is nothing I can do about that in the space of 10 minutes. The problem in relation to housing at the moment-

Mr Lynch:

– You cannot get houses; that is the problem.

Mr CREAN:

– Exactly. The honourable gentleman has given a bright answer. We cannot get houses. Why can we not get houses? The answer is that we are using to the maximum the skilled labour and the materials-

Mr McLeay:

– That is not true.

Mr CREAN:

– If it is not true, show that it is not true. There is no large scale unemployment in the building industry. There is no abundance or over-supply of materials in the building industry. Despite the high interest rates that are payable on housing loans, more people are seeking houses than there is the physical capacity to build the houses they require. I do not think anybody can gainsay that as a general proposition. It may be that those people who want to build houses have to pay a higher price for the land, a higher price to build and a higher rate of interest than they might like to, but I still believe that the banking system - the savings banks and the trading banks - is the most reputable lending source still in the community. I think that in past years the banks were never too enterprising and were anything but competitive. At least they can now be competitive in these areas if they so wish. All that has been done is that the maximum rate at which they can borrow has been increased but, if they wish, they can borrow at a rate lower than the maximum rate. At least they are now able to attract deposits which they were not able to attract previously.

Much has been made of the fact that we have not altered the minimum rate of interest payable on deposits in the savings banks - the minimum rate is 3J per cent - and I want to explain why. It would cost the savings banks $80m if there were a flat overall increase of 1 per cent in the interest rate payable. The reality of the situation in the savings banks is that some people do not put money into banks to earn high interest rates. They deposit in savings banks money which they do not want. They do not want to leave it under the bed where, if moth and rust do not corrupt, the thief might look. They put it into a bank for safe deposit, and they might have transactions with the bank as often as weekly.

On average, the small account entails between 15 and 30 transactions a year. There is no charge whatever for keeping the account; the cost is borne by the lending of those deposits and other deposits at higher rates. If anybody has more than SI 00 and does not want to use it for 3 months, he can obtain anything from 7 per cent to 9 per cent on that money if he wishes. What is not realised by honourable members opposite is that while they may have great concern about borrowers, the potential lender is becoming just as concerned about the rate of interest as is the borrower. If honourable members opposite want to have a moratorium on all interest rates and drop them by, let us say, 5 per cent, why do they not get up and say so? They would make a mess of certain institutional arrangements if they did, as I think at least the former Treasurer, the right honourable member for Lowe, would know. How many who want low borrowing rates arc the holders of insurance policies? They want to obtain high interest rates. The two things are not easily reconcileable. What astonishes me is that although at times honourable members opposite talk about creeping socialism or something of the kind, I find I must become the defender of capitalism and the market forces and the banking system and I am sorry to say that I do not get very many thanks from those sectors. Some day they may erect a statue to me for having saved the trading banks and for having prodded the trading banks from inertia into energy and into meeting the problems of the new age. I as much as anybody else would prefer to have low interest rates rather than high interest rates and I would like to have a governmental system under which the only things I had to do were the nice things. One does not always get many thanks for the nice things but one certainly receives more than due opprobrium for the things that other people do not think are nice. I suggest candidly that that is the situation here at the moment. It is nice to apply the term ‘credit squeeze’ - a nasty term which immediately gets allies to one’s side but which does not do much to get down to the realities of the situation. I think everybody, belatedly, is suggesting that inflation is a serious problem. I was not the one who first uttered in this House - in fact, it came from the other side - the remark that if the interest rate is not at least something like the inflation rate, it is a negative rate. If we like we can haggle as to whether the rate is 10 per cent minus or 10 per cent plus. I think we would all like it to be 10 per cent minus rather than 10 per cent plus but I am not too sure whether those who talk about psychology, help the situation by bumping up the inflation rate higher than it is likely to be. The same thing applies in regard to employment. We do not have large scale unemployment in Australia at the moment. One can hazard a guess if one wants to that in 6 months the rate of unemployment will be higher than it is now.

Mr Lynch:

– Is that your view?

Mr CREAN:

– It is not my view. Basically, my view of the Australian economy is that it is short of skills in the labour force and of materials. What we ought to be doing is gearing ourselves sensibly to increase the supplies of skilled labour, but we cannot do that quickly. One thing that this credit squeeze has done-

Mr Lynch:

– You admit that there is a credit squeeze?

Mr CREAN:

– Well, if any gratification can be gained by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch) that our problems are easy because I say that getting over excessive liquidity is a squeeze rather than a recovery, fair enough, I will give him that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Order! The Treasurer’s time has expired.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– I am flattened. These are the Pollyanna policies of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) at their best - or their worst. We have had the usual sugary, not to say evasive and naive, account of the daunting situation confronting this country. Until the last few minutes 1 had been trying to make up my mind whether the Treasurer was denying that there was a credit squeeze and whether yesterday’s events were just matching rates operating outside the system. The rates are what they are because of the Government’s policies, so where does that get us? The fact is that there is a squeeze on money and credit. What else does a rise of bank deposit and loan rates of up to 2 per cent as from yesterday and the new rates on the proposed Commonwealth loan signify but that? As was stated in the ‘Financial Review’ yesteday, the increase ‘spells out the Government’s intention of persisting with a tough monetary policy of tight supply and high rates for the rest of the calendar year.’ That is the Government’s policy.

The Treasurer referred to events in 1971. They are just not comparable. Did we then face the current headlong rush of leap-frogging wage-salary and price increases that we have today, which spell out inflation at an alarming and accelerating rate? Things should never have been let go so far. It is like a runaway train - there is no way we will stop that situation by traditional fiscal and monetary policies. That is the essence of our problem. The Treasurer in effect says, if he concedes that there is a credit squeeze, that it is there to contain inflation. I say it will not contain our current inflation within any acceptable time horizon but rather, if persisted in, will serve not to curb inflation but to cause unemployment. The distinguished visiting American economist, Dr Sidney Weintraub, reviewing these matters in an academic sense, wrote in the ‘Financial Review’ the other day:

From the evidence, monetary policy packs its wallop against output and employment … Its impotency in stemming prices is marked.

We on this side of the House are not attempting to be scare mongers about unemployment.

Indeed, I would assert - 1 hope in the company of the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) who is now at the table - that with commonsense and sensible policies we can beat this inflation which threatens the economic and social fabric of the nation, which is the social and economic consequence of the Government’s policies we are talking about in this urgency motion, without large scale unemployment. But, persist in this tight money policy along with other policies of the Government and there is no way in which the Government can avoid accelerating inflation, considerable unemployment and a large balance of payments deficit.

Time does not permit me fully to review the events that have brought us to this situation. However, I think it is salutary to do that briefly. One can refer - the other side of the House frequently does - to a build-up in the money supply in 1972. But the cause of this inflation is the massive growth in government expenditure last year superimposed on a resurgent private sector with the open encouragement of the Government to increases in incomes and associated conditions. Only late in the piece was the attempt made to institute this policy about which we are now talking, so that as late as September, by another measure of the money supply, the annual rate of increase of that supply was of the order of 30 per cent. I do not reject what happened in 1972, but in 1973 the money supply was still expanding at this very rapid rate. In that sense - the present position, as I said, was brought about largely by government spending - the Treasurer has a very great responsibility for the present situation. I recall when Mr Max Walsh was speaking in Hobart in March last, he said: ‘Federal fiscal policy has sent inflation along at a dizzying rate’. Last Monday’s ‘Australian Financial Review’ states:

In the halcyon days following December 1972 it was all stops out as far as spending and expansionary policies were concerned.

And that led on to the inflation. What was the major factor in that? The big spending Budget of 1973. The responsibility of the Treasurer lies in permitting that Budget and in bringing about this inflationary situation. Inflation having risen to 14 per cent and with the tax bite on increased incomes there is no way by monetary or fiscal policy to hold back this headlong rush of leapfrogging wage and salary increases and price increases. That is the burden of the argument of the Oppo sition. The trouble with the Government is that <t is too conservative in its economic policies. It does not want to look at something new. It pours a bucket on any proposal from this side of the House that a more direct program, a restraint program of prices and incomes, needs to be instituted. But there is no other way in our present circumstances that the inflation will be arrested. There is certainly a credit squeeze. Anyone who does not think so should ask those seeking finance for houses. Ask the business firms seeking money to finance investment and even the working capital of their businesses.

Mr Lynch:

– Ask Frank.

Dr EDWARDS:

– Ask Frank, I suppose the honourable member is talking about the architect of last year’s Budget. I remember that at that time the ‘Australian Financial Review’ headed its report: ‘Frank’s Friendly Road to Inflation’. That indeed is what it has turned out to be. In this situation the credit squeeze that the Government continues to persist with can lead only in the direction of significant unemployment. So it is a matter of urgent public importance that this process be eased to achieve a better mix of fiscal and monetary policies to moderate demand, a necessary condition for the control of inflation, I do not deny. But it is equally urgent that the Government implement a restraint program of prices and wages to supplement it if inflation is not to undermine the social and economic fabric of this nation.

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

– It should not be necessary for me to say that Australia does not have an economic system designed by the Government or by the Australian Labor Party. It is a basically unstable system, very small in relation to the outside world and dominated by it. No matter which Government is in office in this country, when we have a great upsurge of demand like we had in 1971-72 or that continuing demand today there will be very great problems. Nothing that the Opposition speakers have said in this debate or in the election campaign has given one word of assistance, one word of indication of how they might deal with the situation. It is very easy of course- (Opposition members interjecting)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:

Order! I ask honourable members on my left to cease interjecting. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Berowra, was heard without interruption and I ask that the Deputy Prime Minister >be accorded the same courtesy.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is very easy of course to be continuously critical. One thing we can be sure of about the Opposition is that it wants to be the Government, but we cannot be sure that it knows how to deal with inflation. I would like to say a few words to try to get the context of this problem into some kind of understandable position - a position to which a former Professor of Economics in the University of Sydney, 1 would have expected, would have given a little attention to assist the House in its understanding. Inflation can be understood. It is an excess of buying power in a community over available goods and services in that community. When buying power increases by 10 per cent or 20 per cent as it has done recently there cannot possibly be a matching increase of goods and services and there must be some inflation. Inflation did not start in 1973. It began in 1971-72 when the increase in the demand for our exports went up $2, 000m in less than a year and when, under the preceding Government, there was a capital inflow of $3, 200m. There was no attempt to regulate it and no variable deposit system, which the Opposition now wants to get rid of. That money was allowed to rush into Australia.

Bank credit in 1972 increased by $l,500m and the Budget deficit of the Government that preceded ours in September 1972 added another $300m to that excess amount of money. Inflation in Australia came from overseas and it was here by the end of 1972. Perhaps in 1973 under our Government there could have been less private spending. But I point out that government spending was kept in check in 1973 and the figures available to us now show that as a percentage of gross national expenditure government expenditure has fallen by about 5 per cent. The inflationary pressures, even in 1973, were private inflationary pressures; they were not government inflationary pressures. But in the course of that development the Government had no intention of making pensioners pay the cost of the inflation, thereby keeping down government expenditure. Would the Opposition have done that? Of course it would not and could not have done it. We increased pensions by 30 per cent over that period of time as against an increase in retail prices of 13.2 per cent. Average weekly earnings rose by 151 per cent during that time. The Opposition would have kept that down.

It would have had the country wracked by strikes trying to keep average weekly earnings down. That is the Opposition’s business. That is what it has done on every other occasion. Any industrial difficulties that we have had in the last 2 years would have been doubled had the Opposition been the Government. We had no intention of keeping average weekly earnings below the increase in retail prices. The people the Government has helped, as indicated by the indexes, are better off in Australia today than they have ever been in living memory. Not only did we deal with the situation in that way, but also when we came into office there were more than 100,000 unemployed. We reduced that figure to 68,000. But much more significant is the increase in the the workforce. Compare the increase in the workforce from December 1971 to December 1972 of 39,000 under the McMahon, Lynch, Snedden, Gorton - with these names, one never knows where to stop - Government. During our first year in office, from December 1972 to December 1973, there was an increase of 146,000 in the workforce and since then a further increase of 50,000.

Company profits in real terms are at record levels. I do not need to detail a full list of companies but the profits of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd are up by 40 per cent, ICI of Australia Ltd by 30 per cent and of Dunlop Aust. Ltd by 19 per cent. Company profits in aggregate have risen faster than the average income of the average worker. Investment is a reflection of this kind of private prosperity. I ask honourable members to listen to some figures I shall detail. Capital expenditure in all industries increased by 2.8 per cent in the December quarter of 1973 and by 27.2 per cent in the March quarter of 1973. This latter increase can be compared with the figure of 9.7 per cent for the March quarter of 1972.

Mr Lynch:

– When did this happen?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Well it is going on right now. It has not stopped yet. I suppose the honourable member will be praying for it to stop so that there might be the kind of conditions that members opposite hope might get them elected to the government of this country. The value of non farm production has produced some very interesting figures. In the first year of the Labor Government there was a real increase of 7.3 per cent; in 1970 a real increase of 5.1 per cent; in 1971 a real increase of 4 per cent and in 1972 a real increase of 2.5 per cent. Are honourable members opposite saying that their record in these respects is better than ours? In the first year of the Labor Government non farm production in real terms increased by 7.3 per cent compared with 2.5 per cent in the last year when the Opposition was in government. It is up to the Australian people to say whether they want that kind of situation back again.

I now mention farm production because it is in this area that the significance of inflation is apparent. In 1971-72 the money demand for farm products rose by about $2,000m but unfortunately production did not rise. In 1971-72 wheat production was worth $457m and in the following year, 1972-73, $3 57m. But after one and-a-half years of Labor government the value of wheat production will be $ 1,246m.

Dr Edwards:

– What did you do to bring that about?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– We got new markets overseas and we created confidence for the wheat producers. We took away the quotas. We have sold 4 million tons of wheat to China. Do honourable members opposite not think that that had some effect on increasing the total value of wheat production in Australia from about 6 million tons in the last year in which the Opposition was in government to about 12 million tons in the first year of a Labor Government?

Mr Lynch:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. With great respect to the Chair, as only 2 minutes remain for this debate, I would ask that the honourable gentleman might, for the first time, address himself to the terms of the motion before the Chair.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:

Order! The debate has been wide ranging.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I would have imagined that this is the kind of activity that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) might have risen above in his first week in Parliament. But he still makes these petty interferences in the hope that he can stop someone from this side of the House in the middle of his speech and thereby gain some advantage. If he wants to do this, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is welcome to do it so far as I am concerned.

I think I have shown that the production record of Australia under a Labor Government, in an economy that we are not respon sible for, has been extremely good. I have suggested that despite the inflation that we have had - it has not happened only while we have been in government - the majority of people in Australia have been better off under the Whitlam Government than they were under the previous alternative government. I ask honourable members opposite to examine the unemployment figures to which they have referred. We have heard a lot about the 1,000 people who were put off by Leyland Motor Corp. of Aust. Ltd the other day. Of those people, 628 of them registered for employment. Of that 628 all but 32 obtained another job in the space of a week or so. I think the kind of debate that we have listened to today from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition spokesman on trade, does nothing but harm the conditions that are necessary in the economy for constructive ways of dealing with the problem of inflation. They have helped in no way. They proposed measures that in every respect are inflationary as distinct from anti-inflationary. There is no reality in the document that was issued the other day by the Leader of the Opposition. Members of the Opposition have contributed nothing to assist the solution of this problem that we are discussing today.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)Order! The honourable ‘member’s time has expired. The debate has concluded.

page 58

PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent -

the following Bills being presented and passed through all stages without delay:

Commonwealth Electoral (No. 2) 1973

Senate (Representation of Territories) 1973

Representation 1973

Health Insurance Commission 1973

Health Insurance 1973

Petroleum and Minerals Authority 1973

  1. the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of the following Bills:

Commonwealth Electoral (No. 2) 1973

Senate (Representation of Territories) 1973

Representation 1973

Health Insurance Commission 1973

Health Insurance 1973

Petroleum and Minerals Authority 1973

This is the third time these Bills have been before this House. On 2 previous occasions the time spent on their debate has been as follows: Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1973, on the first occasion 12f hours, on the second occasion If hours, a total of 14i hours; Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill 1973 and Representation Bill 1973, one hour on the first occasion, 2 hours on the second occasion, a total of 3 hours; Health Insurance Commission Bill 1973 and Health Insurance Bill 1973, 91 hours on the first occasion, one hour on the second occasion, a total of 101 hours; and Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973, 9i hours on the first occasion, one hour on the second occasion, a total of 101 hours. So there has been a grand total of 39 hours, or one full working week, already devoted to .the debate of these Bills in the Parliament. In addition, more than 23 hours were spent debating the same measures in another place. Public debate has taken place both during the period between the first and second introductions of the different Bills, and especially during the recent Federal elections.

The attitude of the Opposition is well known. It was given during the elections but not accepted by the electors. In this Parliament these Bills have been the subject of debate and, as I have stated, they were debated for almost .the time of a full working week - 39 hours. There has been full and adequate scope for debate in the other place. There is no doubt whatever in the minds of members of this side of the Parliament that, with the exception of certain members of the Country Party who previously supported certain legislation in the Parliament, the Opposition proposes to oppose these Bills in this Parliament, no matter what might be debated.

It is true that these Bills were the basis of the double dissolution. If there is any doubt in the minds of honourable members opposite concerning what the public thought of that action and what the results of our submission of this matter to the Australian people were, it will be shown in the vote that took place for this Parliament. We were returned and endorsed in respect of the legislation that we are about to debate.

I regret that it is necessary to declare these Bills urgent and to limit their debate. I discussed with my opposite number the prospects of having these measures debated without the need for them to be declared urgent measures but I understand, quite rightly, that there is some feeling in the Opposition that it would not be possible to reach agreement on the number of speakers. The urgency of the Bills is such that the Government has no alternative in these circumstances but to adopt the course I have announced and to move the motion 1 have moved. I do not blame my opposite number. It probably was not reasonable to expect honourable members opposite to curtail their talking time on these matters which, even with the debate that has taken place, are certainly of great interest but I point out that that is one of the reasons that a time limit must be imposed. Having said so much, I have no desire to pursue the matter further at this stage. I have moved this motion and have already advanced reasons for doing so.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

- Mr Acting Speaker, the Opposition rejects this motion which seeks the suspension of Standing Orders for certain Bills to be presented and passed through all stages without delay and for one declaration of urgency to be moved in respect of the consideration of those Bills. It does so not wilfully and not because it wishes to disrupt the program of legislation to be considered by this House. It does so because it believes that this legislation should be considered. It is not true that this is the third time that these pieces of legislation have been before this House. As all of us know, this is only the second sitting day of the Twentyninth Parliament of the Commonwealth. In this Twenty-ninth Parliament there are a significant number of new faces. These are people who, certainly, in the electorate were able to hear and to understand the debates as they took place in the Twenty-eighth Parliament. But none of these persons was in a position to participate in those debates. So the first point that I make is that I do not believe that the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) realises how necessary it is, if matters such as these are to be considered effectively, that those who have been elected to this House following the last election should have the chance to debate these pieces of legislation.

Involved here are 6 significant Bills only, out of what we were told was a record number of Bills passed by the 2 Houses in the Twenty-eight Parliament. Only those 6 Bills were the subject of the double dissolution. It is imperative that those Bills be considered adequately and comprehensively. Each one of the Bills covers an area which was seen by the then senators - that is, the senators in the Twenty-eight Parliament - as being of such significance that they were not prepared to permit the passage of those Bills. It is true that the Leader of the House and I had a discussion about whether it would be possible to restrict the number of speakers taking part in the debate on these measures. That would have been done without the necessity to pass a motion of this character. But it is equally true that the Leader of the House said that he wanted this legislation passed at the latest by tomorrow night. In these circumstances, I do not believe it is reasonable to expect that the people of Australia and the elected members of this House would be content to believe that there could be adequate debate of the legislation which is before us in the time proposed. Indeed, on the contrary, it is because of our concern that there should be an adequate opportunity for debate in the lower chamber of significant pieces of legislation which are introduced here that the Opposition will oppose this motion.

The second factor that needs to be considered is that a consequence of the timetable which the Leader of the House has read out is that there will be an unrestricted debate on these 6 measures in the other place. In other words, the consequence of adopting the restraints proposed to be placed by the Leader of the House on the debate in the House of Representatives is that in the other chamber - the chamber which the Australian Labor Party is dedicated to abolish - unlimited time will be available for debating these significant pieces of legislation. It is important that the Australian people should recognise that a party which is supposedly dedicated to the abolition of the Senate - for that is what its policy says - is forcing debate of these piece of legislation from this, the principal elected chamber of the Parliament, into the other chamber. That, too, is not a policy acceptable to the parties on this side of the House.

We believe that there should be a full, adequate and unrestricted opportunity for debate on each of these pieces of legislation. They are important. They are 6 pieces of legislation which, as I said, were picked out by the senators in the Twenty-eight Parliament as the only Bills to be rejected of all of the Bills that were introduced and considered in that Parliament. Yet here today, on the first occasion when the Twenty-ninth Parliament is given the opportunity to consider those pieces of legislation, we are told that the debate will continue only until tomorrow night. That fact has not yet emerged. But I understand from the Leader of the House that the debate will extend only until tomorrow night. That is the period in which we will be allowed to debate all of these 6 Bills. We do not believe that proposal to be acceptable. We believe, for the reasons that I have advanced, that the Leader of the House and the Australian Labor Party again are showing a complete contempt for this, the House of Representatives, the lower representative chamber of the Australian Parliament. Therefore, we regard a motion of this character proposing a declaration of urgency to be totally unacceptable, so we will oppose the motion which the Leader of the House has moved.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– I rise to speak in this debate with feelings of regret. It is a matter for regret that this motion has been moved. Any hope that we on this side of the House had that the Government would mend its ways has been destroyed. That hope has been destroyed, as my colleague, the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) mentioned, on the first full working day of this Parliament. It is now obvious to the Parliament, and in due course it will become obvious to the Australian people, that the Government is determined to continue to pursue the course of making a farce of this House of the Parliament. It is clear that it is determined to stifle debate and to push through legislation without any regard for parliamentary democracy.

Here, after a double dissolution, we are facing a unique constitutional situation with the probability of a joint sitting of the Houses for the first time in the history of this Parliament. If ever full and adequate time were required for a parliament to argue out the issues before it, that time must surely be now. There can be no excuse for seeking to suspend the Standing Orders in these circumstances in order to force these history making Bills through this new Parliament without any hope of an adequate debate on them. There can r-e no excuse for this action. But, Mr Acting Speaker, I have no doubt whatever that the Government does have its reasons. The only reasons that I can discover for its action do the Government no credit. It is obvious that the Government does not want the Australian people to hear a full debate on these issues. It is essential that these Bills be fully debated. Included inthe legislation for which the Leader of the House seeks a declaration of urgency are Bills which are quite fundamental to the future form of government in Australia and to fair and adequate representation in this Parliament of all sections of the community. Certain of the Bills are fundamental to the future structure of the Senate. That means that they are fundamental to our bicameral system of government.

Certain pieces of legislation are fundamental to the future of the health care delivery system in Australia. Those of us who were members of the last Parliament are well aware that the Health Insurance Commission Bill and the Health Insurance Bill which are to be reintroduced contain many features common to the health scheme in the United Kingdom. Anybody who has read our newspapers in the last day or two will appreciate the extraordinary mess that the health scheme is in in the United Kingdom. It is essential that this Parliament at this time be given adequate opportunity to relate what is proposed in the health care system which this Government is trying to force on to the Australian people to the problems which are only just starting to reach such an acute form in the United Kingdom. Those who read carefully the provisions of the Petroleum and Mineral Authority Bill which is also on the list of those Bills to be reintroduced will realise that its provisions threaten the very future of freehold land in Australia. That fact will not cause members of the Government any worry - I realise that - because fundamentally they are opposed to the freehold land system in Australia. But an adequate debate on each of those issues is essential. For those reasons I join with my colleague, the honourable member for New England, in opposing this motion which seeks to suspend the Standing Orders in order that these most important Bills may be declared urgent Bills.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Ayes . . . . 63

Noes . . . . . . 55

Majority . . . . 8

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put.

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

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 63

NOES: 56

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Declaration of Urgency

Mr DALY:
‘Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I declare the following Bills to be urgent Bills.

Mr Wentworth:

Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer you to standing orders 401 and 92(a) and to the terms of the motion which the House has just passed. I think this is important because the Government is abusing the forms of the House. We should endeavour to keep the Government to the proper forms: Standing order 401 states:

The suspension of Standing Orders is limited in its operation to the particular purpose for which such suspension has been sought.

In regard to the declaration of urgency, the only purpose for which suspension was sought was to move one declaration of urgency in respect to certain Bills. Now, coming back to standing order 92(a), its terms are:

On the reading of a message from the GovernorGeneral recommending an appropriation in connection with any Bill -

We have not had such- on the calling on of a motion for leave to introduce a Bill-

Wc have not had such- or a notice of presentation -

We have not had such- on the consideration of any motion preliminary to the introduction of a Bill -

There is no such motion before the House- at any stage of a Bill -

There is no Bill before the House- or on the consideration of Senate amendments or requests for. amendments to a Bill -

None of those conditions precedent-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member should speak to the point of order and not debate the question.

Mr Wentworth:

– All right. I am pointing out that none of the conditions precedent to the declaration of urgency has been met. Therefore it is not possible for the Leader of the House to move such a declaration at the present stage. He can put the matter in order by introducing the Bill and then moving his declaration. But, Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention particularly to the terms of standing order 92(a). I put them to you in conjunction with the terms of standing order 401 and in conjunction with the terms of the motion which this House has just passed. I ask the Minister - he can do it very easily -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! In making a point of order the honourable gentleman may not ask the Minister anything. I ask the honourable member to resume his seat and I will rule on the point of order. The motion that the House has just passed is prefaced by the words ‘That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent’. But the Stand ing Orders referred to here do not apply because they have been suspended by resolution of this House.

Mr Wentworth:

– No.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I call the Leader of the House.

page 63

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr WENTWORTH:

– With respect, Sir, I move dissent from your ruling.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman will present the motion in writing with a seconder.

Mr Sinclair:

Mr Acting Speaker, on a point of order -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I am sorry, there is a dissent motion before the Chair. I cannot allow a point of order to be debated.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I now give my reasons for dissenting from your ruling, Sir. I believe that in making that ruling you have not addressed your mind sufficiently to the terms of the suspension of Standing Orders and the terms of standing order 401. I remind you, Sir, of the very explicit terms of standing order 401. It says:

The suspension of standing orders is limited in its operation to the particular purpose for which such suspension has been sought.

There was a suspension of Standing Orders. I refer you to the nature of that suspension. It was to enable certain Bills - I will not go through them - to be presented and passed through all stages without delay. I do not question that. When they are presented they can be passed through all stages without delay. But that is not the question before us at the moment. The question before us is a declaration of urgency.

The motion that the House has just passed is for the Leader of the House to move one declaration of urgency in respect of the Bills. It does not say that he may move that motion in defiance of the Standing Orders. The suspension of Standing Orders is limited to enable one declaration of urgency to be moved in respect of a number of Bills. This is the point. Any other reading of it would be a clear violation of all the rules of construction. The House has given the Minister permission to move one declaration of urgency in respect of a number of Bills. In this respect the operation of the suspension of Standing Orders is limited to the particular purpose for which such suspension has been sought - in relation to the declaration of urgency. I am not thinking about the other part. The only suspension sought was to allow the Minister to move one motion in respect of a number of Bills. When that is done, and done in proper order then the motion which the House has passed will become operative. Before the motion can be brought on at all the conditions precedent - or one of them - set out in standing order 92 (a) must be met.

I do not believe, Sir, that you would have made that ruling if you had read with care the nature of the motion which the House has just passed. I can understand fully that this matter has come up without due consideration. I can understand the workings of your mind in making the ruling that you just made. I can see how you could have fallen into the error. Nobody blames you for falling into an error in this particular case. I suggest, Sir, that you reverse your ruling if this be the correct form in which it can be done. Obviously you have made a mistake. In justification for your ruling you have cited a part of the resolution which simply was not applicable. I can see how on reading through it quickly you might have thought that the suspension of Standing Orders to enable Bills to be passed was a suspension of Standing Orders generally. But if you look at the remainder of the resolution which the House has passed you will see that the suspension of Standing Orders as regarding the declaration of urgency applies only to enable the Minister to move one declaration of urgency in respect of a number of Bills. Perhaps if you had been in the House a little longer you would have realised that this is the normal form. I must withdraw that.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! I think I ought to point out to the honourable member that the wording on the daily program is not the motion which the House passed.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– May I have the exact terms of the motion, because my memory of it was that it was substantially the same?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– It appears on the notice paper.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– In that case I will read it from the notice paper.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I point out to an honourable member who just interjected that the daily program is not the notice paper for this House. It is only a guide on business for honourable members. I suggest that the honourable member refrains from reflecting on the Clerks, as he did.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The motion as printed on the notice paper makes my point even more strongly. It says:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent … (2) the Leader of the

House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of the following Bills:

The operative word is ‘one’. The particular purpose for which this is sought is that one declaration of urgency should be enough to cover a number of Bills. Without such, of course, the Standing Orders would require a separate motion of urgency in respect of every one of the Bills. There can be no doubt now, because you have drawn my attention to the differences between the words on the daily program and the words on the official notice paper. The official notice paper makes the point that I am trying to bring to your attention even more strongly than the daily program makes it because it divides it into 2 paragraphs. Let me read now from the official notice paper. It says:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent … (2) The Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of the following Bills:

It names 6 Bills. It is important for the rights of the House that standing order 401 be given due weight. What we are saying is that one motion can be moved to cover 6 Bills because otherwise, in terms of standing order 92, 6 motions would have to be moved. You understand what has happened, Sir.

I want to withdraw something that I said a moment ago. I said that if you had been in the House longer you would have known more about this. But of course 1 forget that the operation of the gullotine was practically unknown before the Labor Government came in, and the guillotine was scarcely ever used - with one exception. There was one night, and only one, on which it was used. Honourable members will remember that I have circulated to them a full account - I will not go through it in detail - of the circumstances which justified the use of the guillotine on that occasion. I am indebted to the Clerk of the House, who has provided me with a schedule of the use of the guillotine over the last 25 years or so. The guillotine has been used by this Government in a way in which it has never been used before in this House. The guillotine has been abused by this Government in a way which, to my way of thinking, is utterly incredible. Major Bills have passed through this House without any Committee debate.

Mr Daly:

– I take a point of order. Mr Acting Speaker, the motion before the Chair is a motion of dissent from your ruling. The honourable member should confine himself to that motion. Continuing the point further, I point out that the honourable member for Mackellar was one who voted to put 17 Bills through in 19 hours.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Mackellar will proceed.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I take the point of order. I think the Minister is quite right. I was disgressing. That falsifier of Hansard is of course a little sensitive about what is in Hansard. I can understand his viewpoint. 1 do not have the same sensitivity, but I agree that my remarks about the Labor Government’s use of the guillotine were perhaps a little wide of the motion, and I return now to the motion. Mr Acting Speaker, I ask you, because of the innate respect which I know you must have for the Standing Orders, to correct the obvious mistake which you have made, to look at the terms of standing order 401, a very carefully drawn standing order which limits the suspension of Standing Orders to the specific purpose for which it is moved.

I refer to the notice paper. Paragraph 2 of the motion set out there provides that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent - the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of lime in respect of the following Bills:

We have suspended Standing Orders to allow the Leader of the House to move one motion in place of six. We have not suspended them for any other reason. Therefore the conditions precedent to a declaration of urgency as set down in standing order 92 (a) must and should be met. T have not sat on the Standing Orders Committee. I am not in the minds of the people who drew up standing order 92 (a) in its present form, but 1 have read the text of it and I know what they have drawn up. I do not know why they did it, but because they have done it and because they considered it important I think that this House should very carefully consider its position. It is important, particularly when we have a Government that is abusing the forms of the House as this Government has consistently abused them, that we should be given from the Chair the protection of the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are perfectly and absolutely clear on this point.

Yesterday I ventured to say that I thought there was something to be said for the occupant of the chair standing above Party politics, perhaps even being drawn from the

Opposition side so that the continued occupancy of the exalted position of Speaker does not depend upon the maintenance of a Caucus vote. I know that you, Sir, from your own position would not be influenced by such ignoble considerations. It is therefore hard to place you in an invidious position. The Leader of the House obviously is adopting a somewhat threatening demeanour and is perhaps rather continuing the abuse of his authority as he has done so often in this House. I ask you, Sir, to show this Minister the same firmness as the Speaker himself showed when he caught the Minister out endeavouring to falsify Hansard.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister is not involved in this.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The Speaker drew him up with a round turn. I know, Sir, that you have made your ruling without duly considering the terms of the motion and particularly without having in your mind the explicit instruction of standing order 401. I ask you, Sir, as one of the guardians - the surrogate guardian, the deputy guardian - of the rights and privileges of all private members, to see that the forms of the Standing Orders, when we invoke them for our protection, are most strictly adhered to. In this case there can be no reasonable doubt as to what the law is. Any defect can be very quickly put right by the Minister. I am only asking that the matters of form should be gone through properly. Let the Minister put the matter right. It can be done in 25 seconds. It is quite a small thing, but let us get back to keeping the rules of this House and preserving the forms of order in the House. I thank the House.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Is the motion seconded?

Mr Gorton:

– I second the motion.

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the negative.

page 65

PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION

Declaration of Urgency

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property and Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills:

Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1973

Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill 1973

Representation Bill 1973

Health Insurance Commission Bill 1973

Health Insurance Bill 1973

Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973

Question put:

That the Bills be considered urgent Bills.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 61

NOES: 55

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 66

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL (No. 2) 1973

Bill presented by Mr Daly, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

Before proceeding to deal with the provisions and purpose of this Bill, let me remind honourable members of the following comment which I made in this House on 13 March 1973, in my second reading speech on the Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1973:

Free elections are basic to a democratic society. But free elections by themselves are not enough - the results must reflect the will of the majority both in individual constituencies and throughout the nation. If the electoral laws do not result in the Government desired by the majority - if they are manipulated to reflect the political interest of persons or parties - it would be a denial of the very essence of democracy and a travesty of the electoral process. The Government, mindful of its mandate and responsibility, is determined to ensure that the Australian electoral laws embrace those fundamental principles of human rights and democracy in this nation.

The outcome of the recent Federal elections has given added weight to the significance of those sentiments. The Australian Labor Government is more determined than ever to ensure that the permissible variation in numbers of electors between electorates which is presently allowed should not be permitted to remain in force. At the present time, the electoral enrolments in some divisions stand at almost double those in other divisions in the same State. In New South Wales, for example, the electorate of Mitchell, with 82,864 voters, has 73 per cent more electors than the electorate of Darling with 47,806 voters; Diamond Valley in Victoria has 77 per cent more elections than Wimmera. In Queensland, the situation is worse, with the electorate of Mcpherson, with 90,525 voters, having 91 per cent more electors than Maranoa, with 47,493.

Mr McVeigh:

– Both those electorates have got good members representing them.

Mr DALY:

– That is a matter for question. Honourable members are well aware of the situation. Many electors in the outer suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, in particular, are clearly not enjoying anything like equality of political rights with electors in many other divisions. The present electoral redistribution criteria and, in particular the degree of variation allowed between electorates at the time of a redistribution is not consistent with the principle of equality of representation. The restoration of practical equality of representation between electorates must be clearly established by law as a fundamental objective of redistribution.

This Bill which seeks to amend certain provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act relating to the redistribution of States into electoral divisions, is in identical form to the Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) which was passed by this House on 4 April 1973 and again on 23 August 1973. As honourable members would know, the motion for the second reading of the Bill was defeated in the Senate on 17 May 1973 and on the second occasion, on 29 August 1973. The essential purpose of the Bill is to ensure that a greater degree of equity is introduced into and retained in the Australian electoral system. To put it another way, we seek to bring down legislation which will provide for practical equality of representation thus ensuring that the will of the majority will be reflected in the outcome of elections of members of this House.

The key section of the existing Act requiring revision in this particular context is section 19. The Bill also contains an amendment of section 25 but in other respects, Part III of the Act which specifies the procedure for redistributions of States into electoral divisions, remains unchanged. The amendments proposed will have the effect of:

  1. reducing the permissible variation from the quota specified in section 19(1) from one-fifth to one-tenth;
  2. revising the factors contained in section 19 (2) to which the distribution commissioners are required to give due consideration by deleting the reference to:

    1. disabilities arising out of remoteness or distance;
    2. the density or sparsity of population of the division; and
    3. the area of the division; and
    4. varying section 25 (2) (b) to provide that a redistribution may be directed whenever in one-fourth of the divisions of a State the number of electors differs from the quota by one-tenth, in lieu of one-fifth.

The proposed amendment of section 25 (2) (b) is consistent with the proposed amendment of section 19 (1) reducing the margin of allowance from the quota to 10 per cent.

The changes proposed by this Bill are designed to provide, by legislative measures that, as far as may be practicable, the value of the vote of one citizen shall be equivalent to the vote of another and to give some meaningful application to the principle of ‘one vote one value’ without unnecessarily restricting the distribution commissioners in proposing a redistribution. The existing 20 per cent permissible variation from the quota which allows a division to have SO per cent more electors than another division in the same State and which was introduced in 1902 when Australia had a population of about four million as against thirteen million today, can no longer be tolerated in our society.

The 10 per cent margin upwards or downwards from the quota, which this Bill provides, reduces the existing disparity between electoral divisions and is at the same time sufficient to enable the distribution commissioners to give due consideration to factors which are relevant in determining division boundaries. I might also remind honourable members that a one-tenth variation from the quota was recommended by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in 1959.

The Bill also seeks to revise the factors to which the distribution commissioners aire required to give due consideration. In 1965 the then Government amended the redistribution provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act by introducing a number of new factors including ‘the area of the Division’, ‘the density or sparsity of population’ and ‘disabilities arising out of remoteness or distance’. We opposed these amendments in 1965 and we now propose to remove from the Act any reference to these factors. They were designed to encourage departure from the quota of electors in a manner which dilutes the vote in metropolitan areas and weights it in favour of rural areas.

The Bill is not, as it has been claimed, specifically aimed against country divisions, particularly those represented by the Australian Country Party. The Australian Labor Party more so than any other party is mindful of the difficulties of representation of electorates, both city and country, because we are a truly national party - the largest single party in the Parliament and the nation. The Labor Party represents 19 country seats and also holds the largest electorate in Australia, Kalgoorlie, with an area of 897,815 square miles. This is a reasonable answer to those who say that the Labor Party does not appreciate the needs of country electorates. When equality comes to the country districts we will probably represent 29 country electorates. We seek only to introduce and perpetuate, as far as possible, the principle of ‘one vote one value’ and to ensure that the result of an election will reflect the opinion of the majority. This is fundamental to the concept of democracy.

In the course of my second reading speech in this House on 13 March 1974 I documented the Government’s case with a substantial series of statistics. I do not intend to repeat them today. However, I will refer to the results of the House of Representatives election held on 18 May 1974, because they so adequately illustrate the inequity and injustice of the present system. In New South Wales, taking the State as a whole, the Country Party won 10.6 per cent of the first preference votes while the Liberal Party won 33.3 per cent of the first preferences, yet the Country Party was able to gain 20 per cent of the seats in New South Wales as against 24.4 per cent of the seats for the Liberal Party. We are even protecting the Liberal Party from gerrymanders. Again, in Victoria the Country Party won 7.4 per cent of the first preference votes in that State, yet managed to obtain about 18 per cent of the seats in Victoria. Why would the Country Party want to change the system?

I cannot stress too strongly the fact that the Bill now before the House is one of the most significant Bills on which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) appealed to the GovernorGeneral for the granting of a double dissolution of the Australian Parliament. The electorate was well aware that the matters dealt with in the Bill formed a crucial part of the Government’s electoral platform, a platform which was endorsed when the Government was returned to office on 18 May. Being a Bill which formed a basis for the double dissolution, we intend, if such becomes necessary, to take whatever steps are available to us to see that the provisions contained in the Bill become law.

There are only 4 clauses to the Bill and the amendments proposed are not extensive. As the Bill is identical to that previously presented, there are no good reasons why the legislation should be obstructed by lengthy debate or delaying tactics. Electoral reform is fundamental to the platform of the Australian Labor Party which was endorsed by the Australian .people on 18 May 1974. I have previously stated in this House that the Commonwealth Electoral Act is outdated and outmoded and it is the intention of this Government to update it in line with present day needs and requirements. The Government regards this Bill as a major piece of our legislative program. It is a forward step towards electoral reform in line with the Australian Labor Party policy and views of the Australian people. I commend the Bill to the House and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the latest enrolment figures for all electorates in Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned.

page 69

SENATE (REPRESENTATION OF TERRITORIES) BILL 1973

Bill presented by Mr Daly, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It is my privilege to introduce into the Parliament of Australia, for the third time, a Bill to provide for Senate representation for the Australian Capital Territory. The Bill now before the House is in identical form to the Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill passed by this House on 30 May 1973 and again on 27 September 1973. As honourable members know, the motion for the second reading of the Bill was defeated in the Senate on 7 June 1973, and, on the second occasion, on 14 November 1973.

Honourable members have had ample opportunity to consider the provisions of this Bill. However, I feel that it would be appropriate for me at this stage to deal briefly with the proposals contained in the Bill, and the purpose of the Bill. The Bill provides for the election of 2 senators each for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and that such senators have the same powers, immunities and privileges as senators representing the States; that the first election of Territory senators be held at the same time as the next Senate elections in the several States or at the same time as the next general elections for members of the House of Representatives, if such is held before or in conjunction with the next Senate elections; that the term of the first Territory senators be from the date of their election until the eve of polling day for the ensuing general election for members of the House of Representatives; that after the first election for Territory senators elections be held at the same time as the general elections for members of the House of Representatives; that after the first election of Territory senators, the terms of Territory senators be the period between each House of Representatives election; and for the Territory senators to be elected under the same system of proportional representation as that currently applicable to the election of senators representing the States, except in the case of a single casual vacancy when such vacancy shall be filled by the holding of a by-election adopting the procedures used for filling a single casual vacancy for a State senator, as far as may be applicable.

The purpose of this Bill - and this is its only purpose - is to provide a measure of representation for the Australian Capital Territory and for the Northern Territory in the Senate and thus give some meaningful expression to section 122 of the Constitution in respect of the Senate as an integral part of this Parliament. Such representation is clearly permissible. Section 122 of the Constitution provides:

The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.

We believe that while the national Parliament remains bicameral, the people of the Territories, like all the people of Australia should be represented in both chambers. We tried to bring this about in Opposition and we are determined to achieve it in Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), when Leader of the Opposition, introduced private members Bills in 1968 and 1970 to provide for representation of the Territories in the Senate. Both Bills were taken to the second reading stage but no vote on either Bill was allowed. The Labor Government recently gave the Australian Capital Territory a second member for the House of Representatives, and he is really an outstanding member of this Parliament.

In our system of Government, where all measures must pass through both Houses of Parliament before becoming law, it is quite extraordinary that the people of the Territories should be allowed representation in one chamber but denied representation in the other. We believe that the people of the Territories should have a voice in the Senate when it debates motions concerning the Territories, and that senators from the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory should sit on parliamentary committees which deal with matters affecting the Territories. It is not only the Australian Labor Party which supports Senate representation of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. Since 1967 the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council has been pressing for Senate representation of the Australian Capital Territory. At its meeting on 11 December 1967 the following resolution was carried:

This Council advises the Minister that the Australian Capital Territory should be allowed representation in Senate and seeks the Minister’s assurance that he will do everything possible to persuade the Government to introduce the necessary legislation in Parliament in order that citizens of this Territory are no longer denied adequate and proper Parliamentary representation.

Even the Australian Capital Territory Federal Electorate Conference of the Liberal Party - not a very good reference, I will admit - is reported in the ‘Canberra Times’ of 17 May 1973 under the heading, ‘Libs Want Two ACT Senators’, as supporting this proposal. The Legislative Council of the Northern Territory has sought Senate representation for the Northern Territory on several occasions over many years and I hope that the Australian Country Party member representing the Northern Territory notes that. In 1969, the Legislative Council asked by resolution for the representation of the Northern Territory in the Senate by 2 senators. The Northern Territory, comprising an area of 520,280 square miles, is a vital part of Australia which should be represented in the Senate in addition to the representation of its people in the House of Representatives.

The honourbale member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) is recorded as saying during the course of his speech in this House on 29 May 1973, Hansard page 2804, as follows:

In speaking to this Bill I point out that in 1966 Senate Representation for the Northern Territory was on my platform and it has been ever since ….

I understand that numbers of the Australian Country Party voted for it in this House and senators of a similar party voted against it in another - a Laurel and Hardy show on a great issue.

The Constitutional position with regard to the power vested in this Parliament to provide representation for the 2 Territories as proposed by this Bill is clear. I have already quoted section 122 of the Constitution and I ask: What could be clearer, Mr Speaker? The Parliament may allow the representation of such Territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit. The founders of the Constitution obviously recognised the simple justice of the notion that since the Parliament would make laws for the Territories, the citizens of the Territories should have a voice in that Parliament. Anything else would be a denial of the most fundamental right which a democratic nation allows its citizens.

The position of the Territories is becoming more urgent each year. Each in its own way is a vital and expanding part of Australia. The population of each Territory is increasing rapidly. On the latest available information it has been assessed that the population of Canberra could reach the half million level between 1992 and 1996 and that a population of 600,000 at the year 2000 is feasible. In respect of the Northern Territory I am advised that the projected population for 1980 is assessed at 165,00, rising to 275,000 by 1990. Two senators are suggested because it would be proper to have an even number representing the Territories. If only one senator represented a Territory, almost certainly the one party would be represented for long periods. It is not unlikely that the senator for each Territory would belong to the same Party. It would appear then to be more just to have an even number elected each time for each Territory, thus allowing the representation of the parties to be more evenly balanced than would be the case if only one senator for each Territory were provided.

With regard to the term of office proposed by the Bill for Territory senators, I would remind honourable members that 16 years ago the Constitutional Review Committee, upon which all parties were represented, recommended that there should be an election for half the senators every time there is a general election for the House of Representatives. Bringing elections for Territory senators into line with House of Representatives elections accords with the recommendation of that Committee. Under the provisions of the Bill, after the first election of Territory senators, both senators for each Territory will be elected each time there is a general election of the House of Representatives. Consequently in respect of representatives of the Territories there will be elections for both Houses of Parliament at the same time.

The Bill before the House proposes an increase in the number of senators by 4 making a total of 64 senators in all. On the basis of advice by the Commonwealth legal advisers, the provision of Territory senators under sec tion 122 of the Constitution, does not cause an alteration in the number of members of the House of Representatives by virtue of section 24. Consequently, the proposed Territory senators will be excluded in determining the number of members to be chosen in the several States in pursuance of section 10 of the Representation Act. This will be made clear by proposed amendments of the Representation Act contained in the Representation Bill which I shall introduce later this day. This Bill when it becomes law will give effect to the Government’s announced policy, and indeed its undertaking to provide representation in the Senate for the people of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory - representation to which they are justly entitled. It is presented for a third time to meet the constitutional requirements for it to become law following the recent double dissolution of Parliament. It has been unquestionably endorsed by the Australian people and I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned.

page 71

REPRESENTATION BILL 1973

Bill presented by Mr Daly, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is a companion Bill to the Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill. As I foreshadowed in my second reading speech on the latter Bill, its main purpose is to amend the formula in the Representation Act under which the num’ber of members of the House of Representatives for the several States is determined. This Bill is in identical form to the Representation Bill 1973 twice rejected by the Senate, firstly on 7 June 1973 and! secondly on 14 November 1973. It is another of the 6 Bills which provided the grounds for the recent double dissolution of the Parliament.

As honourable members would know, the Constitution provides, in section 24, that the House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of members shall be as nearly as practicable twice the number of senators. Section 24 further provides that the number of members chosen in the several States shall be in proportion to the respective numbers of their people, and the section goes on to specify the manner in which that number is to be determined ‘until the Parliament otherwise provides’. Parliament has otherwise provided by the Representation Act. The Government’s legal advice is that section 24 of the Constitution does not have application in relation to senators who may be provided for a Territory under the provisions of section 122 of the Constitution. In other words, the requirement contained in section 24 for the number of members of the House of Representatives to be as nearly as practicable twice the number of senators does not relate to Territory members or senators provided under section 122 of the Constitution. Furthermore, ‘the people of the Commonwealth’ in the context of section 24 are the people of the States.

The formula in section 10 of the Representation Act for determining the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in the several States, sets out that a quota shall be ascertained by dividing the number of people of the Commonwealth by twice the number of senators. The number of members to be chosen in each State is determined by dividing the number of people of the State by the quota; and if on such division there is a remainder, one more member shall be chosen in the State.

Clause 3 of the Bill before the House makes it clear that in applying the formula provided in section 10 ‘the people of the Commonwealth’ are the people of the 6 States and do not include the people of any Territory.

Clause 5 of the Bill which substitutes the words ‘the Senators for the States’ for the word ‘Senators’, makes it clear that Territory senators are excluded from the formula for determining the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in the several States. Thus, consistently with section 24 of the Constitution, the introduction of Territory senators will not affect the representation of the States in the House of Representatives.

Opportunity is being taken in clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill to make some amendments of a formal nature to sections 7 and 13 of the Representation Act. The present provisions of these sections do not take into account the fact that one House of the Parliament may be sitting although the other is not. At the same time it is desirable to bring the period within which regulations are to be tabled under sub section (2) of section 13 into line with the. period of 15 sitting days provided by the Acts Interpretation Act in relation to regulations generally. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned.

page 72

HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION

Bill presented by Mr Hayden, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– I move:

The Bill before the House is one of the 2 principal Bills which will govern the new Australian Health Insurance Program. This Bill, together with the Health Insurance Bill, has been passed previously by this House on 2 separate occasions but each time these Bills have been rejected by the Senate. This Bill establishes a Health Insurance Commission as a statutory authority to plan and establish an organisation to administer the new Australian health insurance program. The Health Insurance Commission Bill is being re-introduced in the identical form to which it was previously placed before honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned.

page 72

HEALTH INSURANCE BILL 1973

Bill presented by Mr Hayden, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– I move:

The Bill now before the House is one of 2 Bills - the other being the Health Insurance Commission Bill - which comprise the principal legislation to enable implementation of a new Australian health insurance program to replace the present inadequate voluntary health insurance scheme. Honourable members will be aware that this Bill has been passed by this House on 2 previous occasions only to be rejected in another place and is one of the 6 Bills which were the subject of the double dissolution of the previous Parliament. It is the Government’s firm commitment to put an end to the present notoriously inequitable and inefficient arrangements for providing individuals with protection against the costs of medical and hospital services by introducing a health insurance program based on the principles of social equity, universal coverage and efficiency. The people of Australia have endorsed the objectives of such a program at 2 consecutive elections.

On its election in December 1972, the Government established a Health Insurance Planning Committee to develop in detail the proposals which had received such solid community support prior to and during that election campaign. The Committee reported in April 1973 and when presenting its report to this House I stressed that for the first time, the people were to be given the opportunity to fully consider action proposed by a Government well in advance of any plans for implementation. Over 6 months of intense public debate followed, during which the Government listened. Serious misrepresentation of the proposals was attempted by some organisations and groups with vested interests in preserving a system which perpetrated basic social injustices upon the community. Nevertheless much of the debate provided rational, responsible and useful comment and criticism. In November 1973 the Government, after carefully considering both the Health Insurance Planning Committee’s recommendations and comment by individual and interested groups, published a White Paper which set out the Government’s health insurance program. I repeat that the Bill now before the House is the principal legislation to give effect to that program.

In my second reading speech on 29 November 1973 when the Bill was originally introduced, I detailed each facet of the proposals contained in it. It is not my intention now to take up the time of honourable members by repeating these details. However, I would reiterate that the Bill provides for payments for medical benefits, hospital services and certain other specific services. In relation to medical benefits, all persons in Australia will be entitled to receive medical benefits which will cover at least 85 per cent of the fee charged for the service, where doctors adhere to the scheduled fees. In no case will a patient be required to pay more than $5 for any individual service, again providing that the scheduled fees are charged. I emphasise that patients will be completely free to choose the doctor in private practice they wish to have treat them, and that the doctor-patient relationships which at present apply, will be preserved. I wish also to emphasise, since it has been the subject of considerable misrepresentation, that medical benefits will continue to be paid on the basis of fee for service to doctors in private practice.

Pensioners at present eligible for general practitioner services under the Pensioner Medical Service will have their eligibility extended to a full range of medical services, including specialist services, which are not covered under present Pensioner Medical Service arrangements. Basically there are 3 convenient methods provided in the Bill for the claiming of benefits. In brief, the methods by which patients may receive their entitlements are:

  1. Be billed by the doctor, pay the doctor and then claim benefits from the Health Insurance Commission.
  2. Forward the unpaid doctor’s bill to the Health Insurance Commission and receive back the appropriate benefits in the form of a cheque payable to the doctor. In this case it would be the patient’s responsibility to forward the cheque to the doctor and the balance of the account would be a matter between the doctor and the patient.
  3. Assign to the doctor the benefits payable for a particular service where the doctor is prepared to accept the benefit as full payment for the service. The doctor would then claim his payment from the Health Insurance Commission and the patient would not have to pay anything.

The assignment of benefits will have particular significance for pensioners who have pensioner medical service cards. The Bill requires the Minister to request doctors to undertake that where medical services are provided to persons who present to the doctor a pensioner medical service card, the doctors should give these pensioners an opportunity of assigning their benefits to the doctor instead of receiving a doctor’s account. The effect of assigning benefits will be that the doctors accept the benefits as full payment for the services they provide to eligible pensioners.

With regard to hospital services the Bill provides for the Australian and State Governments to enter into cost sharing agreements to enable patients in all approved hospitals to receive completely free accommodation and treatment in standard beds. The agreements are to be in accordance with the Heads of Agreement contained in Schedule 2 of the Health Insurance Bill. The Bill provides that the Australian Government will make a payment at the rate of $16 per occupied bed day in respect of all patients in all approved hospitals irrespective of whether they are public hospitals or private hospitals. This is a substantial increase on the $2 a day payments made in respect of insured patients under the present arrangements.

Patients admitted to public hospitals will be able to choose free standard bed treatment or private patient treatment. Patients in standard beds will receive medical services provided by doctors remunerated on a salaried, sessional, or contract basis. Private patients will be under the care of doctors of their own choice and the fees charged by these doctors will attract medical benefits under the program as will medical fees incurred by private hospital patients. While private patients will be charged Fees for hospital treatment, the levels of these fees will be substantially lower than at present reflecting the significant additional Australian Government payments to hospitals. Patients seeking treatment as private patients in public hospitals or in private hospitals will be able to insure privately against the accommodation fees charged and private health insurance contributions will be all allowable taxation concessional deductions.

The Health Insurance Bill also makes provision for special arrangements to be entered into with private religious, charitable and community hospitals, to enable such hospitals to choose, if they wish, to accommodate and treat patients free of charge. Participation in such special arrangements would be entirely at the discretion of the hospital concerned, and the hospital management would retain absolute autonomy in its operations, including in such matters as admission and treatment policies, and numbers of patients admitted. The Health Insurance Bill provides for the payment by the Australian Government of a supplementary bed payment to hospitals entering into these arrangements. AH payments authorised by the Bill now before the House will be made from the Health Insurance Fund established under Part VI of the Health Insurance Bill and will be paid by the Health Insurance Commission.

The Government recognises that the successful operation of its Program is dependent upon the co-operation of the medical profession, State governments and their hospital authorities and private hospitals. I wish to assure honourable members that it is the Government’s desire that co-operation and mutual understanding be achieved. To this end I would be happy to respond to proposals for discus sions on the Program with representatives of these bodies.

Mr Chipp:

– Why are you not doing it now?

Mr HAYDEN:

– Because you have been too intransigent and obstructionist in the past. As honourable members will recall, on the 2 previous occasions when the Health Insurance Bill was introduced into this House, I stated that it was one of a number of Bills which, together, would provide the legislative framework to authorise the complete implementation of the Australian health insurance program. Further Bills relating to the program will be introduced during these sittings. Honourable members are already aware that Bills to authorities the health insurance levy will be introduced by my colleague, the Treasurer (Mr Crean). I have introduced again the Health Insurance Commission Bill.

Once the Health Insurance Bill becomes operative and payments for medical and hospital services are being made under those provisions, it will be necessary to avoid the duplication which would be involved if payments were also made for these services under the provisions of the National Health Act. Consequently, it is proposed that, except for services received before the commencement of the new program, no further benefits under the National Health Act will be paid. Steps will be taken to ensure that no patient is disadvantaged over the period of transition from the National Health Act to the Health Insurance Act. So that the legislation on the statute books expresses the intentions of Parliament clearly, it is proposed to introduce the National Health Bill repealing those redundant provisions relating to the payment of medical and hospital benefits under the National Health Act and terminating the pensioner medical service arrangements which will no longer be needed.

The National Health Bill will also provide for the cessation of payments of medical and hospital fund benefits by providing for registered health insurance organisations to cease carrying on health insurance business under the National Health Act. (In future the operations of private health insurance organisations will be supervised under the provisions of special legislation to which I will refer shortly). the repeal of those parts of the National Health Act governing the operation of the existing health insurance scheme after all rights and obligations have been satisfied. the extension of the additional Commonwealth benefits payable in respect of nursing home patients with pensioner medical service entitlement, to all nursing home patients and the consequential elimination of the payment of nursing home fund benefits, the Minister to direct the Health Insurance Commission to operate a medical and/or hospital benefits fund in a State or Territory where this is necessary for the protection of the benefits entitlements of contributors. I have informed honourable members previously that it is the Government’s intention to introduce legislation relating to the scope and operation of private health insurance business under its program. This legislation is being prepared at present and, if it is available, will be introduced during these sittings. In the event that this is not possible I assure the House that it will be introduced during the forthcoming Budget sittings.

I am able to foreshadow briefly for honourable members that private health insurance organisations will be able to offer insurance coverage against the fees, firstly, for treatment in public and private hospitals, secondly, for medical services to the extent of the difference between the fees in Schedule 1 of the Health Insurance Bill and the medical benefits payable and, thirdly, for an unrestricted range of ancillary health services. Organisations wishing to conduct private health insurance business will be required to obtain authorisation from the Minister for Social Security. The health insurance operations of authorised organisations will be subject to the Minister’s supervision. The administrative arrangements relating to authorisation and supervision will be broadly along the lines of those in the present National Health Act. However, to provide additional protection to the contributor provisions will be made for a court to appoint a judicial manager wherein its view an organisation is not being properly managed and there will also be provisions to enable an organisation’s health insurance operations to be wound-up by a court where this becomes necessary.

The Health Insurance Bill is the principal legislation for a program which will give universal and comprehensive protection against health costs. People will bear the cost of the program according to their ability to pay, reversing the present situation in which the less fortunate pay most for their health services. The great gaps in coverage inevitable in the present arrangements will be closed. The money spent by the community on health care will be efficiently pooled and distributed, eliminating the wasteful practices inherent in the existing system. Certainty of access to comprehensive health care without fear of the financial consequences will become a right for every Australian. The Australian health insurance program, together with other initiatives taken by the Government in the field of health care financing and delivery, represents a concerted, planned approach to this vital social issue - an approach combining efficiency with social equity. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Chipp:

– With the indulgence of the Chair, before I move that the debate be adjourned, I ask the Minister whether he will provide for me, before I respond tomorrow to his speech, an answer to a question relating to one aspect of his speech. I refer to page 4 of the circulated copy of his speech. How many of the 6 States have indicated their agreement to the arrangement that he hopes to make under the heads of agreement in Schedule 2 of the Health Insurance Bill?

Mr Hayden:

– None of them is prepared to enter into any final arrangements until the legislation is passed; otherwise there are no legislative guidelines for them. But they will.

Debate (on motion by Mr Chipp) adjourned.

page 75

PETROLEUM AND MINERALS AUTHORITY BILL 1973

Bill presented by Mr Connor, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

For the third time the Parliament is being asked to create the Petroleum and Minerals Authority. The functions of this Authority will be to explore for and develop our petroleum and mineral resources, and to assist in implementing the Government’s policy of promoting maximum Australian ownership and control of our natural resources and resource industries.

This was one of the 6 Bills satisfying the conditions upon which the Governor-General dissolved the House of Representatives and the Senate simultaneously. The proposal to create the Petroleum and Minerals Authority was given great prominence during the campaign following the dissolution of the Parliament. No Australian government has ever had a clearer mandate for its legislation. In accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Houses of this Parliament are again being given an opportunity to enact this Bill.

I have explained this measure clearly in my prior second reading speeches. The Petroleum and Minerals Authority will provide the final link in the chain of organisations, to which I referred in my speech on federal petroleum search policy on 12 April 1973, for the formulation of national annual energy budgets. I repeat that the Government’s policy is to expand the search for and facilitate the development of the nation’s resources of hydrocarbons, particularly crude oil, and also of other minerals. We plan participation in this task through the Petroleum and Minerals Authority, a truly national instrumentality, both operating itself and also in partnership with technologically qualified private enterprise. Australia’s import bill for crude oil. which constitutes 30 per cent of our total consumption, will rise from $US285m for the year which ended on 30 June 1973 to almost $US900m- roughly two-thirds of the value of current wool production.

Honourable members will realise the significance of the role of the Australian transcontinental natural gas pipeline which can raise Australia’s usage of natural gas as a fuel, in substitution for this imported crude oil, from 6 per cent to the industrialised world average of 21 per cent. This can be achieved by a systematic process of simple conversion which will, in itself, reduce our anticipated crude oil import bill by at least two-thirds.

Throughout the world today the major nations, and above all the multinational oil companies, are realising the inter-relationship of crude oil, black and brown coal, natural gas and its hydrocarbon liquids. Major oil companies view their future as being major energy suppliers in all this range of hydrocarbons, and also uranium - both as ‘yellowcake’ and enriched. Major oil companies are accordingly already busy in the acquisition of large blocks of Australian black coal for immediate entry into the coal export trade, and, with achieved cash flow, in establishing coal hydrogenation plants in Australia for the production of motor spirit and associated derivatives. The pricing of Arab crude oil, in excess of SUS10 per barrel, has been stated recently by Mr

Froggatt of the Shell Company of Australia to be the financial cross-over point at which coal hydrogenation is economically viable as a substitute for imported crude oil.

Honourable members may recall my remarks of April 1973 that ‘Arab nations considered oil reserves kept in the ground as good as money in the bank’. Recent comment by Sheik Yamani, the Saudi Arabian Minister for Minerals and Energy was that they would not produce in excess of the cash flow which they would need to develop their own country and beyond that they did not choose to be paid in currency of doubtful value and certainly not in special drawing rights from the International Monetary Fund.

With this expose of world energy pricing, honourable members will clearly understand the implacable resolve of the first truly independent Australian national Government to promote and protect Australian ownership and control of our natural energy and mineral resources. Apart from Government participation in exploration and development, which I have outlined, there is a distinct need to assist smaller Australian mining ventures to develop their discoveries, without sacrificing control and even ownership to overseas interests.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mr CONNOR:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I resume my second reading speech on the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill. In energy reserves the Prime Minister has clearly stated, both in Japan and Australia, that the Australian Government’s policy is to ensure that these energy reserves are, to the maximum, under Australian ownership and control in the long term interests of the Australian people. It is through the Petroleum and Minerals Authority that the Government plans to recycle the savings from the withdrawal of taxation concessions under section 77 and section 78 of the Income Tax Assessment Act and the cessation of the petroleum search subsidy scheme. We plan to use these funds initially to promote the search for petroleum under arrangements to be determined. In addition, and of no less importance, they will be available to further our policy of ensuring that further onshore mining development is at least predominantly Australian-owned and controlled. We will consider assistance to the many small companies and syndicates which have used up their capital on exploration and have discovered worthwhile mineralisations so attractive that, in default of obtaining internal Australian capital, they will fall into the hands of foreign companies before they have a chance of getting off the ground as Australian concerns. The authority will be able to assist these companies by making loans, by joint ventures, by equity participation or in other ways provided by clause 12 of the Bill.

It is a disgrace that the natural resources of this nation are substantially controlled by overseas interests. I have previously spoken of the very substantial financial assistance acorded the petroleum and minerals industries in this country in the form of taxation concessions and direct subsidies. The Federal Government has, in addition, provided invaluable assistance in the search for minerals, including oil, through the Bureau of Mineral Resources. The Opposition parties, when they were in government, facilitated in every way the opportunities for foreign interests to dominate the exploration for and the exploitation of our natural resources, without serious thought of any obligation on their part to preserve the national identity. Some 70 per cent of offshore exploration interests are held by overseas companies. The Federal and State governments have hitherto leased excessive areas offshore for exploration on a non-intensive basis. The Woodside-Burmah group for example holds an area of 140,000 square miles of the prospective north-west shelf of Australia. In leasing such a vast area the governments concerned abandoned their responsibilties to manage effectively the nation’s resources and thereby sacrificed the public interest. It is almost as if the test of Federal/State perform?ance in offshore petroleum exploration was to get as quickly as possible to the point where the whole of the offshore areas were leased, and therefore exposed to exploitation without regard to the long-term needs of the nation. Over 60 per cent of the exploitation areas of our continental shelf has been leased for nonintensive exploration.

One of the reasons no doubt for failure to manage effectively the offshore resources of the nation was the pre-occupation of the Federal and State governments in patching over their differences about the vital question of sovereignty of the offshore areas. The real task of effective management was submerged in their futile attempt to solve the problem by fellow travelling with the States. That dispute should have been resolved, as one of their Liberal Prime Ministers wanted it resolved and as it will now be resolved with the challenges by six of the States to our Seas and Submerged Lands Act. We welcome the challenge and we are confident that we will win. Today we in this Government axe faced with the formidable task of asserting our entry into a business dominated by foreign multinational companies under policies decided in overseas board rooms. Furthermore, it was not until Labor came to power that the real nature of the energy situation was identified, and the mistakes of the Liberal-Country Party governments revealed.

Not even the world’s greatest major oil company could adequately explore, with the required intensity of drilling, the vast area of the north-west shelf. The policy of the Government has been a simple one regarding suggested farm-outs. If the holder of an exploration permit is incapable of fully exploring the area held, the surplus should be returned to the Australian government in the interests of the Australian people, so that the Australian Government can, itself, participate on at least a 50/50 basis with the new farminee. whose obligation is to provide the necessary risk capital and technology to match the proprietary rights of the Australian nation. Otherwise, the original permit holder had, in racing parlance, the odds to nothing with at least 50 per cent of future discoveries in areas it could not test. Hence, the cumulative Opposition criticism on declining oil search, and the certainty of its intensification under the new Authority on behalf of the Australian nation. For the first time Australian offshore areas will be intensively drilled and explored according to a prescribed pattern. The Opposition has opposed the Government’s plan to attempt to rectify the situation by adopting the only practical course open to the Government - to create a public instrumentality to engage in the petroleum and minerals business. I sympathise with the nation’s difficulty in understanding the Opposition’s definition of the public interest. What can possibly be the objection to an Australian government stake in the business of exploration for and exploitation of Australia’s own resources? The United Kingdom has it, and so too do the governments of France, Italy, Norway, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa, Iran, Iraq, India, Japan, Indonesia, New Zealand and the Philippines, to name only some of the governments which have thought it desirable to have government participation in this industry. The troglodytes of the Opposition are still squirming under the impact of Victorian Premier Hamer’s statement last Thursday, in London, when he said that he did not think we would ever see the day again when there was foreign investment in any part of Australia on an unrestricted basis. His further comment is even more humiliating for the Opposition. He said:

As far as the Federal Government is concerned, they have indicated that their policy in the energy field is 100 per cent Australian ownership. That indicates it is unlikely they would permit the importation of foreign capital to exploit energy resources anywhere in Australia. That’s that. We would not want it any different either. . . .

Whilst the Opposition in this Parliament is frustrating the Government’s endeavours to restore the Australian people to their rightful place in their own country, as the owners and keepers of the national estate and the nation’s resources, and as fair and equal sharers in the national wealth, the foreign interests who dominate our energy business are continuing to acquire, through the State governments, control over some of the best and most accessible coal resources of the nation. In Queensland, for example, where coal activities are already 80 per cent dominated by overseas interests, including 60 per cent by one such company, the Shell Company of Australia Ltd is now acquiring rights to explore for coal and rights over proven reserves of coal for the purpose of developing in due course installations for the liquefaction of coal. It is almost as though there is some sort of conspiracy to ignore the past, to ignore the rightful place of the Australian people in the national estate, and to deny the opportunities to our own citizens which these developments present. Starting from where we must now start it is a great challenge, but the interest1! of the Australian people are paramount. In the Government’s view the creation of this Authority will be of great and permanent advantage to the Australian people. It will be serving a national purpose in gaining for the Australian people a proper place in their own country and in the resources of the nation. It will enable the Australian Government and the Australian nation to be better informed on these important industries and allow the Government through the participation of the Authority to plan and accomplish the development of these industries in the public interest. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 78

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY ASSESSMENT BILL 1974

Bill presented by Mr Crean, and read a ‘first time.

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

I move:

That the Bill’ be now read a second time.

By this Bill, and 2 others that I shall shortly introduce, it is proposed to impose a health insurance levy of 1.35 per cent of the taxable incomes - as determined for income tax purposes - of people residing in Australia. The Bills complement other measures designed to implement the Government’s universal health insurance scheme. Other basic features of the scheme are-, of course, contained in legislation that has been before the Parliament on previous occasions. The levy proposed in the present Bills was discussed in the White Paper on the health insurance program published in November 1973, which was preceded by the report of the Health Insurance Planning Committee.

Introduction of the levy is timed to coincide with the coming into operation of the main health insurance legislation. At this stage we wolud hope to have that legislation effective as from 1 July 1975. However, in the event of some unforeseen administrative complexities which may require a slightly later introductory date, the Bills provide for the levy to be payable on taxable income of the 1975-76 income year, but also make provision for the annual rate to be reduced should the scheme not become operative until a little later during that year. In that event, it is intended that the rate applied to 1975-76 taxable incomes will be a proportionate part of the annual rate of 1.35 per cent, determined on a time basis. The levy of 1.35 per cent of taxable income will not apply of all taxpayers. At the upper end of the income scale, and on the assumption that the levy will apply for the whole of 1975-76, the maximum amount of levy payable by anyone will be $150. If the commencement date for the levy were not 1 July 1975 but, say, 1 October 1975, then the maximum amount payable for that year would be SI 12.50 - that is, three-quarters of the sum. For low-income taxpayers there are provisions to the effect that a person whose taxable income is less than the minimum subject to income tax - now $1,041 - is not to be liable for the levy.

There are also relieving provisions in respect of people maintaining dependants. These will apply to anyone who is entitled for a particular year of income to concessional deductions for maintenance of dependants of an amount of $100 or more. In these cases the levy will not be payable where a person’s taxable income is not more than an amount related to the level of the minimum wage and calculated by application of the formula devised by the planning committee and explained in its report at pages 44 to 46. If the levy were to be imposed for 1974-75, the threshold for its imposition would in these cases be $2,575 and the legislation specifies this amount as the level below which the levy will not be payable by people with dependants. Provision is also made, however, for the amount to he increased above $2,575 in the light of changes in wage levels that occur before 1 July 1975. Another relieving provision related to income levels of particular classes of people concerns aged people. An aged person exempt from income tax by reason of the special transitiona’l tax rebate will also be exempt from health levy. The actual levy-free point for 1975-76 will depend on the amount of the age rebate allowed for income tax purposes in that year. The general principle is, however, that whatever the level of the income tax rebate in 1975-76, an aged person who is exempt from income tax on account of it will also be exempt from health levy.

Provision is also being made to give relief from the levy to certain classes of repatriation beneficiaries. The broad principle is that a repatriation beneficiary who is entitled under repatriation arrangements to full medical treatment for himself for all medical conditions, whether or not war-caused, but who has no dependants, will be completely free from payment of levy. If the beneficiary is entitled to full cover for himself, but has a wife or children, he will be entitled to relief from one-half of the levy that would otherwise be payable. The question as to whether a case for relief may be made for other classes of people in situations broadly corresponding with those of repatriation beneficiaries is ‘being examined. We are considering to what extent, if any, relief ought to go beyond the ranks of repatriation beneficiaries, and the legislation contains a provision authorising the making of regulations to confer such relief as it may be found appropriate to give. In this context we are giving special attention to pensioners who have an entitlement to free medical attention under the pensioner medical scheme and members of the armed forces.

A fundamental objective of the legislation is to integrate collection of the levy with the collection of income tax. This has distinct administrative advantages which I am sure I need not labour. Suffice it to say that it is the most economical and sensible course to follow. It does, however, require a number of provisions of a technical kind. Much of what is in the Bills is concerned with these technicalities and explanations of the various provisions are contained in the explanatory memorandum I have arranged for honourable members to receive. I should mention, however, that while the levy will be administered and collected under the income tax system and payasyouearn deductions from salaries and wages will be increased in 1975-76 to take account of it, provisions in the legislation require a separate identification of the amount of a taxpayer’s liability that represents health insurance levy. Thus, for example, the amount payable as the levy will be shown separately on pay-slips, group certificates and taxation notices of assessment.

Mr Chipp:

– Are you insisting that it is not a tax?

Mr CREAN:

– No. I am not suggesting any such thing. I do not know what the honourable member calls the present provision if it is not a tax, yet he suggests that this is.

Mr Chipp:

– It is not an aggressive question.

Mr CREAN:

– The honourable member has to do a little rethinking too. I will not get caught in a semantic battle on this question.

Mr Chipp:

– It is more than semantics, and you know it.

Mr CREAN:

– The Opposition has a few weeks in which to look at this matter. The various provisions of the Bill, including the technical parts that provide for a levy to be payable on certain income derived by trustees and for people living in the external territories to be exempt, are, as I have already indicated, explained in a memorandum that is being made available to honourable members. In these circumstances, I think I need say no more at this stage about particular features of the Bills.

I commend this Bill, the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill, to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 80

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY BILL 1974

Bill presented by Mr Crean, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

In introducing the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1974 I outlined basic features of the proposed health insurance levy. These are contained partly in that Bill and partly in this Bill, the Health Insurance Levy Bill 1974. This Bill provides for the rate of levy - basically 1.35 per cent of taxable income. It also contains rules for fixing the maximum amount of levy payable and the income points below which some groups of people will not be called on to pay any amount of levy. Explanations of each clause of the Bills are contained in the explanatory memorandum and I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 80

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1974

Bill presented by Mr Crean, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

In speaking to the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1974 I mentioned that the levy is to be imposed on people residing in Australia and that its collection is to be integrated with the collection of income tax. Australia’s double taxation agreements provide, among other things, that Australians who receive income from overseas that is included in their taxable income are to be entitled to a credit for foreign tax on the income. This bill will ensure that the arrangements for relief of double taxation apply to both income tax and health insurance levy. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 80

ALLOTMENT OF TIME

Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1973

Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill 1973

Representation Bill 1973

Health Insurance Commission Bill 1973

Health Insurance Bill 1973

Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property and Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

I have no desire to hold up discussion on these important measures and I intend to speak only very briefly in support of my motion. The time allotted for debate on these Bills would have been much longer had it not been for the fact that the Opposition decided to use SO minutes of important debating time by introducing a matter of public importance and the fact that later this afternoon the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), in his usual manner, wasted 25 minutes of the Parliament’s time. Accordingly 75 minutes which might have been devoted to this important legislation, on which a general election was called, was wasted. I realise that the time spent debating the matter of public importance might well be regarded as justifiable, but when honourable members opposite find that they are short of 25 minutes debating time tonight they can put the blame right at the door of the honourable member for Mackellar. This afternoon he spoke nonsense that was not worth replying to. He wasted valuable time.

There have already been 39 hours of debate on these measures. They are most urgent measures. They caused a double dissolution. I would suggest to members of the Opposition that the appropriate thing for them to do at this stage would be not to divide on this motion but to use the important time saved by not dividing to engage in some sensible debate. I make that suggestion in the interests of adequate debating time for members of the Opposition. It is regrettable to me that we have to curtail debate so much due entirely to the tactics of the Opposition today and not allow the House the time that might otherwise have been available for debate on this issue.

Mr Wentworth:

– What nonsense!

Mr DALY:

– No man has reformed more rapidly since going into opposition than has the honourable member for Mackellar. It is interesting to see that he has now become a democratic temporarily. The longer he is in Opposition the more steadfast a democratic he will be. But when he sat on the Government side of the House he was the most ruthless supporter of the suppression of free speech by those who sat on the Opposition side. It is regrettable today that the time is limited. The limitation is due entirely to the tactics and frustration of the Opposition. Therefore I formally move my motion, take a minimum of time myself and suggest to those opposite that they might do likewise.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– The Opposition completely opposes this motion. It makes an absolute farce of this Parliament when the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) introduces for consideration for the first time by this Parliament 6 significant Bills, all of which are to be passed with limited debate. Only 10 minutes is to be allotted for the second reading debate on some of the Bills. Indeed, it begins to look as thought the Government itself is quite seriously concerned about the validity of holding a possible joint sitting of the 2 Houses of this Parliament with more than one Bill before it. Because the Government is running these Bills through this chamber in such an aborted time it seems as though it is trying to treat the 6 Bills as one Bill. I trust that those who later will decide finally whether or not the legislation will become law and whether it is valid law will have before them some knowledge of the complete failure of the Government to allow any debate - not proper debate but any debate whatsoever - on matters of tremendous significance to the Australian ‘people.

Mr Innes:

– Humbug!

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I am delighted to hear the honourable member opposite call out ‘humbug’, because that is exactly what the Government is treating this Parliament to. It is beyond credibility that a government which believes that it has the responsibility from the people, of Australia to introduce proper laws should act in this way. The Opposition completely opposes this guillotine motion.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– One would hesitate to say of the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) that he is one of the sensitive souls in this Parliament. But I think we are probably being a little harsh on the honourable gentleman. The simple fact of the matter is that for a person to put down a guillotine of this character he must be under very considerable stress and strain, and there is probably a very simple explanation of that. I thing it is this: The honourable gentleman is suffering from very advanced fatigue. He has returned to this country after having studied the Canadian election.

Mr Street:

– Very hard work.

Mr KILLEN:

– What desperately hard work that would be. How exhausting! The Canadians use the first past the post voting system. How does it work? The honourable gentleman fled this country for 3 or 4 weeks and he has come back - I must say this to my colleague- in a s’ate of acute exhaustion. What is the consequence? He has put down a guillotine of this character. The honourable gentleman knows this perfectly well. Are we to look upon this

House as a symposium of ciphers? What about the 15 new members in this Parliament who have not spoken on this legislation? What about the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Dawkins) who has joined us from Western Australia and to whom we give a welcome. At least we give him a tentative welcome at the moment. We may rescind it later; who knows? But what of the honourable gentleman’s views on all of these Bills? Is he to be heard to speak? What of the views of the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges)? What of the honourable member for-

Mr McVeigh:

– Riverina.

Mr KILLEN:

– Yes, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan). We would be most delighted to hear their views. I would welcome hearing the views of those honourable gentlemen. But no, the Minister comes in and says: ‘No, you cannot talk’. As my colleague says, 10 minutes are given over to the second reading discussion. I think the Minister would do us all a favour if he were to have some consultation with people, if he were to have a sleep for a few days. Obviously he is suffering from very acute fatigue indeed. Of course, this is not new to the honourable gentleman. Some years ago he went away and he was lost for 9 months. A search party was sent out for him. Not since the days of Ludwig Leichhardt had such a fuss been created.

Mr Hunt:

– Dilly-dally Daly.

Mr KILLEN:

– He commanded the soubriquet ‘Dilly-dally Daly’ on his return. The question being asked in every corridor around the place was: ‘Where has he got to?’ The honourable gentleman needs more than water; he needs something to go with it to quieten him down. He cannot be serious in saying to this Parliament, the national Parliament, that 6 Bills should be put through in this fashion. The Minister has our sympathy. We are prepared to try to grapple with him. We are prepared to try to understand him. But he should not treat this Parliament as though it is, as 1 say, a symposium of ciphers, because before much longer he will regret it and he will come to me and say in his own inimitable fashion, sobbing here and there: ‘Jim, I am sorry’.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

– I support the proposition put forward by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) and I rise very briefly to object to the sorts of remarks which have just been made and to the time wasting which is going on. Here is a proposition-

Mr Lloyd:

– Why are you talking?

Mr RIORDAN:

– I will tell the honourable member why I am talking. I am talking in order to raise an objection to the sort of farce to which we are being treated from the other side of the chamber. These Bills have been debated fully. What the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) had to say about the previous excursions and visits overseas by the Leader of this House was simply a time wasting exercise. He was trying to take up the time of this House so that he could then say: ‘Look at the way in which time for debate has been limited’. This afternoon we saw the Opposition wasting time by drearily muddling through a debate on a matter of public importance. Then the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) engaged in time wasting activities. After all of this time wasting the Opposition then says: ‘Look at the limited time we have left to debate these important measures’. Of course, the Government has a responsibility to get the legislation through. This is the third time that this legislation has been before the Parliament; it is the third time that the:e has been public debate in Parliament on these issues.

Mr Sinclair:

– It is the first time this Parliament has seen these Bills.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The honourable member now says that this new Parliament is dealing with the legislation for the first time, but it has been debated publicly in the Parliament of Australia for 40 long hours, which is plenty of time even for my friend, the Deputy Leader of the Country Party, to understand it if he so wishes. Even he has a full understanding of the implications of this legislation, and every member of this Parliament understands what this legislation is about. Every honourable member is clear in his understanding that it is designed to bring more equity into representation in the national Parliament. All of this humbug which has pervaded the debate this evening does little credit to the Opposition. There has been ample time for debate. The question now is whether the legislation still has the support of this House. If there are new members who wish to speak no doubt we will see them rise in their places ready for debate. I doubt very much whether the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) or the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan), who have been mentioned as prospective speakers on this legislation, will speak. It will be interesting to see whether they do. A good test of the Opposition’s sincerity will be whether those 2 honourable members are the first to rise and whether they are allowed by the Opposition to speak on this legislation. We will wait to see whether that occurs. I want merely to say that as one honourable member of this House I object to the time wasting which goes on here, which is followed by criticism of the inability of some honourable members to utilise available time to address themselves to this type of legislation.

Question put.

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

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 61

NOES: 52

Majority.. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 83

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL (No. 2) 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 69).

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– For the third time, on behalf of the Opposition parties and especially the Australian Country Party, I express our strong opposition to this Commonwealth Electoral Bill. We will not be calling for divisions on this Bill, mainly because we have been so severely repressed in the time allowed for debate. No consideration has been given to fair expression or to the opinion of any of the new members of this Parliament. It is democracy at its worst when such an important Bill with such wide ramifications and to which the attention of the whole nation will be directed is treated in such a shabby manner by this Government. So, the time available to this side will be spent in trying to have some semblance of a debate so that the Australia people and the new members of this Parliament might know something of what the Bill is all about.

This Bill really represents the latest attempt by the Government to destroy the just and fair principles on which electoral distributions have been conducted since federation. What the Government is aiming to do basically is a fraud. It is based on a selfish party political motive - a motive to advantage the Australian Labor Party. This is the lowest of political manipulations. It is the gerrymandering of the electorate to try to give the Labor Party an advantage to enable it to stay in office.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Tell us about the gerrymander by the Country Party in Queensland.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Well, listen to the Minister for Transport. I can talk about Queensland. I can talk about what the Labor Party in Queensland has done. If ever there was - (Honourable members interjecting) -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! If honourable members do not want the Leader of the Country Party to be heard, they will -

Mr McVeigh:

– They are frightened to -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! If the honourable member for Darling Downs wants his Leader’s time taken up by the honourable member for Darling Downs making a speech I will accommodate him.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I picked up that interjection about Queensland, Mr Deputy Speaker. The greatest gerrymander we have seen in this country was carried out under a Labor administration in Queensland, where it went to such extremes that there were created in electorates virtual corridors between communities to try to join together groups of Labor-oriented voters so that the Labor Government could remain in power in Queensland, as it did for a long time. This shows the advantage that political parties can obtain from this sort of manipulation.

At the outset I want to challenge the basic claim made by the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) in his second reading speech; that is his claim that the essential purpose of this Bill is to ensure that a greater degree of equity is introduced into the electoral system and to provide for practical equality of representation. This Bill will achieve neither of those things. It will do the opposite. The degree of equity which already exists in our electoral laws is to be lessened by this Bill, not increased. The degree of practical equality of representation which the present law provides is to be lessened, not increased. Every member of this House, including the Minister, knows very well that it is quite impossible for there to be equity and equality of representation if electorates varying enormously in area are to have a virtually equal number of electors on the rolls.

The Minister is setting out not to bring about but to damage greatly those principles he claims that this Bill is designed to build into our electoral laws. The present electoral law is just and fair. What this Commonwealth Government wants to do will bring injustice and unfairness to the system. No doubt the Government will claim that the election result represents a mandate for it to force this legislation through the Parliament. Let us not forget the outcome of the election. What was the outcome? The Government’s share of the vote fell from 49.6 per cent to 49.3 per cent. Its majority in this House was considerably reduced. It did not win control of the Senate and it lost the 4 referendum questions. So I hope we will hear no more talk about the Government’s mandate. In fact it showed a little enlightenment on behalf of the Government that not once in the Governor-General’s address yesterday was the word ‘mandate’ used. This is a refreshing change after the 2 previous addresses in which almost every second sentence included the words ‘my Government has a mandate’ to do this and that.

The Government does not have a mandate to gerrymander and to manipulate the laws of Australia to entrench itself in office. The story has been sold successfully that the only democratic system is to have electorates with equal numbers of voters. For a while, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) went further than that and tried to persuade the Australia people that there ought to be the same number of persons, as distinct from an equal number of voters, in each electorate. This was just too much for the Australian people to swallow and they rejected that referendum proposal.

Mr Bryant:

– They voted for it in New South Wales.

Mr ANTHONY:

– It gained a narrow majority in one State, was rejected in every other State and was overwhelmingly rejected in the total vote. Yet the Minister for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) tries to defend the situation that the Australian people rejected. Now the Australian Labor Party has come back to the idea of having an equal number of voters in each electorate and the story is being peddled to make people think that it is terribly undemocratic to have more people in one electorate than in another and that Australia, alone amongst the democracies of the world, follows this practice.

Both of these claims are untrue. But of course that is about par for the course with the Government that we have in power. If all electorates were the same, if they were the same size, the same physically, had the same problems, the same needs, and the same population and growth patterns, there would be justification for having an equal number of voters in each. But all electorates are not the same. Electorates in Australia range from the pocket handkerchief size electorate of 3i square miles of the Minister for Services and Property, to electorates such as Kalgoorlie wi:h 900,000 square miles - almost the size of Europe.

Our Federal law has always provided for variations of up to 20 per cent either side of the quota in the number of enrolments. This provision is not designed, as Labor claims, to facilitate gerrymandering of electorates but to provide at least some degree of equality of representation. Any reasonable person would agree that there are special difficulties in providing proper representation for people in sparsely populated areas. Any reasonable person would accept that there are special difficulties for members servicing very large electorates and for constituents in those electorates being able to contact their members. These difficulties are recognised by the electoral law as it stands. The tolerance at present provided for makes at least some allowance for these difficulties, although it is only small allowance by comparison with the allowance made by any State government in Australia and by most other democracies around the world.

It is fairly rare in Australia for the variation to be as great as 20 per cent. In fact, I do not believe that in any redistribution the Commissioners have recommended a tolerance as great as 20 per cent, even for those gigantic electorates. At present the average difference between city and country enrolments is less than 8.5 per cent. On average the enrolments balance out pretty evenly between the Government and the Opposition. It is interesting to look at some of the other Western countries where, even if they claim to adhere to the principle of one vote, one value there are still large differences in enrolment.

A few days ago the Minister arrived back from Canada where he picked up information of the kind that he could have got quite easily by just ringing the Canadian High Commissioner in Canberra. But of course it was not to his personal advantage to do it that way. He came back and told us firstly that he would recommend to the Government that Australia’s preferential voting system be thrown out and replaced by what would virtually amount to a first past the post voting system. Now is not the time to go into an explanation of the undemocraic nature of first past the post voting and Labor’s motives for bringing it forward. Of course we all know that the motive is that it would be to Labor’s advantage. It is sufficient to say that the Australian Labor Party will ask the Parliament to approve a voting system that will enable minority government if first past the post voting is introduced; in other words a government that does not express the wish of the majority of the Australian people.

The Minister also said that the Government is ready to proceed with a redistribution as soon as this law is passed through Parliament. Be that as it may, I ought to remind the Minister that he has yet another hurdle to clear before he can implement his plan ‘to give the Country Party another heart attack’, and that is to persuade the Parliament to accept the redistribution that is recommended by the Commissioners. I have to say that the Country Party, being strongly opposed to changes which the Government proposes to the principles on which redistribution will be carried out, will be equally strongly opposed to actual redistribution recommendations based on what we consider to be unfair and unjust principles. The question mark will lie over the Senate and its attitude to the Commissioners’ recommendations when they come forward. I believe that the majority of senators will see that our existing electoral laws are just and are fair laws that are far different to what the Labor Government is bringing forward, namely, laws that are unjust and unfair. If they do see the matter in that light, as I hope they will, I think they might agree that a redistribution on the basis of unfair and unjust principles should be rejected.

The Minister had a few things to say on his return from Canada but there was one very interesting matter about which he kept very quiet. I know it is hard to imagine the Minister keeping quiet about anything but he said nothing about the fact that enrolments in electorates in Canada - this situation applied in the most recent election held only a few days ago - vary from 7,500 people to 80,000 people. I am quite sure that it was an oversight his not telling the Australian people this fact. But, of course, giving him latitude, I am sure that when the big test comes of a possible joint sitting of the 2 Houses of Parliament, that will be the day when he will reveal the real truth to the Australian people. I repeat that there is a slight variation in numbers in electorates in this country of, say, 20 per cent. Goodness me, is that not greatly different from the Canadian situation where there is a variation of from 7,500 to 80,000 people in electorates?

Let us examine another country - New Zealand. We often hear New Zealand quoted as having electorates of equal enrolment. New Zealand has enrolments varying from 15,600 to 21,000 - a difference of 35 per cent. That is a quite considerable variation. If honourable members examine the situation in Britain they will see that at the election this year there was a variation in electoral enrolments of 22,683 to 96,300. This was immediately after a redistribution. Britain is the home of democracy and it recognises that for some of the outlying electorates in the north of Scotland there needs to be consideration for the difficulties of a member getting around and for constitutents being able to see their member. Of course, in the only country that occupies a whole continent - Australia - this principle is not to apply. It is to be tied rigidly to electorates of the same number of people. Of course we all know why the Government is proposing this. It is gerrymandering to give the Australian Labor Party a special benefit. The Government has not been able to win the support of people in the country areas so it is doing the next best thing - trying to eliminate seats to entrench itself in office. No one is suggesting that there ought to be or that there is need for such a wide variation in enrolments in Australia as apply to those other countries, but the figures I have quoted illustrate the way in which other countries of similar tradition to our own and with no less attachment to democratic principles than we have, apply their electoral laws.

Time and time again we have heard from the Labor Party about the decision a few years ago when the Supreme Court of the United States of America recommended that the United States should have electorates of equal enrolment. But we have never heard a word from the Government about the more recent action of the Supreme Court in approving a redistribution which provides for a variation of 16 per cent in enrolments in the United States. This is what they consider one vote one value. The court rejected the strict arithmetical division of electorates.

I believe there is a principle of equal, if not greater importance than the mechanical theoretical principle of one vote one value, and that is the principle of equality of representation. Every Ac tralian, no matter where he lives, should be entitled to enjoy the same quality of representation, the same attention from his member of Parliament and the same access to his member. This is impossible under the strict application of one vote one value. One vote one value is a very high sounding principle but in practice it brings undemocratic results.

Another important point which has to be recognised is that in future, if these changes are approved, a redistribution will be necessary within the lifetime of every parliament. The 10 per cent variation would be quickly broken with the electoral law requiring a redistribution once 25 per cent of the electorates break the tolerance, either above or below. The confusion and the instability that this will create should make it clear to all of us that it is not in the best interests of a sound working stable government.

Mr Acting Speaker, you are well aware of the Minister’s vendetta about country people. You are well aware of his personal vendetta against country people by the rash and irrational comments he makes. Mr Acting Speaker, you are aware of his determination to pursue his vendetta by attacking the Party which I represent and which represents many country people, but not all country people. What the Labor Party does not recognise when it attacks the country people by this proposed electoral law is that it is attacking all country people, even those represented by Labor members. How do the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard), the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan), or the few other Labor members who represent country areas defend their position? Of course this is just a small minority group which does not seem greatly concerned about or interested in country people.

I hope that this House and particularly the Senate will not be impressed by the Minister’s obsession against country people and against the Country Party. I hope that they will agree that our present system is the best that is available for the workings of a sound democratic parliament. Contrary to what the Minister claims to be doing - that is altering the electoral law to make it equitable and just - he is doing exactly the opposite and making it completely unfair and unjust. It will lead to instability in the workings of this Parliament and therefore I press members of this Parliament to soundly reject Labor’s proposals which are designed purely for its own purposes. It is selfish, it is party politically based. It is not in the best interests of the workings of this Parliament, of democracy or of Australia. I trust that if we reach the point of having a joint sitting of the Parliament the legislation will be soundly rejected in that forum.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– The right honourable

Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) has been running for so long in handicap events in which the handicapper has been on his side that he cannot face up to a championship field. I refer to the results of the election. In the moments I have to reply it is not much use my trying to teach arithmetic to people who do not add up to anything anyhow. The facts are simple. If one does not stand for equality of electorates one does not stand for anything in parliamentary democracy. I am not surprised that Country Party members want smaller numbers in their electorates. I am quite surprised that they can represent anyone at all. I represent an industrial area of Australia which has tremendous ethnic differences in its population. These add up to the same sort of difficulties experienced by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher). I can quite understand the honourable member representing sandhills. That is about his limit.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted for the second reading stage has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– The cynicism of the Government, of course, is palpable and clearly revealed. This Bill, which the Committee is now invited to consider - and I point out that we have but a few minutes to do this - is one on which a number of new members have not had the opportunity of giving their views. These are honourable members who represent, I suppose, in total, approximately one million people–

Mr Charles Jones:

– We had an election and you lost.

Mr KILLEN:

– I would have thought that the honourable gentleman would have the sense of fairness to concede that 15 new members who have come into this place are entitled to be heard. Is this one of the great new emanicipated qualities of the Australian Labor Party? Does it no longer believe in the right of people to be heard? Is that your case? Is that your argument? Well, I say to you that you ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. All the new honourable members who have come into this place and who are sitting on this side of the Committee and all the new honourable members who are on your side of the Committee have come here–

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti) - Order! The honourable member for Newcastle, who is interjecting, will return to his place in the Committee.

Mr KILLEN:

– Are not these new honourable members who have entered this chamber entitled to be heard? I ask those who sit on the Government benches, madam and honourable gentlemen, whether their minds are so solidly set against argument that they are no longer prepared to listen to argument. Who knows, desperate as the chance may be, but what an argument which fell from the lips of the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) might persuade honourable members on the Government side to abandon the project that they have in mind. The powers of persuasion of the honourable gentleman, as Government members will discover, are most profound. But the Government will not even hear him. The Government will not hear any of the new members on this issue. This is a disgraceful state of affairs. 1 will come to what is essentially the nub of the Bill. I want to say to the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) - if he can rouse himself from the intense fatigue which has consumed him and driven him to this blind indulgence in irrationality, possibly he. will listen to me - that by the provisions of this Bill the honourable gentleman is proposing to keep this country in a constant state of redistribution. That is the proposal. That is what he wants. If we look at the effect of the last redistribution and apply a 10 per cent quota to that–

Mr Bryant:

– Is not a redistribution held in every parliamentary term and before every election in New South Wales?

Mr KILLEN:

– I understood from obviously unreliable sources that the Minister for the Capital Territory had been taking lessons in good manners since we last met; obviously that is not true. If a 10 per cent quota were applied in those terms, 90 per cent of the federal electorates in this country would be redistributed every 12 months. I have used the argument elsewhere - I do not know exactly where it was - that you might imagine that you were in the seat adjoining the electorate of Hindmarsh, represented by that gentle, fragrant soul, the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron). Fancy facing the prospect, as the result of the redistribution of being swept into his electorate. You would be entitled to be in a constant state of eccentricity. Let us take the argument a little further. Imagine you were in the seat adjoining that of the Minister of Services and Property, Grayndler. I am accused by my family of making noises in my sleep at night. They would be genuine noises if I faced the prospect of being redistributed into the Minister’s electorate.

Is there not to be any balance? Is there not to be any reason in the way that we conduct our affairs? The Minister for Services and Property is inviting the national Parliament to put on the statute book an Act the effect of which will be to have p. constant state of redistribution in this country. I invite the honourable gentleman to consider my argument. He is not as unreasonable as he holds himself out to be and I am quite sure that with a little effort he will see the light; just try a little harder. The honourable gentleman will have to set up in this country a permanent set of distribution commissioners. That is what you ask us to do? There was your Leader, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), the other night saying: ‘We will cut back on Government expenditure’. What you are proposing to do by the provisions of this Bill is to increase Government expenditure because 18 distribution commissioners will be required. If the 2 Territories are to be included, 24 distribution commissioners will be needed.

Mr Daly - Bjelke-Petersen would be chief commissioner.

Mr KILLEN:

– Why do you not recall His Excellency, the Australian Ambassador to Ireland, and put him in charge of the redistribution? When he led the Labor Government in Queensland, by contrast Sir Thomas Playford was an amateur in the matter of arranging redistributions. This is the Labor technique. Not since the days when Charlemagne ruled over Europe was there such a long period of government held than by that Labor Government in Queensland. How did that Government do that? It was achieved by the simple device of the gerrymander. As the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) said in his excellent speech on the second reading, the whole sinister purpose of this Bill is to seek to give to the Australian Labor Party perpetuity of power. I say to the Minister for Services and Property: You overlook one salient feature. It is this: Power, Mr Minister, has a most corrosive influence. Already I see it eating into your soul and into your judgment.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– I have often listened to the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) with respect. His effort tonight has lost all the respect I previously held for him. He commenced his address by talking of the cynicism of the Government. I invite honourable members to consider whether they have ever heard such a load of cynical garbage as that which gushed forth from his lips during this Committee stage debate tonight. Here he was, speaking on matters which had been discussed previously in this Parliament, claiming that new members should be allowed to speak on them. I tell the Committee that if any of those new members had spoken on this Bill they would have made a much better job of it than the honourable member for Moreton did.

The one-tenth variation in electoral quotas was approved in 1959 in the report by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, an all-party Committee. Were they not democrats in those days? Has the honourable member forgotten that recommendation? His snide remarks about members on this side of the House and their electorates had nothing whatsoever to do with the issue. In accusing the Government, has he forgotten that members of the Government Party hold 19 country seats including the largest electorate in Australia, Kalgoorlie, which is serviced by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard)? Does not the honourable member for Moreton believe that there should be as nearly as possible equality of representation in the number of electors represented by each member? Are members to be elected to this chamber on the basis of the wide open spaces or the grains of sand in their electorates? Has not the recent election presented an opportunity for new members to put their arguments on these matters which constituted one of the reasons why the election was held?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti) - Order the time allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill has expired.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I will take only a few minutes of the time of the House. I just want to make one quick point. In the past we have heard members of the Australian Labor Party - the Don Dunstans and the people who have done a good job - say: ‘We believe in one vote one value’. But what has this destitute bereft Party done today? It is seeking to achieve the reverse. It has cast aside the principle of one vote one value and is trying to introduce a system based on one person one vote. This is not the same thing as the principle of one vote one value. There are different degrees and numbers of people in electorates all over this country. The Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), who is in charge of the Bill, represents a pocket sized electorate based on the number of voters. In his electorate he might have many children, many Australians who are not naturalised and many people who are not on the electoral roll. The Labor’s Party’s principle of one vote one value has been cast aside today. The Party’s past history in relation to this matter has been ignored as is evident in the Government’s attitude to these Bills.

If this is not bad enough in itself, one can go a step further. The other step is this: Unless you hold redistributions every year or two - this was the point made so well by the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) a while ago - you will get a buildup. From memory, because I do not have the figures in front of me, the old electorate of Bruce went from 38,000 people up to 130,000 people within 6 or 8 years.

Dr Klugman:

– That is not true.

Mr GILES:

– All right- 1 1 years. Does the honourable member agree with that? The fact was that during that period of time there was no redistribution. What happened to the principle of one vote one value in that case? We need not worry about the pros and cons of why redistributions were not held. But it is an historical fact that the size of the seat increased from 38,000 to 130,000 in, say 11 years. This sort of thing will happen again if this legislation is passed. What will happen to the principle of one vote one value that the Labor Party espoused? A double error will be made under the Labor Party’s new theory. I have dealt with the. first one. There is possibly, indeed probably, another error. What the Labor Party proposes is just not on. I am proud to say that there is to be a new regional development area in my electorate - the City of Monarto. For all we know the same population growth might occur there. The very practice of allowing a 20 per cent variation has on past performance encouraged the principle of one vote one value. It has not done the opposite. I am fed up when I sit here and listen to this new Party line taken by the Government which to my mind has forgotten the very principles which it has espoused for so long. I do not respect the Labor Party for it.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

Mr Acting Speaker–

Mr McVeigh:

– Not again.

Mr BRYANT:

– Again, certainly. When you are speaking to slow learners you want to indulge in constant repetition. I have been speaking to honourable members opposite for close on 19 years now on this very thing. If there has been any factor which has been a disgrace to Australian politics ever since the beginning of representative government it has been the constant rigging of ballots through the system of electoral redistributions. Honourable members opposite talk consistently about how we ought to introduce honest ballots into the trade union movement, where now they are mostly to be found anyhow. If a trade union leader rigs or fixes a ballot so that his opponents cannot vote or burns the ballot papers so that they cannot be counted he is put in gaol. But if you do the same thing in parliamentary elections they will make you a Liberal Premier and give you a knighthood. This has been a great disgrace to Australian political institutions.

The simple factor to be considered in parliaments is the representation of people. I can agree and sometimes disagree on this question as to whether electorates should be counted on the basis of population or electors. But the constant factor of the Australian Parliament is that we are representatives and we vote here in accordance with our representation. Any tinkering with the numbers that we represent makes a fundamental difference to the composition of the government. The Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) spoke so proudly about the last redistribution in Victoria. But if we take the country electorates right around the fringe of Victoria - the electorates of Wannon, Wimmera, Mallee, Murray, Indi, Gippsland-

Mr McVeigh:

– They all have good representatives.

Mr BRYANT:

– They have needed good representatives and they will get them eventually, perhaps. The number of voters in those five or six electorates added up to the same number of voters as those enrolled in 4±, or thereabouts, inner Labor electorates of Melbourne. You would have to do that only a couple of times in Australia, once in New South Wales and once in Victoria, and you would change the composition of this Government. Therefore it is essential that the principle of equality of representation through the ballot box be implemented through this legislation.

Several statements ought to be answered. Firstly, of the question as to whether a redistribution every Parliament would be a bad thing or a difficult thing was raised. I understand that in New South Wales there is a redistribution during every Parliament. I understand that the New South Wales Government is able to carry out this redistribution. We certainly would be able to carry it out, and I have no doubt that under proper instruction even the people opposite would be able to do it. The facts are that our statistical system, the information that we have and all the facilities at our disposal would make it possible to redistribute electorates to within 100 or so of one another as often as we wished. If honourable members opposite knew anything about the statistical system and the way in which a census is taken and records are kept they would realise that that is the case. I believe that it is essential for the continuation and respect of parliamentary democracy that the electorates in this Parliament be as close to equal in terms of electors as possible. I support that principle. I have supported it ever since I came here.

My colleague the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) first introduced this Bill on 13 March last year and even the slowest learners opposite who have just arrived in this Parliament ought to have heard about it. I hope that the Parliament will pass this legislation with some expedition. I hope that the Senate will see the light and that, based upon the principle of equal votes for each State that it espouses, it will pass the legislation. If it does not, of course we can hold a joint meeting of both Houses at which we would have an absolute majority and we would then be able to pass the legislation and get on and ensure proper parliamentary elections and decent democratic procedures in this Parliament at least.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What I have to say will be very brief because under the rules which exist under this new Government we have been allowed only a few minutes in which to debate this legislation. The most pertinent factor is that the present Government has been returned to power with 49.3 per cent or just about half of the total vote. If this country were manipulated, as honourable members on the Government side would like to see, this just would not happen. The Government won power in 1972 on 49.7 per cent of the votes. It is holding power on 49.3 per cent. It is difficult to perfect democracy but the point is that fairness does not exist in Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member for Griffith will resume his seat. The time allocated for the remaining stages of the Bill has now expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time.

page 90

SENATE (REPRESENTATION OF TERRITORIES) BILL 1973

Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 71).

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure about this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on the Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Representation Bill 1973 as they are related measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest therefore, that you permit the. subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

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

– Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures?

Mr Sinclair:

– No. I believed originally that the Leader of the House intended that there should be a cognate debate. But he has introduced a guillotine motion which specifically sets down allocations of time for the second readings. As a result of that-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! A cognate debate is not agreed to.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Dr Jenkins:

– Not you again.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am delighted to find the honourable member so cheerful about it. I always have a preference for pleasant faces. This is the second measure introduced by the Government which seeks to give it a long spell in office. The significance of the Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill is of very great magnitude. It seeks to give to the Territories representation in the Senate. Speaking for myself, the Northern Territory is represented in this Parliament by a very distinguished1 and gallant gentleman. I have the utmost respect for the work he does and for the manner in which he does it. I say that not to pre-empt the honourable gentleman in any shape or form. Those who have sat in the Parliament with him, putting it in homely language, know his worth. But this Bill does not seek merely to give representation to the Territories as such. It seeks to undermine the whole structure of the Australian Constitution. This argument is not a difficult one to comprehend at all but it should be listened to with some measure of attention.

When the Constitution was drawn up the option was for 2 Houses of Parliament. We are not in a position to rewrite the Australian Constitution but we are under a clear obligation to ensure that the provisions which exist in the Constitution are respected until such time as the people of Australia elect to alter them. That is the difference between the approach of the Australian Labor Party and that of the Liberal and Australian Country Parties. Until such time as the people of Australia by a clear vote say ‘We wish to alter the Constitution’ we should respect its terms. Under this Bill the Government seeks to disturb completely the equilibrium, between the 2 Houses of Parliament. The powers ranged between the House of Representatives and the Senate are clearly defined. For example, we find that the number of members who sit in this House, according to the terms of the Constitution, shall be as near as practicable twice the number of honourable senators. In this fashion the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) is seeking to disturb that situation. Section 24 of the Constitution does not speak about categories or classes of senators. The language is quite clear: It speaks about senators. The moment we introduce into the Senate by this means additional honourable senators we pave the way for extra members to be appointed into this House. That is the first argument to be attended to. As for the Minister, he has given us his credo in his second reading speech. He expressed himself in these words:

We believe that while the national Parliament remains bicameral, the people of the Territories- 1 ask honourable member to note the plural - like all the people of Australia should be represented in both chambers.

At first blush that does not seem to be an exceptional point of view at all. One could ask: What is wrong with that?’ The simple truth of the matter is that the Minister is highly selective of those people of the Territories whom he wishes to see represented here. I ask honourable members to examine the Minister’s argument for a moment. It is not only the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory which are territories of Australia. What about Ashmore and Cartier Islands? What about Cocos Island? What about Antarctica? What about Heard Island? Bless my heart and soul, Mr Minister, if you try hard enough you could be on Christian name terms with every penguin on the island in 3 months. If your logic is as pure as you claim it is why do you not say that the people - not the penguins - living in these territories also are entitled to be represented in the Senate? What is so inferior about the people who live on Heard Island? Why should they not be represented in the. Senate? Mr Minister you embrace your logic. It is a pity it did not embrace you and do so in a pretty severe fashion. But this is your logic. You say that the people of the Territories deserve to be represented. What the Government is seeking to do is not merely to frustrate the workings of the Australian Constitution but to destroy the whole structure. I am indebted to the Minister for shaking his head in such vigorous agreement with the proposition. At least we have that on the record. What a pity we can not get that delicate bouncing up and down of those lovely features in Hansard.

Mr Daly:

– Every time I look at the honourable member I know why the gaols are full.

Mr KILLEN:

– Obviously their numbers are one deficient because that is the proper place for the Minister. I say this to the Minister: Why pick on merely the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. We would love to hear the Minister on this point. As a rule he has no difficulty in expressing himself. Is this a new manifestation of fatigue after his busy, boistrous, Canadian tour finding out how the first past the post system of voting works? We would like to know why the Minister is selective. What is wrong with the people in the other Territories? I hope that this Parliament and the people of Australia will clearly understand the significance of this Bill because if senators are appointed to represent the Territories, to that extent the Government is diminishing the value the Senate. It is proposed to have 2 senators to represent each of these Territories. At the present state of play the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) represents the whole of the Northern Territory. In effect the Government takes hold of section 24 of the Constitution, which places an obligation on this Parliament to have twice the number of people here as in the Senate, and says ‘Well, as far as the Northern Territory is concerned we will have 2 representatives in the Senate for the one representative here’. By what quirk of logic does the Government arrive at that interpretation of section 24? I know that I should not ask the Minister questions, because I stand in peril of receiving desperately dull answers. Section 122 of the Australian Constitution, to which the Minister has referred, says:

The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.

I can recall the Minister in the previous debate saying that this section is entirely permissive. Whether one accepts that description or not is beside the point but it is certainly not permissive in terms of reason - I invite the honourable gentleman to pay some heed to reason - to say that its permissiveness runs to the extent of giving the ACT five or six senators or even 9 senators - one can pick any number one likes. The whole purpose of this section, as one will see if one reads the Constitutional Convention debates of the 1890s, was that as a territory assumed new responsibilities and a new status it entered the Federation on a different basis. The basis of its entering the Federation was to be that it had something approaching the responsibilities of a State. Again f ask the honourable gentleman whether he seriously suggests that the Australian Capital Territory, as it is today, has the responsibilities oast upon it that, say, the State of New South Wales has. One could take the

State of Victoria or the State of South Australia. I would be interested to know whether the exuberant Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) would go to the Premier of South Australia and say to him: ‘Mr dear Don Dunstan, I want you to know that the Australian Capital Territory has far, far greater responsibilities than you have.’ One has only to state the proposition to see the absurdity of it. At least that goes for normal people, but we have to exclude some on that basis. Even the Minister for the Capital Territory will concede that that is the case. I know that he is about to say something because I can hear him thinking.

Mr Bryant:

– We only hear you talking.

Mr KILLEN:

– Unlike the honourable gentleman, I think before I open my mouth. I want to put it to the House that this proposal disturbs the entire relationship between the 2 Houses. The Minister for Services and Property has given no explanation as to why he singles out two of the Territories. He has given us no indication as to what proposals he has in mind regarding the other Territories. He has given us no indication or explanation as to why 2 senators are required to represent the Northern Territory when one person in this place represents the Northern Territory. He has given us no explanation as to why we should have 2 senators representing the Northern Territory, so reversing the existing provision in section 24 of the Constitution. The simple truth of the matter is that the Minister has merely given a quiet, benevolent description of this Bill as it suits his purpose. He has given us no critical analysis of it.

I invite the honourable gentleman to reflect again on the seriousness of this measure. It is not good enough merely to say that the people of the Territories deserve to be represented. He must ensure that they are represented on a proper basis. That is the argument of the honourable member for the Northern Territory. It is an argument which I find highly intelligible. It is an argument I respect. But nothing that the honourable gentleman from the Northern Territory has said goes to the limit as suggested by the Minister in this Bill. What the Minister is seeking to do is to pervert the whole working of the Australian Constitution. This is the last word I shall say to the Minister on this matter: It may well be that as of now the people of Australia do not quite comprehend what the Minister has in mind, but when full understanding dawns upon them, I can assure him that they will understand in political terms to his disadvantage. This is one of those incredibly sinister attempts brought about by a government desperate in its ways.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– Never since Federation has a political party in Canberra been more justified in bringing down the guillotine than has been the case tonight. The hypocrisy of the arguments of the members of the Opposition has actually stunned and exhausted me. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) in his desire to display his great oratorical splendour said that if the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) were domiciled on Heard Island he would be able to refer to every penguin by its christian name. The honourable member for Moreton has frequently told this Parliament in the past that in his early days in western Queensland he was a jackaroo. I know that every jackaroo is in the habit of counting sheep and invariably gets to know them by their christian names - ‘One, two, three, four, hello love, six, seven, eight, nine, hello Jessie’. The honourable member adopts the attitude of the Australian Country Party in wanting to count sheep in electoral divisions. He has made a hopeless fool of himself tonight in the baseless arguments he has put forward to the Parliament.

The most intelligent electors in Australia, apart from the electors of Hunter, are domiciled in Canberra. The great issue that influenced the people of Canberra to return 2 Australian Labor Party members with overwhelming majorities was that they had been deprived for so long of Senate representation in this establishment. But the members of the Opposition could not see that point and they let the issue go to the Australian people. That is the major issue, in my view. (Quorum formed.) I was referring to the hypocrisy of this debate. A short time ago when the electoral Bills were before this Parliament the members of the Opposition were arguing that Country Party members were entitled to 20 per cent over and above the quota because of the vastness of their electorates and the fact that they could not reach their constituents. On this issue, as to whether there should be Senate representation for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory to allow people greater access to their senators, the Opposition has a completely reverse argument. How the hell can one recon- cile the logic of the 2 arguments that have been advanced here tonight?

At one time the honourable member for Moreton used to boast in this Parliament about swimming against someone from some place in Condamine. It was a pity that he was not swimming there tonight, because then the dignity of the Parliament would not have been lowered by the hypocrisy that has been put forward tonight. The people of Australia have waited for too long for modern legislation to give the people of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory adequate representation in the national legislature of Australia. It is high time that this legislation was passed without the waste of words that have been uttered here tonight by the honourable member for Moreton and other members of the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted for the second reading of the Bill has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr DALY:
Miniser for Services and Property and Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– 1 wish to speak for only a few moments to put the record straight. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), during the second reading debate, had much to say about how this legislation was a great put-over. He said that it was something that was against democracy and for flooding the Senate. I remind him that on 29 May 1973 this Bill was carried by 78 votes to 35. Every member of the Country Party voted for it in this chamber. Therefore tonight the honourable member for Moreton has condemned his colleagues on his own. side of the fence. However on the day following 29 May the Country Party in another place voted against the Bill.

Earlier tonight the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) said: ‘We will not divide tonight because we want to save time’. I will tell the Parliament why the Country Party is not dividing. It wants to tell the people of the Northern Territory that it is voting for this legislation when its members are not game to line up and be counted on it. They are already recorded as having voted for it. Tonight they are hiding by saying silently ‘No’ in this Parliament and then going outside the Parliament and saying that they voted for it - all to protect the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), who everybody knows is living on borrowed time. In a few moments from now the honourable member for the Northern Territory will stand in his place and glibly tell the people: ‘I support this legislation’. I ask him tonight to divide the Committee and vote with the Labor Party for this Bill. I bet that he is ashamed to do so, because honourable members in the Country Party are as phoney as they look. In another part of this Parliament the Country Party will vote against this legislation. Tonight I invite members of the Country Party to cross the floor as they did on 29 May and support the Bill. They know as well as I do that they do not support it, yet they try to convince the people that they . do.

The honourable member for Moreton condemned them tonight by implying what he did about this Bill. It is always said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As I looked at the honourable member tonight I thought that a little legal knowledge is a dangerous thing. T thought of that old saying that you can tell a lawyer, but you cannot tell him much. That is precisely the case with the honourable member. He has been revitalised since he got his dinner suit a couple of days ago, walked into the Parliament and sat down on the other side of this chamber.

Mr Killen:

– I got it from Moss Brothers.

Mr DALY:

– He got it from Moss Brothers because he believed that Billy Snedden had won the election. This eminent young lawyer has made so many speeches tonight that I really think that he can talk under wet cement. The knowledge with which he spoke was the legal knowledge of a small debts lawyer, but the Government takes advice from the Commonwealth crown solicitors - eminent men who know and understand the Constitution and all associated with it. With due respect to the great practice that the honourable member has built up in the small debts court in Brisbane, we will stick to the Commonwealth crown solicitors. Our advice is that this legislation has no effect on the question of increasing the size of this Parliament. The next Bill that will come on for debate will indicate that. Members of the Country Party know that that is true because they sat on the Government side of the Parliament on 29 May - the Leader of the Australian Country

Party, the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair) and even the honourable member for the Northern Territory - and endorsed this proposal as one that was necessary. Tonight they do not have the guts to do it again.

Mr Sinclair:

– We have the guts.

Mr DALY:

– You have not. The Country Party is not dividing the House on these Bills. It says that it will fight them right through and take them to the High Court of Australia. Yet its members are not game to line up here tonight and vote for them because they say they want to save time. The fact of the matter is that every Country Party member is ashamed to say why he will not give the Northern Territory increased representation. Look at the present member for the Northern Territory. Surely to heavens the people of the Northern Territory need assistance. If the honourable member for the Northern Territory is the only one they have to protect half a million square miles, God help the people of the Northern Territory. I do this tonight more for his assistance than for the assistance of anybody else. I am frightened by the representation the people of the Northern Territory are getting. They are entitled not only to better representation but also to more representation. In Canberra the people have said what they think in respect of this matter. But where can you go? You have a Liberal candidate for the Senate lined up with the Communist Party in Canberra. The Country Party here today says one thing, but in another place it is likely to vote the other way round.

I mention this tonight to put the record straight. I hold in my hand1 for all to see the record of how members of the Country Party voted on 29 May. On that occasion, for once, they recorded an intelligent vote, and I think they have been ashamed of it ever since because they have never divided the House on this issue since. Tonight the honourable member for Moreton condemned them when he made accusations about this legislation. I mention tonight that the desire of the Government is to see that the people from the far flung districts are represented. The Opposition talks about loaded electorates. Why should the people in country districts not have more representatives in the Parliament? That is what the Country Party says it wants, yet it is opposed to the present proposals. Therefore tonight I show up the hypocrisy of the Country Party and all its ballyhoo and talk about what it is going to do and what it is not going to do. It will prove where it stands if it does what it did on 29 May. I invite the Country Party to divide the Parliament on this issue and let the people know where it stands on representation for country districts. I will say that it is not prepared to divide the Parliament, not because it wants to save time but because it wants to tell the people that it voted for this measure without having the courage to front up and put its vote where it believes it should be, and that is in the interests of the people of these districts. I now give way to the honourable member for the Northern Territory to make his annual apology for his neglect to vote for this legislation.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– We have heard once again the parliamentary would-be funny man giving his opinions on what other people are supposed to be doing. The Leader of the House (Mr Daly) represents an electorate of three or four square miles. If he came into the Northern Territory and spoke as he did tonight the people would eat him alive. He gets up in this place and accuses me of not wishing to have Senate representation for the Northern Territory. I advocated Senate representation for the Northern Territory in 1966 and I have done it ever since. This person whom I have previously called an unmitigated liar-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti) -Order!

Mr CALDER:

– I have previously called him that. I am not calling him it now. I said that I have previously called him that. Just you get that. Mr Deputy Chairman, let us have no more bias from the Chair like we have had all the night.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory to withdraw that remark. It is very unparliamentary.

Mr CALDER:

– I substitute it by saying that he is a funny man, but on the national scene he is a man of no real consequence.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order!

Mr CALDER:

– He has done nothing whatsoever.

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

Mr CALDER:

– And he is doing nothing now.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory will resume his seat. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the remark he made.

Mr CALDER:

– I have already withdrawn it, Mr Deputy Chairman. Possibly you did not hear me because of the Labor Party bias that is coming from the Chair. I am telling this man who stands up and every time, for the sake of his cheap two bit humour, considers that he can-

Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Daly:

Mr Deputy Chairman, this bitter personal attack is upsetting me. I would like the honourable member to restrain himself.

Mr CALDER:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, as I say, it is with some modesty that I remind the Parliament that I was the first person to advocate in this place Senate representation for the Northern Territory. I did it in 1966 and I have done it ever since. For cheap political reasons which one must expect from this sort of person, I have been denigrated by being accused of not doing anything about it. Also, the previous Liberal Country Party Government was denigrated for not doing anything about moving the Legislative Council in the Northern Territory towards self government. This is an absolute lie.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:

Order! The time allotted for the Committee stage has expired.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr SINCLAIR (New England) (10.1) - This particular piece of legislation doss not go anywhere near as far as the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) is suggesting. In this debate tonight he unfortunately is not being given an opportunity to express a point of view. We who seek to advance the Northern Territory towards full statehood would not give an aborted form of Senate representation to that Territory but would seek, with the consent of the people of the Northern Territory to give progressively to that Territory an opportunity to achieve eventually as a new state adequate Senate representation which may well equal that of the original States. The honourable member for the Northern Territory has supported consistently the granting of Senate representation to the Territory. Indeed, it is interesting to note that it was he, before any Labor man or before any other existing parliamentarian, who suggested that the Northern Territory should have Senate representation. Had there been a division on this legislation tonight the honourable member for the Northern Territory in fact would have again supported the measure. Let me assure the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) that he would have done so.

The Leader of the House asks me why we did not call for a division. It is interesting to note that of the 10 minutes that we had to debate the legislation in Committee the Leader of the House used about 7 minutes in :i diatribe against the Country Party and in particular against the honourable member for the Northern Territory. He did not even give the honourable member for the Northern Territory a chance to express his point of view, except in about a 3-minute period. It is true that the Country Party itself has also supported this concept. However, let me explain that this legislation does not affect only normal Senate representation. It does a series of things. First of all, it provides for something short of full membership of the Senate for 2 persons and for 2 territories. The. legislation does not deal in any way with all of those other territories, nor does it specify just how and for what reason people who will be something less than senators but will be called senators will sit in the Senate.

They will be something less than senators because they will not be there on the normal basis of Senate representation. They will be there for a period which relates to the duration of any House of Representatives term, and at the conclusion of each House of Representatives term, whether it be a one-year, a 2-year or a 3-year parliament, they will then go before the people. As for the other members of the Senate, half are. there for a 6-year term - or, in the present instance after a double dissolution, for about a 5-year term - and the other half are there for a 3-year term - or, in the present instance, for a 2-year term. In other words, the new animals to be created by this legislation will not be full senators at all.

The next point of distinction which concerns the Country Party is that we believe that it is necessary that the senators who are to be created by this legislation should be considered in relation to the States role of the Senate itself. It is important that this matter be canvassed not just in the way in which the Government has done, namely, with the objective of trying to increase its power and to secure permanency of tenure of power. That really is the only reason why the legislation has been introduced. The legislation itself is not designed to add to the political voice of the Northern Territory. On the contrary, its purpose predominantly is to try to give to the Labor Party a majority in the Senate.

We on this side of the House believe that the States should have a right within the Senate to express effectively and continually a point of view. This is even more important now because of the complete inadequacy of the financial arrangements which this Government has provided, or failed to provide, to enable the State governments to remain solvent and to continue in the normal functioning of their sovereign responsibilities. So we can see constituted in this legislation another of the steps to break down the capacity of the State governments to operate within their normally concepted and accepted role. For that reason we in the Country Party, for all that we support and maintain still that it is necessary that there be eventually Senate representation for the Northern Territory - we would look to that Senate representation to be adequate representation - believe that it should not be in a manner that does not give the persons elected an effective say equal to that enjoyed by every other member of the Senate. That will not be the case while the Senate representatives for the Territories are being elected on a different basis from their colleagues from the States.

While we believe that the people of the Northern Territory should progressively be given an opportunity for advancement towards statehood, we. do not see that this Bill, containing as it does a corruption of so many principles, can be supported. It is for that reason that while the honourable member for the Northern Territory, consistent in his advocacy for Senate representation, will continue to support the legislation, the Country Party itself does not. We believe quite strongly that it is necessary that there be proper and effective political representation for the people of the Northern Territory.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– It is quite interesting that we have just completed a debate in which the honourable member for Hunter, who interjected, suggested that one vote one value is a precept which he upholds. He represents a federal electorate and is a fully participating member of this House. He is prepared to give to the Northern Territory 2 Senate representatives, yet that particular electorate at this stage has one of the lowest numbers of electors on its roll. In other words, he is prepared to give to those 2 senators for the Northern Territory something more than he is prepared to give, in terms of an equal say, to the 10 senators who come from New South Wales, which is the State in which his electorate is situated. In other words, the whole of his argument is completely fallacious. On the one hand he seeks an equal voice and one vote one value and ail of those nonsensical principles that do not work out in practice, and on the other hand he acknowledges that he is not prepared to give full and adequate Senate representative voice in the Senate to the 2 representatives of the Northern Territory. He is going to give them something short of a full and adequate Senate voice. He is going to do it on a basis not of one vote one value but in a way which will erode the voice of those 10 senators from his own State.

In other words, the whole of the precept of the Labor Party in this legislation before us tonight is designed not to enhance democracy, not to add to the political voice, but rather to add to the power of the Labor Party, to give it a chance of having a majority in the Senate and to give it the opportunity to manipulate the power base by changing the electoral laws to ensure it perpetuity of office. We in the Country Party cannot accept that we should support legislation with those principles behind its introduction. While it is necessary for the Territories to have Senate representation, and while we look forward to the day when the Northern Territory can become a full and independent State with adequate Senate representation, we do not believe that this piece of legislation achieves that objective.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the bill has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 97

REPRESENTATION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 72).

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– The Opposition completely opposes this piece of legislation. It forms part of the legislation that relates to the Bill that this House has just passed. It forms part of that Bill because the Government has sought to make these people who are to be the so-called part-senators different from everybody else in the Senate. The objective of this legislation is to ensure that those who are to be these ‘almost’ senators will not be taken into account when one is determining the number of persons and the number of electorates in Australia. The point about this piece of legislation which we find so objectionable is that, again, it reflects the complete hypocrisy of the Labor Government in its introduction of the measure in that the very function of the Bill reflects the whole concept of Labor trying to dominate the Senate rather than to give an effective voice to the people of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.

We can see that there is a problem in the degree to which, having passed the Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill, the Government finds it necessary to determine a way by which the numbers of the Senate which it is artificially increasing can be divorced from the calculation of the number of members of the House of Representatives in order to determine quotas. But already my colleague, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), has referred’ to the fact that there are a good many other Territories which apparently have not been considered for Senate representation and we could reach the stage, whereby the generosity of the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) in his exercise of his role in electoral matters results in all those Territories which pertain to Australia being given a voice. There are quite a lot of fairly significant territories - places like the Australian Antarctic Territory which certainly has not many permanent residents other than those who are dispatched there from this country and from other countries. But it is a territory. Then there is Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Island, the Coral Sea islands, Heard and Macdonald Islands and the New Guinea Trust Territory, which is still a trust territory of the Australian Government. There is also Norfolk Island1, Ashmore and Carrier Islands and Papua New Guinea. If all these territories eventually are to be given some form of Senate representation it means that under this Bill, which is designed to divorce those who are to be Territory senators from the consideration of quotas, we could not only find the complete erosion of the ability of the States to continue to exercise a voice through the States’ House - that is, the Senate - but also we could find a position arising where there were as many senators representing territories outside Australia as there are members of the House of Representatives. Indeed, given the propensity that this Government has for allowing full and adequate debate in the Senate it could well be that, if we were to pass this piece of legislation, the situation could develop whereby those -who are senators or part-senators from the Territories would have a greater opportunity to discuss significant pieces of legislation affecting the wellbeing of the Australian people than those who are their elected representatives in this chamber. That is not just conjecture; regrettably, it is a real possibility if this sort of nonsensical legislation which this Government constantly produces is allowed to be passed. This piece of legislation is one which is designed specifically to give to the Territory senators a less than equal say to other senators.

I mentioned before that the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) and the rest of us in the Australian Country Party look forward to the day when the Northern Territory can have an adequate and equal voice in the Senate. But of course, the Labor Party has always been inclined to give a less than equal voice to people from the territories. It was the Labor Party I believe which first introduced the provision whereby the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory could be represented in this chamber, but it did not give those representatives a vote. Now the Labor Party is again thinking of introducing something short of full membership of the Senate to those who are to represent the territories in this Parliament.

It is important that we look at this Bill and realise that, in fact, the Bill will not provide an adequate voice either for the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory. Indeed, the proposals being advanced at the moment by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant), who is sitting with the Leader of the House at the table, for a legislative council in the Australian Capital Territory are designed not to give the Australian

Capital Territory an adequate voice. Again, they are designed, as is this Bill, to give something short of an effective political voice to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. In other words, what the Labor Party is seeking to do is to have elected to the Senate people who will not be given the same opportunity to express a point of view as other senators because they are to be constricted in their voting rights. Those people who are going to be something less than full senators not only are to have something less than a full voting right for the Territories they represent but also of course are going to erode significantly the power of the States and the voice of the States in what is the States’ chamber. This piece of legislation, machinery though it might be, designed as it is to divorce the quota relationship between, the membership of the Senate and the setting up of the number of members of individual electorates, is not a piece of legislation which this Government should feel proud to have introduced. It is legislation which regrettably only enables those who are trying to achieve for the Territories, the Northern Territory in particular, a full voice to have something less than they deserve.

The Leader of the House has said on a number of occasions that he has brought this legislation in for the third time. Unfortunately he does not realise that on none of those 3 occasions has anybody on this side of the House had a chance adequately to debate the Bill. It is interesting that even tonight, having introduced a guillotine earlier in the day, he sought to cut out all debate on this Bill. It is true that in the guillotine motion he isolated one Bill from the other but it is also true that if we had accepted a cognate debate on these Bills there would have been no opportunity to identify the problems which exist in bringing before the Parliament legislation designed peculiarly to add to the power base of the Labor Party. It is quite tragic that no doubt there are people who genuinely see in the moves by the Leader of the House, the Minister responsible for electoral laws, a genuine objective to give a voice to the people of the 2 territories. What a nonsensical concept that is. Tragic though it might be, all he is really doing is trying to add to the power of the Labor Party.

I have tried to point out that there is quite a distinct difference between the voice that this legislation gives to a senator from the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern

Territory and the voices of those senators representing the States. I have pointed out that the States and the senators representing the States will have their power reduced. I have pointed out that this piece of legislation is as culpable as that which went before it. It represents a direct manipulation of the Senate, not for the interests of the people of the territories but for the interests of the Labor Party and it is for that reason that the Opposition completely rejects this legislation.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I have been quite fascinated to listen to the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and to some previous speakers in this debate because one would think that by the passing of this Bill and of the Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill somehow or other the Australian Labor Party was going to gain some electoral advantage from it. I am quite mystified by this point of view. As I understand it, 2 senators will be elected from each territory and the basis of their election will be proportional representation for 3-year terms. Having researched the voting pattern for the past 20 years or so for both of these areas, it seems almost certain to me that in the Australian Capital Territory we will have a representative of the Labor Party and a representative of the Liberal Party. We will certainly have that situation in the Northern Territory. So, why is there such panic amongst members of the Opposition that this is some plot to gain power for the Labor Party? It would be a miraculous situation if the Australian Labor Party were to gain 2 representatives from the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The time allocated for the second reading of this Bill has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

-We might call this legislation not the Forsythe Saga but the Daly Saga because the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) has brought it before this House on a number of occasions. This Bill is the third in the trio of Bills that have been discussed in this chamber this evening. One trend runs through it, and that is this endeavour, as has been pointed out by all the other Opposition speakers, of the Labor Party to get maximum, advantage out of the political situation. The honourable member foi Robertson (Mr Cohen) said that he could not understand why the Opposition was criticising the legislation because there would be no political advantage as each side of the chamber would gain a member. Of course, the point that perhaps he cannot see is that it is a matter of principle. This is why I was most disappointed with the comments of the Minister in regard to my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). No man in his House has represented an electorate with more sincerity and more purpose than has the honourable member for the Northern Territory.

Mr Bryant:

– Speak for yourself.

Mr LUCOCK:

– In this chamber we should be conscious of our own failures and weaknesses as representatives and I think the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) might be more conscious of that, if he has anything to be conscious about, than anybody else. The attack this evening made by the Minister for Services and Property on the honourable member for the Northern Territory was completely unwarranted. The honourable member for the Northern Territory has stated his view on more than one occasion and has indicated1 - colleagues in his Party have disagreed with him - support for representation of the Northern Territory in the Senate. The principle behind this question is a principle of differentiation of representation in the Senate. Let us realise that the Labor Party does not agree with the importance of the Senate and would like it if it could get rid of it. So of course there is no matter of principle involved for members of the Labor Party.

This legislation provides for a differentiation of senators. This Government with its centralised policy has a desire to destroy the States and one can appreciate that it has no conception or appreciation of the stand that should be taken on State representation in the Senate. The. principle here is, as I said, that the Bill provides for a differentiation of senators. What wilt happen is that half of the Senate will go out every 3 years but the senators representing the Territories will go out at every House of Representatives election. What a shemozzle there would be in the Senate. There would be no consistency of representation in the Senate if this legislation were allowed to be passed. Opposition members, believing in the importance of the Senate say that this is an important issue which goes beyond party politics. It is a matter which concerns the Constitution. It is a matter of vital concern to the people of Australia and particularly so with the election of a Labor Party to the Treasury bench in the House of Representatives because it wants to get a complete and absolute stranglehold as a centralised1 government in Canberra. This is the real issue.

Opposition members stand up in this chamber and say: ‘No, because it is against the Constitution, because it is difficult, because it raises so many complexities we cannot accept it. It is undermining the Constitution without the will of the people of Australia being expressed for a change in that Constitution’. Immediately honourable members on the Government side say that we are not interested in the people of the Australian Capital Territory or the people of the Northern Territory and the only reason that we oppose the legislation is that we do not want to give representation to the people in the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory. We should not forget that this is the crowd that is saying that it does not matter how big an electorate is or if one is a country representative - I am not talking about the Country Party, I am talking about Labor, Liberal or Country Party members - and that it does not matter whether one’s electorate is 50,000 or 100,000 square miles as long as it contains exactly the same number of people to represent as the electorate of the Minister for Services and Property, who represents a little pocket handkerchief electorate in Sydney. His constituents in many instances do not understand the circumstances, the vastness, the importance and the complexities that are associated with the development of this great nation. Government supporters say that it does not matter how big is one’s electorate. These are the people who are now saying: ‘We have to do this. It does not matter how much it upsets the Constitution. It does not matter how much it destroys the Senate as a States House. We have to give these poor people in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory Senate representation.’ We should not forget, as was pointed out by a previous speaker, that the Government’s proposal is to have 2 Senate representatives of the Northern Territory when it has only one member in the House of Representatives. This means that while we say that every State - we include Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia as the small States - shall have 10 representatives in the Senate irrespective of the number of re- representatives from each State in the House of Representatives-

Mr Cohen:

– Tasmania?

Mr LUCOCK:

– Tasmania has particular and specific circumstances which were allowed for in the Constitution. It is a State of this Commonwealth. I remind the honourable member that Tasmania is a State even though one has to cross water to get to it. We have 10 senators representing each State and it is proposed that there shall be 2 senators to represent the Northern Territory in the Senate as against 1 member to represent it in the House of Representatives. This shows completely and absolutely how illogical a government can be when it desires to grasp power in any way, when it will do anything to get centralised control.

This is another warning to the people of Australia. Heaven knows we have given them enough and they have not seemed to wake up to them yet. Our Press people at the moment seem to see a little glimmering of truth in what we have been trying to get through ever since the Australian Labor Party came into power in 1972. This legislation is further evidence of the fact that there is a continuation of the desire to grasp power, to get centralised control.

Mr Mathews:

– How will it work

Mr LUCOCK:

– The honourable member for Casey says: ‘How will it work?’ He has been one of the greatest advocates of it for many years.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti) - Order! The time allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill has expired.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Rarely have I listened to such hypocrisy in this House.

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise to a point of order. Is it not customary for the Opposition to get the first call?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– The Minister may speak at any time to his motion.

Mr Sinclair:

– Is it not customary, Mr Acting Speaker-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– The Minister has moved the motion and he is entitled to speak to it.

Mr Street:

– Do we not get a go at all?

Dr PATTERSON:

– I am going to speak for only a few minutes. Rarely have I listened to such hypocrisy in this House as I have heard tonight about Senate representation for the Northern Territory. It would seem when one listens to the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) that while on the one hand he wants the people of the Northern Territory to get a voice in both Houses of this Parliament but he is not prepared to give them it. He puts forward all sorts of argument as to why the people of the Northern Territory should not get a voice in the Senate - why they should get a voice in the House of Representatives but must not get a voice in the Senate. On the other hand the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) states categorically that he wants the people of the Northern Territory to get a seat in the Senate. But there was one way for him to prove that to the people of the Northern Territory. He should have divided this House so that it could be recorded in Hansard that the honourable member for the Northern Territory supported this legislation.

Mr Calder:

– Stop your nonsense!

Dr PATTERSON:

– I will talk about your nonsense. The honourable member for the Northern Territory claimed that he was the first person in this House to advocate Senate representation for the Northern Territory.

Mr Calder:

– Why do you not give us Senate representation and leave the Australian Capital Territory out of it? You are just trying to gain political advantage in the Australian Capital Territory.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Let me give the honourable member for the Northern Territory the facts.

Mr Calder:

– You are trying to get political advantage from the Australian Capital Territory.

Dr PATTERSON:

– You are not a parrot; will you keep quiet? As the older members here would know Mr Nelson, the present Administrator of the Northern Territory, time and time again in this House advocated Senate representation for the Northern Territory. That was before the time of the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Mr Nelsons’ father, who was also a member of this House, also advocated Senate representation for the people of the Northern Territory. As a matter of fact, he spent some time in prison in the Northern Territory for advocating no taxation without representation, yet the honourable member for the Northern Territory has the hide to get up and say that he was the first person to advocate such representation. Let us get the facts straight.

Mr Calder:

– Do not speak to me about it. I do not criticise the Administrator.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Those are the facts. What the honourable member for the Northern Territory has done tonight is show the people of the Northern Territory that he is not prepared to give them a voice in *he Senate.

Mr Calder:

– You are not prepared to give them a fair go.

Mr Sinclair:

– Of course he supports it.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Well let him get up and say so. The honourable member for New England, on behalf of the Country Party, has defined the people of the Northern Territory as second rate citizens. So far as the Labor Party is concerned, every person in the Northern Territory is a first class citizen and entitled to a voice in the Senate.

Mr Hunt:

– Give them State powers.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Give them State powers! For 20 years they were represented in this place by the Liberal Party and the Country Party.

Mr Hunt:

– What happened to the package that we offered?

Dr PATTERSON:

– In 6 months we have done more for the people of the Northern Territory through the Legislative Council than the Opposition did in 23 years. This is the hypocrisy of the Country Party.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! The .Minister will resume his seat.

Mr McVeigh:

– That is the best thing you have done all day.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– If the honourable gentleman does that again when I am on my feet he will not be in the chamber to do it a second time. Honourable members are behaving very badly. Irrespective of the shortness of debating time I will not allow the debate to proceed unless honourable members are prepared to conduct themselves in a manner which allows the speaker on his feet to be heard.

Mr Calder:

– He does not sympathise with the Northern Territory.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest that the honourable gentleman remain quiet.

Br PATTERSON - I should like to put forward one more argument. The honourable member for New England spoke about wanting to see statehood for the Northern Territory. If there were to be statehood for the Northern Territory it would have 10 senators. The Country Party does not want even one senator to represent the Northern Territory. What hypocrisy we have heard about statehood for the Northern Territory.

Mr Calder:

– What do you mean: ‘We do not want even one’?

Dr PATTERSON:

– The Country Party does not want any senators for the Northern Territory otherwise it would have divided the House on this legislation. The Country Party members in this House do not want to give the people of the Northern Territory any vote in the Senate.

Mr Sinclair:

– The honourable member for the Northern Territory does.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It may also interest some members of the Country Party to know that the people of the Northern Territory used to have Senate representation. Did any members of the Country Party know that? The people of the Northern Territory used to have Senate representation when South Australia administered and controlled the Northern Territory. I conclude by saying that this is the greatest hypocrisy, as regards legislation affecting the Northern Territory, that I have heard coming from the lips of members of the Country Party. As far as I am concerned every person in the Northern Territory is completely and utterly ashamed of the Country Party and also of the honourable member for the Northern Territory.

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise on a point of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! If honourable members do not remain silent there is no way I can hear the point of order to be taken by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party.

Mr Sinclair:

– I draw to your attention, Mr Acting Speaker, the fact that we are speaking on the Representation Bill, not the Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill. I would suggest that the material to which the Minister has been referring has little relevance to the third reading of this particular Bill.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! I uphold the point of order. The debate which is taking place is exactly the same as the debate which took place immediately before on another Bill. It was a much narrower debate. The Minister will be required, because a point of order has been taken, to speak to the Bill.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I was about to sit down. I have made the points I wanted to make. I wanted to expose the hypocrisy of the Country Party on this question.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– I found it very strange to hear the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) speak in the terms that he did because if we cast our minds back a few years we find that in the 1930s it was the Australian Labor Party which opposed the establishment of the Legislative Council in the Northern Territory. I find that very difficult to equate with the high sounding phrases of support for the Northern Territory which we have just heard from the Minister for Northern Development. It also sits strangely on his shoulders to speak as he did when we realise that in 1972 when the Liberal and Country Parties were in government we made an offer of government advancement to the Northern Territory. As far as I am aware we have heard nothing of that offer since. What has happened to it? Where is the action from this Government on the recommendations made by the previous Government to make further government advancement for the people of the Northern Territory? We have heard nothing more about it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! In view of the fact that my attention was drawn to the nature of this Bill during the speech of a previous honourable member I must remind the honourable member for Corangamite that this is the Representation Bill which deals solely with the counting of senators for the Territories in determining quotas for the House of Representatives.

Mr STREET:

– Of course, I accept your ruling, Mr Acting Speaker. That reinforces another point that I should like more time to make and that is that these territorial senate representatives - I do not know whether they will be called senators - are merely second class senators. In fact, they are not true senators at all because, by the admission of this Government itself and by the text of this Bill, they are not counted for the purpose of determining the numbers in the House of Representatives.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted for the third reading debate has expired.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Scholes) 61 54

Majority

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time.

page 103

ADJOURNMENT

Repatriation - Meat

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn. Mr CORBETT (Maranoa) (10.50)- One of the few constant things in the period for which this Government has been in office has been the consistent rise in inflation. This is a continuing trend which seems to have no ending and which the Government seems to have no desire or capacity to contain. One of the difficulties that have arisen from inflation concerns repatriation funeral grants. This week I received a letter which referred to repatriation benefits and in particular to repatriation funeral grants. The latter stated:

On Monday of this week an ex-Digger pensioner died in………. Hospital. As often happens he had no assets, apart from a few dollars in his pocket, and no next of kin. As Secretary of the local RSLA SubBranch it fell to my lot to arrange burial and it appears that we may be up for all, or a large portion of, the funeral expenses. The undertakers account comes to $420, which is his lowest cost funeral, and our Sub-Branch cannot afford this kind of expense. Certainly we will get a grant of $100 from Repat. but this is wholly inadequate. The cost of burial of indigent ex-Diggers is a major problem to all RSLA Sub-Branches . . . and is increasing because of the passage of years making these deaths more frequent, and because of the rapidly rising costs. I would ask that you make every effort to have the Repat. funeral grant increased to a more realistic figure - say $200.

I know that there was a rise in the funeral grant back in 1973. Because of the very rapid rate of the inflationary spiral 1 appeal to the Government to increase the benefit for the sake of those people who have accepted this responsibility. Surely it is reasonable to expect the Government, and that means the people of Australia, to accept the responsibility of giving those people who have served their country a decent burial.

On behalf of this branch of the Returned Services League and the RSL generally, I make an appeal to the Government to lift the funeral benefit to at least $200. I believe that is the very least to which it could be lifted, because the continuing rise in inflation will mean that the cost of funerals will go up in the not too distant future. I could talk a good deal more on this matter, but 1 have made the point that I wanted to make. I hope that the Government will take some notice of it.

I want to refer to a matter which has a very grave effect on the economy of Queensland, on the rural industry and in particular on the meat industry. An article which appeared in the Press of today’s date states:

Meatworks employers said yesterday that Queensland was on the brink of its worst meat strike for almost 30 years.

The Meat Employees’ Union State Secretary (Mr W. Hodson) said all meatworks and abattoirs in the State would have stopped indefinitely by tonight in support of claims for a 35 per cent wage rise.

No one on this side of the House expects people to work at unreasonable rates of pay. We know that inflation has been aggravated by the incapacity of the Government to formulate a policy which will contain it to any degree and that this has led to some demands being made. I believe that demands for a 35 per cent wage increase are unreasonable. Because these employees are engaged in an industry which is concerned with the livestock of this country they believe that the people will be forced to accept these inordinate demands.

Another attitude consistently displayed by the Government since it came into office has been its savage attack on rural industry generally. Ever since it came into office it has looked for every means by which it could deprive rural industries of the benefits that have been obtained for them over the years. As a result, these industries are less fitted now to cope with a situation of this kind. On top of that, the meat market has fallen probably by one half over recent months. This makes the position all the more serious for the cattle industry.

I might say that the employers offered meatworks employees a rise of up to $18 a week. But the Federal Executive of the Union has insisted on a national 35 per cent increase, which would mean a rise of about $29 a week on the base rate. I wonder where the Government stands on this sort of matter. Is it prepared to go along with the demands of the Union or is it quite happy to see the meat industry in Queensland, and in Australia, held up to ransom by unreasonable demands? Surely we have in this country an arbitration system which would enable those people to make an appropriate application for pay increases. But the Government will be completely silent in this case, because the unions are running this country. The Government dances to their tune. It will not raise its voice to try to resolve this dispute. But, on its past performances, this is what we would expect from the Government.

I make a plea that some sense or reason be brought into this matter not only on behalf of primary producers but on behalf of people generally in this country and on behalf of the people in other countries who need our food. The meat industry is facing a very serious situation. As I have pointed out, employers have offered a pay increase of $18 a week which has been rejected. There has been no attempt at negotiation at all. The Union concerned is riding roughshod over the arbitration and conciliation system which operates in this country. Even if this excessive demand was granted, no one knows whether the Union would not immediately put up another excessive demand. After all, this is the pattern that is followed. If this Government condones such action, as it is doing and has done during the period of time it has been in office, I can see that very serious conditions will apply not only in regard to people engaged in the meat industry and people who live in the rural towns but for the whole economy of the Commonwealth.

This situation should be condemned by the Government. We have heard the Government tonight asking the Australian Country Party to adopt a certain attitude. But what do we hear from the Government on these sorts of issues? Is it not time that the Government came in to try to preserve something of the arbitration and conciliation system which operated fairly successfully until the advent of this Government? When supporters of the Government were on the hustings trying to win office they said there would be less industrial strife if they were returned to office. But exactly the reverse has been the case. The Government has made no attempt to prevent industrial strife. It has made no attempt at all to get some co-operation between unions and management. The meat industry is a case in point. This is an industry in which I would like to see some action taken.

I note that the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) is walking out of the chamber. I suppose he is ashamed of the attitude of his Government. The Minister is now walking back. At least he is shamefacedly coming back into this House to listen to what I have to say. I am very pleased to see that his shame got the better of him and that he has come back to listen to me and to listen to some common sense. I hope that something can be done about this inflationary spiral and that some reason will prevail, so that an industry which is of very great benefit to this country can be saved. I hope that the Government will do something about it.

Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 July 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19740710_reps_29_hor89/>.